#FFXIVHEALERSTRIKE

[gllt]

Healer strike my ass, it's been nothing but tank in need

AIN doesn't actually represent what you think it does

[Amenara]

Healer strike my ass, it's been nothing but tank in need

Pretty sure it looks at tanks first, and until the tank pool is large enough for it to not be in need then it goes to healers and then dps. It prioritizes needing tanks over anything else which is why you'll be a tank in need and still have a queue time while healers have insta queue while not being in need.

[Cerscent]

bwahahah healer strike... oh god the community can be a real joke sometimes

[Striker44]

Not sure if you know what a strike is. It's an agreement by a group of people w/ common goal to refrain from doing some kind of action expected of them (healers, healing, etc). I've seen complaints about healing in this game for years. The people who play this game fund the salaries of Square Enix staff, they're entitled to say their piece even if you think it's whiny. Yoshi P reads the top 10 forum threads daily.

I think that's part of where the issue is. There is no common goal here. You have some people claiming the strike is to convince the dev team to make changes to the game, and others just as adamantly claiming it's not about making changes at all. And even among the ones that want changes, there's no agreement on what that should be. One group wants there to be more to heal via more damage output by enemies, another group wants it by reducing healing/self-sustain by other roles, and yet others aren't talking about healing at all but want full DPS rotations on healers. Without a common goal, it just devolves into a classic case of "no matter what you do, you can't please everyone."

[aiqa]

I think that's part of where the issue is. There is no common goal here. You have some people claiming the strike is to convince the dev team to make changes to the game, and others just as adamantly claiming it's not about making changes at all. And even among the ones that want changes, there's no agreement on what that should be. One group wants there to be more to heal via more damage output by enemies, another group wants it by reducing healing/self-sustain by other roles, and yet others aren't talking about healing at all but want full DPS rotations on healers. Without a common goal, it just devolves into a classic case of "no matter what you do, you can't please everyone."

Your examples aren't mutually exclusive.

[Aword3213]

I think that's part of where the issue is. There is no common goal here. You have some people claiming the strike is to convince the dev team to make changes to the game, and others just as adamantly claiming it's not about making changes at all. And even among the ones that want changes, there's no agreement on what that should be. One group wants there to be more to heal via more damage output by enemies, another group wants it by reducing healing/self-sustain by other roles, and yet others aren't talking about healing at all but want full DPS rotations on healers. Without a common goal, it just devolves into a classic case of "no matter what you do, you can't please everyone."

Even if all healers around the world somehow miraculously ask for one single same thing, you'll still dismiss it anyway. Don't act as if you're working for the betterment of the strike out of kindness of your heart

[IDontPetLalas]

bwahahah healer strike... oh god the community can be a real joke sometimes

Well that was profound. Thank you for stopping by, and keeping this thread bumped.

[IDontPetLalas]

I think that's part of where the issue is. There is no common goal here. You have some people claiming the strike is to convince the dev team to make changes to the game, and others just as adamantly claiming it's not about making changes at all. And even among the ones that want changes, there's no agreement on what that should be. One group wants there to be more to heal via more damage output by enemies, another group wants it by reducing healing/self-sustain by other roles, and yet others aren't talking about healing at all but want full DPS rotations on healers. Without a common goal, it just devolves into a classic case of "no matter what you do, you can't please everyone."

Why does "everyone" have to be pleased? There is no product on the market that works that way, You have once again also shown a fundamental misunderstanding of how software development works as well, by strolling in again and lamenting how there is a lack of agreement or differing/conflicting opinions. So what? This is something I deal with routinely, I am sure that Square does as well, on a daily basis, in decide upon what to develop. It isn't new, it's part of human nature, it's part of complex systems.

You're just not doing more than repeating the same tired things with seemingly no proposed solution.

[Rayzol]

Hoping there is much said, in that loads of Comments, but I felt the same starting DT. It's the first time playing a DD Job and I am a bit sad neglecting my Scholar. But it was seriously boring in EW casual content (spamming damage skills + every then and there a OGCD Heal)

And yes, playing Pictomancer is unexpected fun.

[Striker44]

Even if all healers around the world somehow miraculously ask for one single same thing, you'll still dismiss it anyway. Don't act as if you're working for the betterment of the strike out of kindness of your heart

From my last post on this thread:

Now, if the sole goal was to increase the amount of damage being done so that we'd have "more to heal," I could potentially get behind that. But the "goal" of the strike is so all over the place, I can't have any confidence that's the direction things would ultimately goal.

I also earlier suggested potentially focusing on lowering the max ilvl that various roulette content utilizes. We're noticing the need for more healing in current content, and also pointing out how it's because we're actually at the intended gear levels for it, but SE puts the ceiling so high that the challenge soon disappears. Consider how Alliance Raids end up skipping mechanics over time. So no, I wouldn't dismiss ideas completely out of hand just because.

Also, nothing in my comment was in any way even pretending to be "for the betterment of the strike"; I was responding to someone and pointing out the underlying flaw.

Why does "everyone" have to be pleased? There is no product on the market that works that way, You have once again also shown a fundamental misunderstanding of how software development works as well, by strolling in again and lamenting how there is a lack of agreement or differing/conflicting opinions. So what? This is something I deal with routinely, I am sure that Square does as well, on a daily basis, in decide upon what to develop. It isn't new, it's part of human nature, it's part of complex systems.

You're just not doing more than repeating the same tired things with seemingly no proposed solution.

This...umm...was exactly my point...when you get so many different "problems" being claimed, and so many of those "problems" directly contradict each other, the only logical conclusion becomes that no matter what you do, some people will be dissatisfied. There's "seemingly no proposed solution" because in that scenario, the "solution" is to change nothing. For a "strike" to succeed, it needs very clear, very specific, actionable goals. Not a hodge-podge of conflicting desires with a sizable portion denying there's even a desire to change anything in the first place.