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

[Renathras]

Because none of your stances are actually compromising the concern in question.

By that token, none of yours are.

What you want "some change for all healers". Not getting into specifics, you want AT LEAST some change.

What I wanted "no change for (ideally) all healers". Again, not specifics, my ideal would be to maintain the playstyle we have.

GRANTED, I decided quite some time ago that the role needs to not be homogenized, so I came around quickly to the idea that some of the Healer Jobs SHOULD be changed for the sake of appealing to more people. But this wasn't what I wanted for me, this is what I wanted for the good of others/good of the game/compromising my ideal for what, instead, I realize would make the most people happy.

As I've said before, I'll stop playing the more complex Jobs, I'm sacrificing them for other people. It's not "I've got my WHM, I don't care about the rest!", it's "I like all the Healers right now, but for the sake of compromise and others being happy, I'll give them up as long as there's just one - and you can even pick which - that I get to have to be happy on myself. Me AND the other people like me, so we can also be happy.". Not to go overboard with the charity altruism bit, but it's like a person giving 95% of their paycheck to feed poor orphans but saying "I need to keep this 5% so I can buy food so I don't starve myself and my family (those like me)", and you're saying "You're heartless for not giving it all to the orphans...you and your family don't need food, and you'll be happier if you never eat again anyway, trust me, I'm a nutritionist."

.

What have you given up to "no change"? Literally nothing. You THINK reducing the amount of change you're asking for is giving up something, but it's not, since the compromise would be you opening to something being "no change".

I think this is what you aren't getting - by not giving any "no change" (no, CNJ does not count unless it is A FULL JOB - and you giving snide insults while even contemplating it also isn't helpful) - you aren't actually giving anything up. As you say, there are infinite possibilities for change...and that is what you want, one of those versions of change. That's like you wanting us to eat fruit and me wanting to eat meat, me suggesting we eat one part meat and three parts fruit, and you suggesting you're open to apples as well as oranges; they're both fruit. Either way you're still getting what you want and I'm not getting what I want. Even with my proposal you're getting most of what you want. And you suggesting you're willing to eat peaches as well doesn't change that STILL being what you want, meaning you're not giving up anything.

Conversely, I've compromised on the position. I've given up "no change SCH", "no change AST", and "no change SGE" upping into "changes for all of SCH, AST, and SGE". I've even given up changes for WHM. I've given up "change for any 3, you pick". I've even given up "minor changes for WHM you get the other three" and "fine then, minor (but larger than the prior WHM suggestion) changes for SCH and you still get the rest".

You can say I still want some of "no change", but that's literally what a compromise IS; that I get SOME of what I want and you get SOME of what you want. What your perspective is seems to be that you not getting AS MUCH change as you want is you compromising the concern in question.

And I'm not even getting ANY of what I want - "no change" - in any of the proposals at this point. My WHM and SCH proposal ARE BOTH CHANGE. Meaning I am getting literally NOTHING that I want from them. I'm having to sacrifice to a lower standard of "I guess I can still be...not happy and not having fun, but content...with this", and you act like me being grudgingly content is somehow me being selfish and happy and refusing all change!

.

But the concern in question is not "complete change vs partial change". It's "complete change vs no change".

So me giving up 3 of the healers and also giving up on no change for the remaining 1 IS compromise ON the concern in question.

That is what is the opposite of inflexible.

.

Meanwhile, you've given up nothing. You get more complexity for all four healers. What you've given up is "not getting EVERYthing you want", while I'm getting nothing I want. Even the "minor change to 1" is not what I want. Recall what I want is no change (well, Protect, but that aside). Except I'm not even sure you've given up that. You've offered variations of complex - but that's what you want; something from the "infinite possibilities" of complex. Where is the giving something up?

AST as a more complex buffer instead of a more complex damage dealer? But that's what you want - more complex Green Job. That's not you giving something up. I'm not sure how this is difficult to understand.

A good compromise means everyone is getting something that they want, but also giving up something they want. Your idea of compromise seems to be you aren't getting everything you want, but I'm getting nothing I want at all. That's not compromise, that's you benefiting at my expense.

Person 1: "Give me $100!"
Person 2: "How about I give you $0? I need to take this $100 to buy something for me to eat so I don't starve and put the rest in savings."
P1: <pulls gun>
P2: "Okay, how about I give you $50?"
P1: <racks slide>
P2: "Okay, how about I give you $75?"
P1: <pulls the hammer back>
P2: "Okay okay! I'll give you $80 and if you let me break this $20 I'll take you to McDonalds and we can split it on each of us getting a value meal each, how's that sound?"
P1: "You aren't compromising the concern in question. You're being inflexible."
P2: "What would be a compromise?"
P1: "You give me $80 and then working with me on how to spend your other $20, obviously."
P2: "You're being inflexible..."
P1: "YOU'RE the one being inflexible. There are infinite possibilities of ways we could spend your $20 after you give me the $80. I'm being completely flexible in letting you work with me on how to spend your $20."

You WILL, of course, disagree with this assessment, but that's what this has been from my perspective. I give up and give up and give up. You take and take and take and want more. And the only compromise you've made is that you're willing to not get everything you want...but you're still getting everything you want. You say you're being flexible because there are "infinite possibilities"...of getting what you want, which is the healer Jobs being more complex. If the infinite possibilities are all things you want, then you aren't compromising/giving anything up.

And you're asking me to give up everything for you to get what you want...and then calling me inflexible and calling me unwilling to compromise, and in generally being really snide and condescending, even as I give up more and more over time and you continue to give up nothing, just proposing different versions of you getting what you want in different ways.

It boggles my mind how you're unable to see this. Or even, while disagreeing, see how _I_ see it this way.

.

Yes, yes, I get it: You think going from HIGHLY complex into STILL highly complex for a skill ceiling but not as big of a gap between that and the skill floor and the skill floor being moderate instead of high is somehow a compromise. But it's still you getting everything you want, which is more complex healers. You aren't actually giving me something that I want. You're (debatably) getting less of what you want...except you aren't. A complex buffing AST is still a thing you want. So it's not you giving up something. A complex WHM with a high skill ceiling is still something you want, it having a low skill floor...is also something you either want or think the game needs. So either way, it's not you giving up something. There's not a compromise on your part there. You're just saying, while we both know you want fruit, that you're open to apples or pears or plums; but they're all fruit.

.

And then you spend the last half of your post insulting me. Lovely.

If it weren't representative of the broader playerbase (and instead so skewed in our interests as to be incompatible with any desire for 'the greater good'), then why even bother?

Because I believe in the value of reasoned and rational debate, of people compromising and coming together on solutions that they all can be content with, and I'm terrified of the idea the Devs actually read these forums and don't see any dissenting positions and somehow arrive at the insane conclusion this IS how everyone feels and ruin the game because of it.

Because I somehow am an enteral optimist that if I keep at it long enough, reason and unity can prevail...and that if I give up, the most dire thing will happen. That's why I haven't left and not looked back yet. If I wasn't afraid you guys MIGHT destroy the game, I would have. I have taken vacations (self-imposed) several times because this place sometimes DOES get to be too much.

.

Oh, and what I mean by "mistake":

A mistake is when you see something needs to be done and you do something else.

If you don't see your DoT fall off, it's not a "mistake" to not refresh it. I'm sure I'm not wording this well enough, but I think of mistake as "you know what you should do and do something else". E.g. you press 1-2-2 on WAR when you know 1-2-3 is the rotation, and you KNOW you just pressed 1-2 and that you should be pressing 3, but hit 2. It's that Homer Simpson "D'oh!" moment where you knew the right thing to do even as you screwed it up and then mentally beat yourself up for it basically as your finger is coming off the button.

If you don't see the DoT fall off, you don't know it should be refreshed, so pressing Glare instead of Dia is not you making a mistake (hitting the wrong/suboptimal button) to your awareness. You're making the correct decision based on the information you had at the time of "I put my DoT up...I'm supposed to spam Glare for a while..." This is why I specifically harp on how bad the UI is at telling us when DoTs fall off, since there's no feedback at all of it happening. Even something as little as a sound que (like how we get a chime when we get another Lily or Misery blooms or a SGE shield breaks to give an Addersting, etc) would be useful. Not everyone processes information the same way. In battle, I process by sound and sight, but not by tracking tiny icons on a target bar that all blend together.

My issue isn't seeing my DoT icon. My issue is when there are 20 icons on the boss, I can't notice when any given SPECIFIC one falls off.

Alternatively, I guess WHM's got part of an idea going on, with the 'damage on cast', if you were to change Biolysis from 700p total to '250, plus 55p per tick for 550, full total of 700', it's the same overall damage, but you lose less damage by early refreshing it. Though, at those numbers, that'd kill Ruin 2 , but it's an example

Didn't I literally propose this? I mean, not EXACTLY that (my Miasma was a second DoT in addition to Biolysis), but basically this same idea of damage up front and a replacement movement tool vs current Ruin 2?

Replace Ruin II with Miasma. Miasma is an instant cast ability that does an initial point of damage (like Dia) and has a small and shortish duration HoT attached. An expansion would, of course, change numbers, but think something like 200 Potency with a 30 potency DoT that has a 15 second duration (total potency of the DoT would be 5x 30 potency ticks for 150 total + 200 of the base damage = 350 overall) such that it would be a mild DPS gain over Broil IV, but not over Biolysis, and with enough of the damage up front that using it for a movement tool where you have to overwrite the DoT one or two times still produces decent output (spamming it would only do 20 less potency than SCH does with Ruin II now). This would give SCH a second DoT to juggle, making Miasma a consistent part of its rotation ~4x a minute, while also maintaining Ruin II's general use as a movement tool. Ruin II could be repuposed as part of the Broil leveling line for SCH's from level 40-something until they get Broil at 54 as just a flat upgrade to Ruin I, or could simply be entirely removed. The reason I couch this as "replace Ruin II with Miasma" is to stress that it's in the rotation designed as a movement tool/Ruin II replacement, but is a marginal DPS gain if maintained with high uptime. Finally, generates 5 Faerie Gauge per DoT Tick (this will be important later...but the short version is it can be used to generate more Energy Drains for damage or more Aetherpacts for healing if you maintain good uptime.)
...
Summary:

Ruin II replaced with Miasma: Instant cast, 400 MP cost, GCD that deals 200 Potency on initial hit (down 20 from current Ruin II), but has a 30 potency DoT for 15 seconds (5 ticks for 150 more, a total of 350 Potency or 55 gain over Broil IV), generates 5 Faerie Gauge per tick (for use on Aetherflow mini-Lustrates or Energy Drains). Useful as a movement tool for a relatively low DPS loss, useful as an upkeep DoT for a marginal gain over Broil IV spam, ideal 4x per min refresh.

Also:

I don't disagree with you that people who aren't casuals can also be bad at DoT management. Personally, I'd like a healer to not have a DoT. As I've said before, I'd rather a CD GCD with the same duration instead (like Plegma, say). I like SMN and RDM...because neither has a DoT or upkeep buff. They and ARGUABLY PLD and GNB and arguably MCH (their DoTs are part of their rotation and not managed for uptime) have managed to evade either of those mechanics. Every other Job I've played has one, the other, or both, I think. And as much as people rag on SMN and new PLD, RDM, GNB, and MCH seem generally well respected despite this.

The entire point of 4 Healers Model is for them to be different, just as other roles and Jobs are allowed to be. The "no change/minor change/complete change" business aside, the point is to have options not four flavors of the exact same thing.