How MUCH healing can non-Healers do?

[ForsakenRoe]

God I should have stayed in bed. Also I'll put it in HB because it's long as hell

The sad thing is, you and I aren't dissimilar, you just don't see it: "if I was there and waiting for MP5 I'd be wanding the boss to at least help with damage (and getting Judgement of Wisdom procs to help get my mana back faster). It's a cooperative game, with a timer to beat on the content (enrage), so you bet your bottom dollar that if I can safely help my team to beat that timer in some way, I'll do that."

This describes me as well. Glarespam is the modern Wanding.

As to the earlier in its history: Wanding was autoattack. It wasn't an active button you pressed. That'd be like if in FFXIV a WHM right-clicked the boss and, when not casting heals, un-actively twacked them with their staffs. Not exactly the gameplay you're asking for (nor I, for that matter). Vanilla healers were actively discouraged from dpsing. And some from healing. (PLDs were brought for their buffs and Druids for Innevation, I think the name of it is?) Or, in some cases, from even entering combat (Paladins). Druids were brought to Vanilla raids to give mana to the Holy Priests, whose sole job was healing because mana economy kind of sucked. The reason healers didn't damage was because they couldn't without being unable to heal. There weren't massive mana free heals like there are now in WoW, so if you went oom, your tank died, and that meant you failed at your role. Also, healer damage spells were garbage at the time while costing stupidly high mana, and worse, agro management was very much an issue, and heals already generated a lot of agro, meaning doing additional damage risked turning the boss on the healer (and likely cleaving the raid)

Well, glarespam, staff-whacks, same thing really isn't it? Except one locks you out of GCD. And costs mana, potentially meaning you don't have enough resources left to heal with. And has a cast time that is interrupted by movement.

me and you aren't so dissimilar if you'd just take yes for a freakin' answer.

I'm stubborn, obnoxious, bullheaded and toxic. Are you?

psst!

[whisper]nice edit[/whisper]

1) With the current damage output and healing requirements and potencies. All things that we're talking about changing and would make your maths irrelevant.

2) Good for you? Again, we aren't as different as you want us to be.

1: Okay, so now instead of talking about facts and numbers, we're going to base the argument of whether it's a good idea to completely upend the healing model of the entire game, on a nebulous head-canon of 'what it could be like', which if you asked 20 people, would likely yield at least 15 different answers about the detail. So if we're still using 55% of our actions on damage, even after converting EVERY OGCD to a GCD (and remember, that was including Soteria Zoe Krasis type stuff), what is the plan, just cut every healing potency by X%, just to 'force' players to press GCD heals more? What is X in this situation? 30%? 50? And whatever number you say X is, would another player asked the same question, give the same value for X? I highly doubt it.

Over here in the Bri'ish Isles we had Brexit. Nobody could decide what Brexit was, and it was sold to the public by the people who wanted it as a vague enough idea, that the recipient of the idea was able to fill in the blanks about what it actually meant. Less immigrants? Yes it's that. Stronger economy? Yes it'll do that too. Make our own laws? Yes we'll be able to do that as well (except we're forced to follow EU regs to be able to trade with our nearest neighbors still so that's actually a lie). Now it turns out that Brexit is unable to live up to all the selfmade hype, but because people often cannot accept being wrong, they're turning to 'well Brexit was a good idea, but this implementation of it was bad, we should have Brexit'd harder'. Even with all the economic damage it's caused.

This 'what do healers need to make them more interesting' often devolves into that similar argument-scape, where 'the envisioned, no-problems perfect implementation, in the mind' is argued as being the way forward, and we all get angry at each other because 'why can't they understand this thing that exists only in my mind?' I probably do the same occasionally but I at least try to attach numbers to it to make comparisons easier. eg: when I suggested that 'do damage, get new AOE heal skill' in the WHM pitch, I said it'd be 500p. Off of that, you can see that it is stronger than Rapture and Medica, weaker than Cure 3, and weaker than Medica2 (if you let it fully tick). I could have just said 'it does big heal' but then nobody would know what 'big heal' is, is it Cure3? Stronger? AOE Benediction?

2: Yeh good for me. So please stop implying that people are not 'real healers', or being snarky about what 'real healer' means or whatever you want to try and reword what you said as. The 'real healers' are doing what they are meant to, within the confines of the system the game has provided them. And since the game asks them to only dish out healing with around 40% of their casts, they are spending the other 60% on damage, because the alternative is to just stand there.

I wouldn't mind at all. And?

You personally might not. 80%+ of respondents on Ty's survey seem like they would. And do.

I literally did this before:

This was comparing Stormblood to Endwalker, but a similar comparison follows here since you're just using Aero 1 as your instant and Aero 2 as your cast instead of SB's Aero 2 and Aero 3, respectively.

Cleric was also an oGCD. You can argue it increased complexity, but not that it decreased Stonespam.

First, did I mention Cleric in the comparison? I don't remember doing so, nor do I see it when I go back to check the post. It's the same reason I didn't include Presence of Mind, it's not a 'does damage action'. Only reason Fluid Aura vs Assize is on there is because you brought them up and directly compared them. Secondly, you compared SB to EW in your comparison. My comparison was ARR to EW. So when you did this comparison, of your comparison to mine, you seemingly implied that SB and ARR were identical in the detail. Which they were not, Aero 3 was 24s duration, Aero 2 was 18, Aero 1 stopped existing in SB but was 12s(wayback machine says it was 18 even in ARR). Actually what the hell am I looking at here?



So Aero2 was the 'short duration' one despite having a cast time? ???? Thank god for Wayback Machine I'd never remember the weird stuff like this. I remembered there was 'a 12s dot' but not which one it was I guess. Anyway, that means I got the durations on the two Aeros on the left side swapped by accident. But the point stands: We used to have to refresh stuff more often in ARR than we did in SB, and way more than we do now in EW. Also, more APM because of Fluid Aura weaving.

Oh, and while I'm on the Wayback Machine, I figured I'd look into something. Off topic from healers, but remember that one time I mentioned BRD/ARC had a 9s duration on Venomous Bite?



What a weird time ARR was huh

Dark knight has a long cooldown bloodwhetting strapped onto its invuln.

A: only took like 6 years for them to add it

B: WAR has a short cooldown Bloodwhetting attached to a button called 'Bloodwhetting'. They also have Equilibrium, which DRK has no comparison to. The DRK is also unique in that, if they are dropped to 1 HP, without that added 'Bloodwhetting' effect, they would be the only tank that would die to their invuln skill. A WAR can have aggro taken away from them after the fatal TB, and live after Holmgang wears off. DRK just went 'in the grave' for all that time.

Now, personally I'd have implemented a very different fix for DRK's invuln. But I'm not on the dev team, which is probably a good thing. But I guess the point being made is that LD doesn't deserve the extra 1min CD?