What Healer kit (not encounter) change would make GCD heals NOT bad gameplay?

[ForsakenRoe]

Rather than getting half the picture each from rDPS and aDPS, I can get an actually useful DPS measurement, and I can then top or replace that with a view of sustain as I please.[/HB]

I can kinda see where he's coming from, based on the current situation healers are in. If we were to say that the healers are balanced in RDPS contribution, such that WHM and SCH are doing 'about the same RDPS', then the SCH would win on the 'TQC' metric, because where the WHM can only put forward it's contribution during moments when the party is not healed, the SCH can always Soil a raidwide, there's not always healing needed, but there's always 'some damage to mitigate'. Also, SE screws the WHM over more because Soil regenerates HP too so SCH doubledips on that front. If the healer split remains (ie WHM cannot mit or shield still), then the only way to keep things fair would be if FFlogs were to split the healers into Pure/Barrier in the tabs, when comparing stats across roles (crap solution imo), or to only count Shields, and not % mitigations, as both shields and pureheals are 1:1 actions, if that makes sense. You put up a 500p shield, or a 500p regen, you get 500p of stat on the log. But with a %mit like Temperance or Soil, things get weird because eg tanks take less damage than other classes, other people's mits make the calculations wonky cos multiplicative/diminishing returns, etc

And before the issue arises of 'then SCH doesn't want to use Soil only Shields', Succor's 200p of heal and 320p shielding. Soil's 500p of regen (600 with the instant tick) and is OGCD, it's probably not a problem

Wait that's genius, if you make it so that only the user is considered for the potency of a move if said move is AOE, that puts eg Succor at 520, which is a gain over Broil's 295, but if you tried to spam it for free brownie points, you lose out on 200 if people are full health, or 320 if people's shields aren't broken yet (or both), leading you to only want to use shields when they're relevant, but at the same time, wanting to use shields when they're relevant because it's a gain. Medica 2 isn't 'ridiculous OP' because it's not 1000p on 8 people, it's 1000 being considered on 'the WHM', and is coming at the cost of the Glare it could have been (so you're gaining 690, not 1000), and then you have to also factor in that Rapture is 400, so the gain becomes 290, and if you overheal AT ALL from the HOT capping you out on HP (which would be after just 2 ticks at this point), then you lose even more potency, just typing this out thinking about it, it feels like it could be... fun in it's own way? The only issue would be, instead of 'chadding' being 'you force the coheal to do everything', it'd become like Vanilla WOW where everyone got mad at Paladins for sniping low HP targets with Flash of Light, but if that gets people to use their heals then that's probably a good thing

[Shurrikhan]

I can kinda see where he's coming from, based on the current situation healers are in. If we were to say that the healers are balanced in RDPS contribution, such that WHM and SCH are doing 'about the same RDPS', then the SCH would win on the 'TQC' metric, because where the WHM can only put forward it's contribution during moments when the party is not healed, the SCH can always Soil a raidwide, there's not always healing needed, but there's always 'some damage to mitigate'.

Okay, but consider: Is that not accurate? At present, are "barrier" healers not, on average, going to have higher total contribution? Is it not legitimately a quantifiable advantage... for one's sustain not to be capped, especially with relative healing requirements so low?

We can contextualize that, sure, to note that there are diminishing returns for taking a second barrier healer, but... isn't that just telling the truth?

If the general consensus is that "barrier" healers are at least faintly stronger in their sustain potential than "pure" healers, is it really a problem that, sure enough, adding HPS and DPS together would show that when accounting for both, they have at least a faint advantage at present?

Also, SE screws the WHM over more because Soil regenerates HP too so SCH doubledips on that front. If the healer split remains (ie WHM cannot mit or shield still), then the only way to keep things fair would be if FFlogs were to split the healers into Pure/Barrier in the tabs

Or they could just... better balance" pure" healers against "barrier" healers, no? So that you wouldn't need separate tabs for "first class" vs. "second class" healers in terms of HPS (or AST/SCH>SGE>>>WHM overall)?

If the test shows that barrier healers have an advantage, the test could be flawed, sure... but it could also just literally be that barrier healers have an advantage, in which case that deserves to be addressed at a speed respective to its imbalance (not awful, so not super urgent, but worth doing something about in time).