#FFXIVHEALERSTRIKE

[Striker44]

Not sure if you know what a strike is. It's an agreement by a group of people w/ common goal to refrain from doing some kind of action expected of them (healers, healing, etc). I've seen complaints about healing in this game for years. The people who play this game fund the salaries of Square Enix staff, they're entitled to say their piece even if you think it's whiny. Yoshi P reads the top 10 forum threads daily.

I think that's part of where the issue is. There is no common goal here. You have some people claiming the strike is to convince the dev team to make changes to the game, and others just as adamantly claiming it's not about making changes at all. And even among the ones that want changes, there's no agreement on what that should be. One group wants there to be more to heal via more damage output by enemies, another group wants it by reducing healing/self-sustain by other roles, and yet others aren't talking about healing at all but want full DPS rotations on healers. Without a common goal, it just devolves into a classic case of "no matter what you do, you can't please everyone."

[aiqa]

I think that's part of where the issue is. There is no common goal here. You have some people claiming the strike is to convince the dev team to make changes to the game, and others just as adamantly claiming it's not about making changes at all. And even among the ones that want changes, there's no agreement on what that should be. One group wants there to be more to heal via more damage output by enemies, another group wants it by reducing healing/self-sustain by other roles, and yet others aren't talking about healing at all but want full DPS rotations on healers. Without a common goal, it just devolves into a classic case of "no matter what you do, you can't please everyone."

Your examples aren't mutually exclusive.

[Aword3213]

I think that's part of where the issue is. There is no common goal here. You have some people claiming the strike is to convince the dev team to make changes to the game, and others just as adamantly claiming it's not about making changes at all. And even among the ones that want changes, there's no agreement on what that should be. One group wants there to be more to heal via more damage output by enemies, another group wants it by reducing healing/self-sustain by other roles, and yet others aren't talking about healing at all but want full DPS rotations on healers. Without a common goal, it just devolves into a classic case of "no matter what you do, you can't please everyone."

Even if all healers around the world somehow miraculously ask for one single same thing, you'll still dismiss it anyway. Don't act as if you're working for the betterment of the strike out of kindness of your heart

[Striker44]

Even if all healers around the world somehow miraculously ask for one single same thing, you'll still dismiss it anyway. Don't act as if you're working for the betterment of the strike out of kindness of your heart

From my last post on this thread:

Now, if the sole goal was to increase the amount of damage being done so that we'd have "more to heal," I could potentially get behind that. But the "goal" of the strike is so all over the place, I can't have any confidence that's the direction things would ultimately goal.

I also earlier suggested potentially focusing on lowering the max ilvl that various roulette content utilizes. We're noticing the need for more healing in current content, and also pointing out how it's because we're actually at the intended gear levels for it, but SE puts the ceiling so high that the challenge soon disappears. Consider how Alliance Raids end up skipping mechanics over time. So no, I wouldn't dismiss ideas completely out of hand just because.

Also, nothing in my comment was in any way even pretending to be "for the betterment of the strike"; I was responding to someone and pointing out the underlying flaw.

Why does "everyone" have to be pleased? There is no product on the market that works that way, You have once again also shown a fundamental misunderstanding of how software development works as well, by strolling in again and lamenting how there is a lack of agreement or differing/conflicting opinions. So what? This is something I deal with routinely, I am sure that Square does as well, on a daily basis, in decide upon what to develop. It isn't new, it's part of human nature, it's part of complex systems.

You're just not doing more than repeating the same tired things with seemingly no proposed solution.

This...umm...was exactly my point...when you get so many different "problems" being claimed, and so many of those "problems" directly contradict each other, the only logical conclusion becomes that no matter what you do, some people will be dissatisfied. There's "seemingly no proposed solution" because in that scenario, the "solution" is to change nothing. For a "strike" to succeed, it needs very clear, very specific, actionable goals. Not a hodge-podge of conflicting desires with a sizable portion denying there's even a desire to change anything in the first place.

[IDontPetLalas]

I think that's part of where the issue is. There is no common goal here. You have some people claiming the strike is to convince the dev team to make changes to the game, and others just as adamantly claiming it's not about making changes at all. And even among the ones that want changes, there's no agreement on what that should be. One group wants there to be more to heal via more damage output by enemies, another group wants it by reducing healing/self-sustain by other roles, and yet others aren't talking about healing at all but want full DPS rotations on healers. Without a common goal, it just devolves into a classic case of "no matter what you do, you can't please everyone."

Why does "everyone" have to be pleased? There is no product on the market that works that way, You have once again also shown a fundamental misunderstanding of how software development works as well, by strolling in again and lamenting how there is a lack of agreement or differing/conflicting opinions. So what? This is something I deal with routinely, I am sure that Square does as well, on a daily basis, in decide upon what to develop. It isn't new, it's part of human nature, it's part of complex systems.

You're just not doing more than repeating the same tired things with seemingly no proposed solution.

[Jojoya]

Why does "everyone" have to be pleased?

Why do the strikers feel that they are the ones that have to be pleased?

You would think that after 6 years of no response to complaints they would have gotten the message. SE isn't interested in making the changes that have been getting requested.

Personally I think that's a shame because there is room in encounter design to make a more interesting healing experience (and that doesn't mean adding more buttons to press whether damage or healing). But it's SE's game and SE's choice. They feel their current design is the best compromise to satisfy the general healing community for the game.

So if the strikers aren't pleased, they need to understand that this time they're the ones filling that gap where the inevitable few who aren't pleased end up.

Strange how they're okay with some players being left unpleased as long as they aren't those players. A bit hypocritical, isn't it?

[Reinha]

One group wants there to be more to heal via more damage output by enemies, another group wants it by reducing healing/self-sustain by other roles, and yet others aren't talking about healing at all but want full DPS rotations on healers. Without a common goal, it just devolves into a classic case of "no matter what you do, you can't please everyone."

I hope you realise it's possible to adjust mob damage, healer abilities and other roles' abilities independently from one another or at the same time. Each are a part of the goals listed in the manifesto. Can you read five bullet points or does it need to be condensed further for you?

[Striker44]

I hope you realise it's possible to adjust mob damage, healer abilities and other roles' abilities independently from one another or at the same time. Each are a part of the goals listed in the manifesto. Can you read five bullet points or does it need to be condensed further for you?

My point is the people actually participating in and supporting the strike don't even seem to know what's in the "manifesto". I've spent a fair deal of posts on here having to point out to people pushing the strike what their own "manifesto" even says, only to be told straight up by them that I'm wrong. And yes, it's possible to do the things mentioned above independently or in various combinations - that's also not at all what we're talking about here. We're pointing out how when a bunch of different people have wildly different opinions about what they want to be "changed" (with others loudly proclaiming the strike isn't even about pushing any changes at all), you create a disorganized mess of a "movement" that ends up going nowhere. When the "manifesto" says to change x, y, and z, but then Supporter A says they only want x to be changed, Supporter B says they want x and y but not z, Supporter C says they want only z to change, and Supporter D says they're not happy right now but aren't looking to see x, y, OR z...how do you expect anything productive to come out of that?

But thank you for the condescension and belittling in your last sentence. It shows perfectly why the strike supporters are having bad "optics" (Hint: It's not "optics" - it's revealing the kind of people that are pushing it.)

Dude stop please, you're just skipping years of discussion, or rather, you just don't know yet do as if.

I'm not skipping years of anything. You quoted my post. Please read the quote in that very post that it was a direct response to. A supporter of the strike was belittling someone else by "explaining what a strike is"; I just showed why this thing going on fails spectacularly by the very definition that poster provided.

[Teno]

I think that's part of where the issue is. There is no common goal here. You have some people claiming the strike is to convince the dev team to make changes to the game, and others just as adamantly claiming it's not about making changes at all. And even among the ones that want changes, there's no agreement on what that should be. One group wants there to be more to heal via more damage output by enemies, another group wants it by reducing healing/self-sustain by other roles, and yet others aren't talking about healing at all but want full DPS rotations on healers. Without a common goal, it just devolves into a classic case of "no matter what you do, you can't please everyone."

Dude stop please, you're just skipping years of discussion, or rather, you just don't know yet do as if. Options to please all sides have already been discussed and proposed countless times over the last few years. There's no such distinction as 3 groups, or rather, only JP advocates for full healing. And if people ever wanted full healing/adjusted encounters, it was back during ARR/HW when it was fresh. Then it became evident that FFXIV was just not the game for that, and it's not built like that either.

Besides, you missed the mark entirely. People don't want "full dps rotations", they want more offensive options and alternatives. Sage like in pvp, scholar like what existed just a few years ago (which is nothing crazy to begin with).

[Kesmar]

Healer strike my ass, it's been nothing but tank in need