For those who main/semi-main a DPS (e.g. DNC, RDM) but like Healers...

[Shurrikhan]

All the extra healing by Healer Jobs is, apparently, overkill and not needed.

Unless Healers having enough DPS to clear content despite their inclusion somehow makes them indistinguishable from DPS despite their comparative paucity of offensive actions, neither do Tanks' 2-4 self-heal make them Healers.

Or are you suddenly instead so satisfied with the game's low healing requirements that you'd happily conflate one role's being able to do a tenth of another's output with their being the same thing just because that particular ceiling is so low?

I think the biggest thing is it would mean changing the combat model and encounter design to be far less rigid.

You're advocating that a capacity be allocated, to any real significance in capacity or gameplay, to a single role. That's literally asking for more rigid role divisions and less flexibility in how a given party may deal with encounter design or what encounter design may in turn leverage from the party. You'd have a greater breadth of tools available to work with if you just didn't section off those capacities to a single role.

The problem is a lack of undermechanics and actions or interactions by which to leverage them, not the lack of a role that'd be purposely neutered outside of full parties.

Quelling Strikes, was it?)

No, Quelling Strikes was literally just Diversion before it was moved to a Role Action for all but Rangers (who instead got their Enmity drop attached to Refresh and Tactician). It was never akin to anything like Misdirection or Shadewalker, let alone any distinct "Puller"-role tool.

[ty_taurus]

I suppose this is where we just have to agree to disagree, then.

Looking at how many people want to turn Healers into Supports, it's pretty clear people want a Support role and don't want a Healer role, as such. Might as well just add one.

I feel like this is the opposite of what nearly every responder is saying, and I have no idea how you're coming to this conclusion. I already play a support job as a bandage solution to the problem of healers being horribly designed and miserable to play as. I don't want to play a support; I want to play as a healer. I just want my healer to be fun, to be responsible for healing throughput while also being able to engage with this game's combat system. Whether or not a support role is added officially is irrelevant to me, and I don't honestly think it matters anyway because jobs like Dancer already exist in their current state regardless of what role they are labeled as. It's just a label that changes nothing.

[ForsakenRoe]

It's just a label that changes nothing.

To this end, changing 'healer' to 'support' but doing nothing to change the gameplay it has, also doesn't change anything in the long run, yet apparently it'd have people up in arms, I don't really understand how

Anyway, WOW recently added a support heavy spec to the game, where 60% of it's damage comes from buffs given to allies. It can teleport to a designated partner (and vice versa), cause everyone to get Wildfire style compiling damage to enemies for a burst window, give 'cast while moving' ability to allies, MP restoration to a healer whenever it casts, bonus armor and reflecting damage to an ally (probably a tank), speed up allies CDs so they come back faster...

Despite all of the support type stuff it does though, it's tagged as a DPS, not a 'support'. When interviews ask about it, the general response seems to be 'yeh it seems quite successful, so we were thinking maybe we could look into bringing back some old support options for other classes', likely referring to things like Shaman Totems, or Paladin Blessing-Of-X type things. But at no point do they ever consider making these specs a separate role, because the game's established now, and doing so would be too big an overhaul. Same here, we cannot add a dedicated 'support' role, because we're already so locked into the paradigm we have now. Plus, we don't exactly have much the support can 'do' that is unique to it. So it'd end up being a DPS with low personal damage, and high raidbuff contribution. Like DNC is now.

AST currently gets about 20-25% of it's damage from it's buffs. So I guess the question is, does that qualify it, even in it's current state, as a 'support', or a 'healer'? Is there some magic number, where it suddenly swaps to being considered a Support? IE, if it was at 29% it's a Healer, but at 30 it's a support? And what about Old AST, when it had Disable, Time Dilation, 6 unique card effects, a way to apply Heavy, a way to apply a Stun? Was THAT enough to count as a support? Point is, trying to assign a role name to an already established game is far too nebulous to work out. What one person might consider utility that qualifies as 'support territory' another might not. Like, Curing Waltz is support to me. But another player might look at it and say 'yeh but Warrior has Shake, and that heals, plus regens, plus shields, and that's a tank'.

[ty_taurus]

To this end, changing 'healer' to 'support' but doing nothing to change the gameplay it has, also doesn't change anything in the long run, yet apparently it'd have people up in arms, I don't really understand how

Let's just rename all the roles to Marketing, Analytics, and Human Resources for all the good it'll do. Unless a role renaming is accompanied by a literal ground-up redesigning of the entire game's combat structure, it'll have about as much of an effect on the game as me changing my underwear.

As for what qualifies as 'Support' anyway, at the end of the day, damage is damage whether it's direct potency damage, or damage via increasing the potency of others. That's why it doesn't make sense to me that people refer to things like Technical Step or Divination as "Utility." Utility is stuff like Expedient, Warden's Paean, Mantra, Magick Barrier. The "Utility" offered by Brotherhood is roughly the same as the Utility offered by Phantom Rush, with the only difference being the absolute value of damage dealt through either action--the utility of ending the fight sooner. That's not to say you can't have something like a support heavy spec job, but trying to establish an entirely divorced role exclusively for those jobs is arbitrary unless they have access to something that is fundamentally exclusive to that role that is essential for gameplay. For example, if group mitigation was removed from every job except whatever gets classified as "Support" and the "Support" role is the sole responder to mitigation needs, that could justify the addition of a new role. Or at least, the only jobs capable of meeting mitigation requirements across an entire encounter are the Support jobs, where other examples of mitigation found in non Support jobs is not enough to clear content with.

[Renathras]

Unless Healers having enough DPS to clear content despite their inclusion somehow makes them indistinguishable from DPS despite their comparative paucity of offensive actions, neither do Tanks' 2-4 self-heal make them Healers.

I didn't say Tanks were Healers. That was my point. You were arguing we can't add a Support role, as it means other roles wouldn't be allowed any support buttons. My counter was that we already see Tanks and DPS having healing abilities, Tanks and Healers having DPS abilities, and even DPS having and Healers having some Tank abilities/defensive CDs (Aquaveil, Shade Shift, Third Eye, etc).

So technically speaking, it doesn't really matter how much or how little, your point was already countered. But when you tried to salvage it with "Well, is it enough to heal encounters?", the answer is "Well...yes. Apparently, given all the 0 Healer clears of all content in the game, it apparently is.", but that's actually not relevant to countering your point that a fourth role would mean the existing roles could no longer have any Support abilities. You trying to turn it around on me "Or are you suddenly instead so satisfied..." is you trying to move the goalposts, so I'm not going to entertain it, just point out that it's irrelevant to countering your point.

You're advocating that a capacity be allocated, to any real significance in capacity or gameplay, to a single role.

No, I'm not.

You're insisting that's the only way to do it.

I'm saying it isn't.

Which means I can't be advocating it since I'm saying that it isn't necessary and I haven't actually advocated for the specifics of the Support role nor the other roles once Support is split off. You're doing that all on your own.

The problem is a lack of undermechanics and actions or interactions by which to leverage them, not the lack of a role that'd be purposely neutered outside of full parties.

This is true of literally every role in the game already. Healers and Tanks are "purposely neutered" (in terms of damage) outside of full parties. And in full parties. AST even moreso than normal. In any of the content that actually does consistently high or moderately high damage, DPS are also neutered and unable to clear it. SOMEHOW that works anyway.

No, Quelling Strikes was...

....which is why I put the "?" there, since I couldn't remember.

You DID see the "?" there, right?

I feel like this is the opposite of what nearly every responder is saying, and I have no idea how you're coming to this conclusion. I already play a support job as a bandage solution to the problem of healers being horribly designed and miserable to play as. I don't want to play a support; I want to play as a healer. I just want my healer to be fun, to be responsible for healing throughput while also being able to engage with this game's combat system. Whether or not a support role is added officially is irrelevant to me, and I don't honestly think it matters anyway because jobs like Dancer already exist in their current state regardless of what role they are labeled as. It's just a label that changes nothing.

You're speaking in an absolute statement. The AST number one request was more buffs, and it seems people want a gameplay that revolves around buffing allies. This is also true of DNC and BRD.

YOU may not want (or say you don't want) to play a Support. But when proposals for "healer to be fun", specificallyt he proposals to "be() able to engage with this game's combat system" are essentially making it into a Support, then it stands to reason what people would enjoy is a Support. As many people have said, RDM with Vermedica that was viable they'd be all over. Many proposals for Healer changes, particularly for AST, involve essentially transforming them into what would be considered a Support role in the games that have them.

And I think part of it is also that people have a weird aversion to the name for some reason that honestly makes no sense.

I don't think it's "a label that changes nothing", since it would also influence how parties were constructed in pre-mades and how their abilities are balanced, as well as what lines the draw within and without and how encounters are designed.

You're a literary enough person, Ty, that I think you understand the power words and their meanings have. For example, using "elitist" vs "hardcore" or "challenge content players" all evoke a different response, and can even be considered to describe different people. Words do have power, as do labels and categories; and this is ignoring that such things DO entail changes.

.

I do agree with your comment on Utility, though I think it's more different people mean different things and are using language in a clumsy way to describe it. That, and there's so LITTLE Utility in this game people have taken a definition of "anything that isn't just damage", and for non-healers, healing, for non-tanks, defensive CDs.

[ty_taurus]

You're speaking in an absolute statement. The AST number one request was more buffs, and it seems people want a gameplay that revolves around buffing allies. This is also true of DNC and BRD.

YOU may not want (or say you don't want) to play a Support. But when proposals for "healer to be fun", specificallyt he proposals to "be() able to engage with this game's combat system" are essentially making it into a Support, then it stands to reason what people would enjoy is a Support. As many people have said, RDM with Vermedica that was viable they'd be all over. Many proposals for Healer changes, particularly for AST, involve essentially transforming them into what would be considered a Support role in the games that have them.

And I think part of it is also that people have a weird aversion to the name for some reason that honestly makes no sense.

First of all, there's no need for the (or say you don't want) part. You remember when some people were calling you out on telling people that they don't know what they want, and that they don't actually want to play a healer, they want to play a support. This is what they're talking about. Stop trying to imply that what I want is to play a support when I'm point-blank telling you that's not what I want. Frankly, I really don't care what the role is called. Call it the Human Resources role. Call it the Plumber role. Call it Oopsie-Daisy role. I really don't care. What I care about is, I want a job that:

- Provides sufficient HP recovery to answer all damage requirements in all thresholds of difficulty.
- Offers fun and engaging gameplay while healing isn't required (i.e. engages with the game's combat system). This means relying on a variety of actions, not spending more than half of all actions used on a single fucking spell. I don't care what the rest of my actions do as long as I always need them regardless of whether or not healing is required, and that using them is more rewarding than spamming Dosis until my fingers tear themselves out of my hands and flee to a less abusive host.

My point is that unless you overhaul the entire game, the name of the role does fuck all to actually resolve any of the problems I or others have discussed over the years on here. Sure, rename "healer" to "support" if it tickles your pickle. What matters to me is the actual design of the job. Nothing else.

[Semirhage]

This conversation is HeALerS shOuLD hEaL oNLy in sheep's clothing. Ren wants to expel the dirty not-REAL healers off into a separate role dungeon because some people just want to HEAL, blaaaah blah blah blah same argument it always is in different wording.

[ty_taurus]

Another thing, you also can't just have a support role and a healer role where both are equally capable of meeting all healing requirements in the game, yet the support role does much higher overall damage. It creates a massive balance issue in which the support role invalidates the healer role entirely.

In an RPG, every role you create needs to have a defined purpose. For example, why does the DPS role do more damage than the healer role? Ignore any preconceived notions of what a job "should" offer and think purely from a design standpoint. What makes it a bad idea to have one class that deals a certain amount of damage and another class that deals roughly the same amount of damage and provides considerable amounts of healing? The reason is because in that example, the healer doing as much damage as the DPS renders the DPS job invalid because why bring one job that only attacks when you can bring one that attacks just as hard but also can prevent the party from dying at the same time?

RPG gameplay is defined by damage: the damage you need to defeat the enemy and the damage the enemy deals to try and stop you. Every role needs to interact in with that in a way that is holistically unique to that role and also is required. DPS offer the highest amount of damage which means you can win fights more quickly, but this is offset by their inability to endure the damage dealt back to them for long enough to actually win. Tanks offer the ability to not only endure that damage without dying, but also can control aggro (even if at a very basic level). If you had a team of 4 DPS in a dungeon, the only way that group can control aggro is by certain players delaying their attacks to avoid generating too much aggro and stealing threat from whichever DPS is trying to tank. Meanwhile, even with how gentle outgoing damage is, DPS jobs aren't able to endure trash pack damage for long, and even the wet noodle tankbusters of dungeon bosses will hit hard enough to kill a DPS player, or drop them to critical HP of which they can not restore very quickly. If DPS jobs could tank well enough without an actual Tank job, then why take a Tank at all and lose out on damage when the value they bring isn't necessary.

This is a very real concern that healers are met with. Even though the community is still very comfortable having regular healers, we are teetering on the edge of a future where healing requirements are so low, and non-healer sustain is so plentiful that we can very easily tip into an environment where healers become obsolete. So now let's imagine that we add in a support role that has as much healing throughput as the healers but now also has much better damage. Healer jobs will start becoming excluded from group content, and you may get people who will accuse you of trolling when playing as a healer even if the healer is still capable of clearing. If they're blatantly inferior to supports, that won't bode well for the game's balance or the community's outlook on player participation.

[Renathras]

First of all,

Hardly, but I find it a bit hard to believe if there was a true Support Job in the game you wouldn't play it, since it checks all of your boxes. Note I didn't say "you don't want to play a Healer". I'm saying you're saying you don't want to play a Support...but you're playing a Support right now (DNC is, in all but official name, a Support role Job). I'm not implying you ONLY want to play a Support. I'm SAYING you would probably like one, considering you're already maining one, and the changes you generally advocate for various Healer Jobs would be one as well.

.

I'm not the one arguing to rename Healer to Support - that's Roe.

I'm the one arguing to add Support as a fourth role. At least get who is making what argument right, please.

This conversation is HeALerS shOuLD hEaL oNLy in sheep's clothing. Ren wants to expel the dirty not-REAL healers off into a separate role dungeon because some people just want to HEAL, blaaaah blah blah blah same argument it always is in different wording.

blah blah blah blah blah

Another thing, you also can't just have a support role and a healer role where both are equally capable of meeting all healing requirements in the game, yet the support role does much higher overall damage.

Literally who is asking for this?

I get you THINK I said "You're not a real healer!" and are having a conniption, but I didn't say that. Saying you'd like a Support - because you literally main one now - isn't some kind of hidden insult. And it's not saying you're not a Healer. So you need to cool off from that insult since I didn't make it.

When you get mad, you tend to do this thing where you invent arguments I didn't make to attack me over after you think I attacked or insulted you. You kind of lash out wildly when you feel slighted and get mad. I didn't, so you don't need to lash out.

.

Also, to answer the question of why DPS do more damage than Healers (or Tanks or Support): Because without Enrage mechanics, there'd be no reason to bring DPS roles. Damage is the least valuable thing to bring to a party absent an Enrage. And with an Enrage, DPS still have to do more damage than any other role otherwise they'd be the first role dropped.

Suppose GNB did the same damage that DRG does. There'd be no reason to bring any DPS players. You could bring a pair of Healers then stack the party with GNBs. "Tank privilege" means they'd be less likely to die, and there would be tons of defensive CDs. Mechanics would be far easier to deal with with all the extra invulns.

Enrages artificially make DPS classes a requirement, but even there, they only do so if DPS classes do significantly more damage than Tanks/Healers/Support. If they didn't, they'd be the first Jobs dropped from a party as they'd be bringing nothing to the table that those others do not. In a world of no Enrages, defense and healing are more important to most people since they would guarantee clears while higher DPS without healing and defenses would not, and most Humans are risk-averse, meaning they tend towards the least risky option. If PLDs did the same damage as MNKs, PLD would be the most played Job and meta would just be all PLD clears, possibly with a Healer/SMN/RDM or two for Raise security.

[ty_taurus]

I'm saying you're saying you don't want to play a Support...but you're playing a Support right now (DNC is, in all but official name, a Support role Job).

Huh, it's almost like I said something along the lines of playing Dancer only because the healers are not fun and are terribly designed as healers, and I gave up healing for Dancer not because I liked Dancer more, but because healing was ruined from when it was enjoyable.

Hardly, but I find it a bit hard to believe if there was a true Support Job in the game you wouldn't play it, since it checks all of your boxes. Note I didn't say "you don't want to play a Healer".

Well, since you apparently think you know me better than I do, I'll let you respond to the rest of your post for me.