How DPS complexity can make healers more forgiving

[ty_taurus]

Aye.

And... all of which can still be done with a single button each, as it's virtually always better even to waste the additional resource even on the off-chance it overcaps... than to repeat at lower potency. See the Gnashing Fang or Blade of ---- combos.

Unless there's a specific reason to use Button 1 without always following it with Button 2 and Button 3 (without which you have effectively a single action spread across 3 buttons), why take up 3 buttons on it, especially on a role that --especially if our relative healing output and the predictability of healing needs were ever increased-- we'd want to have especially responsive reach to its oGCDs, glut thereof though they be.

To bounce off your point...

What advantage, if any, is there to having Heated Split Shot, Heated Slug Shot, and Heated Clean Shot as separate actions? Imagine the following:

Heated Split Shot
- 290 potency
- Increases the Heat Gauge by 5
- Increases the Battery Gauge by 5

If we compare this 1:1 to Machinist's existing combo, you generate Battery Gauge more frequently, but the action has slightly less potency than the 293.333333 average potency across the current 1-2-3. Assuming those numbers balance out, is there any disadvantage to doing this instead? What if you were promised that in place of the removed Heated Slug Shot and Heated Clean Shot, you would get two new actions added to Machinist's rotation in some capacity? Do you think anything could outweigh the loss of the combo? Or can you only imagine a net negative from such a move?

[Shurrikhan]

To bounce off your point...

What advantage, if any, is there to having Heated Split Shot, Heated Slug Shot, and Heated Clean Shot as separate actions?

As separate actions (even if all on one button)? Some, because it can cause very mild/infrequent sync concerns, especially with the Battery Gauge, if there is downtime or AoE (since it's more Heat-efficient but less Battery-efficient), beyond what you'd see from each GCD having equal payout.

As separate buttons? None, except to reward those who really like hitting separate buttons for the exact same decision.

Do you think anything could outweigh the loss of the combo? Or can you only imagine a net negative from such a move?

Compared to just a consolidated combo, it seems wholly a net negative to also merge those 3 actions' effects into a single action, as having a little bit of spike and cycle does tend to make things a tiny bit more engaging, at least if they can an impact on sync/overcap concerns, which MCH's technically (barely) does. But not a huge loss, no.

[Renathras]

Critiquing a needless problem in a given suggestion...

Literally no suggestion is needed (depending on how we define need), but that's kind of irrelevant. Again, what is the issue with having one healer that works this way if there are three others that each work in different ones? We're talking about all having more complex, non-1-button rotations, so the usual "because aesthetics" or whatever doesn't work unless you're ready to argue that NIN and SAM need to have identical rotations/mechanics, which I don't think you are.

Let's take the example, that the 123 combo has cast times of instant, 1s, 2s for it's steps. You can spam 111111 for instantcasts over and over, for mobility. Beyond that, the rest is up to you:

Can you explain how you're going to incentivize the player to do their 123 'properly', without it causing a conflict with your previously stated stance of 'if there's too much complexity, the healer won't be able to deal damage and it'll lead to enrages'?

In simple terms, because a 1-2-3 isn't more complex than "upkeep DoT with terrible UI". 1-2-3 is just 1-2-3 is always 1-2-3 without needing to track anything other than the glowing border on your hotbar or which button you pressed last, which isn't too terrible.

As to the latter; if all your proposals are "has a DoT vs has a DoT that does something with the kit, often via gauge", then it's kind of the same. As opposed to "has a DoT that interacts with the kit vs has a 1-2-3 rotation" as being an actual distinction.

I suppose my question is:

That they do different amounts of damage so you press them all in the correct order. I did mention we could have the third ability interact with something like Gauss Round, I think (if I didn't, I did mean to, so throw that in there).

In the past, you've often taken individual actions I've proposed and asked the question of "what is the point?" Why eat up another spot on your hotbar that feels like padding? The thing is, there is a worthwhile argument to discussing what purpose different actions serve to a job's overall gameplay feel, and in truth, it's very difficult to identify that on paper without having a build to test it in. There's nothing wrong with asking that question, which is what I did for the 1-2-3 combo. And I would even ask the same thing of actual Machinist. I don't feel like a flat 1-2-3 combo with no sort of earning at the end, or branch to generate something different, is a good investment of hotbar real estate for a healer.

All I would say is "feels good". When I do WAR in PotD, at level 27 you get Storm's Path, and it...feels good to hit all three. Up until then, it feels nice to hit 1-2. I dunno how else to tell you that. No branch, no beast gauge, no self-buff, but it just feels nice to do it some.

As for why that instead of Aero/Stone; Aero isn't cast every Stone. Or often at all, since the enemies die faster than its break even point to be useful. And the cast time just make it feel clunky to do anyway vs the instant weaponskills. Which was the entire reason I presented the idea: Because it seemed FUN.

I know, I know, the idea of "fun" being a reason to do a thing is a foreign concept or something...

Aye.

And... all of which can still be done with a single button each, as it's virtually always better...

If I was proposing this rotation for every healer - that every healer have a 1-2-3 - this critique would make sense.

But I'm not.

DNC has a 1-2-a-b branching combo with percent chance proc activations and BRD has no combo at all, instead having a priority system and a lose 1-a-ish proc system. The three are allowed to exist within one space alongside MCH's 1-2-3. Casters have the near-Ranged Phys SMN and BLM and RDM all in the same category.

I'm not suggesting all four healers have a 1-2-3.

I'm suggesting one does.

.

I genuinely don't get you guys. "1 button rotations are bad" "How about a 3 and some change" "3 button rotations are bad" "But...it's fun to me". I know we find different things fun, but it's just weird at this point. I do truly think it means there's no way you guys' viewpoint can ever be rectified with people who don't think like you do, though. 4 Healers Model IS the only solution at that point.

For all your suggestions, they almost always end up being variations on the same theme instead of something actually different. And pretty much none of them seem fun to me, yet you want to force them on me and all healer players without recourse or escape other than quitting the game or being ridiculously anti-optimal. But that's the way things are here. Fortunately, though...I guess in the end, it doesn't matter, since the Devs aren't likely to do a damned thing anyway.

[Aravell]

I genuinely don't get you guys. "1 button rotations are bad" "How about a 3 and some change" "3 button rotations are bad" "But...it's fun to me". I know we find different things fun, but it's just weird at this point. I do truly think it means there's no way you guys' viewpoint can ever be rectified with people who don't think like you do, though. 4 Healers Model IS the only solution at that point.

It doesn't look to me like they're inherently against a 1-2-3 combo, it looks more like they are against a 1-2-3 combo that doesn't interact with anything else, which is true, because that would be like mapping Glare to 3 different buttons and pressing them in order.

[ty_taurus]

I know, I know, the idea of "fun" being a reason to do a thing is a foreign concept or something...

Time and time again, you are someone who begs for others to have normal, respectful conversations with you. There has been no toxicity thrown around in this thread yet, but this is an example of something that starts fights. The highlighted quote is snark, something you get upset with when targeted at you. You have ignored the main aspect of this particular thread, are not responding the any of the actual points I am making regarding a 1-2-3 combo, playing the victim even when only a single aspect of your idea is receiving cordial criticism that is met with adjustment suggestions rather than outright dismissal, and are using my thread to try and propagandize your "4 Healers Model."

If you are not interested in engaging in the topic about reducing the impact of healer filler DPS by redirecting the bulk of their potency into additional, limited use DPS actions, then that's totally fine. You are not required to engage in that conversation, but please do not hijack the discussion for other uses. There's the Suggestions Megathread that exists specifically for that.

As someone who continues to fight everyone else's suggestions in regards to healers and who had many criticisms of my white mage suggestion, I would be interested to see how you would approach the main topic of this thread--how you would approach white mage having the same total potency per 2 minutes with Glare being 165 potency or less. But please, either engage in the conversation respectfully, or if you are disinterested in this topic, then please redirect your argument to a more appropriate thread.

[ForsakenRoe]

1-2-3 is just 1-2-3 is always 1-2-3 without needing to track anything other than the glowing border on your hotbar or which button you pressed last, which isn't too terrible.

If 'the player might forget to use the 15s GCD because they had to heal and didn't realize it's up again' is an issue, then I think they're very likely to accidentally do a 1-2-2-oops can't 3 now, because they had to heal and forgot what step they're on. And if the solution to that is 'look at your hotbars to see what's glowing' then I don't really consider that ideal, as that means taking your eyes away from the fight to look at your bars. It's a lot harder to put your entire hotbar in a place thats easy to see yet non-intrusive (due to it's size), compared to the job gauges (especially on simple mode) or your enemy's debuff list (especially if you hide ally statuses so only your stuff is visible). I don't know what AST card I have by looking at my hotbars for example, or if I got a DNC proc, or a Refulgent Arrow proc on BRD. I know because my job gauge is in a good place for my peripheral vision to notice, and even before that, I know because I can see the '+ Arrow Drawn' come up in the flyingtext that tells me what buffs or debuffs I'm being afflicted by.

A 1-2-3 on one healer is not the worst idea ever. But if they're going to do it, I expect them to take advantage of the design space (what little of it) a 1-2-3 combo offers. Branching combos with different effects for example. But since the role is 'healer', taking too much mental load away from 'healing' is not ever going to happen, and so the 1-2-3 will likely remain as simply a '1-1-1 but it's on 3 buttons'. Which would, in any other situation, be called 'button bloat'.

It doesn't look to me like they're inherently against a 1-2-3 combo, it looks more like they are against a 1-2-3 combo that doesn't interact with anything else, which is true, because that would be like mapping Glare to 3 different buttons and pressing them in order.

I'm not inherently against a 1-2-3 if it's the only possible way we can get anything for the healers. But I'd rather look at 'literally any other solution' before resorting to 1-2-3 because I find that to be the most uncreative, and least 'design space opening' of the options. The 123 is rigid in it's execution. It introduces more fail-points, such as 'you did the combo in the wrong order and broke it', 'you double-did a step and broke the combo due to needing to panic heal, and that made you forget which step you're on', or 'learning player decides to IceMage it and spams the instantcast 1, never bothering to learn how to do the combo, and refuses to take advice to change it'. Some of these are also true of other suggestions though I suppose.

I oppose 1-2-3 until the 11th hour because of this: Imagine WHM as it currently is, on a dummy. As it stands, we do one Dia per 30s, then Glare 11 times. Then we reapply Dia. If we change this from Glare 11 times to 'Glare, Banish, Luminaire' 4 times (well, that'd be 12 so skip one to apply Dia), then does that actually have any staying power as a change? Would the healers complaining about how 'monotonous' the rotation currently is, be satisfied long term with a change like this? I don't believe that to be the case. I think that we'd learn the new 1-2-3 into muscle memory before the day's out, and it'd be back to business as usual. Only, now that there's a longcast in the 1-2-3, you'd likely have more instances of people going 'sorry no swift, used it for mobility'.

There's no adaptability in a rotation like this either. With it, if you needed to Rapture between steps, presumably the combo would not break. So we'd go from 1-2-3, to 1-2-R-3. The fact that 3 follows 2 is not changed. This also would encourage something I despise about current WHM, that being, purposely shooting off a Lily for a non-healing use. I don't like that I have to overheal to prep a Misery for raidbuffs, and I sure as heck would not like 'have to fire a Lily to delay my rotation by a GCD (and get mobility), so that my next GCD during the mobility section is the instantcast Glare for more mobility'. It's bad enough that people burn Swiftcast for mobility and then can't raise someone (which is probably the reason you see so many 'Glare mages' refusing to res).

Additionally, I remember back in Stormblood, as a DRK, there were many arguments about TBN, and how it gave a Bloodspiller at the cost of a Dark Arts of MP. It worked out to be a DPS loss if that Bloodspiller pushed a DA Souleater off the fight timeline, but a gain if it pushed a Hard Slash off the fight. So you'd have parsing DRKs trying to use a specific number of TBNs, to line their timeline up so that it was favorable. This 1-2-3, would it not cause the same issue? The 'loss' back then for DRK in the worst case scenario iirc was 24dps. 24. If the 2 or 3 step of this hypothetical healer combo are even 10p stronger than the 1, eg 310, 315, 320, then delaying the rotation by a GCD by healing via Rapture would just create the same argument. And if the 'DRK is so squishy because they heard TBN is a DPS loss from Reddit' got so prevalent to become the issue it is, then 'WHM refuses to heal with Lilies, because it's a DPS loss now' is going to be even more of an annoyance I'd expect

All this, to dance around the more simple/elegant (imo) solution: simple CDs. You can gate them with CD timers, with proc requirements, or with various costs eg using Gauges. Delaying a skill for better fight alignment (eg mobility) is easier, just don't use the skill/don't spend the proc for a GCD or two. Healing doesn't cause the TBN delay thing to be as prevalent, because it instead replaces a GCD. If you're going to be going Dia, Banish, Glare as your next 3 GCDs, it does not matter what point you put the Rapture. Glare is the GCD that gets dropped from the rotation, as the lowest potency. EG: If you put Rapture first, then you have RDB, and G is removed. If Rapture is 2nd (where Banish should be), you'd go DRB, moving Banish backwards by one GCD and removing the Glare to make room for it

Again, if SE decides they want to try and solve the issue with healers, by giving us 1-2-3 combos, I'll take it. But I would expect that the forums will be ablaze with the same kind of threads far sooner with 1-2-3s, than they would with a more free-flow, 'you have more adaptability to the fight status' solution. I recommend people go to Bozja, throw on Lost Banish and another Lost something GCD (Protect, idk, just something GCD, doesn't need to damage), and try this: Glare, Protect, Banish, as your simulated 1-2-3 combo, with maintaining Dia. See how fast you can 'master' it. Then, try: Banish once per 15s (use the instance timer to time it), Dia refresh when the DOT duration timer says 18, instead of 0, and fill with Glare when nothing else is up. While the second will feel a lot more 'complex' to get the hang of at first (because we're so used to what we currently have, mostly), I feel that it's that exact complexity that gives a suggestion like that more 'staying power' as a change compared to the simple 1-2-3. That if you learn how to do the 1-2-3 without messing it up super fast, then it's going to become rote memorization much sooner than the other potential solutions.

Damn this got long huh

[Shurrikhan]

If I was proposing this rotation for every healer - that every healer have a 1-2-3 - this critique would make sense.

The critique/suggestion (that you could just have a single button cycle through all three actions) is relevant from the moment you suggest it for even a single healer.

Unnecessary bloat doesn't stop being unnecessary bloat just because it's only attached to one job... It, to me, seems to add more significantly cost than benefit, and so I consider it a worse design.

Literally no suggestion is needed (depending on how we define need), but that's kind of irrelevant. Again, what is the issue with having one healer that works this way if there are three others that each work in different ones?

That's not the issue at hand. Iniqueness is fine. But uniqueness shouldn't come solely in the form of unnecessary bloating. Whatever additional cost the unique buttonflow and/or gameplay has, it should have commensurate advantage (such as through being more precisely or exploitably leverageable).

Advocating for one option to be unique only in that it is uniquely bad is not an argument for diversity. It doesn't matter if only one job is saddled with it; it's still worse than it could easily and should be.

A "1-2-3" combo is effectively a single action. Make it act as more (by letting it be more than just a rigid sequence) or skip the bloat, especially when it's on a healer of all things.

[Aravell]

I'm not inherently against a 1-2-3 if it's the only possible way we can get anything for the healers. But I'd rather look at 'literally any other solution' before resorting to 1-2-3 because I find that to be the most uncreative, and least 'design space opening' of the options.

It's not only lacking in creativity, it also doesn't actually solve the issue raised in this thread. You mentioned drift in your post, which may cause people to not use lilies if it costs them a cast of the 3rd step of their combo. But we could also look back on EW release when Misery was a damage loss, WHMs I met back then would barely heal, they relied entirely on Assize/Asylum/Lilybell because lilies were such a massive loss (losing 4 casts of 310 for a refund of 900, iirc).

Now, if a 1-2-3 combo gets implemented on a healer, it's reasonable to expect that they'd want to rebalance the damage output, they could do that by further reducing the potency of the DoT and adding it to the filler combo (or getting rid of the DoT entirely). This would end up hurting less experienced players who panic heal because every GCD not used on their filler combo will become even more damning to their damage output.

[Renathras]

Time and time again...

For what it's worth, it's less snark and more exasperation, going along with the "I genuinely don't get you guys". More an expression of what can probably best be described as "axiomatic disagreement". That is, disagreement on a bedrock position that neither side can likely change their position on, meaning any solution must simply accommodate both (like...the 4 Healers Model, for example...) since there really isn't very much a "compromise" position that can work when both sides really want the base thing in question.

Anyway, the rotation was more a thing I was thinking based on actually playing the game in content where the current healer rotations are most apparent vs the base rotations (level 60 and less) of other Jobs. So I thought it worth adding.

HOWEVER, I do agree that your thread was about your thread, and I don't want to hijack it. I was more just throwing the idea out there wondering if you could do anything with it or not. So I'll leave it at that.

.

Oh, but I will think about your final question. I think the abjectly most forgiving way to do it - like if we're talking "how could you make this as simple and forgiving as possible" would be having all GCD non-damage spells nourish the blood lily (damage neutral), allow up to 2 blood lilies to be stacked (no overcapping losses), remove Dia and fold its damage into Glare, and increase Misery's damage to compensate.

That would be the most forgiving, "baby's fullproof" design possible, I think. It's not an argument for more complexity, though, but more the endpoint of "what is the most forgiving thing possible", I think that would be it. The only way to get MORE forgiving from that point would be to remove the cap/limit on lilies entirely (no possible overcapping at all) or make damage automatic.

But that's not really helpful as anything other than a "what is the most forgiving design possible" endpoint.

.

EDIT:

Honestly? I'm not sure of any way that increasing complexity would make it more forgiving. DoTs are only more forgiving if they aren't allowed to lapse, meaning something that naturally refreshes DoTs is the only way to make them more forgiving than they are (e.g. "Glare adds 10 seconds to Dia on the target up to 60 seconds"), but that's (probably) a decrease in complexity, not an increase. Likewise making GCD heals damage neutral.

For what it's worth, though, I agreed with your thread in General about SCH's old abilities. I'm not sure that matters or not, but it's a thing. /shrug I don't think it's more forgiving, less complex, or more enjoyable personally, but I do think it's a good idea for those who would enjoy it. But I've been consistent on that point, haven't I?