The Problem with Healer Feedback, and requested changes

[Shurrikhan]

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.

Fair enough, haha.


Edit / a final little note:

If we didn't want to go so far with MP changes to make Cure/Physick/Benefic (or any MP-efficient GCD variant) ever worth casting anyways... perhaps a small degree of consolidation would be not only useful for button efficiency, but also for distinguishing jobs. We up the initial strength and MP cost of Cure/Physic/etc., and take the long-held suggestion of just upgrading them directly... and then take that a bit further.

Consider, for instance, if Medica was simply upgraded to duplicate every existing Regen onto your most wounded allies and could be charged by Cure II (a direct upgrade/replacement to/for Cure) to apply further healing in a small area around the target. Voila, you've got more interaction possible, and the generically identical spell is no longer generically identical. Etc., etc., for each of the jobs to more necessarily and integrally leverage their unique features, rather than having "opt out (of our uniqueness)" buttons on each.

Just some food for thought.

[Renathras]

...everything to do with how your responses to people come across.

To you.

Came across to you.

Your statement came across to me as you saying people should quit. That means it's fair, by your logic here, for me to say you told people to quit the game.

See how that works?

I have to make lengthy posts because you make so many charges and accusations, I have to address them all. If you'd make arguments for your proposals and not personal attacks, then I could merely address your arguments directly. As it is, I have to spend my time defending my character from your assaults. Or leaven them unchallenged other than to say "I'm not taking your bait this time".

arrogant and inflammatory

Your posts have come across to me as arrogant and inflammatory. Does that make them so?

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.

And every response feels like you are yelling your stance at me.

Funny how when we rely on subjective things like "seems" or "feels", we can make up disparaging things about people that aren't true...

When I exacerbate how you have communicated past statements,

You didn't, though.

you exacerbated how you felt my past statements, which you disagree with and don't like, came across to you, even as you admit that in your appraisal I likely did not intend them that way. Text is text. It's not "angry" or "yelling". Those are perceptions you're making because a part of you wants to believe it's true rather than that you're contesting a person being rational and reasonable. Because if it's the latter, you'd have to admit I might have some points and that you should listen to them. If you instead tell yourself it's the former, that gives your mind carte blanch to ignore my arguments and attack me instead.

And yes, when you're attacking my posting style instead of the content of said posts, that is still an ad hominem fallacy. It is still an attempt to avoid the points raised by instead addressing the manner they are being raised in and the person they are being raised by. Note in your post here, you aren't actually addressing any of my points. You're not making counter arguments. You're derailing the thread.

All so you can accuse me of making "very length" and "angry" and "loud" and "visceral" posts.

But we'll get to that...

the goal is not to defame you, but to try and show you how your responses are being received

No, it's not.

Because I have been really patient and shown a lot of forbearance. There are, what, 3-5 of you in this thread attacking me. Some of you are addressing my arguments. Many of you are not. Either way, I'm responding to multiple people. People who are each making long posts. You think your posts aren't lengthy? And I try to address each point and do so thoroughly so I don't get replies of "But what about THIS thing you didn't mention?!" by mentioning and explaining those things.

I've been cordial, despite being insulted, I've tried to avoid telling you guys what you think or putting words in your mouth, despite you all doing so to me multiple times. I'm the calm, quiet, rational one here being yelled at by you folks.

The worst part is:

in hopes that you understand how your comments are coming across. We're talking about what "tantrum" means in this regard.

...because you don't want to entertain my idea or arguments, there is literally no way I can say it you won't attack.

If I'm not thorough, you'll insist I didn't prove my point.

If I am, you'll insist I'm making lengthy posts.

If I don't respond to your personal attacks, you make more.

If I do, you insist I'm angry.

There's literally no winning with you because you want me to be wrong. You want it so badly, any way I present my argument you will find fault with. And you'll attack that presentation - as you have - to avoid the arguments you cannot overcome or don't like my answers to. The very fallacy of attack on the person/message format rather than the arguments presented.

If you didn't do that, I wouldn't need to make lengthy posts, I wouldn't need to respond to accusations, nor would I need to point out the accusations and make posts here and there attempting to avoid going into them because unlike you, I don't want to psychoanalize my opposition, belittle them, and derail the thread so they can be accused of being the ones derailing the thread.

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

Okay, how are my posts "angry"?

How are my posts "loud"?

You realize text cannot be loud, right?

How are my posts "visceral"?

Those are a lot of subjective words, some of which literally cannot apply to text.

I'm also not "lashing back". I'm "countering". As one does in a discussion, debate, or argument. When someone insults you unfairly, it's acceptable to say they're wrong and why they're wrong. Whey I said you told people to quit the game, was it "lashing back" for you to say "No, I didn't say that, here's what I meant when I said what you thought was that"?

Of course it's not. Yet you seek to deny me the same privilege and, in fact, use it as another attack against me. "lashing back" is not you saying "offering an objective and levelheaded rebuttal to an accusation levied". When you say someone is "lashing", that means you think they're acting in an irrational and emotional manner, losing control of their emotions and responding immaturely. That's an insult, not an objective appraisal.

In fact, you continue to use subjective, highly charged words to describe my posts. At this point, I can only conclude you're doing so intentionally since you've seen from several posts I interpret them as insults (and they are, objectively, insults, mind you), yet instead of going "Oh, maybe I shouldn't use that kind of language..." you double and triple down on it as you make more and more posts addressing me instead of my arguments and derailing the thread further and further if I reply to you.

And if I don't, you keep replying to me anyway to goad me into it until I do.

In all seriousness, does that not sound like a "tantrum" to you?

It might if it were true.

It's not true, thus it's not a tantrum.

You are calling my reasoned and rational rebuttals tantrums. That's you attacking my character, whether you want to pretend you aren't or not.

(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.)

There are several problems here. Allow me to explain:

1) You aren't willing to let healers put out enough damage to clear content. Collectively - and I believe individually in your case - you folks have argued these people not be able to clear Savages (or to some of you, Extremes) with the 1 button spam.

2) That's not a lot more than an inch. Even the most "accommodating" of you have argued that 1 button spammers should barely be able to clear content if they're even allowed to.

3) What am I willing to yield is three entire Jobs. Note you say "nothing for WHM", which is a lie of omission. "nothing for WHM" means "everything for SCH, AST, and SGE", which is a lot.

4) "should abandon their favorite job" is hardly a counter when your position is "should abandon their favorite role, and possibly the game".

5) Note that I haven't outright told anyone they should go play DPS instead. This is also not a parity, as I haven't done so. Indeed, it would be me telling them they should play SCH, dAST, nAST, or SGE instead. Which is VERY accommodating position.

6) No, I didn't do that earlier in this discussion. Find and quote me doing so. I've very explicitly refrained from doing so. Indeed, offering you 3 healing Jobs, one of which would have two healing specs, is very much the opposite of insisting you play DPS instead.

7) No, that wouldn't be you "unwilling to yield an inch", since your base position was that this would only matter in Savage and Extremes. But, by all means, propose if you will that the rotations be required in MSQ content. I'm sure Yoshi P will listen.

8) "willing to let you barely clear content and call you bad for doing so" is not yielding an inch, no. To yield an inch requires you to come off of your initial proposal or move your proposal towards the counter proposal. Neither of these are happening in this case.

9) It's certainly not "more than fair and more than tilted to your benfit" since it leaves me with nothing that I want. My proposal leaves you with 3 Jobs that you want. Your proposal leaves me with 0 Jobs that I want and a playstyle that can only get through content if carried.

10) Given my position has been very yielding, you can't say that it's hypocritical on my part.

...in other words, reversing that statement doesn't work, and includes you outright lying on several points to even do so.

Does that truly seem rational and reasonable to you?

If you didn't lie about several of the points, it would have. It doesn't work because your argument is more extreme than mine is. Here's what you should have said:

"This last one is the most absurd one - I'm willing to let 100% of healers still put out enough damage to barely clear content if they have a group carrying them simply by button spamming! That's a not much more than an inch. Meanwhile, what are you willing to yield here? What are you proposing yielding to me and those like me? Literally all of three entire Healing Jobs and the general role of healing taking nothing but WHM for yourself, and both yourself and those like you abandoning their favorite jobs of SCH, AST, and SGE so that me and people like me can enjoy them instead. Graciously, you aren't outright telling them they should go play DPS instead, and are encouraging and accommodating them to play three fun and enjoyable Healer Jobs, changed to their liking. You have been very kind and have not ever insisted they play DPS instead at any point in this discussion. How you could even type that seriously is thus completely understandable. If I was "unwilling to yield an inch", I'd be arguing that ALL Healers to be given complex rotations. Which is what I've done. (Oh, wait...that DOES mean I'm unwilling to yield an inch, doesn't it?) That is what "unwilling to yield an inch" looks like. Willing to have non-complex Jobs in the role is not only willing to yield an inch, it's something I refuse to offer you. By not even giving you one Job you can enjoy, I'm not offering you a compromise that is more than fair and more than tilted to your benefit. That statement of yours is completely understandable to the point of reasonable by even a cursory examination of this discussion and our expressed viewpoints, as well as highly consistent, given your own yielding position and statements. If you meant it legitimately, you have thoroughly examined your entire understanding of this discussion."

That would be the correct reflection of that statement from your side, and yes, that would seem truly rational and reasonable and I wouldn't be livid at all.

.

Even with you lying in your presentation, I'm not "livid". I'm frustrated and disappointed you chose to lie, and I'm rationally countering the lies and how you've incorrectly interpreted a "mirror" of that statement, and doing so point by point with a neutral tone.

In other words, I'm the exact opposite of livid.

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.

While I agree many people would just put up with it, that doesn't mean they'd be happy. Moreover, this isn't an argument in favor of your proposition: The counter is equally true. The majority of players content with healers today would continue to be content if we got more of the same. Since this argument supports both propositions, it cannot be used as a point in favor of yours.

We know this because the majority of players were content with healers in the past, like with SB and HW.

...when one healer (WHM) was simple compared to the others (SCH/AST), which is literally what I am proposing and you are opposing. Keep in mind that players had an "out" if they didn't want the complex Healer Job then. You are proposing to strip them of that out. If people didn't like how complex SCH or AST were, they played WHM. This is literally the very thing I'm arguing for.

You just provided an argument in favor of my position and opposed to your own.

As I have said before, most people will tolerate nearly anything until the point of legitimately making something unplayable.

Agreed to a point. But only to a point. SCH in ShB was not unplayable, yet many people quit healing after the ShB change.

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.

No, it can also harm the game. There's no argument presented to date that it will be a net benefit to the game, and none that it won't harm some players. The insistence it won't do so is neither evidence nor an argument. Someone could just as easily say "it can only harm the game" and have just as much weight as you saying it can only benefit it.

Moreover, nothing here says that it can only benefit the game but only if it's all Healer Jobs.

Why CAN'T one be left simple?

What's the actual argument against leaving one simple?

"Some people will be upset" - doesn't work because "some people will be upset" if they are all changed.

"Some people will have to change from their favorite job" - doesn't work because "some people will have to change from their favorite job (and role)" if they are all changed.

"Raids will blacklist the complex jobs" - doesn't work because that implies the playerbase majority doesn't want complex Jobs, making this an argument against the change. Further, with a 2 Healer party size punishing duplicates, at least one spot will always go to a complex Job.

"It isn't fair" - doesn't work because "it isn't fair" applies equally to if they are all changed.

.

There's not yet been presented an argument - by you guys - for why we can't change three but leave one alone that doesn't equally apply to changing all four. Indeed, some of the arguments you guys have made - specifically groups picking the simpler Jobs - is an outright argument against making them more complex since it suggest the playerbase, when given a choice in the matter, doesn't want more complex Jobs. A choice you are attempting to rob them of and force complex Jobs onto them and their groups against their will.

.

The great irony here is, if you actually wanted a reasonable discussion and to hammer out a true compromise, I'm probably one of the people you could best do this with if you actually wanted to.

The problem is, collectively, you all don't want to. And you specifically are trying to make your derailing and attacking posts seem aloof and neutral, but are betrayed by your own use of subjective and emotionally charged words in the attempt. If you spent less time on attacking my posting style and personality, we could actually have a meaningful discussion. I'm guessing you don't want one, given your continued attempts at derailing the thread, though.

[ASkellington]

Why CAN'T one be left simple?

What's the actual argument against leaving one simple?

"Some people will be upset" - doesn't work because "some people will be upset" if they are all changed.

"Some people will have to change from their favorite job" - doesn't work because "some people will have to change from their favorite job (and role)" if they are all changed.

"Raids will blacklist the complex jobs" - doesn't work because that implies the playerbase majority doesn't want complex Jobs, making this an argument against the change. Further, with a 2 Healer party size punishing duplicates, at least one spot will always go to a complex Job.

"It isn't fair" - doesn't work because "it isn't fair" applies equally to if they are all changed.



There's not yet been presented an argument - by you guys - for why we can't change three but leave one alone that doesn't equally apply to changing all four..

We already had. YEARS AGO.

Because your definition of simple = shallow. That's why. A class can be simple and have depth: DNC. BRD. Both of them are very easy classes for people to get into and yet still can have some depth to them if you want to optimize. Especially dancer.

Tell ME why WHM can not also be simple and have depth? And tell me why the depth cannot be in the DPS kit so the healing portion can STAY simple fulfilling WHM's position as the barrier to entry healer?

And I have gone ad nausem how objectively healers are poorly designed in a game that promotes solo content. We have instances where we have to play our class and essentially be a dps. Healers have 2 buttons and nuke and a dot that they spam for the vast majority of them because they don't get much anything else in 86.

Affalus misery and Toxicon? Requires you to spend 3 lilies first or use a GCD shield.

Assize, Macrocosmos, ES, Phlegma? On 40-60s CDs. You are spamming 1 button for majority of that content. Not even BARD does that.

The expansive healing tool kit we have means NOTHING in solo content, and you can't even say that it isn't the target of the game because the devs themselves want to promote that sort of gameplay. For middle of the road healers or veterans? That's pretty much how most content plays. Literally like a solo instance.

So. If the devs want to make this game more solo friendly, why should 1 class be the sole one in the entire game that gets to have a boring gameplay loop for 86 levels and potentially beyond?

[ty_taurus]

To you.

Came across to you.

Believe it or not, I've been trying to communicate in an effort to be nice to you--to help shed light as to why you seem to clash iron with everyone in the room so that you can have more cordial interactions with everyone regardless of what side of the argument you stand on. I will say that my posts are the ones receiving likes and yours aren't, so clearly my talk of receiving your posts as angry and visceral is resonating with the others who've been following the thread and it's actually not just me. I realize it's not always nice to hear people calling out behavior, but I've not belittled you for it. Like when you tell someone they have food in their teeth, it's to alert them to it, not humiliate them. But there's clearly a language barrier here and everything is being contorted into noxious hatred, so I just don't see a point in trying to help any further. All of it is going to be interpreted as a hateful attack anyway.

[IDontPetLalas]

[hb]To you.

Came across to you.

Your statement came across to me as you saying people should quit. That means it's fair, by your logic here, for me to say you told people to quit the game.

See how that works?

*OK big snip here*

The great irony here is, if you actually wanted a reasonable discussion and to hammer out a true compromise, I'm probably one of the people you could best do this with if you actually wanted to.

The problem is, collectively, you all don't want to. And you specifically are trying to make your derailing and attacking posts seem aloof and neutral, but are betrayed by your own use of subjective and emotionally charged words in the attempt. If you spent less time on attacking my posting style and personality, we could actually have a meaningful discussion. I'm guessing you don't want one, given your continued attempts at derailing the thread, though.

Here's a thought- try to post without praising yourself, accusing others of not discussing in good faith, make inflammatory statements that derail from the topic at hand in attempts to discredit the other posts.

Because although some posts may have touched (just barely) on ground that could be seen as emotional, I do feel that the vast majority have not been in the form of personal attacks, nor have they shown anything but a fair amount of patience with what I would consider fairly lengthy and (sometimes) repetitive posts.

So what you interpret as "derailing" is rather more disagreement, the real irony is that if you read the last couple of posts there are some that are debating about including some of the ideas that you proposed, perhaps not exactly as you want them, but that is probably closer than their initial positions.

[Shurrikhan]

The great irony here is, if you actually wanted a reasonable discussion and to hammer out a true compromise, I'm probably one of the people you could best do this with if you actually wanted to.

The problem is, collectively, you all don't want to. And you specifically are trying to make your derailing and attacking posts seem aloof and neutral, but are betrayed by your own use of subjective and emotionally charged words in the attempt. If you spent less time on attacking my posting style and personality, we could actually have a meaningful discussion. I'm guessing you don't want one, given your continued attempts at derailing the thread, though.

If the thread has divided somehow into solely the two camps of "Renathras" and "those (aggressive derailers who only seem neutral [to others, not wise old Renathras]) who are against Renathras," there's a fixture in that categorization you really ought to consider.

Taurus has seemed to me, and seemingly to many others here, damn near saintly levels of reasonable. I don't know how he does it, but it does not look like he's just out to get you. And if you're likewise finding most others at odds with your position, chances are it's less likely to be some cabal raised against you, specifically, than just something undesirable about your position and/or how you've been framing it.

What's the actual argument against leaving one simple?

There are 4 playgrounds. All include a cardboard box and 3 square meters of space. 3 of them additionally have various assortments of jungle gym, different sizes and shapes of fields, basketball, volleyball, or tennis court, and several other activities. The last has... just the box. You're happy with just that box, but you also have no other options, while every other job could always retreat to said box if they like.

Given that, does the having the option to play in the playground with just the box offer more diversity than if that playground had its own unique spins on those many areas for variously structured play?

"Some people will have to change from their favorite job" - doesn't work because "some people will have to change from their favorite job (and role)" if they are all changed.

Which is exactly what the simplifications up to this point have done to so many previously long-time healers. You're arguing to stop changes here just because it's the state you happen to most like, but any sort of weight that state has... already came from telling those who preferred things as they were before (e.g., in Stormblood) to piss off. It is, itself, a result of unpopular changes, while the suggestions being made are far more in-line with the sort of "best of" past gameplay flows and features.

Except here's the difference: Simplifications reduce what's available far, far more than they reduce what's expected (hell, the portion expectations increased relative to what healers can put out, rather than decreasing), just as expansions increase what's available far, far more than what performance people are actually expected to put out. No one has been asking for healer's relative rDPS to be squished down to these new means of performance.

Indeed, some of the arguments you guys have made - specifically groups picking the simpler Jobs - is an outright argument against making them more complex since it suggest the playerbase, when given a choice in the matter, doesn't want more complex Jobs.

You realize that claim was conditional to your own premise, no?

If, as you claimed, a job designed to be simpler (i.e., to have a lower ceiling of effort, knowledge, coordination, risk, etc.) would be forced out of play over having not quite the same maximum performance as its competing jobs --or otherwise missing at least some potential advantage the other grants-- when both are handled by players at a top-tier level with each of those jobs, then so would a job that is balanced to have the same ceiling of value despite requiring less effort, knowledge, coordination, or risk then be forced upon anyone below that top-tier level. That severity can only work both ways.

[Renathras]

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.

Honestly, that sounds all right.

No, it's just beyond my skill level and i'll play something else.

Which is why the best solution is to leave WHM as it is (for the "something else" people can go play), SCH its SB kit back, AST its SB/HW kit back, and SGE...I dunno, make it play like RDM without the melee phase.

Cure and Medica are made mostly irrelevant once you learn their more powerful versions

So are Tomahawk and honestly Maim and Heavy Swing which are only pressed because Storm's Eye/Path don't work without them. They're Glare/Dia with extra steps.

Cure III actually gets use in high end content pushing, single healer runs, and organize groups. It's considered one of the most powerful healing tools in the game.

to imply that we use them all equally at level 90

One doesn't imply something when they explicitly say it's not true. I noted that there's no perfect parity and that many are not used. But that's also true of WAR. For WAR's single target rotation, they don't use any of their AOE buttons. If WAR is Off-Tanking, they don't use most of their mitigation buttons. An OT WAR will use 1-2-3/4, Infuriate, Inner Release, Fell Cleave, Primal Rend, Upheaval, and probably Nascent Flash and Shake It Off/Reprisal (rarely). WHM will use Glare and Dia, of course, but also Solace, Rapture, Misery, Assize, Asylum, Temperance, Divine Benison, Tetra, Bene, Lilybell, Presence of Mind, Aquaveil, Plenary Indulgence, Swiftcast, Lucid, and Thin Air, and occasionally Medica 2 or Regen (for bleed heavy fights)

...that's a WHM not using any of their hardcast GCD heals. That's 20 buttons for WHM vs 12 for WAR. WAR has several buttons change to others based on context, and more of their buttons are GCDs. That's the difference.

If things like Assize, Asylum, Temperance, and so on were GCDs, then we'd have a closer parity. There'd be less Glare spam because you'd have to burn those GCDs on actual healing and defensive actions.

...and people would hate it. Thus we get Glarespam instead.

healers are really some of the only jobs (along with BLM, SMN, and MNK) which have redundant abilities on their hotbars.

Shield Bash, arguably Clemency (in high end raider forums), most AOE buttons (not used in Extremes/Savages)...I dunno, probably more than just Healers.

SE have no intentions of increasing healing requirements,

They literally just did this in the most recent raid tier. I don't think "have no intentions" is a statement of fact when it's been so recently disproven.

Going FORWARD, they may not do it again because of how much the community complained about it, but that's on the community. The community would also complain if we made the healer DPS kits more complex, so that's not a good counter argument.

That said:

I do agree that Cure should upgrade to Cure 2 (with a MP cost of 500 - Cure 2's MP cost is silly considering WHM is supposed to be the powerful throughput healer of the bunch), and I've proposed myself Aero 3 be added to the game as something other than Holy you can press in dungeons. Something that's a damage gain on 2/3+ targets like Holy is.

Medica has a use and gets a lot of use in 24 mans. Seriously, was doing one last night and so many people were eating vuln stacks I had no resources at any given time, and once you cast a Medica 2 and people are still standing in bad, your options are spot heal 5 party members with Cure 2, cast Medica, or stupidly cast Medica 2 over and over again while the HoT is still ticking. Medica is the answer to that.

Now, if Medica 2 (MP cost 900 instead of 1000, Potency 400 instead of 250 with a 150 Regen) where chain casting it was equally as effective as chain casting Medica 1, then a straight upgrade would make sense.

Deleting heals on a healer so you can make room for damage spells on a healer just seems weird.

Besides, we can go the WAR approach and just have buttons change to other buttons. Like after casting Dia, your next Glare could be "High Glare" that does 200% damage and has a more blinding animation. Likewise, Aero 3 could make the next Holy "High Holy" that uses the RDM LB3 animation.

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

I did.

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.

That wasn't your point because it very much matters.

People adapting to an easier thing is easier than people adapting to a harder thing. If you routinely run a mile a day and I ask you to only run half a mile, that's a change you can easily adapt to. If I ask you to up it to 5 miles a day, that's a change you cannot easily adapt to, and you may balk at the request or try it and then give up.

It's not your argument, because it defeats your argument. The reason I'm pointing it out isn't me saying it's your argument. I'm pointing it out because it defeats your argument.

That is, I wasn't saying that to "restate your argument in my own words". I was saying that as a counter argument.

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

The button argument was to compare WAR's overall kit to WHM's overall kit.

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:

No, that isn't the same thing.

The argument would be more like "All tanks have their 1-2-3 removed. Some people complain but a lot of people like it. So we return the 1-2-3 to all the Tanks but WAR, which just has Storm's Eye (Dia), Storm's Path (Glare), Orogeny that reduces party damage taken (Assize in more tank form), and Fell Cleave (Misery), along with Inner Release (Presence of Mind) and new GCD versions of Shake It Off (Rapture) and Nascent Flash (Solace) with a shared 20 sec CD that generate 20 Beast Gauge when used contributing to the next Fell Cleave (Misery)."

While people would complain, most people would be pretty happy with this. WAR would play not much differently than it does now (in fact, almost the same as it does now, just you'd want to use Shake/Nascent on CD or for movement), and the community would be thrilled they were getting "old PLD, old DRK, and old GNB" back for the people that didn't want to play "baby's first tank".

That is your argument for healers and WHM.

It's not, but the modified version shows that it would actually be a popular change.

And honestly, "keeping this play style" is in bad faith regardless. Why?

Oh, this should be good...

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.

Uh...WHM had a 1-2 playstyle in SB. I'm trying to remember exactly when they removed Aero/made it upgrade into Aero 2, but I think that was before ShB. WHM's playstyle in SB was 2-3-1-1-1-1-1-1-2-3-1-1-1-1-1, which is ALMOST the same as the current 2-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-2-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-3.

I think part of the problem with all of this is that you guys can't even correctly identify my argument or what an actual parallel of it would be or look like. So you think the worst instead.

Also also: That wouldn't make it a bad faith argument - nice try on yet another effort to "turn around" my accusation from before (against someone not you) on me - it would just me being wrong or mistaken about it.

Moreover: That isn't what you're asking for WHM - simply another DoT they refresh 2-3 times a minute.

FINALLY: I also said I'd be fine with it being SGE instead of WHM - SGE has always existed with this current playstyle - I just didn't think that was as logical of a choice.

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.

The thing is, what happens if WHM is the most popular even under the new system?

I guess this would be the way to prove which style players prefer more definitively than anything else.

[ASkellington]

That wasn't your point because it very much matters.

No it wasn't my point. Whether or not adapting to something easier or harder was never my argument. You keep trying to make it my argument, but it is yours.

My argument is that people can adapt. To use your own anology, yes it is easier to go from 1 mile to 1/2 a mile and do that for X years. But that also does not mean people cannot go from 1/2 mile to 1 mile or further. That is my argument, stop trying to put words in my mouth that I didn't even write.

And no. You once again got my anology wrong.

The equivilant of DoT Nuke on healer ( 2 1) to tanks is their 1-2-3. Doesn't matter if it isn't exactly a 1:1. Tanks start with 1 ability in a combo and they get the other 2 shortly there after. ALL HEALERS start with a 1 and then get their 2 after their heal.

If you're going to counter argue me, at least use what I presented instead of changing it.

[Renathras]

We already had. YEARS AGO.

So we had it years ago, it worked, people liked it...and this is an argument against it...why?

Because your definition of simple = shallow.

No, your interpretation of my definition is that simple = shallow. That isn't my definition of simple.

A class can be simple and have depth:

Agreed.

Both of them are very easy classes for people to get into and yet still can have some depth to them if you want to optimize.

And so do healers presently. Of course, healers are also managing party health, which DNC and BRD aren't really doing, but...

Tell ME why WHM can not also be simple and have depth?

Again, as before, you want me to argue a point I haven't made. When have I argued simple cannot have depth? The dispute here is that I feel they already have depth and you do not.

And tell me why the depth cannot be in the DPS kit so the healing portion can STAY simple fulfilling WHM's position as the barrier to entry healer?

Because (a) that wouldn't allow it to be an entry healer (or any of them) and (b) because the role is healer. The depth should really be in the healing kits, not the DPS kits for the healer role.

Affalus misery and Toxicon? Requires you to spend 3 lilies first or use a GCD shield.

To be fair to SGE, you get 3 for free and you also in solo content may use Eukrasia Diagnosis to get more of them since you're the "tank" in solo content, generating stacks. The only reason you wouldn't do this is if you're trying to optimize your DPS output...in solo content...by using only GCD heals on yourself. Which some people may be doing, but...wut?

Assize, Macrocosmos, ES, Phlegma? On 40-60s CDs. You are spamming 1 button for majority of that content. Not even BARD does that.

Here's the problem with this argument - you're spamming one dps button. In a normal fight, you're pressing a lot of buttons that aren't Glare/Broil/Malific/Dosis. The thing is, they're oGCDs.

I suppose one solution would be to make all heals GCDs. Remove oGCDs from healer kits and convert them all to GCDs. Then you'd be pressing other GCD buttons besides your spam nuke. We had this in ARR and HW. In ARR for both WHM and SGE, and in HW for WHM (also SB for WHM), so there's precedent for this.

The problem is you're only looking at GCDs and not button presses.

I get the why of it, but it's not like the oGCDs press themselves. When you use Tetra or Benison, those are individual actions. When you target a party member and then use a Card on them, those are two more individual actions.

So. If the devs want to make this game more solo friendly, why should 1 class be the sole one in the entire game that gets to have a boring gameplay loop for 86 levels and potentially beyond?

Simple answer:

Because that's what some people want.

Believe it or not, I've been trying to communicate in an effort to be nice to you--to help shed light as to why you seem to clash iron with everyone in the room so that you can have more cordial interactions with everyone regardless of what side of the argument you stand on. I will say that my posts are the ones receiving likes and yours aren't, so clearly my talk of receiving your posts as angry and visceral is resonating with the others who've been following the thread and it's actually not just me. I realize it's not always nice to hear people calling out behavior, but I've not belittled you for it. Like when you tell someone they have food in their teeth, it's to alert them to it, not humiliate them. But there's clearly a language barrier here and everything is being contorted into noxious hatred, so I just don't see a point in trying to help any further. All of it is going to be interpreted as a hateful attack anyway.

I believe you are trying to be nice.

I think you genuinely think you're trying to help in some way.

You aren't.

But I think on some level you probably think you are. The problem is, your attempts aren't helping. Clearly they're making the situation worse.

Worse still, they're consistently derailing the tread and requiring long replies from me to rebut the insults and character attacks you're unwittingly making without seemingly realizing you are.

My interactions are cordial - notice how I'm not calling people names, insulting people, telling them they should have no say or not get anything they want, etc? The only times I stray from that are after sustained attacks and character assassination, or people outright misrepresenting my words, seemingly intentionally, to the point they're lying. And even then, I try to keep a measured town and respond to the attacks made.

Your posts are receiving likes because of the people on this forum, most agree with you and disagree with me. We both know that, so don't pretend that's a fair assessment of our posts. It's a very biased assessment, and you know it. Bring some people into this forum that don't agree with you guys and that agree with me and then see whose posts are getting the likes. Your talk isn't resonating because those people objectively agree with your assessment. Your post is resonating because those people agree with you and disagree with me on the proposed changes, and so are not liking my posts but you're all liking each other's. We all know this, so don't pretend it's something of deeper meaning.

And, as I said: There's literally no way I can post here without you taking it the wrong way at this point. Seriously, tell me how I can.

I've made shorter posts.
I've made posts only addressing arguments.
I've refrained from engaging with you on personal insults.
I've refrained from personal insults.
I've avoided telling people things like "go play DPS".

What - short of agreeing to change all 4 healers - can I say that you would Like my post and they would as well?

If you can't think of anything, there's your answer.

It's not because my posts are "angry and visceral". Because I write these things with neutral tone and I'm not angry with you - as I said, I'm disappointed - so clearly it's not on my end. It's you guys interpreting something you don't like in a negative light. And there's literally no way for me to say it - I've tried several different ways thus far - that you would Like and agree with.

I realize it's not always nice to hear people calling out behavior,

Two points:

1) Do you have any idea how condescending that statement is?

2) You mean like when I called you out for arguing in bad faith and when I pointed out you told people to quit earlier in the thread and you rejected both outright?

You aren't alerting me.

Alerting me would be:

"Ren, I get your arguments. You're raising a lot of fair points. I will engage with you on those points. <offers arguments and counter arguments>. I'd also like to point out that <insert specific quotes> might be coming across a way you don't intend. Can you clarify what you mean by that or avoid <insert specific terms that you find angry or vitriolic>?"

That isn't what you did.

What you did was "You're throwing a tantrum" "You're self-righteous (in more words)" "You're angry and visceral and lashing back"

Can you see the difference between those two things?

That's why you aren't helping - your tone is antagonistic and your word choices are emotionally charged subjective and negative in nature. Something I already pointed out to you. Instead of saying "Oh, I see how you might be taking my posts the wrong way, let me try to explain...", you just used the same words again. Twice more in two further posts.

Can you see how I might find that intentional and that your goal isn't to be helpful?

If your goal was to be helpful, "let me try to explain" followed by not using emotionally charged words as part of that explanation would have been the correct course of action. Can you see how, after being informed of how that's a problem, you continuing to do it comes across as an intentional backhanded attack, not an actual attempt to help?

But, as I said above: Tell me how I can argue my position - that is, not just surrender to yours - where you all will Like my posts? I would love to know the answer.

Here's a thought- try to post without praising yourself, accusing others of not discussing in good faith, make inflammatory statements that derail from the topic at hand in attempts to discredit the other posts.

Clearly that isn't the answer. Read through my posts here. Notice how many of they I didn't praise myself in. Notice I've only accused one person, not all of you, of arguing in bad faith, and that was a person personally attacking me at the time. Notice I've consistently tried to keep the topic from being derailed and I've avoided inflammatory statements. Indeed, please quote the specific statements I've made you find inflammatory, with their surrounding context?

And notice how many of you have done all of what you say. Praised yourselves as better/done so by proxy by accusing me of being worse (carried, bad, lazy, etc), accused me of not arguing in good faith (no less than 3 of you have done so now), made inflammatory statements (tantrum, etc), and derailed the thread while trying to discredit me and my posts.

Why are those behaviors acceptable when you guys are doing them?

Why must I meet a higher standard to satisfy you when you guys will not hold each other to this same standard of discourse? Clearly, you're more than willing to Like each other's posts that do not meet that standard.

Because although some posts may have touched (just barely) on ground that could be seen as emotional, I do feel that the vast majority have not been in the form of personal attacks,

Considering my posts are being called "angry", clearly we're going to have to agree to disagree on this.

So what you interpret as "derailing" is rather more disagreement,

When a person is discussing my tone - even if they were using neutral and not emotional language (they aren't, mind you - they're using emotionally charged and derogatory language) - that's derailing the thread. Are you legitimately not seeing those posts?

Or do you believe discussing the tone of another poster in an attempt to discredit them is not derailing and is mere "disagreement"?

How come your standards only apply to me and not to your fellows?

real irony is that if you read the last couple of posts there are some that are debating about including some of the ideas that you proposed, perhaps not exactly as you want them, but that is probably closer than their initial positions.

Note when people make actual arguments, I address them. The people actually discussing leaving WHM alone started on this last page. In fact, it started after I was writing that post you just quoted. So you can't really use that as proof of your camp being accommodating, compromising, reasonable, and not vitriolic all this time.

If the thread has divided somehow into solely the two camps of "Renathras" and "those (aggressive derailers who only seem neutral [to others, not wise old Renathras]) who are against Renathras," there's a fixture in that categorization you really ought to consider.

How is "wise old Renathras", clearly derisive sarcasm, "neutral", exactly?

Also, your statement is "when the world is against you, the world is right".

Seriously, read this again. How many of you are saying things like this and insisting that you're being neutral? If I sarcastically said "wise old <yourname>" and told you you are the problem here, would you take that as a fair thing to say or an attack?

Again, how is it that your collective standards only apply to me and not your own posts and fellows?

Taurus has seemed to me, and seemingly to many others here, damn near saintly levels of reasonable.

He speaks in a more roundabout way - as I do - which sounds reasonable to people if they agree with the person. I'm not sure how accusing someone of throwing tantrums and making several pages of replies to a person attacking that person's tone doesn't look out to get them. Especially when said person clearly didn't want to engage in the tit-for-tat and clearly stated so several times.

That sounds more like bullying.

Seriously, look at how many of my posts were me saying to him "You're trying to goad me", where those posts I mentioned were him not addressing the arguments but instead addressing my posting style or his analysis of my personality? Look how many times I tried to "be the bigger man" and say "Look, let's just stick to the topic" where his very next post would be more attacking my writing.

That's not reasonable and good faith. That's him being out to get me. Though I will say I think he means well, he clearly wouldn't let it go until MAYBE his post I replied to just above this, but that remains to be seen.

than just something undesirable about your position

This is likely it.

You guys disagree with me and don't wish to give ground, so you dislike what I have to say. And when I defend my positions or assail yours, that agitates.

and/or how you've been framing it.

It's likely not this because I've framed my position a number of ways. Look at my original post in this thread that you guys started replying to. Notice how it's neutral in tone and was of the form "there are a lot of different opinions and I think this may be a solution".

There was nothing disagreeable about my post there to warrant all the replies other than just not agreeing and not wanting my proposal.

As I said above: Tell me the way I can make my argument where you guys will Like my posts and not attack my style and that isn't me having to walk on eggshells and meet higher standards that you collectively do not in your replies. I would love to know the answer to that question.

There are 4 playgrounds...

Look, I'm not going to entertain your "there are 4 X" when you keep ignoring that I offered a counter to the previous ones you did. You have to address that, not just make up another faulty parallel. Again, to me, they aren't "cardboard box and 3 square meters of space". That's not an objective statement of current healer design. Please stop. This is me asking nicely.

.

To all of you:

If you're going to insist you're arguing in good faith and not attacking me, here's a suggestion to try out for a page or two of thread and see how it works:

Don't sarcastically call me names, don't psychoanalyze my posts, don't tell me what I'm saying or arguing (you may ask as "Are you saying this...?" instead of stating "You're saying this!"), don't attack the style or length of my posts, only take what arguments are made on the topic of "all healers stay the same vs 1 healer stays the same and 3 are changed with dAST/nAST readded to the game vs 0 healers stay the same and all 4 are changed", stop liking each other's posts to give them a presumption of agreement or authority (if you agree with a position, present your argument for it yourself), don't site the likes as proof of that (seriously 6 people in a game played by over 5 million is your "majority"?), and when you offer counters or ask me to clarify positions, don't do so with emotionally charged, aggressive language ("Oh, you mean...you want to be lazy and get carries, right? THAT'S what you mean, isn't it?!" would be that sort of thing to avoid), and see if we can have a good discussion for a few pages.

[Renathras]

No it wasn't my point.

I...literally just said it wasn't your point.

Why are you repeating what I just said as if I didn't say it and you're proving me wrong?

Whether or not adapting to something easier or harder was never my argument. You keep trying to make it my argument, but it is yours.

This is literally what I just said - it's my argument to counter yours. Like...that's exactly what I said, yes. I said it was not your argument, it was a counter to your argument. A counter I was making to your argument. I'm not saying it's your argument. I'm saying it defeats your argument.

My argument is that people can adapt.

...and my counter is, your example was of people adapting to something being made easier. This proves people can adapt if we make things easier. But that makes no sense to use when you're arguing that things be made harder. You need an example in FFXIV's history where the game was made harder and people adapted and enjoyed it.

The example that comes to mind of the game being made harder was Gordias.

...and people hated it. Many people (Mr Happy for one) has said that literally almost killed the game a second time.0

To use your own anology, yes it is easier to go from 1 mile to 1/2 a mile and do that for X years. But that also does not mean people cannot go from 1/2 mile to 1 mile or further.

The argument here is that people are already going 1 mile. You can't use an argument that would apply to proposing they only go 1/2 mile as if it supports the argument that they go 5 miles.

That is my argument,

Correct.

I said that was your argument.

That you were trying to use something being made easier as an example of "people can adapt to change", and that I countered this with "there's a difference between people adapting to things being made easier vs them being made harder". You aren't proposing that things be made easier, therefore, that history cannot be used to support your proposal.

stop trying to put words in my mouth that I didn't even write.

I didn't put any words in your mouth.

Thankfully.

I literally said the things you're now saying that I didn't say.

The equivilant of DoT Nuke on healer ( 2 1) to tanks is their 1-2-3. Doesn't matter if it isn't exactly a 1:1.

Concur. It's just filler. People use add-ons all the time to make the Tank 1-2-3 into a 1-1-1 because they find it boring and tedious.

If you're going to counter argue me, at least use what I presented instead of changing it.

So...exactly what I did do.

Here, let me clarify so we're on the same page:

Your argument:

We've had change in the past, people can adapt.

Your evidence:

We had a change, and people adapted.

My counter(s):

1) The case you're citing was a case where things were made easier: SEE (2)

2) A past of making things easier cannot be used to predict the results of making things harder.

3) We have a past instance of making things harder, and it nearly killed the game.

Does that make more sense?