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

[ForsakenRoe]

It's just one button, so it's not a big deal either way, but there's no further "development pipeline" for an effect being an Additional Effect on an existing ability as compared to making a new skill from scratch. It's just whether you want it to take up one button or two.

I think that depends on the 'additional effect' being added. For example, the concept of using a skill while it's on CD, and it still does the skill but without it's additional effects. That doesn't exist in the game now to my knowledge, so I would assume it'd take dev time to create the underlying system to make that work. Any new effect would indeed take as much time to add as a new ability as adding it to an existing ability, sure. But we're not on about 'new effects' for the most part. It's 'do damage, which is slightly higher than the filler spell' for the most part. And coding a new skill (or bringing back an old one) that says 'deals 350p' is going to be easier than adding stuff to make a 150p skill be 350p when a certain condition is met.

A combination of the two could be done, where upon meeting the condition to 'empower Holy', it just... changes the button on the bar to the 'new skill', such that it is a new skill/new animation/etc, but it doesn't take an extra hotbar slot. Like Inner Chaos did for WAR. But doing so would introduce issues of it's own, like being forced to spend the proc even if you want to hold it (because you wouldn't be able to cast Holy, it's been replaced). Whether those issues are big enough to be detrimental to the player experience is a different question though

[Shurrikhan]

And coding a new skill (or bringing back an old one) that says 'deals 350p' is going to be easier than adding stuff to make a 150p skill be 350p when a certain condition is met.

Not if the effect is a means we already have, to be fair.

Stone II/III/IV; Glare I/III - Grants Fragility, causing the victim to take 40 additional potency of damage from Holy / Holy III. Stacks up to 7 times. All stacks are consumed when the target is struck by Holy.

Etc., etc.

But yeah, if it's altogether new procedure, then that's new tech. (Though probably tech that's pretty damn much worthwhile.)

A combination of the two could be done, where upon meeting the condition to 'empower Holy', it just... changes the button on the bar to the 'new skill', such that it is a new skill/new animation/etc, but it doesn't take an extra hotbar slot. Like Inner Chaos did for WAR. But doing so would introduce issues of it's own, like being forced to spend the proc even if you want to hold it.

That was the reason for the only constraint I gave -- that the buffed action should still be capable of the things the unbuffed action was.

But, think about it this way: Sure, we could make, say, Thundercloud proc a separate action and thereby remove any risk of wasting a proc when holding it for movement (or not getting a new proc by the time we need it for movement), but... is that really worth the button cost? If you don't mind a little lost decision-making or the added (arguable) bloat, then maybe it's worth the extra button; if not, probably not. I just, personally, happen to side slightly with the latter.

In this case, though, it would require that a single-target situation suddenly become an AoE situation for it to even have a conflict of interest (which I'm not sure is a bad thing anyways, just like I don't mind Spineshatter Dive having damage attached to it, etc.). When's the last time you used Holy in a single-target fight? If you'd otherwise have no use for the base action, the base action isn't going to get in the way of your improved action.

Moreover, you could just, say, use conditionality. If you have a target for BuffedHoly, it consumes stacks to use BuffedHoly and thereby deal additional damage to the target. If you don't, it doesn't, and you can just continue accumulating stacks. Granted, that one really would be new tech. (Though I do think the game needs to be constantly upping their tech, if only to avoid being content to play within those constraints forever.)

[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..

[Renathras]

I didn't talk about "casters" or the "magical ranged DPS role (i.e., casters)" as my reference point. I specifically talked about "Black Mage," a single job. Please, respond to what I wrote, not what you think I wrote or wish I had wrote.

I did?

I'm pointing out that's a different argument.

How to say it...uhm...I'm not sure I can explain what I mean well. But I'll try.

So imagine we were talking about one healer Job - just one. Let's say SGE for the sake of argument. And you were asking for SGE to be given a DPS rotation that worked (overall kit, anyway) like BLM, where there was a mid-height skill floor and a very high skill ceiling. But we're JUST talking about SGE, not about all four Healers. Then I would agree with you that having a Healer Job that works like BLM makes sense. The reason I didn't really contest that point is that I don't oppose it. I've literally proposed it. The 4 Healers Model would include at least one Healer Job that works this way.

So why do you want me to contest a point I already agree with?

.

If SMN had a healthy gap as you suggest, it would remove Caster from being a role with a good spread of options. So that's a negative, not a positive. The forums would stop (well, no they wouldn't, but they'd reduce) complaining about it and the general playerbase would start (or increase) complaining. Love it or hate it, SMN's playrate went up after the changes, meaning a lot of people like it and would NOT like it if it was changed like that.

DNC is an option for people that want a Job with a low skill floor and moderately high skill ceiling. Why does every Job need this? Do you not want Jobs to be diverse? I believe it's healthy for the game to have options. This game has SMN and BLM and DNC. So people that like different arrangements have an option to pick the one that best suits them. This is what I'm asking for with healers and what you're opposing in suggesting they must not be that way.

EDIT: There's a thread in the DPS forum. Someone asking if DNC can have the RNG elements removed, because that poster doesn't like the RNG elements. In one of my few somewhat highly liked posts on this forum, I said that we need different Jobs to appeal to different people. MCH is for Ranged players that don't want RNG. BRDs for those who like RNG and DoTs. DNC is for people that like what it offers. Changing it would alienate those people for the sake of the people who want something already offered by another Job. Interestingly, people supported me saying that there (even some people that oppose me on the 4 Healers Model in general), but the point is, we have a Job for people that want the playstyle and skill floor/ceiling that DNC offers. That Job is called DNC. :ENDEDIT

Yes, a Job can be easy to pick up and hard to master. Some Healer Jobs working that way is a good thing. I 100% support this idea. It is the crux of the 4 Healers Model as a concept. I'm totally on board with this. Note the keyword there, though: Some. Not All.

Just as all Casters are not BLM, not all healers should be BLM-healer.

You seem to want to accommodate people who pick a role first, and then pick whatever job happens to fulfill their other desires. Fair. I want to be able to pick a job based on its aesthetic -- which can reasonably be expected to be tied into a role -- and then find my other desires fulfilled.

Here's the problem with that: Where is the limit?

In WoW, Paladins can heal. Should FFXIV Paladins be allowed to be party healers? Why not? If you say no, how does that work with allowing people to pick the aesthetic they want? If you say yes, how do you propose making that work in FFXIV's combat and Job system?

At some level, we must admit that there are limits. PLD is never going to be a healer, BLM is never going to be a tank. This is the way the game works. People don't simply pick whatever aesthetic they want and then get a role and playstyle that they want from there. People pick the role they want first, then they filter it down to the playstyle they want from that point. For example, people don't go "I like PLD aesthetic, and I want to be a healer" and get a Paladin healer. They pick "I want to be a Tank, okay, of the Tanks, I like the PLD playstyle and/or aesthetic (if the two disagree, you must choose one or the other, whichever is more important to you)". If they pick Tank and like GNB's playstyle but WAR's aesthetic, they don't get that. The game doesn't accommodate them. It asks them to pick which is more important to them, and they do so. If the gameplay is more important, they pick GNB and accept the aesthetic. If the aesthetic is more important to them, they pick WAR and accept the gameplay. And in neither case, do they pick the role after; they picked the role first OR they picked a Job and accepted the role and playstyle it has. That is, if they prioritize aesthetic over everything, they they pick their Job and agree to be bound by whatever it is. A lot of people wanted DRK to be a DPS, and also wanted GNB to be a DPS. But both are Tanks. Jokes about "Blue DPS" aside, they either decided they were willing to Tank to play the Job they wanted, or they decided they wanted to be a DPSer more and picked a DPS Job instead.

So I find this argument problematic as we don't use it for anything else in the game, but are being told we must use it for healers, specifically, and for making all healers play more like damage dealers, generally. We don't make this argument for any other role's Jobs. Sure, people might like RDM to get Vermedica and some oGCDs and be able to be a healer, or may want to stand in melee and 1-2-3 over and over again, but they don't get to do the former and generally don't get to do the latter. The game doesn't accommodate that. They either come to peace with RDM being a DPS Caster (most of the time), or they pick a different Job/role that does the other things they want instead.

At the end of the day, we all have to make a cost-benefit analysis, and that's the way the world works. Again, no other role is being treated the way you want to treat healers here.

Thankfully for me, the latter approach subsumes the former.

But it doesn't. That's what I'm telling you.

People who want more damage buttons keep saying this, but they aren't listening to how all the people who don't want more damage buttons are telling them it's not true. If you're telling someone you're offering them what they want and they're saying it's not what they want, you have to realize at some point that they want something else.

And...FF1? Where WHM had one cast damage spell until late in the game (where the other one completely replaces it) and a smattering of enhancement spells and even more straightforward and uncomplicated curing spells than FFXIV does?

Play Scholar or Astrologian then

I don't entirely disagree with you, but...

...for that to work, they'd need to increase their damage complexity. It's the thing I propose as the "4 Healers Model"; have a couple healers be simple and healing focused and a couple be more complex and damage focused. SCH is more complex on the healing side and AST more on the buff and APM juggling side. SGE is the most complex on the damage side, but not super complex.

I do agree with you, though I don't think people like that would be happy with anything short of a DPSer rotation on a healer Job. ARGUABLY, that's what SGE should be. Put Kardia on friendly targets, do DPS rotation. Leaving the rest of the healers alone but changing SGE in that way would be the solution there.

scholar is by far the easiest healer of them all ????

What?

No...? o.O

WHM is the easiest overall, AST is the easiest in terms of DPS, and SGE is easier to heal and dps with than SCH (though being debateably more complex on the damage side if you ignore Dissipation optimizing and Energy Drain, I suppose).

And you guys need to realize that not everyone is going to agree with you. This isn't the healer forum where angels fear to tread. You're seeing what more people think than just my lone voice against the echo chamber in there. More than just me believes that healers should be doing more healing and don't need more DPS buttons. Some few don't even think it needs work at all. The 4 Healers Model argument genuinely IS the middle ground allowing all to coexist.

[Shurrikhan]

The 4 Healers Model would include at least one Healer Job that works this way [i.e., featuring many tangibly distinct but cumulative steps towards mastery, as seen on BLM].

Where and how? You've only deigned to give more details about your "4 Healers Model" beyond its being some manner of panacean theory of everything... what, three times now, each with disclaimers that they are spitball works in progress? So how are you actually making one job have as many tangible steps towards optimization in its (especially, downtime) options as BLM has?

Thus far your ideas as concretely presented, even if taken with optimist's flexibility, have mostly revolved around maybe 2 or 3 layers of optimization born of pretty rigid constraints and with far more quickly diminishing of returns on effort invested (which I don't mind, but certainly isn't reminiscent of BLM) and little appearance of larger or tangible steps (unlike, say, at least Ice -> Ice and Fire -> Ice, Fire, and Lightning -> better balancing Ice and Fire -> Optimizing uptime -> etc.).

You keep saying, in effect, if it's a good thing and has four (or more?) healers, my model does it (and does it best!), while if it's a bad thing, even if it has four healers mapped out to ensure each player preference camp has a healer they would at least tolerate, then it's not your model... If that's to be taken as anything more than a "No True Scottsman"... you may want to lay out how your claims are actually met.

[Renathras]

Where and how? You've only deigned to give more details about your "4 Healers Model" beyond its being some manner of panacean theory of everything... what, three times now, each with disclaimers that they are spitball works in progress?

What are you talking about?

I've been arguing for it for, I say "a year", but it's closer to 2 years now. I've also made it clear what it is and how it would work.

I gave specific examples of three cases outright (WHM as it exists, SCH and AST back to their SB states), as well as WHM with the PLD-esque rotation and a pitch for what both SCH and AST would have to be changed to to satisfy the standard on some level [EDIT: That is, for clarity, if they were to be left as "the easy one" instead of WHM or SGE. :ENDEDIT]. I've consistently suggested giving SGE either a RDM or BLM rotation with healing executed through Kardia.

What, you want me design a complete Job wholesale for the playstyle THAT I DON'T ENJOY MYSELF? THREE of them? Why would I do that? Ty and others already did. The point in the system is how modular it is, but at its core, it's have one healer play for those that like healing as it is today, and the other three altered to appeal to those other desired playstyles. SCHs and ASTs tend to ask for their SB kits back, and SCH's SB kit would already be what the "more DPS buttons" people are asking for (AST's is more buff-y, but that's what they seem to want as a group). SCH being given back its SB kit (and same for AST) should be self-explanatory.

EDIT: What, you want me to go to WaybackMachine and pull up and post all their abilities? How is that necessary? Who does that? You guys don't put nearly that much effort into your proposals and you expect them to be taken seriously. :ENDEDIT

The point of the model is that you submit what you want for one of the healers slated to change. We get three flavors of that - the going idea thus far was SCH for DoTs and Eos healing by proxy with macros and/or oGCDs, AST for buffing via cards and delayed effects/HoTs, and SGE for a damage rotation healing via variations of Kardia (swapping between targets, Soteria increase effects, a Pankardia of some kind for party healing, etc). The specifics aren't for me to come up with, I'm not the one asking for the change. I'd sit on WHM.

.

I don't know why you're being particularly obtuse about this in specific.

I mean, if you want, I could write up a SGE kit that's taken from RDM or BLM - I've done it before, mind you - but you seem to be making a ridiculous ask: "Unless you have designed and tested complete kits for all Healers under your model, you can't even propose it!" is a pretty ridiculous standard.

You guys have already proposed the damage rotations. Why do I need to do so as well? Just take what you guys have proposed for SCH, AST, and SGE, leave WHM alone as it is today; BAM! You just implemented the 4 Healers Model. It's so un-complicated, I can't fathom how this is your issue.

[ForsakenRoe]

ren o'clock

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.


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..

The compromises were applied before I posted what I'd like to see for each healer, if I had started from the 'non-compromise position' as you claim me (and others) are doing now, you'd fall off your chair from how many more damage buttons I'd be asking for WHM to have

Can you tell me which Melee has a low skill floor, and little gap between it and the skill ceiling? Because I don't think any of them qualify for that, so evidently SE doesn't seem to believe that, at least for melee, the design of 'one job should have almost zero barrier to entry AND zero room for skill expression, such that even the lowest skilled player can potentially out-damage a tryhard because of crit variance'

In which case, WHM for example, with some smart consolidations, can have up to 7 'free spaces' to work with IIRC

'up to' does not mean 'will absolutely use'. I did say IIRC, so I'm not 100% sure on the current button count of the class, but if +7 would put it at 37, then it must be at 30 right now, which presumably also includes LB Potion and Sprint. If PLD is deemed to be 'functional' at 37 with those three included, then I don't know why WHM wouldn't also be deemed to be okay if it had 37 as well. I personally wouldn't give it +7, that's a bit excessive. I would give it +5 (Banish, AOE heal, AOE Lily shielder, ST Lily shielder, selfbuff CD). The space is there, is all I'm saying. SE would absolutely give it 37 though, think how many extra actions that are functionally duplicates of Cure 2 they could give the job if it was using 37 hotbar spaces! Also, I don't know if the 37 final total you listed takes into consideration the consolidations like Cure1>Cure2.

If hotbar space is really at such a massive premium, SE better stop adding garbage to oversaturate them. Like, delete Repose. Or delete Lucid Dreaming and make MP recovery a more involved part of the rotation, that'd be interesting (and maybe give value to Piety)

MCH is for Ranged players that don't want RNG. BRDs for those who like RNG and DoTs. DNC is for people that like what it offers.

As per my thread

WHM is for people who like bursty feeling damage tools, with more focus on short CDs (10-15s lengths)
SCH is for people who enjoy DOT juggling
AST is for people who prefer to contribute damage via buffing allies rather than direct damage
SGE is almost completely untouched damagewise (just a Toxicon rework), with it's complexity stemming from optimizing the damage>healing identity

I think I'm getting the hang of this '4 healers' thing

What?

No...? o.O

WHM is the easiest overall, AST is the easiest in terms of DPS, and SGE is easier to heal and dps with than SCH (though being debateably more complex on the damage side if you ignore Dissipation optimizing and Energy Drain, I suppose).

And you guys need to realize that not everyone is going to agree with you. This isn't the healer forum where angels fear to tread. You're seeing what more people think than just my lone voice against the echo chamber in there. More than just me believes that healers should be doing more healing and don't need more DPS buttons. Some few don't even think it needs work at all. The 4 Healers Model argument genuinely IS the middle ground allowing all to coexist.

After all the insistence that I'm wrong, and that 'not everyone experiences job complexities to be the same as how another experiences them', EG me thinking my WHM is simple, you thinking it's more complex than SMN... you then state that WHM is the easiest overall, very matter-of-factly, when someone asserts what the easiest healer is. WHM is as easy as AST is as easy as SCH is easy as SGE is as easy as... It's all down to the individual. I've also not disputed whether we should be doing more healing, but instead, disputed the claim that 'more healing' is the solution that will 'make healers fun again'. I'm alright with SE bumping EX roulette healing required by anything up to 100%, I'll be able to keep up. I did my time in the Living Liquid cagematch in TEA. Problem is, a lot of people wouldn't be able to keep up. Abyssos's jump in healing requirements showed this. When healing required suddenly jumps up, people get walled, disillusioned and quit the role. It'd have to be a gradual ramping up over multiple expansions, and at this point I'm not sure we have that kind of time available

You still dodged the 'how often should raidwides in EX roulette occur, and how much damage should they do' btw

EDIT: What, you want me to go to WaybackMachine and pull up and post all their abilities? How is that necessary? Who does that? You guys don't put nearly that much effort into your proposals and you expect them to be taken seriously. :ENDEDIT

Me. I do that. I check WaybackMachine for a lot of things, potencies, cast times, radius and range, MP costs and cooldowns. I do the research and homework, so that I can make my design the best version of itself, with the constraints it's forced into thanks to SE's paradigms. I regularly crossreference the job guide and the WaybackMachine page for the SB versions of the jobs for potency comparisons, MP cost changes over time, etc. Saying 'you don't put that much effort in' is quite an insult to anyone who posts any ideas, designs, proposals etc here

If you're just selfreporting that you don't put much effort in though, more power to you. Or less. I'm not sure at this point

You guys have already proposed the damage rotations. Why do I need to do so as well? Just take what you guys have proposed for SCH, AST, and SGE, leave WHM alone as it is today

If I went back and took out the Toxicon rework to my SGE design, it's damage rotation would be exactly the same as today. By this quoted line, this would qualify for your model (one healer, SGE, has it's damage rotation left as is). So assuming I were to
'compromise' on that (and consign Toxicon to be what it is now, scuffed Ruin 2), what'd be the issue?

[Supersnow845]

Healer threads and descending into walls of text that nobody reads

Name a more iconic duo

[Aravell]

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?

Except, I never made a majority argument....? I just stated what people were talking about back then, I didn't add any qualifier to it, not most, not many, not all.

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.

Except, dev data without feedback is useless. So why are you being dismissive of the feedback that others give?

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.

So, let me ask you a serious question. Why is it of such importance that we not upset the current healer playerbase when nobody gave a single care to those who were upset going into ShB from SB?

[ForsakenRoe]

Healer threads and descending into walls of text that nobody reads

Name a more iconic duo

I'm using the tags man cut me some slack =(