Let's delete tier 1 "Cure" spells in 6.0 (by upgrading them to tier 2)

[Grimoire-M]

...responses...

Oh good, you can read more than a third of any given response to you. Just confirming that since you tend to ignore damning reasoning for easy jabs. As I expect you will continue to do in the next twenty or so posts like this one.

And when it comes to asking for new things, you should always ask for the OP instead of trying to make it "balanced". Balance is a myth (since it doesn't actually exist) and often times what we think of as OP isn't. If the dev team likes the idea, they'll figure out how to make it work with everything else and (tbh) we really shouldn't be doing their jobs because we do not have access to their data so we will (inevitably) do it wrong when we try to balance something that doesn't exist.

Balance exists because the meta and gameplay interactions exist. Balance from the developer’s perspective is just about tuning both to facilitate what you want. What I and other players want is healers to have depth, play differently from one another, have a roughly equal presence and/or unique advantages in difficult content, and fit within the constraints of the engine that prevent everything else from happening.

Those are difficult asks, and we sure don’t expect it to happen easily, but we can just as easily say that SE is trying, while also trying to not alienate players like you who can’t handle statistics. In either case, they will ignore trivial posts that offer nothing of value when it comes to feedback.

From that perspective, why would I ever ask for obviously broken garbage that that has zero likelihood to ever get implemented that doesn’t even solve the baseline problems it wants to address? There’s a difference between knowing something and understanding it. In the case of White Mage’s design problems in reference to the above, I’m fairly sure you don’t even have a firm grasp on the first, yet you claim I don’t have the second when I’ve predicted Curing Waltz/Dance Partner and Further Ruin stacks using my own rework ideas in the past.

Ergo, if you want to actually see riffs on your own ideas in game at some point, maybe you should do some research and analysis before posting...well, any suggestions from now on. I could poke holes in them all day, but it wouldn’t change anything unless you tried to improve at something.

Otherwise, to mangle some political YouTubers, you can keep committing to your doxastic anxiety over some internet nerds giving you fair criticism of your design approach, for lack of a better term.

[Almagnus1]

Oh good, you can read more than a third of any given response to you. Just confirming that since you tend to ignore damning reasoning for easy jabs. As I expect you will continue to do in the next twenty or so posts like this one.

That wouldn't be necessary if you would stop being an elitist turd.

From that perspective, why would I ever ask for obviously broken garbage that that has zero likelihood to ever get implemented that doesn’t even solve the baseline problems it wants to address?

Cause sometimes it helps spark a discussion... and it also helps to out the pretentious browbeaters that should be ignored.

[Grimoire-M]

That wouldn't be necessary if I would stop being a child.


Cause sometimes it shows my ignorance... and it also draws out the reasonable people that just want to see some nicely organized math.

It's a shame that you're the one hyperfixated on this 'elitist' bias instead of actually useful discussion then. It's obvious what I'm doing, and yet you bite every time. And when you respond with some sort of reasonable suggestion I actually give you the reasonable response. Unfortunately for you, the sass will continue until you attempt to make an ability that makes numerical and conceptual sense, or explain why you dislike any one of the 17 bullet point abilities from my rework. No I'm not linking it. I'm not here to self-promote. You can find it yourself. It's not hard to follow a profile link and scroll through post history. If you think that's a big ask cause you're responding to this on mobile, try actually sitting down and making a game of your own sometime, cause it's 90% of why I limit my own suggestions the way I do (It cuts down on development time by a ton!). I'm not interested in these jabs beyond getting you to actually follow through and show anyone who's responded to you (not just me) that you actually comprehend what they're saying, where they're coming from, why they're saying it, and prove them wrong or right via an actual technical example or sufficiently accurate analogy, and then respond to their criticism with actual humility instead of us reenacting the same dril tweet twice.

[Rein_eon_Osborne]

Oh dear, not here, too?

Fun aside...

I posted this elsewhere, but I'll put it up here:

Cure: Restores Target’s HP. Cure Potency: 450. 1.5s Cast Time. 400 MP.
Additional Effect: Cleric Stance: Increases the potency of the next Stone, Glare, or Holy you cast by 50% while reducing its cast time by 2.5s. Duration: 15s.

I can already visualize myself utilizing the said spell more often. It's kinda niche, but at least not as obsolete as current Freecure, one that I'd wish to rename them into 'Trapcure' instead so badly.

[Almagnus1]

It's obvious what I'm doing, and yet you bite every time.

Failing to make an actual point yet using sophistry to make your vapid, condescending posts seem like they're actually relevant while I keep pointing that out?

Unfortunately for you, the sass will continue until you attempt to make an ability that makes numerical and conceptual sense, or explain why you dislike any one of the 17 bullet point abilities from my rework.

It's simple, we don't need to turn WHM into SCH or AST and that's what you're aiming to do.

I'm not here to self-promote.

So did why you (yet again) reference you rework in a thread that it's not posted in? I'm not going to waste my time digging through your post history especially since your too lazy to bring the relevant information here.

[Grimoire-M]

So did why you (yet again) reference you rework in a thread that it's not posted in? I'm not going to waste my time digging through your post history especially since your too lazy to bring the relevant information here.

Hmm I wonder

I'm not interested in these jabs beyond getting you to actually follow through and show anyone who's responded to you (not just me) that you actually comprehend what they're saying, where they're coming from, why they're saying it, and prove them wrong or right via an actual technical example or sufficiently accurate analogy, and then respond to their criticism with actual humility instead of us reenacting the same dril tweet twice.

See? If you weren't so lazy that you can't even finish a paragraph, maybe you'd get the hint.

[Almagnus1]

See? If you weren't so lazy that you can't even finish a paragraph, maybe you'd get the hint.

If you posts were actually worth reading and not vapid self flagellation... maybe that'd happen?

[Grimoire-M]

If you posts were actually worth reading and not vapid self flagellation... maybe that'd happen?

...anyone who's responded to you (not just me)...

And yet here we are.

[Almagnus1]

And yet here we are.

Did it ever occur to you that most of your posts can be summed up as...

[Grimoire-M]

-snip-

Yes? Do you not know what schadenfreude is?

No need to answer, you know what's coming, you do this to yourself.