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

[Shurrikhan]

Does NIN or WAR's ability to stack their self-buff to 60 sec NOT add skill expression? Yes. Yes it does. Does it add A LOT? Not really. But does it add SOME? Yes. Yes it does add skill expression.

You've got a bit of a double-negative going on there, so let's be doubly clear: No, Huton and Surging Tempest being able to stack did/does not provide a net increase to skill expression. The addition of Armor Crush simply replaced two forms of optimization (one pretty obvious, one more obscure) with single new (equally obvious) one, while Surging Tempest reduced skill gap and mostly axed a former means of optimization (maximizing the value of each Storm's Eye / minimizing wasted volume).

They softened punishment slightly, which can be a good thing depending on the relative severity of that punishment (how much else the punishment, or worrying about avoiding it, would otherwise overwhelm), but they both reduced skill expression -- Armor Crush slightly relative to optimizing Huton itself, and Surging Tempest's stacking reducing it pretty darn noticeably. Neither one was awful, if only because neither's contexts were that well set up for the earlier optimizations (little ability to resync one's macrorotation on WAR, and few use cases for differently timed Hutons on NIN with no-clip optimizations being notoriously dependent on particular amounts of ping on NIN), but neither was truly a step up, especially compared to just polishing the contexts to make the less obvious optimizations more visible and rewarding instead of axing them outright.

[@Skel]
DIA procing Misery or Assize would be laughably OP. And also dumb. That's a really dumb suggestion.

Agreed, though I would have to assume that more applicable here would be a single Blood Lily or Assize CDR... both of which still would likely reduce skill expression in that their anti-synergies would further punish holding Assize for more than just damage (reducing its use cases / what optimizations are worth worrying about for most players) and would delay Lily heals until Misery can be cast.

Previous examples included a Thundercloud-like effect, so we may as well sim that, too. Depending on whether it simply deals bonus damage equal to the remaining ticks on the replaced effect or is just an outright double-damage hit like the original Thundercloud, such would not necessarily be OP, but would also slightly reduce skill expression, as that randomization would degrade deliberate fight-specific planning and interaction with other means of mobility (Regen, that Lilies are quite limited, etc.).

In short: More on-paper stuff is not always more in-practice depth. It's often the opposite. Depth requires complexity, but that can often come from just putting very simple tools in the right arrangement with each other, rather than requiring any fat tooltip. Not all complexity is obvious, and not all complexity makes depth. The lasting gameplay lies in the implications on permissible gambles and what considerations are made relevant to each other, not just in what things happen to be co-affected without any change to optimization or consideration nor just due to each tool's amount of reading required or effects attached.

[Renathras]

No, Huton and Surging Tempest being able to stack did/does not provide a net increase to skill expression.

Agree to disagree, and I've already stated why in depth.

[HB]Which had very little to do with the position so much as that said poster was very, very obviously using a strawman (that the current discourse had supposed that any increased offensive agency on healers would necessarily be mere a 123 combo) just to smirch a far broader position (that the current Broil spam gameplay can be favorably replaced/augmented through additions to healers' downtime depth).

Except he was very, very obviously not.

The way I read his original post was "DPS rotation", not "123". Because the words he posted were...well...

Adding a DPS rotation to Healers is the worst idea I’ve ever heard.

While he goes on to INCLUDE 123, "DPS rotation" is more broad than that. These are two clauses:

1) DPS rotations on Healers are bad because they have other things to do that other roles do not, so other roles filling their excess mental space with a damage rotation makes sense but wouldn't for Healers (I've literally made this argument before, as have others, as has Yoshi P, meaning this is the official stated Dev perspective at this time),

2) And as a specific case, a 123 damage rotation, in particular, is no better than a single button one (and this is a position pretty much everyone in this thread seems to agree on to at least some degree and even most pro-damage people have noted would be insufficient for their desires as well).

I think you're deciding for the other poster what he was trying to say, and doing so through the lens of your ideology, which is inclined already to see it in the worst possible light. You could argue the same for me, but as he seems to agree with me, the way I read his post is the way I would intend it, and thus is more likely the way he did as well. But he can defend himself, so I don't really have any need to other than on this:

By the point of your agreeing with the poster, his behavior had clearly gone the way of trolling/purposefully derailing,

I'm not sure if it's a troll, honestly (though I could see it being a caricature of my own position done by someone trying to be too clever by half). Believe it or not, some people do legitimately think that way. I disagree with a number of his positions - note I didn't quote all of his posts and say I agree (in particular, I don't think removing high end content is wise and would argue against it) - so you can't say I was agreeing with all of his positions when I didn't say I was. Nor can you guild by association (fallacy) me to him as I didn't do so and we have no association. ...and...that's a fallacy anyway.

and given the timing of your previous responses around his own, it probably seemed likely you were aware of that.

I agreed with the specific points.

Didn't you JUST SAY in that other thread that it's okay to agree with people on SPECIFIC POINTS where you (in that case, Supersnow) think that they're right while not agreeing with them on everything?

Like...you literally just made that argument above your posting this HB block reply. You DO realize that, right?

Again, we've agreed on a lot of shit. We just approach certain things rather differently,

I do agree with that. But this...

wherein I like to find a means to make all parties happy first

As do I.

To my perspective, you seem not to realize what everyone wants. You know what you and those like you want, and you think you know what others want and how to offer it to them while not actually compromising. The problem is, what you think they want isn't what they actually want, which is why you and I disagree. You think you're offering a solution we can all agree on when you aren't, because you fundamentally misunderstand what the contra position is, and thus your offer doesn't meet their needs at all.

The reason I'm quick to compromise is because I don't want to be and am not inflexible (despite Ty's insistence to the contrary) and...well...do what you do, not actually offering people anything they want. I also recognize that no solution will make everyone completely happy, so the best we can hope for is something that gives everyone at least something they want. I also try to work my proposals into things that work within the confines of the existing world in which we live, not the world I wish we lived in instead. Like you, I'd MUCH prefer a world where we do more healing and have completely different encounter design - so much so, I advocate for it all the time. But I propose compromises and solutions (my WHM and SCH ideas, my 4 Healers Model) in light of what we presently have. When the Devs actually show a willingness to change encounter design, then I may shift proposals more into that direction (although I already KINDA have, though with less specificity - the oGCD change, for one...)

[Shurrikhan]

I agreed with the specific points.

Didn't you JUST SAY in that other thread that it's okay to agree with people on SPECIFIC POINTS where you (in that case, Supersnow) think that they're right while not agreeing with them on everything?

You are literally quoting words from that other thread... within the wrong link (this thread's post-ID instead). My quote doesn't make mention of some "other thread"; this is the other/wrong thread. You've misplaced your reply.

And again, I merely pointed out (in that thread that you've instead linked as this one) why one would have a negative reaction to that 'agreement' --i.e., as would otherwise seem a contradiction-- after they had already made that very same point to that very same person.

Expert Roulette isn't what needs fixing "for player retention". We need some kind of content between MSQ and Extreme difficulty and we don't have one.

Which, in early ARR was increasingly... the 4-man level-cap dungeons. On release, Amdapor Keep absolutely was harder than WP, which was harder than CM. Pharos Sirius was then harder than AK (maybe a little too large a step, but still).

And each directly and indirectly (most efficient way to gather the 300 mythic tomes per week) gave gear that would help one get into what was at the time the game's most difficult content (as ARR Savage 6-9 hadn't yet released yet as Title-reward content, similar to today's Ultimate).

Raids didn't originally have an explicit casual mode, but we added it. Why can't we do the same for dungeons, but as an option bringing back that culled difficulty span? Why would it be a bad thing to (again) offer some midcore content within 4-mans in that 18-40 minute range in run length that actually feel more cohesive and varied (and less finnicky/"gotcha") than Criterions and actually fill that midcore spot gear-wise instead of being tuned seemingly around the tier's near-BiS?

[ForsakenRoe]

Not really. The modern game is based on mitigation a ton. And non-BLU parties don't have everyone with Diamondback to cover that, nor would Stoneskin in this treatment solve that problem. BLU healing is also rather UNresponsive to mistakes, which is why it's considered (a) side content and (b) generally something more hardcore people do during downtime.

But I was more talking about its damage kit, which is ROUGHLY similar to the 4 green icon Jobs we have. That's what I found ironic.

The words 'healing covered' referred to the actual 'healing', the act of restoring HP. Presumably, there would be a cohealer in content that demands mitigations, who could have an equally basic core kit, but tuned towards mitigation.

As for BLU's damage, WHM's burst window is that it uses Glare faster, spends a Misery, weaves ONE damaging OGCD (Assize) and reapplies it's DOT. BLU's (as healer) is any of like 5 different primal burst skills, Tingle/Whistle/Triple Trident as a pseudo 123, probably something like Bristle>Matra Magic, and while it does have a 30s DOT, said DOT also has extra fluff because you can Bristle and snapshot it at a higher damage value. Having one filler move like Sonic Boom or Sharp Knife to spam does not make it 'roughly similar'. In fact, you could theoretically even change that to be 1-2 combos for your filler (Peripheral Synthesis > Mustard Bomb, Aqua Breath>High Voltage), or even adapt which filler you're using out of three based on Libra's debuff, should you decide to use Libra

And it's been discussed why a 'stack to 60s' effect would not 'add complexity'. In fact, I previously reasoned that it'd just be 'you refresh twice in raidbuffs, and then play as normal' but now I've been reminded, there's literally zero loss to just refresh it twice at the 1min mark too. Each minute, it's a pseudo 1-1-2 combo of Dia, Dia, Misery. And then you forget the DOT exists till the next minute. It'd be so uninteractive it'd be difficult to justify keeping the DOT in the kit. But we can't remove it from the kit, because we're rapidly running out of kit to even play with, and SE doesn't seem to remove things to replace them with something else to fill the gap, so we'd end up with WHM gameplay being nothing but Glare, and refunding itself via Misery when it has to heal. God that sounds awful to me, but I guess there's some people that would enjoy that. Lucky for them, they can play that right now by just not putting Dia on their bars

To my perspective, you seem not to realize what everyone wants. You know what you and those like you want, and you think you know what others want and how to offer it to them while not actually compromising. The problem is, what you think they want isn't what they actually want, which is why you and I disagree. You think you're offering a solution we can all agree on when you aren't, because you fundamentally misunderstand what the contra position is, and thus your offer doesn't meet their needs at all.

Look at it from this POV for a second: I am midcore, I haven't done the latest ultimates, but I have done one (TEA) in the expansion when it was current, so I have at least a bit of experience in on-content-Ultimate (not just overgearing the hell out of UWU). You have done a bit of Savage, mostly the first couple of floors, I assume to get a ring drop from the first so that you don't have to use double tome rings (I also dislike when the Balance recommends ilvl downgrades to dodge Piety).

If you're a self-professed casual, who has not been mid/hardcore, you would find it impossible to truly know what direction the 'mid/hardcore' would want without directly asking them. I would find it difficult to know what casuals would want without directly asking them, but it's not 'impossible', because I was once a casual, back in ARR/HW. I can think back to times when I was not as good at the game, and think 'would that version of me struggle to adapt to X change?' And given that I adapted back then to having one extra DOT (Combust/C2 were seperate) on AST, on top of Cleric Stance, on top of the Cards and Royal Road, I am quite sure that the suggestion of 'Dia duration lowered to 12s, Banish as 15s CD GCD' is not going to overload people's mental thresholds, except for those who have become SO ingrained in the current system, that they would shut their minds to any change whatsoever. In which case, adding 'more healing required' would equally screw them over, because now they can't just netflix their way through the content, they have to react to things

Why would it be a bad thing to (again) offer some midcore content within 4-mans in that 18-40 minute range in run length that actually feel more cohesive and varied (and less finnicky/"gotcha") than Criterions and actually fill that midcore spot gear-wise instead of being tuned seemingly around the tier's near-BiS?

Take Aetherfont's ilvl setup, the ilvl to get in is 605, the gear that drops is 625, the ilvl sync will be 660, probably. But the tome gear we can currently get, is 650! So why not have the 'Sastasha - Hard' style retelling of dungeons return, but actually be harder (ie justify the existence of those CC buttons like Repose), and the 6.4 one drops say, 640 gear? That'd make it equal in ILVL to the new crafted set, but anyone who's serious about Savage would not spam this, but get the crafted instead because A: time and B: pentamelds

Criterion would be a perfectly fine location to add the gear drops to as well if they wanted to avoid clogging the dev pipeline with 'another dungeon to design'. Trade those coins for something beyond just materia and the 100 for the mount