The Problem with Healer Feedback, and requested changes

[Renathras]

Debating whether to reply or not, since we're all talking around each other, but just a few things:

Say SE does as you say and changes only SGE, AST and SCH to have 2 more dps buttons. WHMs who want higher depth will complain and rightfully so.

This kind of argument isn't good, because this is true in either case. Say SE does as you say and change all 4. Then WHMs, SCHs, ASTs, and SGEs, who don't want higher depth will complain and rightfully so. If we leave things the same, Then WHMs, SCHs, ASTs, and SGEs, who want higher depth will complain and rightfully so. And if we do as I say, WHMs who want higher depth will complain and SCHs, ASTs, and SGEs who don't want higher depth will complain, and all rightfully so.

There is no case where there won't be people complaining - "and rightfully so" - meaning this cannot be used to attack my position and not yours (or not the current status quo). That means you can't use this as a reasonable argument, since it applies to all three cases. Unless we had exact data of which one would have more people complaining (and we don't have such data), all we know is that it's a negative for all three policies, not just one.

Once again - all tanks have a 1-2-3 combo on top of what makes them different: their extra dps.

SE tries to balance Tanks to do around the same damage. They're really bad at this. But it's why WAR was buffed in 6.2 for its damage/burst and why PLD was reworked in 6.3 to shift it into a burst window and make it play more like GNB and WAR. DRK is constantly accused of playing like WAR. The Tank forums are now complaining that all the Tanks are being forced into the same rotation - which they seem to think is bad - and that's kind of against your argument.

Further, tanks have a 1-2-3 combo, usually 2 damage oGCDs, a damage boost button (sometime oGCD sometimes GCD), and a burst button. For example, WAR has Heavy Swing, Maim, Storm's Path. It has a 30 sec upkeep button (Storm's Eye). It has a resource spender (Fell Cleave), and 2 oGCD damage attacks used in single target, its gap closer and Upheaval (which shares a CD with Orogeny, the AOE version, so you can only use one or the other, not both. They could just make them both Orogeny and nothing of value would be lost). It has an oGCD to use for damage every 60 sec (Inner Release), and then it has one big capstone ability Primal Rend. So it has 6 GCD attack buttons. 7 if you include Tomohawk.

Oh, I'll note here some "upgrade" (e.g. Inner Beast to Fell Cleave which becomes Inner Chaos if used after Infuriate), but these are all ONE button, just like Stone 1, Stone 2, Stone 3, Stone 4, Glare, Glare 3 are the same button. The animation changes during combat and the latter two has a mechanics difference, but that's pretty much it. It'd be like if WHM's filler was Glare but it changed to Glare 3 when you used Thin Air or Presence of Mind or something.

How many GCDs does WHM have theoretically used in single-target fights?

Cure 1, Cure 2, Cure 3, Regen, Medica, Medica 2, Afflatus Solace, Afflatus Rapture, Misery, Glare, and Dia. That's 11 GCDs. What's this? WHM has more GCDs than WAR does for single target fights? You can argue you don't often need to use them, but that doesn't remove them from existing. That would be like arguing Tomahawk is like Cure 1, rarely used so not counting.

Well, maybe if we look at ALL the GCDs? WAR has a 1-2 AOE combo, right? And we can count Decimate even though it shares resource with Fell Cleave and if they just made Fell Cleave AOE we wouldn't need the button, but sure. That gets us up to...10. Oh, but then we have to count Holy for WHM, bringing it to 12.

Well, maybe WAR has more oGCDs?

It has Orogeny AND Upheaval (even though they share a CD), Bloodwhetting AND Nascent Flash (even though they also share a CD), Inner Release, Shake It Off, Onslaught, Equilibrium, and Infuriate, Holmgang and Vengeance, and Thrill of Battle. That adds 12. That gets us to 22!

What does WHM have? Lillybell, Aquaveil, Temperance, Plenary Indulgence, Divine Benison, Tetragrammaton, Thin Air, Assize, Asylum, Benediction, and Presence of Mind. That adds 11. That gets us to 22...

But...but...maybe Role Actions? Tanks have 7! That gets WAR to 29. Of course, Healers have 6, which puts WHM at 28.

If you REALLY want to, we can count Defiance, but we'd also need to count Raise.

WHM has both equal to or more GCDs and equal to or more oGCDs than WAR does, despite WAR having a 1-2-3 combo plus change. Maybe the reason WAR needs the combo is because if it didn't have it, it would have fewer buttons than any Job in the game? Without the 1-2, WAR would have fewer buttons than WHM...and also a rather similar rotation of a spam filler + a 30 sec upkeep.

Now, I'm comparing WHM and WAR here because they're the closest equivalents. You might bring up PLD at which point I could bring up SCH and AST and we'd see they have a comparable amount of buttons. So the argument is the same.

The issue isn't that Healers need more buttons. It's that they need more common use cases for their other buttons.

(NOTE: I think I'm missing one for WHM here, because my bars have 32 buttons with LB, Sprint, and Mount right now, but I don't have Repose and everything else is full...so WHM has 30 total, I'm just not sure where I'm missing one. Anyway, point still stands: WAR and WHM currently have more or less the same number of buttons.)

You're arguing...

Collectively, you people need to stop telling me what I'm arguing and ask me what I'm arguing. Because despite me explaining it isn't this multiple times, you guys keep collectively trotting out this strawman over and over so you can beat on it some more. What did the scarecrow ever do to you? Can you show me on this doll where the strawman touched you?

...never mind I've argued for WHM to get Aero 3 back as an AOE tool, so I haven't argued against it being re-added anyway!

Especially considering that both old and new players adapted to SB -> Shb changes of AST and Shb -> EW's changes the latter of which I did.

As you all are collectively fond of saying - SB -> ShB changes made Healers easier (the word "braindead" is often used) to play. Adapting to something easier is the opposite of adapting to something harder. This is also not a valid argument for the change you're advocating.

Briefly, I never told anyone to quit.

If you can say that me raising valid points and making level-headed arguments is "throwing a tantrum", then...

...I can say you "told people to quit". Would you like a truce now, an armistice, where we don't each make up biased takes on what the other said and instead stick to asking each other what we mean with our statements? Or do you wish to continue the biased assaults where I, in kind, could say "You told people to quit"?

One can lead to productive discussions, the other will lead to me continuing to ignore and rebuff you.

What I said was, if some doesn't enjoy the way content is structured for healers in this game,

The problem is, people ARE enjoying the game as it is today. Your argument is to change it away from what it is right now (regarding Healer design), and if they don't like it after the change, to quit or only play the MSQ. That's a very different argument. You're presuming they find the current state unacceptable, which they clearly do not. The axiom itself is faulty, therefore you cannot use it to draw further conclusions.

But regardless, I want to mention the "be bad." part for a moment, because I have to ask, why do you think that choosing to play the way you want makes you "bad?"

Oh, I don't.

You all, collectively, do.

I'm distilling what you've said into something that doesn't add yet more text to my "novels". Your collective position is that unless someone is pressing at least 7 buttons (Tanks) in their standard rotation, they are either "bad" or "carried". Bad is fewer letters.

I don't think it's being bad to research a Job that doesn't play a DPS rotation, attempt to optimize what damage I do around the needs of the party (healing), and execute mechanics of a Savage fight. As someone once said, "A gray parse is still a clear - if someone has cleared a Savage fight, they've cleared a Savage fight." This doesn't mean "I shoot for the bare minimum", indeed, I try to do more. I just try to keep my party alive. If that requires GCD healing because some DPS thought the green water in Carby looked drinkable and I'm burning Cure 2s to keep them alive because I'm smart enough to know their DPS is higher than my Glarespam, then so be it. I'm a "team player" and prioritize the success of my team. That's why I like playing Healer and Support roles and not DPS roles where emphasis is on personal contribution.

When I play DPS, I get agitated because I know every mistake I make. It's kind of a curse. So I don't enjoy doing it because - as you say, everyone makes mistakes - when I inevitably make on, I beat myself up over it. My solution is simple: I avoid playing Jobs based on that form of gameplay. Not to mention I rarely make such "mistakes" on Healer since the gameplay is more freeform. A Solace + Cure 2 or Solace + Tetra are achieving the same general goal, and which I use might depend on the situation and the fight, if I have a lot of MP or not, if I expect an incoming attack where I'll need Tetra or not, etc.

Healers are nice in a way since there's seldom an absolute "A right answer" and rather there are often several right answers and you may choose the one you like the best based on the party, fight knowledge, and what you feel of the situation at the time. This strongly contrasts with damage rotations where there is an absolute right answer, "The right answer", and anything else is technically wrong, even if slight. You can argue that with healing, but not really. If I use CD 1 at 30 sec and CD 2 at 60 sec, I could often reverse those and achieve an identical result. I like things which are more freeform and allow creativity without having a definitive "best" answer, which is true of Healing (and to an extent, Tank use of CDs), but not true of DPSing or DPS rotations in most cases.

The only really comparable DPS is probably RDM (the general guideline being not to unbalance your Mana but within that framework, you have some wiggle room on what you choose to cast - the Thunder/Fire opener could be swapped for Aero/Stone and nothing would be lost) or SMN (in the sense that as long as you keep Bahamut/Phoenix timing right, aren't dropping casts, and ideally use Titan in the 2 min burst window, the order of your other 5 Summon uses is up to the player based on their fight knowledge, like avoiding Ifrit if going into a heavy movement phase)

Brain and Heart.

I definitely would have included Brain for you. I figure in this way, we're not dissimilar. If you like the chance and risk elements, though, you may lean a bit more towards Heart in that respect. Again, not saying this as a good or bad thing - I'm not quite sure where I fall, either - more just a curiosity.

Your warrants here rely on a certain point of obsession, though -- the idea that unless you specifically truncate a job (or, keep knee-high, however you want to put it),

"Keep the same" is how I want to put it. And how I've repeatedly put it.

affecting everyone who may like that job for whatever reason

And you want to ruin every job with needless and pointless complexity to keep you slightly more entertained, which will also affect everyone who may like the current iteration of the Job for whatever reason. So in this way, we're both arguing for the same thing. I'm just giving ground/compromising while you are not.

But that's just not the case.

You keep saying this, but I've shown it is the case. No matter how many times you say "No, you're wrong", "No, you're wrong" isn't a counter argument. You have to actually prove that. You saying it isn't proving it.

Alternatively, if not proof, you can present an argument. "No, you're wrong" isn't an argument. It's a statement. And as the statement is contested, it's meaningless to the discussion until such time as it is substantiated with evidence, proof, or argument.

As I noted, unless the difference is trivial, it will be the case. And if the difference is trivial, you will complain about the difference not being great enough for your enjoyment. I've said this several times and you haven't disproven it at any point, you just keep saying it isn't so. A few times you've even admitted it's true, saying that people who can't up their game will be gatekept out of content and don't deserve to clear that content. You, of course, used this to leverage a personal attack against me (wanting to be carried) instead of admitting that it makes me right.

Second, why should the game have to pander, let alone at broader expense to others in balance, to someone wanting to take the easy way out in competitive group content?

Because that is the way the game is right now.

That is the status quo.

You are arguing for a change from the status quo and acting like your proposed change takes precedence. It does not. The status quo takes precedence. A change has to be argued for, not assumed as the default. And if a change causes harm to people, you must explain why that harm is good or modify your proposed change to minimize that harm.

...which is, ironically, what I did. I modified your proposed change to minimize that harm. Which is why my proposition is the compromise position. I took your position and made a compromise between it and the status quo which minimizes harm.

You want something that you can easily sub into Savage groups with without needing to particularly know or practice your job?

No.

You can keep saying this personal attack over and over again, and I will keep telling you you're lying.

You guys collectively think Tanks are harder than healers. As I pointed out, my first Savage clears were on GNB. Not only a Tank, but a Tank that isn't WAR. Clearly I didn't "want something easy". I did something that by your own (collective) admission is harder than healers. So clearly, I'm not averse to "harder" things. I just don't like certain types of gameplay (heavy focus on damage rotation), which is why even when I do "harder" things I avoid DPS Jobs. Tanks do damage rotations, but my focus as a Tank is on maneuvering the boss, executing mechanics, and properly using CDs on myself, the other Tank, often Healers to keep them alive, and Tank swaps. The rotation is vestigial. If it was one button or 10, it would be irrelevant as long as I could maintain threat, maneuver the boss, survive hits, protect the party, and support the other Tank when OT.

Clearly I'm not into "carries" or "easy" because I play things that aren't, by your definition, being carried or that are easy.

...for you. ...that you don't... ...just so that you don't...

vs

...why should the game prune away or cap the excess of tools that others would enjoy...

You keep doing this.

It's not for me. It's for the 20-80% - some number, but it likely falls in there somewhere - of players who all prefer playing like I do to playing like you do. For the, oh, 250,000-1,000,000 or so people that play the game that don't like the healing gameplay you propose (out of a healer community of around 1,250,000, that's 20-80%). Don't get caught on the number, I think we're all mature enough to realize at least 1/5th of the playerbase probably likes playing simple. The Lucky Bancho numbers also support that. So if you attack that, that'll be you trying to avoid admitting reality.

If 1/5th (at a minimum) and probably higher (likely 50-60%, but I'm talking floor) think like I do, then 1 out of 5 Jobs being built for them makes a lot of sense and would be healthier for the game.

To the second: You're literally proposing this same thing in reverse.

I could just as easily ask: "why should the game remove simplicity and effectiveness of tools that others would enjoy just so that you don't have to see it?"

Moreover if expectations were so tight as to require every player to well engage with every tool at their disposal, you do realize also that any job which can hit the same peaks more reliably and with less effort would start becoming obligatory, no?

No, it wouldn't.

And I've even told you this before in a prior post, I believe.

We've seen from the game's past that people often play more complex Jobs because they enjoy them. They are rarely blackballed due to complexity if the player is actually capable in them. BLMs aren't blackballed despite being harder than SMN and RDM. Fewer people play them because the Job is more complex, but a competent BLM is seen as a more flexible SAM and they are able to clear content.

AND, if you think this WOULD happen, all that proves is that people don't want complex Jobs in their groups and the game, which is an argument against making Jobs more complex, isn't it?

If the situation is tight enough that you'd be harassed into engaging with more than you like, so too would players be harassed into picking easier, less "egotistic" picks.

So why is the first acceptable to you and the second not?

Is it because you want the second and want everyone forced into doing it so you can be satisfied, regardless of if other people are miserable?

Surely not...

If this happens, all it will prove is that people want Jobs in the game to be simple and more reliable, not more complex and with high skill ceilings. And if that's what the playerbase wants, what is the argument against giving the paying customers what they're asking for? If democracy has spoke and said it wants simpler Jobs - which is what your above argument implies - then isn't that what the game should provide us? Why should it give us what only the minority wants?

Your argument is akin to the "bring back Classic WoW attunements/Everquest grinds!" people. It's that you want something that you don't think the majority would do unless forced to, so you want the game designed to force everyone to do it so you can be satisfied. But the implication is that you are saying the majority doesn't want it.

If the majority wanted complex Jobs, then they wouldn't blacklist people playing complex Jobs in favor of the simpler ones. They would only do that if the majority wanted simpler Jobs.

The hardcores have very little to optimize, the casuals have no room to grow, and the 'healers should only heal' crowd STILL refuses to press their damage buttons, even though there's so few left.

At this point they could make it so that when you use a heal spell, 50% of the potency of that heal is done as damage in an AOE around the recipient, and some players would stop healing people who are too close to the mob, in case it does damage to the enemy. I've even seen some run out to Assize, so it hits people but not enemies, that's how much they don't want to do damage. Like 0DPS is an accomplishment of its own. Which, it is I guess, but not one you proudly brag about.

I would love to see video proof of this.

I haven't seen a 0 damage healer since ARR. I'm curious where all these people running away from the party to Assize are. I'm not saying NONE exist, but it has to be a trivially small number. Did an FC run of the 24 man last night and one of the tanks would chase people when he got the tankbuster while laughing in voice chat. That doesn't mean that's how he plays actual content or how he would behave if not in a friend group having fun.

As much as some of you rail against 0 DPS healers, I'm curious what percentage of the actual player base they are. Is it even 1%, do you think? Does it get to the double digits? Do you have videos of these people running away from enemies so they don't accidentally damage them? Because I find it dubious someone would do more work to avoid hitting an enemy with Assize of all things. That one is a bit too much to accept on face value as anything more than an FC person messing around...