Has anyone quit healing?

[Renathras]

Whatever the reason, the Devs need to find and address the issue or it will get worse.

True, but the issue is tricky because of all that. If you make Healing more damage focused, you alienate and lose the people that don't like DPS rotations. If you make it less, you lose the people that do. If they aren't sure of what the problem is (as Yoshi P's most recent, exasperated "I thought we were doing what you guys want; what DO you want??" kind of indicates), they risk making it worse if they make sweeping changes since they could do more of whatever it is people don't actually want. And the issue is, there are a lot of different Healer player types, so what some may like may alienate others, meaning the solution needs to be a wide net to catch as many as possible. Going full in any direction doesn't help the situation if you pick up 10% more Healers but lose 30%, for example.

What they also really care about is player behavior.
Anything that causes exclusion or anti-social tendencies is a big no-no.

Definitely this. It's come up enough times and it's specifically why Cleric was removed and Healer DPS kits were stripped down.

Just cos the devs say something, doesn't make it true.

It doesn't mean they get it right or do what they're intending, that's true. But if they state their intentions, they likely aren't lying - so they're being truthful about their intentions (most likely), they're just failing at them. Also, need to do some more up to date calculations. You're using the most overtuned content in the game's history. So overtuned the Devs even apologized for it.

The problem with your "weave" argument is that Tank mitigations aren't GCDs. The closest to that is Passage of Arms. There's no "Press this GCD to do mitigation; it locks you out of dealing damage" button in the game. And the only Tank GCD that isn't damage related is Clemency. By contrast, Healer Jobs have at a bare minimum (SCH) three (lolPhysic, Adlo, and Succor), and at a Maximum, WHM has 7 (lolCure 1, Cure 2, Cure 3, Regen, Medica 1, Medica 2, Afflatus Solace, Afflatus Rapture). So there's not really a good comparison there other than we can say that the only Healer with more DPS GCD buttons than healing GCD buttons is SGE with 5 vs 4 (Dosis, Eu Dosis, Plegma, Toxicon, Dyskrasia, and Pneuma vs Diagnosis, Eu Diagnosis, Prognosis, and Eu Prognosis); SCH is equal with 3 vs 3 (Broil IV, Ruin 2, Art Of War vs Physic, Adlo, and Succor). WHM is 4 vs 8 (Glare, Dia, Misery, Holy vs the 8 above), and AST has...what, 3 DPS GCDs? 3 vs 5 (Malefic and Combust vs Benefic, Aspected Benefic, Benefic 2, Holos, and Aspected Holos)

[Much as I generally dislike the aesthetic, I might have to play with AST a bit more. I hate the way Cards as oGCDs work, though. If they were GCDs, maybe...just make Draw deal a Malefic's damage to your target, if hostile (abilities like Holmgang can judge whether targeting an enemy or not...), and Play a GCD that doubles the damage of the next Malific and said buff stacks up to 3 times...]

Cleric was removed because some people were harassing Healers for not DPSing, not because "healers were meant to DPS", and because the Devs thought Healing was too taxing of a role driving people away from it and needed to be made more friendly to attract and retain a stable Healer population.

As for Tanks: Agro was the intent in ARR. That's why they had a Tank Stance and Agro combo. It was literally to manage Agro - something that was stripped from THEIR role going into ShB as well.

And be careful with absolute statements: People were getting mad at Healers back then. Again, this is why Cleric was removed. Further, people do now. I've seen more than one Reddit post complaining about Healers in low level dungeons not dpsing "because they don't even need to heal". So clearly, some people are and have.

They said that, indeed. And people love repeating their statement again and again

Probably because when you're trying to figure out what someone intends to do, and they say "I intend to do X", it pays to reference that.

Note the discussion was about what the Devs intended at the beginning of the game (ARR and HW), not what they do now, nor even if they succeeded at their ARR/HW intent. The fact of the matter is, they said that their intent was Healers not to be expected to do damage and they even apologized for the content that was overtuned to the point of requiring it. Meaning their intent was for Healers to not have to do damage and any they did be a bonus, not a requirement.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

What words did I put in your mouth?

You and I have both now agreed that the Devs likely intended Healer damage (if any) to be a bonus, not a requirement, and did not balance or tune around it, and that they could do it if they wanted to or not. Which words did I put in your mouth in that quote?

Literally since the first post, all I've been saying is that if you asked the devs back in ARR times if they thought healers would use DPS spells in group content, the response would be "Yeah, most will probably use them at least a little bit." You misunderstood the context and made it your mission in life to be right about something you read incorrectly.

Okay, I genuinely have to ask...this was your first statement, the first lines of it, in this discussion stream:

That said, this is my guess as to what they wanted.

When ARR released, they wanted healers to dance between offensive windows and healing windows.

Maybe you forgot what your first post here was. But that's not saying "Yeah, we figure they'll use some damage buttons here and there". That's you saying they expected - wanted - Healers to be dealing damage, not just "use them at least a little bit" unless you have a VERY different meaning behind "dance between offensive windows and healing windows" that is "just toss out the occasional Ruin or Stone and not really do it much". Most people wouldn't define "dance between offensive windows and healing windows" as "use 5 Stones per encounter or so". You went on to say:

the actual content doesn't really create an environment for that playstyle to thrive, and I think the design team can't really do that without creating a schism between new and old content,

...which is you saying that the content has always been this way - not merely post HW.

As I said before - and offered you an olive branch over you're spitting in my face right now instead of taking - maybe it was just a misunderstanding where you could tell your message wasn't getting through and you could have said, at any time "I'm not saying the Devs expected healers to DPS, I'm saying they thought of it as optional". Instead you referenced the CNJ questline to say they intended for them to do it, and you insisted several times the game and encounter design has always been this way, even though it clearly was not. You even later said (agreeing with me) that it was different back then, in ARR particularly, with no Enrage timers and few oGCD healing options.

Maybe you meant this entire time "The Devs just thought people might toss the occasional damage spell on Healer and gave them the flexibility and freedom to do so, but didn't intend for it and realized many Healers wouldn't do it."

Since you won't clearly state your opinion, I'll ask you now, since I don't want to put words in your mouth but what your mouth is saying keeps changing:

Is that your position?

In this thread, you've said all of (Paraphrasing) "The Devs intended for Healers to deal damage", "The Devs EXPECTED Healers would DPS", "The Devs just gave Healers the freedom to deal damage as a bonus if they wanted to", "The Devs just thought Healers might throw out a damage spell here and there", and "The Devs (and players at the time) didn't know what they were doing regarding Healers and damage". While some of these can be true at the same time (namely any of the first four + the last one, or the first two may be true together), many are not compatible (1 and 2 aren't compatible with 3 and 4). So which is it?

I need you to make up your mind and pick one so I know which I'm arguing against. You've "danced" between them so often, it shouldn't surprise you I'm accidentally "putting words in your mouth" because your mouth has said all of these in at least some form.

Be clear on which it is and I won't misunderstand you.

I'm not trying to open up conflict, I'm trying to pin down what the heck you actually think and are arguing about here, since you've agreed with everything I said (while saying I was wrong - clearly not getting that you were restating my position) and also attacked that same position.

In an MMO, all players are expected to contribute to shared gameplay experiences, like running a dungeon or doing a raid.

And.
They.
Do.

"Contributing" isn't "dealing damage". That's one form of contribution, but not the only one. If it was, no MMO would have any role besides Damage Dealers.

but if you don't attack because "I don't want to"

It's amazing how often you trot out this straw man dead horse that's been beaten to where there aren't even molecules left in the dirt pile where once was blood and before that the corpse of straw.

You love arguing against a point no one has ever made in this discussion.

Maybe if someone was making the argument that they wanted to never ever under any circumstances press a damage button while healing, you'd have a point. But who has argued that point?

I'll do the mature thing (again) and ask you (again) because you didn't answer any of the last times I did so:

What do you think my argument is?

(And, btw, this IS the difference between us and why I don't put words in your mouth as you do with me - if I think I misunderstand you, I ask you what you mean. You don't ever give a straight answer, but I make the effort. You not giving a straight answer is what leads to the "putting words in your mouth" since you refuse to clarify what words you actually mean to come out of your mouth. And likewise, when I think you're misunderstanding me, instead of making my argument several different ways with you obviously (to me) misunderstanding every time and then trying to "gotcha" you later for it by calling you wrong and saying you misunderstand me, I ask you what you think I'm saying so I can clear up the misunderstanding. Your goal seems to be the gotcha, my goal is fostering discussion and understanding of my positions and why I think they're important. Though, again, you don't give a straight answer. It shouldn't be hard to answer the question "What do you think I'm saying/arguing?", yet you've consistently refused to do so.)

I even offered you an olive branch that maybe we've just misunderstood each other and are actually in agreement but didn't realize it. You didn't quote or reply to that post, instead you continue to attack and insist I'm misunderstanding you (while not admitting it's you that are misunderstanding me), even when I already beat you to that punch by saying maybe we just had a misunderstanding.

All you had to do was say "Yeah, I guess we just misunderstood each other. We do agree the Devs did not design or intend Healers in ARR to be Green DPS that did damage."

That's it!

You've even already said this, you just wouldn't do so without attacking me as being "wrong" for holding the EXACT SAME POSITION that you stated was right when YOU said it.

You could even say it right now!

All you have to do is stop insisting I'm wrong about something you literally agreed with my position on and the argument's over.

Here, I'll even quote it again for you in case you missed it the last time:

Anyways, Olive Branch time:

IF your position is that you agree with me that ARR Healers and the game mechanics, encounters, and Dev intent was not for Healers to be required to do damage, but rather they could freely choose to deal damage (or NOT to deal damage) during times that did not require it, nor involve them compromising their healing, which at the time was GCD based, and that this damage was merely a bonus when done, not a requirement and not expected or intended by the Devs (or the wider community at the time)...

...then we can drop this line of tit-for-tat and discuss what that entails, since we will agree on the position I've held this entire time...and clearly stated that was my position multiple times... (and if you've also held it this entire time, we can simply chalk this up to a..."misunderstanding".)

Namely, that people playing the game from before SB (and arguably some from before ShB even including SB) who enjoy that form of gameplay that doesn't require DPS from Healers and which does not view Healers as "Green DPS" (which, so we're clear on the term, means "A paradigm where Healers are expected and required to be focused on and contributing to DPS, and where that DPS contribution is required for clearing content, such that they aren't Healers so much as they are Support DPS that only incidentally manage health bars while focusing on their primary DPS duties of dealing damage and being damage dealers - hence 'Green DPS' instead of 'Green Healers' or 'Healers'.") had a place in this game, and as loyal players, should still have a place in this game. Thus, any solution to the current issue with healers should include them and their way of playing - not modifications to it to make the Green DPS side happy while giving these "grandfathered in" players something they can merely stand/stomach/accept rather than enjoy, or only allow them to continue playing that way at a penalty.

.

But anyway, as regards this discussion and the OP, I'll say it again:

No, I haven't quit healing and have no intentions to do so unless they force the Green DPS paradigm.

And note that was me replying to this post:

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.

Setting aside how I'm trying to be conciliatory and find some manner of peace while you...were not...

...if this post was your actual position, then we have nothing to argue about, because WE AGREE! Congratulations!

"I never said the design team balanced content around healer DPS." + "it was certainly balanced without healer DPS initially." + "where healers had the freedom to attack, and would do so at times, and this extra damage would be a bonus, not the standard." = LITERALLY MY ARGUMENT THIS ENTIRE TIME.

In reply to you saying this: "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.

And in reply to you saying this: "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.

I swear, it's as if you don't even read my posts before replying to them.

...which...WOULD explain the misunderstandings...