lmao thanks for clearly letting me know that you are coping so hard when your style of toxic patronizing crap gets gets called out that you need to invent a whole slew of fantasies to protect your egoQuote:
Originally Posted by ForsakenRoe
-
08-16-2023, 09:12 PMChonkGoblinSuprem
-
08-16-2023, 10:00 PMForsakenRoeI guess the /s at the end wasn't enough of a clue huhQuote:
Originally Posted by ChonkGoblinSuprem
What exactly am I coping about, and what is such a threat to my ego that I have to 'protect' it?
edit: caused like 3 wipes in a p12s reclear because I'm idiot, so if I did have an ego, it should be dead after that performance. I wouldn't say I had much of one to begin with (though I suppose I'm not allowed to be the judge of that), anyone can check my stats, and there's nothing there to have much of an ego about -
08-17-2023, 03:39 AMSemirhageAnd the bus driver was Albert Einstein, and the whole bus clapped.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChonkGoblinSuprem
-
08-17-2023, 10:30 AMSargeTheSeagullAnd then he went home to his three weed smoking girlfriends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Semirhage
-
08-19-2023, 11:46 AMRenathras/sighQuote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
No, but there's no point in arguing about it since you've found your new favorite word of the month and won't not use it even if it's wrong. Whatever.
But, for the record: Asking for something to stay the same is NOT asking for a reduction. To ask for a reduction, one must ask for a REDUCTION.
What you're doing is like how politicians define a "cut" to federal spending. "We planned to increase spending by 20% this year, but only increased it by 15%; we call that a 5% cut to federal spending!" "But...you're spending 115% of what you spent last year?" "Yeah, but it's 5% LESS than we were planning to increase it by, so it's a 5% cut!"
EDIT:
Well, it's likely more than 10%. I was more saying if it's even that, it's worth having 1 out of 4 Jobs. I believe the reverse, too. If this forum were all the people that wanted more, and were only 10%, I'd still say you deserve at least one of the healer Jobs to give you more. Would you stand there and insist "No, 10% isn't enough. All the healers should remain the same/simple."? I mean, maybe you would...but I wouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by ASkellington
Thing is, we don't know how much it is. It could be 5% or it could be 95%. Likewise, other than knowing this forum represents a minority of the playerbase, we don't know how much of the rest shares its views.
What we DO know is that both are non-zero numbers.
It'd be one thing if there was only one healing Job in the game. Were that the case, it would make sense to say majority rules and gets it. But there's more than one healer Job in the game. So we can split the difference. It's like how in car crashes, it's always one person's fault or the other, but in ship collisions, fault can be percentage based, like one side being 75% at fault and the other 25% or the like. We have more than one Job here, so we have room for granularity. If we only had one, yes, 10% or even 49% wouldn't be enough. But if we have 4, then it makes sense to give both sides at least one of them and then distribute the remainder to the majority.
Or, to put it another way...have you ever heard of an MMp (mixed-member proportional) representation voting system?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU
SPECIFICALLY what I'm referring to here is the part of the system where he shows the MMP system and how it gives members to the most under-represented parties.
Indeed, this is how I see this whole process, where the Jobs in this case are the "representatives". Your system means people that want what you want get 100% representation, and people who disagree get 0% or no representation. That's a pretty terrible system. On the other hand, MMP allows for everyone to get some representation, and thus be at least content. -
08-19-2023, 02:11 PMShurrikhan
Again, I happened to choose "truncate" (among plenty of other terms) because it conveys that the intent of that action is to limit what future growth or action is possible, which seems your very clear intent. Call it "limit" instead if you like, or "curtail", or "preclude", or "hamstring" healers' future improvements or if it makes you feel better. I do not give a damn.
"I didn't <insert verb here> this child. I merely starved it of <insert resource here> that it'll stay at roughly this size forever." If there's an expectation that something could and should otherwise grow, then going out of your way to preclude that is still limiting it.
At least, though, if you're going to nitpick terms based on chronology-regardless-of-point-in-discourse, then at least do so in both directions.
We are largely on this forum because we do not accept the mere fact that something happened as warrant that it should have happened. Given that, there is no reason to say that all changes up until now are somehow irrelevant just because the developers concluded that they were for the best; there is no authoritative weight there. Nor is there, therefore, any reason to treat the 'status quo' as if it were not, itself, a sum of prior changes, be they for the better or worse.
Just because you got what you want does not mean that others were not screwed over in those prior changes, nor would say, reverting those general simplifications to healer gameplay be any more a change than further simplifications (i.e., continuing along the trend of the last two expansions) would be.
The point of this thread, one would think from its opening post if we (perhaps naively) assumed it had a constructive (rather than merely rhetorical) purpose: To develop a set of very widely agreed upon, and pretty thoroughly reasoned out, criteria for what could make healer downtime and the broader healer experience more enjoyable.
Now, we start to actually do that, developing a set of unobtrusive and highly reasonable fundamentals to work from. These could and seemingly should be applied to every job as those improvements could come literally without cost (to anyone not simultaneously paranoid that their limited effort wouldn't necessarily both max out their job's potential and be able to fully compete with those putting in more effort, regardless of the havoc that'd place on broader balance). So if that discourse is proceeding as it seemingly should in that it is steadily generating understandings of what can make downtime more enjoyable and unobtrusive guidelines around that.
You then say "No, job A shouldn't benefit from this. Job A needs to remain in <the form being broadly critiqued, for widely held reasons>. This one should uniquely not have those opportunities for growth." And somehow not supposed to be seen as limiting or reductive? -
08-19-2023, 03:45 PMShurrikhanGroup A (>80%): "I want to be able to do at least X, Y, and Z (in roughly descending order of value, where mastery of X is already sufficient to clear, or any milder combination of all three)."Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
Group B (<20%): "I want to be able to do at least X and Y (in roughly descending order of value, where mastery of X is already sufficient to clear, or any milder combination of both)."
Regardless of their portion, unless Group B also classifies itself by "I want to prevent anything more than X and Y from being possible", the reasonable solution is to just allow for all the requested features.
Again, making it so that doing just X performs as well as X and Y creates imbalances across all jobs; short of that, there is no difference in gameplay between having access to both X and Y and being able to clear off just X but able to further carry with Y vs. playing a job that can only do X and can clear with just X but lacks that excess margin for using Y as well. You're still getting the same throughput for your effort, and you don't need to use any more of the kit than you want to since only the part/optimizations you're used to using would be required to clear.It's similar to if, in a semester-length easy course that only takes 10 weeks to ace all of the course's meeting and assignments, Group B wanted the final projects to be due at week 10 while Group A wanted things to be due only at the final week so they could do more involved final projects, even though the actual requirements for said projects would still be identical and the students would be able to turn those projects in as soon as they want and immediately thereafter get their final grade if they like. Given that the standards are already set and static, there is zero harm in allowing for those extra weeks so that people are free to try unnecessarily harder and thereby engage more with that experience if they so please.
-
08-20-2023, 01:00 AMForsakenRoeI wonder, let's take my example (because I'm familiar with the numbers for it). WHM, Banish is 40p more than Glare, generates 5 gauge instead of Glare's 1, but has 15s CD. If the pitch were changed, such that the potencies were identical, and the only difference was that Banish generated 500% as much gauge as Glare, would that somehow be more acceptable to naysayers? You'd still have a difference in damage regardless, because faster gauge generation = more access to 'the funny damage neutral heal tool', but is it the direct 'not using the new damage skill = damage loss' that is the issue, or is it ANY perceived damage loss that's the problemQuote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
Put another way, the question, not just for my WHM Banish (not using it is 160p per min loss) or AST Minor Arcana (not using it is 200p per min loss), but for any pitch that hopes to add more variety to the damage rotation for healers, is this: if you can clear any content in the game, by playing the same way as now (that is, refresh DOT when it falls off, spam nuke, ignore the rest), what is the magic value of potency per minute at which the design becomes 'unacceptable'? Because there's clearly a line in the sand, but I don't understand where it is
I might start referring to it as 'Bonsai Job design'Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
-
08-20-2023, 04:24 AMRenathrasWhich is not what truncate means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
I'm not going to keep arguing this because it's a stupid semantic argument.
Which is the entire reason I support the "4 Healers Model" in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
You misrepresent the groups, which is why you end up with an incorrect conclusion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
The reality is probably more like this:
Group A: Wants more complex dps kits on Healers (this is a lot of the English vocal complainers)
Group B: Wants more interesting utility/buffing on Healers (this is especially true of AST players)
Group C: Wants Healers to shift to more healing across all content (this seems to be the JP vocal complainers)
Group D: Wants Healers to stay as they are
Group E: Wants Healers to only heal
Group D: Wants Healers to get more simple
Group F: Wants some kind of hybrid of some of the above
Group G: Likely has a preference of some kind but doesn't care if things change in one of the other directions
Group H: Likely has a preference of some kind and REALLY cares if things change in a way they dislike
These groups are all at different percentage expressions, and it's very unlikely any one of them is a majority. It probably splits closer into 1/4ths across people that want more damage, more buffing, more healing, and things to stay about the same. But we really don't know.
The problem is you look at it as just three groups; those who want more complex damage, those who don't want it but don't mind it, and me being the only person in the entire game that wants even one healer to stay the same.
This is why your assessment is incorrect. -
08-20-2023, 04:51 AMShurrikhanIt matches its etymological, connotative, and denotative uses. And you are the one who chose to nitpick word-choice despite it being only one of many words used to the same effect and having been paraphrased for your understanding multiple times now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
Your sub-dividing those groups does not change the simple fact that you can support all those desires within the same kit so long as those desires are not specifically reductive of what's permitted to other (e.g. "I not only want my gameplay loop to feel pretty complete and satisfying even when only engaging with it at very simple level, but also want no one else on my job to even be capable of anything more than that simple level of engagement.")Quote:
You misrepresent the groups, which is why you end up with an incorrect conclusion.
You're ~90% of the way to the throughput of hyperoptimization just by hitting your GCDs on time, minimizing overhealing, and just not leaving your oGCDs untouched. You need only about 75% to clear. What godsdamned difference does it make to you if someone plays with more of that kit than you do? You don't even need to put the rest on your bar to clear that content.
Find me anywhere in that post that says anything specifically about damage. This is about cognitive load and that you need only meet a incredibly requirement thereof and that it therefore makes no sense to limit what other people are allowed to engage with.Quote:
damage
I chose three levels because even under the simplicity of current healing, a good third of what each job is capable of is excessive even for Savage. So you have what little is actually necessary even now (above, "X"), and what little further carry potential we have even now (above, "Y"), and then literally ANYTHING more ("Z"). They're not grouping of specific desires; their simply the sum cognitive load available of whatever considerations the kit may at least very modestly reward.
I'm starting to think it's "wherever your using shit I don't want to use could give you an advantage in itself even if not necessarily a net advantage (since, by my not using any of that, I can better focus on the things that have far less diminished rewards-per-effort-put-in --like minimizing overhealing and always-be-casting-- to likely greater overall performance until we're both past the point of being able to make basic mistakes)."Quote:
Originally Posted by ForsakenRoe
-
08-20-2023, 05:14 AMRenathrasNo, it doesn't. Again, you're trying to use the politician definition of "cut spending", which isn't what any non-politician would accept as a definition for "cut". But I'm not going to fight with you over a semantic argument since you're damned and determined to use that word come hell or high water, even if it doesn't mean what you want it to mean, since you think it's somehow a win for you to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
I'm not, though. I'm saying what the groups actually are. Something that's entirely relevant and which your argument requires not to exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
It's funny to me that people say I make long posts wasting words, but then you talk in a needlessly technical way that obfuscates what you're trying to say, increases likelihood of confusion, and makes conversations about even mundane topics needlessly cumbersome. Or to put it another way, "I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request" sorts of language.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
It can, in fact, mean both, and does to people. I know you don't particularly want to accept that, because it immediately defeats your argument.
Leading once again to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
-
08-20-2023, 05:24 AMShurrikhanA: <Wants A>Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
B: <Wants B>
C: <Wants C>
Reasonable Design: Why not all of the above? There's a way to have all of the above without any degradation of those individual features.
Renathras Design: Nope, I'd rather specifically prevent that for one or more jobs.
Unless you classify those groups not by what forms of engagement they want, but instead specifically by what they want to disallow other groups to have, there is no real conflict here.
It's like you've been given an especially balanced Game of Life wherein every choice arrives at the same amount of total assets by retirement and tertiary education awards only enough to pay back its monetary opportunity costs from time and fees, but your take is that certain states should disallow tertiary education because some portion of the nation's population might not be interested in it. -
08-20-2023, 05:38 AMAmiableApkalluWhat exactly is this "4 Healers Model"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
-
08-20-2023, 05:49 AMShurrikhanI'm sure Ren will clarify better in just a moment, but an outsider's summary can sometimes be helpful, too, if only to show which parts actually convey well to different groups/people:Quote:
Originally Posted by AmiableApkallu
Rather than letting each job develop without restriction as far as seems reasonable per their core themes, the "4 Healers Model" sort of sub-divide the jobs into different categorical niches meant to appeal to a portion of the overall healer playerbase to ensure that each "camp" has a job meant for them.
Its likely problems are that it seems to assume that gameplay desires can and will be held separate from desires for particular themes, aesthetics, and so on, and that those gameplay desires must be clustered in mutually exclusive ways, so if you like both the gameplay elements that end up allotted to Job A and those that are allotted to Job B, you're screwed, and if you like the gameplay elements of Job A but the visuals of Job B, you're also kinda screwed, since you can't simply have a larger kit capable of meeting both gameplay aspects (especially, prior to extreme optimization). It can also get a bit screwy if the number of camps don't perfectly match up, some camps are considerably larger/smaller than others, etc. It also ignores where multiple gameplay desires, given the extreme amount of lenience in this game, do not have to be mutually exclusive to each other (having both X and Y doesn't mean that one actually needs to use both X and Y, even if they aren't necessarily on shared resource costs).
Consider it like if you had an uncapped way of spending Cards towards direct offense; it'd be slightly inferior, almost always, to spending them to buff an ally, but you might have that option, so if you really, really don't like tabbing through your allies to select the best recipient, you could just Lord your target and be done with it. But if you make AST specifically the "buffing job" rather than a "Cards job", or prevent it from having extra buttons that could feed into offense because "there's already a healer with more than just 4 attack buttons", then it'd be disallowed.
Honestly, the differences aren't necessarily huge; the biggest gap is in the principle between approaching things as zero-sum (someone's gotta get screwed over / there can be no increase to total satisfaction, only fairer distribution of satisfaction) or reconcilable (no positive desire has to be screwed over / there can be an increase to total satisfaction, and such should be provided insofar as is possible first). -
08-20-2023, 06:18 AMASkellington
Your "4 healer model" as I've said countless times means that people that want WHM to be more than what it is are told to go play another job. Meaning, you're also excluding however many % want more damaging options, while also saying you're trying to support the however many minority or not, want WHM to stay the same.
The way I see it 25% could want all healers to have more complexity/depth in dps and healing. 25% want healing, 25% don't care, and 25% want nothing done at all. Your argument is to say, for the 25% that want nothing done to any healer let's say screw the other 75% and leave just one healer when that wasn't what anyone wanted in the first place. -
08-20-2023, 07:45 AMRenathrasIn super simple terms:Quote:
Originally Posted by AmiableApkallu
We have 4 Healer Jobs, so it makes sense to have each have a bit different rotation and focus, this way to appeal to the most people.
Look at Casters right now. SMN plays borderline like a phys Ranged, RDM has a cast-instant (dualcast) cadence with a melee+ranged instant cast burst phase that's easy to pick up but has a high skill ceiling to optimize, and BLM is...well, BLM. This means Caster players are spoiled for choice. They have three completely different options from easy to hard and from mobile to immobile and even from lots of party utility to totally selfish DPS.
Healers, though, do not.
We have one general playstyle which is DoT + spamnuke + 2-3 Job specific attack (Assize/Misery, Energy Drain/Ruin 2, Earthly Star/Macrocosmos, Pneuma/Plegma/Toxicon), with the AOE being a single one button spam. And our healing is very similar, too, with almost all healing being oGCDs with the exception of WHM. (Ironically, given Lilies are GCDs, WHM has the most diverse playstyle of the healers right now while SCH/SGE are almost right on top of each other as much stepping on each others' toes they do with their overlap.)
.
So the idea of "4 Healers Model" is that we could change up this to where each plays distinctly from the others, meaning no matter what gameplay you like, you likely have a Healer Job that YOU personally would enjoy the mechanics of.
.
There's no specifics to it other than that, but here would be one example:
WHM: No change from today.
SCH: Return it to its SB incarnation with several DoTs and where pet abilities can be macroed and aren't on the oGCD
AST: Return the SB era card effects or add new buffing mechanics
SGE: Give it a rotation akin to SMN or RDM level complexity and shunt its healing away from oGCDs and into Kardia
Another example would be:
WHM: Give it an elemental builder/spender rotation (probably something like RDM but without the melee part of its rotation); reduce its oGCD kit to where it does lots of GCD healing
SCH: Give it something like 7 DoTs and make them generate Faerie Gauge, make AF used for attacks of Fester, Bane, and Energy Drain, make Faerie Gauge where the AF healing abilities are
AST: Make it into an outright buffer, something like Cards are GCD but have no CD so you can just constantly throw them out on people
SGE: Leave IT like it is today.
The only constant is that at least one Job remain more or less like it is now (for people that enjoy current healer gameplay) and that at least one change to something to appeal to those that wish for a more complex design and rotation. Taken to the widest form to appeal to the most people, this would likely include one of the Jobs being a dedicated buffer class (probably AST since it's already borderline set up for it), and probably two of the others being different flavors of damage (e.g. one DoT focused and one with no DoTs that's rotation focused instead like RDM or SMN are).
That's it in a nutshell anyway.
.
This is what we call "bias". If you can only present an idea in a negative light instead of a neutral tone, perhaps you should leave it to someone who can. When someone asks what a thing is, you should leave out your bias in the initial description. You can offer your personal critiques after giving them a general view on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
THIS is far more accurate and a better description, though doesn't word it very clearly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
No, it assumes that Healers shouldn't be different from other roles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
Say you love BLM's aesthetic right now but hate its gameplay. What do you do? Do you get on BLM and play exclusively as "an Ice Mage"? No. You don't get to play BLM.
For this critique to hold water, "Ice Mage" would need to be within 5% or so damage of optimally played, BLM, which it isn't and never will be, and that would be BAD for the game. We as players, no matter the game, have to choose between playstyle and aesthetic all the time. And besides, this critique leaves off the fact that if you change any but especially all healer Jobs to be more complex, you have the exact same problem of people liking an aesthetic but not being able to enjoy its playstyle. So your solution has the exact same problem, meaning you can't use this as an argument against the position you oppose since it's a weakness of both proposals, not just mine.
Two points:Quote:
Originally Posted by ASkellington
1) How is this different than people that like WHM as it is being told, under your idea, they have to go play ANOTHER GAME since NO Job will be what they want?
2) Look at the above proposal. I've said before that SGE instead of WHM being the one left the same would also be acceptable - it's only ever been the way it is now and this is the way it was designed, so it remaining this way can't be alienating anyone since it's the only way it's ever been and what everyone from 6.1 on picking it up knew to expect from it - and have also said I don't care which one it is, as long as it is "at least one".
...meaning this "counter argument" is not valid.
Again, two points:Quote:
Originally Posted by ASkellington
1) No, my way is saying "each of you 25% get 25% (1 in 4) of the Healers entirely to yourself that will play exactly as you want, so we all win".
2) Your argument is to say, for the 25% that want more complexity/depth in dps and healing, they get all four healer Jobs, and let's say screw the other 75% and leave just ZERO healers for them when that wasn't what anyone wanted in the first place. It's mind boggling to me how you people think "1 healer not appealing to (you) is unacceptable...but other people having ZERO healers that appeal to them is perfectly fine". You're literally telling people they have to play a different game and I'm telling people like you that you'd have 3 options where right now you have 0 that you like. There's no world in which my model is more restrictive or saying it doesn't are about people than yours. MINE is the one saying that there are different types of player and trying to ensure each has at least one option that they can enjoy. Hell, MY model is an improvement over what we have now, since as you guys say all the time, you don't like ANY of the healers right now so there are ZERO that you like. 3 > 0 and thus automatically better.
Yours is insisting that all four healers must be made to where people like you enjoy them and screw everyone else, even if everyone else was 75% and the vast majority. -
08-20-2023, 08:00 AMShurrikhanNone among "healers should play differently from each other", "healers should play differently from other roles", or "healers should have distinct identities", etc. are unique to your "model".Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
The only ultimate difference is that one model restricts what each job is allowed, in order to guide it towards a specific camp, while the other simply says "Whatever seems to especially fit the job and build out its core mechanics/theme, go for it... and then tweak and polish thereafter for deeper and/or broader appeal to the playerbase as is possible, be that via a bit more contrast here, a bit more highlighting of unique aspects there, etc., etc."
Its effectively a negative (X should not have B, C, or D; Y should not have A, C, or D) pre-allocating top-down model vs. a recursive bottom-up model. That's it.
You realize the difference between using literally just Broil/Malefic and using all your offensive spells is just ~10% of your DPS, which is <1% of the party's total DPS?Quote:
For this critique to hold water, "Ice Mage" would need to be within 5% or so damage of optimally played, BLM
For your analogy to "hold water", this would have to concern the job's combined outputs and would actually have to have similar weight.
As is stands, your healer "Ice Mage" is putting out 80+% output, not some 30% output, even when using only some 30% of their kit, and is able to clear Savage just fine. So yes, you can easily say that a healer who only wants to use 80% of their kit is fully able to do so -- all the more when those differing/additional skills share resources, as is typically of the suggestions here, rather than simply adding flat ppm. -
08-20-2023, 12:38 PMForsakenRoe
Can't help but notice that this
didn't get answered by anyone who actually HAS a line in the sand, so I'm still clueless as to where the line isQuote:
Originally Posted by ForsakenRoe
tagged cos longQuote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
Once tome gear starts rolling in, you can literally ignore AST's entire gameplay mechanic, it's cards, just Div on CD/Maleficspam/refresh DOT, and you'd clear Savage. Even though the cards are like 15% of your total RDPS. The problem isn't 'you won't be able to clear if things get more complex', apparently it's that 'people's week 6 clear will now be a week 7 clear because they need extra gear to make up for their lack of damage' (from not pressing the new buttons). Might have a point for AST cards as they are, but if we took the previously mentioned '160p per minute' loss from what I've rallied for (for a year now, time flies), then a 10min fight sees that player losing 5 total Glares worth of damage. The argument ignores key rebuttals/fixes to 'problems', like how potencies can be balanced such that the potency difference between average player (enough to clear) and '100% parse god' is smaller. Energy Drain's potency shows that optimization-minded players do not need massive gaps of damage between themselves and 'the not-so-hardcore', they want 'a way to express their mastery of the job/game' even if it's by only 300p per minute (as is the case with ED)
I've said before, any changes like this are not assailable with 'people will have to learn new rotation, it'll be stressful in battle, they might make mistakes and lose damage' because we already have to learn new rotations when we get expansions and new additional tools to put into our gameplay. I used to be 'not completely trash' at SAM back in SB. Now I'm terrible at it because Meikyo enforced the 'strict 60s loop' gameplay style and I don't vibe with it anymore. If I practiced, I'd probably get good at it. Which is the point I'm trying to get at with any suggested healer changes. Yes, it will take some time for people to get used to the new skills, and how to use them in the rotation. But I've tried to make my designs as quick and easy to pick up and learn as possible, I assume other idea-pitchers had the same thought. I don't think anyone's going to be going through a Rocky training montage, 8 hours a day at Stone Sky Sea, to work out how a new 15s CD damage skill fits into their rotation. It's literally 'press when it comes up, unless you want to save it for movement'.
Plus, if you have to heal because of week 1 damage/panic/whatever, then the thing you shift out of your damage rotation to make room for that GCD heal is... your lowest damage skill, Glare/Broil/etc. If you were meant to cast Banish at X:15 but had to heal instead on that GCD, you would still have Banish, it just shifts forward 1 GCD to X:17.5, and the Glare that was there is now removed. In this sense, having extra tools like this would not lose people damage, rather, it'd help them maintain their damage -
08-20-2023, 12:56 PMShurrikhan
My own line in the sand (sorta): no more additional difficulty (nerfs to mere Malefic spam by consequence of more potency being moved elsewhere than is added to AST's ceiling, or the like) spread away from the existing more blanketing/engulfing factors (like mere minimization of overheating or keeping ones GCD rolling) to former or new rewarded mechanics that someone who could barely clear Savage before, on average, would now, on average, have trouble clearing Extremes, etc.
If it's just added carry potential, rather than any added difficulty, though, then you're right to say I have no line in the sand.
I don't suspect we'll be allowed even that much stringency, though, so I'm not sure it matters; we'll probably just stack the rewards of those new optimizations (especially as minor/finished as they'll be, given opportunity costs) entirely *atop* the existing healer maximum throughput rather than at all requiring their use (by nerfing Malepam, oGCD healing, etc., in compensation).
And if we do actually shuffle or spread healer difficulty around, then the larger impact would still be on the healing side of things anyways (making minimizing healing more complex than *just* avoiding at-cost heals 99% of the time), at least unless healer fillers were absolutely nuked (which wouldn't happen unless they had extreme amounts of shared resource cost attacks, because players still deserve to be able to level reasonably on healers)... -
08-20-2023, 10:56 PMASkellingtonFull stop no. My argument has always been all healers. Not leave one behind. Therefore, your solution does not, cannot and WILL NEVER WORK. Just on that alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
Also, people who would like "your" model have yet to say they also wouldn't like a WHM who has an extra few dps skills as long as it remains simple to use, which is what I would like to see for WHM. So, in the event that the second is true, your model also has no reason for existing.
Which is the compromise you keep saying doesn't exist by the way. I would much rather WHM rip SGE's idea of being a damage oriented healer back in Shb. But apparently it can't be so an extra 2 or three dps options (one likely being a DoT) that doesn't impact its healing output and aids in lily generation is all I'm likely to get if anything.
WHM if I had it my way would be more akin to BLM in terms of complexity. I like complex healers. I'm not asking for WHM to become BLM or SB SCH and AST as I've said repeatedly and you've consistently ignored because "you can't be wrong". I still want WHM to be approachable to newer healer players but that does not mean it HAS to stay as it is now and therefore, I'm not going to sit there and champion for it to stay that way.
I want WHM to have a few extra dps options to manage and also to make soloing as a healer (all four of them) to not be a boring PoS experience while still being an easy and approachable healer.
Your model is not an improvement. Its gatekeeping. Just not in the traditional sense. You're literally gatekeeping WHM's design to never get better, and you're gatekeeping healers who want something to aspire to on WHM. You are literally telling them "great, you've mastered WHM. You want something more, go play another healer because WHM can't get anything more to it." You just don't want to admit it or just can't see it that way.
Pick whichever is more accurate. -
08-20-2023, 11:32 PMConnor
I’m not going to pretend I’ve read through every word of these…’arguments’. But I simply don’t get any side lol.
Why does White Mage having ‘similar design philosophy to what it has now’ mean ‘it cannot get any new dps or non-healing abilities ever?’
Based on current design for both encounters and healers I’d estimate White Mage would be more likely to receive new damage abilities if they wanted to ‘keep it mostly the same’. Whether they’re interesting or not is a different matter, but still. I’d assume Renathas isn’t literally saying White Mage should not get any new abilities whatsoever, cuz that would just be weird come expansion time lol
Likewise, why does overlap between certain job capabilities have to be eradicated? Wouldn’t it make more sense to just design the jobs how they want as unique and interesting playstyles?
Any overlap wouldn’t be particularly egregious as long as it was interesting and unique for each involved jobs (i.e Scholar and Astrologian both having party support, White Mage and Sage both being personal dps oriented). And as long as the main mechanics of each job have depth and individuality the overlaps wouldn’t make it feel like you’re playing the same job 4 times over, in my opinion anyway.
I don’t think it’s accurate to say, for example, ‘Astrologian is the buff healer so that immediately precludes Scholar from all future buff or support skills’, ‘Sage is the dps healer so White Mages aren’t allowed to dps’. That wouldn’t make any sense either lol.
As for prescribed job difficulties (i.e ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ jobs), I feel like this is a bit of a redundant concept. Players will always naturally gravitate towards a playstyle that they prefer personally, so trying to prescribe difficulties can just make the choice of jobs feel more rigid and restricted. I’ve always found Bard way easier than Dancer, and while I’m aware it’s like, objectively not lol, it feels that way to me because I’ve played Bard since 1.0 lol. I think the best way for them to deal with this is also to design jobs with an emphasis on the unique and interesting aspects of each job, then allow players themselves decide which ones they find ‘easier’ or ‘harder’. That goes for all jobs though. I also don’t think it’s quite accurate to say that any job should be ‘designed for newer players’ or ‘designed for hardcore raiders’, because again it’s always ultimately going to come down to what the players believes, not what the devs tell them to
Realistically, healer design should end up looking like a ‘4-Healer Model’ where each one brings something unique and interesting to the table. At the same time, said ‘Model’ doesn’t need to be sacrosanct; overlap between job capabilities and complexity/depth for each job can still exist in a model that seeks to emphasise the unique playstyle of each job. Accessibility and Complexity/Depth can coexist lol That’s my opinion anyway -
08-21-2023, 12:05 AMASkellingtonBecause Renathras doesn't get your bolded point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor
He keeps thinking that we want complexity without accessibility and that we want to gatekeep players when in reality, no.
No one here is arguing all 4 healers should get the same things. Infact I've gone out of my way to say, no they shouldn't. Twice.
The crux of his argument is that healers want more than the crappy loop SE has given us when we have nothing to heal so he'll give 3 healers a better outlook and not all four. Usually leaving WHM behind but he'll sacrifice any one given the oppertunity.
He thinks he's doing the right thing for the however many percent like healers how they are because they'll leave the job like SMN mains and SAM mains when you can't really compare the two. Its admirable when you really stop to think about it, but he's not going about it the wrong way, and he's still failing to offer a good reason as to why WHM or any healer for that matter should stay as it is when as you've said and I'VE said in the past they aren't mutually exclusive.
And because I know he's going to demand where I've ever said that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASkellington
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASkellington
-
08-21-2023, 12:40 AMkyyninen_kirahvi1. Doesn't this already kind of exist already? I mean 3/4 are basically different enough. Sure, could have better rotations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
2. Wouldn't this just stunt the growth of the jobs? There comes a point where you'll unnecessarily restrict what you can do with the design. E.g. where to go with WHM if left as is? How much would you need to rework the other 3 healers so they are satisfying? What are the limits of the design? -
08-21-2023, 02:37 AMForsakenRoeGood point, and I'm not sure how often it's come up previously. With something like AST, it has some room to grow in alternate directions, such as getting new ways to aid with damage via buffing allies, maybe it gets a way to give 'negative fate' to enemies to debuff them? But WHM does not have that option. It's 'identity', for lack of a better one, is that it 'heals really strongly via GCDs', and before SGE took the crown, was 'the personal-DPS healer'. So if we were to limit it's growth in terms of it's damage rotation (which is the 'personal DPS' side of the job), it's got no other directions to grow, save for one: more excess healing tools we don't need, which leads to redundancy in the kit. We already have Cure2 and Regen seeing little to no use thanks to Solace, and Rapture effectively deleting Medica 1, adding more tools will just invalidate something else. I've seen suggestions of a Lily spender that applies a HOT. While I can see it fitting thematically with WHM, I can also see it putting Regen in the grave even deeper.Quote:
Originally Posted by kyyninen_kirahvi
It's silly to limit the directions of growth a job can take. Honestly, that line about 'we didn't really know what to do with SCH' at the pre-EW liveletter? Probably wouldn't have happened if the devs hadn't artificially stunted it's growth potential by removing all of it's DOTs bar one. -
08-21-2023, 04:05 AMShurrikhanSo, designing each healer with a target 'camp' or gameplay 'cluster' to which they're meant to appeal, rather than just building up primarily from the job's roots and core, doesn't actually require that any job is left the same. That's a separate addendum that Renathras has assigned atop that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor
This depends on two prior decisions: (1) permitted kit size and (2) whether differentiation in means is also considered (instead of solely the basic categories of their outputs).Quote:
Likewise, why does overlap between certain job capabilities have to be eradicated? Wouldn’t it make more sense to just design the jobs how they want as unique and interesting playstyles?
The first, the matter of ceilings to complexity / kit size (in terms of consequent nuance, available actions, and thereby its manner of optimizations/interactions, not just/necessarily button count), is pretty self-explanatory:
If the permitted kit size is large, then there's no harm in having some overlap, because there's enough space in the remainder for even the shared portions to feel totally different in practice because of unshared portions differently make use of them. But if the kit is only permitted to be quite small, then overlap leaves might not leave enough room for differentiation.
The second depends on whether one looks at the HOW of two jobs performing a given task, rather than just WHAT they are doing.
For instance, if you have a SCH that is able to increasingly manipulate an opponent's offense by destabilizing their aether through foreign mana pooled into them or bolster an ally's defense through much the same, with periodic and buffering effects (flat damage taken/dealt reduction) each behaving in a certain way, you might look at the fact that it uses, among other things, shields and DoTs, and that he can use Broil/Bane or Catalysis/Pulse to consume that pooled MP and say, "Well, he's just DoTing/shielding/nuking." At that point, even if other jobs could perform any of those function in a way that feels completely different, the person looking only at the end result, and evaluating it only categorically, might say then that AST shouldn't be allowed to use shields, DoTs, or nukes, because SCH already claimed that for its own "identity".
Which largely brings us back to the difference between defining, say, AST as the "Cards+Time-Space Magic" job (where that is permitted a variety of outputs and interactions, which wouldn't likely exclude any other job from anything but those specific intersections or unique considerations) or as the "Buffs" job, SCH as the "Galvanization+Aetherpool" jobor as the "Shields job (w/ pet?)", etc.
I wholly agree that trying to prescribe difficulties is ridiculous. I don't think any but Ren, Gemina, and Velkellor have ever suggested specifically aiming for that, though, at least regarding healers. (Though you can find people asking for alternating "easy" jobs per gear class elsewhere, even on the Top Posts page right now...)Quote:
As for prescribed job difficulties (i.e ‘easy’ and ‘hard’ jobs), I feel like this is a bit of a redundant concept. Players will always naturally gravitate towards a playstyle that they prefer personally, so trying to prescribe difficulties can just make the choice of jobs feel more rigid and restricted.
Most involved in healer threads on the official forums seem to simply be looking for the likes of "Easy to learn, but plenty thereafter to master, going so far as one wants to go (with this added throughput from mastery being largely excess to requirement, fairly intuitive steps to be taken towards increased mastery, and naturally diminishing returns at each step that inevitably make it still feasible to play all the healer jobs at once rather than being devoted to any single one)."
Personally, I prefer for job design to just keep giving player little tricks and techs they can play with wherever they can be found and would seem likely enjoyable. If it's so ridiculously finnicky that only <10 ms ping players with a perfect sense of timing could max it out, that might not be worth adding, but so long as there's a group that'd enjoy it larger than the difference to performance it'd make... cool; bring it on.
(It's worth noting here that the rewards for complexity inherently decrease as total/cumulative complexity increases. For example, mastering "Transpose lines" is quite literally harder than "keep your GCD rolling" but contributes only ~1% of the latter's contribution, in part because keeping that GCD rolling is the bottleneck for any uptime embonused by mastering Transpose lines. Similarly, knowing whether to start a fight with a double-Solar Blitz with this given party in this particular fight is going to make only a tiny difference compared to deliberate RoF alignments, which in turn are pretty inconsequential compared to even just hitting your CDs on CD, because each new means of reward can essentially only affect the benefits of its prior/more fundamental optimizations. Etc., etc.)
That said, you can have very real difference in difficulty as, on average, perceived across a large, randomized sample size of players. If it takes only a couple considerations to hit 80% of maximum throughput on one job, while such would net only 50% on another or need a few more and more complicated of considerations to reach that 80% performance... then, yeah, on average most players will find the second job more difficult. And if they then perform the same, there's an imbalance.
Easiest way to not have to face that to any significant extent: Just don't arbitrarily cap their skill ceilings or specifically aim to make a particular job "easy". At that point there's enough complexity, then, that subjective assessments of difficulty won't cluster significantly enough to say which job is easier/harder and, more importantly, they'll tend to perform more closely across varying skill levels, instead of one at best build OP for some and UP for others based on some threshold of effort/engagement.
I agree, though the apt analogy would probably be more like "AST is the buff healer, so only they should have more than one type/form of buff" or "Sage is the DPS healer, so only they are allowed more than a very basic number of/interactions among offensive actions (i.e., so few as to be visually/mentally unobtrusive even to those who would rather just Malefic Spam)". A "Buffer healer" and a "healer with a single (type of) buff", and a "DPS healer" and a "Healer with (any) DPS", are quite different, after all. No one's asked to treat any category quite so broadly or with quite such mutual exclusion.Quote:
I don’t think it’s accurate to say, for example, ‘Astrologian is the buff healer so that immediately precludes Scholar from all future buff or support skills’, ‘Sage is the dps healer so White Mages aren’t allowed to dps’. That wouldn’t make any sense either lol.
-
08-21-2023, 04:25 AMRenathrasNo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
That's not the way ANY of this works. This is why we can't have productive discussions.
Full stop no.Quote:
Originally Posted by ASkellington
Your solution is unacceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
EDIT:
Your model is not an improvement. Its gatekeeping. IN the traditional sense. You're literally gatekeeping all four healer's designs to suck, and you're gatekeeping healers who enjoy current healing. You are literally telling them "great, you can play MSQ and you aren't allowed to do anything else because we want the jobs to be convoluted and clunky and DPS because we like DPSing better. You want to play a healer, go play another GAME because no healer Job in FFXIV will be allowed to be fun." You just don't want to admit it or just can't see it that way.
Pick whichever is more accurate.
(Btw, this isn't me trying to be snarky. This is me showing you what you sound like.)
.
As always, my solution accommodates the most people. Your idea of "fun" isn't. Your idea of "better" isn't. YOU are literally writing off 75% of the community (by your example numbers) and telling them to screw off and go play another GAME while my idea means that both they and you can play this one. That makes your model worse in every way.
Correct. Upgrades, new effects added to abilities, etc, would all still exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor
I'm with you on the 4-Healer Model.
Some nuance can exist within the Jobs - as it already does. I think this is the major sticking point. I recognize the Jobs already have complexity/depth while others reject the notion outright and hyperbolize that Healers are 1 button Jobs that don't do anything else.
I also agree with you that the concepts of easy and hard are subjective. I've long found GNB easier to play than old PLD, DRK, or WAR, though I'm not sure why.
False.Quote:
Originally Posted by ASkellington
I get it, you don't.
Maybe you should stop telling people what people who aren't you are thinking?
Some of the people on your side have literally said before that people should not be able to play as they do currently and clear Savages OR even Extremes. Yes, that is gatekeeping. The idea of it being accessible "in MSQ 4 mans" is not actual accessibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by ASkellington
...do you GENUINELY not realize that some people find Healers enjoyable to play right now? That "crappy loop" is your SUBJECTIVE take and not one universally shared?Quote:
Originally Posted by ASkellington
NO!Quote:
Originally Posted by ASkellington
GOOD GOD this is what's frustrating.
I'm not "sacrificing" one. I'm SACRIFICING THREE. I'm SAVING one from you! What you want is the sacrifice. What you want is the suck. What you want is the crappy loop. What YOU want is the shit gameplay that I'd hate to be subjected to. I'm not "sacrificing" one healer to save three. I'm SACRIFICING three TO SAVE ONE. And YOU get all three. AND THAT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU.
At least you get this right...Quote:
Originally Posted by ASkellington
I'm going to ignore "failing to offer a good reason" as I've done so dozens of times, you just don't want to accept it. Moving on from THAT to mutually exclusive:Quote:
Originally Posted by ASkellington
The problem is, it is.
Unless the complex and simple forms HAVE THE SAME OUTPUT, it's mutually exclusive because there will be some content that the latter cannot clear otherwise. Therein lies the problem. That's why one should be spared being turned into a shitty worse DPS and allowed to remain NOT shitty like healers today are NOT shitty and are fun and enjoyable to play. And there's no way you guys would accept the same output. You think "more work should be more rewarding", and the "reward" isn't "more fun" it's "greater output in either damage, healing, utility or some combination". That's not equal, and thus is mutually exclusive. And, if someone points this out, they get accused of being lazy or "wanting a pink parse" - because we all know belittling and insulting people is the highest form or civilized discussion and disproves the opponent's position, right? Oh, wait, no it's not...
Hell, you've seen MY WHM and SGE proposals, have you not?
In both cases I made the DPS rotation more engaging, and I did it without even adding another DPS button (or button at all) for WHM, and actually DECREASING the total number of abilities on SCH!
WHM: https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...-Mage-eddition
Note that this would be a more complex DPS rotation but doesn't add a single new spell to the roster to do so.
SCH: https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...e-Proposal-SCH
This idea actually adds a lot of complexity, but pays for it by simplifying and merging abilities, reducing clunk, and streamlining systems to make it not punishing at the same time. -
08-21-2023, 04:50 AMShurrikhanHaving room for further mastery atop and consequent to an intuitive, accessible, and satisfying base =/= "convoluted and clunky".Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
Being able to clear even Savage even when playing with only that small initial portion of one's kit =/= "aren't allowed to do anything else [but MSQ]".
Spending less than 84% of GCDs on a single button, and not being bored to tears while facing low healing requirements =/= wanting to replace or overwhelm what few complexities remain to healer with "moar DPSing".
That number of players who detests any increase to complexity sure does bounce around a lot.Quote:
As always, my solution accommodates the most people. Your idea of "fun" isn't. Your idea of "better" isn't. YOU are literally writing off 75% of the community
Just a couple pages ago it was a minority whose negative desires (what they want others NOT to have) must be placated even if it'd affect a larger share of the jobs than they themselves hold (and regardless of being able to meet all their positive desires [what they, themselves, want to be able to engage with] without going out of their way to limit what positive desires others can meet).
And now it's... 75%?
And no, in no way has Skel's "example numbers" given this impression. You're take is inverted, at best. That 75% of healers would be turned off by any increase to downtime complexity on WHM is your latest shart, nothing more. -
08-21-2023, 05:57 AMkyyninen_kirahviI for one have no ideas how to improve the jobs. I admit that. But I also regonise that Square has the expertise to tweak and change the jobs to be more engageing and rewarding. IMO the jobs have lot of actions that could be repurposed/changed. Also possible comboing healing could be a possible solution? Adding DPS is just the easiest solution atm. I have no idea if that's worth it. I'll still say SGE needs way more DPS actions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
It is possible to do simple job with a high skill ceiling so I have no idea why you seem to be so against possibly rising it. More engagement can mean more than DPS or pure healing.
I like DNC because I can see myself doing more than just waiting to make a difference. I'm an actual participant who contributes to the fight. As RDM I'm kind of off support. Healers generally have only some of that engagement. I still main healer!
DPS and tank jobs have differences in how they peform so why shouldn't healers? In their case it's just damage. I understand it might seem unfair. -
08-21-2023, 06:54 AMShurrikhanEven clearing Ultimate does not require the complete/fully optimized use of even the current kit (outside of specific checks, that optimization just allows you to pick up DPS slack even there), so there is no evidence of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
For any additional ceiling to kick current healers out of content simply through those additions, two things would have to BOTH be true:- the additional effort ceiling must not come with any increase to throughput ceiling (i.e., the changes would have to specifically be a net nerf);
- content currently would need to require complete optimization of the existing kit (else there slack would remain within the portions of cognitive load you already okay-ed), and/or...
the newly available optimizations (whatever new complexities they may carry) must somehow be more rewarding than the existing optimizations (healing minimization, GCD uptime, hitting your CDs, etc.), thus obliging players to shift their attention.
- That's not what's been suggested, and
- That is not the case even across most Ultimates, and it would be largely impossible for new optimizations to be more rewarding than the fundamentals we have now, especially relative to their effort required for each bit of additional contribution.
And that difference in premise is probably why it is so difficult to see eye to eye with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
Job/person A: Person A lives to their comfort level off ~$100/day, and is willing to do up to 8 hours work. In that time, s/he does 4 tasks that total to $200 value. Gets $200.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
Job/person B: Person A lives to their comfort level off ~$100/day, and is willing to do up to 4 hours work. In that time, s/he does 2 tasks that total to $120 value. Gets $200.
This is what you insist is equality, that those who are only willing to engage minimally with combat should have the same reward as those who wish to engage fully with it, despite both being able to clear nearly all combat content regardless (and those unwilling to do more than the bare basics generally having no interest in Ultimate anyways). It's not. What you've been suggesting is quite the opposite of equality. It's purposely excluding any value, no matter how inherently lower-value for its being excessive, above a certain point arbitrated by your personal preference / what you imagine would somehow be held in consensus among from a theoretical camp that may or may not exist, may be between 10% and 75% of the total healer population, and is opposed to increased skill and output ceilings, no matter how excess-to-requirement they/their additional output may be.
Alas,
I guess they can't if a person already meeting requirements while using less than their existing kit detests that there may become even more to their kit that they could, just as now, not use... while others might use it to have even a bit more output that is likewise merely excess-to-requirement. Who knew?Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor
-
08-21-2023, 07:58 AMSargeTheSeagull
I love how Ren keeps making these super min-max arguments despite the fact he seemingly doesn’t do savage
-
08-21-2023, 08:33 AMRein_eon_OsborneTo be fair, they did mentioned in the past about clearing first floor of tiers since EW for some friend's group as a replacement & would like to have the savage ilv 2nd ring in addition to augmented tomes' (paraphrase).Quote:
Originally Posted by SargeTheSeagull
Then again... it's the still the first floor which rarely requires that sort of min-maxing even at day 1, so... lol. -
08-21-2023, 02:25 PMForsakenRoeQuestion. Imagine there's a special panel at Fanfest. They are showing the direction for healers, as a way to publicly reassure players that they acknowledge the Abyssos situation was not a good time, and they're working on fixing the damage it caused. So, imagine that said panel opened with a mini-Job Actions trailer for the four healers, and as an example, WHM throws out some damage skills, a new one that looks suspiciously similar to Lost Banish, spends 50 of a new gauge on a massive cool heal, and then tears the target apart with Quake, Flood and Tornado. Do you think the average crowd reaction is going to be booing because there's new complexity added to the job, or cheering because we finally have Water spells in the kit? Because I imagine it'd be the latter, and big. Like, as big a cheer (if not more) as when SHB revealed PLD was getting a gapcloserQuote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
You'll have to forgive some of us for not sharing your excitement for Glare 4 and it's +10 potency.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
The issue is that healing is binary. You either have enough and you live, or you don't and you wipe. Optimization on other roles has a different hard limit, that of the job's depth. A BLM can get more and more 'optimized', and find different techs, to push ever so slightly more damage up til the point where every tech has been found and used, and it's reached the 'perfect' gameplay. But said perfect gameplay is different from fight to fight, so they would have to do the process multiple times to 'master' the job in relation to each fight. Melee have similar, 'do your rotation correctly', 'shift buff timings to better match the fight timeline', 'minimize downtime to get one more autoattack', 'shift true north timings so you can get every positional', etcQuote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
Healers, on the other hand, have their 'mastery' mostly tied up in 'reduce at-cost healing to zero'. Once you get your damage-losing heals to zero, that's kind of it, any further 'mastery of the job' is almost autopilot, being 'keep DOT up, spam filler'. We just want to have a bit more to do (optionally) after the standard 'reduce atcost heals to zero'
Is that me you're referring to? Cos I'd happily say I'm wrong, and change my stance if it'd get changes into the game. I would prefer it if people actually had a grasp of how to play their class in hard content yes, but that can be changed. After all, the gap between 'standard' and 'full opti' in my designs is quite low. Thinking on it more, yeh why not. I'll amend my stance:Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
If the condition to get my WHM design added is 'ok but the current gameplay of 'refresh Dia every 30s and spam Glare thereafter' must still be able to clear every content in the game, including week 1 Savage and Ultimates', then I can go back to the design and tweak Dia's duration/damage such that it's less punishing to drop it for 18s at a time. I'd prefer to keep the duration at 12s. Maybe I could swap it and Banish (so it's 15s and B is 12s) and tweak potencies/gauge gain accordingly
Yes, and some people 'genuinely enjoy' Runecrafting in OSRS, despite the vast majority of that game's playerbase finding it absolutely horrid to train. This doesn't mean we shouldn't add new ways to train the skill that are more fun, more engaging.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
Ironically, the OSRS community seems to have an iron rule: 'Any training method added cannot be any higher XP/h than the current best method'. Or in more relevant terms, 'any damage rotation for healer cannot be any higher DPS than current rotation'
That attitude gatekeeps good ideas from getting into the game and it annoys me to no end
And yet somehow I'm the one who got accused of having an ego /sQuote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
You gave reasons, the point is that none of them were 'good' in the eyes of others I guessQuote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
If we tune the potencies such that you CAN clear the content (even Ultimate/Week 1 Savage) by playing EXACTLY as you do now (ie on SCH, Bio DOT every 30s, Broil spam, ignore EVERY other new button that's added), does that remove the opposition to the idea? I assume not, because it's not about whether you can clear with suboptimal rotations, or you'd have learned from the many posts, from many people, showing how suboptimal you can be and clear that you can be alarmingly suboptimal and clear, even week 1 Savage. As an example, here is my first clear of P11S, on week 1:
31 Succors, 21 Ruin2's, 4 Energy Drains, one Dissipation. Those 'optimizations' sure don't look too 'required' to me. And before you say 'oh the coheal made up for it probably' they also had 6 Med2's and 2 Cure3's, so it's not like they were perfect either.
Stop assuming that 'any change to complexity = immediately locks someone out of content', it might be what some people would want to see, but things can be tuned such that it doesn't. And idk about others, but if I have to choose, I'll take 'people can play really badly and still clear' if it means getting changes to the healers. And yes I mean all 4
Taking this part out of tags because I think it could lead to a potential understanding of one another's positions
Yes, I remember your WHM proposal, and agreeing that it'd be pretty acceptable. I remember it being more rigid than mine but equal if not higher complexity to execute. Which brings me to the final points: I think you aren't as against the idea of 'extra complexity' as you might think you are. It just has to be the 'correct kind' of complexity, a kind that you understand well, and vibe with, such that it doesn't feel 'clunky' to you. And with your hatred of staggered DOT timers (understandable) and previously mentioned 'I get GNB much better than any other tank somehow', I think I see why your WHM design was the way it was: You prefer static looping rotations, or rotations built from understandable/predictable 'blocks'. Ie, 'Glare x 3, Banish' is a simple 10s 'block' that builds the foundation, '3 Solace/Rapture > Misery' is a 10s block, but doesn't require the parts to be in sequence, etc. Current healers have a 30s block of 'apply DOT, press filler 11 times', when you think about it in that sense. I guess it explains your Arcane Mage days. And your defense of current SMN, being as it's got 4 'blocks' too now (3 summons and a demi). It's funny, I'd have made new PLD be very similar in style to what you seem to want from jobs, built from 10s 'blocks' (I'd even have made Shield Bash part of the rotation, SE hire me).Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
(you'll have to forgive me if I'm wrong in that assessment, but everything seems to line up)
(also forgive if you've already said as much, i don't remember reading it anywhere)
Question is: you're presumably not opposed to WHM getting that design, else you'd never have pitched it. So, if all three nonWHM healers got... whatever extra stuff to add complexity, and WHM got 'your design, exactly as you want it', like, you're creative director for the job's design and get to decide everything, VFX, potencies, interlinking of skills, everything, would you be opposed to that? Or is that design 'what Ren would be ok with WHM having, if it had to be one of the three offered to the wolves, and it was eg SGE that was being kept 'as is''? Cos I'm under the assumption that it's the latter, but if it were the former, then a lot of opposition to your essays would likely die off. I imagine a fair few people would accept your WHM, where it doesn't get any new actions, but instead gets new interactions between skills as you had listed -
08-21-2023, 02:45 PMShurrikhanSorry for the tangent, but, I feel like this isn't functionally the whole story... as long as healing checks are high and frequent enough AND there's the occasional disproportionately valuable downtime skill to make room for.Quote:
Originally Posted by ForsakenRoe
In those situations, you can have enough to live through A, but not yet through B or C (which will hit shortly thereafter)" such that you have...- enough to make B and C salvageable without using emergency resources,
- B and C meetable without having to use greater expense (tapping significantly into MP),
- B and C meetable without losing disproportionate offensive opportunity (delaying a CD, rather than just losing a filler),
- or B and C meetable without losing ANY damage,
- B meetable without losing any damage, but C only meetable thereafter only if you then spend emergency resource, more MP than is sustainable (if this were done often), or offensive opportunities,
- etc., etc.
But, to actually feel like any of those things matter... you really want some somewhat frequent rewarded offensive GCDs to make room for (ideal), flexible emergency tools (non-rigid CDs), MP to be an actual mechanic, and for healer maximum damage to be, well, significant. I.e., it needs a better context than we have right now to really give that its full due.
To be fair, unless you've specifically nerfed WHM's existing offensive tools, nerfed WHM's free healing to below excessive levels without compensation, AND/OR your WHM suggestions somehow also successfully demanded buffs to all content (making it harder) from the devs... your additions cannot make meeting the rDPS requirements of content any harder than they are now -- literally only easier. /shrugQuote:
Originally Posted by ForsakenRoe
Healers are currently the most frequently disposable of any role, so, if there were any role to ever have an excuse to just inadvertently get pure buffs in the pursuit of making them less boring, it'd be healers. -
08-21-2023, 03:42 PMForsakenRoeWhile I say 'healing is binary', and it's true in any content, it is also correct to note that 'you have enough healing' is currently a very easy threshold to reach, and that adjusting that threshold, while not suddenly proving the 'healing is binary' assertion false, would change how we're forced to look at damage-losing GCDs, and we'd likely have to shift from 'get to zero' to 'get as low as possible, with zero being unattainable due to fight requirements'. That at least opens up an avenue of 'I express my skill because where everyone else has had to use 6 at-cost GCDs, I only needed 5', but it does also open up an avenue of 'I could not keep up with the healing required, so we died' for at least one player of the gameQuote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
Not nerfed, but 'redistributed', I think would be the best way to go about it. As example:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
By changing how often the 'low on-cast potency' of Dia is being forced into the rotation, it siphons potency out of the Glare it's replacing (it's 150p for the 'cast' of Dia, versus the 310 of the Glare it replaced), keeping the overall potency per minute relatively similar while moving the potency focus away from the filler. Currently, our potency is 1430 from Dia, and the rest is our filler (6820 from Glare, ouch). As you can see above, Dia gets to be about 700 more potency of 'focus' in the rotation, along with the instantcast Banish replacing 4 casts per minute, which doesn't really affect our overall output by that much, but doing these two changes takes Glare from 6820p, down to 4650, meaning that 'you missed a Glare because required healing/movement/etc' is less of a punishment, proportional to the total. One of the biggest obstacles for a casual player to doing damage as a healer is movement, and so shifting more power out of the hardcast Glare and into instantcasts like Dia and Banish would also help them keep their damage going even when they're running to dodge Breathstroke in Aetherfont, for exampleQuote:
Originally Posted by ForsakenRoe
Also this math was done back when Dia was 60+60, now that it's 65+65, our per-min total currently is 8250, making this design a potency loss of 50 per minute. Thanks SE. Let's pretend I listed Dia at 160 on cast instead of 150, at 5 casts a minute, that gives us the 50p difference, and now the two designs (this and 'current') are perfectly balanced against each other. Then the potency difference between the two designs would be entirely down to micro-optimizations like 'put Misery in raidbuffs'. Well, unless you consider 'not knowing the base rotation' as a factor. As mentioned before though, we could make Banish equal potency to Glare, and redistribute the lost 40p per cast elsewhere. 160p per minute isn't difficult to wedge in somewhere else, like stick another 10 on Dia's cast and the rest on Assize or something -
08-21-2023, 04:36 PMShurrikhanSorry; I hadn't remembered the potencies or whether ppm had increased by result of these new elements. In that case, then there could be some concerns, even after you adjust to level it out to match the buffs to WHM since then, since doing only the same as now could actually make clearing Ultimate slightly harder.Quote:
Originally Posted by ForsakenRoe
My main point was simply that I don't feel like we need to be compelled to wholly avoid buffing healers when/by adding new elements.
True, which is why I've tended to think about increased GCD healing requirements as being (necessarily) supported by a degree of more bankable and/or at-cost oGCD heals as well, as to have more room for recovery, even if that obviously still comes at cost to rDPS (or, really... primary output -- whatever output directly wins the fight, which is then damage in all fights thus far).Quote:
That at least opens up an avenue of 'I express my skill because where everyone else has had to use 6 at-cost GCDs, I only needed 5', but it does also open up an avenue of 'I could not keep up with the healing required, so we died' for at least one player of the game
If we healing overall without giving any prior obvious incentive to treat oGCDs differently, then that means that there's less slack, which can create as many more wipes as it did does fights where healers are more enjoyably engaged with that healing. Give that slack in a different way that doesn't so badly (compared to the current situation) stratify the healer kit and make much of it counterintuitive, and you've got the opportunity to increase healing requirements without increasing difficulty in ways likely to cause more wipes. -
08-21-2023, 05:50 PMForsakenRoeI think one of the ways to address the 'counterintuitive'-ness of healing is to make the 'flow' better. Maybe this is not 100% what you're referring to, but I see a problem with current GCD heals, and it's not just 'it costs me a Glare': They have a cast time. Weaving in a Cure3/Medica2 feels bad, because if you have just started a cast of something else, you'd have to either interrupt that cast, or complete it and delay the healing coming out by an extra 2.5s, which could be considered an aspect of 'optimization' I suppose. But then when we look at 'why do people like SGE', a fair amount of the remarks about it I've seen is the fluidity of it's gameplay, that you can instantly Ixochole damage, or weave in any of Holos/Pankardia/Kerachole when you see the damage coming, or Icarus to last-second dodge an incoming AOE. And for the things that would fall under 'it feels bad' as above, Pneuma and E.Prog, E.Prog's 'cast time' enforced by Eukrasia is 1 second rather than the 2 of something like Medica2, and Pneuma's, while 1.5s cast time, justifies itself by being both a very powerful heal (900 with Zoe) and that it's a 2min CD so you don't use it too often. That was SCH's whole selling point originally, that 'the fairy helps cover the healing, so you have more room to get damage out'. And of course, AST has all the OGCDs it has which don't interrupt the GCD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shurrikhan
Contrast how 'good' it feels to have to interrupt your damage to press Medica 2, and by comparison, how 'good' it feels to weave in a Rapture. The instantcast nature of Rapture makes it feel better, I think, partially because it doesn't force you to stand still for a longer cast, and partially because it opens up doubleweave slots, and that's why I wanted the gauge-spender heal (instant, 500p) in the design I posted. Doing damage (or GCD healing but you don't want to) builds gauge, spending gauge refunds itself by doing damage, spending that refund also builds the same gauge as the regular filler. A little self-contained 'cycle' as it were. I'd imagine with a tool like that, during prog you'd likely save at least 50 gauge (or even just leave it capped till you need it), ready to use it to react to sudden unexpected damage. But after prog, in reclears, you'd be able to shift the timing of when you use it vs Rapture, so that you can try and get both the refund from the gauge heal AND Misery into raidbuffs. Even if you didn't, it's one Glare of damage being refunded so like... Not gonna cause an enrage if you don't, just like how I don't cause enrages when I forget to put Misery into raidbuffs now
The current kit for GCD healing feels like it's... two separate halves of a kit, rather than one cohesive, interplaying full kit. OGCDs get around this because you weave them. Lily heals get around this by being on the same cadence as the damage GCDs (because they're GCD too), and shifting the damage you 'lost' to a later point in time. So where WHM currently has 'damage tool fed by healing', I'd like to see 'healing tool fed by damage'. Ren previously noted that it'd feel bad for people to be forced to do damage to get access to the cool new shiny, which is kinda the point, but it did make me consider that you're not really going to have time to deal damage to charge it during Harrowing Hell, for example, so it also builds from GCD healing too now -
08-22-2023, 12:16 AMAmiableApkalluFor me, Rapture feels intellectually satisfying but emotionally dead, and this sentiment generalizes to healing oGCDs. They're insta-casts that queue nicely if you push the button while in the middle of a GCD cast. They're fire-and-forget abilities, emphasis on "forget." Medica 2's cast time is precisely what gives me that feeling of "healer that's actually healing" instead of being "that button I push to make HP bars go up while I see how many rocks I can throw at the boss."Quote:
Originally Posted by ForsakenRoe
In terms of D&D (mind you, the last time I played was a million years ago), I'd have insta-casts and oGCDs be more inline with cantrips, and in that theme, I could even imagine an ability that was a GCD cast at Lv.50 becoming insta-cast by Lv.90 by virtue of sheer familiarity, practice, etc. I mean, in what world does it make sense that a 400 potency AoE heal takes 1.5s to cast (Helios), but you can instantly queue up the heavens to rewind time (Macrocosmos)? -
08-22-2023, 02:10 AMRaikaiAs a DNC, I honestly enjoy the niche of supportive classes in any game, that my overall dps is actually part of other dpser's buffed performances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
I also like the idea of supporting the supporters like offhealing, helping tanks survive (RIP Palisade), without fully commiting to their roles.
I don't know if that is a good answer for the OP, but an observation is that I wish the game would be nicer to the supporting role, but I suppose that would require a huge overhaul of the combat system for it to ever be relevant. -
08-22-2023, 02:12 AMASkellington
I'm breaking this up.
Argument below:
First of all, what you seem to keep missing, is your argument and compromise hold no water. We aren't discussing leaving one healer behind. We're discussing fixing all 4. You may not like that, but that has always been the intent since Shb. You're late to the party. The addition of SGE doesn't change anything. We've been in talks about healer changes when we had 3. WHM was included. You don't get to come in here and say "now that we have SGE we'll fix 3/4. Its always been all. My argument has always been all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Renathras
Your argument and compromise do not work because you aren't thinking about all 4 receiving changes. That was my point. Period. It has always been my point. As said before unless you're willing to compromise on what those changes are for all four whether it comes to high or low complexity we have nothing to discuss.
I've already tried to be nice to you. A LONG time ago. I can still be civil. But this is me being blunt. Like it or not "leaving WHM alone" is gatekeeping. You are literally stunting the growth of a class for no good reason. And yes, just because people like the way that it is now is not a good reason to hold a class back from improvements. Doubly so if you can take what WHM is currently and add to it while still keeping true to what it was originally. That is what I'm asking for and apparently you agree.Quote:
Your model is not an improvement. Its gatekeeping. IN the traditional sense. You're literally gatekeeping all four healer's designs to suck, and you're gatekeeping healers who enjoy current healing. You are literally telling them "great, you can play MSQ and you aren't allowed to do anything else because we want the jobs to be convoluted and clunky and DPS because we like DPSing better. You want to play a healer, go play another GAME because no healer Job in FFXIV will be allowed to be fun." You just don't want to admit it or just can't see it that way.
Pick whichever is more accurate.
(Btw, this isn't me trying to be snarky. This is me showing you what you sound like.)
No, that's by your bias. In my example, which by the way isn't even a good one because we don't have actual numbers. 50% wanted change to 4 healers. The 50% are divided by dps+healing and healing alone. 25% are indifferent, they don't care. 50% would want a change to WHM in my example. The 25% may not mind if they also get additional dpsing. Some do, but that isn't the focus of the group hence why I broke it that way. You have 0 idea same as I if they're that abhorrant or not as a whole. I lumped them together.Quote:
As always, my solution accommodates the most people. Your idea of "fun" isn't. Your idea of "better" isn't. YOU are literally writing off 75% of the community (by your example numbers) and telling them to screw off and go play another GAME while my idea means that both they and you can play this one. That makes your model worse in every way.
The point you missed all together was: 50% wanted a change to all four healers. 25% would not mind changes. But because the 25% don't want any change at all, you're willing to say "no one gets what they want" all four healers changed "everyone has to suffer with only 3".
This isn't even accounted for in "changes" upgrades and effects are going to happen regardless. We're talking about removing and/or adding abilities to make things more clear.Quote:
Correct. Upgrades, new effects added to abilities, etc, would all still exist.
Mmm no. Because the entire time I've been talking with you its always been "keep WHM the same". "The same" implies "no changes at all" meaning nothing new that SE isn't already going to give ie. - extra healing abilities we don't need. You've NEVER clarified what that means even when I straight up asked you in another post. You've always kept saying "the same, the same, the same" "I like WHM as it is, I don't want any changes".Quote:
Some nuance can exist within the Jobs - as it already does. I think this is the major sticking point. I recognize the Jobs already have complexity/depth while others reject the notion outright and hyperbolize that Healers are 1 button Jobs that don't do anything else.
I also agree with you that the concepts of easy and hard are subjective. I've long found GNB easier to play than old PLD, DRK, or WAR, though I'm not sure why.
False.
I get it, you don't.
Maybe you should stop telling people what people who aren't you are thinking?
So no you don't get it. Doubly so as I've repeatedly said I want to keep WHM easy to enter with a higher skill ceiling something I backed up with quotes and also something you seem to agree with. Yet you ignored my quotes saying so.
"Gatekeeping":
First and foremost, you clearly haven't been in MMORPGs for very long. That's fine, but you're mistaking "gatekeeping and gatekeepers" with competence and people expecting competence. I get it, I was in your position before believe it or not and despite knowing you'll not actually read what I have to say I'll tell you the difference.Quote:
Some of the people on your side have literally said before that people should not be able to play as they do currently and clear Savages OR even Extremes. Yes, that is gatekeeping. The idea of it being accessible "in MSQ 4 mans" is not actual accessibility.
Gatekeepers do in fact keep people away from highleveled content. They do this by seeing a person's skill level, noting it, saying nothing about how a person can improve, blacklist them and then go out of their way to tell everyone in the community that they know and usually do high content with to stay away from said people. According to the forums the JPN community does so with the ENG community. This is a sad fact of gaming. And its everywhere where there is a level of competition.
Your specific example of saying that "people should not be able to play as they do and clear Savage/Extremes" is a loaded statement. It really is. For the facts of:
- Yes, if you're doing higher end content you are expected to heal and dps.
- Yes, if you're doing higher end content you are expected to know your class.
And probably lumped into that as well is:
- EX/Savage are too undertuned for their intended audience.
There's nothing we can do about the last point because SE refuses to make hard content for people looking for it for garbage reasons we're going to get into that you're likely not going to agree with*, but the point I want you to get away from all this is: points 1+2 are to the best of your ability. No one expects someone who's done a fk tonze of dungeons and raids only, wanting to get into EX/Savage to be good. Maybe someone will get a surprise out of it, but yea, if you're progging they expect mistakes.
Are you still going to be gatekept regardless? Yeah. Because people are arses and I'm one of them (an arse not a gatekeeper). But are you going to have just as many people wanting to help you? Yeah. Pretty sure I could come to the forums, even now, and ask "hey I'm having trouble with X mechanic" or "cardinals" or probably the biggest thing I really struggle with "how tf do you people work with boss=north because it makes 0 sense and no one wants to explain in a way I understand" and I'll have plenty of people do so and hey maybe one should stick.
Does that mean we should make healers fool proof? No. Because that literally removes all the fun with the role.
Edited out but I'm just going to say, you need to take your own advice.
Healer Enjoyability:
I genuinely believe people find healers fun in GROUP content. There's no way in hell you can sit there and tell me that most people find doing Fates/MSQ/Deep Dungeons or any SOLO content beyond tedious on a healer for 0 reason. And if you're gonna sit there and tell me that healers are only able to find fun in group content, where the vast majority of their kit is somewhat worth a damn, then I'm going to bring up my list I want to shove in YoshiP's face, specifically:Quote:
...do you GENUINELY not realize that some people find Healers enjoyable to play right now? That "crappy loop" is your SUBJECTIVE take and not one universally shared?
Then why not start healers at the level cap since we can't enjoy doing something other than using mostly 2 buttons for combat because our kit is THAT lopsided in terms of healing?
As I've said before and will say until you and everyone else gets it through to them: if we have to suffer through to however many levels to get to the content that feels GOOD then you may as well add a few extra buttons to press. Or do YOU think that its fun to build up lilies as a WHM and spend them all just to get a blood lily to do extra dps to a target and kill it faster despite the fact you don't need the healing at all? Because I don't. And I sure AF find it beyond tedious to do any content as AST or even SCH and SGE.
That's again in YOUR bias. You don't want extra dps. Fine. But you don't want to give other WHMs extra dps like THEY may want just because YOU don't like it. Or any other healer for that matter. You don't even want us to compromise and make a loop that works for BOTH parties because every time someone tries to MENTION IT you throw a hissy fit. Like right now.Quote:
NO!
GOOD GOD this is what's frustrating.
I'm not "sacrificing" one. I'm SACRIFICING THREE. I'm SAVING one from you! What you want is the sacrifice. What you want is the suck. What you want is the crappy loop. What YOU want is the shit gameplay that I'd hate to be subjected to. I'm not "sacrificing" one healer to save three. I'm SACRIFICING three TO SAVE ONE. And YOU get all three. AND THAT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU.
At the end of the day, if a healer doesn't want to engage in the extra dps buttons, they are free to. Its not going to stop them from doing MSQ. Its not going to stop them from doing AR. Its not even going to stop them from doing raids. Is it going to stop them from doing EX/Savage? Early on probably. Again, that's not gatekeeping. You are expected to use every tool of your class, even if not at a great level. Its a harsh reality that ALL roles have to deal with and trying to remove that from the game (or prevent it from coming in) is exactly what's wrong with quite a few classes in the game currently.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's part of why the SAM community had a lot of backlash against SE's changes.
Tl;dr - You can't fix META. Not with job changes. Stop trying to.
No the problem is, you're trying to fix something that really can't be fixed. You wanna know why AST is the way it is right now? This. Same with SCH. This is a COMMUNITY problem. NOT A CLASS ONE. The ENTIRE REASON healers are the way they are now is because SE thought WHM was far behind and instead of bumping it up and making it more distinct from AST and SCH, SCH lost everything they liked, AST got their cards removed, and SCH and WHM now have AST's crappy rotation. YOU may not like Aero III but plenty of people do.Quote:
The problem is, it is.
Unless the complex and simple forms HAVE THE SAME OUTPUT, it's mutually exclusive because there will be some content that the latter cannot clear otherwise. Therein lies the problem. That's why one should be spared being turned into a shitty worse DPS and allowed to remain NOT shitty like healers today are NOT shitty and are fun and enjoyable to play. And there's no way you guys would accept the same output. You think "more work should be more rewarding", and the "reward" isn't "more fun" it's "greater output in either damage, healing, utility or some combination". That's not equal, and thus is mutually exclusive. And, if someone points this out, they get accused of being lazy or "wanting a pink parse" - because we all know belittling and insulting people is the highest form or civilized discussion and disproves the opponent's position, right? Oh, wait, no it's not...
You can't design around this and you SHOULDN'T design around this. I would be ok with AST being a shitty dpser (and can't heal as well as WHM!) if my buffs made up for it (they don't). Other people aren't ok with that. Alright, but that's the balance of the class don't like it? Play something else. You aren't supposed to give a 1:1. EVERYTHING is supposed to have some kind of draw back to justify something. Otherwise... well we get what crap we have now.
There's GOING to be a Meta. Always. And that's fine. As long as everything is viable, people really shouldn't care. Is there going to be more pressure on the "inferior class"? Probably. Buuuut it makes the people who main and choose to learn and master it all the more rare and applaudable.
SCH/WHM changes:
I've heard mixed things on both of these. I've mostly kept quiet because I don't know the ins and outs of these two classes like I do AST for good changes but I'll give a crack at it anyroad. I will say again: these are my uninformed non-main WHM + SCH contributions.Quote:
Hell, you've seen MY WHM and SGE proposals, have you not?
In both cases I made the DPS rotation more engaging, and I did it without even adding another DPS button (or button at all) for WHM, and actually DECREASING the total number of abilities on SCH!
WHM: https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...-Mage-eddition
Note that this would be a more complex DPS rotation but doesn't add a single new spell to the roster to do so.
SCH: https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...e-Proposal-SCH
This idea actually adds a lot of complexity, but pays for it by simplifying and merging abilities, reducing clunk, and streamlining systems to make it not punishing at the same time.
WHM... I honestly don't like the changes. Instead of doing anything with Holy, again, you can add a whole new button to take its place. (or make it proc Misery if you're that against a new button like jfc what is wrong with it?) Further, Holy being as it is, is likely because it has a stun. Coupling Glare and Holy in this way would likely cause the removal of the stun (because SE). You may as well just keep the Misery proc and/or add a Solace one.
Dia stacking, no. Its already a set and forget DoT. It doesn't need to be worse like SAM's. The alternative Thundercloud lite... I mean it doesn't need to proc an MPless Dia. It could proc something else. But because you refuse to add anything else to the table (other than Holy) it doesn't have the freedom to do anything. See why adding nothing is limiting?
Assize change... I don't get why everyone is obsessed with stacking it up to 2. I guess its because its different from CI and ED in that it also does damage... but I also don't understand why it needs to be a GCD either. (I guess to further play into WHM being a slower but more impactful healer?) I would rather Glare (if it doesn't proc Misery or maybe also) boost either the damage or healing of Assize (GCD or not)
None of it makes me want to pick up WHM again, even ignoring I don't like simplicity. I don't think it really fixes anything other than give Misery another proc other than "use lilies you don't need to use because no one is doing damage".
SCH also fixes... nothing for me either. I have nothing against Excog other than that its on arguably too short of a CD. (ie due to short recast we use it a lot more often than we arguably should in place of other tools because encounter design still sucks) I see no reason why it has to upgrade from Lustrate.
Bringing back Miasma is nice, but I'm curious as to why you didn't add Bane, doubly so as you added a HoT to it. You could literally have it or Deployment Tactics (if you focused on an enemy) to spread the DoTs and the HoT. Not sure why it also has to have a HoT attached to it, but I'll keep it and not change anything.
Broil IV change... again Bane/DT is fine. Or even AoW could spread them if you're that adverse to extra buttons. I get the intent this seems... needlessly extra to me.
Aetherpact change... why? As it stands right now if I want to use another faerie ability I would either stop the channel (cause I likely won't want to use it all anyway to keep a decently high gauge) or the faerie ability stops it automatically (which I think it does already) We have a spot heal. Lustrate.
Dissipation not eating the faerie is fine. I don't think we need extra healing buff applied. We seem to have more than enough healing to go around.
I don't see why Physick should trait upgrade to Aldo. I get the point, but it isn't in the same vein as Cure I and Benefic I to me. Its not a change I'm completely against the idea of, but I still use Physick more than I use the WHM and AST equivilant. Much like with Cure I if I were to make this change, I would either have it upgrade into something else (because around the time you would get Aldo/Cure II you still have minor uses for the ability) or as you've done fix the MP to is. I feel like spamming Aldo to heal when you don't have Lustrate however to be wrong. Dunno why, just feels wrong.
Energy Drain using Fey gauge is interesting. I don't like it being decoupled because at least to me Aetherpact isn't really worth much when I have other tools at my disposal to heal. Even with your changes. That said it does fix the issue of Fey Gauge being mostly worthless. I don't think it gives much more choice. Roughly about the same. Perhaps its more but I doubt I'll feel it in most content I run. Neutral over all.
Faerie is still useless outside of a handful abilities. I may be the minority but I for one would like to have more pet options. Doubly so cause I'd like to have Selene back and switch between them. Maybe Seraph as well.
Alright. That's my thesis for today. Pick and read at your pleasure. -
08-22-2023, 04:23 AMShurrikhanTo me, a lot of the "good" I feel about either is like that of narrowly dodging something because 'the narrower the dodge, the less opportunity cost'.Quote:
Originally Posted by ForsakenRoe
I like Rapture when I've charted out its use for its mobility or its being able to basically combine with the prior GCD of healing (say, a Cure III) for a massive, timely burst. I like Medica II for knowing when I have room to cast it, how long in advance it must be cast in order to both meet the needs I have for it later and minimize overhealing. Etc., etc. Were Rapture always available, the tool would quickly seem dull to me, and that'd probably be largely true even if it was more than just a Medica in its effect (i.e., you could damn near just have any non-intentionally cancelled healing spell Medica auto-complete if a Lily is available and have all the effect of Solace and Rapture at no button-cost).
That said, I don't think we need strict cast times to do that. I truly wouldn't mind if you could still get 'something' out of a cast you don't have the full time for, especially if there's still a flat GCD cost atop it: imagine, for instance, if you could simply build 400 to 800 cure potency from Cure II by charging it for up to 2 seconds at the same MP and GCD cost, or 250 to 800 potency at varying MP cost (drains over cast) but the same GCD cost, etc.
In fact, one could --at least, with better netcode-- have Rapture, Medica, and Medica II all be one button, wherein you can instant-cast it at resource cost, release the normal cast at 2 seconds, or also add a HoT thereafter for up to 15 seconds based on further cast time (up to 3s), with the cast completing early automatically if you lack the MP to go on... and let Cura be instant-cast at resource cost, full-cast at 2s, or expanded to have up to 75% AoE falloff across up to 10 yards by 3s.
...Heck, you allow casts to be held there (e.g., if the button is actually held, rather than merely tapped -- Character-Configurable), still spending a mild amount of MP continuously, to make it easier to sync up those heals perfectly to incoming damage.
I feel like that added fluidity from it healing spells being less all-or-nothing could also go a long way towards helping more panicky players still feel like they could meet healing checks.
I'd still want to complement that with more flexible oGCDs that could offer a further layer of (at-cost) slack/borrowing/exchange/protection/call-it-what-you-will, but there's a lot to be said for deemphasizing certain stumbling points in the interest of allowing for greater healing requirements. Granted, I want those greater healing requirements precisely because that's where I think you could then draw out more of the interest of varied healing tools and their engagement among (and because of) each other -- where the "two separate halves of a kit" can better come together.
If the job would otherwise have more up-front / at-the-ready tools for dealing with healing requirements than most and especially if it has an offense slightly more able to take advantage of raid buffs, then I wouldn't be opposed to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ForesakenRoe
This part, though, doesn't really bug me, as we could just say that the action actually started sooner, and it's precisely because it was so strenuous (in being done in that short moment) that it won't be doable again for so long. I don't mind that we sacrifice a bit of the dramatic wind-up keyframes in favor of more precise time-ability. (If we actually had the occasional channel or alternate-length GCD, I'd disclaim that with "for the average player", but without any such control, that advantage applies even to min-maxers.)Quote:
Originally Posted by AmiableApkallu