#FFXIVHEALERSTRIKE

[Kes13a]

Complaints come form both sides but it does make more sense to cater to the larger demographic. I say this as a SMN main since HW. I miss my old smn but majority did not like it so it makes sense to turn it into something more people will play. They are just doing the same with healers and unfort I bet their data will show the strike has not had a major impact to healer numbers.

larger demographic huh. just curious, in light of the upcoming Viper changes, which no one else seems to have complained about it being "busy" this doesnt seem to be a larger demographic pain point. in fact, no one knows where this idea comes from.

[Evergrey]

the answers you seek are on the first page, and people are free to use the hashtag or not, nor is griefing by not healing condoned and those people doing so should be rightfully reported:

This strike is a protest. As such, it is not intended to disrupt the game or the players who have subscribed to FFXIV.
The message of the strike is a collective voice of those who are not happy with the state of healing and healers in FFXIV.

Thank you, but I am well aware.
Henche why I added the part "passive as it is". Since I know it's not meant to be disruptive.
Which is the defining difference between then and now which might've been what tipped the scale back then for the change to even happen.
Hopefully I'm wrong on that part tho.

[Supersnow845]

I doubt that anyone really thinks that it was all healers who acted this way. But it's simply easier to use a general term when speaking of it, so the word "Healer" as a whole is simply used for the simplicity. Imo at least.
So yes, it was probably a minority of all healers who were like that.
But I can say the same for this Strike.
Not once since the strike began have I seen any mention of it ingame. And I've never seen any # of it in anyone's character profile either.

But hey, even if it might've been a minority who protested against using DPS skills back then and they got their way, maybe this strike, being a minority as well could bring yet another change.
I do however think that the defining difference between then and now is that back then it caused a much larger impact ingame where it was turning players against one another, people got kicked and so forth.
This strike, passive as it is doesn't have the same traction nor negative effects.
Hopefully something will come out of it non the less.

So the current design of parties screaming at each other because the tank thinks it’s their god given right to solo the content isn’t creating friction in the party

The one time I decided to queue as a healer to help a friend the tanks explicitly tried to kill me on sphene because I was the only one besides them who survived clusterfuck phase (and I mean I did it right, they both survived with 4 vuln stacks)

We don’t need to attempt to actively disrupt other people (and we don’t want to because we value our accounts) the current game design already does it for us

[Aravell]

So the current design of parties screaming at each other because the tank thinks it’s their god given right to solo the content isn’t creating friction in the party

The one time I decided to queue as a healer to help a friend the tanks explicitly tried to kill me on sphene because I was the only one besides them who survived clusterfuck phase (and I mean I did it right, they both survived with 4 vuln stacks)

We don’t need to attempt to actively disrupt other people (and we don’t want to because we value our accounts) the current game design already does it for us

Apparently 'tanks murdering everyone else and wasting everyone's time by taking 10 minutes to solo' is good friction and 'healers pressing the wrong button and someone dying' is bad friction.

[Bobby66]

How nice of you to dismiss my experiences with your own.

No, I did not see any healers complaining about that. When I played back then, healers were pressured to turn OFF Cleric Stance, not turn it on. Parties were content with letting the healer do nothing but heal. Even when I was farming extremes, I was told to not turn on Cleric Stance at all.



The thing here is, you don't know that they're catering to a larger demographic, you're assuming that they are, but they've been known to make bad decisions before.

Also, the vast majority of players are silent for a reason, they likely do not care one way or another, so they'd play the jobs they enjoy no matter what. Why should these players be included in the discussion?

In the end, everything is going to be minority vs minority, there is no majority position here.

I am sure SE has the data that supports the changes they make. I doubt they are making changes based off their on whims, I doubt we would have a game that is growing in population and popularity if they were doing that.

Let be fair the healers were pressured to keep it off were because people could afraid they were going to wipe the group, just like how people pushed some tanks to not use dps stance and stay in tank stance for aggro reasons.

In the end SE has the data and they will use that data to support their choices, their data must have supported the complaints or I doubt they would have changed it.

[Supersnow845]

If anything the tanks inherent immortality is just increasing the stress on the healer for no benefit because the healer is the DPS only defence against the tank wasting everyone’s time but the healer has no engagement to go with this

And somehow the braindead DPS blame the healer for not surviving to keep them alive when they all end up stuck watching the tank when the question should be “why is the tank allowed to do this”

[Evergrey]

So the current design of parties screaming at each other because the tank thinks it’s their god given right to solo the content isn’t creating friction in the party

The one time I decided to queue as a healer to help a friend the tanks explicitly tried to kill me on sphene because I was the only one besides them who survived clusterfuck phase (and I mean I did it right, they both survived with 4 vuln stacks)

We don’t need to attempt to actively disrupt other people (and we don’t want to because we value our accounts) the current game design already does it for us

I don't think a tank should be able to survive a bossfight without the support of a healer so I do think that their self sustain should have a look over by the devs.
I've seen tanks try to solo a boss if the rest of the group dies early, sure.
But if the boss is at high HP more often than not do the tank suicide and we restart the encounter. No screaming and most of the times not even a word uttered.
I can't however recall to ever have experienced a tank trying to kill the other party members. That sounds like an abnormally to me.

So I can't tell from personal experience that I've ever felt it causing a friction in a party.
To me, what people talk about tanks trying to solo Bosses and trying to kill team mates doesn't feel very common.
I can't say that it is or isn't ofc. But I've never noticed anything ingame that would point towards it being so.

[Bobby66]

If anything the tanks inherent immortality is just increasing the stress on the healer for no benefit because the healer is the DPS only defence against the tank wasting everyone’s time but the healer has no engagement to go with this

And somehow the braindead DPS blame the healer for not surviving to keep them alive when they all end up stuck watching the tank when the question should be “why is the tank allowed to do this”

For what it is worth I think many do feel tanks doing their 90 to 0 boss kills is extremely BM.

[Aravell]

I am sure SE has the data that supports the changes they make. I doubt they are making changes based off their on whims, I doubt we would have a game that is growing in population and popularity if they were doing that.

Let be fair the healers were pressured to keep it off were because people could afraid they were going to wipe the group, just like how people pushed some tanks to not use dps stance and stay in tank stance for aggro reasons.

In the end SE has the data and they will use that data to support their choices, their data must have supported the complaints or I doubt they would have changed it.

You seem to be arguing from the position that SE has the data and so they cannot make the wrong decision.

We have seen that they have made a lot of decisions that were received very badly before, so just because they have the data still doesn't automatically mean they make the correct (or even the best) decisions.

The only difference here is that you have faith in SE, we don't.

[Supersnow845]

I don't think a tank should be able to survive a bossfight without the support of a healer so I do think that their self sustain should have a look over by the devs.
I've seen tanks try to solo a boss if the rest of the group dies early, sure.
But if the boss is at high HP more often than not do the tank suicide and we restart the encounter. No screaming and most of the times not even a word uttered.
I can't however recall to ever have experienced a tank trying to kill the other party members. That sounds like an abnormally to me.

So I can't tell from personal experience that I've ever felt it causing a friction in a party.
To me, what people talk about tanks trying to solo Bosses and trying to kill team mates doesn't feel very common.
I can't say that it isn't or not ofc. But I've never noticed anything ingame that would point towards it being one.

Tanks attempting to actively murder the healer to solo is definitely an anomaly (though one that wouldn’t exist if the tanks couldn’t solo the boss) but from all the listening posts I have access to the tank silently deciding to solo the boss has become a massive annoyance in DT that people aren’t happy with and it’s because the tank players aren’t actually better than anyone else, they just have an inbuilt 80% damage down that means they just tank mechanics that others die to then say it’s a skill issue