Quote Originally Posted by Renathras View Post
..or, it could be because some players don't enjoy DoT gameplay.
Except, when DoTs perform as varied of functions as they did for SCH, in asking for the (continued) removal of DoTs, you're not just asking for "tracking DoTs on enemies" to go away. You're also asking to trim away from healers...
  • variably reduced costs for GCD healing / dynamic opportunity costs for GCD healing [relative to filler spam alone],
  • soft CDs, and the still-flexible rotational complexity that comes with them,
  • having less than 83% of offensive GCDs spent on a single spell,
  • and arguably more.

Which of those things will "more DoTs" fix?
  • Nothing else to press,
  • nothing synergetic with abilities, and
  • no rotational complexity during downtime.
All decently important, especially given what little can be accomplished when people insist on not raising the skill floor of healers by affecting the relative healing requirements.

If you're going to make Healers into worse DPS with some support abilities, you might as well just get rid of the role.
First, that is not the same thing as...
Quote Originally Posted by Renathras View Post
you'd be better off just deleting the four Jobs instead of trying to change them
I did find that (the mount thing) particularly off-putting for some reason.

For me, it was because there was no Trinity.

I play Healers or buff Support in most games, and there wasn't that.
While it could certainly have been be better in early game, you still had most of the gameplay available to any Trinity game. It mostly just didn't remove as much gameplay as Trinity games make a trend of.
  • Could certain professions [classes] heal others? Yes.
  • Were there times where, even among multiple capable of healing others, one person had lower opportunity costs for healing than others would, or could longer sustain that capacity than others? Yes.
  • Were those times frequent enough to often have a player who took an overarching duty to keep others alive, even if others may rotate in and the mechanics were still leverageable by all? Yes.

  • Could you mitigate? Yes.
  • Could you affect enemy targeting, drawing attention to yourself to at least indirectly mitigate for others and to decrease your party's overall damage intake (increase average volume of mitigation)? Yes.
  • Were those times frequent enough to often have a player who took an overarching duty to keep others alive, even if others may rotate in and the mechanics were still leverageable by all? Yes.

All that was really lacking were your "Trinity" negations/simplifications/truncations like these:
  • Was redirecting enemy threat reduced to the task of a single, inflexible role that an entire class would then be locked into (and others out of), removing that gameplay from others?
  • Was recovering lost health (outside of CDs or actions of pitiful value) reduced to the task of a single, inflexible role that an entire class would then be locked into (and others out of), removing that gameplay from others?
  • Were burst/sustain dynamics and decently involved gameplay loops removed from those with either of the above tasks?

I would hate "next MMO" being action RPG.

...The first game that lets FPS/3PS fans play alongside "sword and spell" RPG fans alongside fighting game fans will unlock a pretty massive market.
How would the latter likely not be an 'action RPG'?

Moreover, you realize we've had MMOs that have met that description for over a dozen years now, right?