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

[IDontPetLalas]

Change happens, yes sometimes it may not work out due to someone's perception as being "for the better" , the scope of those changes may be small or large - but it will happen at some point , jobs are not static . It is a fact of life, just as resistance to change is a real thing that factors into product management . This is something that Square should already be aware of (change management is not a new concept by any means), they already have Live Letters and other forums - they don't just throw job changes into an expansion and say "have at it", which would understandably get some people upset at dealing with unexpected changes. ( whether they do enough beforehand is a valid question)

[Renathras]

Does it not stand to reason that...

If the previous incarnation was bad, only people who surgically attached rose tinted goggles to their eyes would ask that. Think about it, if we took WHM back to SB but kept the modern better things it has, Lily, Temperance, and Lilybell, it basically would be EW WHM with Aero 3. That's it. The Lily change for WHM was huge and was what effectively redeemed/fixed/saved the Job, Temperance is what Divine Seal would upgrade to, and if you aren't re-instituting SB's Lily system, then you get current WHM's Benison and etc that used to interact with it instead. That is, if we're NOT restoring their SB interactions, we're just left with the EW versions anyway.

"SB WHM but with all the better things from EW" is just EW WHM with Aero 3.

I also doubt there would be a "large outcry" at that point; people that wanted more complex healer damage gameplay would be all over SCH (and AST if they preferred the cards) like butter on toast, and the people uninterested in that would be on WHM and to a lesser extent SGE. For all the people insisting all the healer Jobs would have to be changed for them to be satisfied, it's very likely the ones who super want a more DPS focused healer would stay with WHM complaining the whole time instead of just shifting to SCH and having a blast with the very thing they constantly say they want. The only people refusing at that point would be die-hard aesthetics lovers (in which case they kinda made their choice) or people willfully spiting themselves.

I'm CERTAIN there would be people complaining - because there are literally always people complaining - but you'd get people complaining if you did it, too. "Why do I have to track a second DoT now?" "Why do I have to use what's obviously an AOE ability in single target?" (It's kind of funny to me ASkellington below you made that comment considering when I suggested making Holy part of the single-target rotation, he opposed it as "No, that's for AOE", yet wants an AOE ability that would be part of the single target rotation, Aero 3, readded. How weird's that?)

For the record, btw, I'm fine with re-adding Aero 3, though I think something needs to be pruned to free up space for it. The Cure 1/Esuna combination would work fine as part of that. The GCD neutral Afflatus thing under assault would be a second, but if done would tidy things up nicely. That'd be fine with me.

I would wager...

As noted above: I remember a week or so ago when I suggested adding Holy to the single-target rotation and you insisted against it, pointing out Holy is an AOE ability and is for AOE, and how you dislike that Misery, an AOE ability, is used in single-target rotations.

...Aero 3 is AOE. To show consistency with your stated viewpoint, shouldn't you be arguing against it's addition OR insisting it be a DPS loss over Glare so that it won't be used in single-target, considering you dislike Misery being part of the single-target rotation and oppose Holy being part of it? I'm not asking this as a gotcha, more just noting an inconsistency.

I also find it odd how anyone would see Aero 3 and go "man, that's some depth right there!"

Change happens...

While SOMETHING changing is inevitable, SPECIFIC changes are not. For example, it's inevitable that the healers will get new abilities - either fully separate and new things, or upgrades changing the functionality of existing things. But specific changes like more damage buttons are not. Something being inevitable - e.g. us all aging - does not mean other specific things are inevitable - e.g. all of us coming down with the exact same ailment or metabolic crash and weight problems, etc. There are things that are inevitable, but many that are not, and while the general category of "change" is inevitable, specific changes are not.

This is why literally no one is asking for Jobs to not have any changes at all. The arguments are more nuanced and specific than that (and generally specific to damage actions).

Moreover, as we learned with SMN (for those that liked the old version), SAM (for those that liked Kaiten), and some others depending on who you ask (PLD, WAR, DRK, BRD, MCH, MNK, NIN, and AST multiple times and SCH in 5.0 come to mind, offhand), change can very often NOT be good, with people after the fact demanding it be reverted rather than embracing it, and the situation being worse than it was before, not better, to the point of players rejecting the changes, sometimes the Jobs, sometimes the role entirely, and occasionally the game.

Besides, one could point out here - and thus I shall - that one form of change management is to offer some changes but keep some things "comfy" the same. This way, you expand your product/consumer base with new and exciting things for the people that love and embrace change in all its forms while having a comfy safe haven for those that do not. That is, in fact, one of the best methods of change management; not alienating your existing base of customers while expanding to a wider new base or better serving the needs of some of the existing base that wasn't satisfied with the status quo.

Going to offer "New Coke"? If you don't want to be forced into reverting to "Coke-a-cola Classic", the better option is to offer a new product on the side. If it's embraced, you make the new line permanent, if it's not, you end it. But by doing a parallel line, you don't alienate the customers you had before, some of which do not return.

Heck, you know this - this same argument is used by people that oppose the 5.0 change to healers all the time. Back then, if they'd only changed WHM and left SCH and AST alone, people would generally have been happier.

It's yet another reason the 4 Healers Model is such a good idea.

EDIT:

Don't want to burn another post just to say this:

@Renathras, when you wonder why people refuse to engage with you, and why terms like "condescending" have been used fairly recently, I'll cite this as an example:

" While SOMETHING changing is inevitable, SPECIFIC changes are not. This is why literally no one is asking for Jobs to not have any changes at all. The arguments are more nuanced and specific than that (and generally specific to damage actions)."

I would agree that not all change is seen by positive, that isn't exactly news to most people, that should not and typically must not stop future development changes- instead a successful team learns and adapts.

That wasn't "condescending". (Not to mention I've been hit with far more and blatant condescension than that, and people like you have not spoken against the people using it...)

Hell, it's condescending of you to suggest that I'm not aware change is generally inevitable in the first place.

.

TOO often, people use the claim that change is inevitable to justify changes they want, even if those changes may be negative. This is why it's always worth pointing out that while change itself is inevitable, specific changes are not. Yes, it should be obvious. But it's to counter an illogical argument. I think it's the fallacy of generalization, but I'm not certain. "Since change is inevitable, you can't rightly argue against this particular change".

Pointing out that change - in general - being inevitable is not the same thing as the specific change being requested being inevitable is not condescension. It's countering an argument with an argument. The only way it could be condescending is if the initial argument - yours - was condescending in the first place.

[IDontPetLalas]

@Renathras, when you wonder why people refuse to engage with you, and why terms like "condescending" have been used fairly recently, I'll cite this as an example:

" While SOMETHING changing is inevitable, SPECIFIC changes are not. This is why literally no one is asking for Jobs to not have any changes at all. The arguments are more nuanced and specific than that (and generally specific to damage actions)."

I would agree that not all change is seen by positive, that isn't exactly news to most people, that should not and typically must not stop future development changes- instead a successful team learns and adapts.

[ForsakenRoe]

"SB WHM but with all the better things from EW" is just EW WHM with Aero 3.

(It's kind of funny to me ASkellington below you made that comment considering when I suggested making Holy part of the single-target rotation, he opposed it as "No, that's for AOE", yet wants an AOE ability that would be part of the single target rotation, Aero 3, readded. How weird's that?)

For the record, btw, I'm fine with re-adding Aero 3

- So the sum of the changes is 'readd Aero3 as either an AOE 24s DOT, or a 24s burst CD ala Phlegma (probably the former is better, to differentiate the two skills)', and everything else is just 'what we have now'? SO I'm not really sure why the suggestion of 'leave WHM alone' was made, when it's literally just one change between what others said, and what you said.

- Aero 3 is one of those skills that was designed to be used for both ST and AOE. It's potency was high enough that you'd use it in ST as well. Holy has never had potency remotely close to being able to use it in ST, and at this point, even a proc that says 'next Holy does double damage' is not enough (150x2 is not greater than 310 from Glare). Retrofitting it to be 'better than Glare in certain conditions for ST' seems like more effort than just not, and having another button for the purpose instead. Or changing Holy into a new skill ala Inner Chaos/Fell Cleave, maybe.

- So you're okay with adding a 24s DOT back to the job that does (as of SB's potencies from wikis) 150ish% of the damage of a Glare over it's duration, but not, for example, a 15s burst damage button that does 110% of Glare, and has interactivity with other parts of the job? I thought you were against DOTs, and against 'adding more keybinds', but this would do both, all while having less interplay with other parts of the kit, instead being just 'a random standalone button'. ????

instead a successful team learns and adapts.

Wish they'd adapt to the fact that the biggest hype WHM gets in job action trailers is for the new ranks of Stone/Glare, Misery's reveal, and I remember a lot of people getting very giddy about Purgation (though it turned out to be PVP). Additionally, the amount of attacks SGE threw out in the EW actions trailer (all of them lol) compared to SCH, in conjunction with the Expedience fiasco, had plenty of people on Reddit claiming SCH was going to be DOA, and that SGE looks like the hype cool 'Disc Priest Damage healer the game needs' etc., because it used Dosis, E.Dosis, Phlegma, Dyskrasia, Toxikon AND Pnuema. And an Icarus for good measure.

There's a consistent pattern of people getting very excited about any new 'do big damage' buttons. And it's kinda odd to me that SE keeps avoiding adding new ones. I invite anyone to go back and watch WHM sections of those job action trailers. Can you tell if they're casting Cure 1 or Cure 2 in the demo? Me either. Because most healing actions look very similar to one another, they all blend together. If SE randomly swapped the animations on Medica 1 and Medica 2 one day without telling anyone, how many people would even notice?

[ty_taurus]

Holy has never had potency remotely close to being able to use it in ST

You know, it's funny you should say that...



This was from ARR White Mage, not that this invalidates anything you're saying of course, I just think it's really interesting and kinda funny. Not that using Holy for single target DPS was a great idea generally because Holy's MP cost was very unsustainable. Which for the record, does anyone remember that Shroud of Saints, White Mage's original Lucid Dreaming, had a 3 minute cooldown and lasted only 15 seconds instead of 21? The MP refresh potency was higher at 80 compared to Lucid Dreaming's 55, but the fact that it had a 3 minute cooldown blows my mind. Especially when you look at Scholar who's Aetherflow was still 60 seconds, restored their MP by a flat 20%, and they still had Energy Drain, which was 150 potency compared to Ruin's 80, and therefore better to use for damage and heal with Adloquium/Succor rather than heal with Lustrate or block with Sacred Soil.

[Silver-Strider]

You know, it's funny you should say that...



This was from ARR White Mage, not that this invalidates anything you're saying of course, I just think it's really interesting and kinda funny. Not that using Holy for single target DPS was a great idea generally because Holy's MP cost was very unsustainable. Which for the record, does anyone remember that Shroud of Saints, White Mage's original Lucid Dreaming, had a 3 minute cooldown and lasted only 15 seconds instead of 21? The MP refresh potency was higher at 80 compared to Lucid Dreaming's 55, but the fact that it had a 3 minute cooldown blows my mind. Especially when you look at Scholar who's Aetherflow was still 60 seconds, restored their MP by a flat 20%, and they still had Energy Drain, which was 150 potency compared to Ruin's 80, and therefore better to use for damage and heal with Adloquium/Succor rather than heal with Lustrate or block with Sacred Soil.

The pain of Coils as a WHM, STARVING for MP because of Lucid's ridiculous CD.

I miss those days lol

[Renathras]

- So the sum of the changes is 'readd Aero3 as either an AOE 24s DOT, or a 24s burst CD ala Phlegma (probably the former is better, to differentiate the two skills)', and everything else is just 'what we have now'? SO I'm not really sure why the suggestion of 'leave WHM alone' was made, when it's literally just one change between what others said, and what you said.

"leave one alone" in this case meant "don't make WHM its SB form". That is, that horribad lily system that SB had which was hot garbage.

- Aero 3 is one of those skills that was designed to be used for both ST and AOE. It's potency was high enough that you'd use it in ST as well. Holy has never had potency remotely close to being able to use it in ST,

And that's completely irrelevant when pointing out the user in question is on the record saying he didn't want AOE abilities to be used in the single-target rotation. He describe Misery as a necessary evil but that he disliked being in the single-target rotation as well. Anyway, it's neither here nor there, I just always think it's interesting when people change their position based on who they're arguing against or what they're arguing for.

[EDIT: For my part, I find it a good design since you have less "dead" buttons that you only use in dungeon trash by allowing them to be used as part of the single-target rotation, thus making less wasted hotbar bloat spots. Aero 3 and Misery working in both is a far better design decision. :EDIT]

- So you're okay with adding a 24s DOT back to the job...

I don't like it, no. But I'm okay with it. I think there are better things to do instead, but it would shut up the people constantly asking for Aero 3 back, so that would already be a positive. And I don't mean that to be snarky, it's just there are so many things people complain about all the time through rose tinted goggles, if all it takes is that to make them content, then I'd take it as an acceptable loss. I still absolutely hate DoTs and will NEVER understand the love affair some people have with them. I'd rather basically anything else, even a 1-2-3 rotation over DoTs. But apparently, THAT'S unacceptable for some reason. So Aero 3 it is, eff it.

...don't look this gifthorse in the mouth.

When I oppose something, you hammer me over it, and when I support something out of exasperation, you hammer me over it, too. Keep doing that long enough and it might get people to thinking you just want to be a contrarian.

You know, it's funny you should say that...

History is a funny thing...

[ty_taurus]

I don't like it, no. But I'm okay with it. I think there are better things to do instead, but it would shut up the people constantly asking for Aero 3 back, so that would already be a positive. And I don't mean that to be snarky, it's just there are so many things people complain about all the time through rose tinted goggles, if all it takes is that to make them content, then I'd take it as an acceptable loss. I still absolutely hate DoTs and will NEVER understand the love affair some people have with them. I'd rather basically anything else, even a 1-2-3 rotation over DoTs. But apparently, THAT'S unacceptable for some reason. So Aero 3 it is, eff it.

Okay, so here's something I genuinely do not understand that I hope someone can explain to me.

I am all about wanting a more varied, yet still modest, selection of offensive spells on healers. I also feel that there was no reason to axe Aero 3 with no compensation, and that the loss of Aero 3 does feel like there is something of a hole in White Mage gameplay; however, why do we collectively continue to talk about returning Aero 3 as if that's the only additional attack spell that could ever possibly fill that gap in White Mage's gameplay? Like, something I would've liked to have seen naturally happen with White Mage and Astrologian, had I not known about the anti-DPS crusade Shadowbringers would've reaped, would've been to see DoTs replaced with something that has a little more personality--something unique for each other healer.

I mean I still don't mind White Mage having 1 DoT to foil against Black Mage's thunder, but I don't think Aero 3 needs to be a 24 second DoT, or even a DoT at all. We can always talk about something else to fill that space instead of just returning Aero 3 as it was.

[ASkellington]

As noted above: I remember a week or so ago when I suggested adding Holy to the single-target rotation and you insisted against it, pointing out Holy is an AOE ability and is for AOE, and how you dislike that Misery, an AOE ability, is used in single-target rotations.

...Aero 3 is AOE. To show consistency with your stated viewpoint, shouldn't you be arguing against it's addition OR insisting it be a DPS loss over Glare so that it won't be used in single-target, considering you dislike Misery being part of the single-target rotation and oppose Holy being part of it? I'm not asking this as a gotcha, more just noting an inconsistency.

I also find it odd how anyone would see Aero 3 and go "man, that's some depth right there!"

Thank you for once again putting words in my mouth.

At what point did I ever say that it was a DPS loss? Last I checked I agreed that for your idea to work Holy had to have a boost as you made it so it WOULDN'T be a loss?

Also I did say that I had preferred Misery to take Holy's place in your rotation specifically because it was more of a single target button than Holy ever was unless you also want to change Holy to be 50% less damage to anything other than the target (assuming you are still making Holy be ranged)?

Aero 3 does not have to come back as an AOE. It can literally be another DoT on a shorter CD and I would be fine with it. If it comes back as an AOE I don't think I'd like it other than it gives WHM another AOE attack (which I would argue all healers should get anyway) but its whatever. As was your rotation.

Would I rather have Aero 3 or your rotation? Probably Aero 3 because at least I have another DoT to juggle regardless of whether or not it is AOE. Would I rather have your idea of Dia proccing say a Misery or Assize/other DPS button over Aero 3? Also sure. And I said as much.

"Glare > Glare > Glare > buffed Holy" may fit the criteria of a simple rotation, but it isn't a welcomed one to me.

I see no reason for 3 single target presses to then ask for an AOE one just because you don't want to add in another button for a class that doesn't struggle with button bloat in comparison to its peers.

It doesn't feel right. It doesn't feel fun to play. You don't like that answer? Tough. Its the same answer I gave to Ty when he suggested cards on the GCD. Don't know why you want to fixate on that.

[Shurrikhan]

I see no reason for 3 single target presses to then ask for an AOE one just because you don't want to add in another button for a class that doesn't struggle with button bloat in comparison to its peers.

It doesn't feel right. It doesn't feel fun to play. You don't like that answer? Tough. Its the same answer I gave to Ty when he suggested cards on the GCD. Don't know why you want to fixate on that.

Misery is an AoE. Does that make it apropos to use in single-target rotation?

Every Summon nuke is AoE. Every Blitz is AoE. Verholy combo is AoE. Originally, SAM's CD nuke was an AoE. I don't get why it'd suddenly be wrong for WHM to have an AoE infrequently included within their ST rotation...

Cards on the GCD at least would least affect other systems and playflow. That we don't have separate buttons for the ST version vs. an AoE-with-falloff doesn't seem nearly so big a deal. If anything, it sounds reminiscent of a better state of the game.

Personal preference and such, but I just don't see why specifically forbidding AoEs from having a place in ST rotation would be a helpful design principle.