Famitsu Interview: Tuning encounters for healing

[lordcruxis]

I don't think you actually understand what meta means if you believe that. It stands for "most effective tactic available" and generally refers to whatever playstyles or group compositions are the most effective. Adding more complexity isn't really a meta-oriented suggestion, especially when I'm coming from the perspective that it's okay for less skilled players to perform worse(aka less effectively).

This isn't true at all, meta isn't an acronym it's a prefix for the word metagame, meta being from the greek meta; meaning with, across, or after. It represents change in the game in a self referential manner. When someone goes through a metamorphosis, they aren't doing the most effective tactic available morphosis.

It's a cute acronym, but it's not true.

[Ultimatecalibur]

It's a cute acronym, but it's not true.

Yep, "most effective tactic available" is a backronym of meta which was short hand for metagaming which originated as a term in tabletop rpgs, wargames and tcgs/ccgs. Metagaming involves things such as making choices or performing actions based on out of character knowledge in RPGs, building an army to defeat a known army, and building decks designed to defeat the most popular deck in order to improve your chances of winning a tournament in a TCG/CCG.

In video and computer games, metagaming is things such restricting the use of a character in a MOBA because you know that said character is another players preferred character, stream sniping in PvP games, choosing PLD or DRK as a tank for a fight based on the amount of physical and magic tank busters and choosing which jobs to including a party based on average damage from parsers.

[Satarn]

You guys do realize that same/similar words can mean different things depending on the context and field they're used in, right? Many acronyms sound like words that mean something totally different. Languages also evolve constantly and words gain completely new meanings due to slangs and such. The brought up acronym is generally what people refer to when they use the word in the context of MMOs and it has little to do with for example act of metagaming in tabletop rpgs, just like an MMO "tank" can have absolutely nothing to do with an armored war vehicle. It might've been a backronym originally, but it doesn't change that that's what it is used as these days.

Anyways meaning was the point here, not etymology which is rather off-topic. Regardless of what you want to argue the word comes from, the meta is not affected by what a healer's dps kit looks like, but rather what said kit's overall output is and people asking for more complexity are doing so due to concern with engagement, not effectiveness.

[Ultimatecalibur]

You guys do realize that same/similar words can mean different things depending on the context and field they're used in, right? Many acronyms sound like words that mean something totally different. Languages also evolve constantly and words gain completely new meanings due to slangs and such. The brought up acronym is generally what people refer to when they use the word in the context of MMOs and it has little to do with for example act of metagaming in tabletop rpgs, just like an MMO "tank" can have absolutely nothing to do with an armored war vehicle. It might've been a backronym originally, but it doesn't change that that's what it is used as these days.

Wrong. The term "Meta" is directly referring to metagaming. A Meta comp is short for the metagame optimal composition. Those whom have confused it for the backcronym are mimic things they hear from knowledgeable individuals without understand what they are talking about and often using the term properly in an unintentionally manner. The term "tank" is also a direct reference to the armored combat vehicle as the classes/jobs of that role are mimicing the battlefield effects of that class of vehicles. Ranged DpS (casters and physical) are sometimes called "artillery" for similar reasons.

Anyways meaning was the point here, not etymology which is rather off-topic. Regardless of what you want to argue the word comes from, the meta is not affected by what a healer's dps kit looks like, but rather what said kit's overall output is and people asking for more complexity are doing so due to concern with engagement, not effectiveness.

Actually the meta can and is influenced by what a healer's kit looks like. Classes, Jobs and Characters all shift around metagame tier lists based on relative complexity and output. In many cases choices that theoretically will have higher output will be considered low tier in the metagame due to having a relative complexity that is far higher that the alternatives for little to no gain.

[Absurdity]

Actually the meta can and is influenced by what a healer's kit looks like. Classes, Jobs and Characters all shift around metagame tier lists based on relative complexity and output. In many cases choices that theoretically will have higher output will be considered low tier in the metagame due to having a relative complexity that is far higher that the alternatives for little to no gain.

This would be the case if one of the healers were more complex for little to no gain, from what I've seen however people are asking for all healers to be more complex, not just 1 or 2.
It also depends heavily on how we define "little gain". A difference of 500 dps, roughly the difference between a warrior's dps and gnb/pld, is arguably not much but both gnb and pld are part of the meta comp for speedruns and warrior is...well, not.

[tikiwiki]

From a recent Famitsu interview:



These forums have seen some discussion on time spent healing vs time spent DPSing, and wider discussions of healing design philosophy. So, I'd like to open discussion around this interview comment and the most recent raid tier.

Have you healed Eden's Promise Savage?

Does it feel like the healing experience you want? Are there any particular parts of healing Eden's Promise Savage that you like, or don't like?

damage on tanks is a joke and aoe had some work needed week one but quickly became the same as other tiers im bored out of my mind and hoping my week doesn't go for too long specially with ultimate cancelled

[NobleWinter]

I see so many people talking about how healing should be accesible but that actually sounds ridiculous to me. Healing is the most burdensome responsibility in the game. You can completely revert train wrecks and turn abysmal mechanic failures into clears so gatekeeping the role to people who are competent enough to press more than one dps button seems logical. Healing should be a badge of pride. Why would you want to make healing "seem" accessible with incredibly brain dead skill kits just to have a healer fail you in every way possible when it comes time to step up. I leveled Healers first, tanks second, and now Im on my last two dps and the amount of frustration I feel watching healers cast repose on things that cant be put to sleep, or spamming cure and physick when no one even needs health, while refusing to use Esuna for anything just to wipe on bosses repeatedly I never died to before becuase the healer is the first one dead is maddening. I NEED less accessibility to this role. People are using jump potions and switching from Summoner to Scholar and making me miserable. Reading tooltips and not standing in aoes is a bare minimum we can expect from people but for whatever reason we keep lowering the bar for healing and accepting worse and worse players becuase it should be "accesible" even if it means ruining the enjoyment for the parties they are sabotaging. Bringing veteran healers back with skill kits they enjoy that new healers can grow into is what we need. I been healing since ARR and no healer has ever had a kit that was mind boggling. Im not asking for rocket science just Scholar in Heavensward levels of engagement.

[LiddyGhu]

From a recent Famitsu interview:



These forums have seen some discussion on time spent healing vs time spent DPSing, and wider discussions of healing design philosophy. So, I'd like to open discussion around this interview comment and the most recent raid tier.

Have you healed Eden's Promise Savage?

Does it feel like the healing experience you want? Are there any particular parts of healing Eden's Promise Savage that you like, or don't like?

I suppose I can give my two cents.
As a Scholar, this was the percentage of my actions on average in each fight in this savage tier that were purely DPS. This includes Broil, Ruin II, Biolysis, Energy Drain, and Chain Stratagem. It discludes embrace and seraphic veil, which are automatic actions.
e: I would like to note that this is NOT from a particularly intricately optimized standpoint. The percentages can be even higher than this.
Cloud of Darkness: 76.68%
Shadowkeeper 81.38%
Fatebreaker: 74.17%
Promise: 71.92%
Oracle: 69.90%

If you asked me, I *would* be satisfied if over 50% of my actions within those percentages were not entirely Broil III. However, because that actually *is* the case, it's unsatisfactory. I would be more satisfied if one of two things happened;
plan A: Raise the encounter damage frequency [as opposed to intensity]
plan B: Increase the amount of actions that are unrelated to healing, thereby reducing the amount of actions that are Broil III
plan C: Reduce healing throughput significantly, while also significantly reducing MP costs for healing actions.

Out of these plans, plan C is the most reliable but most unwanted.
Plan B seems to be the most feasible while not making players angry.
Plan A would be the most satisfactory for players who actually play healers to, you know, heal.

My issue with the interview comment is that the *intensity* of damage- that is, requiring shields and mitigation to survive- is not the issue, but the *frequency* of damage that is the issue as long as they have no intention of reducing the power of healing actions further. I want to play a healer to heal, but if there is only one thing to heal every 25 seconds and the GCD is 2.5, it's way too boring to stand around and wait for it. This doesn't have much to do with player skill at all.

I am of the opinion that we need to urge the developers to play Healers for a while so that they can see why we want to take more damage or to have more DPS related buttons.

[Flay_wind]

I think one of the things they could do is to make incoming damage to be for the most part gravity based. Say flat X number + large % of the max HP (like 70% or so). On the week one/min Ilvl that would leave you with 15% hp left. As you get better gear, flat damage value would affect you less, but the value % of your max HP would increase and the damage the party and tank take is still significant.

[Ultimatecalibur]

This would be the case if one of the healers were more complex for little to no gain, from what I've seen however people are asking for all healers to be more complex, not just 1 or 2.
It also depends heavily on how we define "little gain".

That was more a metapoint about the metagame. As an example, a theoretic class that required you to keep 5 plates with different slow down rates constantly spinning would end up lower on a tier list than one that only required you to regularly toss and catch a ball 1 handed if the different difficulty causes output on the first class to vary between 90% and 110% the second's theoretical while the second only varies between 95% and 100% it's theoretical at similar player skill levels.

A difference of 500 dps, roughly the difference between a warrior's dps and gnb/pld, is arguably not much but both gnb and pld are part of the meta comp for speedruns and warrior is...well, not.

All 4 tanks have a similar complexity so the lower performing tanks end up lower on the meta tier list. Similarly, if they had varying difficulty but similar outputs the difficult jobs would end up lower on the list.