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

[RyuDragnier]

Why is it always DoTs... /shakes head

Not everyone likes DoTs, and they're often boring. Some Jobs having them is great, but why does every Healer.......never mind.

I will never cease to be amazed by how people always propose DoTs as the solution to things... Not you specifically, Ryu, just in general, that's been proposed so many times. If the problem is Healers all play the same NOW, then having them all have the same solution of "another DoT" (even if they work differently) makes no sense. If the answer is "Well, if the DoT's work differently, the Healers won't feel so samey", then why not just take the ONE DoT they all have now and make them work differently instead?

WHM's Dia (with a frontloaded damage tick) and SGE's Eukrasia Dosis (being a modifier ability) already work differently. AST and SCH have a basic "place on enemy, does damage" DoT, so those are the ones that really need some window dressing. SCH getting a second DoT that has interplay with Fester and AST's having a shorter duration like 20 sec or something would make them both a bit different.

Anyway, it's whatever, but I'm constantly amazed by how many people propose that same boring solution. I personally hate DoTs in almost all their incarnations, so "more DoTs" I definitely don't agree on as a worthwhile solution. I'd rather a 1-2-3 combo, honestly; Stone, Water, Aero; Quake, Flood, Tornado...

If the goal is to make the Healer Jobs not all feel the same, then the answer would be to give one more DoTs but not to give them all more DoTs, since that just ends up in the same position as now, just with more button bloat and everyone more annoyed.

Because it's the easiest option on the devs and the players without them having to worry about them "being too complex." The devs have been trying to streamline things and simplify them, and DoTs are often the easiest method since you set them once every X seconds and don't have to interact with them again. I'd personally prefer actual buttons for each job like it once was in HW and SB, but I'm having to give a suggestion based on the arbitrary design idea the devs want things at, so sadly that limits what can be thought up or done.

[Renathras]

...

The prevailing view right now seems to be "Abyssos was a good step and we want more of that, but the problem is we Healers had to rely on the DPS for party mitigation and that was really hit or miss in PF, so the more healing was great, we just need mit abilities moved from DPS to Healers, since Healers will get blame/more suffering if DPSers don't use them right now and we'd rather be in charge of the whole kit an kabootle ourselves."

Relatively few seem to want more damage buttons as their preferred solution, and some outright REALLY don't want any more at all. Almost NONE want a full on DPS rotation (people answer the question differently, so some interpret this as "DPS Job like SAM or DRG" while others interpret it as "a rotation to maintain"), so answers are kind of all over the place. But the short answer seems to be that MOST people don't want more of a rotation. Even people that want more damage buttons seem to want them to not be a rotation, such as SCH having more DoTs or WHM having Aero 3 for AOE pulls but having its single-target rotation unchanged.

So far, the results seem to be more or less in agreement with what I've said for a while about rough percentages of players and what they want (like where I once said about 20-25% would like a simple Healer like WHM while about number would be neutral, and about 40%ish would like something like SB SCH), which was the impetus behind my "four healers"/"make 2/3 more complex and 2/1 keep simple, probably WHM and maybe SGE"...and overall, something vaguely in that ballpark seems to be emerging. Likewise, the viewpoint of what the problem is seems to agree with what I've long said - oGCD heals are too powerful and encounters need more of a focus on healing, especially sustained healing, and GCD healing use that needs to be seen as not a warcrime.

For all the insistence I've got the wrong of it, it seems with a broader sample of the player base, I do not. But the results are still preliminary. Should be interesting to see when more come in. Though I'm trying to think of the right way to classify the answers. I love the questions being open ended and so the respondents can really say what they want and how they want it, but classifying it more precisely is going to be a bit of a challenge. But I think it's worthwhile...

Because it's the easiest option on the devs and the players without them having to worry about them "being too complex." The devs have been trying to streamline things and simplify them, and DoTs are often the easiest method since you set them once every X seconds and don't have to interact with them again. I'd personally prefer actual buttons for each job like it once was in HW and SB, but I'm having to give a suggestion based on the arbitrary design idea the devs want things at, so sadly that limits what can be thought up or done.

I do get that, but I kind of disagree. I find 1-2-3 easier to maintain than DoT every 30 seconds. I'm MUCH more prone to forgetting about my DoT and noticing it's fallen off SOME TIME after it's fallen off (could be 1 sec, could be 15, I don't know!) than I am to forget 2 comes after 1. Especially now that spellcasting doesn't break combos anymore (hit 1-2 on PLD then cast Clemency. Now look at your -3 button. It's still good to go!)

I feel like DoTs are actually harder/higher skill ceiling than a 1-2-3 since they're easy to forget if you don't have a third party tool reminding you of them. And I've yet to find a satisfactory way to track them. I'd love to have my Focus Target be only my buffs/debuffs, because sometimes I need to know other people's debufs on the target (e.g. see if Chain is up to time Misery), so I can't just check "only show my buffs/debuffs" since it robs me of that critical information. But if I had a bar that only showed my DoT, it'd be far more visible when it's fallen off. Ideally, having Focus Target only show mine and the target bar show all would be my solution, but you can't do this with the native client/HUD as far as I can tell, and I don't break TOS to use add-ons. The only time I've found DoT upkeep not more challenging than 1-2-3s...is when it's part of the 1-2-3, like Old PLD's rotation. There was really no way TO miss it unless you just did the wrong combo for some reason.

[ASkellington]

snip

Okay... and nothing that hasn't already been expressed by the healing community since Shb:

Damage is too low, oGCDs are too powerful, encounter design doesn't make use of the healing tool kit, too much focus on mitigation checks and little to no proper heal checks, kits feeling same-y across FOUR SUPPOSIVELY DIFFERENT healers.

What I want to know are these questions:

1. SE seems to be refusing the request for higher amounts of healing even in EX and savage content where they belong. They keep saying that they will and haven't, only giving mitigation checks instead of outright heal checks. If they aren't going to make our bloated healing kits more worth while (by giving us more to heal) consistently in even endgame content, what else other than extra damage buttons can they do to improve the quality of healers in this game?
   
2. When we have down time (nothing to heal), what can be added to healers to make it less boring?

If the answers to both of those isn't extra damage buttons, what is your alternative then, because I haven't seen a good one yet. I would also like to add that there is no way to make down time 0. Easier content is going to have higher amounts of it for more experienced players and even in EX and Savage, if you don't have it at the start, you're going to have it by the time everyone else is geared.

Down time play is apart of the healing experience. It isn't going anywhere especially as FFXIV isn't WoW and doesn't have anywhere near close the amount of healing uptime that WoW has currently or even in the past. Large amounts of down time is tied to the encounter design sure, but our down time is still boring for mid to hardcore players and should equally be addressed.

[Renathras]

...

/sigh

If that were the case, I wouldn't be routinely attacked here for being wrong - which I am, let's be honest - since I hold those same positions. I do agree on paper it appears that we all agree, but clearly we do not, so you can't wave it away as "Well, we all are saying that exact same thing", when that isn't the case, as so am I.

Where we differ is in our solutions, and what the wider community thinks.

My position isn't everyone's - I'm not the one claiming my position is the one held by everyone - may not even be the majority. But it's not isolated to me and is, at worst, a sizeable minority.

The most commonly cited answer SO FAR is "More damage like Abyssos is the solution, as long as mitigation is handled by Healers alone and we aren't forced to roll the dice and hope we get DPSers in our parties that will do it". That seems to be the majority position, or the plurality solution, that those threads are showing.

1. Isn't true, as Abyssos DOES require higher amounts of healing and/or mitigation. Ex4 ALSO required more healing than a typical Extreme. So on both points you're wrong on that point. (also, kind of an Either-Or fallacy there, though not QUITE since you do ask the question with there being a potential third solution, you're just expressing doubt it exists)

2. The solution most people seem to be proposing is there shouldn't be downtime with nothing to heal, so the answer there would be healing.

You haven't seen a good one? I've seen others...are you sure you're looking?

.

Again, the main solution now seems to be "More healing required/more Abyssos is good, just move mitigation to Healers instead of giving it to DPS". While you might accept that solution, the posters in this forum have largely been opposed to it.

...because I've proposed it or variations of it QUITE A FEW TIMES up until now, and let's just say "disagreement" occurred.

.

I've said for a while there are bridges for agreement. My attempts to propose them have been rebuffed at every turn, with the position of the majority here being I'm an isolated case with whom no one agrees. I think the data is showing that claim to be false. At best, you could say my position is held by a sizeable minority of the player base. My proposal for 1 simple Healer, 1 moderate Healer, and 2 complex Healers was based on this breakdown, and often rejected based on the belief no one holds my position. But if it turns out 25-50% DO?

It also defeats Ty's statements above that "literally" no one agreed with me. At the very least, we can put that one to bed as debunked. Even if the data isn't great or the majority don't agree with me, that there are some that do means that there are, in fact, people who agree with me, proving false the claim that none do.

[ASkellington]

/sigh

If that were the case, I wouldn't be routinely attacked here for being wrong - which I am, let's be honest - since I hold those same positions. I do agree on paper it appears that we all agree, but clearly we do not, so you can't wave it away as "Well, we all are saying that exact same thing", when that isn't the case, as so am I.

Where we differ is in our solutions, and what the wider community thinks.

Which I have said already.


[QUOTE]1. Isn't true, as Abyssos DOES require higher amounts of healing and/or mitigation. Ex4 ALSO required more healing than a typical Extreme. So on both points you're wrong on that point. (also, kind of an Either-Or fallacy there, though not QUITE since you do ask the question with there being a potential third solution, you're just expressing doubt it exists)

No. I said consistently. EX1 and 2 of this expansion have been piss poor as have been a good chunk of the first tier of Savage. After ShB we should have had this difficulty already. But the devs said "well, we usually make the first tiers easy". Excuse me? After healers were asking for higher healing in the previous expansion you were going to make these easier to heal than the previous savage tier? Yeah, no. That's the part that I take issue with. SE needs to continuously give higher healing requirements and not back track after a tier (which we suspect they may do the for the next set of savages) or just going forward period.

2. The solution most people seem to be proposing is there shouldn't be downtime with nothing to heal, so the answer there would be healing.

You haven't seen a good one? I've seen others...are you sure you're looking?

Yeah that's the part where I've said I haven't seen anything. There is always going to be down time. So unless you and everyone else are on board with making MSQ more difficult for healers so there isn't going to be any there as well...

Again, the main solution now seems to be "More healing required/more Abyssos is good, just move mitigation to Healers instead of giving it to DPS". While you might accept that solution, the posters in this forum have largely been opposed to it.

...because I've proposed it or variations of it QUITE A FEW TIMES up until now, and let's just say "disagreement" occurred.

And the reason why is above. SE isn't going to make dungeon content harder. Meaning down time is going to be there for experienced healers. I don't agree with their stance on it at all. By 90 you should know how to heal, but that's where SE stands and they don't seem to be budging. Which is fine, but again, if I am going to have excessive amounts of down time, then make the down time more interesting.

I've said for a while there are bridges for agreement. My attempts to propose them have been rebuffed at every turn, with the position of the majority here being I'm an isolated case with whom no one agrees. I think the data is showing that claim to be false. At best, you could say my position is held by a sizeable minority of the player base. My proposal for 1 simple Healer, 1 moderate Healer, and 2 complex Healers was based on this breakdown, and often rejected based on the belief no one holds my position. But if it turns out 25-50% DO?

My rejection of your proposal was never under the belief no one held your position. My reject is because you're going to be leaving 1 healer behind in fixing their down time when there's no reason to other than "well people like it to be simple". Ok. You can give the simple healer a simple set of DPS skills. SGE has Phlegma after all. That is why I don't understand your position. I'm not asking for all healers to be at the same level of complexity.

It also defeats Ty's statements above that "literally" no one agreed with me. At the very least, we can put that one to bed as debunked. Even if the data isn't great or the majority don't agree with me, that there are some that do means that there are, in fact, people who agree with me, proving false the claim that none do.

Eh. This is between you and him.

[ty_taurus]

I didn’t even say no one agrees with him on all of planet earth. I was specifically referencing these forums—that in this space, he is the outlier, so if he wants any of his arguments to hold water, he should get more proof than “because I said so.”

[Renathras]

Which I have said already.

1) Good. Then we agree. Because I have already said so as well.

2) Wait, are we talking about MSQ or Extreme/Savage? The relatively universal position from the community seems to be not to touch MSQ and just leave it as it is. You're not going to find many people accepting the argument that it should require/encourage tons more healing/DPSing in order to clear.

3) Unfortunately, perhaps, but they don't make normal dungeons to be super engaging. They make them to be loot grinds and one-time story clears. They aren't making design decisions around them. Sorry... Maybe Criterion will be the start of a new thing, but considering the lead balloon reception...

4) I didn't say you. I said the majority here. I should also note there are a not insubstantial number of respondents who are asking for the same thing as I have for a proposed solution - for 1 or 2 Healing Jobs (typically WHM and often SGE) to be left alone. That is, in fact, what a lot of people want.

5) No, though he's the worst and latest offender. He's hardly the only one who has said it here. See (4)

...

I didn’t even say no one agrees with him on all of planet earth. I was specifically referencing these forums—that in this space, he is the outlier, so if he wants any of his arguments to hold water, he should get more proof than “because I said so.”

I wish, just once, you could type the words "I'm sorry. I was wrong about that. I will try not to lie about you again."

And you also have failed to present an argument for why your "because I said so" is valid. "A majority agrees with me" isn't proof of anything in general (unless we're asking about opinions; here we're talking about projections of what people will do, such as if they will quit a role or not after proposed changes), especially when that majority is a sample size of about 10 people. Your sample is too small to appeal to the "wisdom of the masses" even if it IS a majority HERE. It's still a bandwagon fallacy.

You think that jobs are fine as-is because most people are content with them, and change is not required.

You lied about this, I proved it TWICE; in the first you quoted other parts of the post and avoided this, then when I made one post ONLY this so you couldn't reply to it without addressing it, and you simply ignored that post.

.

As for the "you're all alone":

My position was that the community a whole - the playerbase as a whole - feels a certain way. Something you vaguely touched on here:

My argument and the argument that many have made elsewhere is that reworking jobs like the healers, or SMN, or other hot topic jobs to appeal to the people who used to play them would either be well received or neutrally received by the vast bulk of players that play them currently, because that's just how gamers are.

So we weren't talking about a mere majority here, we were talking more broadly. You shifted the goalposts, and switched to talking about only this forum, but even there you're wrong. The part of the post I wrote up but deleted because I wanted to confront you about lying about me being opposed to change I noted even on this forum I'm not alone. Excerpt here:

3) "Are you or are you not almost always at odds with literally every other person..." - I am not. If you like, I could point you to several of the people in the DPS forums that agree with my positions in those threads. I may be at odds with the MAJORITY, it's not "literally ever other person" with me alone on an island and no one else agreeing with me. To name a few, "dpsguy" outright called my points good. Connor also seems to agree with a lot of my posts or play "good cop" to try to get people to answer the arguments I'm actually making in my posts. After people replied to my posts asking them questions with hyperbole or a personal attack, he'd post "Yes, but that really doesn't answer Renathras' question. Can you give an answer to it?". Mikey_R also seems to agree with my positions. Those are literally people, therefore, literally every other person is not at odds with me. Moreover, there as here, it's the same roughly 4-6 people that disagree with me. The only difference is that the DPS forum isn't as much an echo chamber, so there are some people that are more neutral and there are several that agree with me.

So no, I am not, in fact, almost always at odds with literally every other person on the DPS forums. That's further proof for how much this Healer forum is an echo chamber that is toxic and antagonistic to different points of view. And why I've pointed out in at least two threads how someone coming in who had views similar to my own was attacked (or, AT BEST, given a snarky reception) for having them. Kele_Star seemed to find me agreeable enough, and Faidid (at least with SGE) and boopadoop seemed to feel that way about all the healers (and then deleted his post and hasn't posted here since his reception). Come to think of it, Kele hasn't posted in a bit, though seemed to get a better reception, so that could be unrelated.

Note I didn't even mention the Tanking forum, where there were a number of people that agreed with me in discussions on the PLD changes, among other things. (That forum is much slower with far fewer posts, but I could point out some of my posts there that got a lot of Likes). So it's really only THIS subforum, which I've noted is a hard echo chamber that pounces on people that don't tow the line with it, where this is at all an issue.

So even in the far more limited, far more favorable to your position goalpost of "only on the official forums" (Healer + DPS all included; I didn't even mention the Tank forum in the above reply, where I've had a number of people agreeing with me), you're wrong, and even in JUST the Healer one you're still wrong - it is, in fact, the only one you're even remotely close to being correct in, but you're still wrong there.

But even if that were all wrong - the majority is not always right, so appealing to the majority is a fallacy in the first place.

But it's NOT true that I'm isolated. And with a broader audience (the survey), it's looking like I'm FAR less isolated than you would like to believe.

.

And yes, I AM angry about you lying about me. I gave you two opportunities to correct it, which you avoided like the plague since you'd have to admit you were wrong, something you seem incapable of doing - and yes, I AM angry about that since you not only outright lied about me TWICE, you avoided answering to it TWICE, and you KNOW better since you've been in dozens of conversations with me at this point where I've proposed various change schema, both ones that change some Healers and some that change all of them, and I've been VERY consistent in saying that at the very least SCH and AST need change, and I'm also a proponent of changing the encounter designs themselves. It's impossible, at this point, for you to think I'm opposed to all change, so you OUTRIGHT lied about me and have refused to fess up to it.

I think that's the most infuriating part - YOU KNOW it was a lie, but not only did you lie about it, you refused to admit to it or even do a face saving "mublemmuble okay you aren't against all change...you're right, and I knew that, I'm sorry". You just...refused to address it. If you're going to lie outright about someone, at least have the decency to apologize when they call you out on it.

And we all know you won't admit to lying about someone even when called on it twice and given an opportunity to walk it back.

Hell, you have an opportunity RIGHT NOW. Can you do it, or will you be either defensive OR make only a partial apology that allows you to attack back (a "qualified/conditional" "apology"), or just once more ignore that you lied about me and were called on it?

/sigh

Moving on...

But this is a stupid argument. We all now know my position is not an isolated one in the playerbase as a whole, OR even on this forum, and hopefully our data will give us a decent overview of the playerbase as a whole.

That, I think is more important. Figuring out what people on the whole actually think, since any good solutions should be based on that, and perhaps you lot will temper your positions if we find that the majority is not so in agreement with you as you think, adapting yourselves to the new data; as a rational person should.