Yeah, but that's why I mention something like this for Dia, or Holy Might on PLD, or the Primals for SMN. They're all examples of rotations that allow the player to move pieces around in them to react or proactively deal with mechanics. I'd like more of those.Quote:
Originally Posted by Supersnow845
As to your point:
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I think the solution would be to try something different with each Healer. Give one a DoT that stacks, give another 2-3 DoTs, give another a DoT that procs things, and have a fourth one that just doesn't have a DoT (probably SGE, if they actually gave it a rotation like RDM or something...)
Personally, I'm just tired of all the Healers playing the same-ish. I'd like to see them all play at least somewhat differently. SGE pressing Eukrasia before it's Dia/Biolysis/Combust isn't really different enough to satisfy that desire.
-
08-12-2023, 03:17 PMRenathras
-
08-12-2023, 03:17 PMShurrikhanNo one has disagreed with this, only with what creates "choice".Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
To a degree, said "choice" is always an illusion (and is generally more aptly described only as "optimization", especially from an amount of information that is significant but not wholly complete, as to allow for educated gambles), but that illusion goes a whole lot further if the best choice requires some degree of mathing out in the moment instead of following rote procedures (use action type A for situation A, with no contextual variation to how either the action nor situation are defined).
Which is why some have been reminding you that if you don't split each action into discrete uses and the likes of at-cost and no-cost "Use DoT only the moment it elapses" was never necessarily the best net value one could get from it, and therefore one of multiple considerations involved in optimization instead of being so dominant as to replace all else.
Make your DoT act like a loss-less multi-charge Ruin II CD and the most choice you have is in which GCDs to fill per minute with your charges... which was already a part of the earlier optimization problem anyways. You've simply reduced a meeting of multiple optimization problems to, instead, a single optimization problem that is much better summarized by a single rote procedure.
At which point, "use your mobile attack when you need mobility and don't need to heal" is already pretty well a non-decision, and by the time its charges would be insufficient enough to present any sort of choice, any non-embarrassing amount of healing requirements would also involve such things as instant-cast heals, because choices aren't made in isolation (unless you literally cut everything into distinct categories -- "only use for A; A will only use these" -- which, yes, would harm the sense of actual "choice" or decision-making).
Then your problem isn't one of "choice" or even a different way of defining it. It's that you want a challenge that you can more easily meet completely.Quote:
"This isn't to say that mechanical perfection isn't hard, but it's a different kind of hard and one I don't find engaging."
Which would be fine if not for two things:- that you then remove the option for a greater skill ceiling from whatever job you happen to like and insist satisfy your need to reach the skill ceiling with a more limited amount of cognitive load, and...
- that you had elsewhere insisted on being given the same output as jobs that are far harder to optimize, meaning that you reduce all the jobs you're not personally interested into second-class citizens who simply pay more for, at best, the same reward or else, to keep them balanced, truncate what complexity is available to them.
Admittedly, like counts of those rebutting your positions could be slightly inflated by those who find your personality intolerable, but even then, it seems likely that the larger portion of those who've been involved in those threads (insert "vocal minority" here, I suppose) prefer a sense of balance that accounts at least slightly for effort required to play the job well (i.e., even without Raise, EW SMN should not be doing EW BLM rDPS).
Same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
- that you then remove the option for a greater skill ceiling from whatever job you happen to like and insist satisfy your need to reach the skill ceiling with a more limited amount of cognitive load, and...
-
08-12-2023, 04:11 PMRenathrasGlad we agree, then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
No, it has nothing to do with a thing being easy to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
1) I don't mind minimal variations. For my part, I like doing things right because it's enjoyable to know that. The damage bonus isn't a reward to me, and I've been consistent on the point that I don't see "more damage" (or much anything to do with damage) to be rewarding.
2) No, I simply hold the position that people literally asking to be made to work harder shouldn't then demand they get more reward for working harder when the Devs' initial position was having them not work harder and they kept demanding to be forced to work harder. There's no second class citizen in it. To quote Chair "Tell them that their reward is getting to have FUN and not being bored out of their [redacted] minds! Shut up about a whole 2% damage variance."
In other words, more damage (or some significantly greater damage) isn't at all necessary. Though in this case, it isn't even that so much as it's more a survivability argument (mobility) anyway.
\o/Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
Agreed. -
08-12-2023, 04:43 PMShurrikhanIdolize whomever you like, but I don't know why you're treating this as some appeal to any real authority, especially when "shut[ting] up about a whole 2% damage variance" would apply as much to anyone insisting that a far easier job should have the same damage as far harder job in the first place. Why, when one chooses the job that's easier on which to hit a job on which it's easier to reach output capable of clearing all content in the game, should they also expect to have the exact same maximum rDPS as a job that's harder to get even to that required output on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
If you wouldn't honestly expect players to, say, play kickdrum riffs and the harmonica whilst optimizing Summoner just to keep from getting bored, why would you expect them to play something harder for similarly added risk at zero reward? Players are free to juggle hamsters as they play Black Mage even now, yes, but that's not going to be a worthwhile alternative to it having more available to it than an Ice Mage's level of optimization.
Added risk for, at best, merely the same reward has never been a worthwhile strategy in any setting in which others depend on you.
I don't know why you're trying to make this out as some sort of narrow fixation. It's the literal only output of the mechanic we're discussing.Quote:
The damage bonus isn't a reward to me, and I've been consistent on the point that I don't see "more damage" (or much anything to do with damage) to be rewarding.
And here is the core of the issue, especially when you exempt any room for optimization that the player might not be aware of. Why limit the rewards of having optimized a situation to "minimal variations"? And why should any job necessarily be constrained to that small gap between skill floor and ceiling?Quote:
I don't mind minimal variations. For my part, I like doing things right because it's enjoyable to know that.
Mobility isn't a matter of survivability except insofar as you'd die if you didn't have sufficient yalms-movement-within-X-seconds or you'd call all access to healing a matter of "survivability" (making the term ambiguous to point of near uselessness).Quote:
Though in this case, it isn't even that so much as it's more a survivability argument (mobility) anyway.
No mechanic requires an external buff increasing their mobility for players to survive. There are no raid mitigation tools that require immobility; even PoA can be flashed and every other ground-effect mitigation has room to dodge around mechanics present at the time those effects would see use. Every personal defensive is mobile. That leaves only whether a healer can produce sufficient healing while moving.
Again, I don't know why you're trying to sectionalize this into 'damage' and 'other' as if you're somehow taking the longer view here. Hell, you have been the one most insistent on segregating a skill's net optimization in context from optimizing the skill itself (in DoT's case, by pruning the latter, thereby vastly simplifying the prior). Moreover, the distinction is moot; damage is the only uncapped resource this game offers, by the simple fact that it doesn't have a single fight with objectives other than "Reduce X's HP to 0", while all secondary outputs (those which do not directly contribute to the fight's objectives) ultimately amount to DPS dealt (through opportunities enabled/preserved). -
08-12-2023, 05:36 PMForsakenRoe"One race had discarded all things that gave rise to sorrow, hoping to have only joy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
They found joy lost it's savor in the absence of sorrow, and lost their will to live."
The reason you enjoy 'doing it right', is because you are aware of the fact there is a way to 'do it wrong' but you did not. Removing ways to result in 'you did it wrong' removes the feeling of 'you did it right' piece by piece, until you reach a point where the rotation essentially plays itself, and it does not matter what you press, because you can no longer 'do it wrong'. Once upon a time you could screw up MP management on DRK and lose Darkside. Then that changed from 'MP drains during Darkside' to 'MP regen is paused during Darkside', so the punishment for mismanagement became 'you can't TBN at the right time I guess'. And now, MP management is 'pool it all for 2min window, spend if you're about to overcap', and Darkside is literally more effort to lose than to maintain (to lose it, you either have to purposely not refresh it, or you have to have like 3 consecutive TBNs fail to pop). And the result is, we have a job (DRK) who's aesthetic of being 'resource management focused', losing it's identity and becoming a very confused mishmash of ideas that has little to no cohesion in terms of design choices, because the devs wanted to reduce the 'punishment for failure' and took it way too far.
"Farther still existed a star without strife... where none remembered life's trials - or it's joys...
What it's people had gained from ease, they lost to apathy..." -
08-12-2023, 10:36 PMConnor
Isn’t the whole ‘easy / hard’ job designs thing ultimately a little arbitrary? No matter how they design a job it’s going to come down to personal preferences in the end. I think the developers philosophy of designating jobs as ‘easy’ or ‘hard’ is doomed to fail as a result.
Surely it makes sense to just design the jobs to be fun, engaging and with distinct identities, then allow the community / players to make the decision of ‘hard or easy’ themselves?
Of course, something can be objectively too hard or too easy when there’s a major consensus lol but then it’s also adjustable through patches etc so it’s not like a class would end up game-breakingly difficult or exceptionally easy (look at the Summoner rework backlash lol) -
08-13-2023, 03:19 AMForsakenRoeThis is what I'd aim for, balance the potencies of things in such a way that it's a gain to do the optimal rotation as you'd expect, but the 'punishment' for doing suboptimal rotation is less. For example, rather than having Biolysis at 70 per tick, it could be lowered to 35 per tick, and the missing damage allocated to a second and third DOT, so missing a tick from all three is roughly equal to what you'd lose now, but forgetting to refresh only one of the DOTs for one tick would be less punishing than current.Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor
My WHM redesign loses 160p per minute if you completely ignore the new GCD skill and just carry on playing 'refresh Dia, spam Glare' style, that's about half a Glare per minute total. My AST card rework would lose 200p per minute if you don't use the new Minor Arcana cards whatsoever, 80% of a single Malefic. It's enough for optimizers to have a gain over non-optimizers, something to chase in logs (Energy Drain being 100p shows that even small potencies are enough to matter), but the difference is also small enough that the margin for error is lower, missing every Minor Arcana card across the entire fight is not going to cause you to hit enrage in Extreme trials, heck it might not even cause enrage in Savage week 1 thanks to crit variance -
08-13-2023, 06:06 AMShurrikhanAs long as the devs do ultimately consider added risk as being deserving of some (even if less than quite proportionate) added reward, I'll be happy. I'm just tired of people grandstanding (more frequent on EW release) on this sidea of "fairness" as equal rDPS+aDPS for all despite whatever ease (below average difficulty), reliability, and/or utility they bring to the table. If Job A can significantly more easily make the clear requirements than Job B, then Job B at least ought to have something on offer in turn beyond just "not getting bored".Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor
I don't think any jobs should be designed specifically to be hard or easy. I think they should just take a kernel idea and extend it out as far and in as many ways as would seem to maximize enjoyment (with later additions doubling up on or complimenting what came before, as we'd expect that job's players to weigh higher those means of engagement). No more, no less. But if that organic development leads to a lower or higher skill ceiling, so be it; you'd just tune accordingly if it became a noticeable balance issue. -
08-13-2023, 01:54 PMRenathrasWhy do you do this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
I'm quoting him because overall his point is more like your own, but I found his argument compelling. If I quote something from Socrates that I found compelling, would you accuse me of idolizing him?
Because it's a videogame and that's what people find fun. No one finds being blacklisted fun, so that's a no-go and limits how much damage variation can exist. If the playerbase was still consistently taking people that did 30% less damage, sure, we could have massive variances. But the community doesn't, so it doesn't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
As to why have some Jobs - not all, some - with a narrower gap between floor and ceiling: Because some players don't want a large gap between floor and ceiling.
Agreed. The Jobs can fit their various class fantasies and have different playstyles, then players will gravitate to the ones they like best. If some like an "easy" or "hard" playstyle, they pick that one. If they like the mechanics of one or another, they pick that. Make things and let plaeyrs decide which they like best. This requires, though, that they're actually...different from one another and not various forms of copy. If one healer plays like WHM another like current RDM (but with heals) and another like current BLM (but also with heals), then that's not bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor
-
08-13-2023, 03:11 PMSemirhageOprah_See_What_I_Mean.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
-
08-13-2023, 04:29 PMRenathras
/scratches head
/shrug
Never change, Semi. -
08-13-2023, 05:26 PMShurrikhanIf --in place of anything solid, be it your own or otherwise-- you choose an argument from him with a contextually gaping hole or obvious hypocrisy in it... all atop having made a months-long campaign out of an idea you say was taken from him ... yeah, as it seems unlikely you'd otherwise think that shit sufficient.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
No, having only minimal variation as a result of skillful play is not some super broadly held preference. It's yours.Quote:
Because it's a videogame and that's what people find fun. No one finds being blacklisted fun, so that's a no-go and limits how much damage variation can exist.
(And it's a direction that's necessarily limiting; while having higher skill ceilings while jobs are still able to clear with highly imperfect performance creates something for everyone --as one can simply play to that ~60% maximal effort for ~90% of the maximal value and still meet the checks for all but the very hardest content, just with less the carry potential for others-- purposely limiting a job's ceiling just means that the job excludes anyone who wants a greater amount of engagement from their kit itself.)
And the "blacklisting" goes both ways, as why would any PF leader take, say, a BLM over a SMN if there is only at most a "minimal variation" in their max throughput yet the BLM is far harder pressed to even get clear-capable damage out of, let alone its max.
The difference between a BLM's 95th percentile throughput and a SMN's is 8%, even with SMN also bringing additional utility. Even if SMN were nerfed to a fairer position relative to RDM instead of RDM being buffed to equal or greater rDPS, we'd be talking about a ~9% difference. No one is asking for a whopping 30% gap between them, only that the harder jobs shouldn't be a reward-less hazard.Quote:
If the playerbase was still consistently taking people that did 30% less damage, sure, we could have massive variances. But the community doesn't, so it doesn't work.
When you can clear every Savage fight with a party that averages a performance of just ~75% of what each job in that party can maximally produce, asking that a job that is harder to optimize to the point of clearing (has 40% more deviation despite only 8% more max damage) should at least have enough of a max throughput gap to make it worth learning and taking... is not asking for the world. It's literally what's necessary not to see such jobs blacklisted for being holdouts against skill ceilings being increasingly squished.
Why hyperbolize? -
08-13-2023, 06:13 PMRenathras...which is why I also make my own arguments. I tend to use that quote because it's WAY more succinct than I could put it. Shurrikhan, you know how long winded I can be. Do you doubt for a moment if I tried to say that in my own words it would end up being PARAGRAPHS in length?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
I've never once said the idea was taken from him. I never have made that claim once. I was making the argument for the idea well before I ever saw his video, and actually felt mildly vindicated that even a kind of hardcore guy who was endlessly complaining about how braindead healers were now had the same idea as me. Naively, I thought that might resonate with some of you. I was mistaken, of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
Indeed, quite the opposite of me claiming it, several OF YOU GUYS have claimed that's where I got the idea (generally to discredit it or me or both), and stubbornly, keep doing so even after I've debunked the claim multiple times.
Prove it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
You're the one saying literally no one but me holds the position that I do. I think you're the one that should be asked that question first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
-
08-13-2023, 06:18 PMShurrikhan
Mate, you're the one making the claim that your preference is shared by "the people". That's on you to prove.
I said it's your position, yes, rather than that of those who've been disagreeing with you or likely to be that of some silent majority. Whether a significant group of others share it, again, is up to you to prove. -
08-13-2023, 07:03 PMRenathrasYou asked questions of why do things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
My answer is because some people want it.
I never said it was some huge majority. I never made any claim about how many. It's more than just me, though. I never claimed it was "super broadly held". That's you employing hyperbole.
However, "It's just you" is a claim that's unrealistic. In a game with millions of players, it's VERY likely others share my view, and I've posted posts from Reddit of others doing so or even being more extreme than me. So I have proven it. So your claim that it's just me is false and we've verified it's false. So it's up to you to prove that it's changed from true to false since the last time I proved it was true, something you can't do.
In other words, you shouldn't make the claim. You do it to supposedly defeat my argument, but it's ridiculous that there's ANY position that ONLY one person holds.
Where did I mention a "silent majority"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
I didn't, since I didn't mention a majority of any kind. This is again you engaging in hyperbole, and a strawman as well.
I've already proven before that others share this view and, again, even more extreme versions of it. Do you doubt I can find those posts again? I've already put the claim I'm the only one that thinks what I do to rest a dozen times by now. So stop with the strawmanning.
.
It's PROBABLY a minority view, but it's held by people. So insisting that no one wants it is false/a lie. You need to stop doing it.
What you have to do is argue why we can't give those people what they want, not insisting (lying) that no one wants it.
.
EDIT:
But this is a sophistry argument.
You're trying to avoid addressing the point or arguing a difficult point that you need to argue.
Instead of saying why we shouldn't do it, you're trying to insist there's no reason to. That's false. There are plenty of reasons to and plenty of people who want it.
It's up to you to argue why we CANNOT give it to them in any way. Again, 1 healer out of 4 isn't 4 healers out of 4. It would leave options for other people. "But if there's an easy one, everyone will be 'forced' to play it!!", is ridiculous. No one is forced to play anything. People doing some kinds of groups choose to do so for various reasons, but punishing OTHER PEOPLE for those people choosing to do a thing when they don't have to is wrong.
.
And the irony is, right now, WHM is already considered inferior to the others because of its weaker mitigation suite. So having a nonexistent gap between skill floor and ceiling wouldn't suddenly make it meta where no one is taking AST, the single most overpowered healer in the history of the game right now, to content, even if they were doing roughly comparable damage, since AST has other utility that isn't damage that makes it worth bringing. -
08-13-2023, 07:39 PMShurrikhanAgain, not a claim I made. You tried to twist part of your preference into being a claim of those opposed to truncating job's skill ceilings. It's not. It's yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
Whether others also hold that preference, let alone enough people to warrant limiting others' options just to satisfy that group, is up to you to prove.
If your mutually exclusive preference of some jobs being arbitrarily given lowered skill ceilings is "what people find fun", that claim would depend on that group being large enough to outweigh the preferences of those who would prefer the (not mutually exclusive) option of not arbitrarily truncating certain jobs skill ceilings (and instead letting people just play to the level of effort they enjoy, since most content requires only some 75% of what each job is capable of, which tends to require only half of less of the considerations and tracking required for fully optimizing that job).Quote:
Where did I mention a "silent majority"?
So either all votes count equally and they're a majority that just has yet to hold more than the tiniest minority of opinion actually voiced (i.e., is mostly silent), or votes are not counted equally and they're quite literally entitled.
You are the one asking for the explicitly exclusive option, that certain jobs should NOT allow for available complexity beyond a certain point, regardless of whether the reward for that portion would otherwise continue to be excess to clear requirement.Quote:
Instead of saying why we shouldn't do it, you're trying to insist there's no reason to. That's false. There are plenty of reasons to and plenty of people who want it.
Again, a player is free not to optimize a job to its full potential while still clearing. That is literally the norm. More than 95% of clear parses have not done all they can to optimize their job, yet 100% of clear parses have, shockingly, cleared. Roughly a mere three-quarters of a job's maximal throughput can still net one a clear, as evidenced by a fifth of all clears even now and what used to be damn near half of them.
You claim that your preference to limit the options of others, ultimately to the aid of either...- (A) that one can point at their job and say, 'I've done all that can be done' when doing only as little as what used to be sufficiently summarized as 'I've done all that was needed' all while ignoring what higher ceilings are possible on other jobs in their role anyways or
- (B) to invite a state of imbalance where lower ceiling jobs nonetheless have virtually the same throughput ceiling as others despite taking only, at most, as much effort as other jobs would need to barely clear, thereby dealing on average a third more since they get the max output for the same effort as other's 75%...
How would the burden of proof not lie with you that your preference to limit others' gameplay is held by a large enough group to warrant that meeting that preference would be the way forward? - (A) that one can point at their job and say, 'I've done all that can be done' when doing only as little as what used to be sufficiently summarized as 'I've done all that was needed' all while ignoring what higher ceilings are possible on other jobs in their role anyways or
-
08-14-2023, 05:28 PMRenathrasYour exact quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
Note nothing here is talking about "my preference" being "a claim of those opposed to truncating job's skill ceilings" (an overly complex way of saying "argument of people wanting wider gaps between skill floor and ceiling" using a double negative between opposed and truncating).Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
You asked a question: Why do a thing.
I gave an answer: Because some people want it.
That's not "my preference", it's not "being a claim of those opposed to truncating". It's an answer to the question of "Why should we/do we need to do a thing in this game's design". You tried to turn me answering a question into an attack on me, and then when I pointed out others probably share the same position, you tried to move the goal posts with that strangely obfuscating double negative sentence construction.
Okay...no.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
All it requires is a fair sized percentage minority to justify doing this with one of the healers. 1 out of 4 is 25%, so anything from 15-40% would justify making one healer to appeal to those people. It does not require an outright majority. Moreover, it's unlikely there's an outright majority for either position, given there are 3-5 possible positions to hold on the topic. It's more likely every one of them is a minority position and the largest one is a plurality, not a majority.
This is only relevant if you believe that the amount of people wanting it to matter would be harmed by A SINGLE JOB breaking with that pattern AND that they're the majority, not a plurality or minority. You haven't proven any of those positions, so the argument is moot.
Regardless, my position does not require a majority be for it. Your position, on the other hand, requires majority support, which you haven't proven.
No, you are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
your position is explicitly exclusive since it demands all Jobs conform to your model with no exceptions, which also requires not only a majority but a DOMINANT and NEAR TOTAL majority should agree with it. You want to shift the onus onto me which your own claim is the one that demands.
My argument isn't exclusive since it allows variance. Your argument is exclusive because it does not. It excludes any alternative, and any players who do not enjoy your system.
Thus the burden of proof lies with you that your preference to limit others' gameplay is held by a large enough group to warrant that meeting that preference is the way forward.
.
But as I pointed out before:
This is sophistry.
This is you trying not to address an argument by trying to attack foundations (that it doesn't have nor require), which is especially destructive to your position as your own argument DOES have those foundations and DOES require them, shifting the burden of proof to you. You'd have been better off to simply address the argument in the first place rather than try to invalidate it through ancillary arguments upon which it does not rely nor hold connections to. -
08-14-2023, 09:44 PMShurrikhan"Sorry, WHM, but there exists a group of healers split among the whole role --not necessarily within your job-- who would much prefer that they can play a job that can clear all content with very little cognitive load and that even what skill ceiling that would produce value only beyond what is required for clears in Extremes, Savage Raids, and so forth should not exist because they wish to feel that they are playing the job to its full potential, so we'll need to truncate WHM in order to ensure that these players have a home for themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
- Do not mind that they could see next door in any of the neighboring jobs that they could otherwise do far more, making the whole effort pointless.
- Do not mind that most of them do not play Extreme Trials, Savage Raids, or Ultimates anyways.
- Do not mind that there would be absolutely no cost to their ability to clear from having excess skill ceiling. (Please forget that even the Raid enrage known to be tightest in the game outside of Ultimate, Gordias Savage, was cleared at barely over minimum ilvl on Day 1 of its release in China, simply because familiarity with its mechanics mattered so much more than the maximum output those raiders could produce.)
- Do not mind that it is proportionately likely that these most players, spread across each healer job, already do not play WHM for reasons other than it being 'too hard'.
- Do not mind that it many of these players are not even going to be aware of, nor most of them care, what optimizations they could make beyond what is necessary, removing nearly merit to arbitrarily limiting this job's skill ceiling.
- Do not mind how many players actually do like WHM's aesthetics but are not among this minority spread among each healer job and would rather not have their job arbitrarily limited.
- Do not mind that these player more than likely will go on playing what jobs they preferred, heedless of whether or not those jobs would gain further skill ceiling.
- Do not mind that your job has gotten the shit end of the stick yet again."
-
08-15-2023, 07:55 AMSemirhageI'm not sure what's unclear about it. You admit to wanting the skill ceiling barely above the floor, both at ankle height frequently enough. I merely point out that the Occam's Razor'd explanation for this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
is that those who hold this position primarily about restricting other people want it to be impossible to play the job better than they do. Ironically, the leap to conclusions about personal envy or embarrassment required from that position is about as high as the proposed skill ceiling.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
This is standard Ren "If YOU have an opinion, you need collated survey data that proves a supermajority of everyone on Earth agrees with you in order for your opinion to matter at all.Quote:
No, you are.
your position is explicitly exclusive since it demands all Jobs conform to your model with no exceptions, which also requires not only a majority but a DOMINANT and NEAR TOTAL majority should agree with it. You want to shift the onus onto me which your own claim is the one that demands.
My argument isn't exclusive since it allows variance. Your argument is exclusive because it does not. It excludes any alternative, and any players who do not enjoy your system.
If *I* have an opinion, some people believe it somewhere and you can't prove how many do so it's probably a nebulously huge number therefore my opinion is the best solution and you need to prove fewer than two people hold this opinion to properly counter it." -
08-15-2023, 10:21 AMForsakenRoeThinking about this, most of what I see on reddit, on here, and the few times I go on youtube videos, are not 'keep one healer the same'. I would not doubt that there's 'some people' who want WHM to remain as is. I also expect there's 'some people' who want BLM to have instant cast times on Fire4, and for NIN to lose it's mudras and instead have separate 'instant suiton/raiton/etc' simple CDs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Semirhage
Instead, what I tend to see is some combination of:
'give healers more complex damage' (with no mention of leaving one out, therefore by applying common sense, this would apply to all of them)
'give healers more to heal' (this runs the risk of making everything even more mitcheck heavy)
'make jobs including healers have less healing output, thereby enforcing more healing GCDs to be used (usually suggested by nerfing the availability/output of OGCDs)
'give healers more non-damage/healing utilities by which to increase contribution to the raid (I see this less often, I assume they refer to things like Esuna, Dispel, maybe certain CCs on adds ala Repose etc)
So, let's ignore point 1 for now, we've beaten it to death for now. What I want to point out here is that I realize, the suggestion of either increasing healing via nerfing output, or by increasing how much damage is done over an encounter (more frequent, preferably, so as not to make everything into mit-checks more than it is), DOES actually increase the complexity of all four healers. Take WHM for example. Certain individuals would prefer it to remain 'as simple as it currently is', so as not to alienate anyone who is accustomed to it's current expectations. Okay, but if we increase HPS requirements, now we have to spend more healing than we have Lilies for, and doubly so during early prog. Now we've got the real potential of running out of MP. We've got 'you should have used a GCD heal here, because you need to save that Lily for 15s from now to heal and run to your mech spot at the same time, but because you didn't, you now wipe to the HPS required'. We've got the potential for range issues more so than now (if the BRD is out in Narnia and misses the AOE healing, it'd be more punished by the game compared to currently).
It's a self-defeating stance to have. The only way to rationalize the dissonance is 'that kind of complexity is okay because it's healing related complexity, and the role is healer', which, okay sure, but the point made was that we cannot add ANY complexity to the WHM damage kit, because people who are accustomed to how it plays now, will not be able to adapt and keep up with the new design. The same is true of increased HPS requirements. Unlike healing requirements, the 'you didn't do good enough' for damage is A: only a factor at enrage, in content that HAS an enrage, B: more easily coverable by other roles (ie, DPS covering for missing healer damage is easier than tanks covering for missing healing), and C: can actually be addressed much more easily via potency tuning (ie, if the DOT on a healer is not 700p total, but instead 350p, the punishment for missing the optimal refresh time is halved), and trying the same potency tuning with healing just undoes the 'solution' of having harder HPS checks.
In contrast, higher HPS required causes problems with 'adapting to the new design' at almost any point in the fight, not just enrage (you could die at any time to 'the healer couldn't keep up'), healing is harder to get from other roles to make up for a less skilled healer falling behind the game's requirement (WAR would likely become locked-slot status again due to this), and as stated above, we can't just go 'oh well if it's hard for people to keep up with the extra damage from the constant Dropsy throughout the raid fight, we can increase Medica2's regen from 150 to 250 to better keep up'. Well, we could, but then we're back where we started: the healing tools are too strong compared to the damage output by the game. The solution brings more issues than it solves, and also doesn't really solve the issues all that well to begin with -
08-15-2023, 11:08 AMShurrikhanMy main issue with trying to warrant limits onto a specific job on the basis of enough people wanting it across that job's whole role... is that they are two very different levels. We might as well say that across all roles, enough players dislike casting spells that one (existing) Caster shouldn't be allowed to have casts, or that enough players dislike positionals that one (existing) Melee shouldn't be allowed to have positionals...Quote:
Originally Posted by ForsakenRoe
Perhaps if it were a new job, at least, I'd be less miffed by the idea, but even then, it seems unfair and unnecessary to hold back anyone its appeal to anyone would otherwise want to play with that job's aesthetics and gimmicks to that arbitrary limit, especially when engaging with, say, those positionals would still be only one among myriad optimizations and would be entirely excess to clear requirement anyways for all but certain Ultimates.
On the other note, obviously cognitive load is not actually split into 'healing optimization' and 'damage optimization', and to give such a warrant to say that adding complexity to healing is fine while adding it to damage is not would be... pretty absurd.
However, keep in mind that raising party sustain requirements can come with decreased party DPS requirements, even if only by just buffing healer potency-per-GCD, and the diminishing returns on effort put toward either purpose (not wiping now due to not meeting sustain checks vs. not wiping to enrage from low healer DPS) might have separate and perhaps even different curves (devoting one's attention towards not wiping now may reward one's efforts overall than just slightly making up for the DPS falling behind), so in that sense that fiction/analog can still indirectly have some use. -
08-15-2023, 11:48 AMSargeTheSeagull
I started frequenting the forums about a year and a half ago now and idk which impresses me more: That Ren is still this stubborn and has refused to acknowledge that he may be incorrect about literally anything. Or that all of you people keep constantly feeding someone who obviously doesn't want to discuss anything and just wants people to agree with him/is trolling.
-
08-15-2023, 12:14 PMASkellingtonWhy not both? Healers are BORED my guy. We've got nothing better to do, doubly so when DT isn't set to release until next year.Quote:
Originally Posted by SargeTheSeagull
-
08-15-2023, 12:19 PMRein_eon_OsborneI've joked before with my circle back in ShB that sifting through forum dumpster fire thread has been much more 'fun' than doing 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 in-game.Quote:
Originally Posted by ASkellington
Look at what have I become today... ._. -
08-15-2023, 05:01 PMSebazyDepressingly true, I have to remember to log on these days so I don't get my forum access revoked and house demolished. Truly huffing the 7.0 copium at this stage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rein_eon_Osborne
-
08-15-2023, 06:46 PMRenathrasWhat's funny to me is people keep parroting this same talking point when I've outright said I was wrong about a number of things in the past and even use soft/non-certain language ("I think" or "best I can remember" or etc) about things I'm less certain about.Quote:
Originally Posted by SargeTheSeagull
Everyone insisting I never admit being wrong - much less "refuse to acknowledge that (I) may be" - is just lying. I'm just not sure why people are so dedicated to that lie.
Disparaging and killing nuance is generally going to get you the wrong answer. Doubly so when I've frequently told you you were wrong about what I think. So much so I don't even bother anymore. When you're telling someone else what they must be thinking, even when they've corrected you so many times they don't bother anymore, you're in the wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Semirhage
Considering I've literally quoted posts and comments form people saying this here before - in conversations you're in and possibly directly to you - I find this dubious.Quote:
Originally Posted by ForsakenRoe
At the risk of oversimplification, it seems we have two general groups of people:
1) Those who want more healing.
2) Those who MIGHT want more healing, but think that it will break the game somehow OR that it will just get "solved" a little later (higher ilevels into the tier) and get them back to the same point, so want more damage instead.
There are other groups besides this, though.
3) Those who genuinely like things as they are and kind of want things to stay the same.
4) Those who want to be doing more non-healing, non-damage stuff like buffing or mitigation or movement speed or etc.
5) Those who have no real strong feelings, who mostly are fine with things now, wouldn't mind some changes if they had a Genie lamp and wishes, but are more or less content with the way things are and will take or leave changes.
It's easy to forget the other groups exist, or overlook them. It's kind of like polling which of the two major political parties people support when ~40% of the population (a plurality) identify with neither party and would like an alternate choice of some kind, or a reversion to some prior status quo, or just don't care.
That's the problem with the "damage or healing" ultimatum; it ignores that a lot of people want a different option entirely. And for at least some of the population, the genuinely means "no change". While I doubt it's enough to justify NO CHANGE AT ALL, I think it's fair to say it's enough to justify a pocket of the role exist in that way.
.
I'd say the same in reverse, btw.
If we had some kind of poll and 10% said they wanted more damage buttons and no one else wanted them, I'd say that's enough to justify taking at least one Healer Job and giving it more damage buttons for the sake of those people.
I mean...SGE? This is basically SGE. A brand new Job added in EW under this existing paradigm, largely considered easy (the second easiest after WHM and an easier version of SGE). It's basically that very thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
Oh, and this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Semirhage
No.
As usual, Semi, you're completely wrong. Again.
Shurrikhan doesn't seem to want to actually address my arguments, so is trying to get off on a technicality. As I pointed out, her demand of proof of support applies to her own position, not mine. My position is not a change to the entire role that denies anyone escape if they don't like it. Meaning her proposal is the exclusive one that should have universal approval to be adopted.
Mine, on the other hand, allows both sides to be happy with it, meaning it has a far lower threshold of only requiring a minority to want one to be unchanged in order to justify itself.
Note that she wasn't able to prove that there IS universal support - because no one can. It's kind of an impossible thing to prove. Which is why making decisions that would require it is a bad idea.
/sighQuote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
Okay, Shurrikan, define the word "truncate" please.
"truncate" does not mean "maintain the status quo" or "remain in the state it is in".
"to shorten or reduce" is the common definition of the word via dictionaries. Not "maintain in its present state". You'd have to be REMOVING things from WHM to "truncate" it. Leaving it as it is or only making modest additions are not "truncate". Leaving it as it is is just leaving it as it is. No truncation at all. Adding something to it - anything to it - would be extruding, not truncating.
So again, truncate does not seem to mean what you think it means.
Would you be so kind as to DEFINE THE WORD, please? I'd like to see what definition you're using that has "stay as it is" as "truncate". So what definition are you using of the word, if you please? I want to make sure my disagreement with you here isn't just because you're using a word wrong/with a non-standard definition. -
08-15-2023, 07:13 PMShurrikhanTo shorten or limit the extent something, usually by cropping or precluding its upper end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
Job A is permitted to expand its kit organically to whatever extent of resultant complexity, from current level G to figurative Z.
Job B is permitted to expand its kit organically to whatever extent of resultant complexity, from current level G to figurative Z.
Job C is permitted to expand its kit organically to whatever extent of resultant complexity, from current level G to figurative Z.
Job D is permitted to expand its kit only from its current level of complexity G to at most as far as H. What potential it had for a higher end is cropped. / Its current kit, which would otherwise be able and expected to expand, is bounded at a lower ceiling.
As in: "Joe and Tom work for the same company, having started at the same time under the same salary, both gradually increasing their salary with their achievements as they accumulate raises. Tom gets in an accident, afflicting him with a TBI. Though he retains the same salary as before, he no longer moves up the rungs as he had before. His career prospects have been truncated."
We're discussing opportunities for change and improvements here. It makes no sense to say that you are not asking for reductions to what changes or improvements are allowed just because they are not currently in the game and cannot therefore, by a certain semantic twist, be curtailed, reined in, or truncated. -
08-16-2023, 12:52 AMASkellington
Honestly, 10% isn't good enough justification for a job remaining the same.
I'm not saying that your wishes shouldn't be considered at all (for example, say if the 10% want to keep a job approachable for new players) but much like the healing role shouldn't be designed for anything other than healer mains, a job shouldn't be designed solely around 10% of the population. -
08-16-2023, 01:20 AMChonkGoblinSupremNot really. I don’t keep a Death Note for people who are mildly annoying to me in video games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sebazy
I remember a while back one tank (not strictly a DPS thing, I was being hyperbolic for rhetorical emphasis) who went on about how “he did his time” as a healer after intentionally pulling too big of a pull and wiping the party to teach me a lesson because I dared to use Physik in a 30-40 Leveling dungeon. At the time I had a crossbar set up for lowbie stuff and one set up for 50+ stuff and Physik was good enough when people weren’t being jerks. I dropped the duty. Adlo isn’t that much better
The last one started in on a whole lecture of how I should tank differently in party chat after we had completed the duty and I just ignored them, left the duty, and the healer gave me a commendation.
I’ve been paying for the game since long before I hit level 60 so I could use retainers. I didn’t sign up for the forums until recently, is that what you are talking about with that 11 days comment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
Nice try at Gatekeeping tho baby. :^* -
08-16-2023, 01:33 AMPost
Legit Physick and Adlo were both meant to be used until like... HW and Emergency Tactics at the very least. People talk about replacing those basic heal GCDs, but SCH's is actually still better for throughput, and especially if your target isn't being depleted of their shield before the next cast (they normally aren't).
It's just that they don't design damage for healers needing to actually cast heals. Also, ET's cooldown was shortened and Adlo's potency went up, so eh. Definitely still good at level 50, though. -
08-16-2023, 02:29 AMkyyninen_kirahvi
I'm not sure what this thead is about anymore, but I guess I'll answer the question on the first page.
I main as a healer all the way but I've anjoyed playing dancer and red mage. I enjoy them because all the actions I gain leveling up are incentivised to be used. Sure, with dancer it takes a bit practise but with red mage using your full kit is almost instictual (not rez necessarily but still).
Healing jobs have the problem of not really encouraging to use your full kit unless you're soloing, doing ultimates or your party is/ you are new to the content. I like to emphasize I'm a casual, who still isn't good at the game and notices this. -
08-16-2023, 08:44 AMSebazySo you're telling me that you're suggesting that this thread is full of 'DPS players' but you can't point the finger at any of them?Quote:
Originally Posted by ChonkGoblinSuprem
Admittedly it's a rather obvious loaded question. The catch is that this thread isn't full of DPS players at all, rather it's full of disgruntled healer veterans that are fed up of the corner that SE has designed healers into. The only thing going for it is accessibility through the fact that as long as you are pressing something, it's fairly difficult to go wrong in mainstream content especially once you hit the level cap.
As for the other points: I strongly suspect there's more to the story with regards to a Tank wiping the party because you used Physic in an ARR leveling dungeon... Don't get me wrong, I've seen people flip in dungeons over really stupid things but casting a basic GCD heal isn't one of them.
Ps if you want to avoid the troll/alt comments and have been playing for a while, unhide your achievements on the Lodestone. Easy way to put that to bed. -
08-16-2023, 09:10 AMShurrikhanSo, to confirm: You've been playing for a <purposely hidden on Lodestone> amount of time, during which you have uniquely found evidence that the alleged veteran healers on this thread --despite that largely being evidencable through their not-hidden achievements and rather in-depth concerns with the minutia of healing gameplay as it's been played at endgame (which you have yet to reach)-- must instead just be...Quote:
Originally Posted by ChonkGoblinSuprem
No endgame experience. No experience of prior expansions. No understanding of the problems healers perceive within healer gameplay by which to determine the motives of those criticisms. And not a single example of your claimed "butting in" by DPS players.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChonkGoblinSuprem
"Gatekeeping" though it may be to ask... why should your claim, then, be taken at all seriously? -
08-16-2023, 09:12 AMSebazyIn fairness, I think SE switched to having lodestone achievements hidden by default at some point in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
-
08-16-2023, 09:35 AMShurrikhan
Ahh, that makes sense.
-
08-16-2023, 10:05 AMForsakenRoePlot twist: they were on smnQuote:
Originally Posted by Sebazy
Post credits plot twist: they were in a 30-40 dungeon (or maybe stone vigil at 41) as arcanist
Even then, it's... one physick? I'd be surprised if anyone even notices the castbar on a Physick going off, considering it's a 1.5s cast. More likely is the number of Physicks, combined with the aforementioned role disparity was the problem the tank had. If a SCH spams Physick in lower level dungeons, nobody's going to bat an eye because they don't have anything else at that level, and Eos can't keep up after a certain point. But if an ACN/SMN is in Cutter's Cry and spamming it, then it's a bit more of a noticeable issue
None of that matters though because IDK what I'm talking about, I am actually a SAM main in disguise, only playing healer because it gets me faster queues in EX roulette /s -
08-16-2023, 10:49 AMSargeTheSeagull
Genuine question: Do any of you think that fights having raidwides followed by something like towers (or some other mechanic where random players take mandatory damage) every 30 seconds or so would be more enjoyable to heal?
-
08-16-2023, 11:14 AMSupersnow845T8S says yesQuote:
Originally Posted by SargeTheSeagull
-
08-16-2023, 12:06 PMASkellingtonDepends on how it's done. I can see it being tedious or just as much of a bore as healing is now.Quote:
Originally Posted by SargeTheSeagull
I suppose it would depend on if there are other mechanics where the party takes damage that makes me want to use certain heals for certain mechanics because they're better then while also not making it so that X mechanic = Y heal every time. On top of the more consistent damage. Like if it is a handful of players (2-3 dps take damage ~same time as a TB on one tank type a thing) or area wide damage that just means oh hit my AOE regen and ignore. -
08-16-2023, 06:30 PMForsakenRoesounds like Heavensfall TrioQuote:
Originally Posted by SargeTheSeagull
I wouldn't mind the idea, but as mentioned by others, it runs the risk of just... 'oh raidwide has towers after it, apply AOE regen/use remote heal tool like placing fairy/using Star'. Like, if you think about it in a different light (heh), P11S has this already: Jury Overruling has the raidwide (everyone gets hit by a protean), directly into towers (everyone has to either stack as 2's or 4's) based on light/dark glow. As Dark, it's a bit harder on healing because you're more spread out, but you can preshield it all, SCH can put fairy middle and Consolation between the two hits or AST can Star between the two hits (like mentioned above), etc. Essentially, the idea already exists to an extent, disguised as a different mechanic, but while having it be more prevalent would not necessarily go amiss in terms of 'how much would I enjoy it', it'd likely incentivize a meta of 'remote healing healers', which coincidentally happens to be AST/SCH once again
Alternatively, what you could have is, as an example, Bonds in P10S. Rather than the 'spread, pairs, roles' we have now, introduce a 4th one: as well as Stack/Role/Pair, a non-tank is marked for a third hit dealing 50% of their max HP. The healers would have the time between the two debuffs going off that we have now, after the two debuffs go off, to heal/shield that person beyond 50%. So like, spread, gap of 2-3s, pairs, gap of 2-3s, 50% hit. If you do preshielding/Soil etc, you'd live both the spread and pairs/roles hits without needing an additional heal, which means you can, as soon as the first hit lands, start ST focusing the debuff marked player with Benisons or Aquaveils or whatever. AOE healing alone wouldn't be enough to get them there in time, it'd require a targeted Solace/Adlo. The issue with this is, once again, gearing. Once you get more gear, the damage dealt by this debuff would scale (50% of your max HP means that if your max goes up, so does the hit), but the other debuff that puts the player into danger range, does less damage/they have more max HP, and so we end up at the point where it's ignoreable in reclears, and an issue in prog
I'm tellin ya, SE has handicapped us by locking half of the design of 'what healers have responsibility for' away from each class, based on the arbitrary restriction of Pure/Barrier. If we didn't have this random 'locked out of mit because you're a pure healer' thing, we could have 'more interesting healing' by having knowledge from a design standpoint that every healer has access to some form of AOE shielding. And with that, things like 'have shields up for this to block a debuff's application/a knockback' become a design piece that can be thrown in