White mage remain gimp because the can go scholar on real content?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vlady

*chuckles* I don't need to have bahamut prime to offer valid input on the two healers. I was in the high end for turn one and based on actual data from asking one of the best raid servers a lot of healers feel white mages are lacking. Most who use to main white mage go scholar for all duty finder groups.

What is redundant is having to go in and out of cleric stance every 3-4 seconds while scholars can stay in it for long periods if time with a bot healer allied to them.

---

No but what you need is some sort of valid experience on both classes before you go mouthing off, which clearly you do not have. Your arguments come from magical christmas land instead of reality, and most people who have experience are pointing out the reality of the situation to you.

You have erroded your credibility with every response thus far in this thread, the response i have quoted above shows this further more.

And now to deal with your claim that you were in high end progression as a healer when Turn 1 was relevant. I can quite happily say this was certainly not the case. How can i say this? Well its simple, i have played SCH in raids since 2.0, and can quite happily say that in 2.0, SCH had major issues which meant that it was seen as being less desirable than WHM in raids. Lustrate was less powerful, pet actions could not be issued whilst you were casting, pet A.I. was seriously problematic, but above all else people didnt understand how to SCH. Their heals are lower than WHM, which lead lots of people to the conclusion that it was inferior to WHM (and yes, i do see the delicious irony in this historic stand point compered to your contemporary one). So, if you are basing your arguments on your experience raiding when Turn 1 was relevant, then you really have come to a very very very very bizarre conclusion.

TL;DR OP's credibility < 0.

As a SCH currently working on T13 I can comfortably say that WHM is both nicely balanced and incredibly useful. I would not be able to fully perform my role as a SCH without my healing partner performing his role as a WHM.

Are there things that could be done to improve WHM slightly? Sure, but the same can be said for every class. IMO, there is nothing that desperately NEEDS to be changed for WHM to stay viable pre-3.0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DreamWeaver

I would say it's compelling evidence for something else entirely, not compelling evidence supporting that SCH is better :)

---

What, exactly, is that "something else"? It's fine to be challenged. It's annoying to be trolled.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vlady

I was in the high end for turn one and based on actual data from asking one of the best raid servers a lot of healers feel white mages are lacking. Most who use to main white mage go scholar for all duty finder groups.

---

Wow, you were in the high end for turn one?! My friend, coil T1 back in the fall of 2013 or now? Is that actual data gathered from your circle?

I do play SCH in troll tower trilogy and majority of dungeons when no speed runs involved. That way I can eat potato chips, chocolate, talk on the phone, texting, etc while playing. BUT if I want serious stuff done such as SR and endgame coils, I play WHM. Still, the reasons I choose to play SCH over WHM in these cases only support the fact that SCH is easy mode, not WHM is lacking or worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by radioactive_lego

What, exactly, is that "something else"? It's fine to be challenged. It's annoying to be trolled.

---

All these WHM-bashing threads start w/ OPs that are full of jokes with little understanding how to play WHM or experience in endgame. What does that say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vlady

I was in the high end for turn one and based on actual data from asking one of the best raid servers a lot of healers feel white mages are lacking.

---

I'm on the server that has both the world second AND world third FCoB clears, does that make my server a "better raid server" than Balmung and therefore my own opinion more valid then your own? No, no it doesn't, and you shouldn't be using it as a means to validate your own anecdotal claims. Show me this "actual data" if you have it then. "Data" is more beneficial for analysis versus "here is my opinion".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vlady

Holy relies heavily on a bard to maintain momentum. Having mana issues without a bard ballad to maintain momentum will just mean larger periods of rest between pulls.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vlady

What is redundant is having to go in and out of cleric stance every 3-4 seconds while scholars can stay in it for long periods if time with a bot healer allied to them.

---

As many other posters have stated, this just proves how little you know about WHM mechanics. I main SCH for Coil right now but I still know how to manage my MP well enough to never need Ballad for any dungeon - Foe's? Yes please!

Only able to stay in Cleric's for 3-4 seconds? Maybe, it depends on how much oncoming damage there is. But to have to stance dance every time Cleric's is off CD? Maybe if I'm healing a terrible WoD group.

====

In my opinion, WHM mechanics doesn't match your own play style, therefore you find WHM to be severely underpowered. It's not, trust me, and trust the multitude of other posts on this forum.

Do I think the SCH toolkit is better than the WHM? Yes, in its current iteration, I personally do. However, the divide isn't as grand as some people (like you, Vlady) make it out to be.

If you want to argue relevancy, ask every single raid FCoB group you know if they would consider doing their healing pair SCH + SCH or WHM + WHM. I'm pretty certain 95% of them would say "No" and would go for WHM + SCH. Therefore, WHM is relevant.

If you want to argue relevancy for Heavensward, well, you can't. Not until the expansion is released and we get to see how AST is played, and the new abilities SCH and WHM get to their toolkit. THEN we can argue relevancy. All we can do now on that front is speculate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by radioactive_lego

What, exactly, is that "something else"? It's fine to be challenged. It's annoying to be trolled.

---

I read that "something else" to be "the existence of a number of inexperienced players who don't appreciate the utility and power of WHM, but instead get caught up in SCH envy."

It's one thing to suggest reasonable tweaks or additions to expand Job utility or add fun factor, but these WHM-bashing threads are ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yare

Still, the reasons I choose to play SCH over WHM in these cases only support the fact that SCH is easy mode

---

Awesome, let's go from senseless and factually incorrect WHM-bashing to dropping the "lulz SCH easy mode" -card. Great contribution, exactly what this classic of a thread needed.

I will reiterate then. I was for the first coils of bahamut which I controlled my pet manually back then and scholars did not really have many issues. We just did not have the near infinite mana we do now and had to focus on healing with less time between breaks to dps.

Once more why not debate the issues over character assassination as a cheap alternative to pretend you are even responding over pure trolling. 2 years as a healer on here and a server full of healers on balmung who either lied to me or support what I say. Sorry if it bothers you that you want to remain stronger than white mages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tranquil

Awesome, let's go from senseless and factually incorrect WHM-bashing to dropping the "lulz SCH easy mode" -card. Great contribution, exactly what this classic of a thread needed.

---

I acknowledge the strengths and advantages of SCH. When I say SCH is easy mode I only meant it to be so in certain situations such as troll towers and low level dungeons and non-speed runs. I did not mean any disrespect but it is what I personally feel that WHM require my hands on my keyboard at all times in these situations whereas playing SCH does not. Please accept my apology if what I said had offended SCH lovers.