The Problem with Healer Feedback, and requested changes

[Semirhage]

I'm just here to object to the evergreen, ceaseless call for the "perfect" solution to terrible design in the healer role: lol just designate WHM as the one that's the least engaging and sucks and make the other three more engaging, more powerful, or both more engaging and more powerful. Easy! If you object to it, you're just a one-trick healer who refuses to change to a different job; MY favorite job gets fixed in this scenario, so go off and play DPS or something if you don't like it.

[Renathras]

I'm just here to object to the evergreen, ceaseless call for the "perfect" solution to terrible design in the healer role: lol just designate WHM as the one that's the least engaging and sucks and make the other three more engaging, more powerful, or both more engaging and more powerful. Easy! If you object to it, you're just a one-trick healer who refuses to change to a different job; MY favorite job gets fixed in this scenario, so go off and play DPS or something if you don't like it.

Honestly, it doesn't even have to be WHM. It could be SGE, or even AST. And no one's asking for the other three to be "more powerful" except the people saying that anything not as complex should be nerfed by comparison. Which isn't any of the people proposing the "change 3" idea.

Everyone has to sacrifice to reach a compromise. Changing all four forces a ton of players to sacrifice either their playstyle or content (or both) for no gain at all to them. Changing 3 is the give and take where everyone sacrifices something but also gains something. Which is what a compromise should be.

.

Yes, and look at what that costs the role."

What do you mean? Melee have a gradient. That's bad? Casters have a gradient and all of them are useful. Tanks have a gradient, the problem is PLD does crap damage and has a missing mitigation (both of which are presumably the target of the changes in 6.3). SAM's aren't being blacklisted from parties. NINs aren't being blacklisted from parties. A good BLM is always welcome in parties because they legitimately are worth bringing. Having variations in complexity doesn't seem to be a problem in any of the other roles. The only problem comes if some Jobs do significantly less damage overall than others. Like MCH doing less (party) than DNC/BRD or PLD doing less than the other three tanks. This is only acceptable if they have tremendous utility (Verraise for example) to make up for it.

On Druids: So Feral is even less played as a subspect? Well, guess that makes my point for me, then. I thought it at least had a niche it was better in.

Looking at the two builds, though, Balance seemed more simple to me when I read about it in Shadowlands. But it's hard to say without playing it, I suppose.

Because there is no "deep end" in isolation

Where did I suggest we truncate healers? I suggested we expand three healers and leave one alone. How is that truncation?

I DID suggest we focus them in different areas, but to do so while expanding them into those areas so that the net area is greater than (or equal to) before, not less than. I'm a bit confused what you think I'm proposing?

Also, where did I say someone was asking for a healer that requires a treatise? I've noted actual number values, such as 6 or 8 damage buttons. Those are concrete things, not some nebulous "it's too hard".

A larger group in this thread...

Note that the official forums make up a tiny fraction of the playerbase, and the independent posters in this thread is/are around 30, which is the absolute minimum N to even try to do something with statistics, and tends to generate poor results. That's also ignoring that not everyone in this thread is in agreement.

...which is a fancy way of saying "this thread" or even "this forum" is not likely representative of the playerbase as a whole.

.

EDIT:

Ren, you are advocating for 3 healers to be 'swimming pool' and one to be 'inflatable backyard pool'.

No, I'm not.

I'm advocating for the 4 healers to be normal sized backyard swimming pool (the 3 foot ones), large backyard swimming pool (the 4-5 foot ones), in-ground pool/city pool, and Olympic pool, where 2 and 3 are largely side-grades to each other.

I'm not advocating for anything to be "inflatable backyard pool" nor am I advocating the other 3 be identical.

I'm actually advocating for the exact opposite of that, for the other 3 to also be diverse and distinct from each other.

BUT, I can also link this: World first Gordias, now I'm pretty tired, eyes blurry etc, but I'm pretty sure that's Aero 3 and Stone 3 being cast.

It is, but I can also link you videos of ARR and HW where the WHM isn't casting many damage spells, including 2nd Coil and 3rd Coil. Also, Gordias is LEGENDARY for being overtuned, to the point of breaking guilds, sidelining PLDs and MNKs, and so on. I don't think using a world first Gordias is very indicative of the general raider community, or larger community, at the time. In fact, I just noticed World first, which kind of indicates that was NOT normal at the time for general raiders or the general playerbase. Surely you realize that as well, yes?

I don't think using a World First clear is a good example of the playerbase as a whole. I'm not sure who would think it is.

Since Ruin and Ruin 2...

Once more, I'm confused what you're arguing. Are you now arguing that healer damage be exclusively auto-attacks? Surely not... I mean, I KNOW you aren't, so I'm confused why you're advocating for auto-attack heavy design...? I mean, I guess we could do that (technically optimal RDM play is to do that, I think, as all those little auto-attack damage strikes when Dualcasting add up), but...

[ForsakenRoe]

Everyone has to sacrifice to reach a compromise. Changing all four forces a ton of players to sacrifice either their playstyle or content (or both) for no gain at all to them. Changing 3 is the give and take where everyone sacrifices something but also gains something. Which is what a compromise should be.

SAM's aren't being blacklisted from parties.

On Druids: So Feral is even less played as a subspect? Well, guess that makes my point for me, then. I thought it at least had a niche it was better in.
Looking at the two builds, though, Balance seemed more simple to me when I read about it in Shadowlands. But it's hard to say without playing it, I suppose.

Where did I suggest we truncate healers? I suggested we expand three healers and leave one alone. How is that truncation?

I can't be dealing with this I'm going to bed once I post this, but: Again, if people want to play Glarespam, they could if they had 2 or 20 dots to manage. It's up to SE to balance how much punishment is inflicted on their damage from not using those DOTs.

SAM was locked out of PFs in SB, due to the negative stigma surrounding the average player of the class. Perception matters, and if a class is perceived to be 'super simple', it's likely going to be perceived as 'only people who are bad would play this'. It's not like SB SAM was 'hard' by any measure, but it got locked out all the same.

Feral being played despite having no real niche at certain times, or being behind on damage, or whatever, I don't see how that 'proves your point'. Some people play something because of whatever reason. WHM was not good in SB and everyone knew this, people still played it. DRK was 'griefing' in SB, still went on to get world first in both ultimates. Feral doesn't need to have some specific quantifiable advantage that makes it preferable to Balance. It could literally just be as simple as the player saying 'I don't like casters, I like melee'.

As for 'expand 3', they say a picture is worth a thousand words, so:

healers currently

healers if Ren

healers if me

Red is 'how much skill it requires to keep party alive through content like EX roulette or Treasure Map', Blue is 'how much skill it requires to maximise DPS, such that you'd get rank 1 parse'. See how the red bars, the skill floor, are identical in all 3 pictures, because I don't actually mind Jimmy EXroulette spamming Medica for his 90 tomes each day. What I do mind, is how close the blue bar is to the red, and how close you're insisting on keeping WHM's blue to it's red, for whatever reason

[Shurrikhan]

Reason I mentioned Feral and Balance was not as the actual specs, but as skillsets that Resto can dip into and 'do damage as a healer'. Though, in several parts of the past Feral has been horrendously ignored/forgotten about, lacking cohesiveness, throughput, and general care for the design. Despite these dark times, some players stuck with it, because they loved the class, despite Rogue being easier or having more DPS or whatever.

Ahhh, gotcha. Sorry, I hadn't realized it'd jumped to a whole new page when I refreshed.

No, I'm not.

I'm advocating for the 4 healers to be normal sized backyard swimming pool (the 3 foot ones), large backyard swimming pool (the 4-5 foot ones), in-ground pool/city pool, and Olympic pool, where 2 and 3 are largely side-grades to each other.

Gutting 3 out of 4 healers instead of just the 1 out of 4 isn't any better...

You can have the goddamned ocean and keep it accessible through a metaphorical shallow-sloping, fine-sand beach.

None of them to somehow purposely truncate an intuitive entry to their kits. None of them need to purposely truncate any and all significant skill ceiling.

Note that the official forums make up a tiny fraction of the playerbase, and the independent posters in this thread is/are around 30, which is the absolute minimum N to even try to do something with statistics, and tends to generate poor results. That's also ignoring that not everyone in this thread is in agreement.

Mate, I am summarizing objectively what we've been seeing thus far across the warrants and claims made in this thread. Look at where the likes are. Look at what positions they have in common. I'm not conflating that with the whole playerbase (who you do not speak for either), but if you're not talking to the people in this thread, then why are you even here?

I suggested we expand three healers and leave one alone. How is that truncation?

You suggested that only one should have a significant skill ceiling, that only one should have anything approaching offensive rotation, that only one should have any significant buff gameplay, etc.

You can play semantics on the basis that right now, in a largely disdained state of the role, no healer has those anyways so it wouldn't yet be truncation, but you are asking that those future expansions fall under those constraints. Why? Why would there need to be --or would anyone even want there to be-- only one job that runs a full gamut, let alone a job that's singled out to be cut down to knee-height?

[Renathras]

Okay, what are you even talking about now?

Who are you arguing against?

Gutting 3 out of 4 healers

Who's arguing to gut healers? Leaving a thing as it is is not gutting it. I'm not sure how to explain this concept. How is leaving a thing alone changing it? Leaving it alone is, by definition, not changing it. "gutting" is a change. Therefore, leaving a thing alone cannot be "gutting" by definition.

...to somehow purposely truncate...

Who is arguing to truncate? I'm arguing to expand 3 healers and leave one alone. Leaving a thing alone is not truncating it. Again, this is true by definition. What are you arguing? Who are you arguing against? Who is arguing to truncate Jobs? Do you know what the word truncate means?

Mate, I am summarizing objectively what we've been seeing thus far across the warrants and claims made in this thread

Where did I say you weren't?

I said this thread doesn't represent the player base.

You have less than 30 players, and posts that have 8-17 likes, yes?

Is 17 people a majority of the 3-5 million playing the game?

I'm talking to the people in this thread. The problems are (a) you guys seem not to be listening given the number of times you've collectively either misrepresented my statements even with me outright saying those aren't my statements (if I'm being charitable - lying if I'm not being charitable) and (b) are so set on your solution that you aren't interested in any other possible solutions, even ones that would be better for the game or more acceptable to the playerbase.

You suggested that only one should have a significant skill ceiling, that only one should have anything approaching offensive rotation, that only one should have any significant buff gameplay, etc.

I've not done any of those things at any time.

I've argued three should have high skill ceilings. I've argued at least two and probably three should have offensive rotations - not "anything approaching"; full on dps rotations. I've argued at least two should have buff gameplay.

Here I must ask if you're intentionally lying about what I'm saying or if you just aren't reading my posts? I countered that third one outright by pointing out SCH has Chain Strategem now and would retain it. (Note here that SGE and WHM don't have buffs right now. Are you proposing a future design where all four healers have a dozen buffs they juggle across the party? Surely you aren't...) I've argued against the second when I proposed SCH have its complete SB rotation back (which is on par with DPS Jobs in the game now; 4 DoTs [Bio, Miasma, Miasma 2, Shadow Flare], a spam nuke, a movement nuke, a resource burner in Energy Drain, and a cleave in Bane as well as Miasma 2 itself), and proposed that SGE have a combat rotation akin to RDM (which is a DPS Job). And even that AST could get another DoT as well. I've argued against the first in almost every post that I've mentioned skill gaps.

.

Again, who are you arguing against?

Either you're arguing against a phantom strawman in this thread that isn't me, whose posts I can't see, and with you quoting me instead of him/her...

...or you're outright lying about my points...

...or you just aren't reading my posts (despite quoting from them) and are just replying without reading.

I'm curious: Which is it?

Can you tell me the name of the person you're arguing against and quote their posts instead of my posts that aren't saying the things you're arguing against and have even outright said those weren't the things I was saying?

.

...although...never mind.

As I said, we aren't going to convince each other. Part of that is you ignoring what I'm saying and inserting strawman arguments in place of mine, despite me pointing out I'm not saying those things. I can't have a debate with a person who is lying about everything I say and arguing against a phantom, sorry.

As I said, my proposal would do the most good for the most people, cause the least disruption, and make the most people happy. That's all there is to it. If you don't want that, you need some really good arguments, and thus far, haven't had any. That's my peace and I've said it. o/

[ASkellington]

I've argued three should have high skill ceilings. I've argued at least two and probably three should have offensive rotations - not "anything approaching"; full on dps rotations. I've argued at least two should have buff gameplay.

Here is the simple problem with your idea. If 1 nuke 1 dot is a problem on all four healers leaving one with that same simple rotation leaves it still as a problem. It isn't good enough for 4. There for it isn't good enough for 1.

It is objectively boring to have 2 dps buttons on a job for 86 levels in this game when there is solo content to be done. All healers can have one or two more buttons. WHM shouldn't be the exception just because it is "easy" when it isn't acceptable for the other 3.

[ty_taurus]

Here's the reality of the general reception of the healers in this game: most players that actually play healers are unbothered by the state of them, but would respond positively to more offensive spells or other forms of consistent actions that can be used regardless of whether healing is required or not. For most players, a job is good when it looks cool and its animations feel exciting, and a job is bad when it feels clunky or mechanically frustrating to play.

The only players who could possibly be unhappy with this are those that would be unhappy that maintaining 1 button spam no longer would mean you'd parse high, but actual optimization-focused players would be happy to have a greater challenge and more depth for them to reach those high numbers. Only people who want a free ride or like that they can stealth their way into savage while doing a fraction of the work every other role has to put in to get the clear would genuinely be upset.

There is also the group of players that want recovery-focused gameplay, but the thing is, FFXIV has NEVER been the game for that style of healer. This is not WoW. No fight has ever been designed to output damage every few seconds to demand constant healing. The only time that happens is extremely rarely do you get a phase like Brute Justice who spams an AoE for the last small chunk of his HP, which is not only a phase and not a representation of the entire fight, but also something that has almost never been done since. In all honesty, if that's the type of gameplay you want, and the idea of the effectively combat medic role that FFXIV healers are designed for is not, then go play WoW. Stop biting your tongue and enduring a game you do not enjoy if this is not the type of healer you want to play. Or jump in for the story and go to WoW for the raiding once you're caught up. Stop punishing yourself.

[Shurrikhan]

Who is arguing to truncate? I'm arguing to expand 3 healers and leave one alone. Leaving a thing alone is not truncating it.

So, you've got 4 starving people...

The apparent general consensus so far: Let them eat as much as they need to reach healthy levels.

You: No! Keep one starved! It's not that I'm denying any of that one food, though; I'm just only feeding 3. After all, the last might want to be hungry but wouldn't be able to resist eating if there were food around!

Yes, frames of reference will matter. If most else would rather healer kits each feel fuller and more engaging, and the discourse is forming around that, but you alone specifically asking that one healer's kit not be thus improved (be left as is)... there is then no difference between "leaving (a bad state) as is" and "truncating" possible improvements. We were already discussing the improvements we'd like to see before you're "axe that; keep them the same." Nor is there any difference between saying that all but one job should have its damage-dealing left as is and truncating what's available for those other jobs.