Healers need an overhaul

[Shurrikhan]

<snip>

Let's recap:

You point to something that never did X. At all. And you say "Hey, it was far from perfect, but at least it gave X a shot." But it didn't. It didn't even make the attempt. It was just bloated pretense.

As such, when you point to it and say "That's what we should look to [instead]" especially in the context of suggestions that would almost certainly be lower cost and more comprehensively effective, it sounds a whole lot like you'd rather have bloated pretense.

You clearly don't consider those past attempts as just bloated pretense, but you have yet to (A) generalize what you're looking for to the point that the examples (e.g., MP management or Enmity management) you're choosing would ever have been attempted, or (B) point out what you actually want, gameplay-wise, that could inform anyone else to how you possibly look at those past examples and see something attempted that would be worth revitalizing, let why you'd frame all that in the way you have (because that shit sure wasn't management and yet you keep talking about "management").

If you want "meaningful MP management," then no example from this game --which has never had it-- is going to help you with that. So come up with it on your own. Describe. Define. Detail.

If you want anyone to see anything lucrative in that vision, especially when you keep treating it as mutually exclusive to solutions typically held as both more practical and broadly applicable, then elaborate.

[Raven2014]

Let's recap:

You point to something that never did X. At all. And you say "Hey, it was far from perfect, but at least it gave X a shot." But it didn't. It didn't even make the attempt. It was just bloated pretense.

And that's why we don't agree. I never said we had a dollar, but at least we have pennies. You can argue as much on this point as you like about "how little they all meant so it doesn't matter". The point isn't about how little we had, the point is it was still more than what we have now. And had SE decided to keep them, you would have more diverse beyond the current binary.

Even if they were all just bloat, having some bloating diversity would still be preferable to having a bunch of thing that do the exact samething.

you'd rather have bloated pretense.

Wrong.

You clearly don't consider those past attempts as just bloated pretense, but you have yet to (A) generalize what you're looking for to the point that the examples (e.g., MP management or Enmity management) you're choosing would ever have been attempted,

Except I did? I even cited specific gameplay encounter within specific fight within specific mechanic where aggro management and coordination matter a month go. Go back and look for it if you want.

If you want "meaningful MP management," then no example from this game --which has never had it-- is going to help you with that. So come up with it on your own. Describe. Define. Detail.

If you want anyone to see anything lucrative in that vision, especially when you keep treating it as mutually exclusive to solutions typically held as both more practical and broadly applicable, then elaborate.

Beside the false pretense that I did provide examples, I did elaborate, maybe you just never see them because you were simply being dismissive toward them. Like ... seriously, did you just miss the example I cited about Astrodyne? And that's not even the first or 2nd example I had provided.


But, at the end of the day I'm NOT a game developers. I will not pretend that I know the perfect solution that if SE just take what I said and implement it will 100% magically fix all problems. You're pressing me to provide the level of detail as if I'm getting paid by SE to design their game. As a gamer, I have desire and vision of the game I played, and I had expressed it in great detail. As someone who had played plenty other MMO, my experience tell me healers can be far more interesting and involved beyond the current 2 binary tracks that everyone seem to get their head stuck in.

If you or any want more than that, then you gonna have to pay me to sit down at the draft table.

[Shurrikhan]

I never said we had a dollar, but at least we have pennies. You can argue as much on this point as you like about "how little they all meant so it doesn't matter", but what you cannot argue as regardless how little we had, it was still more than what we had now. And had SE decided to keep them, you would have more diverse beyond the current binary.

Never said you did, hence the "at least gave X a shot". But no, a small chance, already in just one trial/raid in in 100, that your tank was out of position for add spawn and you waited until then to burst heal and you had sufficiently accidentally desynced your Sacred Shroud (SCH didn't even have access to an enmity purge at the time), is not even a penny. Nor did it remotely affect "the current binary" (whatever that may be).

The only thing that affected any sort of relevant binary --say, between spam and more varied action or between curative/defensive and non-curative/defensive actions-- was the higher relative healing requirements and a lower portion of healer kits being devoted specifically to healing.

the example I cited about Astrodyne?

Your example is worse than vague gesticulation, so I was waiting to reply in hopes it would be edited into something that'd actually function as elaboration.

In what way do you want to see Astrodyne "further refined and improved"? You've applied absolutely no details save that "<there was thing about it I liked Astrodyne (or, something that is metaphorically Astrodyne) more in Shadowbringers <when Astrodyne didn't exist> that might perhaps center some mechanics or considerations that I think would be preferable to how the Astrodyne (and/or its the parts of its function, its triggers, or its metaphorical implications) now functions>." How is anyone supposed to parse anything from that, let alone to do with MP management?

The only part of AST changed by the inclusion of Astrodyne was Divination and its ability to be underclocked by, and thereby underperform due to, poor Seal management, which had nothing to do with "MP management".

As someone who had played plenty other MMO, my experience tell me healers can be far more interesting and involved beyond the current 2 binary tracks that everyone seem to get their head stuck in.

It's pretty much just you, and maybe Semirrhage, who seem to believe that deliberation around healing can only ever follow that kind of binary.

Most here appear to be looking at/for just three things:

1. How far can we push the dev team to allow us to push the boundaries on relative healing requirements?
   (Tentative answer: Not very far at all.)
   
   
2. When do we start getting diminishing returns on means of offensive, curative/defensive, and utility skills?
   (Tentative answer: Sooner than what button counts we invest into healing right now, but probably [slightly] faster still for offense and, especially, utility.)
   
   
3. How do we make those tools, within each (offensive, curative/defensive, and utility) category and across categories, feel more synergistic (rather than overly codependent/bundled on one end or redundant on the other)?
   (Tentative answer still pending, as the discussion keeps getting sidetracked by those insisting that it's a monolithic camp against them.)

If you or any want more than that, then you gonna have to pay me to sit down at the draft table.

Mate, you're the one spending some dozens of posts here trying to get people to second your vision all while trying to outdo cryptic mystic tropes for vacuity in your details. If it's not worth elaborating on to the point you could actually convey your thoughts to others instead of simply trying to score points by attempting to position everyone else as nonsensical/narrowed extremists... why bother?

I'm more than happy to hammer out what would comprise meaningful MP management or utility involvement, etc. and look at how it might be introduced to the game, but for any discussion to develop you need examples that actually do the things you say they exemplify (i.e., that create actions/considerations/optimizations that would not otherwise exist and actually have the space, context, and weight to affect how one plays), or to create a mockup of them yourself. You don't have to hammer out precisely the how, but we will at least need to know, to some at least roughly actionable/gameplay-affecting degree, to what effect. And, more importantly, it will have to modelled around what constraints are utterly unlikely and/or insufficiently lucrative to change.

Discussion of what precedents within recent dev decisions or, more importantly, what can be gained from those changes will therefore be relevant, too, but we may as well first attempt a model that could engage players even within the present low relative healing requirements and an expectation that content will not be rehauled just to make our model work.

:: In the meantime, I'll search a month (or, between some 10 and 60 days) back for your example on healer enmity management within a particular fight, but if it's what I'm thinking of...

Edit: Well, that was a waste of time. I've combed through your every post in this thread that use any among the words "mana", "MP", "threat", "enmity", or "management". Still at zero for actual examples. Lots of just "it existed!" though?

[Raven2014]

so I was waiting to reply in hopes it would be edited into something that'd actually function as elaboration.

Ok, I'll bite, in good faith.


A - Turn "play" into a GCD instead of an oGCD.
Reasons: One, reduce the excessive weaving that AST has to do comparing to other healers. Two, make play easier for people who on controller or don't play with macro (targets switching). Three, allow draw to be weaved with play instead of over 2 GCD or risk double weaving (QoA for high ping).


B - Each time a card is played, give AST 1 stack of buff that makes the next Melafic hit for twice potency. Cap this stack at certain # so AST has to manage it instead of just stack it infinitely for buff window.
Reasons: one, reduce the #of Melafic spam with an equivalent number of card play while has no DPS loss. AST can strategically manage their stack for optimization. This is somewhat similar to WHM Lily.


C - Astrodyne will give a timed and stack-able buff up to 3 stacks. A 3 seal astrodyne will increase the stack value (up to three). 2 Seal astrodyne will simply extend the timer of the current stack but not increase its value, otherwise the stack will decrease by 1 each time the counter reach zero. (Think about the old MNK Gease Lighting, but with a twitch). Adjust timing of cards so that AST has to pace out Astrodyne, save and pump out 2 Astrodyne back to back will risk not have enough seal to refresh the stack in time.
Reason: reward good effort without being too punishing on bad RNG. Allow AST to has their own mini-window without clutch play.


D - Astrodyne stack can give 1 of these 2 buffs: a haste buff that allow more cast, or a % damage buff to melafic but also increase its MP cost. The math should be worked out that while it improve output, it can not be sustained with a zero piety build.
Reason: One: I had said it before, when the role ignore its supposed main 2nd stat (piety) in favor of a non-relevant stat (DH) then there is something really wrong on a fundamental level of the design, that has to be fixed. Two: provide an alternative option that make DET/PIE a viable competitor to the CRT build- similar to how the SpS vs Crit option on BLM. For example: a CRT build would favor to maintain a 2 stack Adstrodyne while a DET/PIE built would prefer a full 3 stack up time. Or, high level of play can have AST juggle the stacks throughout the fight to find the ideal sweat spot between output and MP regen ratio ala ram up for buff window, drop down to conserve MP. (This is my idea of active MP management, not just pressing some buttons).



Now, before anyone gonna jump and pick apart the above proposals, save the effort. What I have just said is nothing more but an illustration of the kind of rework that I would like to see. I do not claim these will solve the issue, or if they are even good fixes. I simply want to show (per request) why I don't believe the fix to be simply adding one or two more DPS button. I had worked on a few total conversion mod in the Total War series, that's why even though I'm not a dev, I'm not naive enough to think a complex problem can be solved by just throwing around some on the spot suggestions, be it mine or yours.


For me, engagement start from the planning, to approach, and deliberation, not just merely how many button to press. I also want it to remain accessible to new healers, but provide enough depth for the veteran to optimize (not unlike Yoshi's vision for BLM). The last point is more about my own personal issue that I had raised a month ago about the role identity. You can not have a "proper" healer with a flaw design at the very first and basic step.

[Shurrikhan]

Now, before anyone gonna jump and pick apart the above proposals, save the effort. What I have just said is nothing more but an illustration of the kind of rework that I would like to see.

Ok, I'll bite, in good faith.


A - Turn "play" into a GCD instead of an oGCD.
Reasons: One, reduce the excessive weaving that AST has to do comparing to other healers. Two, make play easier for people who on controller or don't play with macro (targets switching). Three, allow draw to be weaved with play instead of over 2 GCD or risk double weaving (QoA for high ping).


B - Each time a card is played, give AST 1 stack of buff that makes the next Melafic hit for twice potency. Cap this stack at certain # so AST has to manage it instead of just stack it infinitely for buff window.
Reasons: one, reduce the #of Melafic spam with an equivalent number of card play while has no DPS loss. AST can strategically manage their stack for optimization. This is somewhat similar to WHM Lily.


C - Astrodyne will give a timed and stack-able buff up to 3 stacks. A 3 seal astrodyne will increase the stack value (up to three). 2 Seal astrodyne will simply extend the timer of the current stack but not increase its value, otherwise the stack will decrease by 1 each time the counter reach zero. (Think about the old MNK Gease Lighting, but with a twitch). Adjust timing of cards so that AST has to pace out Astrodyne, save and pump out 2 Astrodyne back to back will risk not have enough seal to refresh the stack in time.
Reason: reward good effort without being too punishing on bad RNG. Allow AST to has their own mini-window without clutch play.


D - Astrodyne stack can give 1 of these 2 buffs: a haste buff that allow more cast, or a % damage buff to melafic but also increase its MP cost. The math should be worked out that while it improve output, it can not be sustained with a zero piety build.
Reason: One: I had said it before, when the role ignore its supposed main 2nd stat (piety) in favor of a non-relevant stat (DH) then there is something really wrong on a fundamental level of the design, that has to be fixed. Two: provide an alternative option that make DET/PIE a viable competitor to the CRT build- similar to how the SpS vs Crit option on BLM. For example: a CRT build would favor to maintain a 2 stack Adstrodyne while a DET/PIE built would prefer a full 3 stack up time. Or, high level of play can have AST juggle the stacks throughout the fight to find the ideal sweat spot between output and MP regen ratio ala ram up for buff window, drop down to conserve MP. (This is my idea of active MP management, not just pressing some buttons).



Now, before anyone gonna jump and pick apart the above proposals, save the effort. What I have just said is nothing more but an illustration of the kind of rework that I would like to see. I do not claim these will solve the issue, or if they are even good fixes. I simply want to show (per request) why I don't believe the fix to be simply adding one or two more DPS button. I had worked on a few total conversion mod in the Total War series, that's why even though I'm not a dev, I'm not naive enough to think a complex problem can be solved by just throwing around some on the spot suggestions, be it mine or yours.


For me, engagement start from the planning, to approach, and deliberation, not just merely how many button to press. I also want it to remain accessible to new healers, but provide enough depth for the veteran to optimize (not unlike Yoshi's vision for BLM). The last point is more about my own personal issue that I had raised a month ago about the role identity. You can not have a "proper" healer with a flaw design at the very first and basic step.

I will attempt to approach it as such. I hope you will consider my comments likewise, as roughly illustrative.

So that you can double-check my interpretation, from which my later comments are based:

It seems to me that you are more or less following two goals (or, a primary goal and a constraint):

• Reduce the GCD time (or, more broadly, the perceptible attention) spent on offensive (or at least, repetitive filler) actions, replacing them with more "healer-like" uses thereof.
• Attempt to realistically meet the constraints of present systems (Piety as a lackluster/shit stat, difficulty is basically limited to predominantly-single-target encounters anyways, relative healing requirements cannot be increased, and no new technical innovations/affordances are likely).

I will continue from that interpretation, but if that interpretation has been made in significant error, feel free to simply stop me there and ignore what follows.

Comments:

First, I would recommend that you consider how large of changes you want to make and what arbitrary constraints that goal would already outstrip. You seem to be accounting for constraints that are just far more negligible than the sum or trend of what "pennies" would be necessary to get your "dollar" of healing changes. [See C and D, especially, and their seeming to try to salvage Piety.]

Most rehauls requested here --even limiting that survey to those offering more illustrative examples-- would be so much larger of changes than the likes of adjusting or removing Piety that it would not be worth anchoring those suggestions around something like Piety unless its current implementation, or one given even just a very small tweak, would be desirable. Whether those rehauls be the likes of <siphon excess healing tools towards non-healing uses> or <make us feel more like actual healers™>, they're still pretty big changes even before touching on any sort of encounter redesign.

Consider Piety, for instance. You seem to be going out of your way to attempt to give it relevance through small changes elsewhere, perhaps on the hope that it could allow for meaningful MP management in some new way, but if the stat itself is terribly designed, efforts made around that stat will be that much less effective. Unless the problems with the stat are precisely the issues you wish to fix on a larger scale (and I suspect you may believe so, but I would offer a warning, in mirror, shortly), I'd recommend you first instead treat Piety as if it didn't exist. You'll need to later account for the threat of the stat's existing, but unless it offers a unique advantage to gameplay for existing, tentatively axe it.

Note: Piety essentially exists to increasingly remove active MP management, replacing it instead with a pre-fight gamble. Essentially, it's a commission, alike to Enmity when that was sort of a mechanic. One "wins" by guessing as nearly as possible, without falling short, how much MP they will need over the course of the fight and swapping gear out accordingly (within their limited means). That much is fundamental to Piety. No small tweak will replace that function. Piety's gains are finnicky and rather obscure, likely falling short of its issues (outsized tryhard pretensions/gear-spotting, a "waste" stat, and/or reduced engagement with future/possible MP management in gameplay). Is that worth keeping?

(If not, consider also whether Direct Hit and Tenacity actually improve the game at all, or likewise make it worse in their current form. Remember also that you can also later add back what functions, or the desired parts thereof, these stats actually meet as you wish. It's just easier to build upon a blank state than a marred one.)

Second (though it's partly connected to the first), I have to wonder why [in parts A and B] you'd pigeonhole the rDPS-recuperation from Cards into ST damage, rather than simply putting that value into the Card itself.

I get the intention in turning cards into GCDs, but you will have two sticking points:

1. By being turned into oGCDs, the Cards will feel that much less responsive.
2. The oGCD Cards, and the APM and 'rush' they provide, have always been iconic to AST. Removing that may feel like removing something of the "essence" of AST.

Moreover, the GCD paired with a card was previously variable. Now, you have forced it into a bundle with Malefic, specifically. This can make it more difficult to find space for in healing-intense situations, should they ever arise, and can make the Cards feel in some ways less "healer-like," as they may feel like a 30s damage "Malefic+" CD first and a card second.

Why not simply buff the cards nearer to their old value? That would make them more sensitive to party dynamics, of course, but (A) as they are on a fixed timer, they would not disproportionately bleed into a 2-minute meta and (B) awareness of one's party's dynamics is iconic to supportive gameplay, and of course to AST.

I do not ask this in hopes of some sort of "gotcha!" I am not even certain the choice was wholly deliberate on your part. I just hope these questions may, on answer, clarify your intent.

______________________________

For me, engagement start from the planning, to approach, and deliberation, not just merely how many button to press. I also want it to remain accessible to new healers, but provide enough depth for the veteran to optimize (not unlike Yoshi's vision for BLM).

I think you and I, and probably most here, are in agreement on that. Adding more buttons has always seemed, across more suggestions here, to be a means to an ends, not an end in itself, and most are wary of overburdening new healers in terms of their immediate responsibilities / more vital capacities.

The contrast has simply been on whether less immediately essential aspects, like an increased ceiling on damage optimization beyond improving effective healing efficiency, would increase learner stress more so than an excess of tools that are difficult to find a (especially, non-redundant) place/slot for (as per our glut of oGCD heals). The general consensus seems to be that an excess (variably defined, ofc) of healing tools both makes healing less intuitive and makes healing capacity harder to balance (since it creates that much larger a gap between those familiar with each of those tools and those still learning).

:: Moving away from just what thoughts I'm seeing here to my own takes:

In short, for there to be any seemingly "significant" healing to be done at the high end (let us very tentatively define this as a combination of cognitive load [depth and count of decision made and/or tracking/tasks which inform those decisions] and palpable impression [such as from portion of uptime or actions spent on healing]), there has to be a smaller gap in ability to meet relative healing requirements between those who have become familiar with those healing tools and those who have not yet done so.

On the other hand, tools for shared and/or uncapped throughputs (in XIV's case, damage dealt, be that directly or indirectly) are far more forgiving to those gaps; a single healer who has only become familiar with a small part of their offensive tools and therefore underperforms in damage still has 7 other players to buoy their performance, and --filling an uncapped need-- familiarity with those damage tools does not render lower level tools (those that are earlier and more easily learned but are less efficient) redundant.

An 8-way, uncapped responsibility [here, damage] --the failings from which will almost never wipe a party through a short-term check-- is simply far more capable of allowing for sophistication without negative effects (inaccessibility, redundancy, etc.) than a mostly 2-way responsibility [healing] that acts only through short-term checks. As such, siphoning some of the gap in throughput from mastery of healing tools to other areas would probably both help the feel of healing (less redundancy while still having about roughly equal ceiling just by returning relevance to lower-level tools -- or even increasing that ceiling once permitted by that lower relevant throughput gap, such as through returning a space for pre-cast healing, by finally introducing MP management, etc.) while also improving the skill ceiling of healers' collective tasks (damage and utility also included) without asking too much of healers in their most immediate/iconic/assumed responsibilities.

__________

Similarly, I don't think anyone here is claiming that "simply adding one or two more DPS buttons" would fix everything, only that it would have an outsized positive impact given the constraints we're working under and the largest present pain points.

[Deceptus]

I think you and I, and probably most here, are in agreement on that. Adding more buttons has always seemed, across more suggestions here, to be a means to an ends, not an end in itself, and most are wary of overburdening new healers in terms of their immediate responsibilities / more vital capacities.

The contrast has simply been on whether less immediately essential aspects, like an increased ceiling on damage optimization beyond improving effective healing efficiency, would increase learner stress more so than an excess of tools that are difficult to find a (especially, non-redundant) place/slot for (as per our glut of oGCD heals). The general consensus seems to be that an excess (variably defined, ofc) of healing tools both makes healing less intuitive and makes healing capacity harder to balance (since it creates that much larger a gap between those familiar with each of those tools and those still learning).

Just want to chime in on this specific point.

Adding more DPS options literally doesn't affect the people who don't want to DPS. They don't do it now, they won't do it no matter how many extra buttons get added.

And the higher content you play, quite frankly the more is expected out of you (for any role). That means optimization and better play. Don't want to make that improvement? Don't step into that content, or look for it only via the Duty Finder, because no one owes you a group.

Basically if the FFXIV devs refuse to add DPS options I hope they start adding more buffing / debuffing actions.

• Bravery (short duration physical damage increase)
• Faith (short duration magic damage increase)
• Protect (short duration party physical mitigation)
• Shell (short duration party magic mitigation)
• Virus (Enemy damage down)

[Shurrikhan]

Adding more DPS options literally doesn't affect the people who don't want to DPS. They don't do it now, they won't do it no matter how many extra buttons get added.

Agreed, especially given how quick communities typically are to single out "unique" role responsibilities first (sometime beyond their actual value towards long-term goals, wherein every role exists only to leverage what tools they have to complete the duty at the best equilibrium they can manage between reliability and speed).

Basically if the FFXIV devs refuse to add DPS options I hope they start adding more buffing / debuffing actions.

• Bravery (short duration physical damage increase)
• Faith (short duration magic damage increase)
• Protect (short duration party physical mitigation)
• Shell (short duration party magic mitigation)
• Virus (Enemy damage down)

This, on the other hand, I'm a bit more worried about, for a few reasons:

1. Job identity.

   As all jobs move their rDPS towards non-situational but indirect (pure damage, just not done yourself) means (a la Cards, Divination, and Chain Strategem), job distinctions get that much more blurred. No, I'm not a fan of WHM being a job whose identity is practically a lack thereof (slight hyperbole) and would be fine with them getting some utility, but I'd much rather that utility not simply be a more direct "Cards-lite", etc. I'd much rather, say, see more situational and virtually untaxed utility tools (such as oGCD single-target movement speed buffs, etc.) while keeping WHM rDPS firmly grounded in its direct damage.
   
   Bravery/Faith is basically the existing Cards mechanic as is (except that it applies to roughly equal halves of the job base, instead of 3/4s vs. 1/4 thereof with PLD and DRK being inherently screwed over).

2. (De)buff bloat.

   Admittedly, this works off the assumption that these additions, like their traditional forms, would have no CD. That, however, puts them at a narrow balancing point. If overpowered, they become a maintenance mechanic. Such maintenance mechanics tend to devolve into rather stale gameplay far, far more crippling to freedom to heal than any trio of DoTs, since they're applied across up to 8 allies instead of 1-3 enemies (AoEs outpacing DoTs thereafter), or else lose all target priority/selection by being applied via AoE buffs instead, equally gutting their available depth. Even if "perfectly" balanced, a spammable GCD Virus over a typical span of a boss's damage should prevent slightly less damage than filler healer (a Cure II-equivalent) would replenish, such that it becomes mildly obligatory in damage-dense periods and is largely wasteful otherwise.

3. Redundancy and the Role Action problem.

   Even if having balanced spammable fensive (de)buffs perfectly so as to reward timing and target selection, what exactly would, say, (a spammable, GCD) Protect accomplish that a gauge-based Aquaveil would not? Bankable but non-spammable tools offer similar flexibility while also having more impact available per cast. Moreover, they already follow the visual themes of those jobs, rather than using old generics.

None of that is to say adding more buff/debuff actions would be bad, but simply that --given the examples in question-- there are some points of concern.