Can we delete Seraph, Dissipation, Excog and Sacred Soil? Some ideas on top of it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renathras

1) Trading damage for utility works well in games designed for that; FFXIV is not such a game. You see complaints all the time from PLD's that they seldom/never use their utility buttons because there just aren't cases that call for them. Guard is an amazing thematic and potentially gameplay ability...that is almost never used. BECAUSE FFXIV fights are based around doing damage and beating enerages (the entire crux of the "all Jobs are DPSers" argument), utility that DOES NOT increase damage is seen as less preferable to just bringing more damage. We've already seen this be a concern in FFXIV's past.

---

This goes back to fights being rather bland and safe in some ways compared to what we used to have. By Guard I assume you mean Cover? Go back to the ARR-SB era and you'll find Cover had a ton more use. In O4S it was an absolute saver and I couldn't begin to tell you how many times I was bailed out of an imminent death by it. That's not the case anymore because A) Bosses do so few tank busters anymore, B) Tanks almost never struggle for agro and I can't remember the last time I saw an enmity reset mechanic & C) Tanks don't have a penalty for generating agro anymore. In many ways Cover is the tank version of Fluid Aura, a relic of the past for situations that rarely ever spring up in modern content. PLDs didn't complain about it back then because it used to bring genuine value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renathras

2) It's not an issue right now so much BECAUSE it doesn't exist right now so much. If you look at damage within roles, the spread is pretty narrow. The highest DPSer in the game nly does about 3% more damage than the lowest DPSer. Tanks and healers are even more compact than that. The disparity between a WAR and DRK's damage is pretty low. It does exist, yes, but it's VERY minimal, and its self-healing means healers can do more DPS to make up for it slightly anyway. And we have had situations where Jobs doing a few % less than the overall creates a situation where they've been blacklisted.

---

Eehhh, it's a good bit more than 3%. In pug content where you can't guarantee value from buffs the gap is huge, Dancer is somewhere around 25% upwards behind the likes of Samurai. At the opposite end of the spectrum, in organised high end play, MCH peaks about 13% behind NIN's peak raid rDPS output. Granted, tanks are indeed generally much closer (Although again, DRK's burst damage cannot be underestimated here) but healers are highly dependant on organised play for their damage to even out. An AST in a messy pug where the DPS aren't getting value from Divination and cards is going to be some 20% behind a Sage or WHM.

I genuinely think you're just overblowing the manner in which the community will treat jobs that are behind the curve. Sure they won't be preferable but blacklisted? Meh, the last time I remember routinely seeing jobs entirely locked out of PFs was WHM during Creator, AST befell a similar fate during Gordias and in both cases it was arguably warranted as they were both significantly undertuned relative to the competition (WHM just ran out of MP far too easy in Creator, AST ran a knife edge of barely having enough throughput in Gordias with no way to catch back up if they fell behind).

In typically pugged content the composition really doesn't matter (As is handily demonstrated by the variety of comedy comps that can clear even early Savage turns nowadays) and if a static is specifically trying to get a precise flavour of the month comp above just getting people that are decent and reliable then they are either pushing for speed runs or more likely a group that's best avoided.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renathras

So these do seem to be issues that can't be ignored, and that is what this opinion is based on.

---

It's still just roundabout conjecture though no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renathras

The rest of its kit just WORKS

---

Listen Todd Howard, just because something works does NOT make it fun. If anything, it just highlights how awful the healer role in general is when you have to settle for FUNctional instead of actually being fun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver-Strider

Listen Todd Howard, just because something works does NOT make it fun. If anything, it just highlights how awful the healer role in general is when you have to settle for FUNctional instead of actually being fun

---

I mean, I find it FUN as well as working. But, again, the argument is "If we make 3 healers complex leaving 1 alone for people that like present healing, why is this unacceptable/bad?" That is, if we're giving people that want complex healers THREE OF THEM, why must they have ALL FOUR?

I've yet to see an actual argument against this that isn't subjective "Well, _I_ think that would be boring; implying EVERYONE would find it boring and thus we have to change it or no one would play it because it would be boring".

No one says the part after the semi-colon, probably because we all know it isn't true. It's more likely a LOT of people like simple and would play it, thus making the argument everyone wants complex out as a lie (we'd actually see really quickly how many healers prefer simple vs how many want complex, and I'm QUITE confident at least 25% would pick simple, and probably closer to 50%...are you convinced that everyone would gravitate to the complex and abandon the simple, really?), ripping away the fog of uncertainty about which style is preferred. We'd also see the people that prefer simple still able to clear current content.

EDIT:

The second argument is "Well, MY favorite healer is the one that would stay simple, so _I_ would still be bored; so screw all the people on the other healers that like simple AND on my healer that like simple - everyone should be forced to change to suit me and how dare I have to swap healers even if I'm asking all 4 of the healers' simple players to swap away from healing or completely change how they play."

Needless to say, that's selfish AND unfair. It's replacing one group of people who are miserable (people who want complexity) with another (people who want simple), and that latter group is VERY LIKELY the larger group. It's also rejecting the actual compromise position that could maximize the amount of people who are happy, or at least content.

I don't want to play psychic, but I'm starting to wonder if the "I'm board/want complex/healing is boring" is just a mask for "I'm an elitist and want other people to not be able to clear MY content". Thus far, I've stubbornly been giving people the benefit of the doubt and NOT assuming that, btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebazy

This goes back to fights being rather bland and safe in some ways compared to what we used to have...

---

Agreed, but as many have noted, I've advocated for, and people here have opposed; that would require changing how fights are designed going forward to make that utility/healing worth it. And it carries the risk of some utility Jobs being too powerful. If PLD is the only Job with Cover, and there's some mechanic where you REALLY need Cover, that means the other tanks are less desirable for the content. On the other hand, if the content doesn't NEED Cover, and Cover isn't so useful you trade damage for it, then you take DRK/GNB instead.

Quote:

---

Eehhh, it's a good bit more than 3%...

---

I'll have to check again, but the max parses were close the last time I looked, and the averages, too. And for healers and tanks, the gap is even more narrow in terms of party-wide DPS.

Quote:

---

I genuinely think you're just overblowing the manner in which the community will treat jobs that are behind the curve...

---

This community literally rejected SAMs, as a matter of course, from most PF groups in SB. Today, MCH's have trouble finding Statics. I don't mean "Blacklisted from their friends list", I mean "have some major difficulty getting into groups/statics."

This community has done that in the past and IS doing it in the present. I'm not sure using past AND PRESENT actions to project what would likely happen were we to adopt such a change is foolish. I'd argue NOT doing so would be more divorced from reality. If you're making a statistical prediction, you use past and present statistical information to inform that prediction, do you not? I'm doing the same here. You can argue over the magnitude, but not the fact that it has happened, IS happening, and would likely happen again. Even if the magnitude is less than my concern/prediction/projection, I think we should be able to agree it would still likely happen...and I'd hope we can agree that would be kind of a negative thing.

And yes, it doesn't matter - but as I've said before, the meta informs people even running content where it's completely irrelevant. Why? Well...because people are kinda lazy. If a meta tells them X Job is subpar, they don't often go into the fine print and of specific comps, content, etc. They just go "Oh, that Job is trash. Yeah, let's not allow it in our PF group/static." You seem like an intelligent person, so I think you should be able to draw the same inference here. Again, you can argue magnitude, but you can't insist a thing won't happen that both has happened and is happening.

Quote:

---

It's still just roundabout conjecture though no?

---

Now you're reaching.

You asked what it was based on. I told you what it was based on. What it was based on seems to be reasonable, and I'll note you didn't contest that the conjecture and its basis ARE reasonable. Insisting on the technicality that it is still conjecture is not a rebuttal if you aren't able to argue cogently against the conjecture, its basis, or its conclusion. The contra position that it WON'T happen is ALSO still "just … conjecture".

It's also not "roundabout". It's a rational prediction based on existing data. It's DIRECT conjecture, not ROUNDABOUT conjecture, thank you very much. :)

EDIT:

Putting this here because of daily limit, will try to remember to make a new post for it later...or not:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Depending on how that complexity is granted (i.e., as to factor more into the job's ceiling than floor), any player who doesn't want a complex kit already has their wish fulfilled: they can just use less of the kit.

---

Not while still clearing content.

Quote:

---

Given that even the hardest content in the game can be either solo-healed

---

ONE PLAYER in an elite group managing to do a thing with a flawless team does not reflect the normal game experience.

Quote:

---

Which is more complex, MNK or SAM? BRD or DNC? DRG or RDM? You might be able to come to an answer to each based on your personal warrants, but would others arrive at the same conclusions?

---

Yet SMN is the least complex, and I don't think you will find one person arguing otherwise.

Quote:

---

That's what you're leaving out here: Complexity is differently perceived by different people.

---

This is true, but also applies to your own position. Guaranteed there are some people playing FFXIV right now that feel WHM is complex and nuanced as-is

Quote:

---

Giving each job more to work with is not going to force them to be themed around being complex for the sake of being complex;

---

If the purpose of adding it IS to make them complex, then yes, it is.

Quote:

---

it merely allows them the ability to distinguish themselves

---

I'm confused, is the argument that people wanting complexity are bored or that people wanting complexity want to stand out and look down their noses at their inferiors? These are two VERY different things...

Quote:

---

Find me the players who specifically want their kit to literally look like...

---

/raises hand

And I'm not alone.

Quote:

---

That seems like a combination of projection and a false ultimatum. There is no requirement that WHM, must remain unchanged for the others to receive positive changes. Improvements to most are not thus dependent on ritual sacrifice of one.

---

FIRST: They aren't "positive changes". They're positive TO YOU because YOU LIKE complex. The same argument you made about comparing Jobs above applies - did RDM or DRG get positive changes in EW? Depends on who you ask...

SECOND: It IS an ultimatum. This is the system we have now. You are wanting it to change. It is incumbent on you to (a) prove the change is worthwhile, (b) make accommodations for those not wanting the change, and (c) come up with some compromise if your system isn't palatable to everyone.

Not only that, your OWN position is an ultimatum - change ALL the healers...or else!

And as for where you underlined "over" in "overcomplicate"; I used that term specifically to counter your use of "boring", "bland", etc. See how it feels when people use biased terms opposing your view? I'm sure you don't understand, but I'm trying to get you to see there's another side.

Quote:

---

Spare us the blasé and strawmanned moralizing?

---

Says the person insisting on a caricature? This is exactly what you're doing when you refuse to allow ANY healer to stay as it is. I fear this is a "if the shoe fits..." reaction on your part.

.

You completely ignored my saying I DO want you to be happy and explaining to you WHY we should have a "ritual sacrifice" of one. I'll also note you ignored my argument entirely on that matter, the only way you at all acknowledged it was to hand-wave it away as "you can just be bad" as if that's a legitimate counter to making content unplayable to a segment of the playerbase, and ignored my question related to that:

Quote:

---

That would mean I would lose the Job I like best, but I'm willing to give that up so people like you can be happy. All I ask is that ONE Job be one that I can play on and be happy.

...and you would deny me even that. ... Do you not see how that's a bad thing?

---

Is it fair to assume you DON'T care if anyone else is happy and DON'T WANT people like me to be happy? Do you see how that's selfish and cruel of you and not at all moderate, sober minded, nor a compromise?

I've appealed to you with reason.
I've appealed to you with compassion.
I've appealed to you with compromise.

Yet you've rejected them all, often ignore or caricature my positions, and refuse even a token compromise beyond "Well, you can just be bad under the new system", which is NOT a compromise of any kind.

I know of no further appeal to make if heart, argument, and reason have all failed. So I will just say this and then yield the floor:

Right now, you get NOTHING that you want.

Under my proposal, you'd get SOMETHING you want.

You're rejecting SOMETHING because it's not EVERYTHING, and so you're likely to get NOTHING.

I don't want you to get NOTHING, but your stubborn insistence on EVERYTHING makes it hard for me to even argue you should get SOMETHING.

I'd encourage you to consider compromise and...be less selfish. But I can see my appeals are falling on deaf ears, so I'll let other readers decide what they want and just move on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renathras

But are we going to pretend that every AST, SCH, and SGE wants a complex kit?

---

Depending on how that complexity is granted (i.e., as to factor more into the job's ceiling than floor), any player who doesn't want a complex kit already has their wish fulfilled: they can just use less of the kit.

Given that even the hardest content in the game can be either solo-healed or healed without using GCDs (other than the occasional ReciAdloDeployment), it's not as if the average player in average content is forced to use the whole kit or face inevitable defeat.

Quote:

---

If we make all the healers more complex, EVERYONE who likes simple loses. If we leave healers as they are, EVERYONE who likes complex loses.

---

Which is more complex, MNK or SAM? BRD or DNC? DRG or RDM? You might be able to come to an answer to each based on your personal warrants, but would others arrive at the same conclusions?

That's what you're leaving out here: Complexity is differently perceived by different people. And I'm not talking about just the sum or gestalt, but also the individual parts and systems. The thing is, though, you cannot much differentiate those parts and systems, let alone how they influence that gestalt such that each job is different enough that like parts are differently received based on the different systems into which they fit or like systems feel differently due to the others that surround them... without a decent number of parts, systems, and interactions in the first place.

Giving each job more to work with is not going to force them to be themed around being complex for the sake of being complex; it merely allows them the ability to distinguish themselves and really buy into their job fantasies and zones of attraction. Having the means to have those jobs --real, fleshed-out job-- that are especially likely to resonate each with a portion of players requires some base of complexity beyond the role templates we follow now.

Quote:

---

Because then you're robbing the option from people who DON'T want that.

---

Find me the players who specifically want their kit to literally look like...

• ST spammable attack.
• ST DoT
• AoE spammable attack
• ST spammable heal
• AoE spammable heal
• Short-CD ST heal
• Mid-CD ST heal
• Long-CD ST heal
• AoE spammable heal
• Short-CD AoE heal
• Mid-CD AoE heal
• Long-CD AoE heal
• ST spammable HoT
• AoE CD HoT
• Raid defensive
• Heal bonus percentile
• Heal bonus flat

...and where one's interactions/idiosyncracies are at most that, say, the short-CDs build their potency-refunds retroactively (affects all of 2 of the base components)... and you may have a point. Short of that? Unlikely.

Quote:

---

It's not "let's revitalize 3 healers OR all 4 healers?", it's "let's overcomplicate 3 healers OR leave ALL FOUR healers as they are today".

---

That seems like a combination of projection and a false ultimatum. There is no requirement that WHM, must remain unchanged for the others to receive positive changes. Improvements to most are not thus dependent on ritual sacrifice of one.

There is no content in this game, even Ultimate, that truly requires one to make use of every part of even our current, shallow kits; why presume then that the skill floor would be so raised if jobs were given more to play around with and to distinguish themselves that one job would have to be left behind, dull and dusty?

Additionally, find me this supposed group who wants to require a galaxy-brain understanding of one's kit just for modicum of play or any gleeful begging for convolution itself? Otherwise, the idea that any tools, features, or interactions added to our jobs to better take advantage of the modern climate --i.e., this game's refusal to make content require more than a fifth of a healer's maximal healing-- would necessarily result in "overcomplicated" jobs seems mere projection.

Quote:

---

But the problem comes when nothing is enough for you but having EVERYTHING. Where someone offers you a Lamborghini... but you refuse and insist that we give you a Lambo AND a Porsche AND a Viper and a McLaren...

---

Spare us the blasé and strawmanned moralizing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renathras

I mean, I find it FUN as well as working. But, again, the argument is "If we make 3 healers complex leaving 1 alone for people that like present healing, why is this unacceptable/bad?" That is, if we're giving people that want complex healers THREE OF THEM, why must they have ALL FOUR?

I've yet to see an actual argument against this that isn't subjective "Well, _I_ think that would be boring; implying EVERYONE would find it boring and thus we have to change it or no one would play it because it would be boring".

---

The inverse is also true. What's the counter argument against making all 4 healers complex other than "I enjoy it as it is"? All we have are assumptions and no real data to support either argument.

What we have seen though is the Instant Healer queue for most Duty Finder Content and longer than average queue times for other roles waiting for healers. If the "allegedly" larger group of people are fine with healers as they are, why is the queue time for content getting worse? Because that group doesn't main healers. They jump on it periodically to rush thru normal content and don't touch the jobs outside of that. Sure, there's probably a minority of those people in that group that actually enjoy healers as they are and actively main the role but then you have the jaded healer mains that are so disgusted with the role they've stopped with it entirely and considering that the queues are getting worse, I feel that they might have been the majority after all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renathras

FIRST: They aren't "positive changes". They're positive TO YOU because YOU LIKE complex. The same argument you made about comparing Jobs above applies - did RDM or DRG get positive changes in EW? Depends on who you ask...

---

We've established already that preferences are subjective. By "positive" I am speaking specifically of a kit's ability --by being allowed a few more tools, features, systems, interactions, or what have you-- to appeal to those preferences by being allowed more than a mere single interaction, a couple traded-abouts, and a couple further idiosyncrasies (mostly unique constraints/weaknesses) beyond just a shared base kit.

Quote:

---

SECOND: It IS an ultimatum. This is the system we have now. You are wanting it to change. It is incumbent on you to (a) prove the change is worthwhile, (b) make accommodations for those not wanting the change, and (c) come up with some compromise if your system isn't palatable to everyone.

---

That is neither quite the same goalpost nor the same topical bounds.

But, so be it. Let's take an example. The vast majority of SAMs who have expressed their opinions here and across Reddit have suggested that the existing SAM be reverted to its 6.08 state. Already, that reversion would nonetheless be a change. By your rules, though, they have to somehow compromise to the 2% or so who found Kaiten to difficult or burdensome to use and thus did not, until recently, play SAM anyways.

That existing state is considered by both the majority of long-term invested players of the job and even the current majority of the class's players to be inferior to another. Why should a minority opinion hold a majority stake in any discussion just for having had lucked out from a dice-roll that negatively affected all others? Why should there be such an incumbent advantage to the detriment of most players?

The same applies, too, to healers. Until Shadowbringer, spending 95% of GCDs on a single button was not the norm. Until Shadowbringers, having near-perfect offensive uptime outside of Ultimate and perhaps Savage prog (not even farm, mind you) was not the norm. Changing away from that by increasingly babying the role's skill floor, pruning the portion of actions that, inadvertently, the prior decision had magnified, and generally increasing homogeneity among healers were not popularly considered good changes.

Yet, likewise, since you lucked out by getting the most out of ill-warranted and ill-received changes, at others' expense, you feign that it is now only common sense and necessity that all capitulate to and compromise for your smaller position on the mere basis that anything else would be a "change," even if it be primarily a reversion.

Quote:

---

You're rejecting SOMETHING because it's not EVERYTHING, and so you're likely to get NOTHING.

---

No, I simply rejected your ultimatum because, again, one does not need to reduce everyone else to the shallow level of kit they are willing to engage with to still engage with only a shallow level of kit and nonetheless get by in the game. There is therefore no need to sacrifice a whole job to those either Sylphies or those who'd be overwhelmed pressing more than a couple GCD buttons. Both can get by just fine among less constrained kits, just as they did before.

The only points of contention, ultimately, are Ultimate and very particular Savage fights. If your insistence is that there must be allowance for whatever group who wants to put in less effort for the same result no matter the content's level, then by all means, bring your vote accordingly, and those who'd rather healers had more to do --and could care less for that group's entitlement-- will do the same in turn. Let the vote decide; don't rely solely on incumbent advantage to suppress a contrary position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver-Strider

The inverse is also true. What's the counter argument against making all 4 healers complex other than "I enjoy it as it is"? All we have are assumptions and no real data to support either argument...

---

Wait what?

No.

The inverse argument would be "Why don't we have 3 simple healer and allow at least ONE to be complex?"

And I've already said I 100% agree that's a valid question, which is why _I_ am perfectly content with not only one, but THREE of them being complex.

/facepalm
/rubface

The counter argument against making all 4 healers complex I've made over and over again:

Some people like simple healers and would be alienated and likely unable to clear content if all four were made complex, thus foreclosing significant parts of the game from many members of the playerbase. I've literally made this argument over and over again in probably the majority of my posts here. I've PRESENTED an argument other than "I enjoy it as it is".

NUMEROUS TIMES.

If you're replying to my posts, SURELY you've READ THEM before hitting that reply button? So you should know I've ALREADY made that argument. I can yet again, if you wish?

EDIT:

In my DC (Primal), healers are the first slots fully filled up in PF. I've had to start my own parties or catch a party RIGHT when it forms because the healers slots are full, often before the DPS ones and always before the tank ones are.

My tank ques are instant. The instant que for 24 mans is almost always DPS. The que times aren't "getting worse". At this moment, AiN on my DC is Tank for everything other than Guildhests.

GUILDHESTS are the only thing that has Healer as AiN/instant que right this moment on Primal.

Does this mean you AREN'T the majority after all?

.

Besides which, have you even looked at the argument you're attacking?

Suppose 75% - three quarters - of healers, a VAST majority by any stretch, want healers to be complex.

...giving you 3 out of 4 healers is 75%. So what is your argument for getting the other 25%, exactly?

.

This is what I mean.

You guys don't have an actual argument for making all four healers complex other than "No one can enjoy simple" and/or "Well, _I_ want them to all be complex" and/or "They can still do all NORMAL MODE content being bad".

There's yet to be a reason given for making all four complex. Not one of you have articulated why leaving ONE healer simple is bad, unacceptable, etc other than "Well, some people main that healer because of its aesthetic and want it to be complex", but if we use that argument, then ALL FOUR HEALERS have some people on them that main them because of their aesthetic and want them to be simple, so we cannot use that metric since it can be used just as well by both sides.

.

Oh hey, DPS is now 24 man AiN and healers now have Trials in addition to Guildhests. SURELY this is indicative of a massive sea change and exodus of healers, right?? /sarcasm

...sigh.

Sorry, I don't mean to be sarcastic and snippy, but you clearly didn't even read my post and aren't arguing facts or reason or...anything. If you think the inverse of 1/3 is 4/0, I'm not sure how to reach you with logic. That certainly makes no sense with math.

.

I'd like to hope there's ONE sane, reasonable, pragmatic person on the complex side, but you guys aren't giving me a lot of hope...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renathras

I'd like to hope there's ONE sane, reasonable, pragmatic person on the complex side, but you guys aren't giving me a lot of hope...

---

not everyone is going to agree with you on everything, and thats fine. disagreeing doesnt mean someone is being unreasonable or unpractical or insane. i have disagreed with many people "on my side" (whatever that means) because we are literally different people. theres no need to proselityze your point. theres a difference between discussing things and convincing others. (i do think most people overall need better rhethorical skills but thats neither here or there...)

even if i agree with you that there should be a spectrum of simple<->complex where healers are placed differently, i dont agree that the bottom line should be so abysmally low. im sure everyone has their own reasons for wanting whm to get even a little bit more to it than what it has right now. i believe things can be simple without being shallow. things can be simple in one thing but more complex in another (eg: simple in execution, complex in planning, etc). i know that jobs can have depth that everyone dont need to know or care about to clear even the hardest content outside of literally week1 prog. people liked whm in SB cuz it was simple, they liked it in ShB cuz it was simple, they like it now cuz it is simple. clearly theres a threshold that people who like simple things are willing to accept. now why do i think being shallow by design is problematic?

- jobs need to grow in every new expansion. how do you add anything to whm as-is without making it more complex? i dont think its practical to keep the bar is so dreadfully low, because then almost anything counts as "technically more complex" but not necessarily in any way that would realistically inconvenience players who like things simple. (we go back to the beginning...) if what you like is a low skill count, whm can still have traits and modal buttons to give it a little more without overwhelming players with too many actions like the other healers do.

- if whm stayed simple in execution, it should at least have SOME nuance for planning and synergy. planning heals is a 2 player duty, so whm being so shallow does in fact negatively affect their cohealer. i find planning and coordinating healing with my cohealer fun, but whm has so little going for it that theres barely anything to plan. it has One instance of mitigation every 2 minutes, the only other thing it can help with is asylum for boosting shields. thats literally it, and it rather use lilies on downtime too so thats even less it can help in actual healing. and in uncoordinated groups whm quite literally relies on everyone else doing things right because it can barely contribute on their own.

- despite me loving intricate jobs and minmaxing, i like simple jobs too!!! i liked using whm (now sge) in expert roulettes when i did not want to think or bother with astros cards. and yet there is still a gap between "so simple its utterly braindead and i might as well have a macro that presses holy 10 times" and "simple enough i dont have to worry but still keeps me awake". having a little more to work with can make things less monotonous, and if i seriously cant be bothered at that moment, thats fine too. theres way worse players out there for anyone to chatsize a healer doing slightly sub-optimal damage.
tangentially: warrior is pretty chill in dungeons. if im distracted or lazy and accidentally break my combo or overcap gauge... literally who cares? but if i feel like actually using my brain in a roulette theres still a bit more to keep me entertained. current healers do not. i sure can go down by literally not pressing buttons, but i cant go up.

- finally i sympathise with people who like whm and dont want to be relegated to babbys first healer. and that doesnt necessarily mean current or past whms only. i think having a bit of room to grow is healthy for the mains of any job. and again, there can be depth that most players do not notice, but can still be there for people who want something more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renathras

Snip

---

Some people liked HW DRK when they could spam Abyssal Drain to endlessly heal themselves.
Some people liked Kaiten because it gave SAM's Kenki Gauge an actual purpose.
Some people liked Trick Attack on a 1 minute timer because it was unique from all the 2 minute CDs

SE has alienated all these people and more with their constant design shifts over the years. WHM was always a simple job before the removal of so many of its old skills but it still had some level of depth with Cleric Stance, managing 2 DoTs instead of 1, having to actually utilize its GCD heals effectively because of MP management, etc. and it has all been stripped away from the job to a point that it now fails to teach new healers how to properly heal effectively because the first 50+ levels of the job run counter intuitive to how the job plays at max level. Why are so many of WHM's most important skills backloaded now as opposed to before in ARR?

Why were Stoneskin, Divine Seal, Fluid Aura and Protect taken away JUST to be reintroduced as Divine Benison, Temperance, Assize and Aqua Veil post level 50? Could they not all be returned as low level versions and upgraded as you level?
Why can't Aero 3, and AoE DoTs in general for all Healers, return? If Healers can manage 1 Nuke/1 DoT, why doesn't the AoE "Rotation" follow suit?
What's wrong with having more synergy within our toolkits? Why can't Tetra grant a Lily upon usage and why can't Regen/Medica 2 have a proc akin to BLM's Thundercloud for Aero/Dia spells?
Why are Afflatus Solace and Rapture post level 50 skills when they're literally just instant cast versions of Cure 2 and Medica, skills we have by level 30?
Why does Freecure still exist when it should simply upgrade Cure 1 into Cure 2?

Would making adjustments to accommodate these changes suddenly make WHM too complicated? NO. You can have a simple design but there's a difference between simple and braindead.

If I could redesign WHM while keeping its simple premise, here's what I would do.

At levels 15/20/25, I would return Fluid Aqua, Protect and Stoneskin as low level versions of Assize, Aqua Veil and Divine Benison.
I would make Cure 1 cost 700 MP and when I unlocked the Freecure trait at level 28, Cure 1 upgrades into Cure 2 for the same MP cost.
Since level 30 is now free from Cure 2, let's move Regen here as the final CNJ skill we learn and have it come with the Thundercloud proc trait by default.
Upon unlocking WHM, we also unlock the Lily System at level 30, so let's introduce Solace AND Rapture at this time. Presence of Mind can be moved back to level 35 since Regen got moved down.
At level 40, we unlock Cure 3 and Divine Seal (much like it was in ARR when Cure 3 was a CNJ skill while Divine Seal was a WHM skill).
Aero 2 is changed into an AoE DoT instead of just an upgrade to Aero 1.

So by level 50, nothing really changes with WHM other than some much needed QoL.
You're MP economy is pretty much fixed with Lucid, Fluid Aura, Solace and Rapture being available, to say nothing of having Protect, Stoneskin and Divine Seal offering more utility to help you perform your job better.
You have 1 Nuke/DoT for both your ST and AoE Rotations
Regen and Medica 2 have the Thundercloud Proc effect that leaves them feeling mildly more useful to utilize.
Cure 1 is no longer a button to allow Aero 2 to be its own thing without increasing button bloat.

The only changes for HW related content would be to move Tetra down to level 58 and make Afflatus Misery the level 60 capstone skill (but at a different potency because its current potency is kind of ridiculous for that level)

Don’t understand this complex idea people keep mentioning aren’t all dps classes more complex than every healer? Aren’t tanks more complex than every healer? So why do those jobs get engaging rotations with synergistic kits while we get nothing like that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glamazon

Don’t understand this complex idea people keep mentioning aren’t all dps classes more complex than every healer? Aren’t tanks more complex than every healer? So why do those jobs get engaging rotations with synergistic kits while we get nothing like that.

---

because supposedly healing once or twice a minute occupies your entire head space

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QooEr

not everyone is going to agree with you on everything

---

And I'm not asking people to. My position itself is the compromise position. The hard-line simple position would be "ALL FOUR remain simple, end of story!" (which, let's be honest, is probably the Dev position right now anyway). That's the extreme position on the simple side. Asking for 1 our of 4 and giving 3 out of 4 to the complex side of things is hardly a hard-line position.

And my issue isn't people not agreeing with me. My issue is people arguing a position ignoring facts and anything and everything I'm saying. If you couldn't tell reading that post, I'm replying to a person who says the opposite of 3/1 is 0/4. And even if it was, I already made an argument for why that position, 0 simple 4 complex, is bad - several times - anyway. Including, I think, in the post they replied to.

I'm frustrated with people having a position and being unable to defend it, instead only attacking the hard-line position they oppose, which is (a) a position I haven't argued for to begin with (thus they're ignoring/talking over my argument/making a caricature or straw man of it) and (b) in the very post they've replied to, implying they didn't bother to actually even read my argument to begin with, which explains why they don't understand where I already addressed it.

EDIT:


So please, don't make a caricature here, either: I'm not saying people aren't being rational because they disagree with me. I'm saying they're not being rational because they aren't addressing arguments presented and are making fallacious (straw man is a logical fallacy) arguments in lieu of actual ones.

I SUSPECT it's because there really isn't a great argument for not leaving ONE healer as simple. Or not a particular good one other than "Well...I don't think any should be THAT simple", which is a subjective position with little basis. Your own argument seems to be that you believe Jobs should allow depth to grow in and master, but current healers already DO this - learning your kit and becoming familiar with your abilities allows you to maximize GCD use on attacks by leveraging your oGCD heals (and in the case of WHM, Lilies). Growth already DOES exist in the present model. And having 3 healers more complex allows people that strive for and enjoy that kind of game play multiple options. And if you're comparing WHM to the past; at most, it has ever had 2 more DoTs, with one being mainly for AOE (and yes, I would like Aero 3 back, personally), but we also didn't have Lilies/Misery back then, either, or half our oGCD healing kit. Moreover, even if we discount that, that's a subjective position - you've not given a great reason for WHY it's needed, only your belief that it IS needed. Moreover, with THREE OTHER OPTIONS that do allow that, you've not given a reason why ONE that does not is a negative.

How to add to WHM? Add a charge to Assize, add a trait to Glare/Holy or Lily spenders (either is fine by me) that reduces Assize's CD by X seconds (allowing you to "build up" faster and rewarding damage with a nice burst of healing/damage) or, alternatively, to build up additional Blood Lily charges (that's more complex since it's a 1-2-3 charge system and you'd probably want a lot more gradient there for Glare to contribute), have Presence of Mind OR Thin Air trigger "High Glare/High Holy" to cast when used (think WAR with Infuriate + Fell Cleave/Orogeny turning them into the Chaos versions), and add "Afflatus X" (Afflatus Sanctuary or Afflatus Exuberance) Lily ability that gives a shield or damage mitigation (Sanctuary) or a Lily spender version of Medica 2, possibly with a 30 sec or 60 sec CD (like how Indom/Ixo have a 30 sec CD in addition to their resource cost). Probably the Medica 2 one and they can add the shield/damage mitigation one in 8.0. And, obviously, Dia 2. I honestly think Plenary should be reworked since it's kind of a meh spell right now. Something like "gives 2 charges, lasts 10 seconds" and the charges could be what we use for High Glare/Holy/Cure (Cure IV?). I'm generally iffy about making a healing resource compete with offensive power, but in this case...no one uses Plenary anyway as it is, so why not get it to flex its muscles and pull double duty? If we don't like Assize/Misery more often, then we could have Glare/Holy casts lower the CD on Plenary by 5 sec and make it work that way instead.

Bam! I've given you several new abilities for WHM to learn as they level to give that leveling experience, I've given you a new Lily spender to double down on that Job identity of being a "GCD healer...that uses Lilies to be DPS neutral instead of punished" by giving you some more Lily options, and made a new single and AOE cast spell that interacts with their kit to make it feel less stale. And all of the above - even if we did ALL of it at once - wouldn't really change their rotation much. You might be using Assize a bit more often and you would get more bang with the High spells out of using Thin Air/Presence of Mind/Plenary Indulgence (whichever we wanted to tie it to), and the second charge on Assize would give burst options as well as allow the WHM to hold onto 1 charge for upcoming mechanics, thus allowing it to be used more strategically.

This gives it a bit of nuance (roughly like WAR among Tanks), while maintaining almost entirely the present playstyle and general hotbar economy - the only new addition outright would be the new Afflatus spell.

Though, honestly, they tend to take away abilities before giving ones these days. And another option is simply having abilities upgrade to new forms (like Stone/Glare already does)

But this doesn't change the fact that if we have 3 healers that have high complexity (which is the argument), or 2 high and 1 medium (creating a spectrum), it's fine for one NOT to follow suit. And so far, no one has given a really good reason otherwise other than the subjective "Well, I think there needs to be...", which also doesn't address the potential for alienating existing healers into abandoning the role entirely.

So I'm clear and not making a straw man myself, I see your points as:

1) We need to futureproof - new expansions need to be able to add new abilities. I've shown why that isn't a concern.

2) Even a simple healer MUST have nuance otherwise they cannot plan healing strategy with co-healers. But as I've pointed out, even WHM (and all the rest) already have nuance IN THEIR HEALING KITS, meaning this is already possible.

3 & 4 (they're basically the same point) That you and some others like more nuance and complexity. But this isn't a valid argument when we're talking about making ALL THE OTHER THREE healers more complex and ONLY leaving WHM alone. As you point out, you can swap to AST right now when you want a challenge and WHM when you want to take it easy. What you're saying is you want to rob that latter option from people. If we were arguing over leaving all the other three healers simple and making ONLY WHM complex, then this argument would be valid. Right now, we're not arguing that. We're arguing about making the other three all complex in various ways and leaving WHM simple. So these to don't even apply. Especially as you're arguing to do to people who like simple the thing you dislike being done to you...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver-Strider

Some people liked HW DRK when they could spam Abyssal Drain to endlessly heal themselves.
Some people liked Kaiten because it gave SAM's Kenki Gauge an actual purpose.
Some people liked Trick Attack on a 1 minute timer because it was unique from all the 2 minute CDs

---

And do you feel it was a good thing for those changes to be made to them, forced on them? And even there, there are other tanks and other melees to play, you're demanding ALL healers change so there is no similar parity option.

SE has alienated those people, absolutely.

...so why are you advocating for MORE alienation, exactly, when you know it's a bad thing?

Cleric NEVER WAS and NEVER WILL BE "depth". It was a clunky, janky mechanic and good riddance to it. People who actually played with it and looked at the game as a whole have long generally agreed it was a garbage skill, and that's why people were ASKING FOR ITS REMOVAL at the time. This is an argument I will NEVER accept because it was never true. SCHOLAR had some nuance with Cleric because Lustrate healed based on % Health. WHM never had that. It was "turn on, use DoTs, turn off, heal, turn on, use dots..." which required no brain power and was just clunky and obnoxious. That spell dying was one of the best things that ever happened to healers in FFXIV. At least, to WHM.

Outside of that, all WHM lost were two DoTs, and this was made up for largely by the additions to its kit since then.

I DO agree that I'd like to see Stoneskin, Protect, etc added as lower level spells that upgrade. THAT would make sense. I would place Cure 1/2 at 500 MP. AST has the more MP efficient AOE heals, so why not make WHM's niche that they have the more MP efficient single target ones? 700 MP Cure 1 might cause problems in lower level content where that's literally the only spell you have and tanks don't have good CDs yet.

And I do miss Aero 3. I HATE DOTs and cannot, for the life of me, understand why you people are all so infatuated with the damn things - and EVERY HEALER HAS THEM! It's one of the few things I REALLY hate about FFXIV. But I wouldn't mind Aero 3 and Miasma 2 being back in the game. We DO NOT need a second DoT. One is sufficient. And if we got Aero 3 (or a holy themed equivalent), we would already have a second DoT (mathematically, Aero 3 was a DPS gain), so we don't need A THIRD ONE.

God, you people and your love of effin' stupid DoTs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by glamazon

Don’t understand this complex idea people keep mentioning aren’t all dps classes more complex than every healer? Aren’t tanks more complex than every healer? So why do those jobs get engaging rotations with synergistic kits while we get nothing like that.

---

Because not all of us WANT that?

Some of us don't find that "engaging" and rather find it "annoying"?

Because there are 19 Jobs in this game and 1 or 2 (or honestly even 4) NOT being like that isn't a bad thing?

Because if we wanted to play a Job with a more complex damage rotation, we'd be playing one of the 15 Jobs that have a more complex damage rotation?

*NOTE: As I've said, I support 2-3 healers being made more complex for the people that want to HEAL while also having a more complex rotation. But just as not all Damage Dealers need to be NIN/BLM and not all Tanks need to be DRK, not all healers need that, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

<snip>

---

I can't even debate you anymore. You really have no grasp on the argument or even...basic logic.

For example, you're trying to compare a change/reversion on one Job to changing four simultaneously. The proper argument here would be: Suppose there were TWO SAMs in the game in 6.0. And the Devs discussed making this change to ONE of them, but leaving the other as is. Or, conversely, suppose the Devs made a second SAM in the game now in 6.1, and both had Kaiten removed, and someone was saying to you "So why don't we put Kaiten back on one but not the other?" and you replied to them "NO! It's ALL OR NOTHING! They must BOTH get it and how dare you suggest that of the TWO JOBS, we leave ONE alone!"

Moreover, you're arguing it backwards anyway, as you're arguing to go against the status quo from 6.0. That is, based on MY POSITION, Square should NOT have removed Kaiten, since THAT was the status quo/incumbent position.

Somehow, in all these arguments, you're managing to look at EVERYTHING backwards from what is logical. The reality is, your arguments are the weak ones here. The Kaiten change proves it - it was a change made to an existing thing that has now seriously alienated the people that liked the pre-existing condition. This is exactly what YOU are arguing for, not I; that we change healers and the people that play them now and like it now be damned. YOU are on the Kaiten removal side of this argument, not me. I'm on the "Well, let's have two SAMs and remove Kaiten on one and leave Kaiten on the other and let the players gravitate to the one that they like best" side, and you are insisting "No! We remove Kaiten on both and anyone who doesn't like it can just be bad!"

.

As for why incumbent advantage: Simple, because people who like the system as it is are the ones playing it right now. If you alienated enough of them, then there would be a massive healer shortage. You can bank on people starting to heal that aren't right now, but that's not a certainty. Further, even if many did start, you have no guarantee it would be sufficient to correct for the losses. For example, if you made all healers like SB SCH, I'd honestly probably quit healing, and might quit the game. Additionally, you have no idea the people that tried it would like it OR would stick with it, while people who are already doing the existing thing would likely (at least mostly) stick with it going forward were it to stay the same. Many people try a thing once it's changed, find they don't like it, and go back. DPSers who hate healing aren't going to suddenly love playing healers because they have 2-3 more DoTs.

So how are you going to fill the likely void of healers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renathras

...so why are you advocating for MORE alienation, exactly, when you know it's a bad thing?

---

I'm advocating for the people that those changes have alienated. Healers have lost tons of skills and abilities that gave them depth and were alienated as a result. I want them to revert those changes so that we aren't alienated anymore. Someone is getting Alienated either way.

Quote:

---

Cleric NEVER WAS and NEVER WILL BE "depth".

---

Cleric Stance had some interaction with Assize originally. It was either a heal with a small DPS benefit or a DPS skill with a small heal benefit depending on if Cleric was on or not. A small interaction for sure, but it was there. I didn't see Cleric Stance as any more or less clunky as Eukrasis currently is on SGE; they're functionally the same premise. Hell, I'd advocate that they could return Cleric Stance as a way to reduce button bloat by having Cleric Stance turn our normal spells into their Afflatus Equivalent skill but that's a different topic all together.

Quote:

---

700 MP Cure 1 might cause problems in lower level content where that's literally the only spell you have and tanks don't have good CDs yet.

---

The idea in a vacuum would be problematic since it doesn't consider the rest of the game but looking at it alongside other changes makes it more sustainable. I would change Fluid Aura a little to have a 5% MP restore attached to it so that by the time you start running dungeons, you have Fluid Aura to help alleviate the slight increase in MP cost of Cure 1. They already lowered the level you get Lucid Dreaming so it doesn't really feel like it would be that much of a problem and even less so once you start unlocking more skills as you level.

Quote:

---

God, you people and your love of effin' stupid DoTs...

---

We find multitasking stimulating. Managing multiple DoTs was fun for us and it's a little insulting when you see NPC trusts that get to utilize all these old skills that we ourselves can't because SE is saying we can't trust players to have them but the NPCs are more than capable, like we're stupider than the NPCs or something (which might be true for some players but still insulting nonetheless). I hate doing Tower of Zot and seeing Aero 3 cast every single time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renathras

And so far, no one has given a really good reason otherwise other than the subjective "Well, I think there needs to be..."

---

thats because anything with "should" is inherently subjective. if you keep going further down any reasoning path you will eventually hit a dead end. while someone can base their beliefs on objective reality theres always going to be an individual subjective component in their judgment.

Quote:

---

which also doesn't address the potential for alienating existing healers into abandoning the role entirely.

---

ive said multiple times that there can and there has been depth that wouldnt alienate them. im saying that whatever depth the simple healer gets, it should be specifically of that kind. as per your own words:

Quote:

---

And all of the above - even if we did ALL of it at once - wouldn't really change their rotation much. [...] This gives it a bit of nuance (roughly like WAR among Tanks), while maintaining almost entirely the present playstyle and general hotbar economy

---

that is precisely the kind of state i think the simple healer in the role should be in. i dont think it would alienate anyone who enjoys the current iteration of healers. i dont think it would overwhelm or annoy them to get new toys.

when i disagree that one healer should not "follow suit", i say it because whm as is is more shallow than what you described. forcing whm to forever languish in this overly simplistic state would make it stagnate because giving it litearlly anything would technically make it "more complex". the changes you described would certainly make whm more involved, but then it wouldnt be "following suit" either. would those changes alienate players?

---

and re: healing optimization with whm... what you described is the most basic of it all. cutting overheal is bordering obvious. gcd uptime is also such a basic fundamental skill, that even lv1 jobs have that. my problem with whm "optimization" is that its literally just gameplay fundamentals. i had a monk main friend that swapped to whm once for p3s "just to try it out" and got a blue parse without any practice whatsoever, because the job is that simple.

ive also had my fair share of whm cohealers over the years, both in low stakes and high stakes settings and every single time it devolved into "let the astro heal virtually everything". which might be a bit fun but its also quite annoying. (i guess lossless misery helped to mitigate that, but im still not particularly thrilled to get a whm cohealer because theres barely any skills to move around when optimizing).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renathras

And I do miss Aero 3. I HATE DOTs and cannot, for the life of me, understand why you people are all so infatuated with the damn things - and EVERY HEALER HAS THEM! It's one of the few things I REALLY hate about FFXIV. But I wouldn't mind Aero 3 and Miasma 2 being back in the game. We DO NOT need a second DoT. One is sufficient. And if we got Aero 3 (or a holy themed equivalent), we would already have a second DoT (mathematically, Aero 3 was a DPS gain), so we don't need A THIRD ONE.

God, you people and your love of effin' stupid DoTs...

---

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/o3Zx_q8OVcc/maxresdefault.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renathras

Square should NOT have removed Kaiten, since THAT was the status quo/incumbent position.

---

As was healers actually having shit to do, the change away from which likewise "alienated the people who liked the pre-existing condition." 90+% of one's GCDs being spent on a single button has only been a thing since Shadowbringers.

Your argument seems dependent on a warrant that if something is not reverted within a single patch, it should be considered as the new norm forever more -- and protected against subjective preference, no matter how comparatively popular, outside of specific functional issues with the new state.

By contrast, I think the norm offers only a small weight in value, rather than near-absolute protection; instead, the center of discussion should simply be which of two options would most greatly improve the state of the game for the most people. The new (or return, in the case of healers having more to do) owes at most explanation of what quality it would provide; it need not be applicable only when the existing state is provably disfunctional (for which goalposts would only be inevitably shifted with every step).

Quote:

---

So how are you going to fill the likely void of healers?

---

You still have yet to feasibly suggest how having more available to do would leave the healer role vacant.

Quote:

---

DPSers who hate healing aren't going to suddenly love playing healers because they have 2-3 more DoTs.

---

I've not suggested that merely having an extra DoT or two would fix healers' issues. It would be helpful, but hardly sufficient.

Quote:

---

God, you people and your love of effin' stupid DoTs...

---

I'm no huge fan of DoTs in particular, but let's look at what's stupidly decent about their design:

• They're soft CDs.
• By being on, effectively, a CD, they can include bonus affordances, such as instant-casts. Yet, as soft-CDs they can be used early, too, at variable cost. They can also be held, allowing their debuffs to fall off for a brief time before reapplication a couple seconds later during necessary movement, etc.
• Said soft CDs have charges equal to enemy count, up to the point they're eclipsed by AoE spam, giving further situational variance to their optimal usage.
• They reward knowledge of the remaining time-to-kill on their targets.

And when healers become more complex and the supply dries up because liw skill folks can't play them for whatever reason, and move on to dos while everyone cries trying to level alt jobs and there's no healers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imora

And when healers become more complex and the supply dries up because liw skill folks can't play them for whatever reason, and move on to dos while everyone cries trying to level alt jobs and there's no healers.

---

And yet near enough anything I queue for as healer currently gets me an instant pop. That was never the case in HW or SB and Shadowbringers wasn't as consistent either.

Not to mention, healers were far more imposing to play to a high standard when cleric stance was a thing, that didn't stop people from playing the role, rather they simply didn't use that aspect of their kit as much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imora

And when healers become more complex and the supply dries up because liw skill folks can't play them for whatever reason, and move on to dos while everyone cries trying to level alt jobs and there's no healers.

---

Why doesn't this same argument apply to Tanks?
They're already more complex than any of the Healers so why aren't people abandoning them?

More importantly, what business would they have being on an actual DPS if a marginal increase in complexity would be enough to push them off healers, lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imora

And when healers become more complex and the supply dries up because liw skill folks can't play them for whatever reason, and move on to dos while everyone cries trying to level alt jobs and there's no healers.

---

Already has dried up.maybe not completely but noticeable.

2.0 3.0 4.0 AIN was nearly always tanks. Occasionally healers, and once a while dps..

5.0 6.0 AIN is very frequently healers, sometimes tanks, and still once in a while dps..

I still play my scholar but mostly down to efficiency d limited ay time. If i only have 90 minutes I'll play whatever gets into content faster.

AIN is an iffy metric seemingly because of how it’s calculated. I don’t see healer as the role in need very often tbh, yet it has no bearing on my queue time as it’s almost always instant regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebazy

AIN is an iffy metric seemingly because of how it’s calculated. I don’t see healer as the role in need very often tbh, yet it has no bearing on my queue time as it’s almost always instant regardless.

---

I don't want to seem like a conspiracy theorist but I'm almost positive it's manipulated. I've been leveling my tanks because all of my healers have been at 90 for a long time now, and anytime I queue for something that says Tank in Need I'm waiting 5-8 minutes, but when I swap to SCH it is almost always immediate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nizzi

I don't want to seem like a conspiracy theorist but I'm almost positive it's manipulated. I've been leveling my tanks because all of my healers have been at 90 for a long time now, and anytime I queue for something that says Tank in Need I'm waiting 5-8 minutes, but when I swap to SCH it is almost always immediate.

---

It probably has something to do with priority order.

The current interface only allows 1 from 3 icon to be shown at any given time. If I want to make a wild guess, their current priority is T > H > D. Which means, should both T and H are needed, only T will be shown until next update.

But I'm no programmer or skilled in coding whatsoever :rolleyes: Speculating is all I can do. I do know I'm not alone in experiencing this though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rein_eon_Osborne

It probably has something to do with priority order.

---

Pretty much my guess as well. This was a system that was added in when Tanks were in super short order whilst healers and DPS were plentiful and I'd imagine the way it's setup reflects that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rein_eon_Osborne

It probably has something to do with priority order.

---

Or it could just look at the number of each role in the given queue relative to their slots at a very particular interval (which may soon happen not to be particularly representative, especially if/when people adjust their behavior based on the rewards then promised).

/shrug

In either case, it has no ways of denoting a difference between one role having 99% size of the next most presently populous (relative to slots) role and having only 1% that size.