Glad you liked it. Thanks!
Are you saying that it is impossible for something to be easier than the current iteration while simultaneously being more meaningful?
I agree that it's a different kind of difficulty, but I think that sharing the responsibility across an entire team is infinitely healthier design. Sure you could wipe 10 minutes in instead of 1, but it wouldn't be JUST one persons fault like it is now. It would take an entire team of people making multiple mistakes and missing opportunities to save the pull for it to occur.
By all means Riyah - you don't have to like my ideas. I'd be just as willing to listen to yours if you can think of a better alternative (I don't recall seeing you take a stance in many of these arguments, so if I missed it let me know).
Good, that's what a healer should be. Not a fake 1 button DPS job. Longer fights? Where did I mention that anywhere in the discussion? In fact, if you know my stance - I'm VERY anti-long fights. I much prefer shorter high intensity fights (a la ExDeath/Kefka).(2) This puts more of a burden on healers to fix mistakes, ironically. Part of the "bam, your dead!" model means DPS need to know they can't rely on the healer too much to ignore mechanics. And also, if this style of play leads to longer fights, you still have more stress; hard fights generally are at a decent sweet spot in time to where you aren't getting exhausted healing over the long term.
No, rotations aren't needed. What's needed is more robust oGCDs and healing intermechanics. Like my Lily proposal. That is how you make gameplay more rewarding and engaging by bringing in synergy and decision points. You don't need a strict healing rotation to accommodate that design.(3) Well, the thing is that if you want say 70-30% heals, you are essentially asking people to cast cure as much as stone in a fight, so you would just swap the boredom. Rotations tend to make that somewhat more interesting and probably would end up being made.
In summary - it sounds like you think there's merit to the idea and would even consider it decent, but have apprehensions to its implementation. That's good enough for me.
You're thinking too one-dimensionally. Yes of course that happens NOW, but that could EASILY be switched in a new design. They could just as easily limit # of res's and reduce their MP cost, have less of a resource penalty (i.e. you res with what you had) and remove the penalty all together.