I'm bored when I heal because I need more complex DPS rotations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renathras

a complex DPS rotation.

If we're talking Savages (or even Extremes), that's irrelevant, since not doing enough DPS also leads to party wipes due to enrages.

---

You gotta stop saying 'a complex DPS rotation', nobody is proposing 'a complex DPS rotation', just a 'more complex one than we already have'. Going from 1 inch off the ground to 2 inches is not a massive distance, but it's still an increase in altitude. Saying 'complex DPS rotation' calls to mind, for a lot of people, the likes of BLM, MNK optimizations, NIN's burst window, etc. And what most people suggest for healers, especially WHM, is still much simpler than new-SMN.

As for enrages, if the healer doing their rotation wrong (but still doing damage GCDs, eg just spamming Glare) causes a wipe in an EX trial, there's bigger issues at hand. Like, they're tuned to be clearable with like 6-8 deaths (assuming you don't get body-checked). And in Savage, there's plenty of lenience built into the enrage timer to factor in the fact that the healers will be GCD healing a lot more in week 1. I lost like 30 GCDs to GCD healing in my first clear of P11S, in week 1, and spent all but FOUR of my Aetherflow on healing. Still a clear. This 'people will wipe because they do their healer damage rotation wrong' angle purposely ignores that 'there is lenience to enrages already', or that 'potency difference between filler spell and new additions can be tuned to be low-punishment', etc. Though, given what SE did with Abyssos, I guess I can see why there'd be skepticism regarding SE's ability to balance things. But I am not about to go hamstringing my ideas of what WHM could get, because 'what if SE is really bad at balancing potency numbers'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ASkellington

Here's where I think you're not understanding. Ignoring the backlash SMN got, you are right that the Caster role is diverse in complexity.

The problem is that said complexity doesn't not equal 2 buttons. SMN still has a simple rotation despite how many buttons you may need to press.

"Well SMN is a DPS" I hear you say. This is why I made the comparison between WAR and GNB. GNB has much more complexity to its rotation in comparison to WAR. It can still do the basic job of tanking as most of the buttons they press to mitigate are role actions, and the ones that differ, don't differ too much.

Healers can have a similar model where in they have a similar healing kit (as they do now) with minor differences with varying degrees of DPS complexity that isn't just primarily a DoT and a Nuke. So why then are we forced to just have 1 or 2 healers with 2 DPS buttons when it works for tanks just fine?

---

I mean, to be clear, I don't make any decisions about the actual design of this game. I'm not forcing anything on anyone. I'm simply talking about my ideals for the game's design, and that ideal is that as much as is possible within the limited scope of the game, I'd like everyone to have a class that they can comfortably play that matches their preferences and needs. I know it's never going to be perfect. Nobody is going to get exactly what they want. In that hypothetical vision, some people might have to choose between cards and more complex DPS. That's not a fun choice to make. I just think it's preferable to choosing between (type of DPS you dislike) and nothing.

I get the impression that the main thing we have different perspectives on is whether more than 2 DPS buttons is too much for some people. So I'll simply say this: if I'm wrong and it's not too much for anyone, then it's not something I'm opposed to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IDontPetLalas

Just going to chime in here

1. All healers stay basically exactly the same as they are now in Dawntrail; there are new abilities, and they're all new ways to heal that don't shift the game one way or the other. No as we already have many heals that aren't needed under many circumstances, so what is your reason for adding new healing skills? Why would this feel satisfying?

2. Two of the healing classes (including your healing main) are the same as what's written in 1, but the other two healing classes get all the changes you personally have wanted to see...they're just not in your current main. Again, not an option. How are you going to pick which ones to change? Will it be one pure and one barrier? If so, that could force someone into only one choice of pure and barrier healer. Or- maybe it's going to be the new healer (sage) and the least popular healer (AST). Well sucks if those happen to be your main healers.

Not really a viable approach. I am more allowing change to be introduced into all four healers so that the skill floor is forgiving but it allows someone who want to have more challenge, can have those options.

---

I agree, but the color you chose is kinda hard on the eyes to read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForsakenRoe

You gotta stop saying 'a complex DPS rotation',

---

Complex is relative. Everything you've proposed I consider complex. I've given you proposals that I consider mildly complex, and you and the others rebuffed those. So yes, "a complex DPS rotation". I gave you what would be a simple one and it was rejected. Most of the proposals people have made are more complex than SMN and WAR and PLD, meaning more complex than an actual DPS Job and than damage adjacent Jobs (Tanks hold agro by performing damage rotations). Again, I've proposed what would NOT be complex.

EDIT:

I'm also not the only one saying this or seeing the arguments from proponents of the DPS changes this way:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kacho_Nacho

Actually, that is what people are saying. Asking for a complex damage rotation is pushing healers further into the role of green dps, especially when players are saying they have nothing to do but spam two damage buttons. If you are a class primarily pushing damage buttons, what are you? It doesn't matter how many healing abilities you have on your toolbar, if you aren't using them.

So, the answer is to increase the number of damage spells healers cast? That makes no sense. Again, it is a tuning problem on the part of Square Enix and not an issue with what abilities healers have at their disposal. Changing the content is the solution to this issue.

The big white elephant in the room is we healers have been spoiled by the ease of the content, the potencies of our heals, the MSQ, and all the other challenges presented to us by Square Enix. That needs to be addressed before anyone starts changing healer damage rotations.

---

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ASkellington

I agree, but the color you chose is kinda hard on the eyes to read.

---

XD

I was thinking of posting that same thing. That light cyan on this background is kind of hard on the eyes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

If you change the tuning such that, say, we spend as much time healing then as we do dealing damage now, that's going to be outright oppressive to your less skilled healers and, by extension, their parties.

---

We're talking Savage content. Isn't it SUPPOSED to be difficult?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IDontPetLalas

Regarding that statement of "players only stay with a game if it hooks them emotionally" if you are going to apply that specifically to job and/or encounter design I don't see how you can or should treater all players as a monolithic block.

---

This I agree with, IDPL.

It's the very crux of the "4 Healers Model" argument, in fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IDontPetLalas

Just going to chime in here

1. All healers stay basically exactly the same as they are now in Dawntrail; there are new abilities, and they're all new ways to heal that don't shift the game one way or the other. No as we already have many heals that aren't needed under many circumstances, so what is your reason for adding new healing skills? Why would this feel satisfying?

2. Two of the healing classes (including your healing main) are the same as what's written in 1, but the other two healing classes get all the changes you personally have wanted to see...they're just not in your current main. Again, not an option. How are you going to pick which ones to change? Will it be one pure and one barrier? If so, that could force someone into only one choice of pure and barrier healer. Or- maybe it's going to be the new healer (sage) and the least popular healer (AST). Well sucks if those happen to be your main healers.

Not really a viable approach. I am more allowing change to be introduced into all four healers so that the skill floor is forgiving but it allows someone who want to have more challenge, can have those options.

---

With respect, could you re-read my question? I think you may have misunderstood it. Because the question was about choosing between two less than ideal situations, in an effort to better see from a different perspective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renathras

I'm also not the only one saying this or seeing the arguments from proponents of the DPS changes this way:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ASkellington

• They all do need a few extra dps buttons.
• Said dps buttons need to connect with their theme and kit.
• Encounter design needs to change - faster telegraphs, more unavoidable damage.
• Healer kits need to be gutted and redesigned with all four receiving clear healing and as mentioned before damaging identities akin to what they have in PvP (as in diverse and not the same as the other).
• MP sustain should come back and be a focus.

---

You missed that then.

Also I rebuffed your designs because of reasons different than "they aren't as complexed as I wanted".

The rotation is fine. I don't like the design of it.

Scholar: Give it all its DoT spells back.

Astrologian: Give us either its old HW card system or a better system where each card does more than build up damage and skill/spell speed.

White Mage: More Blood Lily related damage spells. Maybe an alternative use of the Blood Lily build up system where instead of using the free healing spells to build it up, it gives us free attack spells instead. I remember somewhere her mentioning an idea just like that. :)

Sage: More laser attacks. That is all, lol!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ASkellington

You missed that then.

---

None of that says "non-complex rotation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ASkellington

Also I rebuffed your designs because of reasons different than "they aren't as complexed as I wanted".

The rotation is fine. I don't like the design of it.

---

I mean, you kind of did. You said they weren't interesting or engaging to you, but I pointed out what you find engaging and interesting is what I find complex. Therefore, that would be because they aren't as complex as you wanted. I also noted that you aren't playing all four healer Jobs, meaning some should probably be designed for people who don't like what you do. Imagine if all the Casters were designed like SMN. That would leave the BLM players, in particular, out in the cold. You don't even have to go that far; all the healer Jobs RIGHT NOW are designed mainly for a 2 button damage type of player, and you can see the problem of them all being the same. The problem isn't they're simple/boring. The problem IS they're al IDENTICAL in their level of complexity.

There is no design everyone will like.

The objective should be insuring there is AT LEAST ONE design for every person. So you may like AST and I may like WHM. That's good, we both have something we like. If AST and WHM were both like WHM, that'd be bad because you'd have nothing, and if WHM and AST were both like AST, that'd also be bad because I'd have nothing.

The solution should be to mix and match it up so that everyone has something.

EDIT:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebazy

This is a big part of the puzzle for sure. For all it's jank, one thing 2.0 ARR absolutely nailed right out of the gate was it's progressive difficulty curve that steadily ramped up as you progressed through dungeons into the HM Primals and onto Coil. They even used to dungeons to introduce people to key primal mechanics. Genius design IMO.

---

Agreed.

There's now a massive gap between MSQ and Extremes. There are random bits of content that KIND of fit somewhere in there - deep dungeons, exploration zones, and 24 mans try to fit in there somewhere - but there's still a massive gap between casual content and the "midcore" Extremes. And this isn't just casual content has gotten easier; Extremes now are harder, there are a lot more body checks and tight timing mechanics with precise positioning more akin to Savage fights than there used to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vetch

Go spend more time on the healer forums then.

---

Right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ASkellington

I agree, but the color you chose is kinda hard on the eyes to read.

---

Apologies, thanks for letting me know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renathras

We're talking Savage content. Isn't it SUPPOSED to be difficult?

---

That was not strictly a constraint given in what I was responding to.

But sure, let's consider Savage under that condition you've quoted (flipping optimal %uptime spent DPSing with %uptime spent healing, such that the present scarcity of downtime complexity would actually be properly apportioned to its situation):

We already see a decent size range in GCD usage even under the extremely low healing requirements present right now. If we tuned Savage to require as much %uptime spent healing as is currently optimally spent DPSing (e.g., up to 100%), that leaves little to no room.

Given your complaints that as much as a single extra DoT of middling bonus potency-per-minute could overly stress out healers... that doesn't seem particularly feasible.


It's fine to make the healing requirements tougher. I suggested as much in the very sentence after what you chose to quote.

Increasing healing requirements so far that our current scarcity of downtime actions would actually make sense, though (e.g., Glare would then see only as much use as Cure II does now), would likely be overkill. It'd be better to provide some of that boost to engagement through downtime actions instead.