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

[Shurrikhan]

truncate

To shorten or limit the extent something, usually by cropping or precluding its upper end.

Job A is permitted to expand its kit organically to whatever extent of resultant complexity, from current level G to figurative Z.
Job B is permitted to expand its kit organically to whatever extent of resultant complexity, from current level G to figurative Z.
Job C is permitted to expand its kit organically to whatever extent of resultant complexity, from current level G to figurative Z.
Job D is permitted to expand its kit only from its current level of complexity G to at most as far as H. What potential it had for a higher end is cropped. / Its current kit, which would otherwise be able and expected to expand, is bounded at a lower ceiling.

As in: "Joe and Tom work for the same company, having started at the same time under the same salary, both gradually increasing their salary with their achievements as they accumulate raises. Tom gets in an accident, afflicting him with a TBI. Though he retains the same salary as before, he no longer moves up the rungs as he had before. His career prospects have been truncated."

We're discussing opportunities for change and improvements here. It makes no sense to say that you are not asking for reductions to what changes or improvements are allowed just because they are not currently in the game and cannot therefore, by a certain semantic twist, be curtailed, reined in, or truncated.

[Renathras]

To shorten or limit the extent something, usually by cropping or precluding its upper end.

/sigh

No, but there's no point in arguing about it since you've found your new favorite word of the month and won't not use it even if it's wrong. Whatever.

But, for the record: Asking for something to stay the same is NOT asking for a reduction. To ask for a reduction, one must ask for a REDUCTION.

What you're doing is like how politicians define a "cut" to federal spending. "We planned to increase spending by 20% this year, but only increased it by 15%; we call that a 5% cut to federal spending!" "But...you're spending 115% of what you spent last year?" "Yeah, but it's 5% LESS than we were planning to increase it by, so it's a 5% cut!"

EDIT:

Honestly, 10% isn't good enough justification for a job remaining the same.

I'm not saying that your wishes shouldn't be considered at all (for example, say if the 10% want to keep a job approachable for new players) but much like the healing role shouldn't be designed for anything other than healer mains, a job shouldn't be designed solely around 10% of the population.

Well, it's likely more than 10%. I was more saying if it's even that, it's worth having 1 out of 4 Jobs. I believe the reverse, too. If this forum were all the people that wanted more, and were only 10%, I'd still say you deserve at least one of the healer Jobs to give you more. Would you stand there and insist "No, 10% isn't enough. All the healers should remain the same/simple."? I mean, maybe you would...but I wouldn't.

Thing is, we don't know how much it is. It could be 5% or it could be 95%. Likewise, other than knowing this forum represents a minority of the playerbase, we don't know how much of the rest shares its views.

What we DO know is that both are non-zero numbers.

It'd be one thing if there was only one healing Job in the game. Were that the case, it would make sense to say majority rules and gets it. But there's more than one healer Job in the game. So we can split the difference. It's like how in car crashes, it's always one person's fault or the other, but in ship collisions, fault can be percentage based, like one side being 75% at fault and the other 25% or the like. We have more than one Job here, so we have room for granularity. If we only had one, yes, 10% or even 49% wouldn't be enough. But if we have 4, then it makes sense to give both sides at least one of them and then distribute the remainder to the majority.

Or, to put it another way...have you ever heard of an MMp (mixed-member proportional) representation voting system?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QT0I-sdoSXU

SPECIFICALLY what I'm referring to here is the part of the system where he shows the MMP system and how it gives members to the most under-represented parties.

Indeed, this is how I see this whole process, where the Jobs in this case are the "representatives". Your system means people that want what you want get 100% representation, and people who disagree get 0% or no representation. That's a pretty terrible system. On the other hand, MMP allows for everyone to get some representation, and thus be at least content.

[Shurrikhan]

I was more saying if it's even that, it's worth having 1 out of 4 Jobs.

Group A (>80%): "I want to be able to do at least X, Y, and Z (in roughly descending order of value, where mastery of X is already sufficient to clear, or any milder combination of all three)."

Group B (<20%): "I want to be able to do at least X and Y (in roughly descending order of value, where mastery of X is already sufficient to clear, or any milder combination of both)."

Regardless of their portion, unless Group B also classifies itself by "I want to prevent anything more than X and Y from being possible", the reasonable solution is to just allow for all the requested features.

It's similar to if, in a semester-length easy course that only takes 10 weeks to ace all of the course's meeting and assignments, Group B wanted the final projects to be due at week 10 while Group A wanted things to be due only at the final week so they could do more involved final projects, even though the actual requirements for said projects would still be identical and the students would be able to turn those projects in as soon as they want and immediately thereafter get their final grade if they like. Given that the standards are already set and static, there is zero harm in allowing for those extra weeks so that people are free to try unnecessarily harder and thereby engage more with that experience if they so please.

Again, making it so that doing just X performs as well as X and Y creates imbalances across all jobs; short of that, there is no difference in gameplay between having access to both X and Y and being able to clear off just X but able to further carry with Y vs. playing a job that can only do X and can clear with just X but lacks that excess margin for using Y as well. You're still getting the same throughput for your effort, and you don't need to use any more of the kit than you want to since only the part/optimizations you're used to using would be required to clear.

[Renathras]

Again, I happened to choose "truncate" (among plenty of other terms) because it conveys that the intent of that action is to limit what future growth or action is possible,

Which is not what truncate means.

I'm not going to keep arguing this because it's a stupid semantic argument.

Just because you got what you want doesn't mean...

Which is the entire reason I support the "4 Healers Model" in the first place.

Group A...

You misrepresent the groups, which is why you end up with an incorrect conclusion.

The reality is probably more like this:

Group A: Wants more complex dps kits on Healers (this is a lot of the English vocal complainers)
Group B: Wants more interesting utility/buffing on Healers (this is especially true of AST players)
Group C: Wants Healers to shift to more healing across all content (this seems to be the JP vocal complainers)
Group D: Wants Healers to stay as they are
Group E: Wants Healers to only heal
Group D: Wants Healers to get more simple
Group F: Wants some kind of hybrid of some of the above
Group G: Likely has a preference of some kind but doesn't care if things change in one of the other directions
Group H: Likely has a preference of some kind and REALLY cares if things change in a way they dislike

These groups are all at different percentage expressions, and it's very unlikely any one of them is a majority. It probably splits closer into 1/4ths across people that want more damage, more buffing, more healing, and things to stay about the same. But we really don't know.

The problem is you look at it as just three groups; those who want more complex damage, those who don't want it but don't mind it, and me being the only person in the entire game that wants even one healer to stay the same.

This is why your assessment is incorrect.

[Shurrikhan]

Which is not what truncate means.

I'm not going to keep arguing this because it's a stupid semantic argument.

It matches its etymological, connotative, and denotative uses. And you are the one who chose to nitpick word-choice despite it being only one of many words used to the same effect and having been paraphrased for your understanding multiple times now.

You misrepresent the groups, which is why you end up with an incorrect conclusion.

Your sub-dividing those groups does not change the simple fact that you can support all those desires within the same kit so long as those desires are not specifically reductive of what's permitted to other (e.g. "I not only want my gameplay loop to feel pretty complete and satisfying even when only engaging with it at very simple level, but also want no one else on my job to even be capable of anything more than that simple level of engagement.")

You're ~90% of the way to the throughput of hyperoptimization just by hitting your GCDs on time, minimizing overhealing, and just not leaving your oGCDs untouched. You need only about 75% to clear. What godsdamned difference does it make to you if someone plays with more of that kit than you do? You don't even need to put the rest on your bar to clear that content.

damage

Find me anywhere in that post that says anything specifically about damage. This is about cognitive load and that you need only meet a incredibly requirement thereof and that it therefore makes no sense to limit what other people are allowed to engage with.

I chose three levels because even under the simplicity of current healing, a good third of what each job is capable of is excessive even for Savage. So you have what little is actually necessary even now (above, "X"), and what little further carry potential we have even now (above, "Y"), and then literally ANYTHING more ("Z"). They're not grouping of specific desires; their simply the sum cognitive load available of whatever considerations the kit may at least very modestly reward.

Put another way, the question, not just for my WHM Banish (not using it is 160p per min loss) or AST Minor Arcana (not using it is 200p per min loss), but for any pitch that hopes to add more variety to the damage rotation for healers, is this: if you can clear any content in the game, by playing the same way as now (that is, refresh DOT when it falls off, spam nuke, ignore the rest), what is the magic value of potency per minute at which the design becomes 'unacceptable'? Because there's clearly a line in the sand, but I don't understand where it is.

I'm starting to think it's "wherever your using shit I don't want to use could give you an advantage in itself even if not necessarily a net advantage (since, by my not using any of that, I can better focus on the things that have far less diminished rewards-per-effort-put-in --like minimizing overhealing and always-be-casting-- to likely greater overall performance until we're both past the point of being able to make basic mistakes)."

[Renathras]

It matches its...

No, it doesn't. Again, you're trying to use the politician definition of "cut spending", which isn't what any non-politician would accept as a definition for "cut". But I'm not going to fight with you over a semantic argument since you're damned and determined to use that word come hell or high water, even if it doesn't mean what you want it to mean, since you think it's somehow a win for you to do so.

Your sub-dividing those groups...

I'm not, though. I'm saying what the groups actually are. Something that's entirely relevant and which your argument requires not to exist.

does not change the simple fact that you can support all those desires within...

It's funny to me that people say I make long posts wasting words, but then you talk in a needlessly technical way that obfuscates what you're trying to say, increases likelihood of confusion, and makes conversations about even mundane topics needlessly cumbersome. Or to put it another way, "I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request" sorts of language.

It can, in fact, mean both, and does to people. I know you don't particularly want to accept that, because it immediately defeats your argument.

Leading once again to:

Which is the entire reason I support the "4 Healers Model" in the first place.

[Shurrikhan]

<snip>

A: <Wants A>
B: <Wants B>
C: <Wants C>

Reasonable Design: Why not all of the above? There's a way to have all of the above without any degradation of those individual features.
Renathras Design: Nope, I'd rather specifically prevent that for one or more jobs.

Unless you classify those groups not by what forms of engagement they want, but instead specifically by what they want to disallow other groups to have, there is no real conflict here.

It's like you've been given an especially balanced Game of Life wherein every choice arrives at the same amount of total assets by retirement and tertiary education awards only enough to pay back its monetary opportunity costs from time and fees, but your take is that certain states should disallow tertiary education because some portion of the nation's population might not be interested in it.

[AmiableApkallu]

Which is the entire reason I support the "4 Healers Model" in the first place.

What exactly is this "4 Healers Model"?

[Shurrikhan]

What exactly is this "4 Healers Model"?

I'm sure Ren will clarify better in just a moment, but an outsider's summary can sometimes be helpful, too, if only to show which parts actually convey well to different groups/people:

Rather than letting each job develop without restriction as far as seems reasonable per their core themes, the "4 Healers Model" sort of sub-divide the jobs into different categorical niches meant to appeal to a portion of the overall healer playerbase to ensure that each "camp" has a job meant for them.

Its likely problems are that it seems to assume that gameplay desires can and will be held separate from desires for particular themes, aesthetics, and so on, and that those gameplay desires must be clustered in mutually exclusive ways, so if you like both the gameplay elements that end up allotted to Job A and those that are allotted to Job B, you're screwed, and if you like the gameplay elements of Job A but the visuals of Job B, you're also kinda screwed, since you can't simply have a larger kit capable of meeting both gameplay aspects (especially, prior to extreme optimization). It can also get a bit screwy if the number of camps don't perfectly match up, some camps are considerably larger/smaller than others, etc. It also ignores where multiple gameplay desires, given the extreme amount of lenience in this game, do not have to be mutually exclusive to each other (having both X and Y doesn't mean that one actually needs to use both X and Y, even if they aren't necessarily on shared resource costs).

Consider it like if you had an uncapped way of spending Cards towards direct offense; it'd be slightly inferior, almost always, to spending them to buff an ally, but you might have that option, so if you really, really don't like tabbing through your allies to select the best recipient, you could just Lord your target and be done with it. But if you make AST specifically the "buffing job" rather than a "Cards job", or prevent it from having extra buttons that could feed into offense because "there's already a healer with more than just 4 attack buttons", then it'd be disallowed.

Honestly, the differences aren't necessarily huge; the biggest gap is in the principle between approaching things as zero-sum (someone's gotta get screwed over / there can be no increase to total satisfaction, only fairer distribution of satisfaction) or reconcilable (no positive desire has to be screwed over / there can be an increase to total satisfaction, and such should be provided insofar as is possible first).