A summary of healer issues

[Renathras]

...

You know what? Just no, madam.

The point stands - I would defend you if people were brigading you, not revel in it. And if you were wrong about something, but had an argument you were right on some point, I would hear you out. This does happen in here from time to time where there are cases I catch people being wrong about something, but they do make a good argument for how they're not completely wrong, and I'm willing to accept that. There are also cases where opposing people are both partly right at the same time.

Indeed, I've admitted to being wrong in cases that I am on the points that I am. I try to research points well in general if I'm going to stake a firm position to them, however, so that it doesn't often occur. There are things that are arguments of scale - as that argument was - but I'm not going to continue arguing the point, which I said so the last time. The only reason it's even been mentioned here is because someone who lied about me got caught in their lie and was desperate for a smokescreen. But suffice to say, in that other thread, I DID admit that I was wrong, and I even made a total of 4 edits to get the wrongness SUFFICIENTLY PRECISE to satisfy other people, something I wouldn't have bothered with at all if I was unwilling to do so.

It would be one thing if I had said "No! You're wrong! ForbiddenFruitLogosOnlineGaugeSite says it's this party comp so it is!", that would have been refusing to admit being wrong. I straight up said I saw what you meant and that you were (at the time) being very reasonable and fair about it, and made the initial edit pointing out I was wrong and giving a ballpark estimate of how much.

It was only after that - oddly, AFTER my admission of being wrong - that you and others really pounced.

...and you wonder why people are unwilling to admit they're wrong; when they do in good faith, they're pilloried after having done so. Again, something I DO NOT DO to people because I don't want people to be afraid of admitting they were wrong about some detail or thing, or that they were partially wrong about it.

Several people are just wanting something to use as a cudgel in lieu of an argument, something I myself do not do when the situation is reversed.

Again, if you wish to support that, that's your decision. Not only would I not, I do not in the situations this has come up where I wasn't on the receiving end of it.

In any case, did we ever get an actual reason for the great action prunning of ShB? Didn't Yoshi-P insist somewhere that they didn't want to take away things that the jobs could do, when asked about nerfing PLD Hallowed Ground?

What was so impossibly complex and cluttery about DPS actions on healers that they had to be removed when the Healing downtime became even more prevalent?

I think at the time it had to do with a healer shortage and concerns over disparate DPS outcomes. The thinking from the Devs was something like players were leaving the Healing role because they feared not being able to deal enough damage while also healing, and that the Devs were concerned about the DPS gaps between the Healer Jobs. So they figured if they could slim them down to basically nothing, it would make the DPS part stress free (in theory attracting healxiety sufferers to the role) and make the Jobs easier to balance.

Or something to that effect.

Whether it worked or not is debatable, but that was the objective.

Point is that...

Yes yes yes: Which is why I gave specific examples and asked if those things would be "new" to you or not.

If Misery became Purgation - same damage scaled as 4 Glares but now with more Stun and a party HoT - or if casting 4 Glares gave you a super-charged Holy to cast; those were specific examples of me saying if those things were what we got in an expansion, would YOU consider them "new"?

We're not talking about WoW's Warrior and Executes. I gave you two concrete examples of things WHM could get in FFXIV and asked you if you, personally, would classify them as "new DPS buttons" or "more DPS buttons" or not. The former case would be a new ability, but would take the spot of an existing one and not alter the rotation, the latter would have no new abilities at all, but a new stacking self-buff that led to an actual change in the rotation. Would YOU, personally, consider either of those cases as a new DPS action/ability or not?

This isn't some convoluted gotcha. I'm trying to determine what you would and would not consider "new". Glare IV would obviously be new, but as you note, if it was just higher potency and a new graphic, it wouldn't change the rotation. Well, Purgation might be that, but the Stun and HoT MIGHT make you consider it as different, but might not. Hence I have to ask you and see what your answer is, as I typically do not read minds. And likewise, the empowered Holy thing WOULD change the rotation and break up the Glarespam, but would add no new buttons or abilities (in the spellbook) at all. Hence again I have to ask you to see what your answer is. As I did ask you. To see what, in your own words, your answer would be.

And it wasn't an attack. If you thought it was, that says more about you than it does me, I think

Ah, yes, when you call someone making a good faith argument "hilariously disingenuous"...oh, wait, yeah, that's kind of an attack. And it's an attack on the person, not their argument. Not only that, this is yet another desperate attempt - what is it with you guys today? - to sell the narrative "Ren accuses everyone of attacking him!!". Which is amusing because I don't accuse a lot of people of attacking me, and I make arguments even in the cases I do level such accusations, so I'm not using them in lieu of argument or to deflect from not having one.

Maybe don't call people names and they won't say you're attacking them?

This scene from Sword in the Stone is how I perceive the changes from HW to SB to ShB to EW.

In this clip, the design team is the sugar tin, and the sugar itself is the simplifying of job mechanics. What we needed was what Arthur gets, a couple scoops of sugar, and SB was more like getting a 3rd scoop... a little too sweet, but not overpowering. What we got is Merlin's cup. We hit an acceptable level of sweetness years ago, but they continue to pour spoonful after spoonful of sugar, only we're screaming "when!" and they aren't stopping adding sugar to the cup. They seem to be on a crusade trying to eliminate anything that even sounds like it threatens the idea of accessibility, but I firmly believe if we instead tried to find that 2-3 spoonfuls of sugar 'goldilocks zone of simplicity' the game would still be extremely accessible, but without continuously alienating more and more veteran players/expert players who find that there tea has become undrinkable. Maybe it'd be a little sweeter than some might like, but it wouldn't be downright unpalatable.

The irony to me is that if their goal is to make things totally accessible, they've gone completely the wrong way about it.

While I do agree Cleric was a cancer and some of the DPS kits were probably a bit more than they should be, the most confusing thing for new healers that I've noticed is that they don't know the difference between GCDs and oGCDs, as the game doesn't explain it at all. The convoluted way some actions work with other actions or not ("healing actions" vs "healing magic" boosting effects, for example), is another one.

It's weird they leave those things in that are unintuitive, that the game doesn't explain, and that make a MASSIVE difference in the output of the player - if you follow ABC and weave oGCDs instead of casting them stand alone as if they were separate abilities, you already will easily get a Blue or better in general content like 4 mans or 24 mans where you're being compared against the whole player base; not to mention DoTs, which are something that new/average players often let fall off and forget to refresh, or worse, spam multiple times - while supposedly trying to make things more accommodating and accessible.

Also, since this is apparently a point of thing now:

I don't know why you chose to take this as an attack. It really wasn't.

What makes you think I took it as an attack? I never said I took it as one (a certain SOMEONE'S insistence to the contrary). I'm not even sure why you thought I took it as an attack. I said "Ugh, HOWEVER, so we can ruin this otherwise feel good moment..." not "There you go again, attacking me". I wasn't accusing you of making an attack. I just was enjoying your SGE proposal and then saw you say that and was curious why you were going that line of argument instead.

I never said it was an attack nor that I felt it was an attack (because I didn't think or feel either), I only said it was just ruining an otherwise feel good moment.