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

[Renathras]

I don't know if this is a conscious thing you do, but...

You know how you and others say "don't say most/majority (and sometimes even "many")" in any of my arguments? Have you ever noticed I avoid saying most or majority and generally many?

I'm simply holding you guys to the same general standard: Unless there's an actual metric (numbers, not anecdotes, not likes/dislikes, unless they add up to a large portion of the 1-2M playerbase (note that 10,000 would be 1% of the playerbase under the lower estimate, 20,000 under the higher one), then it's absolutely fair to note that it was SOME people. We don't know if it was most or a majority. It very likely was a minority for the simple fact that only a minority of the playerbase - and those most annoyed with things and wanting to voice complaints - tend to go to forums to voice them. This isn't a FFXIV phenomena, this is true of all types of games and even non-game fandoms.

You guys did this to me, so I just hold you to the same standard. Overstating your case without any citation to support it is something worth calling out. If I said "A lot of people want healers to stay as they are", you guys don't accept that. I know, because I've said it before, and "A lot" was something you guys don't agree with and felt you had to minimize. So I altered my language to accommodate your demands. I merely hold your arguments to the same standard. Fair's fair, right?

It's not safe to draw the conclusion you do unless you have metrics to support it. And we really...don't. Ty's survey here had no controls for a lot of things, but even if we ignore all that, no Job had more than 300 answers. What's 300 / 1,000,000 * 100%? 0.03% of the playerbase? Even if we assume something like "only 1/5th of players play healers anyway!", that's still only 0.15% of the playerbase. While their concerns may well be concerns to them, you cannot extrapolate from 0.15% that it's an "actual problem". While it is worthwhile to consider it, (a) we don't know that the Devs DIDN'T already consider it and decide against the requests of the 0.15%, and (b) those views cannot be assumed to represent 99.85% who did not participate.

Until data has been gathered on those people, or a good chunk of them, such conclusions can't be taken at face value.

And the thing is, the Devs DO have that data. They know whether healer numbers are up or down, which healers people are playing more and less, and what people are saying in various forms of feedback. Meaning it's very likely they are aware of those views, they DID look into them, and they decided they do not represent the whole.

.

One reason I bring up the 4 Healers Model so much is because I think it is the only workable solution that gets most people what they want, and actually gives some of you some of what you want as well. Right now, you aren't getting anything you want, and you're disgruntled and upset. If the status quo maintains, you aren't happy. It's like the poster that asked, between the options of no changes at all and change only some of the healer Jobs, would you really reject the latter? The more DPS camp refused to answer the question. If they said 1, it would beggar belief (if someone is starving and offered a potato but turn their nose up at it demanding a steak, it stands to reason they may not be genuinely starving), if they said 2, they feel it would weaken their argument. So they refused a good faith question. We all know that happier would be 2 in that case.

The alternative is you get nothing, and are upset. Or perhaps worse, you eventually get the Devs to capitulate, and then maybe we find out a majority DIDN'T agree with you, and now all those people are upset, and we have the same problem from the other end until eventually the Devs capitulate to them.

Better, then, a solution that accommodates both positions.

...So you've got three options:

I...applaud you for making the case. I don't mean to intrude, other than this sort of thing (Askellington's position, not yours; yours is actually...well, agreeable here) is why I question the good faith of the more DPS arguments so often. You said it, and I said it above, that adding Holy to the single target rotation WOULD BE effectively adding another button. So if met with adamant insistence against it, I think it is fair to question the objective of the person asking for more when more is offered and rejected out of hand.

Not to harp on him - he wants what he wants - but it's frustrating to me to see these asks, to make proposals that I feel at least partly address them, and then to get insisted to that it doesn't for reasons, but the reasons are often either undefined or not really convincing. "It's AOE so you can't use it for single target!" "What about Misery or Verholy?" "Well...I don't like those either!" Heck, Toxicon, Plegma, Pneuma all work this way, too. If it's fine in all those other cases, both in healer and tank and DPS Jobs, why not WHM?

It's why I asked why we need separate buttons specifically, because if the goal is to make a slightly more complex single target rotation, that solution does that very thing, and with basically no downsides. The only time it could remotely be a problem is something like Deep Dungeon solo runs if you want to pull a specific target, in which case you still have Glare for that and are none the worse for wear.

.

I dunno, it's just stuff like this that throws me off when I'm trying to understand and propose compromises. It's hard to compromise with people who won't accept any actual compromises.

My issue...

I kind of addressed a lot of this already, but in a rapid-fire nutshell:

Damage:
1) 3 stacking buff that increases its damage by 50%. At three stacks, that would be 375 damage, 65 greater than Glare. This meets your general suggestion that the skill ceiling shouldn't come at the expense of the skill floor by keeping it somewhat narrow in case the player flubs it, but noticeable over a fight if done correctly every time. It also, of course, has optimizations related to downtime or adds, but that answers the damage argument right off.
Targeting:
2) Cure 3 already works this way, so the tech (targeting) already exists.
2b) They also could just pull a Plegma and say "suck it up and get in melee".
Cast Time:
3) This tech wouldn't need to be newly developed, either, as it also already exists on PLD, which was (remember that I came up with this idea when Ty requested I try making a WHM pseudo-PLD rotation) the impetus for the pitch in the first place:
"Combo Bonus: Grants Divine Might
Divine Might Effect: Allows next Holy Spirit or Holy Circle to be cast immediately with increased potency
Duration: 30s "

So all the tech already exists, and the damage calculation is incredibly simple. No part of this implementation would be difficult.

.

As for button bloat:

Universally, players believe that PLD and SCH and AST have button bloat. Note as I mathed out here: https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/...for-discussion - PLD has 34 buttons (37 if you include LB, Sprint, and Potion) and the most buttons. DRK and SCH have one less, GNB and AST and NIN have two less. So your 36 number does not seem to be shared by the community as "not bloat". The community definition of bloat seems to be around 35 total (including the +3, so 32 Job + Role) actions. And many controller players do feel that 32 is good.

As I pointed out in that thread, while it's totally fine for some Jobs to have more, it stands to reason that some should have less, ideally at least one of each role. You are arguing taking the healer Job with the least, that has the average (over all Jobs in the game) number of buttons RIGHT NOW and that it should be given more buttons than even the most button Job in the game right now. WHM with 7 more would have 37, which is 3 more than PLD has right now. That seems pretty...not a good idea, I think..