#FFXIVHEALERSTRIKE

[GinzoKazama]

Anyone who has ever requested any change for any game on any forum was in the minority. That is not a valid counter to any feedback.

It's not a counter, it's simply putting it into perspective. If your first thought was that 'this is an opponent to my view so I need to invalidate a fact' then you're fighting uphill already.

There is room to make dps buttons more interesting then using 1 button 70% of the time, without going overboard and overwhelming players.

As many people have said on their own accounts in how things evolved since ARR, I don't think this is possible. The irony is that the strike group appears to ignore the issues for general healers and are more focused on raid caliber issues. The less attractive you make healing to people looking to try it, the less growth you'll have in the long run.

There would have to be a fundamental change to how all the healers kits are and shift it more toward a proper GCD DPS rotation while keeping heals predominantly oGCD. That's how raid healers heal anyway... good ones that is. The need to have to DPS race every battle makes healers just another DPS in the long run since ARR. Hard casting heals are frowned upon (mostly) and healing partners are expected to cover the other essentially. By design, you're encouraged to ensure you never use GCDs to hard cast heals. So new healers aren't going to want to play like that because a majority of the community doesn't want to play like that.

COULD they redesign how healers heal and DPS, sure. But they would have to strike a perfect balance between casuals and raiders and that has not happened so far. I totally agree with you that 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 is a horrible dps rotation, but, and I say this with the utmost respect, not everyone is going to be able to handle a little more than that. It's already been proven.

Some more dps button variation wouldn't need extensive rebalancing of end game. More unavoidable damage wouldn't require extensive rebalancing of end game. Lowering WAR healing so it doesn't rival healers wouldn't requiring extensive rebalancing of end game.

With what you're asking for, it does. Which is why, as many of the more prominent people in this thread have said they've 'protested' or 'been on strike' for years, hasn't convinced SE to make such a change that would essentially lose people. Think of how much healers changed from ARR til now. That's a major fundamental change over the years in how a person plays a healer.

And as a Warrior main, you lost me at the end. bwahahahahaha. No need to hamstring other jobs to fix the issues with other jobs. That's not balancing, that's just hubris.

[IDontPetLalas]

I never said don't provide feedback and suggestions.

I said we need to learn acceptance that we're not always going to get what we want.

As for it not being SE's game, sorry but it is. They own the game. They make the game they want to make. They can choose to listen to and implement feedback they receive, or they can choose to ignore it. They're not going to lose all the current subscribers over this because most players don't have a stake in this strike and find it more humorous than convincing.

Some of us originally came into the thread to try to discuss the problems and find common ground but got ridiculed because we didn't agree with everything the strikers said. Most gave up since the strikers were not interested in having that productive conversation you envision. The strikers themselves aren't even unified regarding what change is needed. There may be no common ground in this situation because not even the strikers have managed to find one beyond agreement they don't like the state of healing.

So can the strikers accept that even among themselves not everyone will be pleased by whatever the outcome is? That there's a strong chance that none of them will end up pleased because SE will stick to the status quo if what the posters from the JP forums said earlier in the thread was accurate about JP players being fine with healing how it is?

I'll repeat, it doesn't matter if Square "owns the game". I can make a car than runs on square wheels, if no one is interested in it, then who cares? Similarly, Square does not build the game for themselves, they build in features for an end consumer in mind. Yes, they can have a product vision, but if no one likes it, or if enough people start to dislike- that vision is garbage and it is literally scrapped- and sometimes the product manager is as well.

If you don't fid this thread of use, that's fine. That's your viewpoint. That's not shared by everyone. I do not find it necessary to make progress give up because "everyone" needs to be unified, I don't find it necessary to please "everyone", nor do I have any special insight into how Square's internal decision processes so I can definitely say who they listen to.

[pcspores]

As a veteran player, I believe the balance in the earlier version (with classes, not jobs) was excellent. Back then, healers weren't restricted to a specific role. Their skills could be applied to almost any other class, creating a more well-rounded gameplay experience. While that system wasn't for everyone, it offered a unique way to approach the game. In my opinion, removing these shared abilities hurt the game's balance. As a healer main, I saw this as a potential issue even way back then, and it's impacted the overall balance ever since.

[Ramiee]

I mean if the dots were separated from Eukrasia I'd be satisfied with the amount of DPS buttons SGE has. All that matters at that point is creating a system around these 7 buttons for aoe and single target something that makes button variance whether it's maintaining dots or something brand new like turning Addersting into something you build with dosis/phelma/psyche and turning Toxicon into a spender.
I think around 6-7 buttons for DPSing for healers is good, maybe even lower in the case of AST.

[Jojoya]

I'll repeat, it doesn't matter if Square "owns the game". I can make a car than runs on square wheels, if no one is interested in it, then who cares? Similarly, Square does not build the game for themselves, they build in features for an end consumer in mind. Yes, they can have a product vision, but if no one likes it, or if enough people start to dislike- that vision is garbage and it is literally scrapped- and sometimes the product manager is as well.

So the product ends up scrapped. That's the company's decision as owner of the product, not the decision of the consumer to make for the company.

The company knows what the employees are capable of doing, what resources are at their disposal and most importantly, how many consumers have expressed interest in their product. They know whether it is worth their time to remake the product in whole or in part, or if they are better off scrapping it altogether.

You don't. I don't. Even shareholders are only going to know part of the information at best depending on local regulatory disclosure requirements.

When it comes to healing, the NA/EU players bases are divided on whether changes are needed and what those changes should be. On the other hand, we're hearing from the JP playerbase that they're fine with the state of healing. Someone commented about how healing design in this game more or less aligns with JRPG healing design in general.

Being a JP company far more familiar with JRPG design than Western MMORPG design, does it make more sense for SE to stick to the healing design that they know the unified part of their customers want or does it make more sense to throw darts at a dartboard trying to figure out what the fractured part of their customers will accept? Most companies are going to stick with the certain winner instead of risking everything on a maybe.

Are you able to accept that you may end up one of those not pleased if SE chooses to provide what a different segment of the player wants over what you want? As the owner, they don't have to listen to you as much as you want to convince yourself otherwise.

We're all just little fish in a big ocean and there's no way a current for change is going to get generated when everyone is swimming in different directions. The strikers should have come to agreement about what change was needed before announcing their strike.

[Aravell]

The less attractive you make healing to people looking to try it, the less growth you'll have in the long run.

The current state of healing is hardly attractive, there's been census data from luckybancho that shows the healer role has stunted growth and has fallen behind the tanks in terms of population. While this data may not be completely accurate, it's the only data we have access to, and it's not painting a good picture for the healer role.

There would have to be a fundamental change to how all the healers kits are and shift it more toward a proper GCD DPS rotation while keeping heals predominantly oGCD. That's how raid healers heal anyway... good ones that is. The need to have to DPS race every battle makes healers just another DPS in the long run since ARR. Hard casting heals are frowned upon (mostly) and healing partners are expected to cover the other essentially. By design, you're encouraged to ensure you never use GCDs to hard cast heals. So new healers aren't going to want to play like that because a majority of the community doesn't want to play like that.

Fight design can and has been changed before, what is good gameplay now may become bad in another patch.

No need to hamstring other jobs to fix the issues with other jobs. That's not balancing, that's just hubris.

It's not hamstringing to bring a job that's blatantly overpowered back in line with the rest. Only very few people are calling for a total removal of all healing on every other role, most people are content with slight nerfs so they can't make a healer obsolete.

[AddictedToWitches]

Me going to level my healer in DT dungeons after thinking the healer strike was dumb

[Supersnow845]

snip.

im unsure how you can compare ARR healers to DT healers then say adding DPS complexity is impossible when relative to tanks and DPS healers are rarer now than they were in 2-4.0. The modern design has pushed people away from healers and the boring as sin damage rotation that we didn’t use to have contributes to that. You also say we are excessively raid focused I’m not even going to get into the fact that the other half of the people say we are excessively casual focused. Trying to define the strike one way or another helps nobody. Regardless the DPS and the tanks are allowed to retain their complexity while is healer the one that isn’t allowed to have complexity because it will fail. Healers are uniquely punished for the perception of a bad DF community even though every role is bad.

As for not nerfing WAR i simply do not see how you can avoid it at this point, I did vali with my static and neither me nor the co healer even needed to use a single target oGCD to heal the tank. The tanks are completely self sufficient in high end content. This isn’t just “who cares about AOE bloodwhetting it’s a dungeon” it’s the fact that tank self healing has reached a point of sustainment in high end content. That is just ridiculously unbalanced

[DiaDeem]

Anyway, did you guys see Alisaie is healing as a Red Mage? My rage knows no bounds!!1

[Striker44]

Me going to level my healer in DT dungeons after thinking the healer strike was dumb

Meanwhile, I leveled my healer in DT exclusively through dungeons and roulettes and had a blast...

While this data may not be completely accurate, it's the only data we have access to, and it's not painting a good picture for the healer role.

That's the issue - we have no clue how accurate it is. Trying the idea of "any data is better than no data" doesn't work, because bad data is worse than no data. Let's acknowledge the reality - the only people who have full, accurate data are the devs at SE. They're also a corporation that needs to make money. If they're dead set on a certain direction, you can be sure the real data supports that decision.