Good point, I would say that's come up, and I've never had the impression in that context that WHM would in any way infringe a BLM, in fact it seemed to be a very natural comparison to many people as both jobs are "classic" casters.
Printable View
Not going to comment on the rest other than this piece: I counted both. So I DID say the same for Searing Light:
"SMN today has Ruin 3, Ruin 4, ... Energy Drain, Fester, Searing Light,..."
And don't mix analogies. You didn't mention speed limits. You only said "not everyone's happy with a Prius, shouldn't we build other cars?" To which I would agree...but we should ALSO keep building Priuses since some people like those as well. Trying to move the goalposts in the middle of an analogy breaks the analogy. The 4 Healers Model parallel is we went from only making Priuses into making Priuses, Mustangs, F150s, and Vipers. They can all go the same speed, that's irrelevant to the analogy.
Oh, and on AST: The Cards are BORING now, but you get them (in terms of Draw CD) at the same rate, right? They're just boring, you have the one Redraw per Draw limit, and you don't have the "burn for additional effects" mechanic? Of course, they're doing an AST rework, so who the heck knows what they'll look like 8 months from now...
Didn't you argue with me before that Healers could easily add more hotbar spots because (especially WHM and SGE) they have room? (I'm not accusing you, I just don't remember who all made that argument). Regardless, the bar is pretty moveable. As I counted above, SMN has 16 and SB SCH had something like 10-12?, so it wouldn't be a far cry to add 4 more at that point. Likewise, if SGE's mechanic was changed to mostly healing through Kardia and (in emergencies) Prognosis/Diagnosis, then wouldn't it have room for a full DPS rotation?
Ironically, SMN may have less damage buttons than several of the Tanks do, meaning Tank rotations are actually more buttons than (at least one) DPS Job's, so technically "more than a DPS".
.
In any case, we're pretty far off into the weeds now.
See above: By some counts, Tanks have more than (at least one) DPS Job.
Also see above. Though to be fair here, "Thundercloud procs" and "Astral/Umbral phases" have been suggested at various points.
.
...though now I'm curious what the DPS ability spread and average is for DPS Jobs, Tanks, Healers respectively and individually...hm. Another time.
Same honestly, I also hate the change to BRD DoTs and songs being 45s because of it. I'm now spamming Burst Shot more times than Glare, only being broken up by the Refulgent proc.
I must now finish my meme theorycraft, it will be glorious.
You counted both, but did not mention why you counted Searing Light. If I had to guess with only reading the lists, it'd be because 'its a button used while doing the damage rotation'. But then Chain Strat has this weird note attached. Nobody thinks of it as SCH's IR. It does not give access to a burst ability, it's just a raidbuff. Searing Light does not give access to a burst ability, it's just a raidbuff. I don't understand why you feel the need to append 'use cases' to things that do not have them
I'm so glad we have you around to tell us what we mean by our analogies, since we apparently don't. Others seemed to understand what I meant by what I said
The cards in SB were 'used' more frequently. While we get them at the same rate from Draw (30s), We also had a 2min window in Sleeve Draw, which gave a RR effect to react to, a Spread card, a Drawn card, and a Minor Arcana card. Redraw had three charges. So where we now play 6 cards in 2 minutes (4 Draws, 2 MA), back then we'd use 7 (4 Draws, a Draw, a Spread, a MA). You'd interact with the cards a lot more often though, more OGCD time was dedicated to them. With AOE Balance being what it is, and access to up to three Redraws, you'd spend a lot more time Redrawing to get a Ewer/Spire, and a lot more again to find a Balance once you had the AOE RR set up
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the charge system introduced in ShB? I don't remember Redraw having charges back in SB.
No, I didn’t argue that point, at least not in that way. I mean white mage and sage have room for a few more buttons probably, but certainly not enough room to have a full DPS kit next to their existing healing kits. What I have said is that we can debloat the healing kits and use that added room to have a soft set of DPS tools. I mean, you saw my more recent ideas for Sage and how it just had 18 buttons total between healing and DPS. That’s what I want, something more evenly balanced between healing and DPS actions.
And...how is this relevant? Either they both count or they don't, and if they both do OR both don't, it doesn't change the relative difference between the two. So it's no distinction other than you're looking for something to be disagreeable over, as shown by your following, heckling line which I will ignore. Suffice to say: There was no slight of hand. I specified the first because I thought some people might go "it's a raid buff, not a DPS button" (despite being directly used to increased DPS) and I didn't think, after saying that, anyone would be demanding I not count Searing Light, since folks from your side of the argument are benefited by counting more SMN abilities, not less, as far as your argument goes. I didn't think I needed to specify with Searing Light since I didn't think anyone would argue against their own position...
Redraw had 3 charges but still a CD, right? Meaning you could burn them all at once but then not have any for a while. While that creates flexibility, normalized over time it's not more uses, is it? That is, you had the same rate of Redraw generation as now (normalized over time), it just could be stacked/used several at once vs the current "one per Draw"? Is that correct? And you're saying that we hold Cards for burst means we use them less despite using them the same amount...when this is the opposite of Redraw in that you can choose to use them all at once or to space them out. The two arguments are in conflict with each other... In any cases, "a Draw, a Spread" vs "+1 MA", that was the trade off, then? Reasonable to be upset by that considering MA kinda sucks. The irony is, I felt (when I picked up AST in ShB) that MA then actually seemed to matter a bit more since it could be used to get the seals you need without upsetting your current balance, though I'm not sure if optimizing that was something people enjoyed (hence the change to seals just being for Astrodyne instead...) Though what I think is more important is the different types of interactions. The burn/boosted effect and the distinct effects meant more to engage with, yes? That is, more to consider and think about.
....
Oh, well okay then.
Fair enough. It happens. I appreciate the honest good faith effort at an answer.
Though can you explain the burn system? That was before I played AST. Other than just knowing it exists, I'm not sure the HOW of it other than AST had something like 8-10 abilities that were just about Card play (including Minor Arcana stuffs), and even discounting stuff like Undraw, there seemed to be more going on. Wasn't there something where the cards you burned had different effects on the next card played? Or was the effect always the same, depending on the card? That is, was it "Burn Ewer, next card is AOE" or was it "Burn Card, next Balance is AOE, next Spire has 2x the duration, etc"?
Yeah, I was honestly impressed by that SGE idea.
Burn Ewer, next card is AoE is correct there. Royal Road (nicknamed burn because of the animation) would dispel your current card to change up the next card.
Burning Ewer and Spire would make the next card AoE at 50% effectiveness (so Balance would go from 10% to 5%, but on everyone).
Burning Balance and Bole would make the next card 50% stronger (so Balance would be 15% on a single person, Ewer restored 50% more MP, etc.)
Burning Arrow and Spear would double the duration of the next card (so everything would go from 30s to 60s)
And if we didn't like a card, we could Redraw, or convert it to Lady or Lord at random.
Celestial Opposition I believe extended the buff duration from cards in play as well, so that 30s AoE Balance would be 40s instead, and Time Dilation was the single target variant that increased someones card by 15s.
It's also worth noting that og CO and TD could be used to extend Shroud, regens etcetc. Old AST was an intricate beautiful beast.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLGUMzl2cV0
Even if Creator itself wasn't exactly an all time classic tier, man I had so much fun on AST back then. Putting the work and effort into good CD and card management really allowed you to feel like you were dragging a group along in a way that's just not possible anymore. Plus the card and time extension play was constant. None of this throwing everything into your opener/2 minute window and then AFKing till the next that AST is stuck with now++
Because Chain Strategem is a raid buff, not a DPS button. Chain Strategem, like Battle Litany, Mug, Battle Voice, Radiant Finale, Searing Light, Embolden, and the like, produces very little of its rDPS through the skill-caster's own exploitation of it. It certainly should not, as you put it......two of which unlock unique skills and all of which depend entirely on one's own exploitation of that buff.
So, yes, having called what is clearly a raid buff anything other than a raid buff is going to look odd, especially if you've previously similarly 'adjusted' otherwise agreed-upon classifications to suggest, say, that Job A's kit has lost less relative to Job B's kit than is commonly thought.
Originally, you had 3 pairs of Cards, with each pair holding generally opposite effects: Damage [Potency] Cards, Speed [Time] Cards, and Resource [Party] Cards.
Damage Cards increased damage dealt (Balance) or decreased damage taken (Bole) and, if consumed, increased the potency of the next Card played ("Empower").
Speed Cards increased Attack Speed (Arrow) or Ability Recast Speed (Spear) and, if consumed, extended the duration of the next Card played ("Extend").
Resource Cards granted MP (Ewer) or TP (Spire) and, if consumed, expanded your next Card played to affect the whole party, though at reduced effect ("Expand").
It had several tuning issues and Resource Cards can no longer constitute a category in themselves without hefty target disparity (such as by granting gauge or gauge generation), but the fundamental idea is sound enough.
There is an immediately obvious design fork, though:
- On the first path, you favor management of chance by having slightly larger net differences in Card performance and/or making those differences more consistent.
- On the second path, you favor variation by adjusting functionality and/or tuning to create use cases for each card in practice and/or reducing the general net differences between cards (such as by adding a complicating factor like Seals to force diversity in Card types used).
Personally, I slightly favor the second, but the original HW/StB Card systems were the first, though not in nearly so obvious a fashion as the community made things out to be.
"Balance Fishing" in the sense of discarding anything that wasn't Balance after readying an Expand (next Card affects the whole party) was almost never actually optimal (and would require you to be pretty precisely sure of your number of Draws available within the fight). Yes, a speedrun with a higher portion of Expand -> Balance casts would outperform those without, but that's a matter of initial luck, not how well that luck was managed.
In Stormblood, you could also burn a card to just outright conserve it for a spare oGCD Attack (Lord) or Heal (Lady) usable, though only the once per Card burned, at any later time. Though, sadly, which you got was also RNG.
Honestly, the largest issues of the old system are simply that Minor Arcana (burning a Card for a later oGCD attack or heal) and Royal Road (burning a Card for an effect on the next) required an overcommitment for how many layers of RNG an AST was dealing with and that certain cards were a bit overly narrow in their use cases. Both those issues can be fixed, however.
Minor Arcana's issue could have been easily solved by just making 1 of each category always become a Lady (oGCD heal) and one of each category always become a Lord (oGCD attack).
Royal Road's issue could have been easily solved by having it be released manually instead of automatically/unavoidably (once a Royal Road is readied, you need to toggle the created Royal Road on in order to have the next Card consume it).
The Cards' use cases, though, are a bit different, and honestly it might not be worth constraining ourselves to the Card system's original patterns/distributions of effects now that we've lost both TP and Ability Speed as manipulable values.
But, let's say we were to keep something of the original pairing, even if only unified under Seals...
SOLAR
- Balance - The greater of the target's damage or healing taken or damage or healing dealt increases their Attack and Magic Power or Physical and Magical Defense, respectively. Additions fade separately, each over 10 seconds.
- Bole - Damage dealt to the target is instead split between the target and nearby allies. Damage is split according to the health to which the player would be reduced. (Since the allies take this as a new instance damage, it's effectively double-mitigated.) Only a maximum of 50% of the target's maximum HP can be shared in this manner.
(No, Bole cannot directly kill an ally through the shared damage. A player at 1 HP could not receive any portion of the shared damage. If one of the player would inevitably died from the shared damage, regardless of its distribution, then the player affected by Bole will just take the full amount, wasting much of it to overkill.
Or, heck, maybe next to none of those protections, in order to keep the Spiritlink Totem equivalent more in check.)
CELESTIAL
- Arrow - Increases target's Attack Speed and Movement Speed.
- Spear - Increase's the recharge speed of the target's abilities and allows target to overcharge their abilities.
Overcharge: Your actions with a recast time greater than the global cooldown can generate additional charge. Partial charges may be spent for partial effect.
LUNAR
- Ewer - The target gains 1% additional MP and HP per second and excess HP the target receives is transferred to and split among nearby applicable allies.
- Spire - The target's critical strikes increase their and nearby allies' Critical Strike by a small amount, based on the potency of their critical strikes. Additions fade separately, over 10 seconds.
In that layout, general priority would descend from Celestial to Lunar to Solar, but because you want all 3 Seals anyways (I'm assuming a less pitiful Astrodyne or other Seal-spender here), you'd still typically use all three anyways.
That's obviously an untuned spitball, as having access to Spiritlink Totem, a Chain Strategem more reminiscent of a true "Chain" Strategem, etc., on a 30s CD would be a bit much, but the idea there is that each card should feel a bit more thematic and have multiple use cases; even if not every recipient type fits every purpose, there's at least a recipient type and/or purpose for each scenario.
You could CO extend 'any buff applied by the AST', that meant not only the usual suspects like your Regens, or 'Luminiferous Aether' (now Lucid) to get more MP, but things like Sprint and even your Potion. Plus, CO stunned enemies for 4s on use
Cool, thanks for that. Was Time Dilation the thing that worked on all your buffs? Like if you had a Card and Regen on someone, it would extend them both?
Ah, there we go. Thank you. That does sound wild. (To be fair, AST is not the only victim of the 2 min meta...)
Irrelevant.
To.
The.
Discussion.
This is the same as that "well akshually...!" in the other thread about the word impossible.
THE POINT was to see how different SB SCH vs EW SMN are in terms of DPS buttons. SINCE BOTH have a raid buff used more or less on CD, the gap between abilities is the same whether we count them both OR do not count them both. And we won't count one but not the other. Thus it is irrelevant. It was irrelevant when the first person mentioned it, and once one person has mentioned it, even if it WAS relevant, there's no reason for several more people to pile on trying to mention the same thing already mentioned. But doubly so when it's irrelevant to the point being made.
.
"AST discussion"
Cool. Thank you for the elaboration.
I think it could be possible to make GCD healing not a DPS loss. Maybe scholar could double the potency of their next broil if their shield breaks. Sage could have a "damage" kardia that does damage to a target when using GCD healing abilities. MP costs of GCD heals would probably need to be increased to still discourage needlessly spamming heals. These ideas would obviously need tweaks but I think it could be possible to make GCD healing not a DPS loss.
I don't think it's healthy for every GCD heal to potentially be DPS neutral. It creates an environment where there's not really a "wrong" choice or "right" choice because all roads lead to El Dorado. Having them become neutral under certain conditionals can work, but those should feel somewhat limited.
None of which would be necessary, though, if the oGCDs weren't so far out of hand as to make GCD heals entirely redundant in most content.
Yes, the GCDs would remain second-priority, but that is fine so long as the buttons actually see use.
An ally dying is cost far more potency than any single lost filler attack.
If you make spammable fall-back heals worth casting even when avoidable, you've merely removed a fail condition and consequent skill expression... more so than you've added choice.
If you want GCD heals to be useful without reducing skill expression, frankly, the biggest thing is just going to be the healing requirements themselves.
Toxicon- or Misery-like refund mechanisms are viable, yes, but also frequently clunky and, if ever applied to anything spammable, inherently capable only of partial refunds without breaking the game's balance.
It's why I was careful in my redesigns to put the refunds under some time constraint or restriction; Blood Lilies could be gained from Cure > Banish in my WHM, but it would lead to a small potency loss each time from overcapping the Baptism timer (admittedly I think it's too small a loss). Kaustra on my SCH gives back 2 Broils worth, but only after the DoT went through its full duration of 15s. AST had to wait for Double-cast to come off cooldown before you could refund. And my SGE had to spend about 6-7 GCDs to build up enough gauge for its damage neutral heals.
The only time back-to-back GCDs should be a thing is when things have gone south and time needs to be spent recovering, otherwise the goal was about thinking through GCD heals wisely and efficiently rather than rewarding constant topping up.
SCH could take a page from old SMN (specifically Egi-Assault) and have Ruin 2 become Ruin 4 whenever they cast Adlo or Succor, maximum 4 charges.
For those who didn't play it, in ShB, SMN had two GCD abilities, Egi-Assault 1 and Egi-Assault 2, both of which could have 2 charges. When using either, the SMN got a buff, "Further Ruin", which would stack up to 4 and which upgraded their Ruin 2 button into Ruin 4, a much stronger attack more powerful than Ruin 3 and instant cast. Over the full 2 min cycle (SMN was 2 min meta before there was 2 min meta), you'd get a total of 8 of these (both Egi-Assaults had a 30 sec CD). This was part of SMN's kit in two key ways, one was maximizing damage when Bahamut was out (Bahamut would attack any time you used a GCD and oGCD, meaning you would want to cram 8 GCDs into his window, which required some instant casts, so you'd want 4 Ruin 4s ready, as you also dumped a bunch of oGCDs, even Addle and needed the weaving space, because that got you an extra Bahamut attack - I think they later changed it to remove the oGCD part, but the same premise mostly remained), and outside of Bahamut, you had the other 4 to use for instant cast movement tools, as well as the Egi-Assaults themselves, which were movement tools. In practice, ShB SMN had VERY few actual hardcasts in the rotation.
...which is why it always gets me when people say EW SMN is "basically a Ranged Phys instead of a Caster", as if this is new, because it was hyper mobile in ShB as well, making me wonder if those people just didn't play ShB SMN but want to complain about the game being braindead from a place of ignorance anyway...but that's neither here nor there. The important part here is:
Further Ruin.
Just have SCH get a stack of it for each Adlo/Succor (and Physick if you're feeling spicy) that then let them cast Ruin 4, and make Ruin 4's damage 2x a Ruin 3 so that it's "damage neutral". Like WHM, this COULD generate gameplay where you want to have 4 full stacks of Further Ruin going into burst windows (since it would be a damage increase to blow them during burst windows), but people keep saying they want more damage optimization, so that would fit into that model.
.
SGE could already be damage neutral with its GCDs if Toxicon's main target damage was increased to 2x Dosis.
.
One thing I'll warn you is that there are people that will argue that damage neutral GCD heals are bad because...they lower the skill ceiling or something. "No wrong choices/mistakes" is the typical argument. Obviously, the problem with that argument is that they have no solution that makes GCD heal casting NOT suboptimal play. So we keep going through the situation we have with a glut of GCD tools that no one uses because they're "bad".
Yes yes, they can be good in some situations, but those situations are extremely niche. "If it saves you an oGCD use so you can use it at a more optimal time later" or something, but these are very niche scenarios and don't change the fact that they still leave GCD heals feeling "bad" to use across all situations and most of the game, leading to the "glarespam + oGCD weave heal" situation we have today.
.
Oh, wait, no, hit refresh on the page and you already have several people telling you we can't do it. So there ya go. :)
(Oh, but also note people in general will tell you stuff like Toxicon are bad because you can't use the intended mechanic to generate Addersting. Because doing so outside of untargetable phases is a damage loss. So...double edged sword, I guess? To which end, proposals abound for how to generate Addersting that aren't using GCD heals...which defeats the entire purpose.)
This is a gross misrepresentation of the situation.
A GCD heal might suboptimal for your personal DPS while being optimal for the party's total DPS. This is the fundamental trade-off that a healer makes -- or would be making in this game if healing requirements were a bit higher and/or oGCD heals less available.
For example, presented with a situation where a party member has tanked the floor prior to a bona fide body-check mechanic, spending a GCD (or more) Raising that party member is the optimal thing to do. Continuing to blithely spam your nuke because "Raise is a DPS loss" is sheer idiocy given that doing so will lead to a wipe. In this situation, if you're the sort of healer that will cast that Raise only if it's "damage neutral", then to be blunt, you are a bad healer and should go play a DPS job.
The same style reasoning applies to every other GCD-based heal.
No, it's not.
But regardless, the point stands: Making GCD heals damage neutral basically puts them on the same footing as oGCDs, just with a limiting factor of MP rather than of CDs (though in some cases it can be both, like Pneuma). People that like weaving oGCDs between damage spells and not using GCDs hate this idea, since GCD healsers would be arguably as effective as they are, but in strictly mechanical terms, there's no reason not to do it.
And we're talking about GCD heals. Raise is not a "heal" in the normal sense. So to be blunt: That is a gross misrepresentation of the argument. (Also, I haven't seen anyone asking for Raise to be damage neutral, have you?)
Making GCD heals damage neutral gets a bit of a bad rap but I do appreciate why.
It needs to be done tastefully IMO, just slapping a refund onto everything puts us in a position where you might as well go full keyboard cat if resources allow, it further takes the finesse out of the role, further shrinking the gap between the skill floor and ceiling, something many are still sore about after the removal of so many other facets and intricacies of our kit.
To turn a point you tried to use against me in another thread, the healer jobs themselves are already largely braindead (AST burst phase allowing), why push something that makes them more so? It doesn't make me think more in mainstream content? It doesn't make an alliance raid more engaging? It doesn't fix me being bored senseless on solo content?
*HOWEVER*
IMO this sort of dismissal only really stands up when you take the (Sadly almost inevitable) perspective of SE simply slapping a refund on our existing GCDs and calling it a day
You've probably seen me rant and rave about the glory that was Warrior Priest in Warhammer Online many a time, a big part of what made it stand out over other more traditional MMO healers was that the entire class was not just a damage refund, it was damage positive. Using the right ability in the right moment was a net gain on resources and potency per minute over simply standing back and mashing a heal. It sucked you in, the more you understood it, the more dynamic it became and the more it rewarded you.
Basically I think done right in a manner that rewards both activity and ability choice, damage neutrality could be a very good thing indeed, Quickened Aetherflow was a great trait that I still miss for good reason even if it was seemingly quite insignificant in isolation. Simply slapping a refund on Medica II spam or some other silliness just doesn't feel good for me though, sorry.
...I understand, to a point, the why.
In vacuum, it means there's nothing to really optimize. Situation X pops up and you hit somewhat whatever your hand activates first when you just smack your controller/keyboard without looking, and it solves the problem.
But I think this is a thing we agree on - such changes shouldn't be done in a vacuum/stand-alone/aren't the only things that should change.
For a very simple example, imagine a world where all your GCD heals aside from Cure 1 cost a lot of MP and MP actually was relevant. It isn't right now, but this would be a change. Now the "random smack your keyboard" style of "gameplay" goes away. Chain casting Cure 3 makes you go oom and now you can't do anything. Being DPS neutral doesn't change that if you have no MP to take any actions at all. So there would still be consideration for what the best tool for the moment is. If Cure 3 and Medica 2 cost 2000 MP, for example, now there WOULD be cases where you might consider Medica 1. Right now, there's no time you'd ever use Medica 1 over Medica 2 since it has a shorter range and Medica 2 does as much healing even as chaincasting Medica 1 (more or less) since the first HoT tick makes them equal, and Medica 2 has a 5y longer range for a miniscule 100 more MP cost which is irrelevant if you're using Lucid on CD anyway. Further, you'd still have to consider things like overcapping Misery, which you might sometimes still need to do if you were having to cast more GCD heals with more healing intensive encounters. And there are times that things like Tetra would still be useful options, such as when you have two very damaged people before a pre-body check AOE (that is, where the boss AOEs and would kill them, causing the subsequent body check to fail) where you might Cure 2 one and weave Tetra oGCD to heal the other before the attack lands, thus salvaging the attack and body check.
It takes very little thought to see how just making GCD heals damage neutral wouldn't make the entire world end, but rather would add more interesting choices and optimizations - because "oGCD healing plan + Glarespam" clearly isn't more interesting. Hell, if we just made GCD heals damage neutral RIGHT NOW and DIDN'T change anything else, that would STILL be more interesting. I'd have the option to roll HoTs across the party or not, which is already more interesting than Glarespam.
It's a little more nuanced than that. The irony is that rolling hots across the group would actually be the superior choice. You get the same damage and you have continuous healing rolling on people as mechanics mitigating risk and just overall making things comfier. That's before we touch on the advantages of an instant cast Regen for mobility and timing vs Glare's short cast time. I did something similar for Hello World prog, rolling regens and precasting Medica II en route to my spot to reduce the risk of a ranged dps death in certain combinations.
it would just be.... weird and counter intuitive IMO.
That's fair, but a couple things:
For something spammable, as we typically mean by "GCD heals" in discussion of balance (wherein Solace/Rapture are the single outlier), to be able to achieve damage-neutrality (let alone be something around which the kit must be balanced, through "damage positive" returns), those opportunities, at least, must not be continuous (at least to your average, even if skilled, Savage raider, etc.).
- What was the balancing point for the Warrior Priest? How much of this "damage positive" refunding did it rely upon just to match other healers? (How much of a disadvantage did it face outside of its ideal situations, and were those situations more finnicky than those of other healers?)
- What were the mechanisms by which a Warrior Priest could achieve damage neutrality or better with its heals? Were those situations spammable?
But how do you limit them? (Not a rhetorical question.)
If heals naturally scaled with incoming damage, you could use a refund mechanism on a burst healing skill that does not scale with incoming damage in order to allow it a degree of scaling, much like The Blackest Night does.
But when they're all of flat value? Sure, you could make a heal uniquely scale with incoming damage while the rest do not, but then any refund mechanism for getting a good use out of it just makes a situation in which "the rich get richer; the poor get poorer," purposely unbalancing it.
Or, perhaps you have the refund mechanism trigger when it doesn't meet parity... but then you're just squishing the fail condition of that action, which will likely --in balance-- take some of that retained value from its would-be peaks. Given that we could already tighten balance between jobs without squishing the fail condition of a skill unique to them (by just offering that more distinct job alternatives), that doesn't seem worthwhile either.
It also wasn't a refund mechanism, though. It was simply a trait which, in effect, reduced the CD of Aetherflow from 60 to as little as 45s, and punished you for not spending your last AF at least 5s before the skill would finish cooling.Quote:
Quickened Aetherflow was a great trait
(Yes, it originally did 10s at a time, but only at a 20% chance, and that was changed within a single hotfix/minor patch, into the 100% chance of 5s from 4.05 onward until it was removed.)
In a world where we literally, quoting Renathras,
just made GCD heals damage neutral RIGHT NOW and DIDN'T change anything else,my issue would be that maintaining a HoT is no more interesting than maintaining a DoT. "Push button on a timer" is not interesting without a mechanic that tries to confound that (let's conveniently ignore that I'm bad at that as it is).
That said, I would agree that modified MP costs could be that confounding mechanism.
I kinda wanna keep note of this if I change up my reworks; MP-less heals aren't refundable, but MP-heavy heals are refundable. MP more or less is something time-gated, so it still works as the deterrent for spamming, while still offering free Cure and Medica options if things really do go south. Even makes Piety a little more useful.
It's been a few years so apologies to anyone that plays the community rerelease if I get anything wrong:
It was the reverse, you generated resources pretty much by connecting your hammer with mobs or other players, the more people you managed to hit, the more gauge you built. This in turn allowed you to weave in your powerful instant cast heals meaning more GCDs were freed up to swing the hammer creating a sort of potency snowball.
- Warrior Priest was very heavily risk vs reward centric. It had a reasonably competent bread and butter ranged heal but on a sluggish cast time that stifled mobility hard. From memory the biggest drawback was that it's ranged/cast kit was entirely single target, you had to triage manually if you had multiple people taking damage (Granted AoE healing was no way near as prevalent as it is in FFXIV). To utilise it's powerful instant heals you had to use your melee kit which in turn freed up more time to get more swings out of the hammer. The trade off here was that Warrior Priest was fairly squishy and had minimal ranged control or CC. The gameplay loop generally involved starting out at the back looking for a window to dive, then jumping in to cause as much damage/healing throughput as you can before you had to back off, then spending your remaining gauge whilst looking for the next opportunity to jump in.
As above, the limitation was generally survivability. In PvP you were very much a marked target and unlike the other healers, you were very much putting yourself in harms way which also applied to PvE content with AoEs, cleaves and such. The limitation was your survivability in melee range and the skill ceiling was very much driven by how good you were at balancing risk vs reward and quickly spotting dive opportunities.
One thought your post gave me, what about a damage refund that only refunds actual healing done but discounts any overheal? Couple that with an increase in MP cost of GCD healing and maybe even make the refund net positive if the amount healed is significant enough? Granted it still doesn't really do much for casual content as things are, but it opens up interesting possibilities in Extremes and upwards perhaps.
Oh aye, but it was an ability that encouraged the player to be active which IMO would be a good litmus test to gauge a potential damage refund system by no?
Help I broke the internet
Can you teach me this black magic?
Mother Nymeia. What have you done?
When healer discourse has reached the point of glitching the forums itself.
Why would we necessarily want that, though, let alone for all of them?
On SCH, you'd effectively have...Those are the means through which your potency per average minute is split, no line competing with any other line. Making GCDs no longer compete with damage added only that single, 3-option line.
- a 3-charge CD with 4 options, with a further bottleneck of 45s, 30s, 30s, respectively, on its later, higher priority actions (Lustrate; Excogitation, Sacred Soil, Indomitability), recharging in sets of 3 per 60s
- a multi-cost 10 to 25-charge CD with 3 options (Physic, Succor, Adloquiem), regaining over 80% charge per minute
- a 10-charge CD that starts combat at 0 with 1 option (Aetherpact), gaining roughly 3 charges per minute
- a single-charge CD with 1 option (Fey Blessing), recharged per 60s
- a single-charge CD with 1 option (Recitation), recharged per 90s
- a single-charge CD with 1 option (Deployment Tactics), recharged per 120s
- a single-charge CD with 1 option (Protraction), recharged per 60s
- a single-charge CD with 1 option (Expedient), recharged per 120s
- a single-charge CD with 1 option (Whispering Dawn), recharged per 60s
- a single-charge CD with 1 option that opens up a 2-charges of a follow-up action (Summon Seraph, Consolation), recharged per 120s
But at the same time, the sheer amount of healing possible through those 10-25 charges that take only a little over a minute to fully refill basically renders the rest redundant.
Some people like playing Chess by setting a cat on the enemy side of the board, toppling the opposing king. Not all preferences are worth wrecking the existing game to placate. A game built to leverage an assembly of skills of varying weight as to rewards fight knowledge and awareness, then having so huge a flexible resource is going to encounter some massive anti-synergies with that general objective.Quote:
People that like weaving oGCDs between damage spells and not using GCDs hate this idea, since GCD healsers would be arguably as effective as they are, but in strictly mechanical terms, there's no reason not to do it.
It's like bringing an uzi to a medieval combat simulation mostly built around close-range dueling. Sure, it may be nice for those who don't want to use medieval weapons, but it ruins the existing experience.
All this is not to say that you can't have compelling GCD gameplay. Most healing experiences I've partook in that have mostly or all GCD heals also happen to have, imo, more compelling healer gameplay than XIV has (though not merely because our healing output options competes more with each other than XIV's do until having run out of CDs).
You just can't have spammables (or, skills with a massive pool and high value-recharge rate) that are as effective as strict CDs without defeating the whole point of those strict CDs having been included in the game.
Is it sad that this is legitimately one of the cooler things that's happened here? XD
EDIT:
Shurrikhan: I didn't say anything about all of them. You know my stated position on healers, so why would you think that?
For my part - if it wasn't obvious by the examples - I was talking about WHM more specifically. I do think it would be POSSIBLE (since the other poster posited the question) to do so with other healers, but I'm not sure it would be the right call on all of them. I've also argued before, in threads you were a part of, that I'd honestly like to see Afflatus Solace and Rapture removed and, instead, have the base GCDs act as that, with MP being the limiting factor instead. I've also suggested an "Afflatus" ability like Recitation or Eukrasia that modifies the next GCD heal to be instant cast and all the rest as if it was a Lily ability. I've proposed both things as suggestions to possible changes to WHM's healing kit.
Because I understand some people like playing chess and some people like playing checkers and some people like playing Warhammer 40k and we all have to play on the same table/board. Also, note that the "existing experience" is what we have now, not a more complex DPS kit experience. We HAD compelling GCD gameplay in ARR (at least on WHM), and debateably in HW and SB. ShB explicitly introduced the Lilies to keep WHM GCD focused,but I feel they did it the wrong way.
.
Ideally, we would have only a few oGCDs and healing would mostly be GCD based. But some people don't like that. So IDEALLY IN THAT CASE, we'd have some healer Jobs that do one and some that do the other. Right now, we don't really have that. We have WHM with pseudo-oGCD GCDs and an extensive slate of GCD heals that are never touched. Medica 1 is outright pointless as Medica 2 is better in literally every way other than a MP cost so negligibly higher that it's irrelevant. Cure 1 at least is faster at firing off than Cure 2 and (less than) half the MP cost. For all it gets derided, at least it's DISTINCT from Cure 2, something Medica 1 doesn't have going for it. Are are some, albeit niche, cases you would use Cure 1, while there are no cases you would use Medica 1 unless you're trying to be EVER so slightly more MP efficient. You can literally remove Medica 1 from your bars and lose nothing of value as long as you aren't running content lower than level 50 since that's the only time you'd ever need it as spamming Medica 2 produces effectively the same healing that spamming Medica 1 does, and at effectively the same MP cost and with a 5y greater radius. And if you don't need that radius (e.g. when the party is stacked), you could just use Cure 3 instead.
Wait, that doesn't sound anything like heals refunding their offensive costs, though -- only a means of adding in more free damage since its uptime costs get refunded through bigger heals.
That's effectively a trade-off of "+ Bonus damage" in exchange for your healing having "- Limited effective range" and requiring "- Increased personal risk".
We already have many, many examples of that mechanism across other games (heck, see the post-Legion WoW's Holy Paladin, for instance, whose gauge generation depends heavily [though among other things capable of more range but on far longer CDs] the use of Crusader Strike, a filler melee attack).
We also see this already on Sage, whose every attack already pack ~40% of a basic healing GCD's worth of healing, and at lesser MP cost.
Do we have any examples from other games, though, of healing actually giving offensive refunds (not offense giving healing refunds)?
When was that explicitly mentioned? I don't particularly doubt that it was, but the results looks almost precisely like they saw complaints about homogenization coming out of kit prunes and Role Actions in Stormblood, noted that WHM would otherwise need additional charges and potency or available cast frequency on its oGCD heals AND a movement skill AND something through which to redeem Secrets of the Lilies... and decided "**** it, 3 birds, 1 stone. We'll do them all together. And it'll even be diverse for our having done so."
Agreed. Between 2.1 and 5.0, I might have said at least that Medica I was better for topping people off immediately, but once the regen potency was again boosted (at first to just 100) and duration halved and cast time reduced to a GCD... (And then EW took that even further by buffing it to a whopping 150 potency per tick, up from 50 and then 100, and direct healing potency from 200 to 250, all without even increasing its MP cost, for... reasons?)Quote:
There are some, albeit niche, cases you would use Cure 1, while there are no cases you would use Medica 1 unless you're trying to be EVER so slightly more MP efficient
Aye, but some are more compatible games (sets of objectives and mechanisms which support that) than others. If you've three marine animals and one tortoise, chances are you're going to badly limit the many to support the last. Sometimes, it's worth setting boundaries.Quote:
Because I understand some people like playing chess and some people like playing checkers and some people like playing Warhammer 40k and we all have to play on the same table/board.
ARR's kit being compelling had almost entirely to do with tuning, not the lack of GCDs. Hop into Twisting Coil with a plugin to keep track of mock-timers and a plugin for custom dummy buttons and see how compelling it is. Even when playing with the Minimum Item Level option, potency creep and tank passive sustain increases make kind of a joke of that experience.Quote:
Also, note that the "existing experience" is what we have now, not a more complex DPS kit experience. We HAD compelling GCD gameplay in ARR (at least on WHM), and debateably in HW and SB. ShB explicitly introduced the Lilies to keep WHM GCD focused,but I feel they did it the wrong way.
oGCD heals weren't favored any less then; there was just more incoming damage than, say, SCH's 75% HP per minute via Lustrate could remotely deal with.
And you already know my position on healing requirements: While I'm not a fan of increasing the damage per event by much, I am in favor of increasing the number of damaging events greatly, increasing the total healing required by ~40% or so. (There are many accordant small adjustments I'd make to let oGCDs and GCDs play together better, but all that's really required to make GCDs relevant again... is more damage intake.)
On that matter, though, I might not be in agreement with many others here, to whom a 40% increase in healing requirements (even presuming we have the MP to make up for it, etc.) may seem excessive. Though I agree with them that we could use a couple extra downtime tools regardless.
Strictly speaking, I'm struggling to think of an MMO healer that specifically gets damage back from healing without resorting to sort_of_ism's by way of time/opportunity as is the case with Warrior Priest.
I have a nagging feeling that SWTOR might have had something close but I'm struggling to put my finger on it, Combat Medic had a filler heal that generated their ammo resource but I'm struggling to remember if any actual damage was gated behind it.
Another of Warhammer Online's healers was a mage that theoretically had to evenly deal damage and healing output to balance a gauge for optimal potencies but from memory it was a bit of a bust and to my memory at least, never really quite worked as intended. WOL's cleric type healer was built around a buff/debuff rune gimmick rather than direct damage.
Beyond those reaches and of course, FFXIV WHM I'm at a bit of a loss.
Can I get a doublecheck on why I got chewed out for suggesting a 0-100 gauge on WHM, with claims that it'd be 'homogenization' (despite the only other healer having a 0-100 gauge is SCH, and it works very differently from what I suggested for WHM)...
But 'a modifier that works like Eukrasia', to the point of even changing the cast time of the heal to be instant (like E.Diag or E.Prog are, compared to their non-Eukrasian counterpart) is somehow fine and not 'homogenization'?
Current Resto Druid, I know off the top of my head has a CD called Nature's Vigil, which is 'For 15 sec, all single-target healing also damages a nearby enemy target for 20% of the healing done'. Pretty sure that includes any HOT that is 'single target' like Rejuvenation. If you pop it after your ramping is set up (eg alongside Flourish) it can add up to be a lot more damage than your filler GCDs. But I suppose the question is, are you asking for kit where 'you use the healing, and that leads to you being able to deal damage to recoup the lost damage later', or something like Pneuma, where it's a case of 'it's used for healing, and happens to be damage neutral at the same time'. Because there's a few more examples of the latter than the former usually. Like Shamans now can deal damage over time with Healing Rain with a talent, which you'd also be using to heal. But that's 'damage neutral in the moment', rather than 'damage neutral via a refund mechanic at a later moment in the fight' which doesn't give as much agency to the player
Also congrats on breaking the forums