The Healers should be reworked? New player perspective.

[ty_taurus]

The actual solution I'd go with that I've talked about before is just add an auto-combo option for anyone that wants training wheels.

In reality, I'd like for WHM to develop a new, more fresh take on its offensive gameplay. But let's say, for the sake of simplicity, that WHM changes to have a DPS library that is effectively a combination of the high points of its history.

Stone > Glare: Your filler single target. (Potency is 300)
Aero > Dia: Your 30 second single target DoT.
Holy: Your AoE filler. (Potency is 170) Gains a new effect where the potency doubles whenever a lily is added to your healing gauge, or something like that.
Aero III > Luminescence: AoE DoT that stacks with Dia. Lasts 15 seconds.
Water > Banish: GCD AoE attack with a 30 second cooldown (Potency is 400)
Afflatus Misery: DPS refund AoE for spending lilies.
Assize: OGCD heal/DPS action every 40 seconds.

Again, I'm not suggesting this as what we actually get, but I'll use this as a reference for the auto-combo example. You can either set these actions on your hotbar independently, or you can set the auto-combo action to your hotbar instead. How that works is that the button changes to a specific action based on a priority system that looks something like this:

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.

Every job would gain an auto-combo option for single target and AoE that would run through your GCD for you. Players have the choice to run with or without it. Done. Problem solved. Can we go home now?

[Tigore]

Okay. It was looking like it could have been a choice of 4 for using the gauge that time. So for the most part, it just changes the base buttons temporarily with similar presses and uses the same cooldowns? It does look like the new shield lily spells will help too since there have been many times I was sitting on the lilies with nothing to use them on. Divine Benison was always preferred since the 90 - 100K health tanks 90% of the time did not need the full cure amount of Afflatus Solace. I still slowly used the Rapture with Assize to counter the unavoidable AoEs.

This pretty much goes back to what was discussed before on everything contributing to the healers feeling bored. Dungeons no longer have hazards, which is a half point since those sand explosions from Cutter's Cry still only happened in specific spots. It gets the job done for telling the player to look up occasionally instead of always on their keybinds. Tanks have so many ways to keep themselves up and this gets doubled down a little more when you have a PLD and WAR using Bloodwhetting and Confiteor HoTs on themselves. DPS also have more burst cooldowns and AoE LB1 too that can make a dangerous pull look piddly as almost all of them are dead as your Holy stun spam starts to get resisted.

[ForsakenRoe]

Okay. It was looking like it could have been a choice of 4 for using the gauge that time. So for the most part, it just changes the base buttons temporarily with similar presses and uses the same cooldowns? It does look like the new shield lily spells will help too since there have been many times I was sitting on the lilies with nothing to use them on. Divine Benison was always preferred since the 90 - 100K health tanks 90% of the time did not need the full cure amount of Afflatus Solace. I still slowly used the Rapture with Assize to counter the unavoidable AoEs.

Yep, you got it. You'd press Blessing to heal, and then the next time you press the Hotkey for Glare, it's Quake instead. Same for the other two. It'd function the same as like, pressing Infuriate changes FellCleave into Inner Chaos for one hit.

And yeh, if we had shielding spenders for the lilies, the whole 'purposely blow lilies to prep Misery' would feel a lot less bad, as it'd give an option that allows for 'spend lily now, but benefit from it's effect in up to 30s time'. Direct healing requires the party be injured to actually be of use. Also, think of the synergy with PI, you'd be able to turn the shielding lily spender into a pseudo Succor, healing and shielding at the same time, but unlike Succor, it's damage neutral! Unfortunately though, we've got the 'pure/barrier healer split' dichotomy to throw out first, and something tells me SE's going to say 'no guys pls itll work just give us another expansion to get it right'

[Renathras]

How do you know it’s biased one way or the other if at all? Surely such omniscience would be better used on lottery tickets.

That's my point: We don't/can't based on the questions.

We DO have a person here from that group (/raises hand) right here you can talk to, though.

You CANNOT assume that they'd willingly go along with it. So the idea is you have to look at the worst case scenario. For the pro-change side, the worst case scenario is that >20% do not want their change and would react antagonistically to it. This number is well great enough to justify leaving 1 out of 4 Healer Jobs alone. For the anti-change side, the worst case scenario is some number less than 97% but greater than 79% want a change, which is enough to justify changing 3 out of 4 Healer Jobs.

If someone was arguing to change NONE of the Healer Jobs, I'd likewise point out that ~80% wanting change is clearly enough to justify changing 2-3 of them.

Nice arbitrary point of delineation there,

There's nothing "arbitrary" about it.

You guys constantly argue as if you do so from a point of strength and high ground, looking down on people that disagree and insisting the onus is on them to make their case. It is not. The onus is on you, as the status quo is this. It's been moving in this direction since 4.0, and has been cemented going from 5.0 into 6.0. You've lost. You can deflect and bring up side issues all you like, that doesn't change this fact:

You are arguing from a position of weakness pretending that you are arguing from a position of strength you do not have.

EVEN MY POSITION - derided by you all - is from a position of weakness vs the status quo. The status quo is no changes at all, and my position of change 3 Healers is a departure from that. If I had Yoshi P in the room with me right now, I'd have to be making the case to him for those changes, since the default position right now is ZERO changes.

.

The situation is not "we're going to change all healers, give us a reason to leave one alone".

The situation is "we're not going to change any healers, give us a reason to change even one of them", where even my own position is arguing against the status quo.

I wonder why...

Funny, when have I ever claimed to speak for a majority? I routinely estimate the people I speak for as 15-30% of the playerbase.

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

OOOoooh, so you're saying the surve is completely meaningless then? That people just randomly clicked on their screen and then hit submit and no one actually read the questions or the answers they picked?

What you're concluding is an interpretation (more than likely biased) of the data's findings, but not the findings themselves.

No, this is what you're doing when you say those people must be indifferent or wouldn't have a problem with more attack buttons even though the data does not support that. Here's what I said:

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.

What you said in bold above is only a "counter" to this if you are arguing the survey is meaningless and people answered the questions randomly without thought.

People were given the option "more attack actions" or "not that (by picking anything else from that list or picking Other)".

Slightly less than 80% chose more attack actions (either alone or with other things), and slightly greater than 20% did not pick that option, meaning they do not want more attack abilities. Maybe they want the same amount, maybe they want less (2-4% picked that), and maybe they are indifferent, but what we do know is that they do not want more as they did not select "more attack options" from the list, even though it was there.

Now, if you want to reject that, then you're rejecting the entire survey, at which point there's no reason to discuss things further since you're rejecting the very data you're arguing over.

...

Abbreviated version:

1) Yeah, governments suck.

2) Why does 80% matter instead of 97%? Because we have 4 Healers. Do you know what Mixed Member Proportional is? ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU - Mixed-Member Proportional Representation Explained). In short, it's not an either-or situation. If say 75% of Healers want more damage kits, and 25% do not, and there are 4 Healer Jobs, then it makes sense to change 3 of them and leave 1 alone. Otherwise the 25% "Get no representation at all". We're not voting for President. Your argument is like saying if 80% of voters vote for one party, no other party should even get any seats in Congress. That's not very democratic, actually.

3) BRD - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRZPSo2cPds - we had this exact conversation before, Roe. Do you remember what I told you then? Short version: "BRD is one Job. It's an either/or situation when you only have one Job. And the status quo was ARR at any rate then (it was this way for a single expansion, HW; Healers have been this way for 2 all told, and WHM has been this way for 3). It also should be noted the Healer exodus (despite the insistence of those supporting change) was far less than the BRD exodus, which is why it didn't force a reversion of the ShB changes.

4) I didn't "botch" anything. I used Ty's own questions, but it makes for a survey that's hard to tally and is one reason polls often don't allow long form answers. I also posted the results somewhere in here, and they disagreed with your position (and also found around 1/4th to 1/3rd that opposed changing Healers - a trend that you guys like to ignore). In other words, TY botched it. You can lay off the dude crush.

5) My response wasn't "it's based", Ty said that the results would be biased of any survey we make, and in favor of more attack actions. Again, you're attacking me for what your crush did.

6) You're trying to wiggle the numbers to make it sound more positive to your case. I'm just pointing out that's incorrect.

7) No, it's not 80+%. It's 79% and some change with >20% not saying they want more damage actions across the Healers as a whole. AND, among those who DO, reading their long form answers, many did not say they want more damage actions, they said they want their damage actions coming at earlier levels or to get more use out spells they only infrequently use now. Again, you're doing (6).

8) This isn't a political campaign.

9) "It's almost like there's a prevailing opinion" - HAVE I EVER SAID OTHERWISE?? I've consistently said that your position is likely shared by the majority, but not by the whole to the point that there should not be any Healer Jobs that do not follow that paradigm. It's almost like you don't read posts before replying to them...

.

Honestly, at this point, I don't even give a damn anymore. Yoshi P, if you ever read this: Don't change Healers a bit. These people don't want to compromise, just say no. I argued in favor of changing several of the Healer Jobs, I've argued in favor of making healing more complex and interesting on the healing side of things. I've argued in favor of various changes to get more mileage out of the damage kits we have.

I just don't care anymore.

If you change them, be ready for people to quit. I would at this point.

Listen to reason, or listen to the uncompromising zealots, I care not.
[Maybe this is why Devs don't read these forums...there's no reason or compromise to be had here.]

[Osmond]

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.

[Sebazy]

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.

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

[Sebazy]

[Maybe this is why Devs don't read these forums...there's no reason or compromise to be had here.]

Devs don't read forums because it's a wildly inefficient use of time for them. After I left EA/Bullfrog, I went to a smaller studio to work on an FPS that shifted to being entirely Multiplayer after development of the single player side of things fell apart. We specifically hired a community manager to be in office and keep a tabs on the forums etc for us. Everything went through him and the CEO. The rest of us stayed well clear because we just didn't have time.

[ty_taurus]

[...]

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.

[Shurrikhan]

The actual solution I'd go with that I've talked about before is just add an auto-combo option for anyone that wants training wheels.

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.

Tangential, since I'm referring to more traditional combos here instead, but...

XIV "combos" are really only 1 action per the whole combo (and are as able as they are to be consolidated for that exact fact). There is no reason for even DPS to be saddled with that little nuance available per button, let alone a non-DPS.

No, anything approaching a combo system to be added to healers, should be more like Monk -- but with only some 6 or fewer actions we'll likely have to work with, it'll have to actually support higher nuance per button than Monk's GCDs do.

But the last thing we need is to add 3 buttons to support a single new action split across 3 GCDs... that virtually everyone will reduce to 1 button anyways if given the option (especially if it isn't interrupted by healing GCDs, which would remove real benefit to the tactile cues of separate buttons).



I'll toss in a WHM mock-up later. Oddly enough, I do agree with Ren that WHM should have fewer discrete DPS GCDs than, say, SCH and SGE; but, that's because a huge portion of WHM's complexity should come from its early-accessible core and that its GCDs should be more multi-purpose, such that it has as many GCDs that can be used for damage as SCH and SGE, just fewer that have to be (while it also has the greatest number of brief but impactful situational utility GCDs).

[Shurrikhan]

OOOoooh, so you're saying the surve is completely meaningless then? That people just randomly clicked on their screen and then hit submit and no one actually read the questions or the answers they picked?

Nope. Read it again, if you must:

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.

No, this is what you're doing when you say those people must be indifferent or wouldn't have a problem with more attack buttons even though the data does not support that.

I haven't made that conjecture. I pointed out only that:

1. It could as easily be A (no request = indifference) as B (no request = opposition to whatever might be requested).

2. Even increasing the size of that population from 3% to 20% does not warrant holding back the 80-97%, especially given that you have yet to warrant why your "solution" would sufficiently meet the goals you allege of it and have yet to rebut any of the warrants as to why the expense (choosing one job to sacrifice/truncate) would be wholly unnecessary.