
Originally Posted by
Renathras
And no, this doesn't. THIS isn't like any of the healers today. Not ONE healer today has two DoTs it puts on targets then sits on its hands for the next 5 minutes. None. What healer plays like this proposal right now? Oh right: NONE OF THEM. Never mind it's all DoT based, something you and he already know I dislike.
Firstly, it's one DOT, with potency based on if you apply it for ST or AOE, not two. Secondly, the healer that 'plays like this proposal right now' would be like, classic WOW healers. It doesn't exist in FFXIV now, sure, but that is because SE learned that this kind of design is bad. Blizzard did too, that's why you see Druids using up to 4 DOTs in M+ runs, and HPaladins donking things with a big hammer. So what, one damage button to spam like Glare is required because 'sit on hands' is not gameplay, but more than that is 'busywork for the sake of it'?
Also, there's a very large difference between DOT based and DOT centric gameplay. You don't like DOTs because of DOT management (ie staggered timers etc), no? Yes, the source of your damage is one single DOT here. No, that does not mean it's a DOT-centric gameplay loop. You'd press it once and then ignore it. No timers, no 'pool resources so you can refresh at right time', just press it and then spam only healing moves like you're fighting a classic WOW boss like Patchwerk or something

Originally Posted by
Renathras
And yet, that's your consistent position.
Might be theirs, but it is not mine. I've compromised on so much, that it's almost impossible to do bad damage on my WHM pitch. You'd have to purposely stop casting damage abilities full stop. The difference between attack A and B is so marginal that Crit Variance would cause your enrage 5 times over before 'WHM didn't press the right buttons in the right order' ever even thought about being an issue. The compromise happened in the design phase, not post-pitch. I figured that by getting the obvious 'we can't have Banish be a massive gain over Glare because what if casuals don't press it at the right time', and other such points of contention, out of the way before they even have a chance to be an issue, then the criticisms can be levied against parts that need criticism. Instead the arguments are attacking a phantom limb, something that was already addressed. Which just makes it look petulant, and makes it seem like 'any change is bad'.
You do know that the 'complexity' of WHM jumped far more thanks to an SE change (making Misery damage neutral) than anything I suggested right?
[/QUOTE]
But, that's why your proposals aren't acceptable. You don't care to understand the side opposed to you, so you're not offering something said side actually wants.[/QUOTE]
Because what 'said side wants' is effectively to be given the rewards of participating in a piece of content, at a fraction of the effort of any other role, by making one of the members of said role have zero depth, with no recourse for those who want to put more effort into said job. SMN is catching an alarming amount of flak over the same issue, because 'why would I want to learn an ultimate on RDM/BLM when I could brain-off and do it as SMN?' And they're right in a sense, the challenge of the Ultimate is in learning the fight, not in the job rotation. So it makes complete sense to use the more forgiving SMN with it's 6 total seconds of cast times per minute to learn something with as much movement and precise timings as an Ult, and then go back to try your 'actual class' once you know the fight mechanics.
Keeping one healer 'as it is now' means seeing the SMN argument again, but with healers. Everyone already asks 'why play AST for prog when WHM exists'. We did not need SMN to be the 'easy job of the role'. We had one already, it was RDM. And everyone was fine with the level of complexity RDM had, even in SB. SMN went far below that level, and set the skill floor bar to the lowest we've ever seen for a DPS class. We shouldn't be looking at the results of SMN and going 'let's do that again'
I understand what 'the other side wants'. I disagree with giving them 'what they want', because it is antithetical to 'competent game design'. There are some people who want to see positionals removed from Melee. I disagree with giving them that, too, because then Melee loses the final thing it has that justifies it dealing so much more damage than the Ranged/Casters