The Problem with Healer Feedback, and requested changes

[Venur]

It's because he has to constantly walk on eggshells on the topic. He can't say with a cast iron declaration 'You should do damage if you have no damage to heal', because the 'healers should only heal' players would all rage that they're expected to actually play the game, and quit (loss of revenue for SE). Conversely, he can't say with a cast iron declaration 'healers should NOT be needed to do damage, as that is not their role, and content will be tuned around the assumption that healers will NOT do any damage', because then the more skilled/hardcore players will see 'this game will never truly challenge us,

Well, various MMO have challenge for healers without requiring them to deal damage. Its just a different game design. That'S is why I have made a separate point for damage dealing then healing. You can have dmg dealing healer that are brain dead easy (FF online outside of raid progression) and healer with zero damage dealth that requiert skills to keep everyones alive wich probably represent the majority of MMO.

Having healers dealing damage is a design choice that ahs nothing to do with the complexity or the challenge of playing a healer. But in FFO they just try to avoid making the decision and I doubt that it is the decision that get them a lot of money.

[Renathras]

Debating whether to reply or not, since we're all talking around each other, but just a few things:

Say SE does as you say and changes only SGE, AST and SCH to have 2 more dps buttons. WHMs who want higher depth will complain and rightfully so.

This kind of argument isn't good, because this is true in either case. Say SE does as you say and change all 4. Then WHMs, SCHs, ASTs, and SGEs, who don't want higher depth will complain and rightfully so. If we leave things the same, Then WHMs, SCHs, ASTs, and SGEs, who want higher depth will complain and rightfully so. And if we do as I say, WHMs who want higher depth will complain and SCHs, ASTs, and SGEs who don't want higher depth will complain, and all rightfully so.

There is no case where there won't be people complaining - "and rightfully so" - meaning this cannot be used to attack my position and not yours (or not the current status quo). That means you can't use this as a reasonable argument, since it applies to all three cases. Unless we had exact data of which one would have more people complaining (and we don't have such data), all we know is that it's a negative for all three policies, not just one.

Once again - all tanks have a 1-2-3 combo on top of what makes them different: their extra dps.

SE tries to balance Tanks to do around the same damage. They're really bad at this. But it's why WAR was buffed in 6.2 for its damage/burst and why PLD was reworked in 6.3 to shift it into a burst window and make it play more like GNB and WAR. DRK is constantly accused of playing like WAR. The Tank forums are now complaining that all the Tanks are being forced into the same rotation - which they seem to think is bad - and that's kind of against your argument.

Further, tanks have a 1-2-3 combo, usually 2 damage oGCDs, a damage boost button (sometime oGCD sometimes GCD), and a burst button. For example, WAR has Heavy Swing, Maim, Storm's Path. It has a 30 sec upkeep button (Storm's Eye). It has a resource spender (Fell Cleave), and 2 oGCD damage attacks used in single target, its gap closer and Upheaval (which shares a CD with Orogeny, the AOE version, so you can only use one or the other, not both. They could just make them both Orogeny and nothing of value would be lost). It has an oGCD to use for damage every 60 sec (Inner Release), and then it has one big capstone ability Primal Rend. So it has 6 GCD attack buttons. 7 if you include Tomohawk.

Oh, I'll note here some "upgrade" (e.g. Inner Beast to Fell Cleave which becomes Inner Chaos if used after Infuriate), but these are all ONE button, just like Stone 1, Stone 2, Stone 3, Stone 4, Glare, Glare 3 are the same button. The animation changes during combat and the latter two has a mechanics difference, but that's pretty much it. It'd be like if WHM's filler was Glare but it changed to Glare 3 when you used Thin Air or Presence of Mind or something.

How many GCDs does WHM have theoretically used in single-target fights?

Cure 1, Cure 2, Cure 3, Regen, Medica, Medica 2, Afflatus Solace, Afflatus Rapture, Misery, Glare, and Dia. That's 11 GCDs. What's this? WHM has more GCDs than WAR does for single target fights? You can argue you don't often need to use them, but that doesn't remove them from existing. That would be like arguing Tomahawk is like Cure 1, rarely used so not counting.

Well, maybe if we look at ALL the GCDs? WAR has a 1-2 AOE combo, right? And we can count Decimate even though it shares resource with Fell Cleave and if they just made Fell Cleave AOE we wouldn't need the button, but sure. That gets us up to...10. Oh, but then we have to count Holy for WHM, bringing it to 12.

Well, maybe WAR has more oGCDs?

It has Orogeny AND Upheaval (even though they share a CD), Bloodwhetting AND Nascent Flash (even though they also share a CD), Inner Release, Shake It Off, Onslaught, Equilibrium, and Infuriate, Holmgang and Vengeance, and Thrill of Battle. That adds 12. That gets us to 22!

What does WHM have? Lillybell, Aquaveil, Temperance, Plenary Indulgence, Divine Benison, Tetragrammaton, Thin Air, Assize, Asylum, Benediction, and Presence of Mind. That adds 11. That gets us to 22...

But...but...maybe Role Actions? Tanks have 7! That gets WAR to 29. Of course, Healers have 6, which puts WHM at 28.

If you REALLY want to, we can count Defiance, but we'd also need to count Raise.

WHM has both equal to or more GCDs and equal to or more oGCDs than WAR does, despite WAR having a 1-2-3 combo plus change. Maybe the reason WAR needs the combo is because if it didn't have it, it would have fewer buttons than any Job in the game? Without the 1-2, WAR would have fewer buttons than WHM...and also a rather similar rotation of a spam filler + a 30 sec upkeep.

Now, I'm comparing WHM and WAR here because they're the closest equivalents. You might bring up PLD at which point I could bring up SCH and AST and we'd see they have a comparable amount of buttons. So the argument is the same.

The issue isn't that Healers need more buttons. It's that they need more common use cases for their other buttons.

(NOTE: I think I'm missing one for WHM here, because my bars have 32 buttons with LB, Sprint, and Mount right now, but I don't have Repose and everything else is full...so WHM has 30 total, I'm just not sure where I'm missing one. Anyway, point still stands: WAR and WHM currently have more or less the same number of buttons.)

You're arguing...

Collectively, you people need to stop telling me what I'm arguing and ask me what I'm arguing. Because despite me explaining it isn't this multiple times, you guys keep collectively trotting out this strawman over and over so you can beat on it some more. What did the scarecrow ever do to you? Can you show me on this doll where the strawman touched you?

...never mind I've argued for WHM to get Aero 3 back as an AOE tool, so I haven't argued against it being re-added anyway!

Especially considering that both old and new players adapted to SB -> Shb changes of AST and Shb -> EW's changes the latter of which I did.

As you all are collectively fond of saying - SB -> ShB changes made Healers easier (the word "braindead" is often used) to play. Adapting to something easier is the opposite of adapting to something harder. This is also not a valid argument for the change you're advocating.

Briefly, I never told anyone to quit.

If you can say that me raising valid points and making level-headed arguments is "throwing a tantrum", then...

...I can say you "told people to quit". Would you like a truce now, an armistice, where we don't each make up biased takes on what the other said and instead stick to asking each other what we mean with our statements? Or do you wish to continue the biased assaults where I, in kind, could say "You told people to quit"?

One can lead to productive discussions, the other will lead to me continuing to ignore and rebuff you.

What I said was, if some doesn't enjoy the way content is structured for healers in this game,

The problem is, people ARE enjoying the game as it is today. Your argument is to change it away from what it is right now (regarding Healer design), and if they don't like it after the change, to quit or only play the MSQ. That's a very different argument. You're presuming they find the current state unacceptable, which they clearly do not. The axiom itself is faulty, therefore you cannot use it to draw further conclusions.

But regardless, I want to mention the "be bad." part for a moment, because I have to ask, why do you think that choosing to play the way you want makes you "bad?"

Oh, I don't.

You all, collectively, do.

I'm distilling what you've said into something that doesn't add yet more text to my "novels". Your collective position is that unless someone is pressing at least 7 buttons (Tanks) in their standard rotation, they are either "bad" or "carried". Bad is fewer letters.

I don't think it's being bad to research a Job that doesn't play a DPS rotation, attempt to optimize what damage I do around the needs of the party (healing), and execute mechanics of a Savage fight. As someone once said, "A gray parse is still a clear - if someone has cleared a Savage fight, they've cleared a Savage fight." This doesn't mean "I shoot for the bare minimum", indeed, I try to do more. I just try to keep my party alive. If that requires GCD healing because some DPS thought the green water in Carby looked drinkable and I'm burning Cure 2s to keep them alive because I'm smart enough to know their DPS is higher than my Glarespam, then so be it. I'm a "team player" and prioritize the success of my team. That's why I like playing Healer and Support roles and not DPS roles where emphasis is on personal contribution.

When I play DPS, I get agitated because I know every mistake I make. It's kind of a curse. So I don't enjoy doing it because - as you say, everyone makes mistakes - when I inevitably make on, I beat myself up over it. My solution is simple: I avoid playing Jobs based on that form of gameplay. Not to mention I rarely make such "mistakes" on Healer since the gameplay is more freeform. A Solace + Cure 2 or Solace + Tetra are achieving the same general goal, and which I use might depend on the situation and the fight, if I have a lot of MP or not, if I expect an incoming attack where I'll need Tetra or not, etc.

Healers are nice in a way since there's seldom an absolute "A right answer" and rather there are often several right answers and you may choose the one you like the best based on the party, fight knowledge, and what you feel of the situation at the time. This strongly contrasts with damage rotations where there is an absolute right answer, "The right answer", and anything else is technically wrong, even if slight. You can argue that with healing, but not really. If I use CD 1 at 30 sec and CD 2 at 60 sec, I could often reverse those and achieve an identical result. I like things which are more freeform and allow creativity without having a definitive "best" answer, which is true of Healing (and to an extent, Tank use of CDs), but not true of DPSing or DPS rotations in most cases.

The only really comparable DPS is probably RDM (the general guideline being not to unbalance your Mana but within that framework, you have some wiggle room on what you choose to cast - the Thunder/Fire opener could be swapped for Aero/Stone and nothing would be lost) or SMN (in the sense that as long as you keep Bahamut/Phoenix timing right, aren't dropping casts, and ideally use Titan in the 2 min burst window, the order of your other 5 Summon uses is up to the player based on their fight knowledge, like avoiding Ifrit if going into a heavy movement phase)

Brain and Heart.

I definitely would have included Brain for you. I figure in this way, we're not dissimilar. If you like the chance and risk elements, though, you may lean a bit more towards Heart in that respect. Again, not saying this as a good or bad thing - I'm not quite sure where I fall, either - more just a curiosity.

Your warrants here rely on a certain point of obsession, though -- the idea that unless you specifically truncate a job (or, keep knee-high, however you want to put it),

"Keep the same" is how I want to put it. And how I've repeatedly put it.

affecting everyone who may like that job for whatever reason

And you want to ruin every job with needless and pointless complexity to keep you slightly more entertained, which will also affect everyone who may like the current iteration of the Job for whatever reason. So in this way, we're both arguing for the same thing. I'm just giving ground/compromising while you are not.

But that's just not the case.

You keep saying this, but I've shown it is the case. No matter how many times you say "No, you're wrong", "No, you're wrong" isn't a counter argument. You have to actually prove that. You saying it isn't proving it.

Alternatively, if not proof, you can present an argument. "No, you're wrong" isn't an argument. It's a statement. And as the statement is contested, it's meaningless to the discussion until such time as it is substantiated with evidence, proof, or argument.

As I noted, unless the difference is trivial, it will be the case. And if the difference is trivial, you will complain about the difference not being great enough for your enjoyment. I've said this several times and you haven't disproven it at any point, you just keep saying it isn't so. A few times you've even admitted it's true, saying that people who can't up their game will be gatekept out of content and don't deserve to clear that content. You, of course, used this to leverage a personal attack against me (wanting to be carried) instead of admitting that it makes me right.

Second, why should the game have to pander, let alone at broader expense to others in balance, to someone wanting to take the easy way out in competitive group content?

Because that is the way the game is right now.

That is the status quo.

You are arguing for a change from the status quo and acting like your proposed change takes precedence. It does not. The status quo takes precedence. A change has to be argued for, not assumed as the default. And if a change causes harm to people, you must explain why that harm is good or modify your proposed change to minimize that harm.

...which is, ironically, what I did. I modified your proposed change to minimize that harm. Which is why my proposition is the compromise position. I took your position and made a compromise between it and the status quo which minimizes harm.

You want something that you can easily sub into Savage groups with without needing to particularly know or practice your job?

No.

You can keep saying this personal attack over and over again, and I will keep telling you you're lying.

You guys collectively think Tanks are harder than healers. As I pointed out, my first Savage clears were on GNB. Not only a Tank, but a Tank that isn't WAR. Clearly I didn't "want something easy". I did something that by your own (collective) admission is harder than healers. So clearly, I'm not averse to "harder" things. I just don't like certain types of gameplay (heavy focus on damage rotation), which is why even when I do "harder" things I avoid DPS Jobs. Tanks do damage rotations, but my focus as a Tank is on maneuvering the boss, executing mechanics, and properly using CDs on myself, the other Tank, often Healers to keep them alive, and Tank swaps. The rotation is vestigial. If it was one button or 10, it would be irrelevant as long as I could maintain threat, maneuver the boss, survive hits, protect the party, and support the other Tank when OT.

Clearly I'm not into "carries" or "easy" because I play things that aren't, by your definition, being carried or that are easy.

...for you. ...that you don't... ...just so that you don't...

vs

...why should the game prune away or cap the excess of tools that others would enjoy...

You keep doing this.

It's not for me. It's for the 20-80% - some number, but it likely falls in there somewhere - of players who all prefer playing like I do to playing like you do. For the, oh, 250,000-1,000,000 or so people that play the game that don't like the healing gameplay you propose (out of a healer community of around 1,250,000, that's 20-80%). Don't get caught on the number, I think we're all mature enough to realize at least 1/5th of the playerbase probably likes playing simple. The Lucky Bancho numbers also support that. So if you attack that, that'll be you trying to avoid admitting reality.

If 1/5th (at a minimum) and probably higher (likely 50-60%, but I'm talking floor) think like I do, then 1 out of 5 Jobs being built for them makes a lot of sense and would be healthier for the game.

To the second: You're literally proposing this same thing in reverse.

I could just as easily ask: "why should the game remove simplicity and effectiveness of tools that others would enjoy just so that you don't have to see it?"

Moreover if expectations were so tight as to require every player to well engage with every tool at their disposal, you do realize also that any job which can hit the same peaks more reliably and with less effort would start becoming obligatory, no?

No, it wouldn't.

And I've even told you this before in a prior post, I believe.

We've seen from the game's past that people often play more complex Jobs because they enjoy them. They are rarely blackballed due to complexity if the player is actually capable in them. BLMs aren't blackballed despite being harder than SMN and RDM. Fewer people play them because the Job is more complex, but a competent BLM is seen as a more flexible SAM and they are able to clear content.

AND, if you think this WOULD happen, all that proves is that people don't want complex Jobs in their groups and the game, which is an argument against making Jobs more complex, isn't it?

If the situation is tight enough that you'd be harassed into engaging with more than you like, so too would players be harassed into picking easier, less "egotistic" picks.

So why is the first acceptable to you and the second not?

Is it because you want the second and want everyone forced into doing it so you can be satisfied, regardless of if other people are miserable?

Surely not...

If this happens, all it will prove is that people want Jobs in the game to be simple and more reliable, not more complex and with high skill ceilings. And if that's what the playerbase wants, what is the argument against giving the paying customers what they're asking for? If democracy has spoke and said it wants simpler Jobs - which is what your above argument implies - then isn't that what the game should provide us? Why should it give us what only the minority wants?

Your argument is akin to the "bring back Classic WoW attunements/Everquest grinds!" people. It's that you want something that you don't think the majority would do unless forced to, so you want the game designed to force everyone to do it so you can be satisfied. But the implication is that you are saying the majority doesn't want it.

If the majority wanted complex Jobs, then they wouldn't blacklist people playing complex Jobs in favor of the simpler ones. They would only do that if the majority wanted simpler Jobs.

The hardcores have very little to optimize, the casuals have no room to grow, and the 'healers should only heal' crowd STILL refuses to press their damage buttons, even though there's so few left.

At this point they could make it so that when you use a heal spell, 50% of the potency of that heal is done as damage in an AOE around the recipient, and some players would stop healing people who are too close to the mob, in case it does damage to the enemy. I've even seen some run out to Assize, so it hits people but not enemies, that's how much they don't want to do damage. Like 0DPS is an accomplishment of its own. Which, it is I guess, but not one you proudly brag about.

I would love to see video proof of this.

I haven't seen a 0 damage healer since ARR. I'm curious where all these people running away from the party to Assize are. I'm not saying NONE exist, but it has to be a trivially small number. Did an FC run of the 24 man last night and one of the tanks would chase people when he got the tankbuster while laughing in voice chat. That doesn't mean that's how he plays actual content or how he would behave if not in a friend group having fun.

As much as some of you rail against 0 DPS healers, I'm curious what percentage of the actual player base they are. Is it even 1%, do you think? Does it get to the double digits? Do you have videos of these people running away from enemies so they don't accidentally damage them? Because I find it dubious someone would do more work to avoid hitting an enemy with Assize of all things. That one is a bit too much to accept on face value as anything more than an FC person messing around...

[ty_taurus]

If you can say that me raising valid points and making level-headed arguments is "throwing a tantrum"

On the arguments of behavior, it has little to do with either party's stance on the topic of healer gameplay and everything to do with how your responses to people come across. It quite frankly comes across as arrogant and inflammatory. You may not see it that way, nor may you intend your comments to come across that way, but every response feels like you are yelling your stance at us. When I exacerbate how you have communicated past statements, the goal is not to defame you, but to try and show you how your responses are being received in hopes that you understand how your comments are coming across. We're talking about what "tantrum" means in this regard.

When you respond, you post these very lengthy posts that are angry and loud and visceral and dedicate paragraphs to defensively lashing back at comments you thing are meant to harm you. In all seriousness, does that not sound like a "tantrum" to you? Dictionary.com defines a tantrum as: "a violent demonstration of rage or frustration; a sudden burst of ill temper." I'm going to take a paragraph from one of your responses to mine and tweak it to swap our stances on the topic of healer gameplay, and I just want to know, truthfully, do you think this is a reasonable and good faith way of communicating my stance? Because I'm using your words and tone to do so.

(This last one is the most absurd one - I'm willing to let 100% of healers still put out enough damage to clear content simply by button spamming! That's a hell of a lot more than an inch. Meanwhile, what are you willing to yield here? What are you proposing yielding to me and those like me? Literally nothing for WHM other than people who don't like it should abandon their favorite job. When you aren't outright telling them they should go play DPS instead, that is. You do recall you did that earlier in this discussion, do you not? How you could even type that seriously is beyond me. If I was "unwilling to yield an inch", I'd be arguing that ALL Healer rotations would be required to clear ALL forms of content. Which is not at all what I've done. That is what "unwilling to yield an inch" looks like. Willing to have filler buttons contribute most of your DPS is not only willing to yield an inch, it's offering you a compromise that is more than fair and more than tilted to your benefit. That statement of yours is absurd to the point of farce by even a cursory examination of this discussion and our expressed viewpoints, as well as highly hypocritical, given your own unyielding position and statements. If you meant it legitimately, you need to reexamine your entire understanding of this discussion.)

Does that truly seem rational and reasonable to you? Because if I had said that genuinely, I can only imagine how livid you would be. But if I'm wrong, and you think that's entirely reasonable, then let me know.

The problem is, people ARE enjoying the game as it is today. Your argument is to change it away from what it is right now (regarding Healer design), and if they don't like it after the change, to quit or only play the MSQ. That's a very different argument. You're presuming they find the current state unacceptable, which they clearly do not. The axiom itself is faulty, therefore you cannot use it to draw further conclusions.

A point I had made before is the majority of players who are content with the healers as they are today will be continue with healers if they were given engaging consistent gameplay. We know this because the majority of players were content with healers in the past, like with SB and HW. As I have said before, most people will tolerate nearly anything until the point of legitimately making something unplayable. Allowing each healer to have a more dynamic gameplay loop regardless of whether they're going through MSQ instances, dungeons, treasure maps, savage raids, criterion dungeons, or whatever can only benefit the game. Those who don't like it aren't required to engage with those extra actions anymore than a Monk is required to engage with Mantra and Feint, or anymore than a Paladin is required to engage with Interject or Clemency. As I've also stated many times that I'd see one of the healers reworked such that their consistent rotation can be filtered through other players, creating the feeling of a support-focused playstyle so that this category of players have something that can attempt to cater to their wants in a way that's superior to what we have now--cutting a major portion of your time spent attacking the enemy and redirecting that into setting up buffs for future use on your teammates while generating DPS passively.

[Shurrikhan]

Well, various MMO have challenge for healers without requiring them to deal damage. Its just a different game design. That'S is why I have made a separate point for damage dealing then healing. You can have dmg dealing healer that are brain dead easy (FF online outside of raid progression) and healer with zero damage dealth that requiert skills to keep everyones alive wich probably represent the majority of MMO.

You can, but then it means that the difference between skill floor (the minimum engagement required for the minimum output to clear a fight) and skill ceiling is something the whole party feels very directly.

When a healer in current XIV falls short, the boss dies slower. When a healer in those games fall short, the whole party wipes, repeatedly.

That's not an inherently bad thing, but it does mean either an imbalance in responsibility (which would likely lead to healers being quite the bottleneck to forming groups) or a generally more difficult / less accessible game.

Past a certain threshold where it'd detract from the whole point of challenging content, accessibility isn't something worth sacrifice elsewhere... but even then, letting points of failure have a tremendously disproportionate impact on the group is usually a poorer balance of challenge and accessibility (much like a random target mechanic that must be handled directly to not directly wipe the group with no chance of compensation or outplay by the rest). If the tanks and DPS are given yet more versatility for outplay potential, then it's not so bad, but by then we're talking three big role shifts, rather than just the one.

Brief Extension:
What you can't typically have, though, is both rDPS (damage+buffs combined) healers and no-rDPS-healers in the same game, if that game allows you to gradually outgear fights. Even if the heal checks start off high enough to demand a no-rDPS healer or two initially, they rapidly get locked out of fights as performance improves. And if they're not that high anyways, you end up taking on more risk (of wipe to enrage) by taking that excess healing anyways, in which case they're just always locked out instead of trading places with gear in a given tier.

[ty_taurus]

Honestly, at this point, let's just do it. We go through with the philosophy that WHM remains largely unchanged, and the other three healers are all reworked to have more engaging rotations and a more balanced disparity between offensive, recovery, and supportive actions. Meanwhile, here's my proposition for WHM:

LV 92: Glare IV - Potency is 330
LV 92: Enhanced Afflatus Misery - TRAIT - Afflatus Misery potency increases to 1320
LV 92: Dia II - Initial Potency is 70; damage over time is 70
LV 94: Purification - Usable while Asylum is in effect and replaces Asylum on the hotbar. 300 potency OGCD heal to all allies standing in your Asylum.
LV 96: Budding Afflatus - Adds 1 lily to your healing gauge. OGCD action on a 90 second cooldown.
LV 98: Enhanced Tetragrammaton - TRAIT - Increases the potency of Tetragrammaton to 900.
LV 100: Afflatus Conservation - GCD action that applies a 250 potency barrier to self and all nearby allies. Consumes 1 lily, nourishes the blood lily, and has a cooldown of 90 seconds.

Nothing else changes. We leave WHM at that, rework and revamp the other three to where their gameplay is varied, not unlike the tanks in terms of depth, and each offer some type of unique utility, and we just see what happens.

[glamazon]

Good healers are always going to have some down time. Stop ignoring that part of our gameplay, acknowledge that it exists, and give us something to do when we have it.

This. Here. Is the issue. Give all the healers the robust dps kits to use if they have downtime. If that particular player doesn't have downtime then they can focus on healing. If the green dps is necessary to complete the content then that player is simply not skilled enough and that's ok. I'm not a professional gamer. I don't white to the league of legend devs that so and so champion is too hard. No, it's just beyond my skill level and i'll play something else. That's fine. We all can't play in the NFL. Some people are just better. Giving all the healers a robust dps kit or buffing kit or debuffing kit or mix of all three can accomplish the same thing.

This way healers who feel bored have something to do to contribute and the healers who for whatever reason can't keep up with the healing and dps don't have to. Right?

[Conchoidal]

How many GCDs does WHM have theoretically used in single-target fights?
Cure 1, Cure 2, Cure 3, Regen, Medica, Medica 2, Afflatus Solace, Afflatus Rapture, Misery, Glare, and Dia. That's 11 GCDs. What's this? WHM has more GCDs than WAR does for single target fights? You can argue you don't often need to use them, but that doesn't remove them from existing. That would be like arguing Tomahawk is like Cure 1, rarely used so not counting.

Cure and Medica are made mostly irrelevant once you learn their more powerful versions (Cure II and Medica II respectively, and later Afflatus Solace and Rapture), and Cure III is a niche spell (which many players don't even use due to its high MP cost and lack of actual MP management prior to Thin Air), so you can't really lump them all together to imply that we use them all equally at level 90 - healers are really some of the only jobs (along with BLM, SMN, and MNK) which have redundant abilities on their hotbars.

Also in solo content (which is apparently one of the main selling points of this game) there's no reason to use any of these except the occasional Cure II/Solace so you are stuck with spamming Stone/Glare/etc and reapplying Aero/Dia. It's not fun.

The issue isn't that Healers need more buttons. It's that they need more common use cases for their other buttons.

SE have no intentions of increasing healing requirements, which would be the only scenario in which spells like Cure and Medica are actually used past level 50. It's far more reasonable that they upgrade these spells (e.g. to Afflatus spells) and clear hotbar space for more DPS spells - there's no reason why Holy should be the only AoE spell WHM's have. I really can't see how anyone would dislike having more things to do/more ways to deal damage when levelling or in current content.

[ASkellington]

snip

First of all you didn't read my argument properly. At all.

The point I was making was that from SB to Shb AST changed people adapted. It doesn't matter if its easier or harder. That was never my point.

The other point you completely missed was not about the amount of buttons a class has. I never brought that up.

What I'm saying is that your argument for keeping WHM to having a 1 2 vs the other 3 healers getting an extra 3 4 is this:

7.0 all tanks have their extra dps removed. They're nothing but a 1-2-3. No Fell Cleave. No Gnashing Fang. No Requiescat. No Edge of Shadow etc.

Tanks complain. SE doesn't listen and refuses to change in 8.0.

Using WAR as a comparison to WHM your argument would be that PLD, GNB, and DRK would get some their dps back if not all of it, but WAR would NOT receive Fell Cleave underneath the argument that because people have been used to a 1-2-3 combo for 2 expansions and should keep it because and I'll quote:

Right now, they know how to play their class and are able to clear content and enjoy doing so.

You wish to change their class so they no longer know their class and can no longer clear content unless they also abandon the gameplay they prefer for one you prefer.

That is your argument for healers and WHM.

And honestly, "keeping this play style" is in bad faith regardless. Why? Because SE changed all healers to this. WHM didn't have a 1-2 playstyle in SB. There for, it shouldn't even be the one to keep it.

[Shurrikhan]

Honestly, at this point, let's just do it. We go through with the philosophy that WHM remains largely unchanged, and the other three healers are all reworked to have more engaging rotations and a more balanced disparity between offensive, recovery, and supportive actions. Meanwhile, here's my proposition for WHM:

I really like WHM and would rather not see it stuck at the same state it is now, but... okay. If it at least allows us to discuss improvements to AST, SCH, and SGE. (Still working on ideas for those, though, as WHM was the one that came most readily to mind for such changes.)

That being said, I do think WHM would at least have to participate in whatever larger changes we may want to make to, say, the MP economy (as not to have GCD healing go largely to waste / make the kit more intuitive / not just have MP function as a wonky rez charge meter). Granted, that'll probably be as simple as a general change to MP and adding MP costs to healing oGCDs.

[ty_taurus]

I really like WHM and would rather not see it stuck at the same state it is now, but... okay. If it at least allows us to discuss improvements to AST, SCH, and SGE. (Still working on ideas for those, though, as WHM was the one that came most readily to mind for such changes.)

That being said, I do think WHM would at least have to participate in whatever larger changes we may want to make to, say, the MP economy (as not to have GCD healing go largely to waste / make the kit more intuitive / not just have MP function as a wonky rez charge meter). Granted, that'll probably be as simple as a general change to MP and adding MP costs to healing oGCDs.

I don't disagree with you at all, but you know what, maybe we need this and for WHM to crash and burn in order to shock the devs into reality. Or maybe none of us know what we're talking about and it'll be the hottest thing since sliced bread. Trial by fire.