The Healer Double Standard

[TonberiScholar]

That said WHM players have put up with the same thing from the very beginning WHM players asked for the job to be made more fun we got more effin heals and diminishing returns on our one actually good AoE on top of a nerf to its damage. AST and SCH meanwhile were having the time of thier lives and really really didnt seem to give one iota of a care about WHM

Not every SCH main didn't care.

I called that WHM was going to have problems back before Stormblood.

http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxiv/t...55#post4173955

Just no one really listened.

The expectations that healers parse high is not that prevalent in the wider community - healers DPS to different degrees at different skill levels.

While everything you said here's correct, my word choice was bad.

By "my standards" I mean "this post will be a little less excessively long-winded than my usual".

I didn't quite stick to that, but....yeah.

So I am left wondering what problem you are trying to solve. That is why I say that the interesting interactions you suggested can happen with what we have now.

I don't believe that they're willing to redo all their previous encounter design to accommodate "more healing is required", and kits that get stripped down to fit a "more healing is required" model will end up even being even more intolerably boring in everything that isn't new than they are now.

I know old content, by default, is generally considered trivial. But building old content around one set of healing-required levels and new content around a different one will exacerbate that very quickly.

So basically every "fix" (that's a bit generous, I don't know how well these'd work) is trying to fix what I can without touching their baseline set of encounter design principles, as they relate to Healer-role Jobs.

Which are, roughly:

- Encounter damage is generally spiky but infrequent
- Most mechanics, if you mess them up, are not designed to be consistently healed through
- Mechanics you can brute-force heal through are few and far between
- Increasing healing efficiency leads to (through various direct and indirect methods) overall increased party DPS
- The penalty for bad healing generally isn't "you all die due to attrition"
- The penalty for bad healing is generally "you didn't heal the survivable mechanics, people died and you don't meet Enrage".
- Healer "growth" is a path from healing inefficiency (low active time, wasteful MP or cooldown use, missed save opportunities) to healing efficiency
- It is possible to be at maximum healing efficiency and still not be able to complete some encounters
- It is possible to be quite inefficient at healing and still be able to complete most encounters
- Encounter execution "growth" is separate from "Healing growth" and involves dealing with mechanics
- Encounter growth will often stonewall parties even when the Healers have peaked at the level of efficiency their personal skillset allows

Would you agree with the above, or have I missed something? I'm kinda reverse-engineering their design principles based on how I see them create encounters, but that doesn't mean I'm correct about it.

Why shouldn't dropped healing GCDs be punishing?

I disagree with the second statement. The reason why they can't make content require too much healing is because it is too variable and unpredictable, depending on your party. Player consistency would become more important and because consistency is not a strong point at low skill levels it would make the encounter too difficult.

Encounters would be either too hard at low skill levels or too easy at high skill levels - a product of SE trying to appeal to two groups that have different interests and expectations from the encounters in the game.

Dropped GCDs have to be punishing. The problem is, the amount of punishment they inflict is relatively standard across both "easy content" and "difficult content".

Dropping a Healing GCD when it's not needed doesn't really matter. Dropping a Healing GCD when it's needed can be lethal to the party.

Healing through GCDs is a blunt instrument that scales too well at lower levels and too poorly at higher levels (as a proportion of your used combat time).

It's fine in easier content to sit and watch until you need to start pre-casting or reactively casting a heal. That "wait and see" method is incentivized because not doing what you should when you should is lethal, but not doing anything the rest of the time is non-lethal, usually.

oGCDs were added as a safety net for easier content but they end up being used to get around GCD use in harder content.

Encounters are tuned by making the Savage/Extreme version and then removing mechanics to make the normal version.

If the Savage/Extreme version started off requiring GCD-locked healing at points, or random damage that's designed to not be healable with oGCD tools, that'd mean that the Normal mode fights would have to be designed entirely differently, beyond just removing mechanics.

And that will make "easier" content too difficult for most Healers at that level to complete.

That's what I mean about the "dropped GCDs being too punishing for healing" thing. You can't break your actionable windows into smaller/more frequent windows, so you have to design the available windows based around the "difficult" version and then remove mechanics to add more windows.

But (like you said), consistency is a skill that's generally harder to pick up at lower overall skill levels.

And making content require more healing through GCDs would greatly exacerbate the "healing is harder at low skill levels" thing.

By setting that expectation you are exacerbating the downtime problem. OGCD healing is the cause of healing downtime.

I disagree with this bit entirely.

Healing "skill" would still end up at minimizing the use of GCD heals even if there weren't any oGCD heals in the game. There would still be downtime, there would just be a little bit less of it.

Even if it ends up being a rather distorted point of "every Healer only melds Spellspeed and Piety", people would find a way to create healing downtime even without oGCDs.

Removing oGCDs would be a bigger problem at the low end (it takes away recovery tools) than at the higher end (they'd just optimize GCD healing better).

And due to the actionable windows thing I mentioned above, you can't set every encounter to require even something like 50% of all potential actionable GCD windows to require healing. People would drown.

oGCDs existing or being completely removed won't change any of that.

No content requires optimization. It happens either consciously (people actively trying to optimize) and subconsciously (people know the encounter well enough that they do things they otherwise wouldn't in their first clear).

This is another problem with my word choice, I think.

It's a very low level of optimization in some cases, but "optimization required" content is anything with a DPS Check or Enrage you have to pass.

Anything with a lose condition other than "everyone runs out of HP at the same time", basically. I was trying to find a way to refer to anything with time pressure because that's generally one of the things that separates "normal modes" and "savage" (amongst others).

I just didn't do a very good job of it.

I do think healing should be nerfed (especially OGCDs) and it has indirectly through the disproportionate scaling of Health Pools. And while this would increase healing uptime - it would merely inflate it, not fix the problem. I do keep bringing up encounter design because that is the only way of adding unpredictability for higher skill levels, where this healing downtime issue is most prevalent.

I mentioned this above (I think), but every fix I'm talking around assumes they aren't going to revamp all their prior content to fit a new content design standard.

And making Jobs that don't fit with your old content is a problem that just gets bigger and bigger with content accretion.

I'd rather a fix that manages to fit within their existing content design philosophy/standards/precedents while still addressing the downtime issue.

I think the root solution would be to change healing from a healing minimization/DPS optimization problem to an attrition problem (both in resources and time), and have downtime tools be split off as a separate resource or a non-resource-consumer.

You're still rewarded for doing DPS that way (because that helps you not run out of resources), but you'd also be rewarded for efficient use of healing tools.

Swapping from mostly flat GCD spells with some oGCDs to a set of defined/standardized oGCDs and GCDs that interact with the Job's kit/mechanic/downtime in some fashion (charge up Lily nuke, provide buffs or something else) would be the way I'd prefer they go about doing it, but it's not the only way.

But no matter what they do, here's my main "wants" or "points" that I feel they have to acknowledge:

- The things you do in healing downtime should be interesting, useful, optional to survival and able to be stopped if you need to go back to healing.

- The things you do in healing downtime should have some positive effect on your healing uptime

- Healer growth should scale from "watching when to use your healing uptime tools and avoiding your downtime tools" to "using your downtime tools to support your uptime tools"

- If they have to homogenize for balance, I'd rather it be done on the oGCD level than the GCD level. The former has far less an impact on content "feel" than the latter, since you spend far more time in combat using GCD abilities than you do oGCD abilities.

- Healer Role healing downtime should be used as a distinguishing tool between Jobs because it's easier to do that without breaking random Healer DF team viability

[LariaKirin]

I don't believe that they're willing to redo all their previous encounter design to accommodate "more healing is required", and kits that get stripped down to fit a "more healing is required" model will end up even being even more intolerably boring in everything that isn't new than they are now.

They won't. Which is why I favor a nerf to overall healing, rather than an increase in healing required. I don't see why they would need to revisit old encounters in order to change their approach in the new ones.

Can't say I agree with most of your list, as it is too generic to apply to most encounters and some things do not sound like design principles to me. Here's what I agree with:
Damage is spiky and infrequent. Most healing checks revolve around a few lethal points during the encounter, while the rest of the encounter relies on people messing up non-lethal mechanics to provide a healing check.
The "wall" in all encounters is mechanic-related, which is to be expected, because it requires the entire party to perform correctly.

Dropped GCDs have to be punishing. The problem is, the amount of punishment they inflict is relatively standard across both "easy content" and "difficult content".

Dropping a Healing GCD when it's not needed doesn't really matter. Dropping a Healing GCD when it's needed can be lethal to the party.

[...]

That is not true. "difficult content" does have occasional healing checks, while "easy content" generally does not.

Titania relies entirely on the party messing up mechanics to provide any sort of healing challenge. There is nothing you have to heal immediately in Titania. The instances of unavoidable damage happen once a minute.
If you look at Patch in Final Omega, you have 4 instances of raid wide damage on tether breaks which combined are lethal by the end if not healed, together with tank busters and immediately followed by a lethal if unmitigated Ion Efflux.

Obviously, it's a bit silly to compare the final fight of a tier with an ex trial (especially Titania, which has pathetically low healing requirements) - this example is just meant to address your first comment about punishment being relatively standard.

It seems to me they are scared of adding punishing mechanics or challenging healing checks to anything that is not the 3rd or 4th fight in the tier. Even there, they are scared of having too many healing checks and it seems that they like to add significant "resting" time after every difficult healing check.

Healing "skill" would still end up at minimizing the use of GCD heals even if there weren't any oGCD heals in the game. There would still be downtime, there would just be a little bit less of it.
[...]

When I say healing downtime and uptime I am referring to healing GCDs. Of course there would still be healing downtime, that is impossible to eliminate.

I'm not saying to remove OGCDs anyway, I'm just saying I'd prefer an overall healing nerf with more difficult and more frequent healing checks ... A hard hitting raidwide is pointless if there's no more damage for the next minute.

I don't think this will cause that many problems at the low end because the main wall to progression is consistency during mechanics, not healing. That's also where spending GCDs on healing is not considered a problem and is considered even preferable in order to save OGCDs for emergencies.

If you're unwilling to make healing more difficult, I don't think there is a way you can make it more interesting at the mid-high end.

I think the root solution would be to change healing from a healing minimization/DPS optimization problem to an attrition problem (both in resources and time), and have downtime tools be split off as a separate resource or a non-resource-consumer.

I don't think we will ever agree on this.

I'm pretty sure I understand your proposal and most of the reasoning behind it and I hope I've been pretty clear with my objections.

So unless there's anything you'd like to add or address, I propose we stop for now.

[Brandedblade]

While I do miss sch having a focus on dots for dps. I do not miss Miasma II as it was in stormblood. If anything I wished for it to be replaced with something akin to that aoe brd skill, but spammable, where it did more damage per dot on the target to give it synergy with Bane. I don't think I'd be 100% against Miasma II coming back if its upfront damage was added into the dot and kept alongside Art of War.

[Kabooa]

Ya'll remember you're not supposed to be fighting each other, right?

Here, lets get you all back on track.

Nobody misses Miasma 2, and old Cards were obsolete.

[TonberiScholar]

Nobody misses Miasma 2

I do.

The disease-themed DoTs are a far better fit for Scholar than Summoner thematically, and we should've gotten them in the Big Arcanist Divorce (that they've yet to finalize).

I'd much rather have Miasma II than Art of War, even if it had the initial potency sharply nerfed/moved to the DoT/removed.

But I'd rather have Miasma II as part of a combo deal with Bane and Shadow Flare. It was an interesting-feeling AoE "rotation" that had potential for debuffs/party support.

And now that combo is wasting away on Summoner while everyone's more concerned with the Egi abilities and Trances.

[Gaethan_Tessula]

I do.

The disease-themed DoTs are a far better fit for Scholar than Summoner thematically, and we should've gotten them in the Big Arcanist Divorce (that they've yet to finalize).

I'd much rather have Miasma II than Art of War, even if it had the initial potency sharply nerfed/moved to the DoT/removed.

But I'd rather have Miasma II as part of a combo deal with Bane and Shadow Flare. It was an interesting-feeling AoE "rotation" that had potential for debuffs/party support.

And now that combo is wasting away on Summoner while everyone's more concerned with the Egi abilities and Trances.

I agree. If anything, getting an old DoT or two back would be one of my choices for an aetherflow dump. IMO SCH should be able to spend its 3 aetherflow charges/minute on three different non-healing skills.

If they aren't going to do Egi-glamours after all, making the 30s SUM DoT's briefly evoke one of the unused primals would be better flavor for them.

... and old Cards were obsolete.

Only because they were random. If AST had, say, a toggle (or a cooldown) for changing what effect it produces those additional options become solely beneficial. I actually want to see AST have card or otherwise buffing mechanics on GCD, as their active downtime as oppose to 2-1-1-1 DPS spam. I also want to see their time magic return.

I say these things as a WHM main, who still wants further work done on WHM.

----------------------------------------
My ideal for the three jobs would be as follows:

WHM - BIG DPS and BIGGER heals, but GCD based (so, aside from abilities connected to the lily system, they can't sustain top HPS and top DPS simultaneously). The lily system is fleshed out such that using afflatus healing skills unlocks a DPS "rotation" for WHM. This "rotation" is spread out over a much longer period than most, to allow WHM room to break off DPS and heal. Essentially, every skill in this line works like the current afflatus skills in that it's ok, even desirable, to hold off on using them for a bit. Working out when to best use them for movement and weaving (and healing, for the foundational spells that set off the chain) is a major aspect of optimization. Completing the chain (casting Misery) provides some self-buff to future HEALING spells and abilities (either a raw potency buff or some other benefit like spell-speed and reduced cooldown time a la old lilies). WHM is about getting up to speed and then staying in the flow, and once WHM is in the zone it does very impressive numbers.

SCH - Less whiteroom DPS and HPS than WHM, but oGCD based so their performance overall is a lot more stable. Healing GCD's are weak (but many provide shields, which is its own benefit) on their own, but fairy micro (I think it ought to return) helps make up for that along with strong oGCD heals and some abilities to boost GCD's if needed (Emergency, Recitation, Dissipation). The job's main engagement is having to allocate three (six with Dissipation) units of aetherflow per minute, which can be used on healing, DPS, OR maybe buff abilities. Proactive tactical planning is the name of the game, both in regards to how one chooses to use aetherflow and in how shields need to be up BEFORE incoming damage.

The big difference between lilies and aetherflow is that WHM isn't making choices of HOW to use lilies, only when. The initial lily always heals, the further color changes all do DPS (or whatever) and feed the blood lily, the blood lily always does a burst hit and gives the capstone buff. WHM gets to heal AND DPS with its mechanic, but it doesn't get to choose its allocation. SCH DOES, but it won't be doing both with the same resource unit. WHM also gets fewer resource units at once, but has a potentially longer time to hold onto them before use than SCH does (because aetherflow clips unused stacks).

AST - Buffs, buffs, buffs. I've eternally had an issue with AST's core healing identity being a toggle between a (sometimes not so) discount WHM and a discount SCH, but I doubt THAT particular problematic design choice will ever change. So instead, looking at engagement and downtime, AST should be focused on buffs. I think they should be playing with cards even more than they currently do. Anytime they don't need to be oGCD healing, AST should be card'ing. I've proposed GCD buffing skills too, as a potential alternative to malefic spam. AST becomes a high APM healer/support, potentially making up for poorer healing potencies by managing its own ability to apply defensive cooldowns to party members.

Obviously, that one's the biggest and most problematic change.

-------------------------------------------------

I also want to echo one of Tonberi's other points: this game has too few mechanics you can brute force via healing, at least without severely overgearing or leveling an encounter (at which point the INTENDED healing spikes are trivial). This design precept is one of the reasons why attempts to make WHM the big damn healer and little else have always failed. If you could IGNORE MECHANICS with a WHM in the party, but not with SCH and AST, then WHM's humongous HPS potential might actual be valued in some encounters even after prog if skipping a mechanic benefits overall party DPS.

If you could do this more often as any healer, it might result in fights where healing engagement actually increases for a time post-optimization as people figure out how best to brute force through the mechanic.

[Vibronix]

AST - Buffs, buffs, buffs. I've eternally had an issue with AST's core healing identity being a toggle between a (sometimes not so) discount WHM and a discount SCH, but I doubt THAT particular problematic design choice will ever change. So instead, looking at engagement and downtime, AST should be focused on buffs. I think they should be playing with cards even more than they currently do. Anytime they don't need to be oGCD healing, AST should be card'ing. I've proposed GCD buffing skills too, as a potential alternative to malefic spam. AST becomes a high APM healer/support, potentially making up for poorer healing potencies by managing its own ability to apply defensive cooldowns to party members.

Obviously, that one's the biggest and most problematic change.

100% for more AST buffs. I miss the old cards (except Spire), all of them being a %dmg buff is boring. I'd change spire to be like a healing potency buff instead, let us hold cards again, and maybe add a hardcast dmg buff to allies. Cast 2.5 secs, makes allies next attack deal x damage. So I can still contribute to party dps, but in a much more support way

[BahamutxD]

Ya'll remember you're not supposed to be fighting each other, right?

Here, lets get you all back on track.

Nobody misses Miasma 2, and old Cards were obsolete.

Old cards were a thousand times better than this. Atleast they gave us more depth and combinations while being easier to use than the actual system.

They could had turned every card to Balance and keep the old system and it would still be a thousand times better than this.

[Deceptus]

Ya'll remember you're not supposed to be fighting each other, right?

Here, lets get you all back on track.

Nobody misses Miasma 2, and old Cards were obsolete.

I miss Miasma 2 because it fit thematically with the more healing play style the developers want. Dots in general do. Like I said in another thread, all the devs needed to do to make it compatible was make the initial hit low enough and the dot high enough so it wasn't spammed. That's it.

Anyone else dislike Sleeve Draw how it currently is? Since you want Draw to always be on cooldown, it forces you to rush through all of them before allowing the Draw cooldown to cycle again.

Imo, Draw needs to have 2 charges with Sleeve Draw refreshing 2. Also, why is Divination and Sleeve Draw on a 3m cooldown verses Chain Stratagem on a 2m cooldown?

Problem with Sleeve Draw is every time you Draw, and have to play a card is a few less seconds you get to heal or dps. And every second counts in Dungeon Mass Pulls (tank emergencies) or against bosses.

[Videra]

Ya'll remember you're not supposed to be fighting each other, right?

Here, lets get you all back on track.

Nobody misses Miasma 2, and old Cards were obsolete.

Wrong. I miss Miasma 2 and Old Cards for their prior interactions with game systems, like using Miasma 2 for weaves during SB creating an interesting MP economy. Or making a machinist's entire rotation crash and burn with enhanced arrow in HW, as immediate examples.