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

[ChonkGoblinSuprem]

Plot twist: they were on smn

Post credits plot twist: they were in a 30-40 dungeon (or maybe stone vigil at 41) as arcanist

Even then, it's... one physick? I'd be surprised if anyone even notices the castbar on a Physick going off, considering it's a 1.5s cast. More likely is the number of Physicks, combined with the aforementioned role disparity was the problem the tank had. If a SCH spams Physick in lower level dungeons, nobody's going to bat an eye because they don't have anything else at that level, and Eos can't keep up after a certain point. But if an ACN/SMN is in Cutter's Cry and spamming it, then it's a bit more of a noticeable issue

None of that matters though because IDK what I'm talking about, I am actually a SAM main in disguise, only playing healer because it gets me faster queues in EX roulette /s

lmao thanks for clearly letting me know that you are coping so hard when your style of toxic patronizing crap gets gets called out that you need to invent a whole slew of fantasies to protect your ego

[ForsakenRoe]

lmao thanks for clearly letting me know that you are coping so hard when your style of toxic patronizing crap gets gets called out that you need to invent a whole slew of fantasies to protect your ego

I guess the /s at the end wasn't enough of a clue huh

What exactly am I coping about, and what is such a threat to my ego that I have to 'protect' it?

edit: caused like 3 wipes in a p12s reclear because I'm idiot, so if I did have an ego, it should be dead after that performance. I wouldn't say I had much of one to begin with (though I suppose I'm not allowed to be the judge of that), anyone can check my stats, and there's nothing there to have much of an ego about

[Semirhage]

I remember a while back one tank (not strictly a DPS thing, I was being hyperbolic for rhetorical emphasis) who went on about how “he did his time” as a healer after intentionally pulling too big of a pull and wiping the party to teach me a lesson because I dared to use Physik in a 30-40 Leveling dungeon. At the time I had a crossbar set up for lowbie stuff and one set up for 50+ stuff and Physik was good enough when people weren’t being jerks. I dropped the duty. Adlo isn’t that much better

The last one started in on a whole lecture of how I should tank differently in party chat after we had completed the duty and I just ignored them, left the duty, and the healer gave me a commendation.

And the bus driver was Albert Einstein, and the whole bus clapped.

[SargeTheSeagull]

And the bus driver was Albert Einstein, and the whole bus clapped.

And then he went home to his three weed smoking girlfriends.

[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]

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 seems your very clear intent. Call it "limit" instead if you like, or "curtail", or "preclude", or "hamstring" healers' future improvements or if it makes you feel better. I do not give a damn.

"I didn't <insert verb here> this child. I merely starved it of <insert resource here> that it'll stay at roughly this size forever." If there's an expectation that something could and should otherwise grow, then going out of your way to preclude that is still limiting it.

At least, though, if you're going to nitpick terms based on chronology-regardless-of-point-in-discourse, then at least do so in both directions.

We are largely on this forum because we do not accept the mere fact that something happened as warrant that it should have happened. Given that, there is no reason to say that all changes up until now are somehow irrelevant just because the developers concluded that they were for the best; there is no authoritative weight there. Nor is there, therefore, any reason to treat the 'status quo' as if it were not, itself, a sum of prior changes, be they for the better or worse.

Just because you got what you want does not mean that others were not screwed over in those prior changes, nor would say, reverting those general simplifications to healer gameplay be any more a change than further simplifications (i.e., continuing along the trend of the last two expansions) would be.


The point of this thread, one would think from its opening post if we (perhaps naively) assumed it had a constructive (rather than merely rhetorical) purpose: To develop a set of very widely agreed upon, and pretty thoroughly reasoned out, criteria for what could make healer downtime and the broader healer experience more enjoyable.

Now, we start to actually do that, developing a set of unobtrusive and highly reasonable fundamentals to work from. These could and seemingly should be applied to every job as those improvements could come literally without cost (to anyone not simultaneously paranoid that their limited effort wouldn't necessarily both max out their job's potential and be able to fully compete with those putting in more effort, regardless of the havoc that'd place on broader balance). So if that discourse is proceeding as it seemingly should in that it is steadily generating understandings of what can make downtime more enjoyable and unobtrusive guidelines around that.

You then say "No, job A shouldn't benefit from this. Job A needs to remain in <the form being broadly critiqued, for widely held reasons>. This one should uniquely not have those opportunities for growth." And somehow not supposed to be seen as limiting or reductive?

[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.

[ForsakenRoe]

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.

I wonder, let's take my example (because I'm familiar with the numbers for it). WHM, Banish is 40p more than Glare, generates 5 gauge instead of Glare's 1, but has 15s CD. If the pitch were changed, such that the potencies were identical, and the only difference was that Banish generated 500% as much gauge as Glare, would that somehow be more acceptable to naysayers? You'd still have a difference in damage regardless, because faster gauge generation = more access to 'the funny damage neutral heal tool', but is it the direct 'not using the new damage skill = damage loss' that is the issue, or is it ANY perceived damage loss that's the problem

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

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 seems your very clear intent. Call it "limit" instead if you like, or "curtail", or "preclude", or "hamstring" healers' future improvements or if it makes you feel better. I do not give a damn.

I might start referring to it as 'Bonsai Job design'

[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)."