Famitsu Interview: Tuning encounters for healing

[Risvertasashi]

From a recent Famitsu interview:

I feel that it will depend mostly on player skill. Recently I’ve received feedback saying “There’s nothing much to do for healing” from the healers so we’ve increased the attack intensity on Eden Promise Savage, and made sure the damage received is tuned as tight as it can be.

These forums have seen some discussion on time spent healing vs time spent DPSing, and wider discussions of healing design philosophy. So, I'd like to open discussion around this interview comment and the most recent raid tier.

Have you healed Eden's Promise Savage?

Does it feel like the healing experience you want? Are there any particular parts of healing Eden's Promise Savage that you like, or don't like?

[Lastelli]

I was asked to prog this savage tier as a healer and yes, it did feel a little more heal intensive than previous tiers, especially the last 2 turns. This provided a little excitement in the first week, though everything went back to mind-numbingly boring after people had better gear.
Unfortunately this internew proves that yoship really has no clue when it comes to healera.

[Deceptus]

This provided a little excitement in the first week, though everything went back to mind-numbingly boring after people had better gear.
Unfortunately this internew proves that yoship really has no clue when it comes to healers.

This is the way.

[Adeacia]

I was asked to prog this savage tier as a healer and yes, it did feel a little more heal intensive than previous tiers, especially the last 2 turns. This provided a little excitement in the first week, though everything went back to mind-numbingly boring after people had better gear.
Unfortunately this internew proves that yoship really has no clue when it comes to healera.

How about instead, the players simply...not use the better gear? Most player complaints can be taken care of by the players themselves it often seems. Stop trying to optimize everything and watch it get harder.

[EaMett]

How about instead, the players simply...not use the better gear? Most player complaints can be taken care of by the players themselves it often seems. Stop trying to optimize everything and watch it get harder.

Or they could design a better game. I know it's a crazy idea, but it might be worth considering? It's not like cognitive flow is a new game design concept. It's been around for forever now.

[Saefinn]

How about instead, the players simply...not use the better gear? Most player complaints can be taken care of by the players themselves it often seems. Stop trying to optimize everything and watch it get harder.

I feel like instead gear progression should be done differently, maybe even lower the iLevel sync too. I mean, I get what you are saying, when my FC did an min iLevel run of Cape Westwind, I had more to do as a healer...on normal difficulty content. It was a weird throwback to when healers were better balanced with content. And in fairness, when I was levelling SCH 70 to 80, in dungeons where we were under geared healing felt more engaging. So I think there is something within the tuning of gear, but it doesn't seem like self-gimping is the answer. Because it's counter intuitive to avoid getting better and it's not like groups are gonna be pleased if you're self-gimping when you could be contributing more.

So thinking on it, maybe an alternative progression could be:

- set a lower iLevel sync on content, put a limit somewhere close to the minimum iLevel
- your mentality for gear progression is to be better geared for the next content you're moving onto and not the one you're currently doing.

EG (numbers are arbitrary and for demonstration, not based on anything).
Instance 1: Min iLevel 450, iLevel sync 460. Gear drop 470
Instance 2: Min iLevel 460, iLevel sync 470, Gear drop 480
Instance 3: Min iLevel 470, iLevel sync 480, Gear drop 490

It'd mean a tighter window for balance without losing the incentive for better gear and that it'd remain based on player skill than being able to face roll it.

Maybe for EX and raid content raise the iLevel sync when it's no longer on content, as I get that some semi-casual groups will do the fights when everybody else has moved on and take advantage of the iLevel increase.

[Absurdity]

- set a lower iLevel sync on content, put a limit somewhere close to the minimum iLevel
- your mentality for gear progression is to be better geared for the next content you're moving onto and not the one you're currently doing.

EG (numbers are arbitrary and for demonstration, not based on anything).
Instance 1: Min iLevel 450, iLevel sync 460. Gear drop 470
Instance 2: Min iLevel 460, iLevel sync 470, Gear drop 480
Instance 3: Min iLevel 470, iLevel sync 480, Gear drop 490

It'd mean a tighter window for balance without losing the incentive for better gear and that it'd remain based on player skill than being able to face roll it.

Maybe for EX and raid content raise the iLevel sync when it's no longer on content, as I get that some semi-casual groups will do the fights when everybody else has moved on and take advantage of the iLevel increase.

This would create so many other problems that then need addressing.

If we take your ilvls as an example then what is the point of getting 490 gear? Your gear from the previous raid tier is already BiS, your 490 gear gets synced down and is probably worse than your 480 gear so what is the point of even getting it? An expansion only has 3 raid tiers so you're not even gearing for the next one. (granted this is also an issue with the current system but with the new system your raid gear is also useless for the raid you're currently doing.)

You are BiS geared for every raid tier after the 1st one without even setting a foot into it, making the content already easier on day 1 because 10 ilvls above minimum ilvl is quite a bit.

What are we gonna do with crafted gear? Keep it the same ilvl as the previous BiS? Then what's the point of getting that BiS gear in the first place? It gets synced down for the current raid and it's at best on-par with crafted for the next one.

What do we do with ultimates? Let's say you get an ultimate after the 1st raid tier, is it gonna be ilvl 470 or ilvl 460? And what if you don't get an ultimate? That's already a problem with the current system where there is really no point in acquiring savage gear outside of log runs.

Then there is the minor issue of having to carry around 2 different sets, one for the current raid and one for the next, with our already very limited inventory space. This is just off the top of my head, I could probably find some more problems.


If we're talking about individual fights within a raid tier then we get some other issues, like having to carry 4 different sets of gear with you for each instance. A lot of the other points however still stand.

[Saefinn]

This would create so many other problems that then need addressing.

If we take your ilvls as an example then what is the point of getting 490 gear? Your gear from the previous raid tier is already BiS, your 490 gear gets synced down and is probably worse than your 480 gear so what is the point of even getting it? An expansion only has 3 raid tiers so you're not even gearing for the next one. (granted this is also an issue with the current system but with the new system your raid gear is also useless for the raid you're currently doing.)

You are BiS geared for every raid tier after the 1st one without even setting a foot into it, making the content already easier on day 1 because 10 ilvls above minimum ilvl is quite a bit.

What are we gonna do with crafted gear? Keep it the same ilvl as the previous BiS? Then what's the point of getting that BiS gear in the first place? It gets synced down for the current raid and it's at best on-par with crafted for the next one.

What do we do with ultimates? Let's say you get an ultimate after the 1st raid tier, is it gonna be ilvl 470 or ilvl 460? And what if you don't get an ultimate? That's already a problem with the current system where there is really no point in acquiring savage gear outside of log runs.

Fair points, even if my suggested solution is terrible I feel like there does need to be some kind of limiting on the iLevels to the degree of keeping content better tuned, not just for high end encounters, but in general. EG. the difference between running Cape Westwind Min iLevel and an every roulette of Cape Westwind is massive. Min iLevel and you have stuff to do, it's not hard, but you feel like you're not face rolling it and have mechanics to do. But in a typically roulette run it's so much of a face roll that we meme how quick and easy it is because the iLevel difference is so high.

Thinking of it as if I was playing the game from level 1 again as a new player. For 95% of the game's content is a face roll, even if I was still learning because the players around me would make it so, but with so much stuff that takes so little effort to overcome that you don't get the experience intended. Cape Westwind is a walkover, Castrum and Prae are complete walkovers, just cutscenes eat your time - but everything dies laughably quick to the point if feels like you're undersizing it almost and just lacks the impact of the experience people like me got back in 2.0 when everybody was still new. They have to wait until much later content to get that experience. And I'd think the gradual progress of difficulty would be better felt (which I think is better for new players, because you learn your job as progress & the game's general mechanics)

As somebody experienced and then getting stuff in my roulettes, it's not that engaging and especially as a healer it's dull as heck because I have to do next-to-no healing.

Of course, there's other ways of making stuff interesting, but if the devs answer is "encounter balance" then I feel it should be across the board so that it is more engaging across the board.

[Sylvain]

The issue with healing is that gear does a double nerf on the healing requirement

First, everyone has more armor/magicresist and HP, meaning that the overall damage taken has been reduced, making the content require less healing.
Second, we heal more, meaning that we also need to heal less.

When you combine both, the difference is so significant that you go from "we need preemptive shield + 2 ogcd to have enough hp before the next aoe" to "just 1 ogcd will be enough"

E11s and e12s did require more, my group rushed z bit more this tier and we cleared the 2 first week one. We could see week after week the impact gear had on us.
We had a replacement mid tier which was undergeared (500ilv)
When clearing e11s healers often had to add an extra layer just for him.

There is no easy solution to that problem as the extra defensive stats from hear are also a core reason why more casual group can clear the content as it act as a permanent raid mitigation.

Removing the defensive stats bump would mean everyone would always clear with the full damage taken , bit then that would mean more casual player would struggle a bit more.

However, unless fight start to incorporate more random form of damage (e10s cleave vs share) healer will always find a way to optimise their ressources making it "boring"
I guess that's the issue we're facing, damage taken is a bit too scripted.
Some variance , just enough to shaken your ogcd management , could go a long way

[Sylvain]

Side note, I wouldn't blame y.p too much on the healing, he plays a BLM and doesn't seem to be a master healer. He can't be a pro at everything especially considering the average player must have more free time in a week than he has in a month.

To me the fight designer are more to blame. It's specifically their job to design fight and be sure all 3 roles are invested.

If after so many tiers they keep being told "there is nothing to heal" then perhaps they need to have a new approach.
I do think this tier was better and not just more raid burster requesting over the top mitigation