Would tanks be okay if SE swapped the damage between tank and healers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

How can you argue to stop continuing to push scaling too far in scope when we are in this mess entirely because tanks scaling in literally every conceivable sense has been so dramatically scaled that it’s actually pushing out another role

Tanks aren’t “successful” as you put it, they are literally just being given the healer roles responsibilities with no strings attached, that sort of balancing doesn’t help anyone

---

It's only really Paladin and Warrior doing this, but yes. I think this whole promise of reworking jobs and their identity is going to be the remedy to this growing issue.
Things were balanced when they did less dps comparatively, but the players did not want to be balanced fairly. They just wanted to parse. Which now means Warrior and PLD are just better tanks because they bring superior utility that does not come at the cost of anything else. The devs are now stuck in this corner because they never want to nerf things. So i expect this mass rework thing they were talking about in 8.0 will be their way to put jobs back where they belong. That way,they will have plausible deniability and can say it was a rework, not a nerf.

Given the epidemic of healers that do no healing. Increasing the damage would simply give an excuse for them to not to their job even more.

Tanks where given too much healing. Specially WAR. Is like they don't test this things or test them only on raids.

And who in their right mind thought that removing plunge and replace it by something clunky was a good idea? Plunge had to defects. The new one has their agro at the point where the button is pressed. While plunge had their agro at the point where it lands. It was much smoother running dungeons. Now is a ackward pause instead of a fluid run. And for what? For what reason exactly? Who thought it was a good idea?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Didn't you just say you'd spare the thread intentional disuse of reading comprehension?

---

I did. You have not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

No one suggested turning tanks into healers. The person you have quoted merely pointed out how they ALREADY frequently replace healers (because it's an rDPS gain at little to no added risk).

---

In advocating for the primary reason to bring healers to be that their DPS outstrips tanks, by reason of tanks having enough healing that healers are a DPS loss, you are advocating to lean on tank healing to the degree than healers do not need to be doing it and thus become DPS with a different icon color.

You are, by degrees, advocating to turn tanks into the healers and healers into DPS with party support.

You'll notice that it takes a very rigid party composition to completely obviate healers, as well. If a group has people that want to play literally anything but that composition, well, turns out you need at least one healer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

No, giving the role whose damage is actually hurt by doing their role a duly higher damage ceiling so that parties aren't so rewarded for replacing them would not make healers more interesting, but the OP didn't ask anything about that. It was instead, though more nicely worded, whether most tanks' egos would be too fragile to put the game's broader health ahead of feeding their own main character syndrome.

...I suspect we have the answer now.

---

Alternatively, and I know this is a wild proposition that you may find utterly incomprehensible, we stop using DPS as the only metric of worth and as a consequences see encounters designed with more in mind than how to best troll peoples' rotations as a difficulty measure. I haven't done Ultimate myself, but I have seen footage, and some of the mechanics in there would be genuinely amazing to see in normal content, albeit with the consequences for failure adjusted.

Because it turns out, punishing the people who are having fun simply because other people are not is the petty vengeance of the spiteful, and indulging in it as a design philosophy is fundamentally unable to lead to good outcomes. You want to fix healing? Fix it, by all means. But that means fixing healing, not souring the experience of another role. I'd be all for lessening the healing from tanks, or even outright removing most of it—Paladin can keep Clemency as a thematic nod—with the concession that healers be expected to know their stuff and execute upon it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erit

Alternatively, and I know this is a wild proposition that you may find utterly incomprehensible, we stop using DPS as the only metric of worth

---

Lol, good luck with that, the past 20 years have shown that MMO players will prioritise DPS above everything else. If you could get away with a party of Vipers a lot of people would run that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ramiee

Lol, good luck with that, the past 20 years have shown that MMO players will prioritise DPS above everything else. If you could get away with a party of Vipers a lot of people would run that.

---

I am painfully aware.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erit

I did. You have not.



In advocating for the primary reason to bring healers to be that their DPS outstrips tanks, by reason of tanks having enough healing that healers are a DPS loss, you are advocating to lean on tank healing to the degree than healers do not need to be doing it and thus become DPS with a different icon color.

You are, by degrees, advocating to turn tanks into the healers and healers into DPS with party support.

You'll notice that it takes a very rigid party composition to completely obviate healers, as well. If a group has people that want to play literally anything but that composition, well, turns out you need at least one healer.



Alternatively, and I know this is a wild proposition that you may find utterly incomprehensible, we stop using DPS as the only metric of worth and as a consequences see encounters designed with more in mind than how to best troll peoples' rotations as a difficulty measure. I haven't done Ultimate myself, but I have seen footage, and some of the mechanics in there would be genuinely amazing to see in normal content, albeit with the consequences for failure adjusted.

Because it turns out, punishing the people who are having fun simply because other people are not is the petty vengeance of the spiteful, and indulging in it as a design philosophy is fundamentally unable to lead to good outcomes. You want to fix healing? Fix it, by all means. But that means fixing healing, not souring the experience of another role. I'd be all for lessening the healing from tanks, or even outright removing most of it—Paladin can keep Clemency as a thematic nod—with the concession that healers be expected to know their stuff and execute upon it.

---

You obviously haven’t read even a 10th of this thread if your solution is “I’m in support of fixing healing and you can do that by reducing the tanks healing but don’t reduce damage”

I had a 5 page discussion with someone who absurdly refused to even consider the idea that tanks healing should be reduced, it was just completely out of the question to them and any Time it was suggested they simply just shut down

I have no idea where you originally got the idea that I was suggesting turning tanks into healers and healers into supports that’s just me regurgitating weird tank main propositions for how to fix healers while never actually touching anything tanks are able to do. Shruiken also never suggested this, only pointed out that if your damage is reliant on party officials performance you should be rewarded with a better baseline damage, we already lean on the tank heals because they are literally free, making healers do more damage won’t suddenly make people force the tank to use clemency over the healer because the healer is the one with party performance baked into its damage in this scenario

This just circles back to what happens every single tank mains are asked how to fix healers, some are willing to relent on some things, but will never agree on what things to relent on and always act like the healer is the idiot for asking, some will relent on nothing and just ask healers to not be healers anymore so they can continue to heal, some just don’t give a flying f……. About healers. None of these point are my own I’m just regurgitating tank mains own points

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Supersnow845

You obviously haven’t read even a 10th of this thread if your solution is “I’m in support of fixing healing and you can do that by reducing the tanks healing but don’t reduce damage”

I had a 5 page discussion with someone who absurdly refused to even consider the idea that tanks healing should be reduced, it was just completely out of the question to them and any Time it was suggested they simply just shut down

I have no idea where you originally got the idea that I was suggesting turning tanks into healers and healers into supports that’s just me regurgitating weird tank main propositions for how to fix healers while never actually touching anything tanks are able to do. Shruiken also never suggested this, only pointed out that if your damage is reliant on party officials performance you should be rewarded with a better baseline damage, we already lean on the tank heals because they are literally free, making healers do more damage won’t suddenly make people force the tank to use clemency over the healer because the healer is the one with party performance baked into its damage in this scenario

This just circles back to what happens every single tank mains are asked how to fix healers, some are willing to relent on some things, but will never agree on what things to relent on and always act like the healer is the idiot for asking, some will relent on nothing and just ask healers to not be healers anymore so they can continue to heal, some just don’t give a flying f……. About healers. None of these point are my own I’m just regurgitating tank mains own points

---

Or, in brief, you're defending this notion as a gimmick. G'day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erit

Or, in brief, you're defending this notion as a gimmick. G'day.

---

You mean on page 1 where I said “this was originally my brain fart of an idea that OP turned into a full thread”

Yeah please get with times man we established this 12 pages ago. This was never a true suggestion but always a representation of it tanks would be willing to sacrifice any part of their incredibly overpowered design to rebalance the trinity

Only in FFXIV will you find people doing Olympics-level mental gymnastics to try and justify why a role that loses absolutely nothing to do their main job should arbitrarily do more damage than the role that takes a heavy damage loss from doing their main job.

Look, I get that no one likes to get nerfed, but buffs and nerfs are the cornerstone to game balance. Look how they made far more work for themselves in balancing the game by buffing everything else instead of nerfing PCT.

Healing and damage output between the tank and healer role desperately requires some rebalancing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aravell

Only in FFXIV will you find people doing Olympics-level mental gymnastics to try and justify why a role that loses absolutely nothing to do their main job should arbitrarily do more damage than the role that takes a heavy damage loss from doing their main job.

---

Yeah the swapping is of course a bit very silly - albeit, it would solve the healerless savage raids issue! - but it makes no sense that the two non-damage jobs aren't designed to do the same level of damage. Whether that is current healer or current tanks is irrelevant, but healers and tanks ought to roughly contribute similar damage.

There was an expansion or a savage tier where WHM could outdamage tanks and other healers were really close to tanks in damage, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it was Shadowbringers? Did it really change anything back then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EponaTBHSMH

There was an expansion or a savage tier where WHM could outdamage tanks and other healers were really close to tanks in damage, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it was Shadowbringers? Did it really change anything back then?

---

Tanks and healers were about equal in damage all through ShB. A good healer in a good party would likely beat the tank by like 5% but in a PF group a tank would usually do about 10% more than a healer

It's weird that they changed that. And I mean, it makes sense, tanks have 5-7 tanking tools but rarely require them outside of specific, designed, designated, fight moments (like tankbusters and AoEs and so on). The other 10-15 abilities can be damage rotation abilities.

But similarly, healers got an even larger repertoire of healing tools, usually 10-12, and yet only need them in equally or even more rare situations in raids. And again, specifically designated. And since their hotbars are already filled with healing abilities they do not need, they only get 2-3 damage abilities (Sage excepted, who has barely more).

It's weird. And I don't like not healing as my healer, I'd rather get more healing to do than get a ton of damage abilities though 1-2 extra would be nice. But I also do not like not tanking as my tank. I ought to have to actively fight for emnity while constantly worrying about reducing incoming damage to stay healable. Like, my gameplay should be about tanking, not dealing damage, that ought to be the filler I do in-between, and hence naturally the minority of what I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rxantos

Given the epidemic of healers that do no healing. Increasing the damage would simply give an excuse for them to not to their job even more.

---

The epidemic is caused by SE doing their best to drive people who like playing more supporting roles out of the Healer role, leaving more people who go with Healer for lower wait times.

A combination of giving them more to do and better tools to use in their downtime would bring people back into the role... But SE's solution seem to exclusively be to make them more redundant as they cater to the people who just want Healer queues instead of healers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainLagbeard

The epidemic is caused by SE doing their best to drive people who like playing more supporting roles out of the Healer role, leaving more people who go with Healer for lower wait times.

A combination of giving them more to do and better tools to use in their downtime would bring people back into the role... But SE's solution seem to exclusively be to make them more redundant as they cater to the people who just want Healer queues instead of healers.

---

To be fair I don’t blame people who tune out and spam glare in daily’s. It is 100% what the games tank balance teaches players to do

You can’t make a role unless at their primary job for 6 years then get surprised when the average player of said job can’t do that role properly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainLagbeard

A combination of giving them more to do and better tools to use in their downtime would bring people back into the role... But SE's solution seem to exclusively be to make them more redundant as they cater to the people who just want Healer queues instead of healers.

---

Aye, it's one of those cases of a path forward being pretty straight forward, and yet utterly refused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The OP's Question

(So, those discussing broader game health, there's this idea I heard from somewhere else that I'm not a fan of but before even discussing its merits, I have to ask... would tanks completely lose their shit if some 5% of their damage were given instead to healers so that it's not an outright rDPS gain to replace healers with yet more tanks?)

---

I am obliged by both self-interest and common conscience to reply with "unask the question," because the foundational premise is faulty.

---

Which premise? That tanks are increasingly replacing healers because the devs refuse to give enough outgoing damage and insist on giving enough total sustain to tanks that healers are increasingly a redundant lower-rDPS inferior alternative to just taking more tanks? That balance at this point has more to do with tip-toeing around egos than taking simpler, more direct solutions for the game's broader health? That making it less rewarding to get rid of healers still won't be a sufficient solution (but not one mutually exclusive with any other change, either)? Which?

Quote:

---

Because punishing the successful to satiate others doesn't come across at all as the petty vengeance of the spiteful, no siree.

---

Role A, which already provided greater unique and general value than Role B takes further of the unique and general of Role B. Role B wanting it back either part they had before (rDPS or the unique ability to meet healing checks) is "petty vengeance of the spiteful". Noted.

Quote:

---

Increasingly pushing savage, and now Ultimate, raiding as "the done thing" has the same problem as the upward trend in map sizes not being matched by a similar trend in total content to do in those maps

---

Mate, we can't have decent breadth or challenge outside of Extremes, Savage, and Ultimate specifically because of the imbalances that are far, far larger outside of those pieces of content, not because of what little content hasn't been problematic. Nor does the difference in balance between, say, dungeons and Savage have anything tf to do with open world's map sizes, in spirit or otherwise.

Quote:

---

More prudent to balance the minoritarian content with reference to the entirety of the game

---

By all means then, balance Ultimate "with reference" FATEs, dungeons, MSQ scenarios, or whatever the hell "the entirety of the game" is supposed to be as it would somehow pertain to balance despite disparate content types. What do you honestly expect will come of that? Concretely, what is the imagined benefit? And why do you honestly think it would, if "balanced" in that manner, occur as imagined?

I'm all for more job flavor, but (A) let's not pretend that someone else wanting your favorite job to be only as valuable as any other in their favorite content type is some sort of vindictiveness or that (B) the difficult content is necessarily as accepting of imbalances as purposely content easy. In both cases, decent balance is a requirement for the content type's potential to provide an engaging space for all jobs, not something opposed to that engagement, as the "flavor" otherwise instead becomes variance merely in viability. That's true for both jobs within the same role and those roles as taken against each other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EponaTBHSMH

There was an expansion or a savage tier where WHM could outdamage tanks and other healers were really close to tanks in damage, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it was Shadowbringers? Did it really change anything back then?

---

In Shb they basically did the same.
I think something they could do is give all the healers some party buffs to where their Rdps matches the tanks in their Adps.
Which is baaaasically how it worked in SHB with the exception for whm obviously. We didn't have Sage yet.
I think it might be time they go back to this design. Healers being good at Rdps and tanks being good at Adps- requiring those buffs they bring. The tanks would inadvertedly do less damage than healers, if there were no healers. Making 0 healer comps suboptimal (which is the goal)
The problem is how do you accomplish this without further homogenising the healers and leaving any healers out?
I am personally kinda okay if Sage was the personal dps healer, if it had a more complicated dps rotation, and i guess i'd give white mage a single target buff akin to eye of the Dragoon. (Rest in peace)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoatOfWar

In Shb they basically did the same.
I think something they could do is give all the healers some party buffs to where their Rdps matches the tanks in their Adps.
Which is baaaasically how it worked in SHB with the exception for whm obviously. We didn't have Sage yet.
I think it might be time they go back to this design. Healers being good at Rdps and tanks being good at Adps- requiring those buffs they bring. The tanks would inadvertedly do less damage than healers, if there were no healers. Making 0 healer comps suboptimal (which is the goal)
The problem is how do you accomplish this without further homogenising the healers and leaving any healers out?

---

You would have to seriously buff healers raid buffs beyond those of actual dps which I think most would call unreasonable. Even I think it unreasonable, dps jobs are supposed to be dps specialists, the only healer that has any business competing with dps dps buffs is SCH given it's tactician lore. It's a bit of a stretch for WHM to give some kind of 'Blessing of the Elementals' but it shouldn't be at the level of competing with the dps buffs of a dps job and it's not going to outweigh taking an actual dps or even a tank if it doesn't.

Now, if they make healers do tank dps, then you get AST and SCH in the viable compositions on account of their party buffs but that doesn't help WHM and SGE who really should do better personal dps on the grounds of not having party buffs and that should be fine because it gives some limited individuality in the healer role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alice_Rivers

You would have to seriously buff healers raid buffs beyond those of actual dps which I think most would call unreasonable. Even I think it unreasonable, dps jobs are supposed to be dps specialists, the only healer that has any business competing with dps dps buffs is SCH given it's tactician lore. It's a bit of a stretch for WHM to give some kind of 'Blessing of the Elementals' but it shouldn't be at the level of competing with the dps buffs of a dps job and it's not going to outweigh taking an actual dps or even a tank if it doesn't.

Now, if they make healers do tank dps, then you get AST and SCH in the viable compositions on account of their party buffs but that doesn't help WHM and SGE who really should do better personal dps on the grounds of not having party buffs and that should be fine because it gives some limited individuality in the healer role.

---

But the healer buffs are already better than, or equal to half the dps job buffs?
I'm not really sure why this is a point of contention for you. It worked perfectly fine in Shb.
Healers had lower personal dps than tanks (the stat that matters more anyways) but their Rdps which includes buffs were necessarily higher. Without the healers, your composition would do less damage than you would if you had them.
This was largely why Whm was so hard to balance though. Team effort vs personal dps is hard to balance. The team has to play into a burst so it wouldn't really be fair if a healer would do the same without having that element of cooperation.

That is not to say Whm can't have it's personal dps increased.
But some degree of teamplay should be required i think. And as i already proposed, an Eye of the Dragoon esque buff would work perfectly. ''Blessing of the wind'' Or whatever, increasing haste perhaps.
Alternatively, you could have a more complex dps rotation that plays into the burst like the tanks currently do. Where most of your damage profile is in your burst.
I'm just not sure if that fits the Whm job identity tbh.

I think they're about as good in percentage terms but vastly inferior when you account for the dps that a dps job contributes vs a healer, then it climbs exponentially as you stack party buffs from other dps. I don't think it's a bad thing though to have a difference between 60/120 second spike jobs and sustain jobs, tanks and healers make sense to be sustain jobs.

If we want to go down the route of healers as a broader support role, which I could possibly get behind as an evolution in the modern FF14 design direction, that could work. Having more buffs/debuffs/area effects and such but then bosses would have to be vulnerable to those things.

I mean, when we say "more damage" we generally just mean total contribution, no? I don't think we particularly care, in terms of metrics, whether it's from giving buffs (rDPS), exploiting buffs (aDPS), or both (cDPS).

Or rather, if someone wants to get through solo content faster as a healer (odd pick, but /shrug), then they'll prefer less come from rDPS and more come from nDPS (base damage), but that's about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alice_Rivers

If we want to go down the route of healers as a broader support role, which I could possibly get behind as an evolution in the modern FF14 design direction, that could work. Having more buffs/debuffs/area effects and such but then bosses would have to be vulnerable to those things.

---

That is the idea, yeah.
But if you don't want Whm to fall behind you're going to kinda have to choose between a bit more complex, burst oriented rotation or for there to be an element of cooperation.
I personally think Whm should have a single target buff that it shares like Eye of the Dragoon used to work. It would be different from the existing raid buffs. But it would also buff your own dps periodically.
I think if any healer is going to be the selfish dps it should *probably* be Sage but i have no idea what they should do with the job at this point. I'd completely overhaul the job from the ground up and give it a tank-like dps rotation with some twist. They've always had trouble balancing between Rdps/Adps jobs within roles though so ehhh... I guess i don't see it happen.

One problem I see with funnelling most of a healer's damage into buffs is that it doesn't fix them being absolutely insufferable to play through solo content on (basically the entire MSQ).

Personally, I'd want to see all healers do at least decent damage on their own and the buffers can have their damage supplemented by buffs while the ones without buffs can just have slightly higher direct throughput so it more or less evens out between them both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aravell

One problem I see with funnelling most of a healer's damage into buffs is that it doesn't fix them being absolutely insufferable to play through solo content on (basically the entire MSQ).

---

Yeah but I would not want this to be a hindrance to better job design. Since this is an MMORPG, I'd rather have jobs working well in groups and raids first, and then worry about how to prop the designs used for that up for a possible solo experience.

Mages Ballard is the closest buff to what’s being proposed of a long semi permanent buff (being 1% damage up), it’s up 1/3rd of the fight and on average provides about 400 DPS. Mages is not the burst song so accounting for the burst a 100% uptime mages Ballard would provide about 1400 DPS

Right now tanks are about 3000 DPS ahead of healers so this theoretical “always up” buff would only really need to be 2-2.5% to realise the roles

It’s not a particularly interesting solution but it’s not really that outlandish, it not like healer would be providing permanent 20% up buffs

it doesn't really matter which role does more damage. Tanks don't NEED to do more damage than healers to pull their weight. that said, if the only reason to make this change comes from something less than one percent of the community actually does. Thats really not a good or smart idea. Personally, i kind of think every job by this point should just do the same damage with the role variance being the only thing that should be adhered to. 2 tanks 2 healers 1 melee 1 ranged 1 caster. so long as thats represented, the last slot should be reserved for a dps. i don't care if red mage and black mage do the same damage because at the end of the day, why does it matter. the raise doesn't matter, play what you want. I've kind of given up on the idea that the devs will ever balance ranged and melee properly vs utility and this extends to tanks and healers too. so they should go nuclear and make everything do roughly the same damage and then black mages crying that the other casters have utiltiy can just slot in in the 4th slot with any of the other casters and call it a day. bring double ranged if you want, who cares....

I don't know what other people's arguments are, but for my part, I'd argue that healers doing more damage than tanks makes perfect sense mathematically.

Healers take a damage loss during prog where they may have to cast their basic GCD AoE heals, or maybe the tanks aren't mitigating properly and the healer has to cast GCD heals to keep them alive. Every GCD spent on topping people up is a loss of over 200 potency for every healer.

Meanwhile, tanks don't take any damage loss when doing their job. They can press Rampart and not lose damage, they press Divine Veil and they don't lose damage, they press Oblation and, oh look, no damage loss. The only time the tank would lose damage is when things are going so wrong that the PLD has to use Clemency.

With that all laid out, what possible reasoning is there for a role that can do maximum potency output in any given situation to just arbitrarily do so much more damage than a role that cops a heavy damage loss when they need to fulfill their main function?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aravell

I don't know what other people's arguments are, but for my part, I'd argue that healers doing more damage than tanks makes perfect sense mathematically.

---

I would argue that since they're both non-damage jobs, their damage should probably be equal.

But you're right, now that I think more about it, that in a vacuum, healer damage should be higher. After all, they lose a non-trivial portion of their damage uptime to reactionary gameplay, namely, well, healing. Meanwhile tanking is baked into the damage rotation via resource generation for tanking skills that are exclusively oGCDs (Shield Bash on Paladins for dungeons being the sole exception actually >.>) or via direct health generation from using skills. Emnity is automated or on oGCDs. So yeah it'd make sense if healer damage output were in theory 20%-25% higher to account for the less effective ability to deal that damage in a fight. But both should roughly come out the same in actual damage done, as neither is a DPS job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wayfinder3

it doesn't really matter which role does more damage. Tanks don't NEED to do more damage than healers to pull their weight. that said, if the only reason to make this change comes from something less than one percent of the community actually does. Thats really not a good or smart idea. Personally, i kind of think every job by this point should just do the same damage with the role variance being the only thing that should be adhered to. 2 tanks 2 healers 1 melee 1 ranged 1 caster. so long as thats represented, the last slot should be reserved for a dps. i don't care if red mage and black mage do the same damage because at the end of the day, why does it matter. the raise doesn't matter, play what you want. I've kind of given up on the idea that the devs will ever balance ranged and melee properly vs utility and this extends to tanks and healers too. so they should go nuclear and make everything do roughly the same damage and then black mages crying that the other casters have utiltiy can just slot in in the 4th slot with any of the other casters and call it a day. bring double ranged if you want, who cares....

---

Strongly disagree - if all classes do the same damage then you will see a strong skew toward a "meta" which once known will just cast out any other class and ultimately result in further class homogenization and saying the raise doesn't matter really seems at risk of sounding rude a naïve assumption; further the logic of tanks doing more damage then healers I feel is largely because of the fact that the only reason OT's are required in groups is due to tank swap mechanics; if a OT is not needed for a tank swap then they are essentially a filler dps whereas "most" groups in high end content are not getting by with only 1 healer so both are constantly doing something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carighan

I would argue that since they're both non-damage jobs, their damage should probably be equal.

But you're right, now that I think more about it, that in a vacuum, healer damage should be higher. After all, they lose a non-trivial portion of their damage uptime to reactionary gameplay, namely, well, healing. Meanwhile tanking is baked into the damage rotation via resource generation for tanking skills that are exclusively oGCDs (Shield Bash on Paladins for dungeons being the sole exception actually >.>) or via direct health generation from using skills. Emnity is automated or on oGCDs. So yeah it'd make sense if healer damage output were in theory 20%-25% higher to account for the less effective ability to deal that damage in a fight. But both should roughly come out the same in actual damage done, as neither is a DPS job.

---

I think that only works logically if you discount the impact that healing has on current fight design as many mechanics require both healers to be healing; by contrast most fights do not require most tanks to be constantly tanking and thus the function of the OT is largely minimal - which is my "theory" as to why tanks have higher DPS then healers to allow them to contribute to the fight in a significant fashion while they await the once in a few moment OT mechanic that is the only reason you bring them rather then another DPS to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aravell

Healers take a damage loss during prog where they may have to cast their basic GCD AoE heals, or maybe the tanks aren't mitigating properly and the healer has to cast GCD heals to keep them alive. Every GCD spent on topping people up is a loss of over 200 potency for every healer.

---

Of 420 melee-DPS potency, and over 500 tank potency, since tanks have a damage nerf baked into their unique damage formulas and healers (like casters) have a 30% damage bonus over melee baked in via traits.

That said, it begs a further question:
If tanks insist on having a greater and greater portion of sustain, what is that sustain meant to carry as a reward?

So long as the fight ends by reducing the enemy's HP to 0, all contribution --no matter how indirect-- is ultimately via more quickly reducing the enemy's HP to 0 (even if through a bit more uptime via Expedient, a healer GCD saved, or whatever else). The primary way tank sustain contributes to rDPS outside of not needing to be rezzed is just... more healer offensive GCDs. But you can only push that sustain so far before it becomes redundant, failing to provide any difference to clear time or chance of success.

Why, then, would having excess sustain be in the tank's interest? And similarly, why would it be in the tank's interest to have higher maximum damage than healers, thereby reducing the relative value of proper use of sustain (rewarded through increased healer DPS)?

Looking at just base potencies of attacks...

The main 3 hit Weaponskill combos of all the tanks

WAR, 220 - 340 - 480, averages to 346.6 and they get their 10% extra damage buff from doing their combo.
DRK, 300 - 380 - 480, averages to 386,6.
GNB, 300 - 380 - 460, 380 average.

PLD is a bit of a special case due to Atonement and Divine Might...

But for those 3, them just doing using their GCDs would be equivalent of healers spamming Glare, Broil, Malefic or Dosis... But due to their higher potency, they'd still out DPS the healers and that's not even accounting for all their other attacks. For healers, these other attacks barely exist aside from the DoT. And the DoTs aren't quite going to pull the DPS of Upheaval and Inner Release, or whatever else the other tanks have.

I mean, you'd want to do pp2m counts anyways for any thorough comparison, but my point was that not all potency are equal.

300 tank potency >>> 300 melee potency >> 300 ranger potency > 300 caster/healer potency.

Tanks suffer a hidden output nerf inside their attack power formulas (and consequently to their damage at a given item level), as they have since Vit was first given Attack Power contribution (to stop tanks from equipping Slaying rings, before they just made ring types role-exclusive... wasting that effort and giving no excuse for this lingering nonsense), iirc.

300 healer/caster potency hits 30% harder than 300 melee potency because the Maim and Mend traits increase their damage by 30% before all else.

300 ranger potency hits 20% harder than 300 melee potency because the Job Action Bonus traits increase their damage by 20% before all else.

That being in the game is just unnecessary confounding BS compared to simply adjusting the raw potencies for each, I'll agree, but it's something we need to keep in mind in considering outputs against each other (e.g., in a shared "effective potency" measurement).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ayan_Calvesse

Strongly disagree - if all classes do the same damage then you will see a strong skew toward a "meta" which once known will just cast out any other class and ultimately result in further class homogenization and saying the raise doesn't matter really seems at risk of sounding rude a naïve assumption; further the logic of tanks doing more damage then healers I feel is largely because of the fact that the only reason OT's are required in groups is due to tank swap mechanics; if a OT is not needed for a tank swap then they are essentially a filler dps whereas "most" groups in high end content are not getting by with only 1 healer so both are constantly doing something.

---

You see that anyway however that only matters for less than 1% of the community. Nobody was locking mch out of progression groups or hindering their ability to play. so tbh, its not that big of a deal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainLagbeard

Looking at just base potencies of attacks...

The main 3 hit Weaponskill combos of all the tanks

WAR, 220 - 340 - 480, averages to 346.6 and they get their 10% extra damage buff from doing their combo.
DRK, 300 - 380 - 480, averages to 386,6.
GNB, 300 - 380 - 460, 380 average.

PLD is a bit of a special case due to Atonement and Divine Might...

But for those 3, them just doing using their GCDs would be equivalent of healers spamming Glare, Broil, Malefic or Dosis... But due to their higher potency, they'd still out DPS the healers and that's not even accounting for all their other attacks. For healers, these other attacks barely exist aside from the DoT. And the DoTs aren't quite going to pull the DPS of Upheaval and Inner Release, or whatever else the other tanks have.

---

That's not how that works.
300 potency for healers translates to more damage than 300 potency on tanks because of job traits.
The tanks do have a wider array of abilities though. They have removed a bunch of healer dps buttons over the years that kinda left behind that void.
Warrior, PLD and Gunbreaker have some really strong GCD's. And Dark knight has some really strong OGCD's. But what *really* separates the tanks from the healers is that the tank's dps profile synergises better with the burst. You could frontload half of Sage's dps and it would be on par with the tanks. Because it would be able to fit all of that damage into the burst.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ayan_Calvesse

I think that only works logically if you discount the impact that healing has on current fight design as many mechanics require both healers to be healing; by contrast most fights do not require most tanks to be constantly tanking and thus the function of the OT is largely minimal - which is my "theory" as to why tanks have higher DPS then healers to allow them to contribute to the fight in a significant fashion while they await the once in a few moment OT mechanic that is the only reason you bring them rather then another DPS to begin with.

---

I want to point out that in large parts of any given fight, a healer does not need to be constantly healing either, so why is the off tank compensated for not needing to be useful all the time while healers don't get any such compensation?

All that aside, you bring the off tank to fulfill the condition of a mechanic in the fight (tank swap) so you don't wipe, it's the same as people bringing healers, so that they get the safety net of more healing and don't wipe. Why should tanks be uniquely compensated for it?

If a group can do some very specific tactic to clear the fight with only one tank, let them. The community sees no issue with dropping a healer, so why should there be any issue with dropping a tank?

It looks very much like tanks are getting special treatment for some undetermined reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aravell

It looks very much like tanks are getting special treatment for some undetermined reason.

---

The players just got accustomed to the continuously escalating powercreep.
The devs are too affraid to nerf and the players think nerfs are strictly bad.
They got a taste of the forbidden fruit and now they don't want to let go. But i think the job identity reworks will tackle that problem.
Because the devs will have plausible deniability to nerf problematic jobs. I just hope they stop listening to bald streamers for their design choices.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

If tanks insist on having a greater and greater portion of sustain, what is that sustain meant to carry as a reward? So long as the fight ends by reducing the enemy's HP to 0, all contribution --no matter how indirect-- is ultimately via more quickly reducing the enemy's HP to 0 (even if through a bit more uptime via Expedient, a healer GCD saved, or whatever else).

---

More relevant - to me - is that there's no point to this so long as its automated. If my 30% damage reduction buff gets bumped to a 40% + self-shield, I won't use it differently. It's for all intents and purposes the same ability as before, just... fancier.

And don't get me wrong, "fancy" can be super cool. I love the new Atonement chain, it looks amazing. But for gameplay purposes, if I am given a more active role in my sustain, I want to be active in that sustaining. The upgraded short CDs work well in that regard, since their strongest portion has to be timed well to work. Paladin healing also works well in that regard, since it's an active decision in the first place but also heals the Paladin. It's a bit underutilized on account of never being needed outside of no-healer groups, but the design is sound.

I just wish I had more of a hand in my own survival and keeping the enemy on me, and less just dealing damage like I'm a melee DPS that has all-face-positionals (also a criminally un-used concept, a melee DPS that has to stand in front of the boss a significant portion of the time!).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoatOfWar

I just hope they stop listening to bald (...) for their design choices.

---

Ain't that the truth? Listening to the vocal part of your playerbase is nearly always a bad idea as a game dev, as the vocal players are only good for telling you what might be a problem, not how to solve it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carighan

Listening to the vocal part of your playerbase is nearly always a bad idea as a game dev, as the vocal players are only good for telling you what might be a problem, not how to solve it.

---

Please forgive me if I'm misreading what you're going for here, but...

Why would more vocal players be any less able to point out a likely solution path than less vocal players? And why would the playerbase not necessarily handing the devs the solution on a silver platter mean that it's a bad idea to listen to them?

Critiques need to be taken in context, yes, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be heard at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Carighan

More relevant - to me - is that there's no point to this so long as its automated.

I just wish I had more of a hand in my own survival and keeping the enemy on me, and less just dealing damage like I'm a melee DPS that has all-face-positionals.

---

Fully agreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shurrikhan

Why would more vocal players be any less able to point out a likely solution path than less vocal players? And why would the playerbase not necessarily handing the devs the solution on a silver platter mean that it's a bad idea to listen to them?

---

Ah yeah sorry, I should have worded that better.

Thing is, this has been a concept since Blizzard talked candidly about it back in the early WoW days (and since then some other devs did, Awesomenauts for example), players by and large are quite good at telling you that something is annoying them, and to a degree what.
However, experience has shown (and this matches with my experience in business software, where similar issues exist if on a different level) that even in the context of explicitly being asked for feedback players are very bad at telling you why something is annoying to them, and what they would like instead.

The same actually goes for the flipside, albeit it's of course more rare as happy players don't leave feedback as often as unhappy ones: Players can tell you that they're happy and to a degree what makes them happy, but not really why that thing makes them happy and what should not change lest it'd no longer be awesome.

So basically, from player feedback, take the "if" and to a degree the "what" (at least as a general pointer) but not the "why" or the proposed fixes.

And that's not a negative in itself. Of course the onus should not be on the players to provide this, they're not developers. But it becomes a problem in the modern social media age as players of certain groups tend to form a sort-of cult around some bigger personalities, and in the process of which these personalities get paid for providing more and more and more detailed and more detailed thoughts, which also means they'll provide ideas and hence a large group of players takes these ideas as if they're their own.

And then as developers, you get peer-pressure to react to these influencer thoughts one way or the other. Which is a bit weird, as they're just one person, just with a bunch of people who likes hearing that voice blabber incessantly.

And like a project manager in business software, it becomes surprisingly difficult to ignore these "larger" voices sometimes, but listening to them can be utterly destructive, as in the end they're no better than any other random voice. And sometimes less so, because they focus on a thing that's less related to gameplay and more selling the appearance of gameplay, after all, that's how they make their money.

Sorry, got way too wordy. Point is, I don't mean devs should ignore player feedback, but they need to be careful to not read too much into it either. That's how we end up with homogenized jobs after all, players crying for balanced raid performance constantly.