A question: What makes a Healer "easy/simple" or "hard/complex"?

[Renathras]

I read all the other posts since this one I'm quoting but I have to ask about this specifically. Emphasis mine, just want to find out how you square this assertion with the data you posted in that other thread a while back, which says:



At least, if I'm reading it right, that HW was the highest level of healer playerbase we've ever had and while there's currently an uptick of sorts, we've never been close to what we had back then? People quit in SB, I'll agree on that, the data says that too. But HW? It seems that, if these numbers are to be believed, HW was the peak of 'people want to play healer' and we've never had it anywhere close to as high as back then ever since, even with a new healer class being released

I would say the most likely answer is that Healers then were diverse (we had a pure/simple Healer - as discussed, WHM was largely played then as it is now, just with more GCD cast heals; a damage focused support Healer in SCH; and a pretty crazy hybrid buffer/support Healer with AST). Everyone had an option available to them.

SB was when the simple/easy option (WHM) was at its absolute worst, so we saw a large exodus. ShB was when all of them were made simple, so we lost the complex lovers but regained the simple lovers that had abandoned the role.

This would suggest the answer is a hybrid approach.

The caveat to this is that we don't know what the numebers were BEFORE that because the data wasn't available. What if the number in ARR was 30%? What if it was 20%? Each would lead us to a different conclusion about HW, the second that HW was a peak but the first that HW was the beginning of a downward trend. Unfortunately, we don't have that data, so we don't know.

But what we know is that when Healer Jobs were more diverse across both playstyle and complexity, and that both were viable, the role was more popular.

All I'm gonna say is, if SE had a PTR where we could test 'SB WHM, with current Lilies and skills added', I would put actual money on the vast majority saying 'this is great'. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'd lose my money on the bet, but I'm confident enough in my assertions to make it. We only have to have these 'nuh uh my way would be better' because we're unable to put them to the test. It's all well and good insisting that 'no if we had all the healers have actual skill ceilings (skill floor remains as is) then EVERYONE would quit and the servers would explode and Blizzard would buy out SE and turn the game into a glorified Hearthstone lobby' when there's no way to disprove that statement. But if we had a seperate client for 'testing' stuff, we could put some of these false assertions in the grave where they belong

It wouldn't even need to necessarily take server space. Could make a 'lab room' of just plain white nothing forever, with a training dummy in the center, and have the game client look at localhost instead of the server IP, and essentially 'host' the 'server' on the player's own machine. We've got the benchmark program, something similar with a 'playtest these moves for us and give feedback on the forums' should be doable. At least, if the 'spaghetti code' issue is as solved as they claim

I actually somewhat agree with this. FFXIV's Dev team is pretty tight on stuff, though - they don't even release potency changes in patch notes before maintenance anymore - so it'll never happen. But it would be one way to see which change are popular and which are not.

But given we DON'T have one of those, I think the next best solution is what I've proposed - change 2-3, leave 1-2, see which one players play the most.

I could be wrong, but if people are still playing Healers, they likely wouldn't quit over that. Those that like it the way it is would continue doing it, those who don't would try out the new/changed Healers and, if they enjoyed one, stay with the role, and people that left the role for that reason would likely do the same, increasing the role's population. Everyone tried out SGE. Even jaded Healers who were considering quitting the role (and probably those who did) to see if it could appeal to them. Imagine if it HAD. Imagine if it WAS the DPS focused Healer everyone - and this is one of the few universal statements I'll make; probably EVERYone - thought it was going to be when they heard "heals by doing damage".

Suppose, Einstein thought experiment, that it HAD been that. It had some galaxy brain gameplay, high skill ceiling, and whatever you'd consider a fun rotation - be that DNC, RDM, BLM, GNB, MNK, NIN; whatever it is you think would be fun - and had actually DONE THAT.

Then people like you would have tried it out, and absolutely loved it. Would you still wish that WHM would change? Of course you would. Would you be making threads all the time asking that WHM be more like SGE? Maybe so. But you'd be playing SGE and actually having fun with its mega-complex hyper-active gameplay style where every encounter was as exciting as the most exciting thing to you.

And we would have actual data, because we could look at which Healer Jobs were being played and which were not. If no one liked simple Jobs, WHM would be dead last and everyone would have flocked to SGE, and that would be apparent. That could then be used as a solid argument for changing the other Healers, because it would be an example of it working.

But maybe it would be middlingly popular. Maybe many people would like it...but many wouldn't, just as many people like BLM but many do not and prefer SMN. Well, then that'd be an argument for holding onto that new status quo - one which appeals to both camps.

You might not like that - because it's WHM you'd want to get the SGE treatment - but you'd be running content on SGE and actually enjoying it, and everyone playing Healers in FFXIV would have a Job that appeals to them, and the Healer shortage would abate as people come to the role, either back to or for the first time, playing the awesome playstyle you propose.

I think that's the next best thing we can hope for, given there is no PTR.

Yet you attack me for my position which is far more sourced and supported than your own, which hasn't been by you or any of the posters agreeing with your position...

Again, HB time:

What in this:

It's interesting how frequently that you respond with rebuttal such as "Solo content isn't tedious to a lot of people. There's zero reason all Healers NEED those. I think the problem here is that you think that all Healer players want what you do and feel the way you do. Many players find WHM, for example, fun and engaging"

You are backing up your opinion, and based upon likely empirical evidence and claiming it as fact- when you aren't providing any factual evidence (independently sourced metrics) to back it up.

Given that- it remains an argument of one person's preference versus another person's preference. You are "being a contrarian" , you have held to some positions- one for example being "It's explicitly WHY I think we should change SOME Healers but not ALL of them, so that both types of player have at least one they enjoy playing on. There's only one Healer in the game that has 1 DoT + 1 Nuke, and that's AST." - you are absolutely entitled to your opinion, however that isn't one that everyone holds.

...was "sourced and supported"?

You provided no sources, so literally nothing you said there (which was mostly attacks on me) was "sourced", and you didn't offer supporting arguments, only your opinionated statements as if they were facts. Can you provide a source for...honestly, you didn't even make any position other than that you said I didn't source things (I've referred to FFlogs, FFXIV census, and Lucky Bancho census; all of which are actual things - you, on the other hand, have not provided any sources at all) and that I'm entitled to my opinion, which is a statement everyone agrees with.

As to the few points you've now made - which were not points you raised, they are you trying to counter me after your broadside...

No one knows how many people agree with them. But it is, as I've said, a not-insignificant, non-zero number. "a lot" is not "extremely subjective". Things like "X is boring" is extremely subjective. I notice you do not feel like you need to call out "extremely subjective" statements when literally anyone else here makes one, and are attacking my measured statements which do NOT assume universal or near-universal agreement. Very interesting...

For 4, it's not "you just don't know". It's reasonable to infer based on both census data and how the majority of the playerbase behaves. Is it absolute fact? No. But it's actually MORE SUPPORTED than the position Healers are boring. Funny how that works. 1%? No, it's more than that. You can believe it's not, but show me your evidence. Likewise, show me what % of people believe Healers are boring and in need of changing. You speak of sources, time to show yours: Prove that the vast majority of Healer players in FFXIV think Healer Jobs are boring and need to be changed. Can you? We both know the answer is you cannot, but I would LOVE to see you try. Show us that EVERYONE agrees. Can you?

...no. You can't. Maybe 1% agree with you. Maybe 5%. Maybe 20%. WHO KNOWS?! And yet, you support complete changes to all Healer Jobs, all Healer players, and the entire Healing system of the game as it exists, based on...WHAT?

Meanwhile, my position is a modified status quo that actually GIVE YOU some of what YOU WANT. But it doesn't give you EVERYTHING you want. My position is measured so that no matter what those %s are, be they in favor of my position or yours, everyone is served in some way. What if my position was the majority? Your fixes would destroy the game. What if your position was the majority? My position would appeal to them with a majority of the Healer Jobs and arguably could see the Healer role fixed, and maybe even the remaining Healer Jobs changed if your position was popular. Also, the status quo is not the position that requires defending - proposed changes do. And as mine's the half-way solution, it requires less than yours. But if you want to push me back to just saying hold the status quo from the top down...

(5) So when did you stop beating your wife? WHERE did I say they were MEANINGLESS?

HOW MANY TIMES across ALL of these threads do I have to say that I recognize there are people that think like you do and think we should change several of the Healer Jobs to exclusively appeal to you before you get it?

HOW MANY?

One more? Will one more do?

Clearly not.

So how many times must I say it?

And when will you say the converse - that there are many Healers that would not like your proposed changes?

Yes, any change will have minorities disagree - some will have majorities disagree. Can you prove which your change would cause to disagree? Moreover, do you know what the solution to that is?

...to have measured change that offers an opt out for people that don't want the larger change. Indeed, my proposal IS what "managed change" would look like.

(6) I took nothing out of context. But by all means, say what and how I took it out of context. Either you believe we have different preferences or you do not.

(7) Well...at least we have that. A rare oasis of understanding. I'd love to stop with that, but...

(8) - no, don't leave it at that. HOW am I incorrect in THIS statement:

You realize that I'm the only one here who HASN'T stated my position is universal and that everyone holds it, or some statement close enough to that to make no difference? I'm the one here who couches my statements with "many", "some", "a lot", "a not-insignificant amount", and so on; implicitly if not explicitly NOT saying my position is majority, much less universal. While you guys describe your opinions as universal truths, what I do is call your attention to the fact they are not universal.

When I many people don't think or feel as you do, that's not me saying NO ONE does or that EVERYONE agrees with me.

It's me saying a not-insignificant, non-zero amount of people disagree with you. It could be a minority, it could be a plurality, it could be a majority. I don't know, so I don't say. But it's not zero, and it's not insignificant. You're the one supporting posters arguing that your position is absolute, or near enough to not matter.

Be specific now!

...or perhaps don't say "you're wrong" in the future when someone isn't...

You didn't attack my argument. You restated one of my statements (not my argument) as if it was implicitly wrong, didn't bother actually arguing that, and then attacked me for stating an opinion without source or support, when I've presented both sources and supporting arguments. You didn't even present an argument that my statement WAS WRONG. At best, you were attacking me for not having absolute proof on how many "a lot" or "many" are, while you have no problem with people making arguments on your side do worse.

My disagreement stems from approaching it in the opposite direction; "SB WHM with current lilies and skills" is the logical equivalent to "Endwalker WHM plus Aero 3". I think "lol just add Aero 3 it'd make WHM good again" is...not something I see panning out, and in fact would slot into the folder of opinions I have labeled "Endwalker healer design is terrible, samey, and embarrassing...oh except WHM, suddenly when the white egg job stone is involved this horrible job design I spent the last two paragraphs lambasting is *chef's kiss* near pinnacle".

Huh.

I'm not saying it's good or bad, but your take is...unusual. Most people that want WHM changes essentially want Aero 3 (and possibly Aero 1 and Fluid Aura) back, and often times...that's it.

Interesting to see you disagree.

Not bad, just...I dunno, different.