I'm bored when I heal because I need more complex DPS rotations

[Renathras]

Does it not stand to reason that...

If the previous incarnation was bad, only people who surgically attached rose tinted goggles to their eyes would ask that. Think about it, if we took WHM back to SB but kept the modern better things it has, Lily, Temperance, and Lilybell, it basically would be EW WHM with Aero 3. That's it. The Lily change for WHM was huge and was what effectively redeemed/fixed/saved the Job, Temperance is what Divine Seal would upgrade to, and if you aren't re-instituting SB's Lily system, then you get current WHM's Benison and etc that used to interact with it instead. That is, if we're NOT restoring their SB interactions, we're just left with the EW versions anyway.

"SB WHM but with all the better things from EW" is just EW WHM with Aero 3.

I also doubt there would be a "large outcry" at that point; people that wanted more complex healer damage gameplay would be all over SCH (and AST if they preferred the cards) like butter on toast, and the people uninterested in that would be on WHM and to a lesser extent SGE. For all the people insisting all the healer Jobs would have to be changed for them to be satisfied, it's very likely the ones who super want a more DPS focused healer would stay with WHM complaining the whole time instead of just shifting to SCH and having a blast with the very thing they constantly say they want. The only people refusing at that point would be die-hard aesthetics lovers (in which case they kinda made their choice) or people willfully spiting themselves.

I'm CERTAIN there would be people complaining - because there are literally always people complaining - but you'd get people complaining if you did it, too. "Why do I have to track a second DoT now?" "Why do I have to use what's obviously an AOE ability in single target?" (It's kind of funny to me ASkellington below you made that comment considering when I suggested making Holy part of the single-target rotation, he opposed it as "No, that's for AOE", yet wants an AOE ability that would be part of the single target rotation, Aero 3, readded. How weird's that?)

For the record, btw, I'm fine with re-adding Aero 3, though I think something needs to be pruned to free up space for it. The Cure 1/Esuna combination would work fine as part of that. The GCD neutral Afflatus thing under assault would be a second, but if done would tidy things up nicely. That'd be fine with me.

I would wager...

As noted above: I remember a week or so ago when I suggested adding Holy to the single-target rotation and you insisted against it, pointing out Holy is an AOE ability and is for AOE, and how you dislike that Misery, an AOE ability, is used in single-target rotations.

...Aero 3 is AOE. To show consistency with your stated viewpoint, shouldn't you be arguing against it's addition OR insisting it be a DPS loss over Glare so that it won't be used in single-target, considering you dislike Misery being part of the single-target rotation and oppose Holy being part of it? I'm not asking this as a gotcha, more just noting an inconsistency.

I also find it odd how anyone would see Aero 3 and go "man, that's some depth right there!"

Change happens...

While SOMETHING changing is inevitable, SPECIFIC changes are not. For example, it's inevitable that the healers will get new abilities - either fully separate and new things, or upgrades changing the functionality of existing things. But specific changes like more damage buttons are not. Something being inevitable - e.g. us all aging - does not mean other specific things are inevitable - e.g. all of us coming down with the exact same ailment or metabolic crash and weight problems, etc. There are things that are inevitable, but many that are not, and while the general category of "change" is inevitable, specific changes are not.

This is why literally no one is asking for Jobs to not have any changes at all. The arguments are more nuanced and specific than that (and generally specific to damage actions).

Moreover, as we learned with SMN (for those that liked the old version), SAM (for those that liked Kaiten), and some others depending on who you ask (PLD, WAR, DRK, BRD, MCH, MNK, NIN, and AST multiple times and SCH in 5.0 come to mind, offhand), change can very often NOT be good, with people after the fact demanding it be reverted rather than embracing it, and the situation being worse than it was before, not better, to the point of players rejecting the changes, sometimes the Jobs, sometimes the role entirely, and occasionally the game.

Besides, one could point out here - and thus I shall - that one form of change management is to offer some changes but keep some things "comfy" the same. This way, you expand your product/consumer base with new and exciting things for the people that love and embrace change in all its forms while having a comfy safe haven for those that do not. That is, in fact, one of the best methods of change management; not alienating your existing base of customers while expanding to a wider new base or better serving the needs of some of the existing base that wasn't satisfied with the status quo.

Going to offer "New Coke"? If you don't want to be forced into reverting to "Coke-a-cola Classic", the better option is to offer a new product on the side. If it's embraced, you make the new line permanent, if it's not, you end it. But by doing a parallel line, you don't alienate the customers you had before, some of which do not return.

Heck, you know this - this same argument is used by people that oppose the 5.0 change to healers all the time. Back then, if they'd only changed WHM and left SCH and AST alone, people would generally have been happier.

It's yet another reason the 4 Healers Model is such a good idea.

EDIT:

Don't want to burn another post just to say this:

@Renathras, when you wonder why people refuse to engage with you, and why terms like "condescending" have been used fairly recently, I'll cite this as an example:

" While SOMETHING changing is inevitable, SPECIFIC changes are not. This is why literally no one is asking for Jobs to not have any changes at all. The arguments are more nuanced and specific than that (and generally specific to damage actions)."

I would agree that not all change is seen by positive, that isn't exactly news to most people, that should not and typically must not stop future development changes- instead a successful team learns and adapts.

That wasn't "condescending". (Not to mention I've been hit with far more and blatant condescension than that, and people like you have not spoken against the people using it...)

Hell, it's condescending of you to suggest that I'm not aware change is generally inevitable in the first place.

.

TOO often, people use the claim that change is inevitable to justify changes they want, even if those changes may be negative. This is why it's always worth pointing out that while change itself is inevitable, specific changes are not. Yes, it should be obvious. But it's to counter an illogical argument. I think it's the fallacy of generalization, but I'm not certain. "Since change is inevitable, you can't rightly argue against this particular change".

Pointing out that change - in general - being inevitable is not the same thing as the specific change being requested being inevitable is not condescension. It's countering an argument with an argument. The only way it could be condescending is if the initial argument - yours - was condescending in the first place.