How would you solve the boring "damage rotation" of the healers?

[Renathras]

...

I'm sorry, you mentioned people being up in arms, so I thought you were addressing the discussion in process, not making an unrelated topic post that wasn't connected to anything.

In any case, the point still stands:

If 10-20% of a healer's dps is negligible, WHY would it be "a suitable reward" for the "effort" put into "maximising the job"?

SPECIFICALLY, when the person having to use that greater "effort" was literally DEMANDING they be forced to expend more effort?

You can't demand more work and then demand to be rewarded for the very thing you demanded to be given. Your reward is the more work, not the more DPS, since more work is what you asked for. Directly.

Further: How is that "satisfying to master"? It's not "satisfying" to me. That's a subjective thing. So not only are you demanding a thing, you're also demanding others be punished for not doing it, demanding you be rewarded EVEN MORE (having more DPS buttons is already your reward and you're also asking for more output as an additional reward"), you are demanding this reward for a thing you demanded which, itself, is subjective and others might not find satisfying or enjoyable at all...for which you demand they be punished for.

And found it, got lost in the churn:

I'm talking about the job kit itself, not what we do with the kit...

Ah, I see. So it's not gameplay you were asking for. My mistake.

Playing healer back then was more active. Optimisation required active MP management, HP bar management, managing what little OGCDs you had, managing aggro and doing mechanics,

I'm fine with those things - and ask for them all the time. Those are the things I'm told we cannot do, even though...we very much could, because we have before. What's missing from that list is "more DPS actions/interactions". So we're not at odds over this issue, it's a thing I've been asking for as well; encounter and kit redesigns focused on MP and HP management, less powerful and less numerous oGCD "Free healing", etc. Setting aside Cleric Stance in SB was not a toggle but a DPS CD...

If SB SCH came back now, I would accept it, but I wouldn't enjoy it. It would be lacking MP management, area management (because Soil is the entire arena in size now) and fairy management, it would be a pale shadow of what I used to enjoy.

How...so? "SB SCH com(ing) back" would include the MP costs, area effect sizes, etc etc. All of that would be back. I'm not just saying abilities like slap Miasma 2 and Bane and call it a day. I mean the entire kit and its attendant mechanics, which would include MP costs and so on.

Game systems are not something you can change, so I'm not interested in your pitch, that's all.

I mean...they have been before. That's how we got to where we are now. Clearly, they can be changed. Which also means they can be changed BACK.

There have been criticisms of the lily system. One is that Misery is learned way too late...

Yeah, but that's not a criticism of Misery ITSELF, just when you get it.

The common suggestion is for WHM to get Solace and a lower-level something that is a low level Misery and upgrades to Misery later on. And technically, burning Lilies in those ways isn't a waste. Lilies as they are now are an MP gain over Glare, a DPS gain (if the Misery gained is used under burst windows) over Glare, and can be used as movement tools in addition to healing in a totally-not-time-mage way to stock damage for later. Those aren't bad habits or unhealthy uses. That's like saying using Assize on CD is unhealthy because someone could save it for 30 seconds, losing a use over the encounter, to use it for healing to save a Rapture later.

Wasn't Six-Sided Star introduced in ShB to dispell Greased Lightning but do damage and used before extended stuff (like phase transitions) where MNK would lose Greased Lightning anyway?

.

As to your second point: I think you assume something which leads to error.

You assume that people asking for more healing don't understand something. What if they understand it just fine, but it's what they want? That they don't want more DPS actions/rotational complexity, and would prefer (as I said before myself) no change to a change that is more DPS focused? That they would REALLY prefer more healing, but absent that, their second choice is no change, and more DPS is not only their last "choice" but is a net negative to them? You assume they don't understand, which means you likely think (?) that if they did understand, they'd change their mind and agree with you. But what if that's not true? What if they DO understand, and they just hate DPS rotations so much, they still disagree with you anyway? From a place of understanding, not a place of ignorance, that is.

And another piece is that you are (and it IS understandable, mind you) so concerned with addressing the needs of the dissatisfied, you lose sight of the needs of the satisfied. You genuinely think either it won't hurt anyone to get the changes that address your needs, or you don't care (I think you're a good person, so I'm assuming the former), despite people telling you it will harm them.

In fact, the only solution that DOES address both groups is mine, which is outright rejected.

I will note also that "modest selection" is in the eye of the beholder. Recall when you suggested healers have "the bare minimum", I pointed out they have more than the bare minimum, as there is an even more minimum that is sufficient to the need (being able to clear solo content). Those "few extra inches" of optimization...are also spoken of in terms of "it needs to be at least 10-20% better". That's hardly fair to the people not doing so and not asking for changes.

I've always felt mastery of healers should be based on mastering HEALING instead of mastering a damage rotation. I'm not sure why this is a controversial concept. Easy to learn (Cure 2/Medica spam), difficult to master (slidecasting, optimal ability choices, GCD and oGCD, based on situation, adapting to the needs/mistakes of the party on the fly, etc). Those are not simple things and not things that everyone can do. Many people that play this game will tell you they tried healing and it was HARD, so they went back to DPS or even tanking and that they respect healer players. That means there's already an element of mastery.

The thing is, you're asking people to master something else, and specifically, something they personally do not enjoy, when they play a role explicitly because they do not enjoy the thing you're asking them to master. I'll spare you the analogies (e.g. sports vs video games or police vs being a fireman), but the point is, healing already is "easy to learn, difficult (for many people) to master", and that's where the skill ceiling is. The problem is, people who have been doing it for a while have been riding that skill ceiling to the point that it's boring to them.

But to many others, it is not. So what solution satisfies BOTH groups?

The "more DPS actions for all healers" does not.

So what does instead?

something along those lines. I just think it's beyond stupid that scholar has an introductory cutscene saying that not only is there a difference between eos and selene, but selene exists. It wasn't even removed for anything, just randomly in the middle of the expansion for no reason. Again it's the issue of SE seemingly being unable to bother giving something a rework and instead the bathwater out with the baby.

Honestly, I think they considered doing it at the start of an expansion but felt it would be too much change and upset people and they could be "gentler" and do it later. Eos/Selene were already just a reskin at that point. But they really should go back to those quests (though AST is in far worse shape...) and at least have the decency to retcon.

...

Give me a bit and I might try replying to this later...actually, why not? I'll go ahead:

For the record, the conflict is " But tell me, how does that work in solo duties? How does that work in more casual endgame content like the current Alliance raids? How does that work in intermissions in high end content? How does that work in puzzles such as Rubicant? How does that work when I'm duoing maps with a friend?" When you say "Yes, you can do a thing...but it doesn't work in any/all areas of the game", well then, you're effectively saying you CAN'T do that thing. "You can't do it in soloing, or casual endgame or intermissions or puzzles or maps", well then, what CAN you do it in? If the answer is "nothing", then...how is that different than saying you can't do it?

This is a tangent.

You guys are hanging on the word "impossible", if you prefer, I will change my post to "people have said we can't do it". Or what word would you prefer and not hang on to rebut? "impossible"? "can't do"? "won't work"? What specific word or phrase - that all mean effectively the same thing - that it is not a valid solution can I use such that we can talk about it not being a valid solution instead of talking about my word choice pointing out it's been said it isn't a valid solution?

Like the last quote "it is impossible and cannot be the solution to our problem". See the part in bold? That's the point. The "well akshually we haven't said it's impossible..." is utterly missing the point and an excuse to disagree. When someone says something, and it's clear what they're saying, trying to edge out a technicality is dirty pool. Clearly my point was understandable, was it not? That it has been said doing so is not a valid solution.

This is the sort of thing that just annoys the crap out of me because it's outright avoiding the point I'm making - even though the point is clear and obvious to everyone. If you disagree with the point being made, that's fine, disagree with THAT, not my word choice in getting there. Especially when you're even quoting where I use better word choice that makes the point clear and unambiguous.

It's just...EXTREMELY annoying. What it says to me, whether intended or not, is this:

"We don't care what argument your making and have so much disrespect for you as a Human being instead of answering the point raised, we're going to attack you for a word choice for literal pages of thread."

...that sort of thing...yeah, I'm done with this tangent. But that's why I get mad when people do it. It's outright disrespectful and an attempt to belittle someone.

It's fair to say "Well, we didn't say it's impossible...but we are saying it's not a solution, yes. You are correct in that assessment.", but not to say "We didn't say it's impossible, and it's not impossible, hear that? Impossible is the wrong word. It's not at all impossible. We've said it's not impossible. Because it's not impossible. It's totally possibly not impossible. Impossible isn't even in the same ballpark of word for it. Also one of us said it's impossible but we're all now saying it's not impossible. Clearly it's not impossible. See how many of us are saying it's not impossible? You made that up saying we said it was impossible. Why would you do such a thing saying we said it's impossible when clearly we aren't and never have said it's impossible (except that one time but that doesn't matter), as it's clearly not impossible? Why are you using the word impossible? It's completely not impossible."

(Hyperbole, blah blah blah, I'm just deleting my sig at this point. YOU WIN! I'm giving up on bothering to encourage people to be decent people. Congratulations.)

Perhaps you can see the difference between those two and perhaps you cannot. But either way, moving on.

.

I also really don't understand this:

I'm not swinging my own opinion around, I'm gauging my thoughts based on SE's previous actions from back when we had a alliance boss that was a bonafide healer competency check.

...what I specifically don't understand is this:

1) The Devs have moved way from more healing requirements, so obviously they won't go back on that.
2) Despite the Devs having moved away - and made explicit statements this was intentional and that they will continue down this line of action - from more DPS actions on healers, they obviously will be willing to go back on that.

How does that make sense?

"The Devs moved away from X so you aren't getting X back."
"The Devs moved away from Y even more, so if we ask for Y back, surely they'll give it back."

I don't understand that logic.

If you genuinely think that this and my previous post are merely me heckling you...

...specific things you have said were heckling. When you aren't heckling, I'm replying to those things. So the things I'm replying to I don't consider efforts to insult or goad or heckle.

Again, let me spin this round back to you: How do you increase the healing requirements on a maps farm to the point where a couple of Chocobos can't do my job for me? How do you make that scale so that it is sufficient to keep a sweaty Entropy healer in BiS engaged whilst also being manageable by a fresh out of leveling rookie who's in dungeon gear and thinks that the current alliance raids are stressful?

Again, what would it take to make pure downtime satisfying? Let's say we don't change DPS requirements AT ALL. So you can still go through an entire 4 man dungeon only using 3-5 oGCD heals and no GCD heals at all. What WOULD it require for that person to be engaged? Roe's WHM proposal would keep them happy? Do you genuinely believe that? 1 extra GCD attack every 15 seconds and an occasional burst based on a gauge they have no control over because it's normalized to generate over time based on attacks, and you still are filling every dead GCD with Glare? Would that person be happy with that forever, or for about 3 weeks before they started complaining asking for more yet again?

It's easy to say "I'd be engaged" or "surely they'd be super engaged by it", but would they really? We're talking tryhards that think something like SMN and WAR are braindead. So how would they suddenly find a DPS rotation that is still designed to be less complex than either of those engaging instead of braindead? How long would the novelty last before they would find it just as boring and braindead as healers now and be demanding more, leaving us in this same problem a second time, only with a yet higher bar of "more DPS buttons/interactivity/rotational complexity" yet again?

And how does it address the basic problem of healers being bored because they feel redundant? How does it prevent a zero healer TOP clear? How does it prevent people making 1T+3DPS parties and clearing dungeons faster? The greater complexity presumably would still have healers doing less damage than a 3rd DPS, right? So if healing requirements haven't changed to require a healer - because that would be ...not IMPOSSIBLE but we're not doing that (we might raise healing some, but Tanks still won't need it and Curing Waltz/etc will still be more than enough to cover it)... so you still don't need healers for runs. So these healers are "more fun" (to the people that like DPSing on a healer), but their damage is still less than bringing another DPS and their healing is still not needed in encounters. How does that really fix anything?

I...I'm not asking this to be facetious, I genuinely don't see it as a solution that actually WORKS. It makes some people who are bored a bit less bored, but they're going to get bored again with it soon enough; the people that aren't bored will hate it and now feel like they're stuck in a game that has no place for them and doesn't need them; and encounters will still be more efficient to farm without healers and even Ultimates will still be getting cleared without healers. How is that a solution? I've called it a band-aid before, but it's barely even that, as the few people it DOES help it won't help for long since soon, they'll be bored again with the Tank/SMN level DPS rotation and be asking for more because that will still be boring for them in the end.

So in the end, it helps no one, hurts some people, and doesn't fix the underlying problems.

...hold off for a moment on disagreeing with me - I suspect you do - and answer this question instead: Can you at least understand what I'm saying here? Not the specific WORDS, I'm not asking about reading comprehension, I'm asking about understanding the concept of "This doesn't seem like a solution due to these reasons"?

It's why I oppose that as a solution - because I don't see it AS a solution.

It's why I suggest the 4 Healers Model, since I think it is. SB SCH might not be "not braindead" after 4 months, but perhaps "BLM SGE" would be. So the people who are happy with your proposal for mere weeks might, with mine, get over AST and SCH after a few weeks, but then they have SGE if they want more. It has that option banked in.

I wouldn't be so dogged with it if I didn't think it was a good idea that DOES address the problems we have, especially when holistically as part of an encounter and overall redesign.

[Also, I've seen people complain that healing even in difficult content like Savages is boring/braindead/they fall asleep...so I'm not sure casual content is the extent of "where the real issue with healer engagement is"? I think it's more where it's most prevalent seeing as that's the most grinded - weekly tomes and all that - content. Once you have a Savage on farm, you're spending less hours per week on it and you aren't spending days/weeks in roulettes grinding it mindlessly, so to speak. But it's still included in the problem, is it not?]

I have to agree that modifying encounter design risks alienating a portion of healers, even for casual content. While it's rare, roulettes show some players can barely handle normal difficulty. Then again how much of that is them focused on dps vs their job hmm? It's hard to pin down. Then the question becomes maybe that % of less skilled healers shouldn't play the role at all if dps is their priority..

But anyways imo the answer is still clear which is that for classes that the issue is more about how it feels to play ie the rotation itself is the problem. Healers just need some more creativity in the job identity department.

Agreed 100%.