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

[Renathras]

Even when polled with Tys survey...

It's not a lobotomy to leave something as it is. You can argue it's like installing a chip in 3 people's heads to make them smarter and leaving one dumb, but there are plenty of irl Humans that would rather not have the chip (in the somewhat near future, this is going to be a real choice we have, like as not, btw...)

As for Ty's surveys - while I like them because I like more data, neither is a scientific survey. There are no control groups, and there's no weighting based on anything. It's raw data from the places on the internet where people are most likely to want more complex things and be hanging out while disgruntled with the current offerings. The first survey also reached a wider audience and had less people asking for more DPS actions than the second, which seemed to be more limited to people responding from here and FFXIVDiscussion, two places most annoyed with current healer design. Most of them also do not have a "don't change anything" option, meaning people have to pick something, and so many may be picking something that they don't really want but is just the "best of the available options". Regardless, the point is they're somewhat useful for gauging what mostly high end players that want more complex healer Jobs want, but not necessarily for gauging what the playerbase as a whole or "most WHM" etc want.

And even there, are mostly limited to English speakers. Apparently, the JP community doesn't want more damage complexity on healers, they want more healing complexity - including their high end players - and that isn't reflected in Ty's surveys. So they are interesting and useful, but must be considered carefully based on those limitations.

And, even within those surveys, there are "a hell of a lot" that don't want more expanded DPS kits. (As for SB WHM, the problem wasn't it had no identity, the problem was the kit was HORRIBLE and actively worked against its identity - for example, during one period, you generated Lilies...by casting...Cure 1. Think about that one for a minute.) For example, in the first survey, more than half of WHMs said they preferred ShB/EW to ARR/HW/SB WHM, indicating they prefer the current gameplay. The number one request for WHM was not "add a lot of damage buttons or interactivity" it was "Can we just have Aero 3 back? Nothing else, just Aero 3."

And to the last part: As I've said, the proposal is not "no changes", the proposal is "no more complex DPS kit/rotation". Please don't srawman.

As far as comparing BLM vs SMN you are correct. I would point out as a BLM main that I'm highly aware SMN is easier to play and gets you viable DPS with the benefits of high mobility and res. SMN is basically ez mode in comparison. But I will never move to SMN because I don't want that gameplay experience. It's an excellent comparison for illustrating how one class is clearly less popular (BLM) but satisfies a notable amount of players' gameplay preference, which is a very good thing imo. SMN has its own issues I've heard but I don't think bringing to the scale of BLM males any sense. As I've said before every role has and should have a simple but fun job that does most things well (not the best in all aspects, but well). SMN is that for casters imo but I've heard the rotation is boring and that may need some looking at. Similarly every role should have at least one BLM like class to offer those nuances and high ceiling.

Again, I...absolutely agree with this position. (Other than SMN, I like SMN and think it's in the best place it's been since either ARR or ever...but I agree with you on the overall merits/thrust of your argument.

The first point means literally nothing.

Oh my god, do you have ANY idea how annoying this is? Someone says they don't understand, so I offer them to ask questions and I'll try to clarify. They ask, I answer, they give a sort of rebuttal (which isn't what you should do when trying to understand someone, but regardless), and I attempt further clarification.

Instead of saying "Hm...I see what you're saying, but I'd like to see your take on this. Have you considered...?" or "I see what you mean, but I have a question for you...", you say "that means nothing", meaning you outright ignore/disregard my answer - an answer given in good faith to a question asked in good faith. It's toxic and disruptive to conversations, and even ignoring that, IT'S RUDE. The point wasn't an argument inviting a rebuttal, it was an answer to a question., and you could have left off that "The first point means literally nothing" and just started with your second sentence soas not to be so blatantly rude. Not to mention it's wrong - it doesn't mean "literally nothing". Your argument seems to be "If you're already good at/familiar with something, you should be better positioned to adjust than a person who is completely unfamiliar with the thing".

That IS true. In a vacuum. It's not true or applicable here. Why not?

a) First, because we aren't talking about adjusting. The argument is for people who continue playing the Job with exactly the same cadence as they do now. E.g. refreshing Dia every 30 sec, using Misery once per minute, using Assize on CD, and filling all non Afflatus/Dia GCDs with Glare. There's no "it's easier for you to adjust" when the argument is "you don't have to adjust and will still be viable". You're arguing a different point.

b) Again, some people are good at some things and not others. Suppose you're good at playing guitar and someone tries to get you to play trumpet. You might be good at music in general, and able to make the change. On the other hand, you might be good at STRINGED INSTRUMENTS specifically and have poor lung capacity, meaning while you could change to a bass or possibly violin, switching to a trumpet or other brass or wind instrument is out of the question and would be extremely difficult since the thrust of the change isn't in music theory but rather in physical ability into a different domain you have little experience and skill with from playing your first instrument. This is the same way as "optimizing healing" vs "optimizing DPS". Some people are not skilled at optimizing DPS. Some people can be but are not interested/do not derive joy or fun from optimizing DPS. So why force them to do so when they are literally playing the one role in the game that ISN'T focused on DPS and/or explicitly avoiding the role that IS?

Second point: IT DOES NOT MATTER what the reason is, it matters that it happens. This is dangerously close to the "well, you just shouldn't be allowed to clear content unless you have a static and are a hardcore player" argument, which is invalid. We're talking about Extremes, not Ultimates. Believe me, with the average PF group for first time clears, you do NOT have to put in effort to see enrages...

Third: She asked why I thought a thing would be true and I answered. Note the question did not distinguish between forum and game. And clearly I DO care about forum interactions. "credentials" are not what are being questioned, and that's a BS argument anyway. But the point stands; people WILL make judgements based on it, so it IS relevant. Sorry? ALSO: GOOD FORKING GOD at the mouth and insults on you. I haven't tried getting into a static because I don't have a schedule that allows for it. Way to go on assuming the worst and most insulting thing possible about me instead to put me down. God you are a rude person...

Fourth: It's not "badly designed". WHM right now is very well designed. The only people saying "braindead" are people like you that also call WAR and SMN braindead while insisting their gameplay is lightyears advanced and healers should be more like them. The healers right now are designed just fine, the big problem is they're borderline designed for a different game (encounter design mismatch vs healer kits) and that they're all designed too similarly. When it comes to flow of the kit and viability, though, they all are designed fairly well. WHM and SGE are designed VERY well other than they lack a need to engage with their GCD heals often, though that's more an encounter design issue than their kit designs. AST and SCH have some more issues, but aren't badly designed, they're just more marginal in how their kits fight themselves and don't always interlock smoothly.

I fully believe any one of the healers right now, had it been added in SB, would have worked fine and been popular in that expansion AS IT IS TODAY. If SB had given us EW WHM, it probably would have been popular. I believe this because the ShB version, which was worse than the EW version, WAS popular on release right on the heels of SB. If SB had added current SGE as a new Job, it probably would have been REALLY popular since it would have been such a break with the existing healers at the time. So the healers are NOT "badly designed" right now. That's a lie. They're well designed on the whole (other than possibly SCH), but not everyone likes them. That's a good reason to make some changes, but not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Hence: 4 Healers Model.