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

[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.