AST proposal: An idea revisited

[Renathras]

Like the Realm Reborn you appear to have dropped the moon on the class in an attempt to reshape it into something entirely unlike what it was originally intended to be

...which is the very reason I say I don't recommend this. You just asked what it would take, and this is telling you what it would take and why I don't recommend it.

As for the why of WHM; note that SCH and SGE have the same cadence. Moreover, WHM is the most played. Meaning if we were going to preserve the playstyle, WHM would be the goal. It's weird how it's so blindingly apparent to me, yet with no amount of argument or explanation can I get you (the "general you", you, Shurrikhan, etc) to see it. I'm not sure if you don't want to, or if it's just experience and preference are so divorced, you literally can't see it. But the end result is the same either way. It'd just be nice to know if there was a way to explain it where you'd understand...

Still don't see why...

I know.
That's the problem.
You don't see.

I don't mean this to be snarky, it's just...frustrating. Anyway, read the explanation below and you'll understand why I posted this and why I think it's NOT a good idea. Me posting it was, in fact, to show WHY it's not a good idea.

You can achieve this much simpler...

In some ways, yes, but in some, that misses the mark. Solace/Rapture/Misery are on the GCD. Cards would need to be as well for it to have a similar feel. Moreover, actively buffing people is something that both AST players specifically and players that don't like damage rotations more generally seem to enjoy. Having more of it, but it being more manageable, would be the goal, hence the GCD changes. Making Draw/Play GCDs fixes that problem while not forcing people away from buffing into even more Malificspam, and with the specific proposed change (buffing a future Malific) both plays into AST's time/fate bending aesthetic and parallels the Misery system that WHM's love and that has been something pretty much everyone likes in at least some way. Even the people that want "more nature spells" tend to like the Lily/Misery system 5.0-Present, especially post-6.1.

I also find it really weird that the abilities you like the least are the ones I find the most interesting. Like I'd never get rid of Collective Unconscious. That's an ability I've wanted on WHM since I saw Louisouix use the bigger version in the End of an Era, and since seeing Y'Shtola use it (as a CNJ) at the end of ARR. I'd never toss that ability in a million years, yet it's one of the first that folks like you would throw out the window. Though I do agree Undraw is utterly pointless.

GCD cards could be much easier to tune if they simply gave flat potency onto the targets next attack rather than all having to all be to percentage based buffs where things can potentially balloon out of control.

And ya, ASTs overall APM is fine, the main issue is that it's all dogpiled into the burst window currently. If that was addressed and it became optimal for us to spread cards out evenly, it wouldn't be a problem IMO.

One thing not even captured in the APM is all the target swapping. Yeah, some people use macros, but a lot do not, so that's a lot of extra "actions" that aren't even accounted for, but are still button presses (on controller)/mouse clicks (KB&M). Though I'm kind of curious what AST's overall APM would be without Draw/Play.

Come to think of it, I haven't seen anyone make a "current average APM of all Jobs" table in a long time. Wonder if there's a more up to date one than...late ShB/early EW.

Restrict that to affecting GCDs only and you'll have made Physical Ranged better recipients than all other DPS save Monk and BLM, and Healers better recipients even than physical ranged, just through their bonus damage from traits (20% for Rangers, 30% for healers).

MNK and NIN, right? NIN's attack speed buff makes it faster as well. Not sure what DNC/BRD go for these days, though, but it's slower than Huton, isn't it?

Chances are it's my fault somehow

I mean...in this case, it literally is? XD You know that, though.

Gotta address this one, as I feel this person was just caught up in the crossfire without any understanding of the prior conversation:

No thank you, I personally prefer AST's higher APM gameplay compared to WHM's. （*´▽｀*）
...
You did a whole thread asking AST players why they like the job and this is what you got from it? Or did you just not care? If you want a healer like WHM, just play WHM. Don't steamroll other jobs. ･:*+.\(( °ω° ))/.:+
The only things I'll agree with you is we don't need Minor Arcana and Astrodyne in their current states. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I've proposed before a suggestion for the people wanting "more DPS buttons and high dps rotation skill ceiling on healers" that we change a couple of them while leaving others alone. My personal ideal is to leave WHM as it is, give AST its SB cards back, give SCH its SB damage spells (DoTs and such) back, and give SGE a rotation kinda like SMN or RDM with it healing through Kardia.

But people like Roe constantly ask me "Why WHM? Why not...?" AST, SCH, or SGE as the one left alone. I've presented plenty of arguments for why, but they like just ignoring that I made them or pretending they don't matter.

For WHM, it's obvious; it's the simple healer, always has been, and it plays today very much like it did in ShB in terms of rotational cadence, and in ARR and even HW, it wasn't a huge DPS rotating powerhouse and has always had a pretty streamlind rotation and relatively slim ability suite/hotbar non-bloat. It starts at level 1, people who play it largely do so because they like it, and people seem to enjoy the Lily system and WHM's raw healing etc etc. Plenty of reasons.

SGE is probably the next easiest to play now, was designed and implemented just like it has been, so no one can complain about it having "lost" or removed abilities that they "want back" since it's only ever been in the form it's in today. It works in the current encounter design space, it largely knows what it wants, and starting at a high level means it can be picked up by new healers - that is, people new to the role that want to add a high level healer to their roster.

SCH makes less sense, as it does have more people don't like about it and is largely considered a more clunky SGE, and it lost a lot of abilities going from Stormblood to Shadowbringers. So having it be one of the ones changed makes far more sense, though it would be third on my list of ones for people that like the current overall healer gameplay. I feel it makes much more sense to revert it to its SB form, albeit with some modern additions like the better pet AI and Expedience.

AST makes the least sense of all to me to suit the purpose of appealing to people that like the current combat system. It's the least "normal" (compared to the other three) healers now with its very high APM that turns a lot of people off (but others love it), and it has a lot of clunk and jank that people dislike, and long time ASTs still pine for the SB days of cards that had different and more interesting buff effects. It makes WAY more sense to capitalize on that and really gear AST to be the healer that appeals to players who enjoy buffing allies and using bigbrain delayed effects and such. But, Roe was pushing the issue, so I told her I'd list what changes would have to be made to AST to appeal to the players that want something like current WHM - and WHY I thought it was a bad idea, as literally no one would like it. Even the players like me that want to keep one like WHM or SGE the same wouldn't like it so much as tolerate it, and it would alienate existing AST players and AST vets who want the SB incarnation back.

But because the gauntlet was thrown down, this was the answer.

And, honestly, I feel doing the 4 Healers Model would be useful for one more reason - it would finally put to bed the argument of whether players want more complex healers with more damage buttons or less complex ones with fewer. If everyone went to the simpler healers, we'd know that those wanting more DPS buttons and more complexity were the minority. If more go to the more complex one, we'd know they were the majority. If it's about equal, then we'd know that both sides represent large segments of the playerbase, and it only makes sense to have healer Jobs suited to both sides. It's really the only way, absent a massive poll by SE, that we could find the answer to that question.

So no, this wasn't what I got from the AST thread. This is a completely different project. And yes, I like WHM (and SCH and SGE), and AST is my least favorite healer in general. I love that it exists, because I know some people really really like it. And I'm happy it's there for them and WHM is over here for folks like me.

I'm the one arguing we need that. I'm the one opposed to taking it away.

So, in short...we're on the same side. This thread was devil's advocate.

I could see that there could be some leeway for (a), other than that I would say why not just play WHM?

Please read the above.

Roe put a challenge to me to why AST couldn't work in place of WHM for my 4 Healers Model. Despite me explaining many many many times over why it would be the worst choice.

This is me making the point in concrete terms. I'm glad everyone agrees with me on it.

"why not just play WHM?"

Because everyone and their dog here is insisting WHM be changed from what it is today! This is my very point. Don't change WHM and I'll keep playing WHM. Simple. I'm glad everyone finally gets it. \o/
(Okay, I know you guys still don't get - or don't agree - with it, but your posts are basically explaining why the 4 Healers Model IS the ideal. XD)

.

That said, it's not just a shitepost. There are things in there that I think are interesting design directions, and some likely have merit. I fully expect the AST rework will involve doing something about the APM, though I have no idea what the Devs will come up with. But the point of this thread was to show Roe why it can't be AST that is "the simple one".

[ASkellington]

In some ways, yes, but in some, that misses the mark. Solace/Rapture/Misery are on the GCD. Cards would need to be as well for it to have a similar feel. Moreover, actively buffing people is something that both AST players specifically and players that don't like damage rotations more generally seem to enjoy. Having more of it, but it being more manageable, would be the goal, hence the GCD changes. Making Draw/Play GCDs fixes that problem while not forcing people away from buffing into even more Malificspam, and with the specific proposed change (buffing a future Malific) both plays into AST's time/fate bending aesthetic and parallels the Misery system that WHM's love and that has been something pretty much everyone likes in at least some way. Even the people that want "more nature spells" tend to like the Lily/Misery system 5.0-Present, especially post-6.1.

I also find it really weird that the abilities you like the least are the ones I find the most interesting. Like I'd never get rid of Collective Unconscious. That's an ability I've wanted on WHM since I saw Louisouix use the bigger version in the End of an Era, and since seeing Y'Shtola use it (as a CNJ) at the end of ARR. I'd never toss that ability in a million years, yet it's one of the first that folks like you would throw out the window. Though I do agree Undraw is utterly pointless.

Your goal was to simplify AST from what it is and to make it slower more in line to WHM.

It does not have to have 1:1 GCDs as WHM to achieve that, and I designed my mock up in such a way.

Further, I'm not putting cards on the GCD for the simple reason as an AST main I hate the idea and want nothing to do with it. You can slow the APM down and keep them oGCD.

[Shurrikhan]

MNK and NIN, right? NIN's attack speed buff makes it faster as well.

NIN's is only 15%, and it has no damage buff, so it would still fall short of physical ranged under flat-bonus-potency-per-GCD buffs. MNK gives 20% atop a 10% buff, slightly edging out healers and physical ranged while still falling short of BLM if the bonus damage is granted as a part of the actions themselves instead of as a separate attack (wherein BLM's 23% bonus from Enochian would stack with its +80% Fire Damage under AF3 in order to get 121.4% more value out of the buff that is labeled on the tin -- utterly imbalanced).

If the bonus were to affect GCDs only, was dealt separately (so no Astral Fire benefit on BLM) but still inherited the effects of traits (Maim and Mend, Job Actions Bonus, Enochian) and buffs, then MCH with sufficient Heat would be best, then Bard under Paeon, then MNK, then BLM, then everyone else well behind.

If the bonus were to GCDs only, was dealt separately, and was not affected by traits (only affected by damage buffs), then it'd be MCH (w/ Heat) > MNK (+20% Haste, +10% Damage) > DRG w/ Lance Charge and Dragon Sight (+30% Damage) > SAM (+13% Haste, +13% Damage) > Bard w/ Paeon and Raging (+16% Haste, +10% Damage) > NIN with TA (+15% Haste, +10% Damage) > PLD under FoF (+25% damage) > GNB under NM / DRG with just LC or just DS (+20% Damage) > BRD w/ Paeon (+16% Haste) > NIN / BLM with Ley Lines (+15% Haste) > DRG / RPR / DRK / WAR (+10% Damage) > etc., etc.

But yeah, long story short -- using flat potency bonuses would be absurdly imbalanced. +% Damage is literally already the most balanced buff possible.

[ForsakenRoe]

...which is the very reason I say I don't recommend this. You just asked what it would take, and this is telling you what it would take and why I don't recommend it.

I don't recall asking for any amount of reworking to AST. I remember asking 'if one healer has to get zero additional damage buttons, what if it was AST, since it's always had comparatively less even in SB, so as to allow more mental load to be dedicated to the cards'. This aligns with what SE tends to do, which is to 'increase healer job complexity' (debatable) by adding new healing or mitigation tools. So, I was trying to work out whether your '4 Healers' thingy was actually about the damage rotations as you say, or if it was just 'complexity' in general. Because AST is currently the (arguably) most complex of the four, while leaving it exactly as it is would theoretically meet the requirements of your model (if it were only about damage), I would assume that taking that path is not actually what you're after with your model. Which, given your reaction to what I posted was to mockup a design to turn each AST ability into a WHM copypaste, seems to track

The '4 Healers' model has nothing to do with keeping one healer as it is for the people who enjoy the current gameplay style. It's about keeping one specific healer the same, by the looks of it, said specific healer to be chosen at the discretion of the person pitching the model. If it were about 'keep one healer (any one of the four) the same', AST being kept the same fulfills that. If it were about 'keep one healer (any one of the four) having the same damage button rotation', SGE gaining complexity via making it's 'healing via doing damage' identity more of a focus of it's gameplay, would fulfill that. But these do not count. Instead, every example you've given of what would fulfill the conditions of this model, is either that WHM stays the same, or that whatever job that takes WHM's place to spare it from the sacrificial altar for one more day, becomes eerily WHM-esque in how it's skills operate

(wherein BLM's 23% bonus from Enochian would stack with its +80% Fire Damage under AF3 in order to get 121.4% more value out of the buff that is labeled on the tin -- utterly imbalanced).

Damn I forgot Enochian exists. So then, the 310 of Fire 4 is not actually effectively 558 as I thought (which is already a silly high number), but 686? No wonder there's so much optimization room regarding Thunder refresh timings and the like, when stuff all has different percentages applied to modify the 'effective potency'

[Shurrikhan]

Damn I forgot Enochian exists. So then, the 310 of Fire 4 is not actually effectively 558 as I thought (which is already a silly high number), but 686? No wonder there's so much optimization room regarding Thunder refresh timings and the like, when stuff all has different percentages applied to modify the 'effective potency'

Yep, and it doesn't scale linearly with stacks and there is virtually zero information in-game as to what AF's modifiers are. You'd think they'd just use a steady 20, 25, or 33% per stack, base numbers thus adjusted, but no:

30|60|80% Fire dmg amp, with 0|0|50% Ice cast-time reduction, 25|50|100% Ice MP costs, and 100|100|100% increased Fire MP costs. The only intuitive part is the -10|-20|-30% Ice damage per AF stack.

I get that they need the 100% decreased MP costs to have removed MP management and tick tracking from the class (which I think was a mistake, especially since it invited Flare nerfs, but oh well), but the rest seems like it could be made a whole lot more intuitive:

Astral Fire: +33|67|100% Fire Damage, -33|67|100% Ice MP costs, -20|40|60% Ice Cast Times.

No penalty to opposite element (since that's already, relatively speaking, baked into the greater damage amp). Can retain the doubled Fire costs in AF, change them likewise to +33|67|100% MP costs and round the base costs to the nearest multiple of 300, or just double Fire spells' base MP costs.

Umbral Ice: -33|67|100% MP Costs, -20|40|60% Fire Cast Times, and +20|40|60% of max MP generated per tick.

The current MP ticks rates are 3200|4700|6200 for whatever reason.

I'd recommend a background change of MP ticking at one's GCD rate instead (since they're not synced to the HP/DoT/HoT global tick anyways and that would automatically solve Spell Speed's MP inefficiency issue while also allowing Piety not head into "ugly numbers" territory by just further amping tick rate instead), which would incidentally buff this further, but this would work in either case.

[Sebazy]

GCD cards could be much easier to tune if they simply gave flat potency onto the targets next attack rather than all having to all be to percentage based buffs where things can potentially balloon out of control.

And ya, ASTs overall APM is fine, the main issue is that it's all dogpiled into the burst window currently. If that was addressed and it became optimal for us to spread cards out evenly, it wouldn't be a problem IMO.

[Shurrikhan]

GCD cards could be much easier to tune if they simply gave flat potency onto the targets next attack rather than all having to all be to percentage based buffs where things can potentially balloon out of control.

If you attach a flat potency increase then its value would vary hugely around offensive APM and damage modifiers. For instance, if it would directly increase the potency of each action by, say, 50, it would actually increase the value of BLM fire actions by 90... before even adding in Enochian, and Mage's and Army's Paeon would both likely outperform Wanderer's Minuet, etc., while MCH takes the world by storm, and SCHs' Energy Drain would make a much larger difference than just its current up-to-390 relative ppm.

Restrict that to affecting GCDs only and you'll have made Physical Ranged better recipients than all other DPS save Monk and BLM, and Healers better recipients even than physical ranged, just through their bonus damage from traits (20% for Rangers, 30% for healers).

A simple percentile damage bonus is already the easiest thing to balance, because it interacts only with the final product, rather than any of the varied factors in getting there.

[Sebazy]

If you attach a flat potency increase then its value would vary hugely around offensive APM and damage modifiers. For instance, if it would directly increase the potency of each action by, say, 50, it would actually increase the value of BLM fire actions by 90... before even adding in Enochian, and Mage's and Army's Paeon would both likely outperform Wanderer's Minuet, etc., while MCH takes the world by storm, and SCHs' Energy Drain would make a much larger difference than just its current up-to-390 relative ppm.

Restrict that to affecting GCDs only and you'll have made Physical Ranged better recipients than all other DPS save Monk and BLM, and Healers better recipients even than physical ranged, just through their bonus damage from traits (20% for Rangers, 30% for healers).

A simple percentile damage bonus is already the easiest thing to balance, because it interacts only with the final product, rather than any of the varied factors in getting there.

I probably should have been clearer ya. My thoughts were more akin to ffxi en spells. A flat potency hit that’s added on independently of your own attack. That would bypass the multiplicative spiral entirely.

[Shurrikhan]

I probably should have been clearer ya. My thoughts were more akin to ffxi en spells. A flat potency hit that’s added on independently of your own attack. That would bypass the multiplicative spiral entirely.

That would not bypass the multiplicative spiral entirely, even then. Modifiers like Fight or Flight and Twin Snakes still affect such things. Even if they didn't, you'd then have only two optimal targets, a Heated MCH and Monk. Such would be far worse than what we have now, so I don't understand what you hope to accomplish by moving away from the already most balanced form the buff could take.

[Sebazy]

That would not bypass the multiplicative spiral entirely, even then. Modifiers like Fight or Flight and Twin Snakes still affect such things.

That would be circumvented by limiting the number of hits that get the added potency hit no?

To be clear, at it's most basic level, my idea boils down to 'take my nuke potency and put it on another players next attack'.

Dress it up as an enspell akin to what we saw in the old XIV intro cinematic with the Marlboro and I'd be willing to bet that it'd be received in a better light than the current crop of glare mages with different oGCDs, think Yelan's burst in Genshin if you're familiar with it. Perhaps if explored properly, this could be a gimmick for a healer other than AST?