Paired Threads: What would it take to make Heaker kits "complex/interesting"?

[NobleWinter]

Can you imagine Yoshi P trying to stream the game from the beginning on CNJ. Just a speed run thru the MSQ skipping cutscenes with no extremes, savage, or ultimates. The solo duties, dungeons, and normal trials would be so boring for an orange parsing BLM main. I wouldn't be surprised if the whole healer role got reworked after that.

[Aravell]

Speaking of modifiers on spells, I remember that Yoshi-P mentioned WHM's Holy and how it has a stun, he did say that he wanted to add effects to the other healer's spammable AoEs as well, I think it was in the Endwalker launch LL, whatever happened to that I wonder?

[Allegor]

Because it's quite obvious they just like to stir the pot. There, I said it

[Renathras]

If you don’t believe my original post was a comment about other players not being “real” healers, then why say anything at all?

Because I didn't say anything like it at all and was castigated for saying something even resembling it. It was interesting seeing some of the people who attacked me (when I didn't even say "not real healers" or anything like it) agreeing with your post that was far closer to saying it instead of leveling the same attack on your post. Interesting, though not at all unexpected. Hypocrisy and double standards know many forms and names.

But, specifically, I wasn't focused on you saying that at all. It's why I said "So why are you defending from attacks I didn't make?" and "You're attacking the wrong things."

The bulk of my post - which I note you are studiously avoiding addressing - is that people who DO main Healers, mainly or even exclusively play Healers, etc, are also disagreeing with you. So what I'm attacking is your notion that the only people who think Healers are fine are people who don't play them, or who don't play them exclusively, or who primarily play other roles and only dabble in Healers and so likely don't have well formed positions on the issues the role may be facing.

That was what I was replying to you saying. Note I spent a mere one line on the first point: "This sounds eerily similar to the "real healers" argument I was told is an insult and not allowed (even though I wasn't using it) to describe people with different opinions."

The entire rest of my reply to you was talking about how your assumption is in error. Don't get stuck on one line while ignoring everything else, especially since that one line wasn't even an accusation. That's dodging the greater point. If you want, I'll even delete that line so you can focus on what I'm actually pointing out.

But why should I bother? You probably won't anyway. Besides, I didn't (contrary to the peanut gallery insisting otherwise) come here to "stir the pot". I only wanted to oppose the highly wrong notion that the only people who like Healers right now are people who do not play them and thus can't be expected to have well formed opinions in the matter. (Which is also a form of the ad hominem fallacy, in that it's attacking the people holding opinions and suggesting their opinions are likely less educated/valid, as opposed to addressing their positions/arguments.)

Because it's quite obvious they just like to stir the pot. There, I said it

No, this is because people like you and the others here saying this like to attack people that disagree with you (ad hominem fallacy) rather than discussing things rationally.

That's why you assume other people share your motivations who do not. There, I said it.

[ty_taurus]

Well it certainly sounds like you're trying to stir the pot. But let's stop dancing around the fire and just be upfront. You think that jobs are fine as-is because most people are content with them, and change is not required. My argument and the argument that many have made elsewhere is that reworking jobs like the healers, or SMN, or other hot topic jobs to appeal to the people who used to play them would either be well received or neutrally received by the vast bulk of players that play them currently, because that's just how gamers are. Unless you break the car, the mass will drive it regardless of its quality.

You are the odd one out. You think that's wrong, and what we want would destroy the game for everyone else. No one agrees with you here. At all. No amount of you yelling until you're blue in the face is going to change that. So if you're determined to change everyone's mind, then prove your point.

Gather information from a strong sample size of players on healers and present that information to the court. Ask the following questions:

1. Are you satisfied with the healers currently? If not, why?
2. Do you believe the healers could be better? If so, what would make them better?
3. Would you stop playing healer if the healers received a few more offensive spells?

I would bet money you will, by in large, receive responses similar to the following to questions 1 and 3 (of the people that enjoy healing as it is):

1. Yeah, I like playing as a healer.
3. No, I'd still enjoy playing healer/Depends on what gets added, but probably.

Question 2, you'll probably get a million different ideas, probably more specific ideas such as more spells to use lilies on, making AST cards less confusing, more things that interact with Kardia or Eukrasia, etc.

If you come back with something like "I shouldn't have to do that." Then I genuinely have no idea why you continue to parade your opinion as gospel, because no one believes or agrees with you. I don't understand what you think you're going to achieve without proving your point to the people who vehemently fight you.

[Renathras]

Well it certainly sounds like you're trying to stir the pot.

No, it does not. And you know better. THIS is the kind of thing that makes this place so toxic.

YOU are allowed to say something that sounds like a "not real healers" argument but get the benefit of the doubt (since you have the right politics here), while I say nothing of the sort and get lambasted for it anyway, etc. But yes, let's get to the actual matter:

But let's stop dancing around the fire and just be upfront.

/sigh

Yes.

Let's.

You think that jobs are fine as-is because most people are content with them, and change is not required.

No.

I do not, and that's not at all an accurate representation of my viewpoint. YOU EVEN KNOW THIS based on my past proposals. You KNOW better than this.

Yet here you are saying something you must know is a lie.

And you get 7 (as of this writing) Likes for saying something that you must know is a lie, and probably most of the people liking your post know is a lie. This is also why I don't trust to the "wisdom of the masses" when it comes to this forum - you guys will upvote a thing that EVERYONE KNOWS is a lie.

When I say - in the post right above this one - that AST and SCH have a major problem with their rotation, AND EVEN PROPOSE CHANGES: How is that saying the Jobs are fine, EXACTLY?

I also frequently have said that Healers are too same-y in a general sense and at least some need to be changed. How is THAT saying they are fine, EXACTLY?

I also have a long history here of complaining about encounter design vs the Healer kits. How is THAT saying they are fine, EXACTLY?

Even the Healer I argue the most shouldn't be changed, WHM, I have said it needs a 60 sec CD partywide mitigation added. THAT IS A CHANGE. Even my most conservative proposals involve changes! And I've made a more extensive change proposal that includes making their GCD heals generate Lilies because I think they can't be realistically used in the current system and I think that is a problem/downside. How is THAT saying it's "fine", EXACTLY?

So in what way ON EARTH do you arrive at "You think that jobs are fine as-is because most people are content with them"?

Putting the rest under HB because I REALLY want you to answer THAT question and you tend to get distracted when I say other stuff you decide you'd rather respond to instead that lets you avoid saying "Oh, okay, maybe I'm wrong about that..." or actually giving an explanation. So answer THAT QUESTION first. Now, as to the rest:

My argument and the argument that many have made elsewhere is that reworking jobs like the healers, or SMN, or other hot topic jobs to appeal to the people who used to play them would either be well received or neutrally received by the vast bulk of players that play them currently, because that's just how gamers are. Unless you break the car, the mass will drive it regardless of its quality.

And I highly disagree. I personally believe Old SMN should be re-added to the game - in that DPS thread I even proposed calling the new one Evoker in honor of the "lesser" Summoner from FF3 and making them both unlock from ACN so players can choose the one they want to play. Hell, if the idea catches on, maybe someday SE could do class splits with some of the other Jobs making a de-facto "spec" system! Butt that said, no, changes like that are not "well received or neutrally received by the vast bulk of players that play them currently". We've seen this in the past.

When SMN was changed, when PLD was changed, when SCH was changed, when AST was changed: It was NOT, in fact, received by the vast majority of players that played the Jobs. And when Jobs are changed and then changed again, that just alienates the second wave of players that took up the Job. They are NEVER well or neutrally received by the vast majority of them. Especially when the changes are huge (which SMN was and changing it back would be), but even when they're relatively minor like SCH. WHM's SB to ShB change was actually a net positive vs those others, and widely received as good, and is the only example of that happening I'm aware of that DIDN'T alienate existing players.

MCH changes, BRD changes (every other expansion, seems like), MNK changes, Kaiten removal - the number of Job changes that were generally well received I can count on one hand, if not one FINGER.

1 out of 8 (or more) isn't a good track record, and that was in a case where the Job was made slightly SIMPLER, not when it was made more complex.

The only other changes I've seen that were somewhat well received (at least at first) were SMN and maybe MNK's, but they obviously had their detractors. MCH might fit into that camp, but none of those were done without pissing A LOT of people off. Like I say, WHM from SB to ShB, since the only real change was "it doesn't suck anymore and you don't have Aero 3, but you have big nuke lily" was widely received positively. And even now, everyone in this forum is saying it's garbage.

You've made this argument before, and when I countered it and asked you to provide evidence for when a Job was changed that it WAS on the whole received positively or at least neutrally, I don't recall you being able to provide examples. This is yet another thing you believe without supporting evidence and avoided providing any (or admitting you don't have any) when I questioned you on it before...

It's not a good paradigm, anyway, to bank on lethargy as a strategy to encourage change.

You are the odd one out.

Appeal to bandwagon fallacy, really?

So if you're determined to change everyone's mind, then prove your point.

1) I'm not. I'm here as a counterbalance to you guys, and an attempt to present positions and point out things in others' positions that I disagree with - in other words "to have a conversation" and "to present the other side" - nothing more. So that if any Devs read this (lol?) or if people who disagree with you lurk of visit this forum but are terrified to speak against your position seeing how you treat anyone who does, they know they aren't alone and that there is a contra position being held. Though I suspect the Devs are VERY aware of it, it doesn't hurt to do it. I know I can't change any of your minds. I've presented data and facts before and all you do is either collectively ignore it or attack the sources and say it doesn't count in one way or another. What's the point in me gathering and presenting data you're just going to mostly or all discard or say "that doesn't count/matter"? There IS no such point, so it's not my objective.

2) Why must I prove my point and not you? How big and diverse is your sample size, really? How likely tainted by self-selection? We all know that most people who like a thing aren't on forums complaining about it. It tends to be the people upset who speak, which is why forums for games are VERY rarely positive places, because the people with a positive view are playing the thing. If they frequent forums at all, the ones that like the game you can tell by the fluff posts. Few people on FFXIV Reddit are posting how they think the game is great other than super new Sprouts. The other people who like it are posting fluff stuff like memes, humor stuff, or commissions. Only on maint/patch days are they on the forums at all. Yet you're certain that you are correct...but you base this on what? Largely anecdote (people you know) or on self-selection biased samples (the forum posters here). Much as I disagree with you, Ty, I respect your mental acuity. You know what that means and why that makes for a bad sample. Yet you simply accept it, knowing that it's bad.

3) How would you even propose doing this? How about we do it together, the two of us. But we'd need to make it something that we get a huge cross-section of players from that aren't self-selecting. So what do we use? This forum is biased to the hate Healers side. So where do we get a general sample size? Reddit? Not FFXIVdiscussion, but maybe FFXIV subreddit, but people there tend not to take these things seriously. Do we use major discords? Which ones get around that sample bias problem? And what questions would we ask? All three of yours are leading questions. Contrast:

1. Are you dissatisfied with healers currently? If you like them, what do you like about them?
2. Do you believe healers could be worse? If so, what would make them worse?
3. Would you stop playing healers if healers were given DPS Job rotations?

I bet the answers to 1 and 3 would change quite a bit just by changing the wording of the questions (note many of the proposals here are not "a few more offensive spells", and some have even proposed removing healing spells and making them oGCDs only). I do suspect 2 would get you a million answers, either way it's worded. But your questions presuppose Healers aren't good. "Do you believe healers could be better?" is almost always going to be answered with a Yes because ANY role can be made better. "Do you believe DPS could be better?" Literally everyone will say yes because unless a Job is flawlessly PERFECT, it can always be made better.

If you come back with something like "I shouldn't have to do that."

Ah, priming the audience/poisoning the well, I see?

Trying to preemptively avoid having to justify why your position is the default one. Interesting, but I already called that out, so...

Then I genuinely have no idea why you continue to parade your opinion as gospel,

I don't.

because no one believes or agrees with you.

The fact my posts get likes from time to time means that some people do, in fact, believe and/or agree with me. So you're wrong about that. ALSO an appeal to bandwagon fallacy. Are you familiar with the story "The Emperor's New Clothes"? It's a cautionary parable addressing just that fallacy. That just because everyone does a thing (or doesn't) doesn't make them correct. The old "If all your friends jumped off a bridge, would you?" "If all your friends did <slavery/fascism/x-phobia> would you?"

It's an appeal to a mob rather than an appeal to logic, an argument supporting a position, or an argument about whether a position is right or not. It's an attempt to avoid such arguments. that's why the bandwagon fallacy...is a fallacy.

I don't understand what you think you're going to achieve without proving your point to the people who vehemently fight you.

I reiterate:

1) I'm not. I'm here as a counterbalance to you guys, and an attempt to present positions and point out things in others' positions that I disagree with - in other words "to have a conversation" and "to present the other side" - nothing more. So that if any Devs read this (lol?) or if people who disagree with you lurk of visit this forum but are terrified to speak against your position seeing how you treat anyone who does, they know they aren't alone and that there is a contra position being held. Though I suspect the Devs are VERY aware of it, it doesn't hurt to do it. I know I can't change any of your minds. I've presented data and facts before and all you do is either collectively ignore it or attack the sources and say it doesn't count in one way or another. What's the point in me gathering and presenting data you're just going to mostly or all discard or say "that doesn't count/matter"? There IS no such point, so it's not my objective.

[ty_taurus]

No, it does not. And you know better. THIS is the kind of thing that makes this place so toxic.

What are you talking about? I only said it sounds like you're stirring the pot. I didn't say you were. Those are different things.

This is also why I don't trust to the "wisdom of the masses" when it comes to this forum - you guys will upvote a thing that EVERYONE KNOWS is a lie.

There are two possibilities. Either everyone is lying and everyone's out to get you, or you just aren't delivering the points you think you are. This is not a hive mind scenario. We are not the Borg. Maybe there's a common denominator at play, and that certainly isn't me.

Appeal to bandwagon fallacy, really?

Are you or are not almost always at odds with literally every other person in the thread both on here and on the DPS forums? Because you consistently argue, are told you have an attitude problem by many people over and over again. That may not be the majority of how other people would respond to you anywhere on the planet, but that is how you're received here. My point is that if you are trying to state points that hold water, you should back up your claims with evidence, because you're the one with the outlandish claim in this environment. Otherwise you just seem like someone who hates change for the sake of hating change. Prove to class that adding in more DPS options for every healer would have an adverse affect on player retention rather than a positive one. If the words you speak are as gospel as you treat them, then this shouldn't be a challenge.

[Renathras]

...

"Otherwise you just seem like someone who hates change for the sake of hating change." - My DUDE! Stop. Lying! I JUST GOT DONE TELLING YOU why you're wrong about this. And I'll note YOU DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION.

You did EXACTLY what I said you would - used other parts of my post to avoid answering the question. You know what? I wrote up a post. But I'm just going to cut it out (maybe I'll post it later) and post this again so you might ANSWER IT THIS TIME. Since if I say literally ANYTHING else, you'll address that and ignore this, dodging like Neo. Not this time.

You think that jobs are fine as-is because most people are content with them, and change is not required.

No.

I do not, and that's not at all an accurate representation of my viewpoint. YOU EVEN KNOW THIS based on my past proposals. You KNOW better than this.

...

When I say - in the post right above this one - that AST and SCH have a major problem with their rotation, AND EVEN PROPOSE CHANGES: How is that saying the Jobs are fine, EXACTLY?

I also frequently have said that Healers are too same-y in a general sense and at least some need to be changed. How is THAT saying they are fine, EXACTLY?

I also have a long history here of complaining about encounter design vs the Healer kits. How is THAT saying they are fine, EXACTLY?

Even the Healer I argue the most shouldn't be changed, WHM, I have said it needs a 60 sec CD partywide mitigation added. THAT IS A CHANGE. Even my most conservative proposals involve changes! And I've made a more extensive change proposal that includes making their GCD heals generate Lilies because I think they can't be realistically used in the current system and I think that is a problem/downside. How is THAT saying it's "fine", EXACTLY?

So in what way ON EARTH do you arrive at "You think that jobs are fine as-is because most people are content with them"?

[hb]Putting the rest under HB because I REALLY want you to answer THAT question and you tend to get distracted when I say other stuff you decide you'd rather respond to instead that lets you avoid saying "Oh, okay, maybe I'm wrong about that..." or actually giving an explanation. So answer THAT QUESTION first.

How is me literally proposing and suggesting changes being one who "hates change for the sake of hating change", EXACTLY?

Please, by all means, SHARE WITH THE CLASS how your lying and slandering me somehow is true even though it can't be true.

.

EDIT: Aside, my questions are getting a few nibbles. Success! Well, the early stages, anyway...

Results are still few, but more coming in. One of the biggest complaints doesn't seem to be about Healer damage kits, but rather people complaining about encounter design and feeling like the game should have more healing. Fascinating...

[ASkellington]

Results are still few, but more coming in. One of the biggest complaints doesn't seem to be about Healer damage kits, but rather people complaining about encounter design and feeling like the game should have more healing. Fascinating...

Honestly nothing we haven't said already. Multiple times. The problem is that SE refuses to change encounter design because they think its fine when, no it isn't. For the amount of healing tools I have I expect to use them in all content. I don't. You could delete half my kit and I wouldn't feel a difference.

Where we argue is the solution to the stubbornness of the dev team. You don't want to make healing more of a challenge? Fine. Then if healing is going to be a snoozefest, let me have a interesting dps kit to juggle between damage and healing then.

[Renathras]

Though, you know what?

I'm gonna do it anyway. Because now I'm curious... Here are the questions I'm asking.

Are you satisfied/dissatisfied with the healers currently? What do you like/dislike about them?

Do you believe the healers could be better/worse? If so, what would make them better/worse?

Would you stop playing healer if the healers received a few more offensive spells?

Would you stop playing healer if the healers received a DPS rotation on par with a DPS Job (you will still be expected to attend to all your healing duties while also juggling that rotation)?

I think these are fair and neutral versions of the questions, and they can also parse how players feel (for example, many will probably agree to a few more offensive spells but not agree to a rotation). Now we wait, and see what answers come in.

If any at all...