Scholar notes from E3 build - Titania Fight

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deceptus

Just curious why you are making this statement with zero evidence to back it up other than "I think".

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deceptus

Art of war is 50 less potency than Miasma II and Ruin 2 is one target where Miasma II shined in AOE situations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandedblade

Art of War is a compromise. It has more upfront damage per cast at the cost of not having the full potency of the dot component. While I agree miasma does more damage. That's only if you let the dot tick. In aoe situations where you're spamming Miasma II you're also clipping the dot and therefore loosing the potency the dot provided.

And besides, Ruin II is getting buffed to 200 potency... the same total potency as Miasma II had. What they have done was make a clear distinction between "This is the dps skill you double weave with in single target setting" and "this is the dps spell you use for aoe, with the added bonus of giving you weaving space."


What the (Warning: My opinion) issue with Miasma II was that it filled both of these niches. I never liked that myself. I prefer using Ruin II for weaving because it allows me to keep my distance, but its potency was abysmal compared to what Miasma II granted. Does it not bother anyone to have to use an AoE spell that puts you in melee range for weaving?

While the whole thing with Bane and shadow flare is another topic all together, I will gladly take Art of War and buffed Ruin II over Miasma II any day. SB Miasma II is literally just a haphazardly thrown together skill to quickly patch a weakness in sch's toolkit. While Art of War reuses a pvp skill animation, it feels like it had more thought put into it then Miasma II did.

---

See the difference between these two statements?

One of them is a quip about how much weaker Scholar's kit change is with the direct analogues, completely ignoring how the skills are used in context, and the other is a an overview of its performance, with the admittance that other parts of the kit are separate and merit further discussion.

Would you care to guess which of these is more prevalent?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kabooa

See the difference between these two statements?

One of them is a quip about how much weaker Scholar's kit change is with the direct analogues, completely ignoring how the skills are used in context, and the other is a an overview of its performance, with the admittance that other parts of the kit are separate and merit further discussion.

Would you care to guess which of these is more prevalent?

---

Problem is, there's nothing inaccurate about my statement like you're trying to make it out to be.

And regarding

Quote:

---

While the whole thing with Bane and shadow flare is another topic all together, I will gladly take Art of War and buffed Ruin II over Miasma II any day. SB Miasma II is literally just a haphazardly thrown together skill to quickly patch a weakness in sch's toolkit. While Art of War reuses a pvp skill animation, it feels like it had more thought put into it then Miasma II did.

---

He complains about Miasma II having to be cast in melee range, and then says that he'd take AoW over Miasma II any day despite AoW being
1) less total potency and
2) only usable in melee range.

You didn't start spamming Miasma 2 until you've properly

1) started with it to get some damage rolling
2) dotted up one mob with Miasma and Bio.
3) spread those dots via Bane and Shadow Flared on OGCD. At this point, your initial Miasma 2 is done doing 200 potency to every enemy you hit it with
4) start spamming.

Complexity. It's important to any job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deceptus

Problem is, there's nothing inaccurate about my statement like you're trying to make it out to be.

And regarding

He complains about Miasma II having to be cast in melee range, and then says that he'd take AoW over Miasma II any day despite AoW being
1) less total potency and
2) only usable in melee range.

You didn't start spamming Miasma 2 until you've properly

1) started with it to get some damage rolling
2) dotted up one mob with Miasma and Bio.
3) spread those dots via Bane and Shadow Flared on OGCD. At this point, your initial Miasma 2 is done doing 200 potency to every enemy you hit it with
4) start spamming.

Complexity. It's important to any job.

---

Art of war is better than Miasma 2 for AoE damage. Period, end of story. Even if you still had Bane and Shadowflare, you're losing 50 potency over your 'opener' and gaining 25 back for each art of War you use back to back compared to Miasma 2.

Trying to dress it as anything else is dishonest at best.

Ruin 2 is better for forced movement and weaving against single targets. Art of War is better for extended AoE use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kabooa

Art of war is better than Miasma 2 for AoE damage. Period, end of story. .

---

In certain context, no it isn't. Period end of story.

For example, in lower level content currently before you have Broil (between levels 46 and 54), Ruin is 100 potency and Miasma 2 is 200 total potency. Even in a single target situation, using Miasma 2 and letting all the dots tick is a DPS gain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deceptus

In certain context, no it isn't. Period end of story.

For example, in lower level content currently before you have Broil (between levels 46 and 54), Ruin is 100 potency and Miasma 2 is 200 total potency. Even in a single target situation, using Miasma 2 and letting all the dots tick is a DPS gain.

---

Oh, forgive me.

I completely forgot to account for irrelevant scenarios.

https://i.imgur.com/ETwqITQ.png

But I guess you can just spam Art of War until you're close to OOM since it's better than Miasma 2 and Ruin at that level.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kabooa

Oh, forgive me.

I completely forgot to account for irrelevant scenarios.

https://i.imgur.com/ETwqITQ.png

But I guess you can just spam Art of War until you're close to OOM since it's better than Miasma 2 and Ruin at that level.

---

It'll be irrelevant in 10 days or so. Right now currently, which is exactly what I said, it is relevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deceptus

Problem is, there's nothing inaccurate about my statement like you're trying to make it out to be.

And regarding



He complains about Miasma II having to be cast in melee range, and then says that he'd take AoW over Miasma II any day despite AoW being
1) less total potency and
2) only usable in melee range.

You didn't start spamming Miasma 2 until you've properly

1) started with it to get some damage rolling
2) dotted up one mob with Miasma and Bio.
3) spread those dots via Bane and Shadow Flared on OGCD. At this point, your initial Miasma 2 is done doing 200 potency to every enemy you hit it with
4) start spamming.

Complexity. It's important to any job.

---

Greetings Deceptus, I want to thank you for shoving words into my mouth, they where rather tasty. Perhaps I should've specified the context of us using AN AOE DAMAGE SKILL to weave in a SINGLE TARGET situation. The whole point of my statement was that Miasma II filled too many niches and I much prefer the AoW and buffed Ruin II because I did see that Miasma II being used the way it was as a bad design change.

As for the statement of AoE? Ok? That doesn't change the fact that those subsequent Miasma IIs will be loosing their potency by being spammed. AoW's advantage over M2 isnt its potency. Its the fact you arent clipping a dot to spam it. The only thing you're loosing spamming it is your mp as opposed to mp AND damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kabooa

Why waste the time and energy when I can just type "It'll be fine" and move on?

---

Dude, this is a discussion forum. If you don't want to participate in a discussion, no matter what your stance is, I'd rather you just left instead of spam your faulty and baseless argument.

I even asked if you had a reasoning behind saying it's fine besides the rather strange argument of "well you haven't played it yet" despite all the data we have and conclusions we can draw from it, or "but things can change" despite us having seen at least one boss fight and knowing from the past that SE doesn't actually change much from the media tour/preview builds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exiled_Tonberry

Dude, this is a discussion forum. If you don't want to participate in a discussion, no matter what your stance is, I'd rather you just left instead of spam your faulty and baseless argument.

I even asked if you had a reasoning behind saying it's fine besides the rather strange argument of "well you haven't played it yet" despite all the data we have and conclusions we can draw from it, or "but things can change" despite us having seen at least one boss fight and knowing from the past that SE doesn't actually change much from the media tour/preview builds.

---

Sure, I've posted as much, just not here.

And this is what I usually get in return.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Exiled_Tonberry

SE doesn't actually change.

---

So yeah.

It'll be fine.

I'm confused, when is the moving on part gonna happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AikenDrum

I'm confused, when is the moving on part gonna happen?

---

When you can actually drum and prove it.

To those arguing between Miasma 2 and AoW. Miasma 2's design may be for for AoE, I can tell you that that's not its only use-case. Let's take a look at savage. Need to move? Weave? Or the like? There are many more checkboxes to tick before making this decision (mana, position, etc.) but even on single target bosses M2 was the better choice in most scenarios. As for AoE? 2 targets? Miasma 2 > Briol 2 x2 (sometimes 1 if dot ticks are favorable) Miasma 2. Far more involved than hurr durr spam skill hurrrrrr... Art of War only has 1 use case with mana being the primary decider in comparison to broil 3, and that is any time you have more than 1 target.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SublimeIbanez

To those arguing between Miasma 2 and AoW. Miasma 2's design may be for for AoE, I can tell you that that's not its only use-case. Let's take a look at savage. Need to move? Weave? Or the like? There are many more checkboxes to tick before making this decision (mana, position, etc.) but even on single target bosses M2 was the better choice in most scenarios. As for AoE? 2 targets? Miasma 2 > Briol 2 x2 (sometimes 1 if dot ticks are favorable) Miasma 2. Far more involved than hurr durr spam skill hurrrrrr... Art of War only has 1 use case with mana being the primary decider in comparison to broil 3, and that is any time you have more than 1 target.

---

My arguement is against the fact that Miasma II has all these functionalities because they take away from Ruin II's value. While it's my personal opinon, I consider Miasma II being more viable for single target mobility and weaving then a spell that was kept for that functionality to be bad design.

As far as AoE goes, AoW is still better then Broil III on 2+ mobs, (Broil III: 280 potency vs AoW: 150 x 2(+)= 300(+)) the only difference being that you no longer have a dot that's being clipped. And now that Ruin II will have 200 potency at level 72, it will have the same potency as Miasma II does, again without dot clipping should a need to cast it again (however niche that much weaving would be). I personally prefer my single target weaving tool to not have a melee range attached to it. And for situations you would use M2 for AoE? AoW is the exact same functionality without the dot clipping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brandedblade

My arguement is against the fact that Miasma II has all these functionalities because they take away from Ruin II's value.

---

Agreed. Whether or not someone likes the design/function/whatever we're seeing in Art of War, Miasma 2 was a bandaid patch skill that came with a lot of unintended consequence baggage. Its potency advantage is likely an accident. A job's abilities should provide an intuitive, natural guide toward playing it skillfully/correctly (*cough* bad lilies *cough*), and using your Holy-equivalent to weave on a single target instead of your single-target instant cast is...anything but intuitive. Something about *that* at least had to change.

You did a level 73 trial with 2 healers and complained that you had too much aetherflow to heal with?

I thought they said they were an experienced healer? go back and do susan or lakshmi at minimum ilevel, its the same thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zolvolt

You did a level 73 trial with 2 healers and complained that you had too much aetherflow to heal with?

I thought they said they were an experienced healer? go back and do susan or lakshmi at minimum ilevel, its the same thing.

---

...exactly?

One of the central points of the OP is a refutation of the hilarious idea naysayers have about incoming damage "drastically increasing". If this trial feels remarkably similar (incoming damage-wise) to Susano/Lakshmi, that's the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Semirhage

...exactly?

One of the central points of the OP is a refutation of the hilarious idea naysayers have about incoming damage "drastically increasing". If this trial feels remarkably similar (incoming damage-wise) to Susano/Lakshmi, that's the point.

---

but its a meaningless point. Damage on those fights is not even close to reflective of what fights like Susaku, Shenryu, Neo-exdeath, God Kefka, or the ultimates shown. So its clearly we can't base anything off of leveling trials when it comes to how much healing is needed. Even comparing the media event dungeons looked like they were more healing intensive. Its kind of a waste of time to base much of anything off of the E3 titania. Its just fanning the flames of people who over react with their concerns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zolvolt

but its a meaningless point. Damage on those fights is not even close to reflective of what fights like Susaku, Shenryu, Neo-exdeath, God Kefka, or the ultimates shown. So its clearly we can't base anything off of leveling trials when it comes to how much healing is needed. Even comparing the media event dungeons looked like they were more healing intensive. Its kind of a waste of time to base much of anything off of the E3 titania.

---

Why are we moving the goalposts? We have actual gameplay for the changes, and people are saying to ignore that. People will eventually say "Ignore Extremes, Savage is what matters." And so on and so forth without any sense of self-awareness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ilenya

Why are we moving the goalposts? We have actual gameplay for the changes, and people are saying to ignore that. People will eventually say "Ignore Extremes, Savage is what matters." And so on and so forth without any sense of self-awareness.

---

Leveling trials have never been a relateable benchmark for max level gameplay, we're only obsessed with it now because we're at the life cycle in this mmo where we have to take away things in order to add new things and that scares people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zolvolt

but its a meaningless point. Damage on those fights is not even close to reflective of what fights like Susaku, Shenryu, Neo-exdeath, God Kefka, or the ultimates shown. So its clearly we can't base anything off of leveling trials when it comes to how much healing is needed. Even comparing the media event dungeons looked like they were more healing intensive. Its kind of a waste of time to base much of anything off of the E3 titania. Its just fanning the flames of people who over react with their concerns.

---

Don't be so naive to think that the damage on the later extremes/savages was set at the beginning of the expansion. They were changed over the course of it to adjust to play styles and clear rates.

Every data point is important, not just the ones you agree with.

If i can utilize entire class toolkit starting from a target dummy on a dps role, starting from any trivial dungeon on a tank role, but have to wait until what, an ultimate?, on a healer role, and outside of that i'm reduced to spamming 1 button most of the time, then the healer job design is bad.
What i'd like instead? Well either appropriate class toolkit for the amount of required healing in basic content (so like... vermedica on rdm and maybe upgrade erase to tetra? should be sufficient for all normal content i think? ^_^); or change basic content (and yes, it has to start from a lvl73 trial/dungeon at the very least) to allow lets say 33% stone 33% cures 33% medicas. Pretty please?

No god please no Vermedica. Please.

Oi didn't you want a 4th healer? There're too many dps anyway ^_^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zolvolt

Leveling trials have never been a relateable benchmark for max level gameplay, we're only obsessed with it now because we're at the life cycle in this mmo where we have to take away things in order to add new things and that scares people.

---

Thing is leveling trials you can say the majority of players will do, you can't say that for extremes and savage, and if these changes are redundant for the majority there is a problem. You would get more people asking why did they do this, These skills feel pointless and i'm sick of the ast dmg skills on my sch, something you do not want your majority of the hlr community to feel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AikenDrum

If i can utilize entire class toolkit starting from a target dummy on a dps role, starting from any trivial dungeon on a tank role, but have to wait until what, an ultimate?, on a healer role, and outside of that i'm reduced to spamming 1 button most of the time, then the healer job design is bad.

---

There's a difference between being able to use your entire kit and having to use your entire kit.

That trivial dungeon is no less a chore for tanks and dps than it is for healer. They don't have to use defensive cooldowns or more than 123 either - The dungeon will clear just fine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LariaKirin

There's a difference between being able to use your entire kit and having to use your entire kit.

That trivial dungeon is no less a chore for tanks and dps than it is for healer. They don't have to use defensive cooldowns or more than 123 either - The dungeon will clear just fine.

---

Eh, trivial dungeons are less of a chore for tanks and dps for the exact very reason that you're able to use full kit there if you want to.

Ah wait, i meant "allow" not "require", sec

Although i just don't see a way how they can allow more healing without also making it required, which is why i think this "pure healing" system will always be less healing in easier content, and with 3 buttons for "not healing" - very boring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AikenDrum

Eh, trivial dungeons are less of a chore for tanks and dps for the exact very reason that you're able to use full kit there if you want to.

Ah wait, i meant "allow" not "require", sec

Although i just don't see a way how they can allow more healing without also making it required, which is why i think this "pure healing" system will always be less healing in easier content, and with 3 buttons for "not healing" - very boring.

---

Nothing stops you from using your full kit if you want to. Dropping an Indom to top up your party when you know no damage is coming in the next minute is just as pointless as popping cooldowns to reduce a TB from 50% of your HP to 40%. Trivial dungeons are trivial - who would've thought?

This is not a problem for the first few runs, but it becomes a problem once you learn the encounter. The game is simply not designed to be interesting forever due to its scripted nature. Your 100th run of content X will not be interesting, regardless of the nature of the content. It's a ridiculous expectation to have. And having 5 buttons instead of 3 will change nothing.

Then you could also say tanks are "using" enmity combos right now, since they "use" it once per pull. Frequency does matter. And i didn't say i want trivial dungeons to be interesting, i just want something a bit more mechanically engaging to do to not fall asleep. I do get that on tank/dps. Don't get that on healer. And can i have 5 buttons if it changes nothing for you? You can unbind 2 if you don't want them ^^

Also i used the word "utilize" instead of "use" initially exactly because it's not as easily interpreted as "use just once". And what i mean exactly by "utilizing" is: keep using abilities more or less equally spread across the entire kit. Like dps/tank rotations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AikenDrum

Then you could also say tanks are "using" enmity combos right now, since they "use" it once per pull. Frequency does matter. And i didn't say i want trivial dungeons to be interesting, i just want something a bit more mechanically engaging to do to not fall asleep. I do get that on tank/dps. Don't get that on healer. And can i have 5 buttons if it changes nothing for you? You can unbind 2 if you don't want them ^^

Also i used the word "utilize" instead of "use" initially exactly because it's not as easily interpreted as "use just once". And what i mean exactly by "utilizing" is: keep using abilities more or less equally spread across the entire kit. Like dps/tank rotations.

---

If 111111 makes you fall asleep, but 123123 doesn't, then bind Stone IV to 1,2,3. We do not need button bloat, we need meaningful choices (what ED did for SCH).

You keep mentioning tank/dps, but you forget that healer is different in one very important way - the degree to which you use your healing abilities is dictated by both the encounter itself and the players around you. I'm sure you can see the difficulties in design here. "Utilizing", in the way you've defined it, is not going to happen (with the abilities as they are now) because some healing abilities are inherently more efficient than others.

If you truly want what you said, then you should be asking for something that leads to "utilizing" your entire kit - significantly nerfing every healing ability across the board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LariaKirin

If 111111 makes you fall asleep, but 123123 doesn't, then bind Stone IV to 1,2,3.

---

If those would be 3 different stone IV as a combo then sure, i'll take it. I mean, it works for melee dps, why shouldn't it for healers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LariaKirin

significantly nerfing every healing ability across the board

---

This i'd also take.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LariaKirin

you forget that healer is different in one very important way - the degree to which you use your healing abilities is dictated by both the encounter itself and the players around you

---

Emm, yes, i know, and current basic encounters do not allow healers to utilize their healing abilities, that's my problem with either the encounters or the healers kit that doesn't do much outside of healing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LariaKirin

significantly nerfing every healing ability across the board.

---

The problem with this, is that you run into the Media Tour scenario that Mr. Happy's AST gameplay recordings portray (but he avoids acknowledging): with this encounter design, you can't keep your party alive, and will quickly run out of MP trying (Lucid Dreaming really isn't that great). Therefore, significantly nerfing healing would require changes to overall encounter design, and since a majority of those changes would lower the requirements of tanking efficacy, and since it would reduce the drama of dealing high damage at the risk of grabbing aggro (and therefore lower the "fun" for DPS, though trivially), we will not be seeing those changes.

For this expansion, changes to the healer role are being made to help bring about a fun experience for the DPS and the Tanks, not the healers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MintnHoney

For this expansion, changes to the healer role are being made to help bring about a fun experience for the DPS and the Tanks, not the healers.

---

Ouch, I felt this statement in my soul stone.

I do hope they at least give us some kind of AoE spread for dots or Energy Drain back... don't really need Shadow Flare as much as those IMO. I wonder if Biolysis naturally being AoE would 'fix' that a bit too since SCH lacks an Earthly/Assize-alike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zeopower6

I do hope they at least give us some kind of AoE spread for dots or Energy Drain back... don't really need Shadow Flare as much as those IMO. I wonder if Biolysis naturally being AoE would 'fix' that a bit too since SCH lacks an Earthly/Assize-alike.

---

Not likely to give AoE Biolysis, considering they took away Aero III, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MintnHoney

The problem with this, is that you run into the Media Tour scenario that Mr. Happy's AST gameplay recordings portray (but he avoids acknowledging): with this encounter design, you can't keep your party alive, and will quickly run out of MP trying (Lucid Dreaming really isn't that great). Therefore, significantly nerfing healing would require changes to overall encounter design, and since a majority of those changes would lower the requirements of tanking efficacy, and since it would reduce the drama of dealing high damage at the risk of grabbing aggro (and therefore lower the "fun" for DPS, though trivially), we will not be seeing those changes.

For this expansion, changes to the healer role are being made to help bring about a fun experience for the DPS and the Tanks, not the healers.

---

... what? Mr. Happy's Astro gameplay didn't show off anything except Merri mass pulling a leveling dungeon and exploding. Despite how piss easy SB is, you can still very easily die doing the huge pulls in Shisui or Doma. Nerfing healing might make super wall to wall pulls difficult or downright impossible but it wouldn't make healing itself impossible. You would merely sub in more healing instead of constant Stone/Holy spam. In fact, this is somewhat how ARR worked. Healers didn't have the oGCD options they do now—many of which are hilariously overpowered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForteNightshade

... what?

---

We're talking about significantly nerfing healing. You're right, in that the one recording I was immediately thinking about was an extreme situation, but it's still relevant to what I'm saying because that's how the game is played and the situation is the natural progression of the current design (as we get more confident, we pull more and add to the challenge). If I'm honest: if he had remembered to use those [hilariously overpowered] oGCDs, then the outcome of that pull would likely have been very different (but I guess, "Job effectiveness is relative to player skill," or however they said it).
Even if we ignore that extreme territory, unless encounter design ultimately changes to work with "signficantly nerfed healing," (to which, I'm taking it to mean we would be trying to reduce healing potencies in proportion to the displayed Collective Unconscious' potency nerf) then gameplay for all the roles would have to slow down and suffer for it under the current design philosophy, not even thinking about how much stress would be placed upon the healer for having a potentially constant uphill battle. It just wouldn't work out as it is right now, and anything that would slow down the gameplay would lower the fun for just about everyone, so they're not going to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MintnHoney

We're talking about significantly nerfing healing. You're right, in that the one recording I was immediately thinking about was an extreme situation, but it's still relevant to what I'm saying because that's how the game is played and the situation is the natural progression of the current design (as we get more confident, we pull more and add to the challenge). If I'm honest: if he had remembered to use those [hilariously overpowered] oGCDs, then the outcome of that pull would likely have been very different (but I guess, "Job effectiveness is relative to player skill," or however they said it).
Even if we ignore that extreme territory, unless encounter design ultimately changes to work with "signficantly nerfed healing," (to which, I'm taking it to mean we would be trying to reduce healing potencies in proportion to the displayed Collective Unconscious' potency nerf) then gameplay for all the roles would have to slow down and suffer for it under the current design philosophy, not even thinking about how much stress would be placed upon the healer for having a potentially constant uphill battle. It just wouldn't work out as it is right now, and anything that would slow down the gameplay would lower the fun for just about everyone, so they're not going to do it.

---

I suppose it depends what you define as "significant." Some would argue a straight 25% nerf across the board is significant yet very little would change in terms of gameplay design. You could easily go further because is just that strong in this game. Currently, there is no progressively pulling more as we get stronger. Expert dungeons are so comically undertuned, you mass pull day one without a second thought unless you're woefully undergeared. I mean, it got to the point I stopped turning on tank stance and still did wall to wall pulls. The outgoing damage was that pathetic. Going one better I've done Expert dungeons without a healer, period. The fact we can get away with that at any level is absurd but a combination of tank self healing and poor scaling makes it easy.

As for gameplay changes. Some alternations may need to be made but one could argue they improve things. No need for crap like White Hole which exists due to the dev team having no idea how to challenge healers. The notion healers have to be overpowered to make other roles fun is silly. They're overpowered because SE caters towards new or bad players.

Well without changing heal-to-tank-hp ratio the only way we can get a "healers mostly heal" scenario is when tank almost get oneshotted every other gcd, leaving very little room for mistakes/losing focus, so it automatically rules out casual content.

Although, honestly, in few scenarios where i had that (like keeping lower elemental level tank alive in eureka), when I'd cast cure 1 even at 100% hp since it'd never overheal and would leave me some safe room if next gcd gets tank below 30%, everything under 70% is safe cure 2, and you save ogcds for bringing tank up from like 10% - i much preferred it to the usual stuff since i had to constantly react every gcd which kept me engaged in the game rather than phased out during stone spam. And I also felt like a proper healer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ForteNightshade

As for gameplay changes. Some alternations may need to be made but one could argue they improve things. No need for crap like White Hole which exists due to the dev team having no idea how to challenge healers. The notion healers have to be overpowered to make other roles fun is silly. They're overpowered because SE caters towards new or bad players.

---

To be honest, the currently-proposed updates to healing actions, including oGCDs, are not really the changes I have in mind when I say that the Dev team made updates to the healers in order to ensure Tank and DPS fun, but rather the non-healing actions and the pruning we are receiving to them. But that's also just how I feel, and is not necessarily their true intentions.
Alterations to the current system would be necessary for them to promote a true "healers should be spending most of their actions healing" experience. They've been experimenting with a few alterations using various "new" content, like Eureka and the Deep Dungeons, and it's lead to a series of varied successes and experiences.
Let's hope that one of those experiments bares fruit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AikenDrum

Well without changing heal-to-tank-hp ratio the only way we can get a "healers mostly heal" scenario is when tank almost get oneshotted every other gcd, leaving very little room for mistakes/losing focus, so it automatically rules out casual content.

Although, honestly, in few scenarios where i had that (like keeping lower elemental level tank alive in eureka), when I'd cast cure 1 even at 100% hp since it'd never overheal and would leave me some safe room if next gcd gets tank below 30%, everything under 70% is safe cure 2, and you save ogcds for bringing tank up from like 10% - i much preferred it to the usual stuff since i had to constantly react every gcd which kept me engaged in the game rather than phased out during stone spam. And I also felt like a proper healer.

---

You wouldn't need near one-shot mechanics on the tanks if bosses did more sustained damage instead of short bursts. For example, WoW plays a war of attrition gameplay while making it not all predictable. A combination of that achieves the same thing without making tanks take 85% of their HP. The only reason Busters can hit so hard now is because healers are far too powerful. That 85% gets healed by a single use of Essential Dignity and you're back to spamming Malefic III.

Eureka actually tips its toes in more healer focused content. Coincidentally, none of it is difficult but keeps you active. From my own experiences, I remember a Kugane Castle run a while back where my friend on BRD was forced to tank Yojimbo after our tank bailed. Healing her was fun because I had to consider my casts since she couldn't take more than a couple autos.