Has anyone quit healing?

[Connor]

Sorry but I have to point it out; we’re all being very disingenuous with our arguments.


Firstly, lore clearly has absolutely no bearing on how they’ve designed jobs lol. Otherwise Dragoons would fly, White Mages would give life to literal nothing, Scholars would have a chance for Eos to not listen to them (ghosting? Lol). Summoner would only ever be allowed to summon 3 Egis (Ifrit, Titan, Garuda). Black Mages would could destroy the entire planet (or spontaneously combust), the list goes on lol. The ‘Sylphie’ storyline was literally just trying to clarify to players how Conjurers ‘work’, drawing aether from nature instead of themselves. It has absolutely no bearing on whether the devs intended green dps or not, and I highly doubt they wrote that lore with any kind of combat-related message in mind, since that’s two separate teams lol (as far as im aware).

Scholar was never a ‘heavy dps job’, Arcanist was a ‘heavy dps job’ lol. It literally learns 0 dps skills between 30 - 50. Arcanist does, but then that was clearly supposed to Summoner considering Scholar is no longer linked to Arcanist (evidenced by which books they equip). But since they kept all the base stuff then slapped some healing on top it, perception of the job shifted to ‘basically a dps’ instead of ‘a healer that somehow came from a dps’.

It’s also pretty disingenuous to say ‘if they didn’t want healers to heal they would have 0 dps skills’, because that would then lock an entire role out of all solo content.

If you ask me the question we should be asking isn’t ‘should we dps’ it’s ‘how should healers contribute to the party when healing is so devoid of value or engagement’. It’s kind of no wonder the devs get so exasperated when the question comes up, since literally anything they say is going to be met with a tidal wave of backlash. I want to believe that this argument is more nuanced than just two sides arguing over which is better, but everything I’ve seen in this thread is suggesting otherwise. Maybe the truth is that neither is better than the other?

If healers were designed fully contingent on player feedback there’d be two outcomes. Either we’d have like 80 abilities, full of unnecessary dps fluffing that doesn’t actually add any sort of engagement to the job but gives the impression of ‘moar damage’ (*cough* energy drain *cough*); or, we’d have even more of what we have now with an overabundance of healing, next to nothing else to do, and content that barely tickles players at low ilvls lol

[ty_taurus]

Firstly, lore clearly has absolutely no bearing on how they’ve designed jobs lol.

There are two factors to consider with video game storytelling: suspension of disbelief and ludonarrative dissonance. Suspension of disbelief is recognizing that gameplay is not a direct representation of realistic storytelling, such as being able to take gunfire in a shooting game and heal it off by not getting hit for 3 seconds. Ludonarrative dissonance is when the gameplay contradicts the storytelling and often results in an experience that takes you out of the immersion.

It's suspension of disbelief that playing as a DRG that you can't actually fly around due to the restrictions of gameplay, but it's ludonarrative dissonance to tell players throughout the story the importance of your offensive element spells and then punish players for using them outside of the story.

It’s also pretty disingenuous to say ‘if they didn’t want healers to heal they would have 0 dps skills’, because that would then lock an entire role out of all solo content.

If they didn't want healers to DPS in group content, then solo content would've been designed in a way that doesn't require healers to DPS. I gave an example earlier of how you don't need SCH to have any offensive spells because they can go level and complete story content as SMN. WHM could've been joined with BLM in the same fashion. Or they could've allowed healers to hire NPCs to defeat things in solo content. Or they could've just not given you attack spells and have just your auto-attack be charged with magic and enough to defeat enemies out in the overworld. But they didn't do any of that.

Rule #1, if you don't want a monkey to fire a gun, then don't give a monkey a gun.

Edit: Actually, all they had to do if DPS buttons were truly meant for solo only and not meant for group content at all was have Cleric Stance work a little differently. Give healers exclusively 1 button. WHM just has Stone. SCH just has Ruin. Both scale off INT. While active, Cleric Stance increases your INT by your current MND while you are not in a party. This effect fails if you're in a group. Done. If healers were never meant to contribute DPS, that is how ARR would've looked. That is design indicative of the intent for healers to never attack in group content.

The only thing I was saying initially was that the gameplay and toolkits very clearly showcase that the game was designed for healers to be able to attack on some level even in group content, but now the role is held in stasis to try and prevent the role from choosing sides. Regardless, it is fight design that dictates the pace of healer gameplay, not kits. All this spun out because I needed to be corrected apparently with an argument that has nothing to do with my original post.

[Renathras]

You're taking it too literally.

I think I've figured out why it's so frustrating to talk to you about things.

You think vaguely like I do, which isn't inherently a problem, but then you put an odd "spin" on your logic in the 11th hour. You also tend to compromise your own logic with technicalities that likely aren't true but aren't directly disprovable. But instead of saying that means what you suggest is possible, you tend to insist it makes what you suggest factual. When I present your same logic to you in a way that defeats your argument, instead of accepting that or adapting your argument, you attempt to escape on a technicality of some sort in this way, even if it doesn't hold up under further scrutiny (an example being you say the SCH quests were about healing and not damage since you would have learned to damage on ACN, but if this was consistent, the WHM quests would have been as well, and the WHM quests are as much about attacking things and fighting as the CNJ ones; by your logic, they shouldn't be because the player would already have learned that lesson as CNJ just as the SCH did as ACN...)

But the worst is, even when you're kind of pinned down, you avoid direct answers, appeal to outside sources that have nothing to do with the situation or argument (what Devs in other games do or did is irrelevant to determining what the motivations of FFXIV's Devs were, especially when FFXIV's Devs are on the record presenting their design, and said on the record statement contradicts what you're insisting they did or thought). Even when I give you an out to where you'd still be partially right, instead of jumping on that, you brush it off and try to turn things around.

Anyway, I'm not saying this is malicious, but it makes conversing with you...difficult.

.

The CNJ questline isn't a commentary on the meta game of healing. It's just not. I'm not the only one saying this, but again, the SCH questline refutes that. Ironically since SCH was the more damage focused of the two. The Dev's stated position on Healer damage not being balanced around further indicates they were not considering Healers as damage dealers. There's nothing in the CNJ questline that says the message is "don't ignore your DPS spells". I know you really really really want this to be true, because you've hung your argument on it, but it never was. Again, why did E-Yumi-San say Sylphie shouldn't cast Raise? Was it "You shouldn't cast Raise until you've learned Stone"? No, the quest conversation makes it clear. He says there's no way she CAN know the Raise spell, and what she would be casting isn't Raise. The questline makes it clear she was trying to heal with her own life force, and that this killed her mother. The message is so blatant, I'm shocked a person with your intelligence somehow missed all of that and thought the take-away was "Healers should cast DPS spells". No where in the conversation was it saying you need to DPS before you can heal. No where.

And again, you appeal to different game types. What does it say if a game tells you to cut down a tree to make a bridge but you go over to the wall and climb across instead? Someone did this in Breath of the Wild in the starter area where that came up. Were they playing wrong? No. Arguably, they understood the game better than the quest design, since the game is far more about climbing than it is about chopping trees to make bridges.

The CNJ quest isn't teaching you to balance offense and defense. It doesn't even make that argument and WHM doesn't have defensive spells like a Tank, and Stoneskin wasn't unlocked until level 34, well after the end of the CNJ questline.

Like...nothing about the way the game was at the time works with your argument. But all that aside, again, the quest text and conversation bubbles made it clear the issue was HOW Sylphie was casting magic, not WHAT spells she was casting, as Connor correctly states:

The ‘Sylphie’ storyline was literally just trying to clarify to players how Conjurers ‘work’, drawing aether from nature instead of themselves. It has absolutely no bearing on whether the devs intended green dps or not, and I highly doubt they wrote that lore with any kind of combat-related message in mind, since that’s two separate teams lol (as far as im aware).

I get you really love this argument...but it just doesn't work. There are even better arguments to use than that, honestly. They're still wrong, but they're not as wrong...

What does that have to do with developer intent?

If the Dev intent was for Healers to DPS, those methods of play and party composition would not be viable. That's what it has to do with developer intent. That they are viable means either the developers intended them to be (or something appreciably near them), or the developers simply didn't make content to match their intent. Both are possible, but neither suggests "Green DPS". The first suggests the opposite, and the second gives us no solid basis. To which I again point to the HW era statement "we don't balance around Healer DPS" to put that issue to bed; surely if they didn't in HW, they weren't doing so in ARR with non-Enrage fights.

My original post was about what the game was built for and what the design team tried to create when designing fights.

Except it wasn't. Your original post was wrong. If the game was built for, and the design team was trying to create, a game of Green DPS, they would have made fights have tight Enrage checks, no healing requirements, and for Healers to be highly incentivized to DPS with either MP free damage spells, more robust DPS kits, DPS leading to healing, or other similar mechanics. All of those things were lacking in ARR. Most of those things were lacking in HW. And you have yet to address the elephant in your argument's room that the HW stated position of the development team was that Healers were not expected to DPS.

That statement alone indicates the game was likely not designed as you insist, as those were the same people working on it in ARR, and the encounter design of ARR was even more lenient in terms of damage requirements than HW.

What part of those examples prevents you from DPSing?

You're asking the wrong question.

I didn't say any of that prevents people from DPSing.

I'm saying it didn't require people to DPS, from which we can infer the Dev intention was not to require Healers to DPS. It's really that simple.

I'm going to ignore your strawman fallacies (I didn't make any of those other arguments, either; where did I say it was intended for Healers to never use a damage ability? I said it was intended it not be required and there was no design intent that they be expected to do it - at least get my argument correct. God Bless!) and your appeals to other games until you can explain how the Dev's statement of their intentions in HW was somehow them lying and should be ignored. Not "it didn't match the encounter design"; I mean "they contradicted that with another official statement at that same time" or the like. An on the record "word of god" this is what they said.

Because you're trying to infer their intention while ignoring they stated their intention. The only reason to try an inference is if you have evidence or a strong reason to suspect they were lying when they stated their own intent. Without such a reason, then if someone states clearly their intent...you believe them.

.

It'd be one thing if you were arguing the game ALLOWED for DPSing Healers - a position I've not taken up against because it clearly didn't forbid it - but your position is an extreme one the other way; that the intention was always for Healers to DPS in a major way, which no part of the game's history prior to SB really seems to suggest in any way unless you take a really reaching and tortured view of quest design that...also ignores the actual quest story and lore in it stating its intentions.

structure of fight design in FFXIV very clearly establishes that Healers are meant to contribute when they can,

Again, conflating time.

Does it in 6.3? Yes. Whether this is intentional or just muddled design isn't clear, but the answer is Yes.

Did it in 2.0? No. Nor 2.1, 2.2, 2.3...really not until Gordias, and that was arguably overtuned content.

Are you saying the Devs intend this now? As we've both agreed, that's unlikely Yoshi P's intent, more just them painting themselves into a corner. But at least you could argue that.

Are you saying the Devs intended this then? Because the data and their own statements clearly disagree with you.

.

Couldn't I say the same to you?

No. Because I've actually presented my arguments and offered rebuttals to yours which were not "But the CNJ quest!!!" and "But these other games do this..." or "But the game does this NOW." I actually stuck to the era under discussion, and both the game design, community playstyle, and Dev statements from that era (or even later) confirm my position and contest yours.

If the game design didn't want you to DPS

Where did I ever say the game design didn't what you to DPS?

What, exactly, do you even think my argument here is?

I said the game was not designed around an intent on the Dev's part that Healers would be DPSing (or DPSing meaningfully) during at the time high-end encounters. No where did I say their intent was that Healers never be allowed to hit a single DPS button in their entire gameplay at any point. What is it you think I'm arguing, because you've made this strawman several times.

And as to how healers were played when ARR was in development: I literally showed you. And they were essentially Curebots. That was how Healers in FFXIV (literally; FFXIV 1.X) were being played at the time. And for all that ARR was to revamp the game, it was still supposed to appeal to those loyal players at the same time.

What's stopping you from moving on?

Wanting a fair discussion. Part of that starts by agreement that this was not the original intention of the development team, and you guys stopping using that as a crutch for your position.

I figure if you guys can be stripped of that false appeal to authority/history/status quo fallacy, we can meaningfully talk about what healing in FFXIV has become (because it wasn't always that), and a meaningful conversation about what it should be and how it should appeal to players, recognizing that a lot of Healers came to the game when that was the norm. This would, of course, make your collective position on Healer changes for all the Healers far more difficult, but at least it would be a fair discussion grounded in the facts. That's what I want.

I want an actual solution that appeals to the majority of people, that gives most everyone at least something they want, and that doesn't ruin the game by robbing people of things they love and enjoy. I don't think it should make me a villain to feel this way.

[ty_taurus]

Where did I ever say the game design didn't what you to DPS?

What, exactly, do you even think my argument here is?

I said the game was not designed around an intent on the Dev's part that Healers would be DPSing (or DPSing meaningfully) during at the time high-end encounters. No where did I say their intent was that Healers never be allowed to hit a single DPS button in their entire gameplay at any point. What is it you think I'm arguing, because you've made this strawman several times.

First, I'm gonig to stop talking about the lore here. Video games using diagetic storytelling to communicate basic gameplay at the beginning of a game is literally everywhere in the gaming industry, but it honestly doesn't even matter for this argument as the gameplay is far more telling anyway. So for the sake or moving forward, let's just assume there was 0 intent or interest in using the story to communicate anything about the gameplay and this game is just an outlier in that regard.

Your argument appears to be, based on what you've said, that the designers expected healers would never use offensive tools in group content because offensive tools were not essential in clearing fights. But that's like saying when they designed Final Fantasy X, the designers expected players wouldn't use the sphere grid because the sphere grid isn't required to beat the game. "If you don't want a monkey to fire a gun, then don't give the monkey a gun." That was something said in my first game design class. Whatever tools you give to the player, you expect that they will use it, and you expect that they will try to break it. If you design something that you're concerned can break the game or simply create a reaction you don't want, then don't put that something in your game.

I don't think the designers ever wanted healers to push for DPS optimization in the way we do now, but you cannot look at tools healers were given in ARR, how many opportunities literally every fight in the game offers healers to attack, and how forgiving MP management was even back then when it wasn't nearly as easy as it is now, and tell me no one at SE expected healers would ever lift a finger to help the DPS defeat enemies.

Part of that starts by agreement that this was not the original intention of the development team, and you guys stopping using that as a crutch for your position.

Why do you always approach conversations this way? That you are just objectively right, period, end of the sentence, conversation over, no further questions. This is the type of statement that makes these not discussions, because when I respond and defend my points, I'm being irrational and twisting my arguments. But when you try to defend your points, it's you trying to enlighten us "green DPS" about the absolute truth that is your perspective out of the goodness of your heart. Have you ever even considered that perhaps I'm not the one who can't accept when they're wrong in this argument? You are.

I want an actual solution that appeals to the majority of people, that gives most everyone at least something they want, and that doesn't ruin the game by robbing people of things they love and enjoy. I don't think it should make me a villain to feel this way.

I mean, you do tend to ignore most of the different times I try to genuinely appeal to your specific tastes and fight for the right to have a healer that appeals to players who don't want a DPS healer. Like the part where I mentioned having a healer who still contributes DPS in order to stay competitive with the other healers, but does so in a way that's disguised as healing and support.

[Renathras]

I played the most in ARR

I'm worried that we're having a terminology/communication breakdown here. "We had no choice butt to GDC heal" and "dropped a juicy gcd here and there" aren't really compatible with "we weren't GCD healers". That's...what GCD healing is. And I've got a lot of video evidence and personal experience of WHMs, at least, not "Majority of the time was spent dpsing". So your experiences seem to not entirely match reality (or not be universal). [Though agreed on STR Tanks and Cleric.]

Another terminology thing: How are you "griefing playing a healer" in solo play? Griefing, by general definition (intentionally doing something to annoy or cause suffering and hardship on other players) cannot be done in solo play because...there are no other players. It's like the tree falling in a forest with no one around. If you're in solo content with no other players, how can you be griefing other players?

Tanks do have good overall stats for DD, yet interestingly, that doesn't make them all good at it. Note from the list he ranked PLD below WHM and SGE. This is because in PotD, PLD doesn't have good self-sustain. Clemency doesn't come until level 58, Holy Spirit until 64, and PLD's standard sword combo doesn't regenerate health. This actually makes it weaker in PotD in a lot of ways, not to mention self-healing (or any Clemency based healing) on PLD nerfs its damage vs self-healing on a SGE does not since Kardia and oGCDs don't interrupt damage.

Having "more to do" isn't always a positive if it's not useful. Pressing 1-2 before -3 is "more to do", but that "more to do" doesn't produce beneficial results mechanically. It only produces subjectively beneficial results in terms of what you consider boring vs fun, which are subjective things. Mechanically, if WAR's damage buttons could be replaced with two that did the same overall average damage, that wouldn't be detrimental as far as PotD or HoH are concerned.

First, I'm gonig to stop talking about the lore here. Video games using diagetic storytelling to communicate basic gameplay at the beginning of a game is literally everywhere in the gaming industry, but it honestly doesn't even matter for this argument as the gameplay is far more telling anyway. So for the sake or moving forward, let's just assume there was 0 intent or interest in using the story to communicate anything about the gameplay and this game is just an outlier in that regard.

Even in defeat claim victory?

For reference, FFXIV isn't an outlier in this regard - the MSQ walks players through the basics of gameplay and the basics of game mechanics. So it absolutely does that. Just not...with the CNJ questline.

Your argument appears to be, based on what you've said, that the designers expected healers would never use offensive tools in group content because offensive tools were not essential in clearing fights.

Not quite.

My argument was that the Designers did not balance content around requiring Healers to use offensive tools. I base this partly on the game mechanics and Job kits of the time, and partly based on the later statement in HW about encounter balance tuning. (And for the love of Yoshi, please stop bringing other games into the conversation unless they're directly comparable; for example, Vanilla WoW was designed with the intent Healers mostly heal or buff - PLD only had 1 damage button at the time, Judgement, which I think was on a 30 second CD originally (before 2.4 or so? I don't remember which patch they made Seals 2 min duration and NOT consumed on Judgement), so every 30 seconds you'd apply a seal and then Judge, which removed it, and that was literally Holy Paladin leveling gameplay in Vanilla and a good chunk of BC. That might be a good comparison, considering ARR was modeled partly on WoW

I don't think the designers ever wanted healers to push for DPS optimization in the way we do now,

On this, we agree.

Why do you always approach conversations this way? That you are just objectively right,

...because in this case, I am?

Further, you should note that I clearly did not "period, end of the sentence" this. I pointed out that you could reasonably argue the game has changed over time and 2 of the 3 Healers (SB) changed to reflect the gameplay you're suggesting was present. It was present in SB...on SCH. And to a variation, AST.

Moreover, I don't take a "no further questions" approach. I've repeatedly asked you questions. "If you're right, how do you explain this?" "How does this not defeat your position?" "Are you talking about the game NOW or THEN?" I ask a lot of questions for a person supposedly taking a position of "no further questions", now don't I?

When you defend your points in irrational ways or your points aren't defensible - saying the CNJ quest was designed to tell players to DPS as Healers but then turning around and saying the SCH quests not doing that is meaningless (because of 30 levels of ACN), even while the WHM quest did it and shouldn't have by that logic due to having those 30 levels of CNJ. I presented your logic ("But this questline says...") and you tried to evade on a technicality ("But ACN...") to which I noted if that was correct, then the WHM quests should have been like the SCH ones but they were more like the CNJ ones, meaning your technicality is invalid.

It's not a matter of me trying to "enlighten" you. It's me trying to tell you what the truth was so we can get over a false appeal to authority defense for your position because it tries to grant your position more strength than it has and tries to delegitimatize the people who have long played this game under a different paradigm - one that was valid. It's also used to support your position that changing to a more healing focused game would require massive changes all the way back to 2.0, when it clearly wouldn't (since 2.0 used that paradigm in its encounters anyway) [and that's kind of an irrelevant argument since the game has always more or less ignored old content when making changes - like removing PLD Raise and how that makes PLD not as good in PotD]

Have you ever even considered that perhaps I'm not the one who can't accept when they're wrong in this argument? You are.

No, you are.

When I AM proven wrong about something - actually proven - I admit it. You do not. You have yet to address that elephant: The HW era statement encounters are not based on Healer DPS.

That statement alone disproves your premise.

Instead of at least addressing it, you simply...refuse to address it.

If you had something like that on me, if you had a statement from HW of them saying "We balance encounters based on Healers doing damage", I would admit I must be wrong about their position in HW. Maybe I would still be right about ARR, but clearly I was wrong for HW and likely after.

But we reverse that and have that piece of evidence that proves you're wrong and you...refuse to address it rather than admit you're wrong.

So no, I'm not the one who can't accept being wrong. You are.

I mean, you do tend to ignore most of the different times I try to genuinely appeal to your specific tastes

Okay, so why are you outright lying now?

No, I don't.

Look at all the times you pitched an argument. All of them I've seen, I replied to. I've even said I found some acceptable. Some I did not and argue against. Others I tried to explain to you what I do and don't find fun and why your solution doesn't appeal to me because you find different things fun and are missing what I enjoy in your solutions.

Why did you tell an outright lie here?

and fight for the right to have a healer that appeals to players who don't want a DPS healer. Like the part where I mentioned having a healer who still contributes DPS in order to stay competitive with the other healers, but does so in a way that's disguised as healing and support.

SORT of. You're still missing the point. This one as lost in all that other stuff, but I even addressed it:

I've already said I think there should be 4 different gameplay styles. In short, direct healing and simple damage, buffing, plate spinning support/damage, and rotational complexity support/damage; WHM (ShB/EW, or ARR with a lot of boosts and tweaks), AST (SB with less RNG), SCH (SB), and SGE (with an actual damage rotation and Kardia interplay)

That's me replying to that with a "Yes, I think that should be an option for one of the 4 healers (probably AST)". That's me specifically addressing it.

Again, why lie?

[Teno]

I'm worried that we're having a terminology/communication breakdown here. "We had no choice butt to GDC heal" and "dropped a juicy gcd here and there" aren't really compatible with "we weren't GCD healers". That's...what GCD healing is. And I've got a lot of video evidence and personal experience of WHMs, at least, not "Majority of the time was spent dpsing". So your experiences seem to not entirely match reality (or not be universal). [Though agreed on STR Tanks and Cleric.]

Another terminology thing: How are you "griefing playing a healer" in solo play? Griefing, by general definition (intentionally doing something to annoy or cause suffering and hardship on other players) cannot be done in solo play because...there are no other players. It's like the tree falling in a forest with no one around. If you're in solo content with no other players, how can you be griefing other players?

Tanks do have good overall stats for DD, yet interestingly, that doesn't make them all good at it. Note from the list he ranked PLD below WHM and SGE. This is because in PotD, PLD doesn't have good self-sustain. Clemency doesn't come until level 58, Holy Spirit until 64, and PLD's standard sword combo doesn't regenerate health. This actually makes it weaker in PotD in a lot of ways, not to mention self-healing (or any Clemency based healing) on PLD nerfs its damage vs self-healing on a SGE does not since Kardia and oGCDs don't interrupt damage.

Having "more to do" isn't always a positive if it's not useful. Pressing 1-2 before -3 is "more to do", but that "more to do" doesn't produce beneficial results mechanically. It only produces subjectively beneficial results in terms of what you consider boring vs fun, which are subjective things. Mechanically, if WAR's damage buttons could be replaced with two that did the same overall average damage, that wouldn't be detrimental as far as PotD or HoH are concerned.



Even in defeat claim victory?

I mean the fairy was doing most of the legwork, and its clunky setup is what allowed dpsing. Casting so few gcds didn't make us gcd healers, we were still trying to squeeze in as much dps as possible. Either you're taking it too literal, or we're definitely not on the same page.

As for deep dungeons, you're griefing yourself essentially, taking some 3rd person perspective here, by inflicting upon yourself tedious gameplay.
And having more to do is related to gameplay mostly. Spamming glare/dosis/ruin for 15 hours is rough. Taking the example of tanks, 123 is the not the point here. Deep dungeons are about burst and go whenever you roam, and most tanks have that, which is what most people consider fun. Dropping nukes with war/gnb every minute, which is essentially every mob in between rooms, is fun. Lower floors don't really matter.

I'd honestly suggesting hanging around Angelusdemonus/Auroramoon streams to see them play all jobs, and see why tanks are much stronger and so impactful, especially with things like high floors mimics.

[Renathras]

The CNJ quest line always gave me the impression that as a healer we were supposed to dps. Sylphie is introduced as a bad CNJ because she only wants to heal.

People constantly get this wrong, to the point it's shocking to me people get this as wrong as they do.

The questline makes it clear, Sylphie's sin was not that she wouldn't use offensive spells. It was that she was consuming her life force instead of channeling the Elementals' power, and that it would kill her just like it killed her mother. They even make a big point of saying that doing so killed her mother and would kill her, and this was the reason E-Yumi-San was shocked she knew Raise, saying there's no way under what he knew of CNJ she should even be able to cast the spell, because the way she was planning to do it wasn't a way CNJ's cast Raise (using her own life force as the power source) and that it would kill her. Basically, she wasn't casting Raise. That's why he even says something to the effect "By everything we know of Conjury...it shouldn't even be possible for her to cast Raise this way." That's not him saying "By everything we know of Conjury...she should have to cast Aero before she can cast Raise". It was him saying "The Conjurer Raise spell isn't constructed in a way that should allow one to use their own life force to Raise another, so I have no idea how she is even capable of casting the spell since her spellcasting is all based on using her own life force."

As I said, she was in effect practicing the BLU spell Transfusion, which explains why E-Yumi-San wasn't familiar with it and didn't understand how such a version of Raise would work - though to his credit, he did recognize what casting a revival spell that way would do to the practitioner.

Like...the quest line goes to great lengths to make this point. It's really surprising to me that so many people didn't realize that was the point.

.

To all of you:

Did none of you remember reading the lines of quest text where they were saying the way Sylphie was casting magic would kill her and that it killed her mother?

Eventually she begins using these abilities herself and that is the turning point where she is no longer at risk of dying from healing others.

What?

No; the turning point is when she learns to draw upon the Elementals' power instead of fueling her spells with her own life force. Again; did none of you read the quest text? o.O (Well, other than Connor - he seems to have also read the quest text.)

I mean the fairy was doing most of the legwork,

This is true. One of the brilliant things about ARR to me was that they sometimes just kind of stumbled into brilliance. Based on WHM's design and based on encounter design, it doesn't appear they intended that form of gameplay. But they made a Job (SCH) which just happened to make it possible in an amazing way. Because of Eos' passive healing and oGCD abilities, augmented by SCH having a % based heal, they could sit in Cleric and still meet most of their healing requirements, allowing for a much more offensive gameply style (ironically, considering their Job questline made such a big deal out of shielding and protecting allies, presumably with Adlo, Succor, and Sacred Soil) than otherwise was possible.

It's kind of like doing PotD solo on WHM vs SCH. With WHM, you have to be more mindful of your own health, while on SCH (and SGE) your health is MOSTLY attended to without you having to focus heavily on it. On SGE, Kardia will go a long way towards your healing, and you can weave oGCDs, including ones that reduce damage taken (Holos, Taurochole), Regen (Physis), or both (Karachole), and the whole time you're getting those Kardia ticks of healing, and can even do so on the move from EuDosis, Toxicon, Phlegma, and even Pneuma if we ever get a Deep Dungeon that goes up to 90. And since you're soloing, using EuDiagnosis between combat to shield yourself can start you off with a health buffer as well as generate Toxicon stacks for movement. And because of how quick (and instant cast) it is, SGE can quickly shield itself in emergencies.

Likewise, for SCH, Eos will largely keep bumping your health up, and the rare Lustrate can be used to patch you up a bit more, and you can also weave in Whispering Dawn for yet more healing. And if the next DD gets us to 80 (or higher - probably 90), SCH will also have Fey Blessing, Aetherpact, and Seraph, as well as Excogitation and a Soil that will reduce damage and tick regen to really blow this passive/oGCD healing through the roof.

By contrast, WHM (and AST) don't have that, so WHMs must be a bit more mindful of their own health, refreshing Regen if they want to keep that same amount of healing coming in, and occasionally using a Cure 2 (Solace once you get it), especially on heavier hitting enemies, and they don't have in PotD (Benison comes at 66 in HoH) and don't have Temperance in either one, meaning they have no mitigation and must heal through damage, generally with GCDs (Tetra is 1 per minute at level 60 and Assize 1 per 40 seconds, largely on CD as more of a passive heal, with Bene as an emergency), which goes back to how WHM played in ARR/HW and even into SB.

As for deep dungeons, you're griefing yourself essentially

...okay, we definitely are using different definitions for the word griefing. The generally accepted definition for griefing requires there be other players for you to be intentionally inconveniencing/screwing/trolling. The word here would be gimping, I think. And generally speaking, people consider it a challenge to beat things as a weaker choice. Like those Smash Bros 1 people that would kick everyone's butt with Jigglybuff (before people realized Jiggly was actually a decent character when played right...)

Though that said, as I pointed out, WHM and SGE are considered good choices for DD soloing.

NOTE: They're not considered good for SPEEDRUNNING - MCH and WAR seem to be the choices for that - but for climbing floors, they seem to both be good choices, with WHM having a bit stronger damage and SGE trading that for a bit more survivability.

WHM is considered borderline strong because it's a Healer that (at that level cap) has decently strong damage and has sufficient survivability. Where DPS Jobs have to do crazy stuff like spinning mobs because they're essentially in a DPS race every fight (kill the enemy before you run out of HP), WHM (and the other healers) don't have that problem because their MP pool is essentially an extension of their HP pool unless they get one-shot, but if they're getting one-shot, so would most of the DPSers. BLM is considered far worse because it's unable to kite and basically a Scathe Mage. BRD and DNC are considered as bad or worse than SCH because their damage is so low and, unlike SCH, they aren't trading it for healing, BLM is worse because it can't kite (SCH can), and all of those and DRG, MNK, and SAM are considered worse than SGE, with SGE and GNB being considered worse than WHM and RDM, which are considered approximately equal.

RDM was initially considered the best Job at it, but this has undergone a lot of revision and it's now kind of considered middle-tier, it's just beginner friendly, which is why it got a lot of the initial solo clears. That is, it's not the fastest (MCH and WAR are, and Jobs like NIN because stealth and DRK because burst + survivability are also considered better), but it provides good damage with (once you get Vercure) decent backup healing for when things go sideways, which other DPS Jobs don't have.

And for reference: I've got all the Mining/Botany achievements for gathering a stupidly high amount of nodes.

What is "tedious" is in the eye of the beholder. I don't find them tedious at all. I would honestly say the more complex the DPS rotation Job you're playing, the more you're gimping yourself because you're more likely to mess it up on the higher floors at a critical time and get yourself killed. It's hard to screw up Dosis spam.

WAR is stronger because of lots of self-sustain/healing (Storm's Path at level 50 and Raw Intuition at 56) paired with Tank durability make it strong. DRK trades some of that healing for more burst, which can be useful. GNB is considered worse than WHM and on par with SGE because their self-sustain isn't as good (and Aurora has a long CD), and PLD is considered worse than both. Tanks are a safer choice, but the only one markedly better than the best Healers is WAR, and that's because WAR's OP healing in non-raid content, which is pretty well known and accepted by everyone.

Deep dungeons are about burst and go whenever you roam, and most tanks have that,

PLD didn't (it does now) and GNB doesn't (at level 60); WHM does. SGE does to a lesser extent. And after 6.3, both have their burst on 40 sec CDs, which was a buff to both in DD content. It's also a bit odd you'd die on the Tank bridge on this - their burst isn't enough on higher floors to burn through enemy HP, and not much better than WHM or SGE's are. If you were saying MCH (and this combined with kiting IS why MCH is so strong), then sure. But DPS Jobs have trouble with the 180 floor boss because meteors are essentially a soft enrage/dps check. One that Healers can negate by...being able to cast heals.

which is what most people consider fun

Collectively...everyone needs to understand "fun" is a subjective term. For me, it's fun just to get to higher floors and see how far I can go. That's fun to me. And I can do that on Healers just fine.

.

I wonder if some of this could come down to how we define our personal agency.

I HATE not having control over healthbars. The party's in general, but specifically my own. I think that's why I hate playing a DPS that isn't RDM (and to a much lesser extent, SMN; it doesn't have so much control over its own health outside of Phoenix, but it has two charges of a personal shield and has the ability to Raise if the party Healer(s) go down, which indirectly means control of my health bar as without said Healer, my health bar will just keep going down due to roomwides until I and everyone but maybe the Tank dies, but with the Healer up, the health bars can fill again). It's something that took me a long time to get over when I did some Tanking in WoW, and in early FFXIV (in ARR and HW, my PLD 100% of the time had Raise and Cure slotted as Cross-Class skills). I don't like my health bar going down and being unable to do anything about it, or my party's. I hate blowing Second Wind and/or Bloodlust on NIN or MNK and then having...nothing. Basically being at the mercy of someone else healing me or dying. It's a kill or be killed mentality vs the enemy, and it's just not one I have in life.

On the other hand, with Healers, and to a large extent now, Tanks, and RDMs do have that agency. I have the capacity to stem the flow and turn the tide. It's also why I think Healer LB3s are the best designed in the game, since they actually have a tactical use that can change the flow of an encounter vs Tank ones which can but to a different and lesser extent (or are required, in which case it's more scripted/cinematic), and definitely vs the DPS ones, which are just "removes X% of boss healthbar", which is the most boring thing possible.

[ty_taurus]

My argument was that the Designers did not balance content around requiring Healers to use offensive tools. I base this partly on the game mechanics and Job kits of the time, and partly based on the later statement in HW about encounter balance tuning.

Oh, that explains why you're so wrong. You completely misinterpreted what I was saying since the beginning. I never said the design team balanced content around healer DPS. ARR didn't have modern enrages, and while it did feature some DPS checks, it was certainly balanced without healer DPS initially. I was talking about the general gameplay loop the design team was crafting--something where healers had the freedom to attack, and would do so at times, and this extra damage would be a bonus, not the standard. That was definitely a part of ARR design.

It's okay though, now that you know why you're wrong and you can accept that, I think we could move on to a more fair discussion, yeah?

I also think AST is the right healer to move forward with a healer who disguises their DPS contributions as healing. I've done no shortage of pondering over how exactly to get it just right. I think I have a good core concept, but the details are always finnicky. It's a tough concept to work out on paper without having access to a build to test any ideas in.

Also, I wasn't trying to lie. I hadn't seen your suggestion of that previously.

[Renathras]

...

BEFORE READING THE HIDDEN BLOCK BELOW:

Note that if you had just said "OHHHH, I see. You aren't saying what I thought you were. You're saying what I believe is true as well. Cool, we're on the same page. Now we can move the discussion forward because we're in agreement - ARR was designed for Healers to be Healers, but with an option/freedom to DPS if the situation allows for it, but not a requirement to do so.", my reaction would be entirely conciliatory. If you went on to say, "While the game has changed, I understand some players from that era understandably feel 'grandfathered in' to the game they signed on to play back then, and it does make sense to, in at least some ways, ensure that the game allows for them in some way.", I'd be (figuratively) kissing you.

Instead, you chose to go the route of "You're wrong, you need to admit and accept you're wrong, and what you're wrong about, is that everything you said...<mumbles>isactuallytrueandIagreewithitbutI'mgoingtosayyou'rewronganywayandclaimyourpointwasmypointtheentiretime</mumbles>"

Maybe you don't feel that's what you did...but that's what you did. You hopped into a conversation in progress, brought up the CNJ questline, expected everyone to shift to talking about the topic in your terms, didn't realize you misunderstood them, and then insisted they were wrong while saying (as if it was your argument the entire time) the same thing they'd been saying the entire time.

And yes, you misunderstood me when you entered into the conversation - and still do:

Why do you think I asked you to tell me what you think I'm arguing/saying? Because it was clear to me that you didn't get what I was saying - and by this post above, you still don't. If you did, you wouldn't have restated my own premise while saying I'm wrong. You clearly don't think I hold the same premise despite me having said so, even as a bullet point, pages ago.

Oh, that explains why you're so wrong.

Translation: "Oh, I see, Ren. You're talking about something different and I misunderstood you. You're actually right about what you're saying. But I don't want to admit it, so I'm going to say you misunderstood me, even though you pointed out several times that I was talking about a different thing than you, even though you asked me to tell you what I (Ty) thought you (Ren) were saying since it seemed clear to you I was misunderstanding you, and even though you were right about what you said - I'm going to say you're wrong anyway. Not just 'wrong', but 'so wrong', to save face and try to make you look weaker/bad so you'll cow down deflated."

And you wonder why I get frustrated with you.

You completely misinterpreted what I was saying since the beginning. I never said the design team balanced content around healer DPS. ARR didn't have modern enrages, and while it did feature some DPS checks, it was certainly balanced without healer DPS initially.

This is literally what I've been saying for the last three pages. Welcome to the discussion. You can't say I'm wrong when I've been saying literally this same thing you realize is true. The issue here is you were misunderstanding me this whole time. Remember: This discussion branch started with me saying I'd play Healer as long as they weren't made into mere DPSers, someone asking me if they weren't that already, and someone saying they always had been that way. I was contesting that, using the above as my logic for why it was not always that way.

The discussion wasn't just you stating a position (you weren't even the one who initially said it that I was contesting! I was arguing with someone else and you jumped into our ongoing conversation) or people misunderstanding you or not. In effect, you jumped into our existing conversation and misunderstood me. The onus was on you, as the newcomer, to understand the conversation ongoing, not for everyone else to stop the conversation they were having and engage in the one you wanted. While you can contribute to steering an active conversation, you cannot claim ownership of it nor that people not talking about specifically what you were thinking (but obviously not stating clearly) makes them wrong (when they were right on the facts of their argument) because you wanted to talk about something different...

I was talking about the general gameplay loop the design team was crafting--something where healers had the freedom to attack, and would do so at times, and this extra damage would be a bonus, not the standard. That was definitely a part of ARR design.

No, we were talking about the Devs' design intention in ARR and whether they were designing Healers to be "Green DPS" (a term meaning "expected to attack" not "freedom to attack if they want") as part of the encounter design. You're now implicitly saying my position here was correct ("freedom to attack" is not "requirement/expectation/or onus to attack"), so while saying I'm wrong, your on statement is saying I was not.

It's okay though, now that you know why you're wrong

...while you keep saying I'm wrong - almost like you can't admit defeat or let it go - your own statements are literally what I've been saying all this time. Meaning I'm right. You can't reword what I've been saying this whole time and say that makes me wrong. You're literally making the argument I've made this entire time:

1) For that era, Healers were given a handful of damage spells for soloing content but weren't expected to use them in Raids (this was also largely true of most Healers in WoW during that same timeframe, which was Wrath of the Lich King, I believe, where WoW Healers had likewise very skimpy damage rotations; Paladin famously only had 2 DPS buttons, Judgement and Holy Shock, 3 against Undead since you could add Exorcism once every 30 seconds or so)

2) WHM was never designed to play as a DPS Job. We even saw this as late as SB, and really even as far as 6.0 (Lilies not being DPS neutral because the Devs felt that DPS shouldn't be the focus of the Job). In ARR, the only WHM oGCD heal was Benediction once every 6 minutes or so. There was no way you were healing a raid with one cure every 6 minutes. WHM was very much designed from the ground up for GCD healing. Even moreso if you look at 1.0 as its proto-type. 1.0 WHM was...well, I'll let this video speak for itself:

Note that no where in this premise did I say "healers were designed where they had no freedom to DPS if they wanted to.

Note the first phrase I bolded, specifically two words: "expected to".

I didn't say they weren't allowed to.

I didn't say they were only allowed to heal and nothing else.

I didn't say no one very casted any damage spells (and said the opposite on a number of occasions).

My contention has always been they had the freedom to - a freedom which was chiefly used by SCHs from very early on - but not the requirement to.

A position you now are stating while insisting I'm wrong, even though you're saying my argument!

My contention has only ever been the encounters were not designed to require them to.

...which is literally what you're saying now:

ARR didn't have modern enrages, and while it did feature some DPS checks, it was certainly balanced without healer DPS initially. I was talking about the general gameplay loop the design team was crafting--something where healers had the freedom to attack, and would do so at times, and this extra damage would be a bonus, not the standard.

THIS IS LITERALLY MY ARGUMENT AND HAS BEEN THIS ENTIRE TIME.

You cannot present my argument in different words and then say I'm wrong when you're saying the exact same thing now that IS what I've been saying this ENTIRE TIME.

and you can accept that, I think we could move on to a more fair discussion, yeah?

You need to apologize now before we can "move on to a more fair discussion". Because not only have you lied (as I said previously), now you're lying more, and you're saying I'm wrong while simultaneously (now) making the very argument I've made this entire time and acting like that makes you right and me wrong. Incorrigible...

THAT.
SAID:

I also think AST is the right healer to move forward with a healer who disguises their DPS contributions as healing. I've done no shortage of pondering over how exactly to get it just right. I think I have a good core concept, but the details are always finnicky. It's a tough concept to work out on paper without having access to a build to test any ideas in.

This I agree with. I think the trick is removing the RNG, or at least reducing it. Bole and Ewer (SB) could be good cards...but only if they came up when you needed them. If a Tankbuster was coming up and you got Bole, it was useful. But if you got it when no Tankbuster as coming up, you'd generally rather have Balance. I'm not sure how to do this without exploding their hotbar, but imagine an AST with the SB buffs, but they were on a shared CD and you could choose to use any one of them every 20 seconds. This way, AST could be an actual buffer, as it could use buffs based on the situation instead of 4-5 times out of 6 drawing a buff that doesn't fit or isn't needed in the situation. And just like I think HoTs with interesting interactions are good, I think buffs with interesting interactions are good. SB AST's ability to modify buffs on a CD to do things like make them AOE or extend their durations are all really cool ideas that would be nice to see come back as an integral part of their gameplay.

Buffs by their nature need some level of certainty. As much as RNG is AST's aesthetic, RNG is why their buffing game didn't work as much as anything else.

Also, I wasn't trying to lie. I hadn't seen your suggestion of that previously.

I don't know that you were, and I live by several paradigms, one of which is a quote (probably wrongly) attributed to Gandhi:

"Do not assume malice when ignorance is a possible explanation; Humans are far more often stupid than they are evil."

Which...is less contingent on the "stupid" part (personally, I'd prefer being stupid to being evil), but the point of "People often don't intend to do bad things, so don't assume they are". I'm willing to let it go if you'll...just stop doing it.

.

But it's frustrating when you're so desperate to save face you can't just say "OHHH, I see. Yeah, you're right. We agree on that."

We'd be having a far healthier conversation if you could just say that. It doesn't even require you to admit fault! All it requires is for you to not attack me.

[ForsakenRoe]

We're talking about the Dev design intentions at the outset of 2.0, not the community standard. Moreover, WHM being "healbot" would prove that "Healers should DPS" was not the paradigm. If it was, there'd be no "healbot". WHM and SCH would both have been going balls to the wall DPS, which wasn't the case. This indicates, at best, the community paradigm was that SCHOLAR should DPS/support heal while WHITE MAGE should be a strict healer. Basically, it means more or less the opposite of your take, and at best, means a nuanced hybrid of it, which I've presented before.

If a raid back in ARR had a choice between WHM 50DPS, SCH 200DPS (via having the WHM healbot and only really refresh DOTs, minimal DPSing), or WHM+SCH 120 DPS each (via having them share the responsibility more evenly), the healbot option is actually more DPS for the raid. Not saying this WAS how it went, but that it's a possibility. Personally I think the main factor that meant people didn't DPS as WHM back then was a combo of things. And no, 'dev design intention' is not one of them. One, we had less OGCDs. As such, we'd be reliant on GCDs, with cast times. This leads into point 2, crits. Not ours, but the boss's crits. An unexpected crit right after a TB like Ravensbeak could outright delete a tank if they weren't full HP. As such, the concept of 'precasting' the heal so it lands right after the damage hits was a lot more of a thing, I'd assume. Next, MP economy. We had Cure 2 as our best 'keep the tank up' tool, with it's (still) horrendous MP cost. DPSing as we do now would have eaten into that MP economy hard, as WHM's MP costs weren't made 'palatable' until bloody Shadowbringers. As such, people might have actually made use of the FreeCure trait back then. All that 'use cure when tank is at 90%' might not be because of 'the tank is at 90%', but 'the tank is not at 100% AND I need a freecure proc banked so Titan doesn't roll the tank out like pizza dough'. Bard could play the 'funny MP song' yes, but that'd cost the BRD's damage. So maybe people did the thinking, and decided that having the WHM not DPS, to conserve MP, was less of a DPS loss than having the BRD forced to play the MP song, who knows, it's been like 9 or 10 years so I can only theorise

And of course, the whole 'people didnt know wtf they were doing' point. And if people didn't know how to play so good back then, it stands to reason the devs would go a little more lenient on Enrage timers, so as not to immediately kill off the newly forming raiding scene of the game right after it's just been brought back from the brink. Though saying that, Amdapor Keep and the BEES were most certainly NOT a lenient enrage. In fact, maybe the fact they had that enrage is evidence they DID expect the healer to DPS? IDK

I think the only way to prove or disprove, conclusively, that 'the devs intended healing to be healbot style' is for the devs themselves to come out and say that, at the time, that was their intention. But they pussyfoot around the point so much because they dont want to upset the green-dps's OR the healbots, and that just leaves both groups building animosity toward each other. So they wouldn't ever come out and say one way or the other, because if it turned out that actually, healer DPS WAS the intention, it'd be interpreted as 'healer DPS still IS the intention', and then there'd be outcry from part of the playerbase. Same in the other direction, if they said it was never the intention then, it'd be interpreted as 'its not the intention now' and there'd be outcry that 'thats bull, the enrage is mathematically un-reachable without healers doing damage!'. Rock and a hard place

But that wasn't the community standard until late in ARR, not in 2.0. Moreover, it wasn't the Dev design intent based on how encounters ran (no tight Enrages, no required Healer damage), a position they went on the record with in HW (even if it didn't fit the actual encounters).

So with that statement, we can surmise that the Battle team and the Class Design team were not on the same page re: design. Which means that we can't even use the testimony of the devs as evidence one way or another, because the two halves weren't even unified in one design!

My argument was that the Designers did not balance content around requiring Healers to use offensive tools. I base this partly on the game mechanics and Job kits of the time, and partly based on the later statement in HW about encounter balance tuning. (And for the love of Yoshi, please stop bringing other games into the conversation unless they're directly comparable; for example, Vanilla WoW was designed with the intent Healers mostly heal or buff - PLD only had 1 damage button at the time, Judgement, which I think was on a 30 second CD originally (before 2.4 or so? I don't remember which patch they made Seals 2 min duration and NOT consumed on Judgement), so every 30 seconds you'd apply a seal and then Judge, which removed it, and that was literally Holy Paladin leveling gameplay in Vanilla and a good chunk of BC. That might be a good comparison, considering ARR was modeled partly on WoW

You really gotta stop saying that other people are 'wrong' so definitively, if you're gonna make mistakes of your own. Judgement was 10sec CD, reducible by a talent to 9/8sec though you don't really want to as it means more mana consumption. Seals lasted 30s. So you'd Judge 3x as often as you imply. Earlier somewhere you've said Wrath was the expansion at the time ARR was current, it was Mists (even cited as a source of design inspiration for the revamp into 2.0). You've said Benediction was a 6min CD, it was 5min. The whole 'I'm right you're wrong' attitude people are picking up from you isn't always from you directly saying it (though at times you do straight up say it), but also by stating these 'facts' with such certainty, that none should doubt how you 'remember things as they were back then', because 'look I remember these tiny details so clearly'! But these things are pretty easily verifiable via Google. It's okay to be wrong, it's been like 9 years, but trying to act so 'matter-of-fact' about everything and then being wrong just hurts credibility.