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

[Renathras]

Which has literally... what... to do with whether would be a waste of time to allow for dungeons / Expert Roulette to be of enjoyable use to a larger range of players?

Nothing, because they're different arguments. Expert/dungeons seem to be popular with a lot of the plaayerbase as it is. Regardless, as I noted, MSQ will probably never be compelling to hardcore players. That's just the reality of the situation. There probably aren't a lot of 99 BLM's that salivate over their next Aetherfont run. "No no, guys, I can't come to Ultimate tonight. I've been invited...to run Aetherfont! It's WAY more fun!" And as noted, what you consider "engaging" isn't a universal.

No, the above was "you're trying to use ARR to justify something and I'm pointing out that's a violation of ceteris paribus".

You've given no reason why middle-of-the-road difficulty shouldn't be available to 4-man content even while 8-man boss-fights alone (a narrower category) support everything from the most casual level of difficulty to the hardest.

Again, different arguments. But I WILL address them:

SAME AS 4 HEALERS MODEL: Not all content is for everyone and excluding people from a game they already play or making them play it in a way they don't want to by robbing them of their current existing gameplay is bad. Imagine if, say, Baldur's Gate 3 had a major DLC...that turned it into a FPS. Some people would like that, many would not. I'm pretty confident in that, because it essentially happened once - Star Wars Galaxies. They went from being a super in-depth skill based MMO to a "dumb" MMO where you literally clicked the mouse to shoot at people like a shooter-lite. (It wasn't QUITE an FPS, but it WAS removing a gameplay that people enjoyed). Hell, you know this from ARR/HW going to ShB which removed things YOU like. So don't pretend like that isn't a problem, we all know it is.

We have an answer ALREADY as I've pointed to several times - Criterion.

Or more precisely, a Criterion-esque system. Criterion has shown that they can make a piece of content and make it for both solo players, casual 4 man groups, and hardcore 4 man groups. They could add another difficulty between the two to make a better solo/casual/midcore/hardcore system and bam! You have what you want, you just don't get to drag everyone else into it against their will kicking and screaming. I'm honestly somewhat disturbed by how flippant some folks are about doing something that other players would feel harmed by to said players against their will. Doubly so since you should know better given what was done to you.

There's a large difference between wanting difficult content to "spill over" to the rest of the game and simply wanting to see a return to some of what we already previously had

Why is it a zero sum game?

Why not both? Criterion as a system gives us that - multiple difficulties of the same content. Why not do that instead? Is it because it would allow the casuals to keep playing the game and you don't want them to be able to for some reason? You get onto me for assuming zero-sum things that aren't, but you're doing so here. There's zero reason we can't have current difficulty Expert roulettes (though a name change would probably be in order, but hell, just make it "Level 90 roulettes", it would open the pool and make it not just the same 2 for months on end anyway...) while having a midcore and a hardcore difficulty of the same content. It's not like the Devs are overtaxed on workload right now such that they can't do it, as it would effectively replace Criterion, which is already harder work than this would be.

Which were separately addressed before dealing with the two that actually mattered (that all others were seemingly meant to support) -- (A) whether it would actually increase skill expression, and (B) whether it would, in net effect, create more compelling gameplay.

No, they weren't. You guys posited counters, and I presented arguments against them. A debate is not one side has an opening statement, the other side counters, and the discussion is over. But besides that, the point I was making is Askellington is trying to say there WERE no arguments, which is a lie and belittling and needs to stop. I went into depth at how it, AT WORST, is no more braindead than what we have now (don't be stupid; we both know pressing a button once every 30 seconds isn't some kind of high level galaxy brain system), and AT BEST, it would allow people that want to optimize, capture buff effects, plan for future movement, or plan for future healing (e.g. if you know you'll need to use more GCDs for healing and so want to keep your DoTs in order for the duration) to express kill over those who mindlessly either press it every 30 sec (the current system) or mindlessly press it twice every 60. There's no world where it's WORSE than the current system, and at worst, it's a side-grade, not a down-grade. At best, it's an improvement.

But, again, I've made these arguments and they fall on deaf ears because you guys would rather keep a thing you complain about endlessly than entertain a change that came from my mouth, so I'm not going to waste my breath continuing to argue the case to brick walls.

To be fair, unless increasing the GCD healing required and enhancing downtime gameplay were mutually exclusive (I'm of course assuming here that the latter would help healer solo-content, since that seems to me very likely)... that's not something his suggestion needs to deal with. They're mostly still two separate issues.

Mhm.

They're different issues. Though, again, 4 Healers Model wouldn't even have all the Healers work this way, meaning some would not for people that wanted to engage with a different playstyle instead. Simple.

They're free to grab.

Average player - DNC with a 48 - on fight I picked out of a hat (Halone).

Seems to be more than "two damage spikes over an entire fight".

Forgive me, but it appears Sebazy is cherrypicking. Btw, I can show you some others from that fight or other fights, but the point will be similar. You CAN say it should be more than that, but that's hardly "dumpster fire" of no damage for entire fights other than 2 spikes. Even Nophica in that fight had more going on.

I'm not 'doing' ultimates, I've 'done' ultimates previously, hence the distinction I tried to make.

What is the estimated amount of people that have cleared *any* ultimate? It's like 15% or so, give or take 5, isn't it? That's still going to be on the top end. Granted, we need to clearly define "causal/midcore/hardcore" at that point. For example, if we did a 33/34/33 split, it's clearly on the top. If we do a 50/30/20 split...well, it's still on the top but there might be some bleed into upper midcore. We really need solid definitions first...

But WHM still has space on the hotbar before it reaches the magical '32' ideal limit of actions,

Remember that Role Actions, Sprint, Limit Break, and Potion count. WHM is currently sitting at 33 abilities (as is SGE). WHM and SGE, by this treatment, both have 1 too many buttons. AST has 3 or 4 (I forget which) and SCH has one more than that.

Note also, as I posted recently in that thread, ARR WHM had 27. Twenty-Seven. https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...=1#post6326578

That's without the +3, so Sprint/LB/Pot brings us up to 30, which even has 2 slots to spare for Mount (full time) and an Ether or something. Handy!

Regardless, there's no reason imo to have Assize if we have Banish, since it's filling the same concept, just more often, and Assize is just a boring "hit on CD" anyway, so making it actually roll the GCD breaks up existing spam without taking up a new ability "just because". The only issue with Dia being a CD is you can't multidot, honestly. Though just making it an AOE fixes that anyway. And, bonus points, makes it more distinct from the other healers. Again a worthwhile goal. Your arguments for why Dia being a DoT is better are almost the same as my arguments for Dia stacking to 60 sec, and everyone here insists that is bad.

DoT interactive gameplay CAN happen...but let's be real, not only is it probably not going to happen for healers in general, if it WERE to happy, WHM would be the last of the healer Jobs the Devs consider for it. And besides that, your proposal didn't suggest any, so I have no reason to incorporate that possibility into my analysis since it wasn't part of your proposal...

I agree there are UI issues. But I've yet to find a solution. Hell, even when I have a boss as my Focus Target, there are times where it won't display my DoT on them, even though I can look up at the health bar and see it clearly has time left. DoTs are just REALLY bad with the native UI.

I do think, as I say all the time, that the goal should be to make the 4 healer Jobs play differently from each other, and "WHM gets a shorter duration Eu Dosis and Plegma" isn't really "different" anyway, and SGE arguably does it better.

[Shurrikhan]

...

Ffs...

<< Can we please allow dungeons a range of difficulties (as already seen in boss-fights across Leveling, Normal, Extreme, Savage, and Ultimate)? We can have both the narrow current use for dungeons as is and a use for dungeons with broader use and greater longevity atop that.

>> No! Not all content should be for everyone! But here, let me suggest an analog of... my 4 Healer Model. In it, we'll give dungeons... multiple difficulties!

But besides that, the point I was making is Askellington is trying to say there WERE no arguments, which is a lie and belittling and needs to stop.

You've seen his counters already, so you know full well what he meant -- that you had yet to argue convincingly.

Calling that "belittling" while assuming that only an idiot could fail to be thus convinced, let alone purposely leveraging a semantic interpretation over what meaning was already clear is... ironic, to say the least.

To be fair, unless increasing the GCD healing required and enhancing downtime gameplay were mutually exclusive (I'm of course assuming here that the latter would help healer solo-content, since that seems to me very likely)... that's not something his suggestion needs to deal with. They're mostly still two separate issues.

Well, unless "increasing healing requirements" bundles with it a "don't increase the depth of downtime tools" and/or "don't consolidate tool bloat in favor of more versatile tools and/or broader agency". Though, the same would go for any plan to increase depth of downtime tools that specifically asks not to increase healing requirements or adjust the existing/base healing tools for more agency. Etc., etc.

I suspect both would be useful.

Mhm.

Though, again, 4 Healers Model wouldn't even have all the Healers work this way, meaning some would not for people that wanted to engage with a different playstyle instead. Simple.

These have little to nothing to do with each other. It feels like you're reading concurrence and just running wherever you want with it, relevance be damned.

[@Roe] Regardless, there's no reason imo to have Assize if we have Banish, since it's filling the same concept, just more often, and Assize is just a boring "hit on CD" anyway, so making it actually roll the GCD breaks up existing spam without taking up a new ability "just because".

Did you not want increased healing requirements? Did you not want MP to actually be a real mechanic? In that design scheme, do you honestly expect Assize would remain "hit on CD"? (It is, btw, already not quite that, unless there's no GCD heal that could be removed through better timing Assize AND both enrage would be hit from the difference in bonus potency from Assize eventually becoming desynced.)

Even then... look at any other kit. If we limited every kit to only one "hit on CD" ability, how large do you think they would be?

You seem to be arguing that we can't have X because you don't (want to optimize the skill enough to) see differences between it and Y, despite that even if it were thus redundant... that still wouldn't necessarily be an issue.

More precisely:

1. No, they're already not quite the same.
2. They certainly wouldn't be the same if we made the background changes you, yourself, suggested.
3. Even if they were "too much" alike, why would that necessitate the removal of one instead of simply diversifying them further?
4. Why the double-standard, anyways? Why must WHM be limited to only one action that could be (if oversimplified / poorly contextualized) treated as "hit-on-CD" if any offensive component is involved (even if there's a contextually varied component, too, as in Assize)? What of the likes of Lucid Dreaming or other "hit-on-CD"s without offensive components? What of other kits with their metric ton of "hit on CDs"?
   
   I'm not a huge fan of true "hit on CDs", but whether they're actually that or not seems to be a bit outside your scope here anyways, so I have no idea whether I can even concur.

[@Roe] Your arguments for why Dia being a DoT is better are almost the same as my arguments for Dia stacking to 60 sec, and everyone here insists that is bad.

No, they're not the same.

One is wholly granular minus the tiny offset of Dia's direct damage, with a clear reward timing that would cause even "hit on CD" to cause interaction with the rest of the kit through space made, especially under more intensive healing requirements and a functional MP mechanic. Yours hugely offsets any risk-reward of the DoT while removing the need to make room for it at a specific time. Rather than Dia both helping and being helped by the intelligent use of one's other spells, it becomes simply a mobility tool that awkwardly comes at no cost, no cost, no cost, cost, while replacing that timing with per-minute piecework maintenance.

A simple rigid CD meanwhile, has no flexibility. Which is why a DoT is, again, not a rigid CD; DoTs have that flexibility, allowing their bundled utility to frequently outweigh the potency waste they'd face in themselves from early use.

That's something which lowers the floor required, since a single use doesn't necessitate (but still rewards) thinking ahead to when the duration will complete, while then increasing its skill ceiling by both opening up that utility and having the skill's optimization depend on both its potency value in itself and on that bundled utility.

I agree there are UI issues. But I've yet to find a solution.

For now, don't show others status effects on your Focus Target status effects if that's where you're primarily tracking your DoT from. And if using the target Status Effects, just leave it so far away from the rest of your necessary information that you have trouble tracking it. The default UI was fine even for maintaining, say, some 10 DoTs across 5 targets on HW Bard (no-stance over the gather, WM, IJ, AoE with constant RoD resets).

Yes, it could get even easier. If the team was willing to do even half of what third-party addons already allow, we'd also be able to make sure that your debuffs were shown at the start and in customizable order or even separately from everyone else's, and to show the DoT duration remaining on the (last selected) enemy over the DoT icon itself, etc., as to make them easier to track. Heck, we could use double-targets, where when we target the Focus Target, it swaps places with our former primary Target, and allow for heals to be automatically trickle-down to the first ally target among mouseover->->Field->Target->Focus->TargetofTarget, and attacks to do the same for enemies. But it's already not difficult to deal with DoTs.

[ForsakenRoe]

Remember that Role Actions, Sprint, Limit Break, and Potion count. WHM is currently sitting at 33 abilities (as is SGE). WHM and SGE, by this treatment, both have 1 too many buttons. AST has 3 or 4 (I forget which) and SCH has one more than that.

That's a problem (not one SE seems to mind, considering the state of some other classes). But sure. Make Cure 1 upgrade to Cure 2, button saved. Medica 1 into Medica 2, button saved. Now we're at (in the same order as job guide, with lower-rank forms removed):

Raise
Cure II
Presence of Mind
Regen
Cure III
Medica II
Benediction
Afflatus Solace
Asylum
Assize
Thin Air
Tetragrammaton
Divine Benison
Plenary Indulgence
Dia
Afflatus Misery
Afflatus Rapture
Temperance
Glare III
Holy III
Aquaveil
Liturgy of the Bell

Repose (lmao)
Esuna
Swiftcast
Lucid Dreaming
Surecast
Rescue

Sprint
LB
Potion

By my count, 31. So assuming that 32 is the number to aim for I'd only need to consolidate/remove one more skill, to make room for both Banish and BOTE. If it weren't hamfisted into a role quest, Repose is on lifesupport as it is, I'd say get rid of that. Or Aquaveil, since it's kinda just surplus to requirements and it's effect could have been a trait on Benison while the shield holds. Besides that though, I'm not sure why 32 is the sacred number, because SE sure don't seem to think it is. Look at SAM, for example. If 32 was the gold standard, Shoha 2's addition throws several wrenches in the theory

Actually, if it matters so much, I just had a great idea: Cure 3 can function as that powerful gauge spender heal, and later upgrade to a new form, becoming damage neutral in the process. Now we can keep Repose and Aquaveil yippeee

Regardless, there's no reason imo to have Assize if we have Banish, since it's filling the same concept, just more often, and Assize is just a boring "hit on CD" anyway, so making it actually roll the GCD breaks up existing spam without taking up a new ability "just because". The only issue with Dia being a CD is you can't multidot, honestly. Though just making it an AOE fixes that anyway.

Can you just enlighten me real quick since I've not played the class in a couple of weeks, what's the difference between Ruby, Topaz, and Emerald Rite?

I do think, as I say all the time, that the goal should be to make the 4 healer Jobs play differently from each other, and "WHM gets a shorter duration Eu Dosis and Plegma" isn't really "different" anyway, and SGE arguably does it better.

Yep, they're basically the same thing, because both Phlegma and Banish would be 'damage on enemy' with a CD, and E.Dosis and Dia are both 'damage over time'. Ignore the part where Dia has upfront damage, or how Phlegma is AOE and Banish is not, or their differing CDs, or how they interact with the rest of the kit in their respective pitches

Yes, it could get even easier. If the team was willing to do even half of what third-party addons already allow,

IDK if third party does it, but as I mocked up somewhere else, just having your DOTs (and only your DOTs) show on the Enemy Emnity Party Enemy List (whatever it's called, the little one tanks used to see aggro levels before aggro got effectively deleted) would help a ton. Cos if you see one enemy on there has it's DOT fall off, you can target it using that exact same list, and reapply it there and then

[Shurrikhan]

IDK if third party does it, but as I mocked up somewhere else, just having your DOTs (and only your DOTs) show on the Enemy Emnity Party Enemy List (whatever it's called, the little one tanks used to see aggro levels before aggro got effectively deleted) would help a ton. Cos if you see one enemy on there has it's DOT fall off, you can target it using that exact same list, and reapply it there and then

They do that, too, yeah. Filterable to just DoTs, all your own Status Effects, or to also include things like Mug, Stun, etc. All with durations, of course.

Can you just enlighten me real quick since I've not played the class in a couple of weeks, what's the difference between Ruby, Topaz, and Emerald Rite?

Cast times and GCD length. Those ones at least have some variance, even if only Ruby has any differing gameplay implications at the moment.

Less than whether or they're also heals or not, purely direct damage or not, etc., as per Assize vs. Dia, but with a better context they could feel distinct from each other.

[kyyninen_kirahvi]

Hm...somewhat, yes. Not sure that's exactly right, but it's a start.


Why WHM or SGE? AST and SCH are already that, so why not have them perform that duty that they're already performing?


Not really, no.

Every Job will evolve to fit in with the combat system as it changes. If it doesn't change, then it's not really relevant. Evolve does not mean increase in complexity, though. It means shift to suit the environment.


That's...questionable. I think a better way of saying it is SOME Jobs have to. Most of the Tanks don't need to use half their kit for most content, just like Healers, and a number of DPS have things in their kits they also don't need to use.

If by "evolving existing abilities" means "adding effects" (for example, if Plenary Indulgence got a partywide 5% or 10% damage reduction effect for the 10 sec duration), then yes, I agree.[/hb]

1. Explain. What am I not understanding? This still leaves things open.

2. I disagree about AST and SCH but it doesn't really matter. It could also be a mystery 5th healer job. Just pure theoretical speech.

3. Then I kind of don't understand where the problem is. Some times more complexity comes naturally, sometimes it's pushed. Imo, healers need a bit more to be enjoyable. Not my thing to say how much or how to increase it.

4. DPS still have more incentives to at least try them. I admit I don't know anything about tanking (it's a role I detest).

5. Not necessarily just adding effects but increasing potency and changing action name.

I don't really like DPSing either, and honestly I have no desire to deal damage as healer. However, I feel now there are extremely limited measures to continue healer evolution unless Square changes their designs. Things don't need to be as hard as in HW time but I wish they'd go back a bit. Adding more heals is moot if there is no need to use the actions outside of hc content or when your party sucks extremely. A job that can only get engagement when your party sucks is bad design but too tight requrements will kill interest in the role as whole. It's a tightrope act that needs constant chekiing and tuning. Now it feels like Square isn't interested.

The only healer I advocate for more DPS actions is sage. It was supposed to be the DPS healer, but isn't really working as such when most of it's efficient healing doesn't come from dealing damage.

[Sebazy]

Whatever. /10chars

Seriously, I'm not going to bother engaging with you if you're going to be like this. There's no point. I'm disappointed in you, honestly. I always thought you were better than to be so brash to grief. But I was wrong.

...see folks? I do admit when I'm wrong, at least now and again.

Quick to dish it out, not so quick to take it back in kind.

Here's hoping that one day you realise why everyone is jumping on your case.

*spoilers* it's not everyone else that's the problem.

[Renathras]

Quick to dish it out, not so quick to take it back in kind.

Here's hoping that one day you realise why everyone is jumping on your case.

*spoilers* it's not everyone else that's the problem.

Except I'm not "quick to dish it out": Find the last post I called one of you a troll, "comic relief", or insulted your ability to postulate ideas or support them with argument or evidence.

Not everyone is jumping on my case. The only other person that mentioned me agreeing with whatshisname was Shurrikhan, trying to explain you being pissy about it. Literally no one else has mentioned it and no one has done a 180 from generally knolwedgeable cordiality to abject trolling as you have in all of one post from being the former to being the latter over me quoting someone - something I do quite frequently - saying I agree with them - something else I do quite frequently.

So no, in this case, it's just you.

[Zairava]

I mostly just lurk here in the healer forums, for various reasons, one will be listed here, but I want to put in a little input.

I've recognized that, in general in MMO's, I'm an atrocious healer. It just does not resonate or click with me and that's fine.

This is the only MMO that has changed that, except that even being a lower-than-average healer, I still get more bored than playing tank somehow in casual content playing as a healer. I dabbled with healing a bit in EX content back in ShB, but mostly was met with the same boredom.

To me, that's saying something. Healing isn't for me, it doesn't need to appeal or be easily playable to the players like me. It doesn't need to be so ridiculously easy that someone as low-grade at healing like me feels absolutely no pressure when the party isn't eating dirt

[Renathras]

Ffs...

<< Can we please allow dungeons a range of difficulties (as already seen in boss-fights across Leveling, Normal, Extreme, Savage, and Ultimate)?

Yes, we'll call them Criterion. Didn't I just say this?

>> No! Not all content should be for everyone! But here, let me suggest an analog of... my 4 Healer Model. In it, we'll give dungeons... multiple difficulties!

Firstly, that's not an analogue. Ironically, the analogue for the 4 Healer Model would be what you're asking for - that we have "a range of difficulties across different dungeons". The problem is you can't very well have a roulette that works that way. Imagine if the Trial roulette could give you any normal, Hard, or Extreme trial in the game, and also could give you a normal or Savage version of any 8 man. That's what you'd be asking for. I'm saying to have all the difficulties, but have separate roulettes fr them, so to speak.

The other thing is that healer Jobs aren't a roulette. You don't que up and then get pooped out into an instance in one chosen by RNG.

You've seen his counters already, so you know full well what he meant -- that you had yet to argue convincingly.

I'M NOT A MIND READER LIKE YOU ARE. I don't tell people what they are thinking. I read the words they post. He could have said something like "I've seen your arguments, but I disagree with them." Which was, btw, the thing I said in my reply he could have said (but didn't). If someone says "You gave NO argument!", I shouldn't be attacked for thinking the person is insisting I have no argument. Besides which, I DID argue it convincingly, you guys just disagree with it because you don't WANT it because you think any change I propose makes things easier and is therefore disallowed - even when, as I argued, it does not. In the worst possible analysis, what I proposed does the thing you guys say you always want, lowers skill floor and raises skill ceiling.

But, AGAIN, I'm not going to keep arguing such a minor point for something I don't even care that much about with brick walls.

Calling that "belittling" while assuming that only an idiot could fail to be thus convinced,

Its belittling because I DID present arguments, and without even arguing against them, much less paying attention to my own counter-arguments, he said I presented NONE. Again, I'm not a mind reader like you are/claim to be.

These have little to nothing to do with each other...

Some healers more GCD based, some more oGCD based. Yes, it's part of the concept.

Did you not want increased healing requirements?

Different concepts/different arguments. Roe's argument here is two relatively minor changes to WHM that she thinks would increase the dps complexity to make it less boring. No part of that argument is talking about overall encounter design reworks. This is another example of you trying to find anything to browbeat me over. We're talking about her idea, not mine. I was just pointing out WHM already has all the skills in place to do this without needing any additions. Moreover, there's no reason FOR them. "Add banish as a new button for...no good reason, since we already have a button we could use for this exact purpose instead". I don't think that's her intent, which is why I made the suggestion for how we could do it in a streamlined way.

I've already made SEVERAL proposals myself for healer Job changes. We're not discussing those, so you can't bring up "I thought you wanted...!" since we're not talking about what I wanted, now are we? We're talking about someone else's proposal, and me offering suggestions to it.

For now, don't show others status effects on your Focus Target status effects

Is there actually a way to do this? When I was messing with the HUD trying to find it, I found a checkbox, but it got rid of others' effects on BOTH bars (target and focus) at the same time. I looked to see if there was an option for only the one or the other, but I don't remember being able to find it, or it was only for the main target bar and not focus, I forget. I DID look at it before trying to find a solution there but couldn't locate one.

The default UI was fine even for maintaining, say, some 10 DoTs across 5 targets on HW Bard (no-stance over the gather, WM, IJ, AoE with constant RoD resets).

"Press X to Doubt..."

X
X
XXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx...

...

Okay, question: Why do we need to add Banish?

That is, why do we need a new and separate button for it? We already have a lot of pointless buttons, so why do we need one more? Why do we need to consolidate existing redundancy to add...new redundancy? Your Banish proposal isn't some exciting button. It's not something like Continuation and it doesn't seem to have any connection to anything other than to be a pseudo-"-2" or "-3".

One of my big complaints about button bloat is having buttons that don't do anything to deserve existing. For the flack they're given, Cure 2, Medica 2, and Cure 3 all have a point. Cure 2 and Cure 3 are if you need sustained bomb healing, and Medica 2 if you need sustained party healing but can't stack tight enough for Cure 3. Medica 1 USED to make sense for this as a spamable augment to Medica 2, except Cure 3's radius has been extended so Medica 1's isn't much better anymore (Cure 3 used to have like a 6, then 8y, range vs Medica's 15), and Medica's MP cost was ballooned so that it's barely cheaper than Medica 2. People say Cure 1 is redundant, but at least it has an MP efficiency and faster cast time over Cure 2. Medica 1 does not have that over its counterpart.

So let's look at what you're suggesting we add:

A GCD button with a CD that does damage.

So it's not like a combo button, it has no interaction with any other system in the kit, we already have another damage button besides Glare that we have, which is an uninspired oGCD never used for the "intended purpose" (of healing or spike MP generation), instead being used essentially on CD for damage (and MP maintenance), which is what you're asking for an ability to do. Only thing it would need is a CD and potency adjustment. I can't think of a good reason not to do this. Especially since I've already been arguing that Assize should be a GCD for a while now as it being an oGCD brings nothing to the table other than making Glarespam worse than it is since it doesn't contribute to breaking it up. Assize isn't used like a healer oGCD (for healing or mitigation), and is more akin to something like Orogeny, which is BORing.

...kind of odd me being the one pointing out something being boring, for once, but here we are...

What you're asking for is closer to something like Sonic Break on GNB or Goring Blade on PLD, two abilities players are constantly saying "Why do we even have these?" because of how little they actually bring to the Jobs and their rotations. What you're asking for is just worse since it becomes even more obnoxious and doesn't do anything interesting. Say what you will of Assize, but at least it would be mildly interesting as an ability to hit more often since it...does other things besides "just damage, but a different button". Which is why I even suggested it in the first place. Myself. In my own WHM proposal.

I see no reason adding Banish as an ability is actually...needed, much less useful.

.

As to your question about SMN:

Note that Emerald, Ruby, and Topaz abilities aren't additional buttons (though if you mean they could have Ruin 3 convert into abilities instead of having a separate Gemshine - something it already does for Bahamut/Phoenix - I'd agree; been thinking a while that they could remove Gemshine and Precious Brilliance and just have those convert), they're single buttons. And they're actually spamable while they're available. And they actually have different cast times and recast times. Titan's 1-2 sets feel a little slower and more cumbersome than Garuda's 1-1-1-1 quick strikes. So they actually DO seem different and aren't just "hit on CD once per 15 seconds". Each one changes your "rotation" while it's up, then you move on to the next one, without additional button bloat besides Gemshine/PB themselves (which, again, they could entirely remove and just fold into Ruin 3/Tri-Disaster and nothing of particular value would be lost, imo.

Ignore the part where...

Wait, SO I'M CLEAR, are you arguing that the Healer damage kits right now ARE diverse and interesting? I want to make sure I'm not seeing things, because you're arguing against me parroting the general line that ALL OF YOU here say that they're basically all identical copy-pasta. And you're arguing against me, saying that they're different. So I want to make sure that's your actual intent...

...

1. You mean what the difference is? I'm not sure I understand the question.

2. Yeah, it could be AST having Nocturnal stance. The specifics don't matter TOO much, I'm more thinking in terms of what is the least disruptive to existing players. For example, if SE decided they wanted a fourth Support role, it would make sense to take the Jobs that are already closest to Support - something like RDM gets Vermedica and Verprotect/Vershell (it already kinda has that with Magick Barrier) instead of saying "So we're going to make BLM the new Support role", which would require a complete rework of the Job, its abilities, and its playstyle.

...since this example could get us lost in the weeds, I'm not proposing THAT, I'm more just trying to explain "If we already have something KINDA leaning in a direction that we want to go, it makes sense to use that instead of one of the things that isn't at all like that and would require a complete rework instead."

3. Not sure which thing you're referring to here. "Not really, no" or "Every Job..." or "That's...questionable"? I'm also not sure that the goal should be "make things that appeal to DPS players", especially when it comes to entire other roles. Take Tanking. GNB was pretty much unofficially (and maybe officially) made to appeal to DPS players. But they didn't take the three existing Tanks and ALSO convert them to doing so. The Devs were satisfied with just GNB filling that niche of "the Tank for DPS players when they want to Tank". Note that my own "4 Healers Model" proposal already satisfies this, anyway, between SCH being a "DoT Mage" and SGE being a "Caster with heals" - which, frankly, is what I THOUGHT it was going to be when Yoshi P first announced it.

4. We do get this sometimes - though arguably less than we could. for example, Ruin to Broil. They could do it A LOT MORE, like Protect to Proshell to Plenary Indulgence (one I always shill for) or Divine Seal into Temperance. The Devs have this weird thing they do with Healers where they remove abilities, then add them back later with extra effects and a new name/animation for a high level ability...and for some reason, they don't want to just keep the low level one in. For example, WHM could get Divine Seal at level 40/45 and then it upgrade to Temperance at level 80 adding the party mitigation. We see this more frequently with other Jobs, like PLD having Spirits Within upgrade to Expaciation or SMN's Outburst upgrading to Tri-Disaster. Or WAR which essentially has its core rotation done at level 50 and after that, it's just abilities upgrading and gaining new or slightly additional secondary effects. They don't seem to feel the need to remove Spirits Within for an expansion before adding Expadiation as a capstone an expansion later. So I don't get why they have some allergic recoil from doing this with Healers.

5. I do agree there are issues with continued growth, though I contend that's more related to encounter design. Between "the dance" and the 2 min metal, the Devs have REALLY "painted themselves into a corner", as Sebezy accurately says. They really need to address that issue.

6. Then your proposal is more limited than mine, as I'd probably include SCH in that just with a less rigid rotation and a bit more free flowing. But yes, SGE was basically billed as the GNB for Healers, the DPS-appealing Job of the Healer role. And there's no reason not to make it that other than...well...I honestly can't think of any...

[Sebazy]

I don't tell people what they are thinking.

Lol

"Press X to Doubt..."

Skill issue, a well documented one for that matter.