The Problem with Healer Feedback, and requested changes

[Renathras]

In order - no it does not.

I did say "tends to" not "always does".

There are already healers who don't care about optimizing their gameplay in normal content.

Where did I mention "normal content"? I'm talking about Savage and Extremes. It quite frankly doesn't matter in the rest of the game, so that isn't even part of the discussion.

If all they want to do is hit their dot and maintain it at 20% uptime, no worries. If we add 2 DPS skills, 2 more support skills, whatever- they can ignore it if they want- they don't use them now. There is no enrage - aside from the occasional soft enrage.

In Savages and Extremes? I'm unaware of any current Savage or Extreme that doesn't have an Enrage.

So then we get to your statement that refers to Savage content,

...my entire statement was about Savage content. But whatever, let's do that...

I will only add my own opinion, which is at that level of content, I consider it quite fair that ever is expect to be able to perform at a higher level and in the case of healers and the current encounter designs, that means a certain level of DPS is expected and normal. That is no different from any other job.

Okay, here's the problem with this:

In the game as it is currently live, players are able to clear this content with this level of gameplay. That is a current thing. I think you realize what I'm saying here and how it's a problem for your argument, but let's remove the minced words and get to the crux of it:

.

If we do what you want, players will lose access to content they currently have access to with their current preferred gameplay.

.

We can beat around the busy, people can argue that they SHOULD lose access, etc. But I think a fair discussion starts with acknowledging the basic facts: People WILL lose access to content they can CURRENTLY access. Their gameplay will be truncated unless they change to playing a way they do not currently enjoy. This is a loss. In other words, such a change would not be a net gain for everyone, and there would be a lot of people losing out in exchange for some other people to derive more enjoyment (at their expense, ultimately) and be more engaged.

This is what my solution solves that yours does not.

It prevents people from losing out of content they currently have access to. It may require them to change Jobs, but they still have access to content.

...and before you say "Yeah, but changing Jobs is also losing out!"; we're contrasting this with the proposal of changing all the healer Jobs, in which case they lose out anyway, so they're no better off under your proposal. At least under mine, they get to keep SOMETHING.

.

EDIT:

Ever watch Fullmetal Alchemist?

"To obtain, something of equal value must be lost..."

But that's the concept of a zero-sum game. For there to be an addition somewhere, the equation must be balanced by subtracting somewhere else.

The thing is, life isn't only zero-sum games. There are situations where everyone can win, or where everyone can get something. "Paredo improving trades" is a term in economics for exchanges where everyone is, on net, better off than they were before, even while they are giving up something. That is, on the whole, the community is better off, but ALSO every individual is better off, or at least no WORSE off than they were before. This is also the nature of compromise.

Changing all the healers is a zero-sum model. Some people benefit, but at the expense of everyone who does not.

Changing SOME but not all of the healers is not a zero-sum model. Some people benefit more than others, but everyone is at least no worse off than they were before.

.

TL;DR:

Your solution is a zero-sum solution that has winner and losers, where you pick the winners. You can be for it because you're not losing out. It's like people supporting tax raises on...people who aren't them. You would be happier under the model, but you aren't bearing the costs of it.

My solution is not zero-sum. Everyone loses out a little (people who want change have one healer that they don't enjoy, people who don't want the change have 3(4) healers they don't enjoy), but on net, the whole of the people are increased (which you can argue yours is, but that isn't clear like it is for mine), but ALSO, of the people who are not the big winners, individually they still aren't losing out entirely, and they aren't losing as much as they are under your solution.

.

This is the reason I think my solution is better. The worst off people are still able to access everything they can today. They aren't losing out, even though they may be more limited. And this is the important thing. People can often accept not being better off than they were before. People do not take it well if you tell them they now can't do things they could do before.