#FFXIVHEALERSTRIKE

[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.

[IDontPetLalas]

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.

*snip, length"

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.

*length*

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.

1- You are confounding how a product is developed with whom the product is produced for, that is not at all the same thing. There is a difference between consumers expressing their wants/needs and evaluating their feasibility, there is a large difference between our expressing changes here in the OF and Square returning and saying "sorry, we can't do them due to budget/netcode/ insert other reason" and hearing absolutely nothing at all , via OF, LL, etc.

2- There is no need to be repeat again, some variant of " be careful what you wish for, you may JUST NOT LIKE IT". Please, I would say that many of us have been affected at some point by what we have perceived to be a negative job change. Kindly don't be so condescending as well to tell us that we have some exaggerated sense of self-importance because we communicate in a discussion forum which is intended for exactly these types of exchanges, as long as we respect expected forms of conduct.

3- While I agree that it would help to have an agreement on some changes, it really isn't atypical in complex discussions to have contradictory positions. That really should be a reason for someone to say "your process was bad". Too bad, I didn't see people criticizing the strike helping much over the years. Where were the people that are criticizing this over the years? I would 90% were silent.

[IDontPetLalas]

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



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.

So, tell me, would you say they made money off of Island Sanctuary?

[Supersnow845]

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



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.

Which just circles back to another point of the strike you refuse to acknowledge

We want to be heard, if square has such hard and fast data that proves unequivocally that healers are exactly where they want them (never mind it conflicts with every piece of partial data we have ever collected) then they need to tell us that. In a feedback forum paying customers deserve to have their feedback acknowledged even if they don’t choose to act on it (ignoring us for 6 years is not an act of acknowledgment)

In 6 years the only design decisions around healers they have ever written down that’s not a poor “pwetty pwease pway healers” is those useless change logs on the job guides that tell us nothing of actual use