#FFXIVHEALERSTRIKE

[IDontPetLalas]

You started this conversation referring to "extensive" and "detailed" suggestions and in that response and every response since, you've not provided a single link or said which suggestions you consider to be "extensive".

A large majority of these suggestions believe that part of the issue in healers is that their Damage rotation is not engaging, they believe that because most of our time is spent doing damage it should be engaging to do so. Yet, these same individuals admit that damage is a "filler" to healing. The real issue is that healing is simply oversaturated, in easy content the damage does not justify the healing we have and in difficult content we're given two healers where one could suffice meaning that almost all healers who are worth their salt will be spending all GCD on damage and oGCD on healing. The solution isn't to continue spending all GCD's on damage but in a more engaging way, it is to actually make healing required.

Now, please — I doubt your next response will reference any of these 'detailed' and 'extensive' suggestions but I hope you prove me wrong and actually give us something to discuss.

First of all, thank you now for providing your feedback. I would state your remarks have been covered in much more detail in literally hundreds of posts, and I did in fact post a link to the specific sub-forum. Try checking the previous page again.

I (and many other) healers participated in those discussions for years. I have every confidence that you can find those threads if you are so interested, and a Google search would also likely pull up at least one in which we exceeded 100 pages. Snow might recall that one. However, I would say the onus is now on you.

[Supersnow845]

My post was a brief response towards a bigger discussion and doesn't serve as "this will fix everything", neither was that how it was supposed to be portrayed.


My prior two posts have both elaborated and added to the discussion, so wrong, again.


Ah yes, lets go with the fix of the non healer mains. You say that and seriously wonder why I'm disagreeing with these 'experienced' healers, lmao. I haven't called you out on abandoning the role either, I don't care what you do in your free time or what role you play. I've also provided an opening to my suggestion which you've then ignored and said that I wont elaborate.

Reading is hard, I suppose.

If your point isn’t meant to be taken as an absolute then don’t write it as an absolute, pretty standard fare on writing there. Like I said I don’t disagree with the idea healing should be made more engaging but I also want damage to be more engaging. This isn’t asking for a solution that benefits non healer mains at the expense of healer mains, it’s saying when healer mains are asking for both and square doesn’t like giving healers responsibility we are better off asking for the damage option. And again if you aren’t making a definitive statement about saying “fix healing not DPS” then why do you oppose fixing the DPS side so heavily. You seem to trying to play both side while specifically only actually taking one side. If you support fixing healing then just say that, few people will oppose you on the concept the only blowback you’ll likely get here is people saying “yeah we tried asking for that and they told us to go away” but we don’t disagree with you

I also didn’t say you called us out I’m saying that as a general term, again there is a strong element here if you entering the forums this month and going “you stupid idiots why didn’t you just do x” and then you won’t actually acknowledge we’ve done x multiple times and it doesn’t work. Not in a rude way but your ideas on how we should approach this argument aren’t novel but you act like they are. Saying “your ideas are bad fix healing” really isn’t adding to the discussion, we know normal content healing is bloated, we know we don’t need two healers, we passed this discussion point 6 years ago, again it’s a problem of you acting like your surface level analysis is novel, your edit which just reiterated my point isn’t really either. Like I said if you have ideas just throw them out there rather than this weird policing of other people’s ideas and acting like we haven’t tried solutions right in front of our face

[flowerkatie]

and I did in fact post a link to the specific sub-forum.

The majority of posts in this sub-forum are neither detailed or extensive and they swing from multiple sides of the debate, some are just complaints about cosmetics. The original post you responded to states "I'm OK with any solution." and your response was that any solution isn't fine, there are detailed and extensive solutions that are (by implication) fine. Linking an entire forum section that has no continuity between suggestions doesn't serve as backing your point up.

However, at this point I'm not surprised you didn't reference anything but ask me to.

[flowerkatie]

If your point isn’t meant to be taken as an absolute then don’t write it as an absolute

I cannot anticipate your interpretation of my writing, I never stated it was an absolute, it's on you.

You entering the forums this month and going “you stupid idiots why didn’t you just do x”

I've not called anyone an idiot, I said there are terrible suggestions which do not implicate the poster in being stupid, smart people are capable of making bad suggestions. You really have to chill with these assumptions you keep making in every single response because they're just repeatedly wrong.

I don't play both sides, how is that so hard to understand? Making healing more engaging without increasing damage complexity is not the same as believing we shouldn't do damage at all. I believe there are multiple right solutions, one of them could very easily add damage complexity if it was in combination with making healing more engaging and therefor forcing player decision-making to know what to do in the moment. But evidently, many people have made the argument that "non-healer mains" can't decide when they should heal verses when they should damage.

There are literal posts I've initially disagreed with people on solutions and eventually they've proven me wrong in my thinking and shown that in-fact, their solution is good.

[IDontPetLalas]

The majority of posts in this sub-forum are neither detailed or extensive and they swing from multiple sides of the debate, some are just complaints about cosmetics. The original post you responded to states "I'm OK with any solution." and your response was that any solution isn't fine, there are detailed and extensive solutions that are (by implication) fine. Linking an entire forum section that has no continuity between suggestions doesn't serve as backing your point up.

However, at this point I'm not surprised you didn't reference anything but ask me to.

That's fine, I understand. Someone who has been here for a while and interacted with multiple people concerning the healer role (in this case, myself) states that there are conversations relevant to this conversation that you (a newcomer) is likely unaware of, stretching past literally years.

You come back in less than 5 minutes and state that the posts in the healer sub-forum "have no continuity between suggestions". Well, you shouldn't be surprised that I ask for your position. That's genuinely amusing. You're either the world's best speed-reader, or you really have little interest in this topic.

[Supersnow845]

I cannot anticipate your interpretation of my writing, I never stated it was an absolute, it's on you.


I've not called anyone an idiot, I said there are terrible suggestions which do not implicate the poster in being stupid, smart people are capable of making bad suggestions. You really have to chill with these assumptions you keep making in every single response because they're just repeatedly wrong.

I don't play both sides, how is that so hard to understand? Making healing more engaging without increasing damage complexity is not the same as believing we shouldn't do damage at all. I believe there are multiple right solutions, one of them could very easily add damage complexity if it was in combination with making healing more engaging and therefor forcing player decision-making to know what to do in the moment. But evidently, many people have made the argument that "non-healer mains" can't decide when they should heal verses when they should damage.

You really need to learn to read between the lines, when I say “you ideas are stupid you idiots” I don’t mean you actually said that, I mean that’s the tone you are giving off. You haven’t offered anything except vague surface level analysis, yet you are saying most solutions are terrible without actually referencing terrible solutions and not actually looking in the healer forum, ty and forsaken alone could write an entire book about healer solutions for all skill levels. These already exist, if you think they are terrible you need to explain why

Again this comes back to you acting like your vague surface level interpretation of the problem is novel. The “oh if you’ve been whittled down due to opposition to healer changes you are just subjecting yourself to the whims of the non healer mains” without actually looking at the 6 years of discussion that have led here

I’m fine to reiterate points I’ve explained for the last 6 years but that’s for people who genuinely don’t understand what’s going on. Not people who joined last week and is basically taking the stance “you are all wrong and no I won’t explain why but here’s some surface level analysis I cooked up in 5 minutes”

[flowerkatie]

You come back in less than 5 minutes and state that the posts in the healer sub-forum "have no continuity between suggestions". Well, you shouldn't be surprised that I ask for your position. That's genuinely amusing. You're either the world's best speed-reader, or you really have little interest in this topic.

Ah yes, because before posting here I've absolutely never read that sub-form, I don't already have responses in that sub-forum and haven't engaged in it at all. The fact you completely failed to see the possibility that I might have already been active in and read many posts over the past few weeks in the forum is the only thing amusing.

and not actually looking in the healer forum

I mean, need I respond to this more than my above response on this message. Lmao.

[IDontPetLalas]

Ah yes, because before posting here I've absolutely never read that sub-form, I don't already have responses in that sub-forum and haven't engaged in it at all. The fact you completely failed to see the possibility that I might have already been active in and read many posts over the past few weeks in the forum is the only thing amusing.

I mean, need I respond to this more than my above response on this message. Lmao.

If you did, then you should be able to find the posts I referenced and add more detail to the discussion, which is point of this thread, if you can offer a fresh viewpoint I would genuinely welcome it.
i have not as yet seen that from you in the healer sub-forums (as you have very few posts), as we've spent more attention here, only recently.

[ForsakenRoe]

I got a question for you Flowerkatie. I would tentatively agree, that it makes sense to solve the healer dilemma by asking 'more healing' required from the healer. To burden our kits enough that we have to start using GCDs, which would replace the boring damage GCDs we have.

A SCH currently has 22 Broils and 2 Biolysis per minute. Let's assume we want to have enough healing to get the player to use only 18 Broils, so 4 GCDs per minute (or one per 15s on average) are changed over to be heals. So my question is, can you tell me how much 'raidwide' damage a dungeon boss would need to do, per raidwide attack (to the nearest thousand) and how often those raidwides need to go out, in order to achieve the modest goal of swapping only 4 Broils to healing GCDs like Succor?

[flowerkatie]

If you did, then you should be able to find the posts I referenced and add more detail to the discussion, which is point of this thread, if you can offer a fresh viewpoint I would genuinely welcome it.
i have not as yet seen that from you in the healer sub-forums (as you have very few posts), as we've spent more attention here, only recently.

That's funny because you've already quoted one of my posts from the healer sub-forums which wasn't even my latest so you've evidently had to scroll through my profile to find that and still lacked the initiative to think that my opinion might've been established before your response and not within the 5 minutes between.

You do that whilst expecting me to know which of the 160,000 posts in that forum you're referring to because simply referencing anything is too difficult, or the more likely truth at this point — you had nothing to reference.

A SCH currently has 22 Broils and 2 Biolysis per minute. Let's assume we want to have enough healing to get the player to use only 18 Broils, so 4 GCDs per minute (or one per 15s on average) are changed over to be heals. So my question is, can you tell me how much 'raidwide' damage a dungeon boss would need to do, per raidwide attack (to the nearest thousand) and how often those raidwides need to go out, in order to achieve the modest goal of swapping only 4 Broils to healing GCDs like Succor?

And (once again) we're wondering why I've come to disagree with so many of these suggestions. You actually believe that 'more healing' is a simple case of making raid-wide attacks do more damage when there are a wide plethora of other potential changes that can also support in achieving this goal such as providing less oGCD's in the toolkit of a healer or making them weaker with options to 'buff' or 'proc' based on GCD options which would begin forcing more healing-based actions rather than simply pressing your damage button.

Though, the real question is why I bothered responding to this obvious troll post cause you full-well know that stuff like that isn't changed based on paper-calculations and gets simulated through actual testing and adjusted accordingly. Unless you're under the impression I'm more capable than the developers in my understanding.