I'm bored when I heal because I need more complex DPS rotations

[angienessyo]

IMO don't need a more complex DPS rotation. You need encounters that actually make you play as a healer instead of a green DPS.

Agreed. I don't think healers would really be complaining about the state of their DPS rotation if their role was actually engaging on the healing end.

[ForsakenRoe]

Where's my WHM with a mildly more interesting DPS kit, perhaps along the lines of ForsakenRoe's proposal? Where's my simple, direct HP restoration and regen healer with a DPS kit based on direct damage that isn't godawful boring?

Sorry brother but you'll have to keep asking, cos mine had Dia stay as a DOT so it doesn't count /s

Agreed. I don't think healers would really be complaining about the state of their DPS rotation if their role was actually engaging on the healing end.

Probably, but I expect it to be even less likely for SE to make healing engaging than to give us some 'mostly ignorable extra damage buttons', since 'not being able to keep up with the extra healing' directly translates to 'party wipes because they hit zero HP'

[Renathras]

Where's my WHM with a mildly more interesting DPS kit, perhaps along the lines of ForsakenRoe's proposal? Where's my simple, direct HP restoration and regen healer with a DPS kit based on direct damage that isn't godawful boring?

Are you proposing we add a healer?

I mean, this goes both ways: Where's my non-complicated SCH, AST, or SGE? Where's my SCH, AST, or SGE with simple DPS and focus on GCD healing? Where's my healer Job that is focused on healing instead of damage dealing? Where's my healer that doesn't have an annoying, tedious DPS "rotation"? (I find DPS rotations boring, that's why I don't play DPSers as I don't find their "gameplay" engaging).

Either we have what we have now or we have a mix. There's no useful situation where we go to all the healer Jobs going from the same 2 button rotation to all having a complex DPS rotation. All you're doing then is changing which group of people you're pissing off, so that's not a valid solution.

Agreed. I don't think healers would really be complaining about the state of their DPS rotation if their role was actually engaging on the healing end.

...some would. There legitimately are some people that play healer Jobs but really want to be DPSers.

But I agree most wouldn't be complaining if the healing was actually interesting in high end content.

To be fair, though, many people aren't complaining NOW. So that's something to consider as well, that many people are content with the current system.

Probably, but I expect it to be even less likely for SE to make healing engaging than to give us some 'mostly ignorable extra damage buttons', since 'not being able to keep up with the extra healing' directly translates to 'party wipes because they hit zero HP'

If we're talking Savages (or even Extremes), that's irrelevant, since not doing enough DPS also leads to party wipes due to enrages.

EDIT:

I do agree with the idea overall, But isn’t this ultimately just the same thing?

Well, I tend to think of SCH as being more like old SMN or SB SCH while SGE I would think is more akin to RDM (RDM has no DoTs) or BLM or something, where it's more about combo actions or relations. This could take the form of Dualcast-esque mechanics like RDM, or SGE being ranged with pew pew lasers means it could be designed to have a damage kit something like MCH, which would be more active but less "upkeeep/DoT" focused. I think either would feel different to play than old-SMN-esque DoT mage.

So these would still be two different playstyles.

SCH can have a DPS focus via DoTs since it could use oGCDs to weave Faerie abilities and use Eos more seriously as the basis of its healing.

Likewise, SGE can have a DPS focus via direct damage spells (or even WEAPONSKILLS if we go the MCH route), leveraging Kardia and oGCDs that enhance, boost, AOE-ify, etc Kardia so that its healing is primarily through the Kardia mechanic and proper rotation increases the healing done

SCH would, of course, have Diagnosis and Prognosis to fall back on if the player horribly flubbed their damage rotation or something and lost healing that they needed to make up for, but the goal should be to heal by damage upkeep in this case, which contrasts with SCH's kit under this idea being upkeep of DoTs while freely weaving oGCD Faerie abilities to conduct its healing. SCH's healing would be more active on the part of the player directing Eos (and just keeping DoTs up "on the side" to maintain damage output) while SGE's would be more automatic while doing their damage rotation, with Kardia swapping and Kardia-boosting/modifying oGCDs weaved to enhance its effects to be sufficient healing for the party.

And yeah, AST as a party buffer makes more sense as its already built that way. They just need to make cards more available (instead of one charge per 30 sec) to make it feel like you're constantly throwing out buffs left and right, not just cramming 3 out all at once and then not doing any for a few mins.

Except it's still not an either-or situation. The devs have proven that they can create a satisfying healing kit with good interactions, a satisfying dps kit with room for skill expression and good fight design that requires healers to heal, all this was done back in SB. We're asking for them to go back to that good balance of design instead of trying to push all the complexity into the mechanics dance itself, which is clearly not working because you only progress a fight once, after you clear, you now understand the fight to the point that most of the complexity is already gone. (Also, the more complex moving parts they put into a single mechanic, the more limited the solution becomes, but that's another problem entirely.)

You mean the expansion where one healer was completely benched, one spec of the one healer with specs (AST) was mostly benched, and people who didn't enjoy DPSing on healers were sidelined from content?

That doesn't sound like an improvement.

...and, ironically, notwithstanding that: You DO know my proposal IS to more or less revert SCH and AST to SB, right? The only change I'd make offhand is for SCH to keep Expedient and the far better pet responsiveness we have now.

As for the damage kit, it could be expanded somewhat. But, my concern is S.E. will not provide us with challenging content. That would result in healers using their damage spells most of the time. They'd be like blue mages rather than healing classes. That's why I lean toward the idea of changing the healing toolkit to make healing fun again; rather than, adding a more involved damage rotation.

Just wanted to say I very much agree with this.

It would really suck if we're just given DPS kits instead of healing and told "Now you shouldn't be bored since you have DPS rotations!"

I hate DPS rotations. If I liked them, I'd play DPS Jobs. The reason I don't play DPS Jobs is because I don't like DPS rotations, I like healing and supporting the people that do. If they make all healers more DPS intensive than SMN, I'd just play SMN or a tank, and that would suck. I might just quit the game, which would suck even more.

[ForsakenRoe]

a complex DPS rotation.

If we're talking Savages (or even Extremes), that's irrelevant, since not doing enough DPS also leads to party wipes due to enrages.

You gotta stop saying 'a complex DPS rotation', nobody is proposing 'a complex DPS rotation', just a 'more complex one than we already have'. Going from 1 inch off the ground to 2 inches is not a massive distance, but it's still an increase in altitude. Saying 'complex DPS rotation' calls to mind, for a lot of people, the likes of BLM, MNK optimizations, NIN's burst window, etc. And what most people suggest for healers, especially WHM, is still much simpler than new-SMN.

As for enrages, if the healer doing their rotation wrong (but still doing damage GCDs, eg just spamming Glare) causes a wipe in an EX trial, there's bigger issues at hand. Like, they're tuned to be clearable with like 6-8 deaths (assuming you don't get body-checked). And in Savage, there's plenty of lenience built into the enrage timer to factor in the fact that the healers will be GCD healing a lot more in week 1. I lost like 30 GCDs to GCD healing in my first clear of P11S, in week 1, and spent all but FOUR of my Aetherflow on healing. Still a clear. This 'people will wipe because they do their healer damage rotation wrong' angle purposely ignores that 'there is lenience to enrages already', or that 'potency difference between filler spell and new additions can be tuned to be low-punishment', etc. Though, given what SE did with Abyssos, I guess I can see why there'd be skepticism regarding SE's ability to balance things. But I am not about to go hamstringing my ideas of what WHM could get, because 'what if SE is really bad at balancing potency numbers'

[Renathras]

You gotta stop saying 'a complex DPS rotation',

Complex is relative. Everything you've proposed I consider complex. I've given you proposals that I consider mildly complex, and you and the others rebuffed those. So yes, "a complex DPS rotation". I gave you what would be a simple one and it was rejected. Most of the proposals people have made are more complex than SMN and WAR and PLD, meaning more complex than an actual DPS Job and than damage adjacent Jobs (Tanks hold agro by performing damage rotations). Again, I've proposed what would NOT be complex.

EDIT:

I'm also not the only one saying this or seeing the arguments from proponents of the DPS changes this way:

Actually, that is what people are saying. Asking for a complex damage rotation is pushing healers further into the role of green dps, especially when players are saying they have nothing to do but spam two damage buttons. If you are a class primarily pushing damage buttons, what are you? It doesn't matter how many healing abilities you have on your toolbar, if you aren't using them.

So, the answer is to increase the number of damage spells healers cast? That makes no sense. Again, it is a tuning problem on the part of Square Enix and not an issue with what abilities healers have at their disposal. Changing the content is the solution to this issue.

The big white elephant in the room is we healers have been spoiled by the ease of the content, the potencies of our heals, the MSQ, and all the other challenges presented to us by Square Enix. That needs to be addressed before anyone starts changing healer damage rotations.

.

I agree, but the color you chose is kinda hard on the eyes to read.

XD

I was thinking of posting that same thing. That light cyan on this background is kind of hard on the eyes.

If you change the tuning such that, say, we spend as much time healing then as we do dealing damage now, that's going to be outright oppressive to your less skilled healers and, by extension, their parties.

We're talking Savage content. Isn't it SUPPOSED to be difficult?

Regarding that statement of "players only stay with a game if it hooks them emotionally" if you are going to apply that specifically to job and/or encounter design I don't see how you can or should treater all players as a monolithic block.

This I agree with, IDPL.

It's the very crux of the "4 Healers Model" argument, in fact.

[ASkellington]

I'm also not the only one saying this or seeing the arguments from proponents of the DPS changes this way:

• They all do need a few extra dps buttons.
• Said dps buttons need to connect with their theme and kit.
• Encounter design needs to change - faster telegraphs, more unavoidable damage.
• Healer kits need to be gutted and redesigned with all four receiving clear healing and as mentioned before damaging identities akin to what they have in PvP (as in diverse and not the same as the other).
• MP sustain should come back and be a focus.

You missed that then.

Also I rebuffed your designs because of reasons different than "they aren't as complexed as I wanted".

The rotation is fine. I don't like the design of it.

[Renathras]

You missed that then.

None of that says "non-complex rotation.

Also I rebuffed your designs because of reasons different than "they aren't as complexed as I wanted".

The rotation is fine. I don't like the design of it.

I mean, you kind of did. You said they weren't interesting or engaging to you, but I pointed out what you find engaging and interesting is what I find complex. Therefore, that would be because they aren't as complex as you wanted. I also noted that you aren't playing all four healer Jobs, meaning some should probably be designed for people who don't like what you do. Imagine if all the Casters were designed like SMN. That would leave the BLM players, in particular, out in the cold. You don't even have to go that far; all the healer Jobs RIGHT NOW are designed mainly for a 2 button damage type of player, and you can see the problem of them all being the same. The problem isn't they're simple/boring. The problem IS they're al IDENTICAL in their level of complexity.

There is no design everyone will like.

The objective should be insuring there is AT LEAST ONE design for every person. So you may like AST and I may like WHM. That's good, we both have something we like. If AST and WHM were both like WHM, that'd be bad because you'd have nothing, and if WHM and AST were both like AST, that'd also be bad because I'd have nothing.

The solution should be to mix and match it up so that everyone has something.

EDIT:

This is a big part of the puzzle for sure. For all it's jank, one thing 2.0 ARR absolutely nailed right out of the gate was it's progressive difficulty curve that steadily ramped up as you progressed through dungeons into the HM Primals and onto Coil. They even used to dungeons to introduce people to key primal mechanics. Genius design IMO.

Agreed.

There's now a massive gap between MSQ and Extremes. There are random bits of content that KIND of fit somewhere in there - deep dungeons, exploration zones, and 24 mans try to fit in there somewhere - but there's still a massive gap between casual content and the "midcore" Extremes. And this isn't just casual content has gotten easier; Extremes now are harder, there are a lot more body checks and tight timing mechanics with precise positioning more akin to Savage fights than there used to be.

Go spend more time on the healer forums then.

Right?

[Shurrikhan]

We're talking Savage content. Isn't it SUPPOSED to be difficult?

That was not strictly a constraint given in what I was responding to.

But sure, let's consider Savage under that condition you've quoted (flipping optimal %uptime spent DPSing with %uptime spent healing, such that the present scarcity of downtime complexity would actually be properly apportioned to its situation):

We already see a decent size range in GCD usage even under the extremely low healing requirements present right now. If we tuned Savage to require as much %uptime spent healing as is currently optimally spent DPSing (e.g., up to 100%), that leaves little to no room.

Given your complaints that as much as a single extra DoT of middling bonus potency-per-minute could overly stress out healers... that doesn't seem particularly feasible.


It's fine to make the healing requirements tougher. I suggested as much in the very sentence after what you chose to quote.

Increasing healing requirements so far that our current scarcity of downtime actions would actually make sense, though (e.g., Glare would then see only as much use as Cure II does now), would likely be overkill. It'd be better to provide some of that boost to engagement through downtime actions instead.

[Renathras]

Given your complaints that as much as a single extra DoT of middling bonus potency-per-minute could overly stress out healers... that doesn't seem particularly feasible.

Note I don't make this argument, though. Not in the way you are, anyway.

As I frequently point out, different people have different skillsets. Someone may find piano extremely easy to play and be able to play complex pieces on it, but find guitar substantially difficult, and struggle with even simple pieces.

The role is "Healer", meaning "those people with aptitude for healing" are the primary intended audience of the role. People who might have trouble with damage rotations or upkeep DoTs, but have no problem at all with healing. I have no issue selecting correct heals for various situations. So no, I wouldn't have issue with higher healing requirements, personally. Nor do I suspect anyone who is a healer would IF the paradigm WAS shifted to using GCD heals. For example, people trying to only oGCD heal and maximize GCD damage uptime were slammed with P5S. I found it relatively easy to heal since GCDs are extremely effective. Regen - a GCD avoided like the plague by "Green DPS" minded healers - easily solved quite a bit of the problem with the bleeds. It was two button presses (one for each tank when the bleed busters hit them) and the mechanic was easily healed. It was only difficult for the people trying to avoid pressing GCD heals.

EDIT:

Complex is relative. So why do you keep insisting on objectively worded phrasing like 'a complex DPS rotation'

Because I see it as complex?

I've proposed "more complex" and been told it's not complex enough.

"a complex DPS rotation" is how people see it. Again, I'm not the only one wording it that way, despite it seeming I'm the only one you're calling out for saying so.

It's not simple, and it's more complex than more complex. Thus complex seems like the right word to say "more complex than more complex". My rule of thumb is that if it's at or above SMN level complexity, it's a DPS rotation.

I'll note you supported the SCH idea, but the WHM idea you wanted more complexity and/or randomness to it, and I also think that reply was to the pre-edit version that was deployed later, and I also know you opposed the Dia stacking option (which is more complex despite some of the people there insisting the contrary), and that you seemingly rejected the Dia/Assize idea, even though it was essentially identical to your own proposal, just it added one less button and for some reason that was a hard sticking point.

For what it's worth, even when I don't agree with you I like reading what you write here, as you tend to be one of the more reasonable users here. I appreciate that you provide your reasoning, tend to acknowledge and value a diversity of perspectives, and try to stimulate genuine good faith discussion. ^^

Aww, thanks!

Honestly, I feel the same towards you. I've really enjoyed the topics you've posted and the discussions they've started both here in General and the ones I've seen you post in the DPS forum. I see that yellow hat and it makes me smile and want to see what the post/thread is about.

Which is why I think it's good to have an option for those kind of players, something that transparently asks less of them. A diversity of options allows players to pick the level of engagement that works best for them, while allowing other players to get a different level of engagement that works for them. With the energy it takes a player to be a decent BLM, they can be a great SMN, and I think that same approach can work well with other classes.

Very very VERY much agreed! And well said.

To clarify, I'm not actually suggesting anything less than "maintain one DoT and one DPS skill". I'm suggesting that if there are healers who want a more involved DPS rotation, we should at the very least leave one healer's DPS kit the old way so that players who didn't want that additional complexity can continue to play their role at the same level of efficacy without the potential for increased expectations/criticism.

And this is, in absolute terms, the only argument of the "4 Healers Model". It makes no statements on anything other than "We have 4 Healer Jobs, let us make them all distinct, but maintain at least one as it is today for the sake of the players who enjoy the current model".

True, but in the exact same stride it's not fair to the people who want less complexity if their job gains more complexity. The idea with some jobs getting that change and some jobs not getting it is that neither preference is entirely ignored.

One thing in all these discussions that consistently boggles my mind - how people can say leaving one simple "is not fair to those that want things more complex", but don't understand that NOT leaving ANY simple "is not fair to those that want things to remain simple", who are already being asked to give up more if 3 of the Healer Jobs are changed.

I genuinely do not understand how one can use that argument and not see that it applies just as much (if not more) in the reverse direction as an argument against more complexity.

The only solution that doesn't have this problem IS one that leaves at least one simple and has at least one more complex, as that's the only solution that does offer something to both types of player. Do they get everything they want? No, but no compromise gives one side everything it wants. Any such resolution is not, in fact, a compromise as one side gets everything.

[ForsakenRoe]

Complex is relative.

Complex is relative. So why do you keep insisting on objectively worded phrasing like 'a complex DPS rotation' instead of subjective like 'more complex than current' or 'a rotation I would find too complex to be comfortable with'

I said I'd be agreeable to your WHM, and your SCH. Why am I getting flak for being 'opposed to your ideas' when I've literally said 'yeh this sounds alright'. For example, here for SCH, and here for WHM.

See, quite often I don't just say 'I like this idea' or 'I don't like this idea', I'll also add why I like/dislike it, and if I dislike the idea but I see some merit in it, I'll suggest what I believe to be an alternative way to implement the idea, intended in the spirit of collaboration. Maybe my 'this idea is interesting, wouldn't function too well in the game's design but if we do X, it could work' is getting interpreted as 'your idea is bad, let me just steal it, rewrite one line of the wording and claim it's my own idea' but I can assure you I have enough ideas of my own that I do not need to resort to such behavior