Paired Threads: What would it take to make Heaker kits "complex/interesting"?

[Renathras]

I guess if you make enough threads eventually you'll find at least one other player that agrees with you that WHM should have zero skill ceiling, and then you can lord over all of us unenlightened 'dirty elitists' that you were right all along

Well, first of all:

It's not my fault you guys can't read basic notices to posts and want to believe the worst things possible

...you're literally doing that. You say it's bad faith, but...you're DOING THAT. Wanting/Assuming the worst thing possible - that my thread is some secret bad faith attempt at subversion - when there's literally no reason to assume such. What on EARTH makes you think I'm making these threads, threads that are in a pair to establish two endpoints of a spectrum, as some convoluted attempt to get ONE person to come out of the woodwork and say something so I can use ONE PERSON to insist that majority agree with me? A position I've literally rebuffed every time you've done it and taken great pains and measured language to avoid doing myself up to this point (and including this point)? Something at odds with most of my posts in this forum and with my debate style?

Can you provide a single quote from me, in any thread EVER, saying or using the phrase or term "dirty elitist"?

One?

Go ahead, search the forums. Let's see what you come up with - because we both know you didn't read it to think that, you're just throwing that out there as a thing you assume I've said, just like how Ty and Sem constantly use "you don't think we're 'real healers' ", a term I've never used and a position out outright EXPLICITLY rejected several times, including the last time Ty did it.

There is no ulterior motive. I even OUTRIGHT HAVE SAID (twice) what the intent was. Here:

As I said plainly in the other thread, in response to another of you with a similar post, I'm attempting to figure out what the endpoints of a spectrum of "simple" on one end and "complex" on the other would be. When I think about them, I clearly am thinking differently than many of you, so by seeing what many of you would consider simple and would consider complex, and discussing those, it would help in formulating a realistic, somewhat common definition for all of us to use in future proposals and discussions.

...or at the very least (since none of you give a damn about anything other than your own positions), for ME to develop a metric of what the spectrum is that I'm having to look at with you guys and how that may or may not actually make sense in absolute terms. But to at least have a full and concrete understanding, nailed down, of what that spectrum is in your own collective words.

That's it.

And here:

Okay, let me clarify:

The point of these TWO threads - there are TWO of them, and I even put the link for each one in the OP so they'd be easy to compare - is to look at what it would take to make Healers truly simple (no, they are not all right now) vs making them truly complex, to get a really general feel of what the two boundaries would look like. That is, to bound the problem/situation so that analyzing the in-between could be done more effectively and to kind of see what the highest and least would look like against each other.

It wasn't to change or even suggest changes, it was a thought experiment to establish endpoints on a spectrum to provide for further discussion.

There is no "gotcha" or "one other person" or "unenlightened 'dirty elitists'" or any of the rest of it. And frankly, there's not even a logical reason for you to think I WOULD be trying that, as I don't even use that viewpoint or terminology. How many times do I have to say "Make SCH and AST and probably SGE harder to appeal to people who want a higher skill ceiling" before you go "OOOOooooooh, Ren ISN'T attacking people that want a higher skill ceiling"?

You can keep pretending that I have some nefarious secret plan despite me outright saying no and there being no evidence that I've tried to do it, but at some point, you have to realize how absurd it is to continue to insist someone has subversive intent when they don't and when they tell you exactly why they're doing what they do.

You know, you could be using the time you're spending on these constant forum posts that boil down to 'I want to keep the maximum skill expression of the class as low as it is, so really good player don't make me look worse by comparison' to, idk, practice more

Just so you know, "You're a bad player who is so bad you want the skill ceiling low so you don't get shown up" is, in fact, a personal attack.

How is this not 'bad faith'?

Well, first of all, because that wasn't the OP. Ty's position is that my OP was in bad faith and so deserved Sem's response.

Assuming that Sem didn't read your post before posting theirs?

You mean the post she replied to:

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post6202057

Twice:

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post6202072

?

When a person replies to the first page of a post, I think it's pretty reasonable to assume they WERE aware of it. Moreover, just so you know, the [ hb ] was added in an edit. It wasn't originally in the OP. Meaning she replied to it BEFORE IT WAS POSTED. So "(my) whole drivel) didn't exist for her to respond to at the time. I originally put it in the first reply. Could she have read it? Maybe, but if she had, why would she be rolling her eyes at a WHM proposal that she would generally like?

And by the way, if it's not worth a typed response, it's not worth a .gif. Again, people need to accept that if you don't like a post...you don't have to reply to it.

When you reply WITH SNARK - which is what rolled eyes are after a person actually puts in effort to make a post (you can call it "drivel", but did you actually bother reading the kit ideas? Will you sit here and say you would roll your eyes if the Devs announced those proposals for 7.0?) - it might engender a negative response.

That's not proof I'm acting in bad faith, it's proof I respond negatively to snark.

And that's the thing: BECAUSE she didn't "use your words" like a mature adult, there's now way of knowing what she was rolling her eyes at. Was it the thread? The ideas presented? Her assumption of my intent? We have no way to know.

And clearly, it's been "worth a whole typed response" to all of you who have posted since then, yet again on the bashwagon.

.

Note what not one of you has done thus far:

Give a good faith response to the OP.

Maybe because making forum posts *le gasp!* more fun than 1 button spam after all!

I like talking about games I like with other people that (in theory) like them. Sorry? These forums are here for general discussion, not for negative feedback and nothing else.

I just want to add that while there may be the odd note of sarcasm, which may be due to impatience, or a poor sense or humour- I really don't recall ever seeing a single instance of a personal attack, or what looked like responses that were in bad faith

What examples would I have to give you to prove you wrong on this? There are plenty of examples of people doing it, but what bar must it be beyond before you'd accept it? I don't want to go through these threads pulling out all the attacks for it to be a waste of my time as you just go "Oh, well...yeah, I don't count that". Something you've done before when I point out attacks made, btw. You saying a thing isn't an attack...doesn't make it not an attack. There's a point where you have to look at dogpiles and go "oh, yeah, maybe that's not right".

You may not recall it, but it got so bad back in October or so, that some people who WEREN'T regulars here pointed out that it looked like I was being unfairly attacked in a mass dogpile - and it was a person saying they didn't actually agree with me, it was just blatant enough they felt they should speak up. I believe Ty and either Sem or Roe actually did offer a partial apology and back off for a while after that.

What I do see is an incredible amount of patience in comparison to other forums

From me, yes.

But I do have my limits. There's only so much I can take before it builds up to the point I have to call it out. And, as is typical, while you all feel it's your responsibility to "call me out" (even if you're doing it wrongly; "calling out" things that I'm not even doing), not one of you accepts when I tell you so.

When one of you posts about my "attitude", that person gets 4-7 likes and several others join the dogpile. But when I point out blatant abrasiveness and bad faith, the other person's posts get liked and not one of you even will say "WELL, I guess I could see at least how you MIGHT feel that way". Nothing. It's just an abject refusal to see any wrongdoing or to, even if not admitting a bit of fault, just BACK OFF and stop doing it for a bit. A special kind of cruelty which refuses to admit it MIGHT be a bit beyond the pale and is causing someone distress and harm. But if the situation is reversed for even an instant, the attacks redouble.

.

I just want you guys to give good faith a chance, and you guys collectively refuse to MOST OF THE TIME.

There ARE exceptions.

The "Healers Then And Now" is a rare island of sanity here, and what's the commonality? It's not my posting style - since I'm posting the same way there. It's not my making threads - because I made that thread. It's not my position - because my position there is the same, just with a lot more analysis and hard data points (ability pools).

The difference is, in that thread, collectively all of you chose to act like mature adults and discuss the topic instead of making personal attacks about the OP's skills or your perceived ulterior motives.

Maybe if you guys would do that in all these threads...well, I wouldn't have to be making posts like this.

Because I hate making posts like this.

I want to discuss the topics and thought experiments, not rebuff the inane attacks and unceasing 24/7 dogpiling and briggading - which, yes, is what is going on here.

When I'm in a majority in forums and I see it happening, I call it out, because I hate seeing a bunch of people ganging up on one person. It's shocking to me that this place is so toxic, that doesn't even happen here.

[ForsakenRoe]

The difference is, in that thread, collectively all of you chose to act like mature adults and discuss the topic instead of making personal attacks about the OP's skills or your perceived ulterior motives.

Maybe if you guys would do that in all these threads...well, I wouldn't have to be making posts like this.

Because in that thread, we were all trying to come together to come up with common sense solutions to perceived issues with the designs of the healers as they are. This thread started out with 'look how complicated I can make WHM, just for the sake of it'. Like, you started out with this:



We aren't trying to make healers 'needlessly complex'. We're trying to add more room for skill expression. If anything, those of us who have put thought into how to do that, have put a lot MORE thought into how to do that, while having as little impact on the skill floor as possible. Saying something like the above, in the very first post of the thread, shows that whatever changes we pitch, both here and previously, are being perceived as 'needless complexity'. So, at least to me, it's understandable why someone might not engage in complete good-faith, when this is the starting position.

Like, we had some ideas we agreed on, Aero 3 as a Phlegma, Protect>Plenary, Eye4Eye>Protraction, etc. Then you make this thread, which starts with such bangers as 'if I wanted to make WHM as needlessly complex as possible I'd add Cleric Stance again but this time it'd lock you out of healing for 10s instead of 5'. Nobody's asking for 'needless complexity'. We're all putting in a lot of effort to our ideas to avoid 'needless' complexity. And at this point, there's no doubt in my mind that if any of us engaged with the topic of the thread, of 'how to make healers absolutely god awful engineering PHD-level to play', it'd be thrown back at us as 'This is what you guys want healers to be like? Thank god you're not on the design team'. Because you're not interested in good faith or bad faith or any of that. You just make these threads to rant about how your perception of how healers should play is THE way, and everyone else is wrong. And you can try to disguise it, or rewrite the same sentiments, or edit messages to add more stuff and then claim we're 'not even reading the response' all you like, at this point everyone's just sick of it. Honestly I'm surprised others are staying so cordial about it.

Bring on fanfest so we can find out what direction the role's going and put all this BS to rest

[Renathras]

...

There's ALWAYS a defense to avoid saying "Okay, I was wrong", isn't there? /sigh

IN THIS THREAD, I'm trying to do THE SAME THING. My intent did not change. I've even stated twice what it was and posted BOTH of them in the above reply that I take it you didn't accept. I've already stated the intent, which was, in other words (because my previous statements somehow aren't getting through): "What is the maximum amount of complexity that might still be vaguely fun and not too much that it would make Healers unplayable?"

Did I say YOU were trying to make healers "needlessly complex"?

No. I did not.

I said that if I was to make Healers as needlessly complex and difficult as possible (while still being functional and keeping to their class fantasies), this is how I would do it.

I made no statement on your intents or my perceptions of your intents, because that wasn't the point of this thread. The point of this thread was to establish "how complex is too complex, even for you?" by seeing what is a step BELOW that. My HOPE was that if I could understand what your limits were, it might lead to a better understanding or a better way for me to express my own to you in a way you could find common cause with, or at least "Okay, I see how you see it" sorts of ways, and/or, by knowing the endpoint of maximum acceptable complexity of the crowd that wants complexity, to see what good compromises might be.

It was also what I was attempting in the thread asking what makes a Healer simple or complex, but this time, I wanted to really nail that down - what KIT would you consider complex or simple - as answers like "Well, complex has interactivity" don't really give. Nebulous answers - and I'm not saying vague or duplicious - aren't very actionable. And while the people giving those answers may have a concrete image in their mind of what that is, until we put all those concrete images in words and in one place together to compare them, we can't do anything meaningful with them.

The starting position WASN'T what ALL OF YOU decided to assume it was. Moreover, the OP didn't even suggest that, you all just assumed it. It's not me writing badly, it's you guys deciding before you read my posts what they're going to mean - as we discussed in that OTHER thread where I pointed out the same thing going on (in cases where I said the exact opposite thing clearly with no room for ambiguity and several of you decided to insist I was holding the opposite position of my explicitly stated position).

You guys do this ALL THE FREAKIN' TIME.

You lock onto one or two words out of ENTIRE POSTS, decide THOSE WORDS are the only ones that matter, INTERPRET those words in ways they were not intended, and then react toxically to an intent that doesn't exist and pin the justification for your toxicity on words that don't even mean what you insist they do.

And at this point, there's no doubt in my mind that if any of us engaged with the topic of the thread, of 'how to make healers absolutely god awful engineering PHD-level to play', it'd be thrown back at us as 'This is what you guys want healers to be like? Thank god you're not on the design team'.

SEE?!?!?

YOU'RE DOING IT RIGHT NOW!!!

I have no such intent. AND I'VE EXPLICITLY STATED SO THREE TIMES NOW.

My intent was to establish boundary conditions - like endpoints of a spectrum or line. THAT'S IT.

THAT IS ALL.

THAT WAS ALL.

And you CONTINUING TO INSIST that it's not that, it's this other thing YOU WANT TO BELIEVE I INTEND, with ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF SUPPORTING THAT BELIEF, and WITH ME EXPLICITLY STATING THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M INTENDING, and WITH ME SAYING WHAT MY INTENT ACTUALLY IS is bordering on abusive at this point.

Because you're not interested in good faith or bad faith or any of that. You just make these threads to rant about how your perception of how healers should play is THE way, and everyone else is wrong. And you can try to disguise it, or rewrite the same sentiments, or edit messages to add more stuff and then claim we're 'not even reading the response' all you like, at this point everyone's just sick of it. Honestly I'm surprised others are staying so cordial about it.

I don't even have words to reply to this.

This is so...I don't even. There's no way to respond to this.

You're not only claiming to know my mind better than I do, you're saying I'm lying about my intent AND that I'm a horrible person. You're saying you know why I'm making these threads and that I'm lying about it. You're saying I'm not interested in good faith when I have stated clearly that I am. You are calling my posts rants. And that everyone's sick of it and should be ganging up and being toxic to me.

I'm done.

.

You know, I'm just not going to bother.

Good faith, thought experiments, history - it doesn't matter what I post, I get attacked for whatever and some few people decide to poison any well of discussion that isn't attacking current Healer design. That isn't part of a mope fest ragging on the game/Devs/Healers. That want this subforum to ONLY be for people who want to complain, and anyone else is unwelcome and attacked.

This entire subforum is just too toxic. YOU WIN! Another person who disagrees with the echo chamber leaves.

[Xelanar]

AST could benefit from a design philosophy that does not care so much about log hunters and perfect, calculable consistency in DPS. Or at least a system acting as a safety net to catch terrible RNG. But not having any meaningful RNG in a CARD DRAWING mechanic is really disapponting.

Its healing kit is fine. Not optimal, but it's fine and fun to use and play around with.

Its DPS kit however... oh dear... It has been streamlined into absolute boredom, because nothing feels rewarding to do. Cards having the same dull effect being the worst culprit of them all.
It's easier to balance, sure. Does not make it any more appealing though.

On other jobs I always look forward to my burst stuff being ready. On healers though? Yeeeah... it's buttons I press, because their cooldowns are ready, and that's pretty much it. Neither cards nor Astrodyne nor Divniation have anything interesting to them, that makes me want to use them. I just do it, because that is how the job is played.

Having 123 instead of 111 could be a step in the right direction. It would allow devs to i.e make 2 into an instant cast and/or 3 into a longer cast that results in a potency gain of 10 or something. Nothing game breaking, but something we can play around with and optimize during healing downtime and movement-heavy phases.

It also would make room for simple build-up mechanics that result in any sort of awesome cool looking skill. It's not always about complexity. Take Summoner as an example. Is it a complex job? Arguably not really. Is it fun and rewarding to play? Hell yes(at least I think so). Summoning all those primal egis, even summoning Bahamut of all things. Those skills have actual impact and power to them. They feel absolutely strong. Meanwhile on my AST I'm stuck on ONE skill that does not have any impact to it at all. Which could be fine I guess? IF I was busy healing all the time. However, as it stands, developer's "low healing requirement" philosophy and healer's 111-rotations do not complement each other very well. One of those should seriously be reconsidered, the latter probably being easier to adjust.

But most importantly, interesting card effects need to return in some fashion. For those who despise heavy RNG, maybe having two different draw skills could help. One for offensive card types, and one for cards with support effects, separate from eath other.

[IDontPetLalas]

AST could benefit from a design philosophy that does not care so much about log hunters and perfect, calculable consistency in DPS. Or at least a system acting as a safety net to catch terrible RNG. But not having any meaningful RNG in a CARD DRAWING mechanic is really disapponting.

Its healing kit is fine. Not optimal, but it's fine and fun to use and play around with.

Its DPS kit however... oh dear... It has been streamlined into absolute boredom, because nothing feels rewarding to do. Cards having the same dull effect being the worst culprit of them all.
It's easier to balance, sure. Does not make it any more appealing though.

On other jobs I always look forward to my burst stuff being ready. On healers though? Yeeeah... it's buttons I press, because their cooldowns are ready, and that's pretty much it. Neither cards nor Astrodyne nor Divniation have anything interesting to them, that makes me want to use them. I just do it, because that is how the job is played.

Having 123 instead of 111 could be a step in the right direction. It would allow devs to i.e make 2 into an instant cast and/or 3 into a longer cast that results in a potency gain of 10 or something. Nothing game breaking, but something we can play around with and optimize during healing downtime and movement-heavy phases.

It also would make room for simple build-up mechanics that result in any sort of awesome cool looking skill. It's not always about complexity. Take Summoner as an example. Is it a complex job? Arguably not really. Is it fun and rewarding to play? Hell yes(at least I think so). Summoning all those primal egis, even summoning Bahamut of all things. Those skills have actual impact and power to them. They feel absolutely strong. Meanwhile on my AST I'm stuck on ONE skill that does not have any impact to it at all. Which could be fine I guess? IF I was busy healing all the time. However, as it stands, developer's "low healing requirement" philosophy and healer's 111-rotations do not complement each other very well. One of those should seriously be reconsidered, the latter probably being easier to adjust.

But most importantly, interesting card effects need to return in some fashion. For those who despise heavy RNG, maybe having two different draw skills could help. One for offensive card types, and one for cards with support effects, separate from eath other.

There are some very interesting ideas. However I wouldn't find a 10 potency increase that impactful, especially if tied to a longer cast time - as you say if you have movement -heavy phases. If you look at turret jobs they typically get their payback by having higher DPS - so it should be considered for that as well well as the application for solo play.

[SargeTheSeagull]

Oh boy another thread started by Renathras! I bet he's going to put forward some well thought out, intuitive and fun ideas about how healers could be changed in upcoming expansions! I even bet he'll respond respectfully and succinctly to anyone who may disagree with him and engage in a polite, constructive dialogue!

Oh nvm.

[ForsakenRoe]

Having a 123 instead of a 111 is not the solution IMO. Imagine that, instead of having Jolt/Verstone/Verfire as seperate buttons on RDM, with procs, you just did them in that order as a 123. Or that BLM's Fire4 spam was a 123 combo of F1, F3, F4, stuff like that. The reason those jobs work well, is because their main loop isn't some variation of 123. I'd rather see the extra stuff added to healers be 'conditional' in the same way as casters, be that as procs, separate GCD (think Goring Blade or Sonic Break), or limited because it applies a DOT and you don't want to overwrite early

[Xelanar]

Having a 123 instead of a 111 is not the solution IMO. Imagine that, instead of having Jolt/Verstone/Verfire as seperate buttons on RDM, with procs, you just did them in that order as a 123. Or that BLM's Fire4 spam was a 123 combo of F1, F3, F4, stuff like that. The reason those jobs work well, is because their main loop isn't some variation of 123. I'd rather see the extra stuff added to healers be 'conditional' in the same way as casters, be that as procs, separate GCD (think Goring Blade or Sonic Break), or limited because it applies a DOT and you don't want to overwrite early

The issue with this approach is, that it theoretically can apply to everything. At which point does it become ok to switch from 1 button to multiple buttons? 3? 4? 6? Dragoon is basically 123456789-10. What if we made that 11111-11111 instead? Is it still the same? Is it more boring? I guess that is debatable, but for me personally? I'd rather press multiple buttons in sequence than the same one again and again.

However, even if we were to place this portion of the argument aside (which we probably should, since it is just a matter of taste), there is an entire different issue that sets a healer's 111 apart from a possible 111(Jolt/Verstone/Verfire) from Red Mage.

The issue being, healers are not only pressing the same button over and over again - they are using the same skill over and over again as well. A skill that by itself feels boring and dull to use in every way: animation, impact, effect, complexity, sound, potency etc. And it is the only thing we get for healing downtime - which by design is what we have plentyful. And not only party content suffers from it. The single player experience? "A test of your reflexes" consisted of me spamming Malefic for 10 Minutes, slowly chipping down a huge pool of HP - multiple times.

That being said, I'd be on board with healers having at least a basic conditional procc mechanic of sorts. Anything that breaks the 111-rotation is viable in my eyes. But something definitely needs to change when it comes to healer DPS "rotations". I'd already be perfectly fine with Warrior types of complexity: A 123 buildup, and a spending skill.

I honestly don't even understand why exclusively healers are being treated in this way. Tanks have more complex rotations than healers do, while also being expected to do their job at the same time - and ironically OUR job as well, with how much healing the have available. I mean, why am I even there then?

[UkcsAlias]

While 12345 and 11111 can be effectively the same in result. There are diffirences to note:
- A healer should not be punished for interupting the dps rotation
- A dps often has trees that branch and allow other effects to trigger
- Healing must be more reliable per ability, than dps must be (for dps, the average acros a rotation is what counts - but healers must be able to interupt these)

As a result, healer dps must be simplistic. But there are a few catches that do enable freedom (and also apply extra restrictions):

DPS rotations must be standalone. Healing cannot interupt these (not even based on a timer!). While interactions are forbidden, some interactions still provide a null net result (for example, after a heal, the next gcd cast deals double damage), these can still provide the negative effect in which healers try to optimize these bonusses, but normal dps casts already feature this same risk/reward feature.

DPS rotations must not be based on a 'better to cast one now, and heal a rotation later' effect. Any boost that was applied, must be applied on a longer basis (this can be a real mess). If there is a teamwide dps boost, yet you are healing, your dps casts will be even less valuable. Which especialy with combo systems could mean you lost your highest potency cast. This would force people into doing more dps casts, rather than just doing what they should have done. Where in the previous example skipping a dps cast only lost you 1 gcd of dps, in this case it could be 0.8 or 1.3 effective dps casts lost, just because of combos.

And now imagine only having 2 abilities of 200 and 150(base)+150(combo) potency. Its already quite a mess at this point. Since you generaly want to use that 300 potency during buffs. It can make players skip a heal (and cause a death, or other players to drop their dps for survival). For a healer that just doesnt work.

Now imagine each heal adds 1 dps cast worth of potency to the next dps cast. So heal>heal>dps means 3x the damage on that single dps cast. while dps>dps>dps would just be the same. Now healing becomes favored as its more efficient. But the moment you go for 90% of potency added to the next cast, this heal>heal>dps cycle becomes useless since you want that extra 10%. It doesnt matter how you assign the buttons here, you dont want to lose dps for free (but often useless) heals. This is why freecast is useless (the many cure1 casts negate the dps you could have delivered).

It might be strange, but 11111 is actualy quite good. And the only system that would work is just a standalone constant rotation which regardless of what you do makes 1 and 2 just be the exact same, but with a forced alternating between the 2 (or you lose potency). Healing does not interact here, and as both values are the same, its never going to be a potency loss (unless mispressing - as its desired when making such rotation).

Also, tanks have more complex rotations since their aggro management is still just dealing dps. Something that healers cant do with healing.

[IDontPetLalas]

It does sound strange to hear someone say that '11111' is "quite good" .

I don't believe that most people are asking, or have ever asked for a "complex rotation". Given healers can hit 1,2, 3 or some other variation in other games - do you honestly think that healers don't have the judgement to realize when it would be safe to DPS and when it would safe to heal given that damage is predictable in this game or that most of the party would end of lying on the floor?