Would you rather healers get more complex healing kits or more complex DPS kits?

[Shurrikhan]

Ren has been saying nonstop that both DPS and Healing kits need to be reworked with both of those interacting with each other all the while that each healer be unique from each other so each plays differently. and that several aspects of the game need to be reworked anyways to fix the dull, mind numbing aspect of Healing as a role such as how damage is sent out and mitigated by several classes, massive healing potential and mit from most tanks, and how mechanics are handled by design. He hasnt said healing should be the ONLY change, but that you COULD let the healing kit be the only change TO healers.

While we both agree (i think) that there should be more consistent damage during encounters, I am the person who firmly believes that healing kits should be the only change to healing kits (aside from using DPS actions should interact your healing actions in some way).

Its just so bizarre to watch someone, advocate FOR having both, and people yell at him that we do not need a rework of healing kit or that the damage profile of encounters doesn't need to change, and people just saying he is wrong because of what healers have right now and what is expected of them right now.

Like, you guys know the first thing that goes into designing an encounter is how it interacts with healers, then Tanks, then DPS right?

The problem here is you're looking at additional baggage. Those who've been talking to Ren for multiple years now have already gone through the song and dance of suggesting concrete changes at adjust both in synergy after Ren finally permits at least the principle only to return to yet to "4 Healer Model" insistences that actually only one job should have DPS be anything worthy of engagement (and that only one healer should have meaningful buffs, only one healer should have... so one and so forth). Most agree with his desire for diversity. The repeated differences are in how -- whether that should be through restriction (making X mechanic or consideration beyond the barest bones of interaction exclusive to a particular job in order to make that job diverse) or in practical combination (how jobs may each differently make use of a deep kit), i.e., a difference in the total complexity available to players.

That in turn cycles into a disagreement on how things should be balanced (i.e., whether the game should be balanced only around the best of players, to whom differences in job difficulty would be largely irrelevant and so a job that puts out equal value despite lower risk, effort, or knowledge required wouldn't have a meaningful advantage and so jobs kept purposely to shin-high skill ceilings could have the same maximum value as jobs with far higher skill ceilings, or instead balanced around, say, a skilled but imperfect player for whom a tiny bit of extra oomph may be necessary for the hardest jobs to balance out the near-guaranteed loss in practice so that they aren't so badly outperformed in what content balance may actually matter by the jobs whose skill ceilings have been squished / kept low for Ren's "something for everyone").

That last bit is more important, still, though: To many, we don't need a job to be capped at a given skill ceilings for a given simpler play style to be viable and engaging for the kind of content a player who despises complexity in their own kit is likely to enjoy. Ah Hoc SAM exists even now. Standard Rotation Monk exists even now. Hell, Monk can take Demolish and True Strike off their bars and miss all their positional and they'd still be viable for most content in this game. As such, there seems little point in having a something for everyone by capping a job at ABC out of ABCDEFGH... when one could just use only part of the total kit anyways. Assuaging people's feelings by helping them pretend they're doing all they can, when they're already doing all they need for the content they do anyways, is not worth enforcing low ceilings.

Let the posts make their backs and forths for a few dozen more posts, and that's where we're almost certain to end up again: with the same broad goals but very different interpretations on how many opportunities should be precluded just to spare certain player's contradictory feelings ("I don't want to play something that requires much of me, but I want to max out all that is possible on the job I chose, and although I want to play whatever I want for fun I also want the throughput of those doing more than me") and on what constitutes job diversity (on paper, via differences in categorical capacity, on in practice, via differences in how they may put to use an unrestricted range of capacities befitting their themes).

Both 'sides' want both things changed, even if one (e.g., those who've also done more whack-a-mole style healing elsewhere) may be more wary of simply increasing healing requirements to get there. Neither 'side' seems fond of the glut of CDs, for how much they leave the kit disjointed and may continue to do so unless/until recontextualized and redesigned through encounter changes and small changes to those skills' bankability, both. The biggest question that have split the 'two' across the last handful of threads is how much cognitive load, in total should healers be allowed to engage with, how accessible the floor should be regardless, and therefore how large a gap for skill expression ought to exist between the two.

Given that Ren has often insisted that there should be strictly easier (lower ceiling, more so than just low floor) jobs for players who may want them, this has led others to assume that whatever "both" be may be okay with would afford less change overall than they may think fitting or necessary.

Sorry for all the doubtless typos, as I'm writing this from my phone, but I hope that may give some insight into why concurrence in goals isnt necessarily showing agreement.


As for design starting with healers... I don't think we've seen much, if any, evidence of that, but it would be smart if it did. I would agree that it's where things should start in kill-fights, as healers are the bottleneck for any fight won through damage (and tanks just more context-sensitive hybrids supplying sustain and slightly more direct means of damage through mob-positioning, etc., than healers).

[Renathras]

Those who've been talking to Ren for multiple years now have already gone through the song and dance of suggesting concrete changes at adjust both in synergy after Ren finally permits at least the principle only to return to yet to "4 Healer Model" insistences that actually only one job should have DPS be anything worthy of engagement (and that only one healer should have meaningful buffs, only one healer should have... so one and so forth).

Okay, setting aside this goes both ways - the song and dance I've gone through - my position has consistently changed and moved towards your (collective) stance, with VERY little (in many cases no) movement on your part. Which is hardly what compromise comes from. Additionally, I have to deal with people constantly lying - my position has never been "only one job should have DPS be anything worthy of engagement". At the VERY least, I've always suggested two have much more extensive damage kits, and often all of them, just some in different ways that aren't too different.

The "disagreement" (and insults) quite often come from you guys lying about what I want. And despite me correcting the record over and over, not only do the lies persist, never is there an apology, like my reply to you a few pages back where I directly confronted your lying about me. There is NEVER a "Oh, we were wrong about what you want/what you're saying" at any point, despite it happening over and over and over again, and despite my position having moved a very long way from when these conversations started 2 years ago.

Originally, I wanted no changes to WHM or SCH, for AST's changes to be limited to support ability additions, and for SCH's to be its SB buttons. At this point, I've said WHM getting Aero 3 and an 18 sec Dia would be acceptable (note that this would be MORE DPS buttons than SB since we'd also have Misery AND note that this is MORE to the "more DPS buttons" side than you guys used to ask for; there was a time you guys were ONLY asking for Aero 3, then it became Aero 3 + 18 sec Dia, and now it's Aero 3 + 18 sec Dia + Quake/Tornado/Flood, some burst CDs, and a gauge), SCH I've said all the SB buttons back and even some that it didn't have, some that were SMN exclusives (like Egi Assaults or Fester), and I even made my own suggestions on additional changes that SCH could get on the DPS side. My ideas from SGE went from no changes to little changes to RDM-like rotation to BLM-like rotation. And AST I've just taken a total hands-off "do whatever you want with it" position.

I'm not sure how I could be MORE on your side, especially as your side (collectively) has moved FURTHER to "more DPS buttons".

Two years ago, the more DPS buttons camp on the Healer Forum was asking for WHM to get Aero 3, SCH to have its SB kit back, AST to have its SB/HW Cards back, and SGE to have a rotation like DNC level. At this point, that's LITERALLY more conservative than my own position, as my own position also has 18 sec Dia for WHM, SCH having an additional DPS button (or two) beyond what it had in SB, AST being whatever the heck you want, and SGE being as complex as BLM if you want it.

Hell, back then, I didn't think anything REALLY needed changing at all, and just thought some more DPS actions on a few Jobs would be nice to do to make more people happy. The same people spending 2 years badmouthing me over and over for daring to want them to be happier. Now, my position has expanded to not only include allowance for more DPS actions on ALL the healers THAN EVEN YOU GUYS WERE ASKING FOR TWO YEARS AGO, but also to overall changes to Tanks, DPSers, encounter design, and the rest of it.

Meanwhile, you guys have moved the goalposts. YOUR collective position two years ago was less DPS focused than MY current position is. The conversation, the Overton Window, continues to be pushed to "more DPS buttons", and so while I've moved TOWARDS the more DPS buttons position, to the point I'm even FARTHER towards it than you guys were 2 years ago, you guys have moved SO MUCH farther that not only do you oppose me having effectively your own position from 2 years ago, you attack me - relentlessly and brutally - for having probably the most open-minded and most inclusive position on the topic right now.

.

THAT is the two years of "baggage", not your one-sided position on it.

Seriously, even my idea for WHM at this point (Aero 3 and 18 sec Dia) is MORE damage focused than the Healer forum was asking for 2 years ago (Aero 3 was the going ask back then). It's ridiculous that I'm accused of opposing all change and trying to drag people down when my own proposal at this point is MORE expansive and MORE damage focused than even you guys' was back then!

How far the Overton Window has moved...

EDIT:

That.
Said:

Both 'sides' want both things changed, even if one (e.g., those who've also done more whack-a-mole style healing elsewhere) may be more wary of simply increasing healing requirements to get there. Neither 'side' seems fond of the glut of CDs, for how much they leave the kit disjointed and may continue to do so unless/until recontextualized and redesigned through encounter changes and small changes to those skills' bankability, both. The biggest question that have split the 'two' across the last handful of threads is how much cognitive load, in total should healers be allowed to engage with, how accessible the floor should be regardless, and therefore how large a gap for skill expression ought to exist between the two.

I think this is where we should start the conversation - with those things we agree on.

The things we disagree on, we disagree on (tautology and all), and tend to drive more resentment an conflict. But if we could pull out all the things we DO agree on - both as problems and agree on the solution to them - and start with those things, that's how we could work to build a bridge to a greater Grand Bargain of sorts to solve the problem overall.