The Healers should be reworked? New player perspective.

[Renathras]

If I ask you if you want, for example, more money and you answer no, does this mean you would be upset if given more money?

Don't use a biased example. If I ask you if you want more vanilla ice cream, and you say no, does that mean you want more vanilla ice cream? We agree the answer is no.

Does that mean you wouldn't mind more vanilla ice cream?

You are saying it MUST mean you wouldn't mind vanilla ice cream, and Ty is suggesting it means MOST PEOPLE by that are saying they wouldn't mind more. He's citing people aren't saying that they want LESS ice cream, so that must mean they're fine with more even if they don't outright want more.

But what if you would mind? What if you like chocolate (party buffing) or strawberry (movement options) and genuinely can't stand the taste of vanilla (more damage buttons)?
Alternatively, what if you've just eaten two scoops of vanilla (feel you have plenty of attack buttons to satisfy you) and are sated right now and don't want more ice cream in a general sense, or perhaps wouldn't mind a different flavor but don't want more vanilla specifically?

According to you, ALL of those people wouldn't mind more vanilla, even when at least some, and probably most, very likely would.

Your interpretation is that we can assume everyone who didn't say they DON'T want less ice cream MUST either want more vanilla or be okay with more vanilla, even though there was a question specifically asking if people wanted more vanilla and these people did not say they wanted more.

.

The problem is that we need more nuanced question AND answer options in order to parse what that distinction is.

That is the only way to know what these other people think. Otherwise you're just putting words in their mouth to get a higher support in a survey whose questions and sample/respondents already lean in your favor. That's the thing, this survey already is (mostly) tilted as much as it could be in your favor without blatantly putting a fat thumb on the scale and forcing the result to you, and you're still determined to insist your position is even more supported when the reality is that it is less.

What we DO know is that only 79.X% of the survey respondents asked for more attacking options, even though everyone had the option to ask for more if they wanted them. We also know that some people answering that option didn't want MORE attack abilities, they just wanted them at earlier levels (Misery was often cited as something people want WHM to get earlier than it does). And we know that ~20% do not want more attack actions, with 2-4% wanting less.

We do NOT know that the 20% would be fine or wouldn't mind. That we do not know, and cannot know based on the way the poll was set up. So they cannot be cited as supporting or being ambivalent to a position that you didn't poll them on "are you ambivalent?", and which they had the opportunity to say they supported and they did not do so. You cannot even assume ambivalence - as I said, I did not answer less attacking abilities (I think we have about the right amount) - and I'm clearly not ambivalent. So we know that at least one person in that category is NOT ambivalent/would be fine with more damage abilities. And as none of you are likely in that camp (I'd wager you all said more attack options), you cannot authoritatively speak to the feelings of this group in any way, whereas I'm actually a representative/member of it.

Since the survey did not ask a question to allow us to know that, you can't assume it. The only thing you can assume/know is that 80% want more dps actions and 20% do not.

Moreover, even if they WERE all ambivalent - and I stress again they are not - that doesn't mean you should give them more and them just accept it. That's some kind of passive aggressive toxic thing to do to people. "Oh, you didn't say you DIDN'T want this beer, so I'm giving you this beer, even though you said you wanted a soda, because _I_ wanted a beer and didn't want to drink alone..."

.

Additionally - it's not "at absolute most...20%". 20% is at absolute least (well, 16%). Given that the survey is from a sample biased to be pro-more attack, it means the general community population will be more anti-damage than this survey, whatever the survey number happens to be. 16% is the lowest we can say don't want more damage actions, which is 1/5th of the total, and again, enough to make the argument to ensure they have a Healer Job that suits their playstyle.

.

Finally, it's not "barebones" or any other insults you want to give it. Some people DON'T LIKE dps rotations. The people who don't like DPS rotations tend to play Jobs that do not have DPS rotations. It's like if you don't like buffing party members, you don't play AST or DNC or BRD, because their gameplay is based on buffing, or how if you don't like drawing agro and Tanking, you don't play a Tank.

This should not be a hard concept to understand, yet so many people on these forums seem to have some kind of mental block preventing them from accessing this ridiculously simple concept:

Many people do not want a dps rotation, which is why they do not play a DPS Job. If they wanted a DPS rotation, they could play a DPS Job. There are SOME Healers who ALSO want a DPS rotation, but there are many who do not. This isn't being lazy, it's not being braindead, it's not any of the insulting words you want to apply to it. All it is is people who like something you do not and don't like something that you do. My position is that they should have the option to play their way and be optimal and you should have the option to play your way and be optimal. Your position is that ONLY you should be able to play the way you want, and other people either should be forced to play your way or should suffer. That's not a good position to hold by any metric. It's a very very BAD position.

But given how abjectly selfish and antagonistic people in here have been to the idea, I'm leaning more and more towards you just shouldn't get anything at all at this point. If you so oppose letting people who like gameplay now continue to experience it, then I'm ready to say "So you get nothing. You LOSE. Good DAY, sir." https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8rVY26lZItM

The status quo is Healer Jobs as they are now. THAT is the baseline position from which we bargain and seek compromise.

The status quo IS NOT that all the Healer Jobs get changed to have more DPS and I have to argue a case to save one of them from being butchered by you guys.

The status quo - what happens if no compromise is reached - is that NOTHING CHANGES. And YOU have to make the case to change ANY of the Healers, and have to make the case in absolute terms for changing all of them. You don't get to rest on your position as the default and the onus on me to oppose it. The onus is on you to make the case that each and every Healer MUST change, and that the game will be horrible or bad or everyone will leave if even ONE Healer does not: A case no one has made rationally (calling something "braindead" is not a case, even if it were true, which it isn't).

People HAVE made a case for why SOME Healers should be changed, which is why I agree on that point. People have NOT made a case for why ALL of them MUST be changed. Again, calling something "braindead", "barebones", "baby", "meme", "Sylphie", or so on is not making a case.

But at this point, I'm on the verge of holding the opinion that if you're unwilling to share the pool, and you're going to fight with other people over who gets to use the pool, then perhaps YOU get kicked out of the pool, not everyone else swimming happily who is willing to share with you.

[Shurrikhan]

The status quo is Healer Jobs as they are now. THAT is the baseline position from which we bargain and seek compromise.

Nice arbitrary point of delineation there, especially given that the "status quo" you're using as if it were a moral high ground... took 4 expansions of changes to reach, with a hefty portion of those larger changes being unrequested and widely despised, especially since ShB.

What would be, at each of those points, your warrant for... taking from those who did, for instance, prefer the old Cards system to arrive nearer to this new status quo? In reducing 5 DPS skills to 3? In so reducing healing requirements? In shifting healing increasingly just towards oGCDs?

What? "It just is, so deal with it now"? That's the equivalent of a thief demanding that not a cent be given back because the status quo now features that money in his pocket instead.

So why should this single point in time be uniquely protected and disproportionately weighted, especially when so many of the warrants against those more controversial changes still apply today?

But at this point, I'm on the verge of holding the opinion that if you're unwilling to share the pool, and you're going to fight with other people over who gets to use the pool, then perhaps YOU get kicked out of the pool, not everyone else swimming happily who is willing to share with you.

So sayeth... the beneficiary of, already, multiple evictions from said pool / having pissed in the water enough that so many felt compelled to leave.

I wonder why it is that so many who allege to speak for a "silent majority" completely forget also any majority silenced by having the game changed towards they can't find worth continuing to play.

The only thing you can assume/know is that 80% want more dps actions and 20% do not.

We know that 80% clicked the button to ask for more damage buttons, and 20% did not. That is all.

There was not button for No. There was no button for indifferent. One simply clicked off any among the 5 options per "Which of the following [one] would like to see in the future for White Mage? (Check all that apply.)" Those options, by the way, were shared almost identically across all jobs regardless of role.

What you're concluding is an interpretation (more than likely biased) of the data's findings, but not the findings themselves. Ironic, given your complaints and your agreement otherwise that more response options would be required to reach more specific conclusions.

_________________


EDIT [For those not familiar with the surveys]:

The WHM survey, by way of example. There was a near-identical one for each job.

[Renathras]

One thing I’ve learned about politacos, ppl will double down on this crazy idea that this path will work for everyone and this 1 guy/gal warn them that it doesn’t work. It goes through anyway because it FEELS GOOD and it immediately falls apart, ruining a good system.

At some point you just throw your hands up and give them what they want. Here overhaul everything for healers. Have all the DPS buttons, go back to ARR days and see all the subscriptions just collapsed. The ppl who asked for this……….crickets. Won’t admit that what they ask for ruined that system.

Yeah, you're 100% right.

Maybe they should do this for an expansion. The mass exodus of Healers that follows, the dungeon runs taking 2x as long because the casual Healers don't know what they're doing and Healer DPS tanks, everyone complaining about how regular Healers have stopped DPSing in dungeons, 24 mans, and so on. All the casual Healers quit the role and start doing something else like playing DPS or just quitting the game entirely. People who are "If I wanted a dps rotation, I'd play a DPS Job" going extra heels in the sand and just not hitting ANY DPS buttons at all. Ques taking ages because all the "high end players" tend to run dailies/roulettes with their friends and all the casual Healers quit quing - what the hardcores said would happen in ShB and EW would actually happen.

Then the Devs make a rare mid-expansion reversal of it all because of how there's no one Healing in casual content and even TANKS have 30+ minute ques now because there aren't enough elitist players to fill the gap and keep the ques running for normal content.

I doubt the people wanting it wouldd even admit then that they had been wrong. And then, not only would it all be reverted, but they wouldn't even get a SINGLE damage focused Healer Job, and they would never get one again, either, due to their own stubbornness.

There would be a certain poetic irony to that, but it'd suck to have to go through it.

So give every healer more DPS actions and introduce the auto-combo system. This makes all 4 healers accessible to both camps. Pro-DPS healers get 4 healers, and Anti-DPS healers get 4 healers.

Maybe. If the auto system was smart enough to always do the right thing so that using it would actually produce more DPS than not using it outside of someone not using it executing exactly perfect play - in which case they'd merely do "just as well". But I doubt that'd be what you want.

Especially since the actual easy fix would be...to leave one single Healer Job alone.

Genuinely curious, do you honestly think that healers getting DPS buttons would cause all the subscriptions to collapse?

"all"? No.

What it would do is cause a shortage of Healers in casual content - roulettes - which is something the Devs DO care about. There aren't enough of you hardcore types to fill in roulettes for all the people who would quit healing. Not only are there just not enough of you, many hardcore raider types don't do casual roulettes. They do Experts or the like with their fellow Static members. We've seen similar problems in the past when there were Tank shortages. The high end Tank players who loved it weren't filling in the roulettes. They'd do enough to get BiS, then they wouldn't que for them anymore. I suspect the same would happen to healing.

You know there's one thing that will get the Devs to act faster than anything to "fix" the problem - if DPS have to wait more than 15 minutes for a 4 man dungeon que.

Nope. Read it again, if you must:

Yes, let's "Read it again":

If I ask you if you want, for example, more money and you answer no, does this mean you would be upset if given more money?

If I ask you, among a small set of possible pathways to improve your quality of life at work, whether a dedicated parking space, fewer on-call hours, improvements to the break room, etc., would be a significant boon for you, are you therefore outright opposed to each pathway you didn't specifically say 'Yes' to?


So we have two ways to interpret the intersection between a bimodal question (More Offensive Actions? [Yes/No]) and its 5 actual sourcing opinions...

1. I want more actions,
2. I want an equal or greater number of actions,
3. I want the same number of actions (no more and no fewer),
4. I want an equal or lesser number of actions, and
5. I want fewer actions

And in the end we cannot quite know which is the most accurate. One perhaps overstates the majority by 21%. The other perhaps overstates the minority by 900%.



I can't say I'm surprised, though, that the latter interpretation is used to subject a job to being cut/kept to a barebone version, per your long-running project, Ren, on the basis of --at absolute most-- an opinion held by only 20% of respondents.

...All while ignoring, as usual, that a job having a decent ceiling does not prevent it from having an enjoyable floor and decent ease of use to the extent necessary to clear nearly all content and fulfill one's unique duties as healer. A job that runs a full gamut (A to Z, so to speak) of gameplay factors, instead of being cropped short at N, still has access to gameplay factors A to M.

Huh. THAT'S odd, isn't it?

THIS:

We know that 80% clicked the button to ask for more damage buttons, and 20% did not. That is all.

There was not button for No. There was no button for indifferent. One simply clicked off any among the 5 options per "Which of the following [one] would like to see in the future for White Mage? (Check all that apply.)" Those options, by the way, were shared almost identically across all jobs regardless of role.

What you're concluding is an interpretation (more than likely biased) of the data's findings, but not the findings themselves. Ironic, given your complaints and your agreement otherwise that more response options would be required to reach more specific conclusions.

Doesn't appear anywhere in THAT, now does it?

Maybe because you said it later, AFTER I had already said it first?

What we DO know is that only 79.X% of the survey respondents asked for more attacking options, even though everyone had the option to ask for more if they wanted them. We also know that some people answering that option didn't want MORE attack abilities, they just wanted them at earlier levels (Misery was often cited as something people want WHM to get earlier than it does). And we know that ~20% do not want more attack actions, with 2-4% wanting less.

Meaning either you changed your story after I said what was correct, or you didn't read my post before replying to it (a trend, it seems) and thought you were making a novel point when I had literally said the same thing above you. You can possibly argue that I need to add one word ("explicitly" after "20% do not" and before "want more" - "~20% do not explicitly want more attack actions"), but otherwise, I said the exact same thing, and before you did, while noting that was my specific issue with your reply above. Replying to me AFTER that saying the same thing I'm saying doesn't make you right and me wrong or some such.

Indeed, your implication with the money was that anyone not adamantly against it would probably not mind it - as irl most people don't mind more money. I was giving you a rebuttal saying we don't know that, because the poll didn't ask that. All we know is 80% said they want more damage actions - an explicit choice the survey offered - and 20% did not say they want more damage actions. You can't read into their minds to know if the WOULD mind or not, we only know that they did not say they want more damage actions. Meaning 20% did not say they want more damage actions. 1 in 5; which is an ample percentage to base a decision and a Job around.

FAR FEWER people play BLM, and we have a Job for them.

.

As for Combos: I actually DO somewhat agree with you. The time where it makes sense to have the separate buttons is in a case like MNK where you can use any of the pairs of actions (based on stance), and you actually cycle between them in varied ways. But that wouldn't work for a non-DPS Job since that's a lot of focus on buttons and muscle memory that doesn't make sense to impose on other Roles. That is, where you're not always going to follow the exact same pattern no matter what. PLD, for example, will always use Riot Blade after Fast Blade, and always use Royal Authority after Riot Blade. There's never any variance, so the other buttons might as well be Glare-Glare-Glare. This is true of all the non-branching combos in the game, such as RDM's melee combo. At least SMN figured this out with its 1-2 being the same button, and GNB half-figured this out with Gnashing Fang, though it took an expansion.

Again, for a DPS Job, it makes some sense so they have other buttons to hit with their fingers and something to occupy some of their mental energy since it's all devoted to DPSing, but it doesn't make sense for other Roles and is arguably an inferior system even for DPS Jobs.

.

To give you a sense of scale, btw: https://www.reddit.com/r/ffxiv/comme...nd_raid_mount/

Add up the total number of Healers. Note these are just people with high (at the time) ilevel weapons, meaning they were doing Savages or at least Extremes (Barb Ex weapon; I had it on WHM at the time) and before Relics were released to give everyone highish ilevel weapons.

There are a total of 86,365 Healers.
There are 14,883 BLMs.

If you divide the second by the first, you'd find that's only 17% as many BLMs as there are Healers. Which is approximately the portion of the Healer population that doesn't want new DPS actions.

If BLMs liking BLM is enough reason for BLM to exist as a Job, even though it bucks the general trend of DPS and the 2 min meta...

...then about that same percentage of Healers/number of players wanting a Healer with no new damage actions seems ample to be worth them having a Job for them.

So that part of the conversation is done, just as done as SCHs wanting more damage or ASTs wanting more buffs.
(And note BLM isn't the least played Job, either...)

[ty_taurus]

Maybe. If the auto system was smart enough to always do the right thing so that using it would actually produce more DPS than not using it outside of someone not using it executing exactly perfect play - in which case they'd merely do "just as well". But I doubt that'd be what you want.

Especially since the actual easy fix would be...to leave one single Healer Job alone.

Why does that matter to you? It's not like you're a high-performing healer right now.

An auto-combo button would lack nuance to do things like hold afflatus misery if you need to wait for the next buff window, or it would still have you apply DoTs even to an enemy with 5% of their HP remaining. But you can also just keybind regular Glare outside of that to delay whatever the auto-button is telling you anyway. If anything, the system would improve your current performance. But a master healer wouldn't use it.

I'm not calling it harmful -- merely an utter waste.

Using XIV "combos" is to purposely make a single action take up multiple buttons of space. And that has accordant, if minor, issues:

Assuming a 3-step combo, we either...

• lose 2 actions (each 1 button) to support that 3-button single action just to keep that slightly less punishing an option,
  --or--
• we effectively make the already zero-advantage option of non-consolidation (especially, without a context in which those tactile cues of moving from 1 to 2 to 3 would be useful, as on ShB or EW SAM, HW NIN, etc.) also waste handier button-space that's becoming increasingly more valuable/limited.

XIV "combos" are pure bloat. If you want to use them to offer multiple different attack animations and some ppgcd cycling on a single action/button, by all means, go for it. But there's no point in constraining the rest of the kit around a pretense that those are separate actions.

At which point, you'll have just another Healer with n non-healing GCDs, but one of said GCDs has 3 animations. It's an incredibly small improvement, if any. And you could as easily have provided that animation variance instead through actual skill interactions (procs, status effect conditionals, branching sequence-based conditionals instead of merely a single rigid series of unlocks, etc.).

Any other way to use multiple actions together (or, better put, having each skill actually be its own action) would be better, be they actual combos (see other MMOs) or whatever other means of interaction. So while I wouldn't be opposed to a consolidated combo, we can most certainly do better.

It wasn't a 3-step combo though. Did you take a look at the example I gave using a mix of old WHM gameplay? None of that is "combo" in the literal sense. It's just a button that chooses the generally most important tool for you when available.

[Shurrikhan]

It wasn't a 3-step combo though. Did you take a look at the example I gave using a mix of old WHM gameplay? None of that is "combo" in the literal sense. It's just a button that chooses the generally most important tool for you when available.

Fair enough. I should not have quoted your post in critiquing the suggestions to add combos to healers since, by "combos" you did not mean anything like the combos in XIV or in any other MMO, and instead meant something more, from what I can glean from...

Afflatus Misery > Luminescence > Dia > Banish > Holy > Glare. It starts at Misery. If you don't have a blood lily, it goes to your DoTs, if your current target has each DoT, it looks to spend your charges of Banish and your Holy conditional. If none of those apply, it defaults to Glare. There would also be an AoE auto combo that would go: Afflatus Misery > Luminescence > Banish > Holy. The only thing you otherwise use manually is Assize.

...like an Auto-battle feature but wherein one still hits the button each GCD a la FF15.

My apologies for the confusion. I should have quoted instead any of the several other times across recent healer threads that people have asked for actual combos to be added to healers.

________

To be clear, I actually have relatively few qualms with giving players (or healers in particular, in this case) official consolidation options to the extent of basically Auto-rotating their attacks (with GCD-by-GCD confirmation/reactivation), if only because...

1. I think kits should be designed in such a way that that will never be optimal anyways, even if good enough for most players most of the time in raid/trial combat, and
2. It's already, for better or worse, available via plugins.

But, I also don't think it's remotely necessary, and would probably require new features (like checking for movement at time of button-press) to even be worthwhile, since that consolidation would remove the ability to, say, cast Dia freely for movement or to avoid casting Dia on an enemy about to die, etc.

Consolidation would be decent for supporting new actions of similar enough type to what we already have, such as adding further but consolidated combo steps would do, but even the skills we already have don't lend themselves well to consolidation; Dia isn't actually a 30s CD and serves more purposes than just increased ppgcd, just as Regen isn't just a more MP-efficient Cure II equivalent, etc., etc.

[ty_taurus]

Fair enough. I should not have quoted your post in critiquing the suggestions to add combos to healers since, by "combos" you did not mean anything like the combos in XIV or in any other MMO, and instead meant something more, from what I can glean from...


...like an Auto-battle feature but wherein one still hits the button each GCD a la FF15.

My apologies for the confusion. I should have quoted instead any of the several other times across recent healer threads that people have asked for actual combos to be added to healers.

________

To be clear, I actually have relatively few qualms with giving players (or healers in particular, in this case) official consolidation options to the extent of basically Auto-rotating their attacks (with GCD-by-GCD confirmation/reactivation), if only because...

1. I think kits should be designed in such a way that that will never be optimal anyways, even if good enough for most players most of the time in raid/trial combat, and
2. It's already, for better or worse, available via plugins.

But, I also don't think it's remotely necessary, and would probably require new features (like checking for movement at time of button-press) to even be worthwhile, since that consolidation would remove the ability to, say, cast Dia freely for movement or to avoid casting Dia on an enemy about to die, etc.

Consolidation would be decent for supporting new actions of similar enough type to what we already have, such as adding further but consolidated combo steps would do, but Dia isn't actually a 30s CD and serves more purposes than just increased ppgcd, just as Regen isn't just a more MP-efficient Cure II equivalent; even the skills we already have don't lend themselves well to consolidation.

No big deal. Auto-Battle is a better term as well. And I agree with point 1. As I mentioned in response to Ren's desire for the opposite, there's nuance that you likely can't get around.

I also don't feel it's necessary per say, but rather, my argument is using that as a bargaining chip. If we *must* have a childproof way of allowing anyone to reach passable levels of DPS output, then having more elegant DPS tools and general gameplay that also features an auto-battle type tool that pushes you through most--if not all of your GCD DPS "rotation" so that those who cannot handle or do not like going through the job's manual gameplay, then that I think is a compromise where group A does not step on the toes of group B and vice versa.

On the topic of your Dia example, you can still set regular Dia to your hotbar and use it manually as a movement tool if you want to. Nothing stops you from setting any of those actions to your hotbar as manual actions.

Whether or not this can be done with plugin's though is irrelevant to me because that's not officially supported, nor can every player utilize this. Having a more optimized, official button to manage this can be the proxy needed to allow jobs to move away from this crusade in the name of simplicity.

[Shurrikhan]

No big deal. Auto-Battle is a better term as well. And I agree with point 1. As I mentioned in response to Ren's desire for the opposite, there's nuance that you likely can't get around.

I also don't feel it's necessary per say, but rather, my argument is using that as a bargaining chip. If we *must* have a childproof way of allowing anyone to reach passable levels of DPS output, then having more elegant DPS tools and general gameplay that also features an auto-battle type tool that pushes you through most--if not all of your GCD DPS "rotation" so that those who cannot handle or do not like going through the job's manual gameplay, then that I think is a compromise where group A does not step on the toes of group B and vice versa.

Sounds good to me, yeah. Again, sorry for having blended topics earlier.

On the topic of your Dia example, you can still set regular Dia to your hotbar and use it manually as a movement tool if you want to. Nothing stops you from setting any of those actions to your hotbar as manual actions.

True, that's a very good point. For whatever reason I still I had my head stuck in/on the existing models, official and third-party, but if we were making something new and better then there are obviously no such constraints.

Whether or not this can be done with plugin's though is irrelevant to me because that's not officially supported, nor can every player utilize this. Having a more optimized, official button to manage this can be the proxy needed to allow jobs to move away from this crusade in the name of simplicity.

Make sense.

One other piece of food for thought, though: If we just lifted the knee-capping order on macros and allowed them instead at least the functionality of WoW's only half-restricted ones... that's an official means of consolidation already.

Now, replace all the random codes and syntax one would need to memorize with a more intuitive and accessible GUI for making those macros --or maybe now call them, idk, Gamuts or whatever it was in XII-- and... there you have it. And the game could provide/recommend premade damn good Gamuts that cover whatever skills one's acquired and maybe even allow for the importing of Gamuts and even... Layouts, etc.

[Sebazy]

"all"? No.

What it would do is cause a shortage of Healers in casual content - roulettes - which is something the Devs DO care about. There aren't enough of you hardcore types to fill in roulettes for all the people who would quit healing. Not only are there just not enough of you, many hardcore raider types don't do casual roulettes. They do Experts or the like with their fellow Static members. We've seen similar problems in the past when there were Tank shortages. The high end Tank players who loved it weren't filling in the roulettes. They'd do enough to get BiS, then they wouldn't que for them anymore. I suspect the same would happen to healing.

You know there's one thing that will get the Devs to act faster than anything to "fix" the problem - if DPS have to wait more than 15 minutes for a 4 man dungeon que.

I don't think that's a valid assumption. ARR>HW's cleric stance was far more punishing and problematic than any sensible healer viable DPS rotation will ever be. It didn't stop healers from being plentiful in casual content, it just stopped a large portion of the healer player base from DPSing. Despite what the years of pointless threads would have one believe, at the end of the day it wasn't a real problem outside of very specific content that said casual players likely weren't touching anyway.

Honestly, hardcore players are just as likely/unlikely to roll with friends or solo queue as anyone else. It's a personal preference thing. There's just less need to get the daily Experto in than ever before now. Farm maps? You're probably capped. Hunts? Almost certainly capped. Still clearing Savage? That's a bunch of tomes towards the weekly balance right there.

[AmiableApkallu]

The mass exodus of Healers that follows, the dungeon runs taking 2x as long because the casual Healers don't know what they're doing and Healer DPS tanks, everyone complaining about how regular Healers have stopped DPSing in dungeons, 24 mans, and so on.

As a casual healer, I have to say: I'm deeply insulted by how little you think I'm capable of.

[Osmond]

As a casual healer, I have to say: I'm deeply insulted by how little you think I'm capable of.

......it's best not to make responses like that or ppl are going to clown you harder. Try to control that, it'll get worse. Best to grow a pair and eat it.

In my mind, this sounds like a troll, but idk in this enviroment. Everyone is emotional and pretty much forced to look at people in a cautious manor cause you don't know lol...