Sure I guess, but as a veteran that got robbed of the job I loved above everything else, I claim precedence. Sorry.
Not like we can't design accessible jobs with an optional higher depth and intricacies, but if you're unable to accept playing a job not to its fullest, then yes, it's gonna suck either way, because at some point I'm starting to suspect that a lot of players asking for "chiller" or "simpler" jobs to play are actually unable to accept the idea of not playing one at 100% in reality.
To go back to an example I find pretty striking in what we had in HW/SB tanking in particular: tank stances were mostly a defensive tool that helped just a little with aggro (you gained 20% mitigation which is what modern tank mastery does automatically, lost 20% damage output, and gained +70% aggro generation, which probably went down to 40-50% after the loss in damage), but most players in casual modes tanked in tank stance, in dungeons, everywhere, like they do today, and yet, good players and tryhards would go stanceless. Most people used tank stance because it was safe, and because it was easier, and yet they played sub-optimally.
HW DRK also added another layer of optional complexity over it: Darkside was a stance that made MP being drained constantly and disabled external MP support to gain +20% on damage. It was optimal to play the job with it, and yet half of the casual playerbase if not more didn't turn Darkside on because it was a layer of complexity they didn't want to deal with. Those DRKs were everywhere in casual content, and just on Grit they could do their tank job perfectly fine.
Remove mechanic vomit, bring back the Renauds. With more rng.