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

[mallleable]

It would be hilarious if they made tank healing scale off tenacity.

[TheDustyOne]

Because 95% of players can't just casually do what the top 5% of players do. I promise you, if you make casual content require a lot more healing than it does now, you'll find out just how casual(bad if you like to use that term) most of the playerbase really is.

Doesn't even need to be a lot more, Barbariccia, Zeromus, and most of Anabaseios are good examples of a decent healing requirement in casual content. We also have the likes of Holminster and Bardams while leveling, and those two dungeons have a fair bit of bite to them to make healers feel important. Bardams admittedly might be a bit too much, but it's still casual content that has bite to it. I'm of the opinion that every raid floor needs its own variant of Harrowing Hell (normal, not savage) for healers to have their moment of glory.

Also trust me, it only takes one semi-decent tank to make a healer unnecessary, any average tank can press Nascent or Clemency on a party member. A RDM for safety ensures that a healer isn't needed. This isn't some giga-brain thing that only some small percentage of people can do.

Part of the problem of course is that jobs like Warrior have far too much sustain and healing utility. Again, why bring a healer when you could just take another Warrior and still have enough healing power to get through the dungeon? Why take a WHM when you could take a RDM or SMN if someone steps in the orange and dies? The healing requirements are low enough that the sheer power that healers bring isn't actually needed. The only reason they're taken is because DF nicely asks us to.

Stormblood I feel got that balance right, casual content had just enough bite to feel needed but not be overwhelming (except Bardams, I still refuse to wall that first pull unless I know the healer), while also not being completely dull when healing wasn't needed. Shadowbringers started off strong with Holminster and that one pull on Mt Gulg, but didn't live up to that over time, so we got overbloated healing kits and our DPS skills dumpstered for nothing.

I miss SB Scholar.

[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%.

[TheDustyOne]

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.

This is giving very "you asked for more overtime, why are you asking for more money? Your reward was more work" energy right here.

10% of a single healers damage is negligible in regards to an enrage where there's 8 people involved. One healer who messes up their rotation and does 10% less than an optimized healer is very unlikely to be the reason for not making it past enrage. Beating enrage rarely requires optimizing the hell out of your kit, there's a lot of leeway between clearing and optimizing. 10% of a healers DPS is about 500 DPS, 10% of a DPS' DPS is well over 1000 DPS.

Say DPS' DPS 5 times really fast.

People like feeling rewarded for putting in the effort. It's why Savage has gear as that carrot on a stick, it's why people optimize their job beyond what the game asks of them so they have reason to keep playing long after they've cleared Savage and Ultimate, it's why people go to great lengths to advance their career, it's why people work overtime. If there's no incentive to putting in the effort to use your entire DPS kit, then why bother putting those options on your hotbar?

You asked what makes meaningful gameplay decisions over in the healer forums, well here it is; the consequence of using your DPS kit well is more DPS, the consequence of using your DPS kit poorly is less DPS. It's really that simple, and by saying that the guy using it poorly should have the same outcome as the guy using it well is telling the guy doing well that he was a sucker for putting in effort.

A 10% difference between an average player who can clear extremes and someone who goes to great lengths to optimize is a very fair reward. They don't NEED that extra 10%, but that's their reward for that effort. A 20% difference between someone who plays casually and someone who optimizes is also more than fair because that casual player doesn't typically know or care about optimizing, they just want to clear the content that they queued for. If they were that concerned about their performance, they'd read their tooltips and work out how to play it as well.

[Aravell]

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.

Are you aware that the current difference between a grey WHM and an optimal WHM is about 65%? And you're saying 10% is too much? I don't understand what you want, you're impossible to communicate with. I make a point and you argue a different point and then try to gaslight me into thinking I'm wrong. I give up trying to get you to understand, either you do or you don't.

[Renathras]

This is giving very "you asked for more overtime, why are you asking for more money? Your reward was more work" energy right here.

Yes but no.

People have said they're asking for more DPS buttons to "not be bored" not "to do more damage than other players".

It's like an older person who retired, is bored being retired, and so starts a business that they're actually losing money on but it makes them happy since they aren't bored anymore.

When people ask for overtime, it's because they need more money, not because they're bored (generally).

So are you asking for more DPS buttons because you're bored, or because you want to show people up with more DPS than them?

.

What I'm seeing is "it's negligible, so it shouldn't matter to you that you won't be doing it" to which case my response is still valid as "if it's so negligible, then you shouldn't care that I'm NOT doing that much less than you".

.

Yes, people like feeling rewarded for putting in effort. So you're saying if I put in my effort to healing, I get punished. So we agree that's bad because I'm being punished for putting in effort. " the consequence of using your DPS kit well is more DPS, the consequence of using your DPS kit poorly is less DPS" which shouldn't be part of the calculus for a NON-DPS role. Or, at least, not all members OF IT.

You want to optimize DPS.

That's great.

We have Jobs for that.

They're DPS Jobs.

Those already exist.

You can play any of those, any time you want, right now.

You have 11 options of Jobs to play in this game where you can optimize DPS ability use and are rewarded with more DPS for doing so over your lesser peers who aren't optimizing their DPS abilities.

I and others are willing for SOME of the healers to be like that, too, so all of you who want to play healer but also to optimize DPS get to do that.

But WE (some of us) do NOT enjoy that. So having a healer Job or two that does NOT do that (note the current status quo is that NONE of them really do), is not a tall ask.

I'm reminded of a quote from Raven in Teen Titans to Beast Boy, trying to convince her to eat tofu burgers:

"I respect, that you don't eat meat. Please respect, that I don't eat fake meat."

I and those like me respect that you want to play a healer but also optimize DPS.

Please respect that we do not.

And the answer isn't "Well, here's a proposal. You can still play healer (how kind), you just will be super suboptimal and a bad player, but hey, you can still clear the content after a few months when you over gear it, and you can play just casual content just fine, you'll just be super slow getting through fights and be a bad player. How does that sound? You get to be a bad player, but still do stuff where it doesn't matter. And maybe some of it while it matters, but only after your betters are done with it. Doesn't that sound great?"

No...no, that does not sound great.

I like to optimize healing. That's not "lazy", or "bad". And right now, it's not bad play on healers to optimize healing and NOT have a complex DPS rotation. What you want is for "good play" to be optimizing DPS. And I'm even more than willing for you to have some options that do that while also being healers - to share the role. So the reverse is not asking for much.

Are you aware that the current difference between a grey WHM and an optimal WHM is about 65%?

Goalpost move, that's a different question.

Your argument is to up the skill ceiling and then have people continuing as they are now do less damage.

That's a different argument than what people are doing with the existing kits as they are.

I'm not impossible to communicate with, and I'm not gaslighting you "into thinking you're wrong". I think we're approaching things from different angles, and you have a bad habit of always assuming the worst of me - that I'm trying to gaslight you or trick you - when I'm not. That bad assumption leads you to misunderstanding me, and then you blame me for the misunderstanding rather than your negative assumptions.

If you don't understand something, do what I do, ask questions. When I give answers, say "From what I'm reading, I think you're saying X. Is that correct?". If I say it's not and attempt to clarify - which is pretty much something I always do; if someone seems to have something wrong, I absolutely attempt to explain it in a different way - then same thing in iteration "Okay, so you didn't mean X. Okay, from what I'm reading...I think you're saying Y. Is that right?", and so on, until we nail it down.

Like what I did before when you said something, I responded, you said that wasn't what you meant, I then asked "Okay, here's why I thought you meant that. Since that's not what you meant though, what did you mean? Here are a few questions for me to ask that maybe your answers will help me understand."

Yes, you don't understand, despite me trying to be clear and being consistent; so ask questions and I'll try different explanations until we find one that makes sense and is understandable. Clearly I'm not impossible to communicate with, since we're communicating now. Just ask questions if you don't understand. Maybe that's the problem? So let's try that.

Ask me your questions.

[Sebazy]

I've always felt mastery of healers should be based on mastering HEALING instead of mastering a damage rotation. <...> 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.

Many people also struggle to maintain a 50% GCD uptime in mainstream content like alliance raids. The cold hard truth is that it's not so much that meeting baseline healing requirements is challenging (because until you get to Savage it generally isn't), but rather I'd be willing to bet they were over thinking what button to press or even simply where that button was on their keyboard. Assuming this isn't some wild situation where they were trying healing for the first time in an Extreme or Savage, I bet that as long as they had have pressed *something* that consisted of just about any GCD heal with the right target selected, they would have scraped through. There's a reason why you see so many nervous WHM's rolling Medica II after all. The mastery element comes when you start min maxing your GCDs into more glares.

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?

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying that doesn't solve the problem here and instead it just creates new problems.

Look at it this way. If Yoshida spots your post and decides that yes, increasing healing requirements is the answer, do you think that he is going to move the needle enough in an alliance raid to the point that I'm not going to be practically eating the corner of my desk in boredom and frustration?

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?[/QUOTE]

Because 2) isn't actually strictly true. Whilst yes, our DPS kits are about as simplistic as they've ever been. We're also spending more GCDs than ever before on DPS even in Savage. Until we get the day where SE actually openly and honestly tell us what their aims are with healers, we're honestly in the dark as to what they expect out of us. Frankly, I think they themselves are in the dark too, let's not forget Yoshida's test group healer getting 'retired' because they got 'too good'. If they don't want us DPSing, they are doing an absolutely horrible job of it. If they want us DPSing but want it to be as mind numbingly boring and RSI inducing as possible then I guess they are at least succeeding at that. Fun fact, even the RGB LEDs for my glare key (6) are failing at this point.

Besides, as I've said many times, I don't even think it needs to be extra buttons if SE do it right. I've championed and flown the flag for more buffing, more debuffing, procs etcetc. We don't need a full fat DPS kit, we just need *something* worthwhile to hold our attention for those inevitable times when there's nothing to heal.

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?

As much as it's vilified, Cleric Stance was satisfying. Old AST cards were satisfying (To me at least), Old AST mechanics involving stacking and extending multiple buffs and such all at once were ultra satisfying. Wringing out obscene amounts of HPS potency from Eos so I could spend more time DPSing was satisfying. Being able to impactfully help my teammates with simple things like cleansing pacification was satisfying. Virus chains were satisfying. Crowd controlling packs was satisfying. It's sad that all these neat facets of healer gameplay are consigned to the bin.

As for complaining about it after 3 weeks, people were overall decently happy for some 4 years no?

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 SCH 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?

If this were true then why didn't this happen over the course of ARR/HW? The answer is that DPSing as a healer wasn't boring, quite the opposite in fact.

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?

Eh, I'm redundant queueing alliance raids solo as a DNC much of the time, doesn't make it boring though. As for No healer clears, that's an entirely different problem and as such, needs a differently solution if it's to be tackled at all. My personal opinion is that if healers weren't already up in arms, I honestly suspect it wouldn't be nearly as big a deal.

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.

.... Are you actually for real with this nonsense?

I'm going to be brutally honest here with you. This paragraph is a perfect example of why you treated the way you are, there's just no nicer way to put it. Sorry.

It makes some people who are bored a bit less bored

First up, lets downplay the actual intention and goal of this. Perfect

but they're going to get bored again with it soon enough

Next, lets pull a completely baseless assumption out of the Ren crystal ball of destiny despite the fact that we have actual prior evidence of sweaty DPS hungry healer chads being generally content through the first 4 or so years of the game.

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

Stretch Armstrong would be proud of this one sir. Remember what I said about trying to project your own personal opinions as if they were the voice of the majority? You're doing it right here. Remember that it wasn't Endwalker that fixed DPS anxiety with it's great pruning, it was Stormblood with the removal of OG Cleric Stance.

...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"?

Yes, I fully understand what you're saying, enough so to realise that it's complete tripe.

You're trying to discredit one solution for one problem because it doesn't address a different issue. Guys lets give up on free clean energy for all because it doesn't solve world hunger! (yes that's hyperbole, but that's the best analogy you're getting out of me at this hour).

You're pulling conjecture out of thin air even when it goes against historic fact, you're projecting your personal feelings onto 'the silent majority' and you're deliberately downplaying one side of the coin whilst trying to emphasise the other by way of clutching the kittens when the reality is that the flip side solution has been shown to be factually worse in the past.

[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?]

Different problem, needs a different solution. Savage progression absolutely isn't boring/braindead unless we're talking Alte Roite here. There's defo a case for it getting boring once it's on farm if you're not a spreadsheet enjoyer for sure, but again, trying to forcibly solve everything and the kitchen sink in one swoop is just making things deliberately obtuse. Savage is far easier to course correct with content adjustments because healers go into expecting the pain (And are generally disappointed if said pain doesn't turn up). History has shown us that they don't appreciate that in casual grind content, we saw it loud and clear throughout Stormblood's alliance raids especially.

Oh and since I fancy a chuckle after having to type all the above drivel:

Are you aware that the current difference between a grey WHM and an optimal WHM is about 65%? And you're saying 10% is too much? I don't understand what you want, you're impossible to communicate with. I make a point and you argue a different point and then try to gaslight me into thinking I'm wrong. I give up trying to get you to understand, either you do or you don't.

100% agree

[ForsakenRoe]

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?

Emphasis mine, because I think you once again missed the memo on stuff. I've given you the numbers for CDs of things in this thread, so I don't need to even give you the benefit of the doubt on 'well maybe he doesn't remember', lucky me. Today, in current game, optimal damage for a WHM is 24 GCDs a minute (assuming 2.50 GCD). Of those 24, 3 are Lily spends, 1 is Misery, 2 are Dia, leaving 18 'dead GCDs' to fill with Glare. Now for my idea, you have 3 Lily spends, 1 Misery, 1 Blessing of the Elementals (since you generate about 60 gauge per minute with full uptime), 1 Quake, 1 Flood, 1 Tornado, 5 Dia, 4 Banish, leaving just 7 'dead GCDs' to fill with Glare. The Glare-per-minute percentage would go from 75% to around 30%. And if you want to be technical and say 'well Quake is the same hotkey as Glare so that should be counted too', then it's exactly 1/3 of the casts that are 'the Glare button'.

Here, once again I'll link some pie charts to illustrate the difference it'd have, because 'a picture speaks a thousand words', or so they say. On the left, current game. On the right, my proposed version:



IDK how long exactly the 'new car smell' would last, it'd be different for each person. I'm pretty sure it'd last longer than something like 'you now have to have 50% upkeep on the Medica2 HOT to deal with the raid-rot that SE introduced to 'increase healing requirements'' though

And wtf do you mean 'no control over the gauge'? The whole POINT is that it gives you control on when you use it to heal, optimizing would be 'if you don't need the heal, you can use it to get the refund into burst window', but if you DO need the heal, optimizing would be 'use the heal to heal', like come on that's just common sense. If you mean 'you have no control over the gauge build speed', that's also not true. You could build it slower by playing the way you want to, purposely ignoring the new CD because you don't like change, or you could build it much faster by using GCD heals. Medica2 would give 15 over it's full duration, compared to Banish's 5 or Glare's 1. Think I had Cure3 at 15 or 20, and Regen/Cure2 at 10 as well. SE could also add a CD or a trait to Thin Air or something, that instantly grants X gauge, if they so chose. It's crazy how much design space would open up from the addition of a simple 0-100 gauge on the class

[Aravell]

Ask me your questions.

Ok then, I'll bite.

1) Why do you care about the peak of optimisation if you don't plan on engaging with it?
2) Why does losing damage hurt you so much if you yourself said you don't care about your parse?
3) Why exactly do you think people who are performing at 70-90% will suddenly be considered bad players?
4) Why are you so adamant that people should not be able to outperform others with more effort?

[Sebazy]

5) Why are you saying you'd quit P8S over more damage complexity when you seemingly never attempted it in the first place?

Yes I am cranky, it's late and I'm going to sleep.