Support vs Healer: Note that it's EXTREMELY rare for me to say someone's positions are invalid. I will often note people's positions are subjective and not objective, but I also am pretty consistent with saying "And that's not NOT important, but it's not a FACT upon which to base a position, and subjective things are not something shared by everyone, meaning other people disagree/hold the converse position". When it comes to Support vs Healer, I suppose it COULD be accurate, from a certain point of view, to argue that Supports are not Healers, but that there's overlap. Support is a more general term. For example, a class that buffs allies with things like movement speed, resource generation, attack speed, damage, defensive mitigation, and crowd control/debuffs/etc of enemies with zero heals would be a Support class with no Healer overlap. On the other hand, you get things like DNC which buff allies but also have some healing on the side, or RDM which has some of each and a combat raise. Again, these are not Healers in the general sense, but still fall under the umbrella of Support, as would PLD. The point was not one of invalidation, more one of clarity; that people who don't enjoy the act of healing ITSELF as an end unto itself MIGHT be more inclined to a more general Support position - as you note, a person who said the thing you said might prefer GNB to, say, BLM. Is that saying "You're not really a DPS"? Well, kinda...but it's not saying "...and your views and points are invalid". The one exists independent of the other. It's one reason I think every game should have Support as a distinct role - and this isn't new to FFXIV; I said this about WoW back in...gosh, Wrath of the Lich king era I was saying this, honestly.
It's not an attack or a method to invalidate people. It's noting that there is a distinction in style and mindset between "Healer" and "Support" mindset of people, just as there is between "Tank" and "Damage Dealer" - both tend to have rotations and be (for Melee, anyway) engaged in melee combat with the boss, but their approaches, encounter focus and concerns, etc, are distinct. Tanks may be trying to push their damage, but their focus is on maintaining/swapping threat, positioning bosses, proper mitigation use, and so on vs a DPS's focus on perfect openers, DPS CDs, DPS resource use, positionals, and so on. I guess I find it odd that someone would consider it an insult. I used to straddle the line a lot more and enjoy playing things like Enchanters and Bards (Everquest) true Supports. Over time, I've found I just like Healing, and occasionally Tanking. Maybe it's a reflection of me still being Support minded (even when I play Tanks, I like to play the ones that have healing capabilities; like I'd love PLD if its rotation wasn't cursed), but more inclined to meeting party needs directly rather than the more general Support position.
But no, it's not some effort to exclude people, it's more an effort to correctly define the parameters and positions from which we're each speaking. As I think we've cemented, if this was ARR again, I'd be playing WHM, you'd be playing SCH, and we'd both be loving life.
In fact, to dig into that a little deeper, Healer is a subset of Support--a Support that is able to sustain the party's HP. Not all Supports have to be Healers, but all Healers would be described by most RPG players of the modern era as Supports.
This I dispute. As Supersnow pointed out, "Damage Dealer" is actually the new concept.
Play any older MMO - even the current MMOs that are 10 years old, play their original builds (FFXIV we're talking 1.0 OR 2.0, WoW we're talking Vanilla and Burning Crusade, and possibly through Cata) - single player RPG, or tabletop game and you'll find that most don't actually have a pure Damage Dealer role. Even FFXIV's DPS Jobs all have utility/support abilities. Even BLM and SAM have Addle and Feint, Sleep and Third Eye. Sure, they aren't overly USED, but even FFXIV's DPS Jobs are all somewhat designed as Support. A BLM friend of mine in SB loved being able to be a MP battery for other players. She thought it was cool that she could be dealing massive damage to enemies while also throwing extra ticks of MP to Healers during her Umbra Ice phase. In fact, as recently as SB, every Job in FFXIV had a fairly developed Support kit.
DPS or DD (direct damage) classes are actually the new concept, not the cemented standard. As as I noted, other than WoW, all the other big MMOs in development seem to have a Quaternity model.
THAT SAID: As I noted above, a Support umbrella can be thought of as including Healers, but it also includes Damage Dealers and Tanks.
But lets back track to that friend coming up to ask you about a Final Fantasy job to play. What would you say if they said "I want to be a healer that also has a variety of offensive abilities that deal damage and make enemies weaker?"
Well, you know I'm advocating for the "four Healers" model. If we actually...you know, did that...my answer would be "I have the perfect Job for you! I think you'd love SCH. They have Damage over Time (DoT) debuffs to place on enemies, abilities that do bursts of damage or spread those DoTs across enemy groups, abilities you can put on your front line fighters that weaken the enemy when the enemy attacks them, single and multi-target direct damage attacks, and they also have a pretty extensive suit of healing abilities and a little NPC pet that helps heal that you can smartly leverage in times when you need to focus more on dealing damage", because that would exist if we actually got what I've asked for.
Fair?
Healing requires that players are taking damage, but players don't' really take much damage in this game and that's a problem,
It's a given that you'd probably prefer healing more frequently, but there's a limit on how much healing this game can realistically ask of its playerbase, and that's not a lot. Having a more engaging set of GCD actions to diversify your gameplay doesn't actually do anything to change the frequency of healing required,
Also what Reinha said: I agree. The issue is, I think the problem is encounter design needing to be addressed and healers needing to have FAR FEWER oGCD heals. oGCD heals should be emergency tools, not mainstays. ASTs should be routinely casting Aspected Benefic and things like Celestial Opposition should be emergency tools. Succor, not Indom/Fey Blessing/etc, should be the go-to AOE heal for SCH, being augmented by the oGCDs in emergencies. But an alternative would be to split the two into different styles.
I think we differ here in that we both recognize the problem, but your solution is "So we should have healers focus on DPS and have more DPS engagement because healing isn't required" (that is, the problem is the Healer Job DPS kit design) where mine is "We should have encounters designed more to require smaller, but sustained, healing, and Healer kits should be more healing focused with less overpowered heals and more deliberate healing options" (that is, the problem is the encounter design and the oGCD power, uptime, and reliance). I'm not sure either is "right", but I think the important thing is that we both identify and
agree on what the base problem is - that encounter design and Healer kits overall are somewhat dissonant with one another.
Aside: I've also floated the idea of Cards as GCDs. Go figure.
If a healer were made in such a way that it couldn't contribute to DPS,
Who is arguing for this?
We shouldn't be pretending that this isn't the case.
Who is pretending that it is the case?
You know I'm not, so why say this?
On the "Why Play FFXIV" argument:
On the first part of this, fair enough. I'll take no offense to what wasn't intended as an insult.
but you also don't want to do more than cast Glare.
I like casting Misery, Holy, and use Assize on CD. So this isn't even true...
So what's the issue exactly? Why aren't you interested in engaging with more than 1 primary tool if that's not how you feel?
Have I not answered this before?
I like engaging with more than one button.
I don't like engaging with DPS buttons. I don't know how else I can state it, so I'll repeat what I said the last time you asked me:
I derive zero joy from pressing DPS buttons. None. I don't get a dopamine hit from "big numbers". I literally could not tell you then, and cannot tell you now, how much damage my Glare, Misery, Assize, or Holy do. I can't tell you how much Primal Rend does. I can't tell you how much Bahamut does. I legitimately do not know and do not care. I CAN tell you how much Cure 2/Solace/Tetra does, single target and crit. I can tell you the rough size of the double Eukrasia Diagnosis crit shields (around 36-38k of just shield; more than half my own healthbar on SGE)
That's why I keep bringing up the distinction between people that are focused on healing and those who are not - you think I'm attacking you by mentioning the distinction between Healer and Support, I'm not: I'm trying to explain this concept to you that you're having difficulty understanding and you keep asking me this same question over and over. My working assumption is NOT that you're ignoring my answers. My working assumption is you've thus far been unable to wrap your mind around them because our paradigms are so different. My efforts have been trying to explain to you how different they are.
It's basically like you're a blind person (using writing) asking me why I love the vibrant colors of a sunset and I'm a deaf person asking you why you enjoy the tapestry of music. We're somewhat talking past each other, not because we're discarding the other's view, but because we each somewhat lack the capability to comprehend it.
The main distinction, I think, is that I recognize this, which is why I'm trying to figure out HOW to explain it to you in an understandable way, while you seem to think that I ultimately share your paradigm, just you haven't been able to quite convince me of it. But it's more like one of us is blind and the other deaf, I think. And, again, that isn't an insult, either. It's just me trying to figure out how to say "I genuinely don't understand why you DO find DPS buttons enjoyable, even as filler". When I'm on WAR, I press 1-2-3 and 1-2-4 to refresh my 30 sec buff. I don't really enjoy those buttons. The buttons I enjoy are Bloodwhetting/Nascent Flash, Rampart, Reprise, Shake It Off. I DO like hitting Primal Rend (and Double Down), but more because I love the visual and sound effects of those attacks (there's something hilarious and awesome to me about my Lala becoming a Human buzz-saw of rage with Primal Rend), just as I do of Misery and Holy. But I would honestly be perfectly fine if WAR was just Primal Rend over and over again or Fell Cleave over and over again. But when I Tank, the abilities I love are the ones that reduce damage or cover party members. PLD Cover is probably my single favorite ability in the entire game, and I also love Passage of Arms (again, I'd love PLD if it didn't have its complex and cursed rotation...)
I'd also disagree that ARR was designed to cater to the notion of supporting healing and not DPS on healers.
I didn't say it was.
I said it was both.
First and foremost is the Conjurer class quests--your introduction to healing unless you skipped CNJ and just waited to unlock SCH. The entire theme of the CNJ questline is that no, you can't just heal.
Since this has been brought up so much, I think it's time to do a deep dive into it, don't you? Let's start:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sy8O7AskB70
Notice the first thing you're told as a CNJ, after being welcomed to the guild: "We conjurers harness the powers of earth, wind, and water that abound in nature, and thereby weave spells of healing and protection."
THAT is the very first line that sets the tone of the CNJ class, the WHM Job, and arguably healing in FFXIV. Note what it does say - healing and protection - and what it does not say - damage or "a balance" between healing and damage. Not only is the entire theme NOT "no, you can't just heal", the top billing line that starts it all ONLY mentions healing and protection. Madelle then goes on to describe the art and purpose of Conjury:
"Conjury is the art of healing and purification. Its practitioners harness the power of nature, that they might bring about change in the form of spells."
Then she sends you on to the Guildmaster, E-Sumi-Yan, who imparts to you “the principles of conjury”: “Conjury is an arcane art that takes life and the living for its domain. Its primary purpose is the slaving of hurts and the granting of protection. Adventurers such as yourself oft stand upon the front lines of battle. Owing to this, you are like to find yourself in many situations wherein a capacity for healing would be advantageous. Mind you, there is more to conjury than that. By harnessing the power of earth, wind, and water, conjurers are also capable of weaving spells that wreak havoc. In terms of sheer destructive power, conjury may pale in comparison to thaumaturgy, but its capacity to defend one against aggression more than compensates for this relative shortcoming. In mastering healing and purification, not only will you be able to mend wounds and purge afflictions - you will also be able to breathe life back into the fallen. More than simply healers, yet not true dealers of destruction, conjurers realize their full potential when they employ their powers in support of others. That, my dear adventurer, is what it means to be one of us.”
So there’s a LOT to unpack there. I’m sure you’ll pounce on “capable of weaving spells that wreak havoc”, but note how conjury is repeatedly described as healing and protecting, not dealing damage. Even later in this conversation, it notes “conjury may pale in comparison to thaumatury” and couches its offensive spells in almost the way we’d talk about self-defense, and later even says “yet not true dealers of destruction”, which one might interpret as “not focused on damage dealing”. The clear focus? Healing, purifying (lol-Esuna?), protecting, and even Raise. Conjurers are noted as having the place of supporting their allies - not damage dealing - as their role in a party, reaching “their full potential” when “in support of others”.
I just watched that whole video and wrote up a summary I can share with you if you like, but the general takeaway is that Sylphie, time and again, is chastised NOT for only wanting to "just heal", but rather for not communing with nature, the overall quests (even where you're attacking corrupted sprites and such) are about healing the land and soothing the spirits of the elementals, several of the quest battles can be cleared by taking on a healing posture and healing the NPCs in battle with you, and the final capstone spell that is remarked as the height of the arts of conjury you are bestowed on finishing all the quests?
Cure II.
I actually WOULD love to share it, and it touches on some of the deeper lore that we now know a lot more about through additions and other quests (THM/BLM and RDM quests, in particular - RDM's arguably use the same method Sylphie does for her spellcraft, just they've refined it to a working artform based on precise and efficient use of limited aether combined with highly efficient methods of reclaiming expended aether after attacks to fuel future spells) but...
On the topic of WHM and stagnation:
Here's my problem with this line of thinking - while it is sometimes useful to consider a wider breadth of experiences in thinking about things, many of your examples are drawing on not just things outside of FFXIV, but things outside of Final Fantasy in general, or even MMOs. Not only that, this argument doesn't make sense (TCGs vs MMOs) since you don't have only a limited selection of spells you can use a maximum of 3 times in an encounter. That argument would apply better to something like Kingdom Hearts Chain of Memories or Dark Road. Whether it is efficient to use them or not, WHM has a total of 24 base actions and 30 if we include Role actions, 32 if we include Sprint and Limit Break. PERHAPS things would be better if these were all GCDs - if Tetra and Lilybell and Assize and Asylum and Beinson, Benedition, Aquaveil, Presence of Mind, Thin Air, Temperance, Swiftcast, Lucid Dreaming, Surecast and Rescue were all on the GCD. Then we would find out rather quickly how many other buttons are pressed as people would notice them more and they'd feel more impactful and weighty to press. I dunno. But they absolutely are there and are engaged with.
I would also contest that other Jobs regularly engage with 18+ WAR regularly engages with 5 if we likewise limit our count to GCDs - Heavy Swing, Maim, Storm's Path, Storm's Eye, and Fell Cleave. SMN's change their coat of paint, but only have about 5 GCDs they use as well, Ruin, Gemshine, Astral Flow, Demi-Summons (are GCDs), and Ruin 4.
So in a direct GCD comparison, WHM is in the same place as the "simple" Jobs from the Tank and DPS roles, is it not? We can't count their oGCDs while ignoring WHM's. The distinction is more how often they cast the different ones. WHM's common use GCDs are Glare, Dia, Afflatus Solace, Afflatus Rapture, and Misery (Holy is AOE and I think we're focusing on single-target here), which is comparable, at least to the point of being in the same general ballpark. Perhaps they could make it where every third Glare makes an empowered Holy you cast on the enemy or something, but in terms of GCD button/hotbar use, it's on par with the other two "simple" Jobs. DNC isn't far from that, with 7 (the Fan Dances and such are all oGCD weaves as well, though DNC also gets a ton of double duty from given buttons and procs on procs, the latter of which would likely not work well for a Healer Job)
So how is this okay for WAR and SMN but not for WHM? The issue seems more to be how frequently those other Jobs use those spells, not that they have more common use ones.
then I don't understand why there is resistance to wanting it to have more depth or engagement. It would make more sense to want to argue for a specific direction for that engagement, but not against the engagement altogether.
This is...go up above to where I talked about not getting dopamine hits from damage and up above where I argued that the encounter design is the problem. Then you should be able to understand.
It's not a "resistance to wanting" "depth or engagement". It's wanting "depth or engagement" that aren't damage focused or related. I'm not sure how this is difficult for you to understand nor why you can't understand it...except the analogy of explaining a sunset to the blind vs music to the deaf seems apt once more.
On why I like DNC: So one thing about me is that I love risk and chance based characters and classes in games,
Ah, I see. In this we could not possibly be any more different. I loathe risk and chance based characters and classes in games. They are the first I bench when I get the option to do so in single player RPGs and the ones I avoid in MMOs. I like my rotations being rock steady and solid. It's one reason I actually like GNB's rotation because it's rigid and steady, like a metronome, solid as a mountain. It's steady, consistent, and I know what I'm getting from it each and every time.
I do agree with you - from the crash course I gave myself in DNC - that it would be neat if Standard Step had alternatives. If, for example, you had 3-4 buffs and you could pick any 2 to keep up at a given time (given the CD) instead of just one with a stupidly generous 30 sec reapply window. But as far as it goes...do you now see? Everything you like about DNC (other than the buffing your allies) are things that I hate in class/Job design. What makes you happy would make me miserable. And that's all that I've asked for at all - having ONE; not two or three or all four, but only ONE - Healer Job on which I would be happy and not miserable. Do you genuinely not understand, after me expressing it time and again and in various ways, just HOW miserable I'd be playing your desired Jobs? Probably as much or more miserable as you are playing current Healer Jobs. And I can't imagine you'd be so heartless to want to impose such misery on anyone. I can only imagine you somehow still don't understand it...
On Communication and Humor vs Snark:
Yeah, it's why I used the universals symbol of humor, the smiley face. Though you might note the problem here is kind of on those who are choosing to read things in the worst light possible, no the one saying something innocently...
I also find it highly odd you'd say my arguments are the ones unreasonable and elitist. I've consistently compromised and bent my position ever more towards yours while most of you have held an absolutionist stance of sticking abjectly to your guns. While SOME of you have acknowledged a slight lean from your initial positions, your positions are still pretty much unchanged and far less compromising than my own. And I find it beyond difficult to believe you consider me the elitist - though I can see how you might when you take even my suggestion you'd more enjoy a different style of play to be an insult somehow - when people here on your side have have outright told me to quit and play another game, and you yourself asked that question somewhat rhetorically in a "Why do you play this game if..." way. Where parses have been brought up and my playstyle has been scrutinized? Where I've been called lazy and wanting carries?
How, then, do I come across as the elitist when even my "real healer" (a position I do not hold in the way you guys have expressed) is accommodating?
More importantly, how would you think my position is elitist and unreasonable in the face of the MORE elitist and MORE unreasonable arguments used by the other side? And, as noted by Icecylee, that I was the first one subjected to attacks based on my positions?
I dunno, I feel like this is more your perception, which I've worked to consistently diffuse and you've tried to hold onto anyway - for instance, how many times now have I pointed out the Support/Healer thing is not an insult nor a purity test AND that my personal position is to find a way to accommodate both types of person? Even if you wanted to think it's exclusionary - that I'm attacking you as being "lesser" - how can a thing be exclusionary when I'm literally trying to propose a game design that accommodates and INcludes it?
So yes, I very much DO see it the other way around. Your difficulty in gauging my sincerity is odd, since I've been more than open and taken great pains (and extensive posts) to try and clarify, restate, and further explain my positions explicitly to avoid that sort of stuff. Holding to that perception at this point is willful on your part, considering how much I've addressed it and explained "No, that's not what that means, THIS is what I mean by...". To continue assuming the worst light for my statements at this point seems odd to me.
From my perspective, I feel like there's a barrier between your perspective and mine that is almost like a language barrier in regards to how difficult it is to overcome.
Heh, it's at the end of your post, but this is the blind/deaf thing above.
On this point: We are in absolute agreement.
Again, the distinction is that I acknowledge and understand your perspective exists. I know it wouldn't make me or those like me happy, but I recognize it exists and want the game to accommodate it.
This is the difference between us; you seem not to be willing (or perhaps able?) to do the same in reverse.
Originally Posted by ty_taurus
Reply With Quote
