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

[ty_taurus]

I worry that may be more an example akin to the old Support discussion, whereby you have a "Support" Healer who's nonetheless able to meet all healing requirements but then just offers way more than anyone else atop that (in the previous case, because the others' outputs could more easily go to waste, while the those of the "Support Healer" could not.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't trust a "Healer" who doesn't have a kit capable of nuance or engaging gameplay in the healing itself (which could nonetheless produce a powerful, healing-sufficient, and enjoyable job on the whole) not to be worse for the game as a whole for its inclusion unless we similarly scooted every healer in a similar direction -- a la OW -- which would still likely be worse for those who'd really enjoy healing if it were just tuned to a point wherein it could again be engaging for more than just the initial "still solving the fight" experience of Savage and Ultimate.

Again, I'm one of those most against pure-healing Healers. But I do think it would be a waste of what forms of engagement the game could offer on the whole if actual engaging/naunced healing gameplay were pushed out by jobs who could manage those capacities without engaging with such (especially if they could, as one would expect, therefore do more on the whole from what agencies they add outside of healing despite being tuned to meet all healing requirements individually).

I think the topic of "What qualifies as a healer" and "what healer designs are healthy for the game as a whole" are two different conversations that we're mixing up. Having healthy job design is incredibly important, and I'm not discounting that. I forget where they posted this, but Roe referenced somewhere how concerned they would be if SE added Alisaie's Vercure III, and AoE heal, to Red Mage, stressing that even with Red Mage being forced to drop GCD attacks, the shear damage output offered by Red Mage would threaten the healer role considerably. I agree, because if that was the case, and Red Mage could adequately sustain the party with Vercure III, that would change Red Mage from a DPS support to a DPS/Support/Healer hybrid. I would then unironically describe Red Mage as a healer because it would be one. That's not to say that's healthy for the balance of FFXIV, but whether or not it's a good idea, that would still make Red Mage into a fully fledged healer.

My point is just that refusing to call it a healer because it has too many attacks is silly and wouldn't change the fact that Red Mage would be able to be the party healer.

And going back to my list of wants for a job, What I want is to have competitive healing throughput, have no more than 30% of total action usage dedicated to any singular action, and spending roughly 80% of their total casts on at least 10-12 actions. Whatever that looks like, I don't want that to deal DPS levels of damage, or even tank levels of damage. I'd want it to be balanced with the other healers in terms of output, either by dealing roughly the same amount of damage, or if it does offer a modestly higher DPS output range, that that comes at the cost of utility that the other healers have access too, and I don't need those actions to be DPS actions anyway. As long as they are always optimal to use in the way they're meant to be used regardless of whether I'm soloing the MSQ or progging savage, I don't care that much about what the actions actually do. I have preferences, but at this point I'll take what I can get.

[Shurrikhan]

I think the topic of "What qualifies as a healer" and "what healer designs are healthy for the game as a whole" are two different conversations that we're mixing up. Having healthy job design is incredibly important, and I'm not discounting that.

I feel like we're approaching the same conclusion from different terms is all.

Let's take your example of a RDM having higher combined (effective) HPS and DPS while said healing potential is just high enough to still meet all requirements. We may disagree on whether that then-problematic job ought to be called a "Healer" or a "DPS with too damn much sustain support available to it," but we'd agree, I think, that'd it'd be an aberration and unhealthy for the game, yes?

I choose not to use the term "Healer" for that RDM only because it wouldn't have stopped also having the DPS necessary to push an enrage where substituting a DPS for a third tank or healer might thus wipe the party in the long term. I could, I suppose, call it...

• a Healer-DPS (reserving DPS-Healer for a style of Healer, I guess) or
• a Healer/DPS (though that makes it look like its capacities are split to the point of being not quite sufficient for either purpose at minimum reasonable ilvl) or
• a Healer+DPS (probably the term that best shows its being imbalanced)

...but then we're into the can of worms that is "Which Role should supersede the other? In what position in that name do we place the jobs' capacities, and in what position do we place manner? What does this hybridity actually signify?"

So, unless similarly breaking each job free from Role templates such that they instead have at most (situational) ratios of capacity and a RDM's role would be "RDM"...

I, personally, would just call...

• a "DPS" any job whose gameplay veers from or builds on the cross-role average/minimum primarily in its additional considerations and optimizations in pure DPS,
• a "Tank" whosoever builds atop that primarily through kit tooled for managing enemy behaviors and positioning to the effect of maximizing party output while minimizing party loss of HP or resource relevant to staying alive and which would come at cost to other outputs,
• a "Healer" any job that builds atop that primarily through kit tooled for keeping the party's members alive through means independent of manipulating the enemy's behavior and positioning

...and, unless part of a separate "Flex" role, I would expect each job's primary form of kit agency beyond what is shared/average/baseline to be significantly greater than its second or third largest portions.

If we instead label everything based only on whether it can do enough to clear... those labels are always subject to tuning. Give it an expansion or two, and likely a quarter or more of all jobs will be Healer+Tank+DPS, and there might not be a single Tank left, or indeed any single-Role job still regularly played outside of DPS.

And while labeling each job accordingly (Heal+Tank) would point out the symptoms a tiny bit better, the disease is still that you've given a job more agency in a longterm/uncapped output (always DPS, since we have zero fights in XIV not won by reducing the enemy's HP to zero) while leaving what little agency it retains for the short-term output (healing / tanking) nonetheless sufficient, which is essentially... almost guaranteed to be an imbalance that pushes out the less OP jobs, which wouldn't equally be dealt with by just looking at capacities and agencies a bit more... in ratio, for lack of a better term, and simply raising all skill ceilings to nearer a particular, greater height (instead of a common denominator) so that one still has plenty that they're able to engage with in any context.


Tl;dr: You could set your labels so loose in terms of gameplay/agency/forms of engagement that they allow for obvious issues and then fix those issues later (likely at cost to what little you were trying to get extra by loosening the labels) or you could set your labels to just such a narrowness that they preclude the obvious issues and little to nothing else. The result is the same and (imo) necessary regardless.

[ty_taurus]

I, personally, would just call...

• a "DPS" any job whose gameplay veers from or builds on the cross-role average/minimum primarily in its additional considerations and optimizations in pure DPS,
• a "Tank" whosoever builds atop that primarily through kit tooled for managing enemy behaviors and positioning to the effect of maximizing party output while minimizing party loss of HP or resource relevant to staying alive and which would come at cost to other outputs,
• a "Healer" any job that builds atop that primarily through kit tooled for keeping the party's members alive through means independent of manipulating the enemy's behavior and positioning

But here's the thing... What if a job is equal parts DPS and equal parts Healer--that its gameplay is perfectly balanced between its priority to optimize its DPS output and prioritize party sustain, and can do both competitively with other DPS and healer jobs at the same time, what do you call that? Moreover, what actually can be defined based on the descriptions you gave? Whether or not a job 'plays like a DPS' or 'plays like a healer' is ultimately a subjective statement. Sure we can use extreme examples like Red Mage that has no changes, but just happens to also have Vercure III which the job isn't built around but can satisfy healing requirements anyway, we could say that more clearly 'plays like a DPS,' but what about a non-extreme example like the above? If you ask 10 people what role they feel that job is, you may get 10 different answers--something that isn't definitive.

But you know what is definitive? If you ask them whether or not it dealt enough damage and whether or not it could restore enough HP you'll get 10 of the same answer, because either the job could or it couldn't.

[Shurrikhan]

But here's the thing... What if a job... and can do both competitively with other DPS and healer jobs at the same time, what do you call that?

A failed system / lack of any difficult content.

Whether or not a job 'plays like a DPS' or 'plays like a healer' is ultimately a subjective statement.

No more so than whether a job 'can' or 'cannot' do Ultimate (especially, without being an unnecessary burden). There's what's possible, and then there's what people actually do.

In either case, the maximum is consistent/objective, and what portion one utilizes is variable/subjective.

If you ask 10 people what role they feel that job is, you may get 10 different answers--something that isn't definitive.

Which would, to me, be fine so long as we're no longer matchmaking by Role, and all jobs are equally hybridized. But if you just have a few thereby-overpowered outliers, or still matchmake jobs by Role and require therefore that their Role outputs be sufficient but then allow them to trade their in-role excess for something extra (and typically thereby more valuable)... that is inviting imbalances and reduced job choice.

Simply put, if we're going to matchmake by Roles... there shouldn't be jobs that have a 50/50 or 33.3/33.3/33.3 kit distribution between roles. They should have a primary kit distribution in keeping with their label.

Else, scrap the current Role-based matchmaking entirely and matchmake by total party capacities instead. But, though I believe that's hugely lucrative, that's easier said than done.

[Renathras]

To be honest, I don't really think it actually matters what I say. You seem to have decided what my response will be already.

That's a cop out and you know it. I feel like I know the answer. But by all means, say you wouldn't play a Support role if it was introduced. /shrug

I'm not the one that uses the "real healer" argument. I don't think I ever have. ForsakenRoe likes bringing it up as a canard and generally is the person that brings it into conversations. It's beneath you, but if you choose to also traffic in caricatures, I guess that's who you want to be.

Though what you said about GNB has me curious now...I wonder what this rate is for all the different Jobs. I guess it would depend on what percentage point we measure at, though, and which content. E.g. look at 24 mans an 80 may be more like a 20 in Savage parses.

I've suggested before giving you that, btw. "4 Healers Model", remember? You rejected it unless the entire role gets it.

I feel like it wouldn't change... anything?

I feel like it would change a lot of things.

That's kinda like saying we don't need a DPS role, since Tanks and Healers already do DPS, why have a separate role for it? Clearly, adding another role DOES change things.

You know, I'm still quite curious if the three components I described about the kind of job I want to play still qualifies as a Healer or if that would be considered a different role.

What's the focus of the Job?
What do the majority of its abilities do?
What are the vast majority of buttons used in combat in service to?
And what does it do that other roles cannot do sustainably?

...I think those four questions are related to roles.

DPS are focused wholly (or nearly so) on damage, the vast majority of their abilities, and the majority of their common use buttons are for damage, and while some cases (DRK burst) other roles can maybe match them, they cannot sustain that level.

Tanks are focused (depending on if you count their damage as agro) on threat and keeping boss attention and surviving big boss attacks, large chunks of their buttons are used on these two purposes (agro generation being their rotation and defensive CDs being their survival of attacks; note the -2 for GNB, -3 for WAR and DRK, and HS on PLD are all survival/sustain buttons), and while other role Jobs can hold boss agro (highest DPS) and survive some attacks for a short while, they can't sustainably do it (in generally well designed fights; I think we all agree Ex5 was not a well designed fight).

Healers right now are only meeting the first, second, and fourth of those (WHM is the closest at meeting the third one if you DON'T count Kardia, and if you DO count Kardia, SGE is also meeting the fourth one, amusingly enough).

.

Anyway, as to what you said above:

4 Healers Model.

That's the entire point of it as a proposal.

[ElysiumDragon]

The fundamental problem is that most healer jobs are super boring when things are going well, or when you have a competent group. They become a lot more engaging when your group is struggling with a particular fight, but current Savage design choices, which emphasise body checks for a greater percentage of mechanics, often punish small or otherwise recoverable mistakes with an immediate forced reset, which removes the aforementioned scenarios in which healing would be more engaging. So if you're a healer, your only real option is fights going well, and thus, your particular role being boring.

[ty_taurus]

That's a cop out and you know it.

I mean with every post you made here in regards to me, you seemed to have made up your mind already about what I wanted and insisted that I was describing a support and not a healer. So it truthfully doesn't feel like what I say matters.

I've suggested before giving you that, btw. "4 Healers Model", remember? You rejected it unless the entire role gets it.

Except I've fully supported having a healer designed to appeal to players who do not like DPSing as a healer. The only healer I've rejected is specifically one that perpetuates single button DPS spam because that is shit game design. But what do I know? I'm just an RPG systems designer.

What's the focus of the Job?
What do the majority of its abilities do?
What are the vast majority of buttons used in combat in service to?
And what does it do that other roles cannot do sustainably?

I'd like it to be Sage, because I like Sage aesthetically and thematically. What I want is what I described, a job that:
1. Has the healing throughput needed to fill the position of "healer" in any form of group content.
2. Spends no more than 30% of total action usage on any singular action on their hotbar in any form of content, be it soloing, dungeons, savage, or anything else.
3. Spends roughly 80% of its total action usage across at least 10-12 actions, also in any form of content.

Anything that can fulfill those criteria I will probably be content with. I would like for this job to either be a more balanced "black mage" of healers (i.e. being a couple steps higher in damage output than other healers at the cost of not having utility to compete with tools like Expedient or Macrocosmos) or that it has roughly the same damage output but has a unique form of valuable utility on the same level as Expedient but addresses a different element of gameplay.

[Shurrikhan]

Anyway, as to what you said above:

4 Healers Model.

That's the entire point of it as a proposal.

And that might get more agreement, or at least traction/discourse, if you clarified how much gameplay in total each of those differently-modeled healers would have available to it.
:: Well, that and if the name made sense for the goal, since you've suggested that only 1 or 2 should be "Healers" and the others more akin to "Supports", but I'll admit that "Categorically Diversify What Each Healer Offers in Both Capacity and Gameplay" wouldn't have much ring to it, even if it'd finally have clarity.

Thus far, you've framed it as much around each healer avoiding the others' aspects as each having an aspect or two significant and enjoyable gameplay added to the existing mostly-shared model of Healer gameplay, and you've been explicit in defining one by its having little going on (basic healer with Glare-spam)...

Perhaps a refresh on just what all you'd imagine each healer having added to its gameplay as a result of this model? (Since, at the end of the day, we play those jobs and not whatever mental frameworks by which they're taxonomized.)

[Renathras]

I mean with every post you made here in regards to me, you seemed to have made up your mind already about what I wanted

If I made up my mind, I wouldn't have asked the question.

Your non-answer answers it, though. So we're all clear, the answer is that you would at least try it out - as would I. Unlike you, I freely admit this. And I'm the most "dedicated pure/whatever healer" here. Don't assume duplicity so much.

.

You have supported having a single option for people who don't enjoy DPSing on Healers, but only if it's one specific thing, which I've informed you isn't what everyone who doesn't enjoy DPSing wants. The single thing you've rejected as "shit game design" is, as I've told you, something that people want. I am curious the game you work on, as I'm wondering if it has anything I would consider a healer in it or not...

What I think you get is that some people don't like what you like.

What I don't think you get is what some of those people do like. This leads you to proposing solutions that they don't find acceptable, then being confused because they seem like they should be acceptable to you. The problem is you aren't giving them what they want. You're giving them what you think they want/should want instead, even when they tell you over and over what they do want and you tell them no one could want that.

.

1) Every Healer in this game design does.
2) If one counts 1-2-3 as a single action for non-branching combos (since there's no case you don't use them as such and it's a "fatfinger" check, not a skill check), I wonder how many Jobs meet that criteria.
3) Why 10-12, not 3-5? What's sacred about that number?

In any case, as I've said, I'm fine with those criteria for a Healer Job. I disagree it should be for all of them. Many people would not find that fun.

And that might get more agreement, or at least traction/discourse, if you clarified how much gameplay in total each of those differently-modeled healers would have available to it.

Hm, I suppose I could do a more updated write-up, but given the replies from certain posters here of late, I'm not sure it's worth the effort since no one would read it. Also I don't think I frame the discussion/question(s) like you do. For example, "how much gameplay...would have available"? What does this mean? They all have gameplay. They all have the same gameplay. They run the same encounters, they heal the same damage inflicted on the party. Do you mean "how many buttons" or "how complex"? Those are different questions than available gameplay.

I also haven't defined one as "basic healer with Glare-spam", as none of our Healers today are that. I think one of the sticking points of the current situation is people engaging in hyperbole and refusing to acknowledge what actually does exist. For example, as I've shown before, in cases were absolutely no healing needs to be done by the healer ever at any time in a fight (a scenario which doesn't really exist in this game outside of unsynced content), WHM casts 4 Afflatus abilities, 2 Dias, and 1.3 Assizes per minute, as well as (normalized) 0.5 Presence of Mind every minute. With a 2.5 sec GCD, and 6 take by Dia and Afflatuses, that's 18 Glares, 4 Afflatuses, 2 Dias, 1.3 Assizes (oGCD), 0.5 PoMs (oGCD). Of course, if healing needs to be done, that cycles in more oGCDs, and eventually GCDs if it is insufficient. This is hardly "Glare-spam" in my book.

The worst part is, this is comparable to SB (widely praised as the height of Healer design) WHM's rotation.

I went over this in the "Healers, Then and Now" thread: https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post6197639

In practice, SB WHM cast Aero 2 3.333... times per minute and Aero 3 2.5 times per minute. This is a total of 5.833... GCD casts per minute that weren't Stone IV.

In practice, EW WHM casts Dia 2 times per minute, 3 Afflatus (Solace/Rapture) per minute, and 1 Afflatus Misery per minute. This is a total of 6 GCD casts per minute that aren't Glare III.

On balance, EW WHM is casting non-Glare damage (or damage-adjacent Solace/Rapture) spells on roughly the same average frequency as SB era WHM did.

No one's ever quite been able to explain why it was good design in SB but not in ShB/EW to have the same rotational frequency of "Stone/Glare-spam". Arguing the DoTs made the timing different isn't an argument against the spam itself, especially when people like Ty routinely use the amount of buttons being pressed, not the pattern, in their arguments, as he did above.

Ironically, I'm the one that critiqued this by noting the difference was WHM had to rely on GCD heals more back then (more damage and less oGCDs), so some of those Stones were substituted for Medica/Cure spells by necessity. It wasn't just the oGCDs, encounter design - the thing people insist is immutable - was apparently mutable and required a different approach to healing, that is, MORE HEALING, at the time. And it's this I point to as a possible solution to the problem.

But regardless, that's also why I constantly rag on encounter design, and to a lesser extent oGCD use, and note they'd need to be part of any rework.

.

So I need you to lay out your questions more precisely and in more neutral language/language I would interpret closer to how you intend (or alternatively, make a Ren post explaining in detail what you're asking for - and not in tiny font, please - so I can understand it precisely and answer it), and I can see if I can address it.

In a nutshell, though, my proposed changes would amount to:

1) Encounters that require more consistent healing. Low difficulties would still have this, but the values would be so low that novice players could cover it with GCD heal fallbacks. Harder fights would actually make this threatening where the healing has to be addressed in a consistent manner. No more fights with lots of damage and then 45 seconds of nothing at all happening. This change would reduce the ability to address all healing with oGCDs, while still allowing oGCDs to be somewhat powerful for the Jobs that would continue to rely on them.

2) More somewhat randomized damage, like boss random targeting of players or continued auto-attacks of Tanks while prepping mechanics/casting. This was done in HW and was also generally well received for what that's worth. Again, this wouldn't hurt Jonny Casual as casual content would have the damage low enough they could handle it with their fallbacks if necessary.

3) A general reduction in oGCD power for Healers...but with caveats. Specifically, some Healer Jobs would be designed to work with their oGCDs being a source of their healing, and so they would be tuned to that end.

After those changes were made, since they're kind of essential:

1) WHM would largely play as it does today, with a few minor changes. First, a Protect spell (that Traits up to Pro-Shell and then Plenary with the Pro-Shell effect as a mitigation tool - WHM presently has less frequent mitigation than BLM. Yes, BLM. Addle has a lower CD than Temperance [lower reduction, true, but the point is, BLM can engage with party mitigation more frequently than WHM, and that's just silly]). Second, I'd honestly make it where all GCD heals nourish the Blood Lily. The point of this is to make WHM the GCD Healer...that actually USES its GCD heals. The Lily system has been admirable at trying to give this feel, but it's like saying SMN is just as much a Caster as BLM. While true in terms of the way the servers treat the Jobs, sure, but players routinely call SMN a Ranged that has the Caster icon because of all its instant (GCD, but instant) casts. WHM should be encouraged to engage with its GCD heals, not slapped with a big damage nerf for using them. It would also allow use of interesting abilities. WHM's GCD kit has redundancies, but with some tweaks (and looking back on its spell history...), they're more diverse than "Rapture vs Solace". Cure 3 vs Medica 3 vs Medica (when its MP cost was lower and it was actually what you used after Medica 2 while the HoT was still ticking) was a choice for how to deal with a problem based on the situation at hand. We no longer have that. Rapture is always the correct answer. Regen is a nice and pretty powerful heal...that we only use pre-pull because Solace is the DPS gain and Regen the DPS loss. Same with Cure 2. By making the GCD heals damage neutral, it means min/max damage optimization - which people here insist is the only thing that matters - isn't part of the decision on which heals to use. Instead, which heal is best for the situation is the decision on which heals to use...which it should be. MP management actually mattering would also be a consequence of this, though again, for casual healers in casual content, this wouldn't be something limiting them too harshly. But for skilled healers in high end content, this would be a serious consideration. For example, there could be a world where Medica 1 has lower range than Medica 2 and lower total healing, but has half the MP cost making it far more efficient when low on MP vs Medica 2 or Cure 3. Medica 2 could have some trait that has it work like Criterion regen where the power is boosted if the HoT is on the target, but with it having a higher MP cost than Medica 1. Cure 3 would have its higher MP cost, but apply its healing instantly in a big chunk, useful for stacked mechanics where the party also needs to be topped off quickly. Now each is actually a meaningful choice based on the situation, the party's positioning, the Healer's resources, and the encounter mechanics.

2) SCH I would mostly revert to the SB version. As I discussed in the Then and Now thread, SCH was the most harmed and is, today, the most "filler-spamy" of the Healers; the meme should be "Broil-spam", not "Glare-spam" (funny irony; WHM is about tied with SGE as the LEAST filler-spammy of the Healers). Specifically, with Broil being a 2.5 sec cast, it gave Ruin 2 (and Miasma 2 if you were in close to the boss and had ample MP) reasons to exist. Ruin 2 was both a movement tool and a weave tool that was optimal to use for weaving (even non-ED oGCDs), even though it was a damage loss vs Broil, since Broil oGCD use would be clipping and Ruin 2 allowed for more distance movement. Miasma 2 was actually a DPS gain, but at the cost of more MP, adding MP management into the mix here as well. The changes from SB I would want added would be the improved pet AI, and the capstones added since SB (Seraph/Consolation and Expedience), since those have been useful and interesting additions to the kit. We would also be reverting to (I believe it was ShB when we lost it) the changes where pet abilites were triggered by the player but didn't count against the player's ability use, allowing more effective weaving and allowing players to create macros for them if they wish. Aetherpact can remain as a boosted Embrace, but...I dunno if we want to just dump Faerie Gauge or try to salvage it into something useful. The goal here is to return SCH into its last "good" state, SB, while not taking away the actual improvements that would have made it better, such as better pet AI and utility like Expedience.

3) AST I'm not entirely sure what to do with. I play it enough now that I can speak more authoritatively on it than I used too, but I don't at all main it, and I know people that main it tend to like the opposite of what I like in terms of rotation and encounter approach. Where I enjoy reactive healing, AST is all about pre-planning. And where I like low APM Jobs, AST is all about bursts of high activity. Since its inception, it's had a higher APM. It was long the only Healer whose spam-nuke had a low cast time to facilitate frequent weaving, and every iteration of it has had a lot of them. So where if I was making AST for people like me, I'd make the card effects into GCDs (that boost the next Malific by 100% stacking to 5 or some such to facilitate a Draw/Play series of actions if needed), I also recognize that a lot of AST players would hate that because they like getting carpel-tunnel. So instead, I'd propose returning towards SB, but with a few modifications. The first would be to have two sets of Draw and Play, probably Major and Minor Arcana. One set would be damage increasing abilities, the other utility. The first might be X% flat damage, Y% added crit, or Z% added direct hit, with the ratio being 1:2:3 like BRD songs are. The utility set would be a damage reduction ability, a movement speed increasing ability, and a haste (spell and skill speed) ability. Next, I'd massage RNG a bit by allowing stocking of any card the AST chooses. This would allow, say, the damage reduction ability, if not needed now but needed in the future, to be "stocked" for later use at the time it matters, instead of pre-SB where it was just wasted or Royal Road fodder. I'd...also bring back Royal Road, because while I personally hated half of AST buttons being both oGCDs and card related...some people loved the hell out of that, and liked being able to modify cards to increase effectiveness, duration, or give them an AOE effect. AST's damage kit and healing kit don't directly need to be changed, since they're more or less what they were. Some more recent effects could be added to existing ones - for example, Exaltation or Intersection's damage reduction/shield could be a trait addition to the Bole card (there's no reason Cards can't get improvements with Traits at higher levels, now is there?). Oh, and one more little change that I'm sure (sarcasm) no one would really care about or notice - return Diurnal and Nocturnal stances. No, not hot swapping in battle. Pick one or the other, but the option is now there again. I feel that would be a pretty welcome change.

4) SGE there are two possible ways to go with it. One is to leave it exactly like it is today. The reasoning being it's always been this way, so there aren't any complaints from people about it having some core part of what they liked about its identity or function changed. That is, possibly even moreso than WHM, there's a strong argument to leave SGE as it is, since this is all its ever been, and this is what all players of SGE knew they were getting (more or less) when picking it up any time after the first month or so of EW, if not before. The OTHER argument, however, is that SGE was billed as effectively a DPS that heals by doing damage. In an ideal world, we'd add a new Healer and split the apple that way. But for the sake of argument (since the first of those is already known; we know how SGE operates now, so "leave it as it is" is self-explantory), the second version would be to really double down on the Kardia system. Kardia healing would now be variable based on the attack used to generate it. Most of SGE's oGCD heals would be removed. SGE's purpose is to heal by doing damage, not to heal by casting heals, oGCD or GCD. Correct performance of the rotation would lead to consistent and large Kardia heals, and SGE would have abilities that would amplify Kardia. One would be an oGCD that makes Kardia AOE for a short duration (say 10 sec) on a 1 min CD. This is the "Whispering Dawn/Fey Blessing" type of thing that Physis 2 and Kerochole are used for now. Another would be a short duration (10 sec) second Kardia that can be placed on a second target (e.g. the OT after a shared tank buster). Think Synastry, just in this case, Kardia procs. SGE would retain mitigation effects from Kerochole, Ixochole, and Holos, as well as Holos' shield, but would lose the healing associated with them. Again, its healing should mostly be happening via Kardia. I haven't quite worked out the damage rotation (or specifically, how to do it), but something on the order of RDM's Caster rotation, with the big finisher being Pneuma instead of a Melee combo with spell stingers on the end. Properly executing the damage rotation would build resources that could be used on Pneuma casts, which would lead to big healing. Where WHM is the GCD Healer in this system, SGE is the opposite take, being a GCD damage dealer that provides healing to the party by properly performing a damage rotation (peppered with some mitigation and Kardia modifier use) instead. Where WHM would be focused on GCD heals and do damage as more of an afterthought, SGE would focus on GCD damage spells and its healing would be the almost afterthought instead.

...of course (laughable given the length of this post), this is more an overview. Though at least the first three of these are pretty self-explanatory. The SGE rework is really the only one that would require more in-depth explanation, but the point of it is to make it heal by doing damage and appeal to people that prefer dealing damage and like their heals to be something they throw on the side as a result of performing their damage rotation correctly. A Healer analogue to GNB for Tanks who like a more (Melee) DPS playstyle, this SGE would be the Caster equivalent, playing more like a RIFT Chloromancer + a WoW Disc Priest or something.

Each one would appeal to a different type of player, and each would be balanced around providing a similar amount of healing and damage, but with the method they use being what distinguishes them.

Oh, and one more random addition to all of them: Each one's basic cure spell Traits up to become a spell that has the same MP cost and cast time, but also the Esuna effect of removing one status ailment. For WHM Cure 1 -> Esuna, SCH Physic -> Leeches, AST Benific 1 -> Exalted Detriment. SGE's can just stay Diagnosis but with the added effect. (The name already calls to mind a visit to the doctor, so it kind of just works.) At the same cost, cast time, and healing as the base Cure 1 equivalent spell, in low level content, nothing changes. In high level content, for the healers based around MP management, it would still serve the Cure 1 slot of "if you have nothing else left, you can keep healing with this". And for the rare content with a status ailment you can cleanse, it does the job of Esuna now without costing an obligatory additional hotbar spot that you have to have Esuna slotted in "just in case" as is the situation now.

Overall, minor QoL change, that, but I think a lot of people would like to see it, or at least be neutral towards it.

.

Hm.

Yeah, honestly, I just need to rewrite it and try to see if I can trim it down to something simple and digestible. And you can ask me your questions (in a way I can understand your intent) and I can answer them for you.

[Shurrikhan]

[@Taurus] What I don't think you get is what some of those people do like. This leads you to proposing solutions that they don't find acceptable, then being confused because they seem like they should be acceptable to you.

Please define or give actual examples of said "people"?

Thus far, here on these boards, his suggestions have seen broader and deeper agreement than your "4 Healers model" (be that due to poor clarity, excessive length, or --less favorably-- the actual content of said model even when understood as perfectly as possible), if responses to each and like counts are anything to go by.

1) Every Healer in this game design does.

Which is why it isn't a suggestion for a change, I would think -- only that he's not willing to accept a "Healer" being unable to actually fill that role just because of the elements added thereto.

2) If one counts 1-2-3 as a single action for non-branching combos (since there's no case you don't use them as such and it's a "fatfinger" check, not a skill check), I wonder how many Jobs meet that criteria.

Other jobs shitting the bed is not a reason to be satisfied with a shitty job design. DRK's spending 75% of its GCDs on its a single combo is one of the most criticized parts of its kit and has been since Stormblood (and at least back then TBN gave 50 Blood by which to reduce that portion to a mere ~67%).

3) Why 10-12, not 3-5? What's sacred about that number?

Reaching 80% of CPM from just the 5 most cast actions is literally current WHM.

WHM's CPM curve (of GCDs and oGCDs together) is comprised of ~55.4% Glare, 8.5% Rapture, 6.1% Benison, 5.6% Dia, 4.4% Assize (already ~80%)... with the remaining 15 actions available to WHM each averaging just 1.33% of its CPM.

Taking 10-12 skills (up from 5) to reach 80% of a given healer's CPM means that that job would have far less of the CPM invested into just its highest-CPM skill (presently, their single-target filler attack) and a far flatter distribution of actions across the board, or at least until reaching the several least frequently cast actions like Bells, Benediction, Medica II, Plenary, Temperance, and Infusion if one counts that.

So, I ask again, which people "don't find" that turn towards a broader distribution of our actions (i.e., not just Glare-spam) "acceptable"?

1) Encounters that require more consistent healing.

I think most would be for this, since consistent healing does far more to diminish Glare spam than it does to stress out healers. (It's in bringing back things like random spike damage that we see greater costs to providing greater %CPM spent on heals --especially, healing GCDs.)

Low difficulties would still have this, but the values would be so low that novice players could cover it with GCD heal fallbacks. Harder fights would actually make this threatening where the healing has to be addressed in a consistent manner.

I'm not sure here what you mean by a "consistent manner" that would be opposed to / different from being covered with GCD heal "fallbacks"? Would one have to consistently store oGCDs just for someone not to die even if they were to have a pre-cast GCD heal? That would be more intense than even our spikiest damage now.

I would think you'd want to leave any actual need for oGCDs for randomized damage.

2) More somewhat randomized damage, like boss random targeting of players or continued auto-attacks of Tanks while prepping mechanics/casting. This was done in HW and was also generally well received for what that's worth. Again, this wouldn't hurt Jonny Casual as casual content would have the damage low enough they could handle it with their fallbacks if necessary.

See above. While constant and randomized damage both reduce the effective reaction time available to a healer to prevent a death, the latter is likely to have the greater impact just because it not being constant means that it is applied far more sharply and its being random means that they can't pre-cast except via wasteful AoEs, making it so one has to tap into additional resources (unless they have spammable instant-cast-heals like SGE) in order to heal the victim(s) before the constant damage can finish them off.

3) A general reduction in oGCD power for Healers...but with caveats. Specifically, some Healer Jobs would be designed to work with their oGCDs being a source of their healing, and so they would be tuned to that end.

Theoretically, I'm fine with that, but I'd like to know what you think is a fair trade for the immediacy of those oGCD heals. Do they have a much lower HPS ceiling than less CD-flush after those CDs are exhausted? What's the impact on their Combined_HPS+DPS Curves as healing requirements increase? Who tends to handle low damage intake better, if anyone? Who can better deal with shit hitting the fan for a sustained period, if anyone?

Second, I'd honestly make it where all GCD heals nourish the Blood Lily. The point of this is to make WHM the GCD Healer...that actually USES its GCD heals.

Then you'd effectively have given WHM infinite Lilies / 20s-CDs, limited only by MP, at roughly half-price on each healing GCD when considering the Glare MP saved and the MP-free Misery GCDs (worth 500 MP per GCD), or 25% off when considering just one's near-maximum healing potential (due, again, to that MP-free Misery GCD every 4th GCD).

That'd be broken. Without MP limitations you'd have made it so that WHM could put out up to 76800 healing potency per minute atop its oGCDs... at a cost of only 810 offensive potency per minute (9.8% less DPS), or 70400 healing potency per minute atop its oGCDs with zero loss to its offensive potency per minute.

With MP limitations, your free additional HPS/DPS still starts out that high, and only later falls to about half that amount being sustainable, since every 4th GCD is MP-free. After Dia, one spends at most 16400 MP per minute --even before accounting for reductions from Thin Air-- while regenerating almost 8000 per minute, meaning one could sustain half that healing indefinitely.

Actually, unless needing all that AoE potency ever minute, you'd actually be getting well over half your effective maximum healing in practice, given that you can replace every Glare with a Cure for a Glare's worth of potency but also a free 500 cure potency and effectively 150 less MP (given Freecure, which you'll have suddenly made relevant for the first time since Coil).


So, hard no for me on that one from a balancing standpoint. From a gameplay standpoint, too... that doesn't seem great, since it essentially turns every action into Glare-but-with-variable-amounts-of-healing-attached-at-barely-variable-MP-cost. That honestly sounds more like a SGE gimmick.

2) SCH

Yeah, I'm fine with all you're suggesting here. I'd probably go further, personally, but yours seems the safer bet for general approval.

3) AST I'm not entirely sure what to do with.

Honestly, kinda same, though I would actually milk the hell out of its Cards, Time and Space magics, and its Diurnal-Nocturnal aspects, which I would absolutely NOT make a rigid preset (and WOULD allow/oblige one to swap/skew between in combat).

4) SGE

Honestly... I don't care enough about SGE to have any horse in the race except in that if it's to have heal-by-dealing damage aspects, I'd like that damage to actually be relevant to the healing, instead of being flat cure potencies resultant from a flat stream of triggers. Give it damage CDs, have Kardia scale with damage dealt, etc., etc. Then I'd actually think of SGE as more than just a brain-smoothed SCH copy.

Oh, and one more random addition to all of them: Each one's basic cure spell Traits up to become a spell that has the same MP cost and cast time, but also the Esuna effect of removing one status ailment. For WHM Cure 1 -> Esuna, SCH Physic -> Leeches, AST Benific 1 -> Exalted Detriment. SGE's can just stay Diagnosis but with the added effect.

Nitpick, but... why wouldn't you just turn Cure into Cure II and add Esuna in the slot Cure II would have added in, so you're not randomly switching your heal-function button between your actual heal key and your cleanse key when you're doing low-level roulettes?

If the purpose is to save a button in getting rid of any discrete MP-efficient ST GCD option (e.g., because you've given up on any potential for meaningful MP management that'd leverage such) and to buff Esuna... Just upgrade the ST heal into the next ST heal, average out their MP costs, and then add separately at level 30 or whatever the uniquely-named-version-of-Esuna-but-now-with-some-extra-heals-too.

______________


Anywho, thanks for the examples. They weren't overlong, imo, and were very elucidating.