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

[Renathras]

Because the mistake wasn't JUST in that single GCD after it was too late to correct; the mistakes were in each time you made decisions that left you no time to refresh your DoT at the correct time.

Though contrived, the example was for a situation where the damage occurred exactly at that time, so no other ability use would address it.

Which is why your hyper-narrow definition of "mistake" makes no functional sense.

Okay, I'm just going to stop here. I'm already fed up with Ty, not going to get into an argument with you of what the meaning of is, is.

^just on this point here renrathras had a short argument with me on reddit that he didn’t like classifying consolation as an oGCD because you have to account for a delay in summoning seraph

Someone else, who wasn't me, was saying that SCH had no oGCD heals. The context was about reactive healing to situations. Your position (didn't know that was you, but sure) was to insist that Consolation IS technically an oGCD, so ignoring the actual discussion, you could call someone wrong while ignoring the point they were actually getting at, and then insisting people just needed to precast to make up for it.

The discussion was about unexpected spike damage (e.g. some random person being clipped by a boss mechanic and needing healing to survive the next one coming right then). I can even give you an example. I was doing Ex6 and he did one of the two cleaves and then light party stacks. One of the party members was clipped by the point blank AOE he does after the cleaves. On WHM, I was able to VERY quickly slap them with any of a Benediction, Tetra, Benison, or Aquaveil. I think I went with Tetra and Aquaveil in that case. The player survived with like 3 digit health. Would not have otherwise. And I think that was right before meteor/flare/towers, meaning the party would have wiped had I not done that.

On SCH, Summon Seraph isn't an option there - my SCH partner saved that for the upcoming, as in RIGHT AFTER this, meteor/flare/towers mechanic itself; you know looking ahead and rewarding fight knowledge? - so Seraph wasn't up with the expectation of a random person being clipped by avoidable damage that would have died from the immediate follow-up attack. There's no way to PREDICT THAT.

You were being obtuse to the discussion, then called people out for being wrong, then disagreed with me trying to explain why something that has a 3 second lag time doesn't fit the bill, and then you went from Reddit to here to bring this conversation up to insult me as " really think that renrathras does not gameplay that rewards you for looking more than 1 GCD in advance". Hell, my above example IS about thinking GCDs in advance (for the upcoming meteor/flare/towers).

Does taking an unrelated discussion where you were trying to ignore what people were trying to address, taking it here to use it to insult me as myopic...does that sound fair or even nice of you at all?

EDIT:

That was about the impression I was getting, too, sadly.

So we're doing this now?

Now the conversation isn't about mechanics but about Ren being a bad player? Never mind the examples given don't prove that.

Do you guys not see why that contributes to a toxic environment here?

Person 1: "Were having a conversation about possible mechancis and stuff."
Ren: "Offers rebuttal, presenting his perspective."
Person 2: "I just think Ren is bad at the game and doesn't want a skill ceiling."
Person 1: "I agree."

Do you guys not see why that destroys conversations here?

.

EDIT: Post limit, of course, so sticking this here for now:

...[/LIST]

1) Not to be dismissive, but...okay, whatever? We aren't going to agree on this point, you've made that clear, so I don't understand how it's useful to keep banging our heads on it since neither of us is going to bend on it.

2) I'm sorry, but when someone explains their position to you several times and then says "agree to disagree", trying to keep pushing the point doesn't work well. (And for reference; I think they should be designed for everyone and balanced around the midcore, not the hardcore.) If you think we need an agreed upon definition to further discuss the topic, I've given you my definition so you are aware of it. I don't think we need that since we both understand what the other means, but if you think we have to mean the same thing to continue, feel free to use my definition for the remainder of the conversation. If, on the other hand, we don't need an agreed upon definition so long as we understand one another's use, then we should be fine. I do agree that it's useful to use the same definitions if possible, but if there's no agreement on the term, and the dictionary definition doesn't help (namely because it doesn't specify the specific knowledge with regards to game mechanics and information, nor is there any information in the definition of what is or is not reasonable to expect), then we're in an unfortunate impasse, but that we know what each other means is sufficient to understand one another.

3) What was the point in saying "That was the impression I was getting, too, sadly"? Particularly that "sadly" on the end heavily implies a judgment call, but that aside, why are you remarking on your "impression" of my desired gameplay rather than asking me "Ren, what do you desire out of gameplay"? It's kind of rude to psychoanalyze someone and talk about them in the third person when they're part of the conversation with you, you know.

And to answer:

I like gameplay that encourages looking ahead. You can see so from my example about the Ex6 fight. Or my view towards Recitation and Deployment Tactics, both of which are based around predicting future events in fights.

What I have I done in my last few posts (the ones with Ty set aside, since that's a derail anyway)?

1) Pointed out that allowing DoTs to stack to 60 encourages looking ahead and planning for future events.
NOTE: This DIRECTLY defeats your argument here, and should have shown both you and Snow, before even needing to ask me, much less psychoanalyze me, that I consider looking forward important. You may DISAGREE that it reward fight knowledge, but my support of the position was EXPLICITLY because I believe it does and I believe in that being a good thing.

2) Clarified a position on ARR combat.

3) Talked about preferring cast time spells to oGCDs.
NOTE: Cast time spells, by definition, require/reward fight knowledge because you they are less reactive than instant oGCDs, requiring the player to plan ahead based on if the encounter allows movement or not, or if they need to save tools for those situations, in the case of barriers (e.g. Stoneskin), precasting them before damage, and in the case of waves of damage, precasting initial heals, which also rewards timing, such as pre-casting a Cure 3 or Medica 2 to where the heal (initial heal of M2) lands after the damage not before it.

4) Talked about liking HoTs, including HoTs that stack or burst heal on expiration, which requires forethought and rewards fight knowledge.

5) Talked about the need for MP management.
NOTE: This also rewards fight knowledge and the player understanding when they need to use more expensive, MP intensive spells vs when they can use more efficient spells like Regen if they know the fight will give it time to be effective and not drop party members due to not enough up front healing.

.

I didn't "dismissed looking ahead as a very normal solution"; my argument was literally about looking ahead to see the damage coming and refreshing the DoT early, something that doing right now would be a DPS loss and sub-optimal.

We were talking about "making repeated mistakes" when talking about a specific situation in vacuum.

I didn't "change the definition", I provided the definition I'm using for the word.

This had nothing to do with "what you seem uncomfortable being expected to perform" - again, so you know, psychoanalyzing someone TO THEIR FACE is considered rude. Don't tell me what I seem to think. ASK me what I think and I can tell you. It's polite to ASK someone what they think instead of telling them what you've decided they think to their face when their own statements oppose it directly and they're telling you it's wrong, and when it's the more insulting of the available options. If I had said before "I'm uncomfortable being expected to perform", that'd be a thing. I haven't said that, so you had no reason to assume that.

And I gave you a specific situation to show you where a stacking DoT could be useful. That wasn't cherry-picking, it was presenting a case that happens from time to time and is applicable. It wasn't hypothetical scenarios since...well, for one thing, it was a single instance, not multiple, and second, that's happened before, so it's not hypothetical.

And I've not pretended that foresight would be worthless or unfeasible. I was LITERALLY using it as an example of how a stacking DoT ALLOWS FORESIGHT.