Pure/Barrier Split is a failure

[Aravell]

I mean nerf the shield healers pure healing into the literal ground, you can put 3 mitigations on that raidwide you are still taking 70% of your HP as damage, I want the shield healers to be physically incapable of healing that 70% without massive DPS loss

I think they could also change Succor to make pure healing a loss for the designated shield healers. Succor should only apply a shield with no healing attached (probably do the same with Eukrasian Prognosis since SGE can use Prognosis without Eukrasia for a pure heal), then make ET a toggle which turns Succor into purely healing.

My only concern with a huge nerf to shield healers is that they'll increase the dependency too much and end up with co-healers blaming each other for the wipe. I don't know about you, but I don't want my survival to a multi-hit stack mechanic to be entirely dependent on the competency of my co-healer. It was already annoying in Abyssos early prog where survival was entirely dependent on whether or not the melee decided to press Feint.

In the end, I would like to see a nerf to the pure healing of the designated shield healers, but not to the point where the party has to immediately wipe whenever one of the healers go down. Some overlap is fine, in my opinion. Like WHM has 1 free mitigation, the shield healers could do with 1 free pure heal.

[Supersnow845]

I think they could also change Succor to make pure healing a loss for the designated shield healers. Succor should only apply a shield with no healing attached (probably do the same with Eukrasian Prognosis since SGE can use Prognosis without Eukrasia for a pure heal), then make ET a toggle which turns Succor into purely healing.

My only concern with a huge nerf to shield healers is that they'll increase the dependency too much and end up with co-healers blaming each other for the wipe. I don't know about you, but I don't want my survival to a multi-hit stack mechanic to be entirely dependent on the competency of my co-healer. It was already annoying in Abyssos early prog where survival was entirely dependent on whether or not the melee decided to press Feint.

In the end, I would like to see a nerf to the pure healing of the designated shield healers, but not to the point where the party has to immediately wipe whenever one of the healers go down. Some overlap is fine, in my opinion. Like WHM has 1 free mitigation, the shield healers could do with 1 free pure heal.

I’d be fine if the shields pure healing basically amounted to how WHM handles mitigation

For example SCH can keep excog as the equivalent of aquaveil and can keep…..say whispering dawn and a nerfed indom on a longer CD as an equivalent to temperance but I honestly think that should be all

I’m fine to feel like I need to rely on the cohealer to have both of us be needed to survive abyssos just felt bad because 70% of the melee didn’t give a single f….. about pressing feint AND then proceeded to blame the healer anyway

[Aravell]

I’d be fine if the shields pure healing basically amounted to how WHM handles mitigation

For example SCH can keep excog as the equivalent of aquaveil and can keep…..say whispering dawn and a nerfed indom on a longer CD as an equivalent to temperance but I honestly think that should be all

I’m fine to feel like I need to rely on the cohealer to have both of us be needed to survive abyssos just felt bad because 70% of the melee didn’t give a single f….. about pressing feint AND then proceeded to blame the healer anyway

I'm genuinely curious why you're so against Indom in particular. If we go by the criteria required to not overlap the duties of the designated pure healer, it fits the criteria perfectly.

> It costs you damage (shares resource with ED)
> It's not spammable (has resource cost and a cooldown)
> It's not too strong (same potency as Medica)

That being said, I do agree that its interaction with Recitation takes it too far by nullifying 2 of the downsides (damage loss and healing strength), but regular Indom doesn't seem that bad to me.

[Supersnow845]

I'm genuinely curious why you're so against Indom in particular. If we go by the criteria required to not overlap the duties of the designated pure healer, it fits the criteria perfectly.

> It costs you damage (shares resource with ED)
> It's not spammable (has resource cost and a cooldown)
> It's not too strong (same potency as Medica)

That being said, I do agree that its interaction with Recitation takes it too far by nullifying 2 of the downsides (damage loss and healing strength), but regular Indom doesn't seem that bad to me.

I mean I’m against basically all of SCH’s pure heals, replace indom with blessing or the pure heal half of consolation and my point is still exactly the same, I just use indom as the conduit for my problems with SCH’s pure healing, it’s nothing against indom in particular

If anything your reasons listed are a good example of why indom is the least offensive of the 3, I just use it as a conduit

[Valence]

Pure and shield healer is a good dichotomy as long as the gameplay remains based around the GCD heals and barriers, which is where the difference lies.

As long as healers use all of their OGCDs to heal and sustain and mitigate through fights, which savage tends to be designed around anyway - unless very specific unicorn (and great) mechanics like Harrowing Hell - then there is very little difference between both, and the difference only lies in how said healers play in terms of class identity rather than an arbitrary distinction between raw and shield healing.

[Mortex]

Let’s be honest they will never ever nerf shield healer regen and the pure healing they have in the ground. It would make a decent number of not really good healer player never touch sgn or sch anymore. I say it would be a step in the right direction but then they should also change all fights from mitigation fiestas too consistent dmg fights. I argue eden 4 savage was a really good consistent dmg fight. The end was pretty intense.

[Ayche]

While all game design is context and value dependent, I think synergies ought to be voluntary bonuses rather than necessary dependencies.
The lines are subtle, but you want players to think that "we might have easier time if we had both shields and pure healing power" rather than "we absolutely cannot clear because we lack one of them".

[IceBlueNinja]

Let’s be honest they will never ever nerf shield healer regen and the pure healing they have in the ground. It would make a decent number of not really good healer player never touch sgn or sch anymore. I say it would be a step in the right direction but then they should also change all fights from mitigation fiestas too consistent dmg fights. I argue eden 4 savage was a really good consistent dmg fight. The end was pretty intense.

I believe kefka savage was like that too.

[Supersnow845]

I believe kefka savage was like that too.

Kefka was more “white hole the fight” than it was constant damage

[Deceptus]

Honestly I like this idea of a healing 'spectrum' you are mentioning. Not only would it make comps more flexible, it could also possibly give each healer an own unique identity again. My personal take on this would be: (from more pure heal to more shield oriented)

WHM - focus on HoT management.
SCH - abilities summon small entities of fairies who heal allied by themself for a short period before vanishing again.
AST - 'reactive' healer where abilities leave buffs on allies that heal them when they fall under X% of max hp or after a time period (like GNB's heart of corundum or SCH's excog).
SGE - mostly focussed on actual barriers.

The CBU3 devs can't even balance 2 types of roles. They couldn't properly balance the MT/OT duality so they just gave up. They can't properly balance the Regen / Shield duality so they just gave up and gave everything to all the healers.

I have zero confidence in them attempting 4 different styles for healers (just like they couldn't design 4 different tank styles)

They literally can't do it and have the track record to prove that.