When is SCH’s turn?

[Icecylee]

So let me figure this out. On the internet, where no one can tell if a person is angry or not. Big caps that’s more than 10 letters is considered such. Even though it can mean the opposite, but in your perception, it considered so, is that what you’re telling me?

Have you communicated with... *anyone* via text since 1980? All caps has been synonymous with SHOUTING / extreme, forceful emphasis for several decades now, this is not new and shouldn't be surprising.

[Renathras]

Fulminating/GrimGale - A lot of people like SGE's Addersgall vs SCH's Aetherflow BECAUSE they don't feel penalized for using the heals and, in fact, feel encouraged to do it. Moreover, based on the CDs of their abilities, they can get useful/benefit from using three per minute just from 2x Keracholes and 1x Taurochole, since mitigation is always useful (not always NECESSARY, but always USEFUL).

300 potency per minute (+150 from Dissipation) is extremely lackluster, as people point out all the time, yet (generally the same) people insist that this is entirely necessary for SCH to not feel bad, despite most people saying SGE's system feels far better. The simpler solution would be for SCH to have useful AF dumps that aren't damage. One reason I think CD-less Excog is a good choice is that it can be used before damage up to 45 seconds away usefully. Alternatively, having a pure barrier (no heal, something like Divine Benison) spender serves a similar function as using it on the (Main) Tank will also always be useful, and 2x Soils per minute would, like Kerachole, always be useful. At that point, there's no need for an "AF dump" anymore since we already have it between 2x Soils per minute and 1+ Excog or "Benison". Further, overcapping AF (during the brief time that Energy Drain was removed in ShB) wasn't some horrible thing, it just "felt bad". But now, USING Soil, Indom, Lustrate, or Excog "feel bad", and that seems FAR WORSE than just "Oh, I only used 2 Soils this 1 min so I 'feel bad' that I'm 'wasting' one AF by not using it."

It's not god-tier, big brain.

Also, what you said before, Fulminating, about "Anti synergies are engaging-interesting design.":

No, anti-synergies CAN BE engaging or interesting designs. They can ALSO be unengaging, uninteresting, boring, clunky, convoluted, and/or terrible designs.

When Fey Blessing pulled from Faerie Gauge, I thought this was a good design. "Use this resource on single target or on AOE", the only thing they needed to do was remove the 60 sec (or 30 sec?) CD on Blessing so you COULD use it more than once in a row. It already used 30 gauge, so that should have been the limiting factor. (I have the opposite issue with PLD Cover where it has a gauge cost AND CD when the CD is already limiting enough so it doesn't need the gauge cost). My hope with 6.0 was that they'd remove the CD from Blessing...instead they removed the Gauge cost making Gauge almost entirely meaningless.

RDM has an anti-synergy in that using Vercure doesn't generate Mana. It's a DPS loss to use it. But you CAN still use it in situations where you think it's needed, and it has a niche use to squeeze out a bit more DPS on reopeners by casting it when a boss is untargetable so you can use the Dualcast proc as soon as the boss or adds appear.

Some forms of anti-synergy CAN be good.

Most of SCH's are not.

Many of them weren't well thought out and were more accidents than intent. Energy Drain itself originated as a SMN ability that SCH just kind of inherited, but wasn't useful to its design since it was using AF in ARR on Lustrates to get through Cleric Stance's otherwise healing debuff, or for the MP regeneration component. Both of those other effects have been removed from the game, but ED lingers (by outraged demand made in ShB when it was removed). Dissipation has NEVER been a good ability. The initial incarnation you had to manually resummon Eos/Selene after it expired! It was a horribly thought out ability from an expansion of horribly thought out Healer abilities and changes, such as the SB Lilies of disaster. That it has developed some niche optimization use by hardcore tryhards doesn't change the fact it was NEVER a good ability and still isn't.

"Since it's ~1/3 of a broil you can use it to make up for a necessary gcd heal"? If you'd use that AF on one of your oGCD AF heals, you probably wouldn't need to cast said GCD heal in the first place. The only exception is if you have a specific plan that requires a GCD Spredlo, but even in that case, a Soil might have achived the same net result by merely reducing the damage in the first place (and healing from it).

That's the problem with Energy Drain. It struggles to defend its own existence and can only do so if you ignore that the AF heals exist.

In the survey, the biggest single change requested for SCH by players after "more damage buttons" was to decouple Energy Drain from AF.

Nice, 4 people dislike sage in pvp. Give that version to the other thousands liking it (who most likely imagined the job playing like that when it was first revealed).

At least get the argument right, huh?

I didn't say that would be bad - I've held since the start that SGE should be FFXIV's Discipline Priest/Chloromancer - I'm saying making SCHOLAR more LIKE THAT is something that is a pretty bad idea.

Sure, make SGE into a DPS rotation healer. Is anyone really arguing against that?

Have you communicated with... *anyone* via text since 1980? All caps has been synonymous with SHOUTING / extreme, forceful emphasis for several decades now, this is not new and shouldn't be surprising.

This really depends on the person.

I use all caps for emphasis, not shouting, specifically if the medium doesn't have accessible (or easily accessible) bold, underline, or italics, or if those options are not very distinct in the medium. For example, just using italics here is sometimes not very noticeable depending on the word and font/resolution, so using bold or underline or CAPITALIZED ITALICS may work as an alternative for emphasis.

ALL CAPS DOES NOT INHERENTLY MEAN "shouting".

[Icecylee]

I use all caps for emphasis, not shouting, specifically if the medium doesn't have accessible (or easily accessible) bold, underline, or italics, or if those options are not very distinct in the medium. For example, just using italics here is sometimes not very noticeable depending on the word and font/resolution, so using bold or underline or CAPITALIZED ITALICS may work as an alternative for emphasis.

ALL CAPS DOES NOT INHERENTLY MEAN "shouting".

If you've ever wondered why so many people seem to interpret the things you say as aggressive and/or hostile despite your continued reassurances that you are not actively trying to be... well, revisit the part after the backslash.

[Osmond]

Well, now that I’m seeing the results. Uppercase, bold, backslash, and/or even lower case letters is considered extreme, anger, etc. It ends up becoming everything=nothing. I don’t even know anymore, it’s too broad.

[Renathras]

If you've ever wondered why so many people seem to interpret the things you say as aggressive and/or hostile despite your continued reassurances that you are not actively trying to be... well, revisit the part after the backslash.

Well, now that I’m seeing the results. Uppercase, bold, backslash, and/or even lower case letters is considered extreme, anger, etc. It ends up becoming everything=nothing. I don’t even know anymore, it’s too broad.

Icecylee - It's not uncommon, and I've explained it before. The people who want to insist I'm being aggressive are the people who want to insist I'm being aggressive; they'll make any excuse, so stylistic differences don't matter, since I've explained this before. The people that want to keep believing it have chosen to keep believing it. Not to mention I've adapted my style here to where I almost exclusively use underlines at this point anyway. Those same people continue to insist that I'm aggressive and hostile. They don't care about reality, they care about using ad hominem attacks to write off whatever I say.

If Osmond had used bold/underline/italics instead, those same people would (likely) have attacked what she said, too. (They might say now they wouldn't have, but that's just in reply to this at this point, so there's no way to actually know that for sure). Point is, if people are attacking other people's stylistic presentations, they aren't interested in discussing the topics with those people, they're only interested in writing off everything those people are saying and are looking for any excuse.

[Sebazy]

If Osmond had used bold/underline/italics instead, those same people would (likely) have attacked what she said, too.

Perhaps the content of the post was the problem rather than the formatting?