Was thinking more 0s, 1.5s, 3s casts, but yeah, pretty much.Quote:
Originally Posted by ForsakenRoe
Though not on shared charges. Instead, like Apex Arrow -> Burst Arrow, once you pop the first you just have a fixed amount of time (say, 6-10s) in which to use the rest (not refreshed on next skill's use). That way there's a bit more play (if also a bit more rope to hang yourself by).
With the appended universal change that skill-unlocks snapshot (cannot cancel your current cast when the unlock buff runs out) if using the lower unlock duration.
How DPS complexity can make healers more forgiving
Printable View
-
09-09-2023, 01:04 PMShurrikhan
-
09-09-2023, 01:46 PMty_taurus
The thing is, a 1-2-3 combo is something that's been talked about quite a lot as a specific example of what many DPS advocates are not asking for. On its own, a 1-2-3 combo is technically giving you different buttons to press, and it does add more visual disparity between your general gameplay, but if it exclusively exists to be a 1-2-3 combo--that is to say, offers no branching or any sort of resource earned from completing the combo, that it's not really creating any different of an experience than what we have with single button spam. It also doesn't really resolve the main aspect of this thread topic which is reducing the weight of filler-type actions.
One thing you could argue for tanks is that the 1-2-3 combo does act as a buffer for their self sustain. Warrior needs to wait till it reaches Storm's Path in order to recover HP, and it has the alternative Storm's Eye to maintain its main damage buff. Additionally, it also regulates the natural generation of their Beast Gauge. The same is basically true for Dark Knight as well, adding in that it also gets MP generation during Syphon Strike. If we look at the one example of a caster combo in the game, we have Red Mage. It's mechanically not a combo, but functionally it is a 1-2 combo. But then you also have Verstone and Verfire procs, as well as Acceleration and Swiftcast which are important parts of combo management. Meaning Red Mage is very often making choices between a wide number of possible 2-part combos:
1-2, 1-3, 2-2, 2-3, 3-2, 3-3, 4-2, 4-3, 5-2, 5-3 are all different variations of Red Mage that you can pick from. If we were going to go down the route of having a caster combo on a healer, I think it'd make more sense to go down a route like that rather than taking the MCH angle.
For example, rather than just having Dosis A, Dosis B, and Dosis C (for lack of appropriate names) why not do something like...
Dosis, Biodosis, and Pathodosis (temp names). Instead of generating Addersgall naturally over time, you instead have 2 meters, one for Addersgall and one for Addersting. Dosis > Biodosis makes progress toward your Addersgall while Dosis > Pathodosis makes progress toward your Addersting. In that case, Toxikon as a mobility spell makes more sense as a resource (assuming your normal combo spells have have cast times).
Or another angle would be to say Dosis has no Kardia effect while Biodosis restores HP when comboed from Dosis, while Pathodosis grants your Kardia target a mitigation when comboed from Dosis. In that case it functions similarly to how tank combos work, only for your Kardia target instead of always for you. -
09-10-2023, 06:06 PMRenathrasNo, I'm speaking from direct experience. What was fun to me about running POTD on WAR vs WHM wasn't "more DPS buttons", it was that the buttons felt accessible. I have Holy (useful for the Stun, but long cast time; useful on Mimics until floor...40 or so) and Assize (on a 40 sec CD), but WAR felt more dynamic because I pressed buttons and, BAM!, something happened. There was no cast time, so the feedback was more instantaneous and visceral. And that made it more fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
Also:
I don't get this constant insistence on pushing back against literally any idea I propose. There does come a point where a reasonable person can reasonably conclude you just aren't giving ideas a chance because of their origin, not the merits of the idea.
4 Healers Model aside, there's literally no reason for us NOT to have a healer that has instant cast damage filler spells as part of a slightly more involved rotation where you're trading instant cast mobility for cast time simplicity.
Besides: ?Por que no los dos?
Have one healer that does the one (instant/short/mid) and one that does the other (instant/instant/instant). WHY IS THIS NOT OKAY?
WHY do all the healer Jobs need to have the exact same rotation/mechanics?
EDIT:
Right.Quote:
Originally Posted by ty_taurus
I'm NOT a DPS advocate.
But I think it's fair to say that soloing Deep Dungeons like PotD really exposes Job's individual merits, both strengths and weaknesses and things that can make them fun or not. For example, AST is both weak and boring. WHM is less weak but still fairly boring. It's more noticeable when you don't have other people around you're trying to fix mistakes of and don't have a healing plan and often don't even need your DoT applied since many enemies will die before it reaches the break even point vs Stone 3.
And, again, WE HAVE FOUR HEALERS.
You guys implicitly acknowledge and agree with me that they shouldn't have the exact same damage rotation, I THINK...think we agree on that. When I say we shouldn't go from one "all the same" 1 button spam to another "all the same" 10 button rotation, I think you guys agree on that.
...yet most all of your proposals are variations on that. Some DoTs, some gauge mechanic, and a few more DPS actions on CDs and shared charges that fit neatly into the 2 min meta. It's replacing one same for another same.
.
What I'd like answered is this:
Why CAN'T we have both?
Why CAN'T we have one that fires off a combo like MCH while having another that has a cast combination system like RDM another that has a "cast combo" with different times like Roe's WoW Druid? Why is that NOT acceptable?
Why MUST it all be filler spell + DoT + CD action with 2 charges + gauge builder action + gauge spender action?
I'm not even asking "one left alone" this time; I'm saying if we change them all to have DPS rotations, why CAN'T one be like MCH? Why is that not allowable? -
09-10-2023, 06:11 PMShurrikhanSo, just entirely subjective cast-times-feel-bad?Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
I mean, fair enough, but... that doesn't seem a warrant worth theorizing what should be done for healer combos off of. Your previous post treated this like some inherent critical factor appreciable by most players; it seems instead just to be your particular aversion to delayed effect / reward for smart pre-casting. That may be held by others, but we've yet to see whether that's a significant portion, and it's certainly nothing integral or unique to combos.
So long as the consequent skill ceilings are both decently high (despite a less involved rotation on the other and no movement optimizations on the other) and decently equal across a rough average of difficult fights, sure. That's not as it may sound, but such should be possible.Quote:
4 Healers Model aside, there's literally no reason for us NOT to have a healer that has instant cast damage filler spells as part of a slightly more involved rotation where you're trading instant cast mobility for cast time simplicity.
Find me anyone who asked for this strawman?Quote:
WHY do all the healer Jobs need to have the exact same rotation/mechanics?
-
09-10-2023, 06:14 PMRenathrasI mean...yeah? Fun IS subjective.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
It's not a strawman when it happens, lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
Whenever I propose something that deviates from the pattern of filler spell + DoT + CD action with 2 charges + gauge builder action + gauge spender action, I get people telling me why we can't have it. Except they don't really say why we CAN'T, they just...oppose the idea in nebulous terms of "We don't have to have that". Well, yeah, we don't HAVE to have anything other than a filler damage spell for solo encounters. But that's really not the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
-
09-10-2023, 06:49 PMShurrikhanBut it hasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
Critiquing a needless problem in a given suggestion does not mean that one is only okay with existing patterns. What you've claimed is still a strawman; what you are pointing out is not a request for that "all healer jobs need to have the exact same rotation/mechanics". It just means they don't like your particular suggestion.Quote:
Whenever I propose something that deviates from the pattern of filler spell + DoT + CD action with 2 charges + gauge builder action + gauge spender action, I get people telling me why we can't have it. Except they don't really say why we CAN'T, they just...oppose the idea in nebulous terms of "We don't have to have that". Well, yeah, we don't HAVE to have anything other than a filler damage spell for solo encounters. But that's really not the point.
I can want more downtime depth and agency without wanting to spend 3 buttons on the "complexity" of moving my finger in a loop of 1 to 2 to 3 and back per a 123 combo. -
09-10-2023, 10:32 PMForsakenRoeLet's take the example, that the 123 combo has cast times of instant, 1s, 2s for it's steps. You can spam 111111 for instantcasts over and over, for mobility. Beyond that, the rest is up to you:Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
Can you explain how you're going to incentivize the player to do their 123 'properly', without it causing a conflict with your previously stated stance of 'if there's too much complexity, the healer won't be able to deal damage and it'll lead to enrages'?
edit:
SE has a design they're running with (2min meta) and every time a suggestion was ever made to break that 2min meta (eg, me suggesting a 18s DOT), you, YOU yourself, said that it would not work because 120 does not divide cleanly by 18. That the DOT would not line up with every 2min window and that's bad. So, not our problem that SE's decided on everything being centered around the 120s mark, we as random forum users can only play into the 2min meta with our designsQuote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
Beyond that, you appear to be saying with the last line that, for example, giving SCH a total of 3 DOTs, and giving WHM what I've suggested for it, are 'the same' because both have at least one DOT (Dia/Bio for example). How is the gameplay of WHM as I've described it, the same as SCH with 3 dots of various durations, the same as AST with 'Minor Arcana is the main focus of the class now'? We do agree that the healers should not all have the same damage rotation. But that doesn't mean they can't use similar 'design facets' as one another, provided they are done in different enough ways. For example, while some of the healers have a DOT, SCH has several DOTs. While WHM has a 15s CD you don't think about too much (Banish), AST would have a 15s you absolutely would want to think about (Minor Arcana card effects). The fact that the two share a CD does not 'make them the same', else we could say Assize is the same as Life Surge on DRG 'cos they're both 40s CDs'.
If you were to try and make 4 different healers, that have absolutely zero overlap in their designs (eg if one has even a single DOT, none of the other 3 can have a DOT), you'd run out of design space unbelievably fast. It'd also mean that, since one healer has 'Glare, the filler spell', the other three healers cannot have a filler spell and must have some other way of 'filling' while their CDs come back -
09-10-2023, 10:45 PMAmiableApkalluI suppose my question is: What's the extra gimmick associated with these combos -- whether it be resource generation, buff/debuff management, positionals, etc.? Because while I'd take some modicum of mechanical complexity over what healers have now (and the variation in sfx and vfx), I'd still be left wanting for something to manage and be making decisions about, or even simply the illusion of such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
It's the extra gimmick that makes a combo what it is, and not just 1-1-1 split up into three buttons instead.
For example, MCH's combo builds battery gauge on the third step, and only the third step, and tank AoE combos provide something extra on the second step (Divine Might, Surging Tempest, Blood Gauge, cartridge).Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
-
09-11-2023, 02:32 AMty_taurusIn the past, you've often taken individual actions I've proposed and asked the question of "what is the point?" Why eat up another spot on your hotbar that feels like padding? The thing is, there is a worthwhile argument to discussing what purpose different actions serve to a job's overall gameplay feel, and in truth, it's very difficult to identify that on paper without having a build to test it in. There's nothing wrong with asking that question, which is what I did for the 1-2-3 combo. And I would even ask the same thing of actual Machinist. I don't feel like a flat 1-2-3 combo with no sort of earning at the end, or branch to generate something different, is a good investment of hotbar real estate for a healer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
And like I said, I can see potential for how you could do something with a combo for Sage, even something as simple as a combo where one branch ends in healing your Kardia target while the other ends in granting a mitigation buff on them. It's like a reverse Warrior essentially. That's something that I honestly don't really care for, but I don't think is a bad idea either. The only criticism I'd say of the rest of your concept is it pretty much is just sparknotes Machinist. Taking inspiration from other jobs isn't a bad thing. I think it can be done effectively, but outright mimicking other jobs I don't think is the route to go on. That said, ideas have to start somewhere, and I could totally see someone joining a design meeting to discuss a Sage rework, perhaps, and saying "alright. What if we had healer Machinist? Here's what I started with..." And from there, the team takes that seed concept and fleshes it out to be its own thing.
The thing that I feel is most important about what I said, however, is that the 1-2-3 combo doesn't actually compliment this particular thread topic. If an ARR Scholar player could juggle their DoTs effectively, they'd achieve roughly 80% of the total possible damage they can do with their GCD and have roughly half their GCD casts remaining to spend on anything else: idling, moving, thinking, healing, and what you lose from missing casts of Ruin was considerably less than what you lose per cast doing that now. Cleric Stance made ARR healer DPS punishing, and asking the average player to manage 1 Dot with a 15 second duration, 2 DoTs with an 18 second duration, 1 with a 24 second duration, and 1 with a 30 second duration likely wouldn't result in perfect DoT uptime. But if you created a healer that had a variety of more forgiving DPS tools to work with now, things like charges, cooldowns, resource gauges, etc that the average player can far more reliably use the max of, and balancing potencies so that managing exclusively those cooldowns, resource spenders, procs, etc. results in roughly 80% of the possible damage you could deal, that would make healer DPS more forgiving than it is now.
Because now, every Glare/Broil/Dosis/Malefic that a player loses to healing, idling, moving, etc. counts twice as much against them as ARR Ruin did. If you want an environment where more casual healers don't have to worry about hitting enrage due to less efficient DPS uptime management, that would serve your goal better than the current healer model which puts more pressure on squeezing every last Glare/Broil/Dosis/Malefic out of your GCD than ever before. -
09-11-2023, 05:09 AMShurrikhanAye.Quote:
Originally Posted by AmiableApkallu
And... all of which can still be done with a single button each, as it's virtually always better even to waste the additional resource even on the off-chance it overcaps... than to repeat at lower potency. See the Gnashing Fang or Blade of ---- combos.
Unless there's a specific reason to use Button 1 without always following it with Button 2 and Button 3 (without which you have effectively a single action spread across 3 buttons), why take up 3 buttons on it, especially on a role that --especially if our relative healing output and the predictability of healing needs were ever increased-- we'd want to have especially responsive reach to its oGCDs, glut thereof though they be.