The Problem with Healer Feedback, and requested changes

[Shurrikhan]

So are Tomahawk and honestly Maim and Heavy Swing which are only pressed because Storm's Eye/Path don't work without them. They're Glare/Dia with extra steps.

...Yeah, honestly. Though, that's also been the subject of much criticism... since 1.18, when Yoshida added those rigid combos.¹

¹ That design paradigm replaced another that, though far from sufficiently polished or tuned at the time, was based upon conditionally-preferable builders and spenders across skills with varying or no CDs with certain synergies that could [if better tuned] create more flexible pseudo-rotations.

That doesn't really make any sort of case for healers having more regularly interacted with GCDs than tanks, though, which was the point originally made before you shifted it to "single-target combat" to specifically remove all tank AoEs from the equation while leaving all healer AoEs.

Even when you consider each job via plugin-style consolidation (a button each per combo, rather than per step), they don't. Even when you pluck out the stuff that needn't be bound (Shield Bash, Shield Lob, Clemency, Shirk; Cure, Medica, Cure III, Repose, Esuna [in most fights]), they still don't.

Healers have by far the most lopsided cpm of any job, even when considering any given combo as a single button each, and the highest portion of disused GCDs.

No, your interpretation of my definition is that simple = shallow. That isn't my definition of simple.

Then why are you contesting the guy over wanting depth that still comes off as (ie., is [as] approachable as) something simple?

If you're given get different test cases that nonetheless look and feel simple, perhaps even more intuitive than what we have now, and you still decline them because they're not simple enough or because they involve some degree of change until only the shallowest forms remain... how else is that supposed to be interpreted?

How is "wise old Renathras", clearly derisive sarcasm, "neutral", exactly?

It isn't. At this point, I'm simply done with you. I leave you to more patient hands and minds.

But neither can you claim "neutrality" in your rampant classical-rhetoric-doctorate-style ego-stroking of 'I alone am capable of rationality; conclusions I don't agree with must be fundamentally flawed and/or based only in emotions.'

Granted, that's not a bias that surrounds a particular opinion, outside of that you are better than those you interact with (and thus if others disagree, they must be wrong), but that still ain't neutral.

You ask for rationales. You are given them. Others expound upon them for you. Others ask you for the same, and you merely repeat yourself under the very same self-conflicting warrants.

3) We have a past instance of making things harder, and it nearly killed the game.

So you're... what, attributing Gordius Savage's difficulty to players lost around that time to that period's content drought? (Hell, Gordius Savage wasn't a matter of excess kit depth; it was a matter of virtually no leniency in encounter tuning.)

...W/e.