Quote Originally Posted by Renathras View Post
Okay, I'm confused: Is it impossible or isn't it?

I was just accused of hyperbole for saying this was impossible, but here you are saying it's...impossible, citing no one giving a valid mechanical proposal of it as evidence of it being impossible.
Mu.

The universe of game designs is vast and limitless. But not all points in this universe are worth including within The Realm of the Possible, because some points run afoul of Certain Principles. One Principle is that a design point should be Fun. Another Principle is that a design point should take reasonable measures to make the MSQ and other normal-mode content Clearable by Causals and those who are not the most skilled.
On Fun: The gameplay I described earlier in this thread is one point in this universe. Is it Fun? I say, "no." I suspect many others would also say, "no." Thus do I exclude it from The Realm of the Possible. It is not proof that 100% healing GCD uptime is possible.

On Clearable by Casuals: One of the defining characteristics of casual play is that there is room to make mistakes. That necessitates that some GCDs be held aside for responding to those mistakes. Those GCDs cannot be used for healing demands induced by mechanics. Thus, any design point that allows players to make mistakes in MSQ-level content cannot also require 100% healing GCD uptime in that same content and remain within The Realm of the Possible.

(The astute will observe that the gameplay example I came up and just linked to, for all practical purposes, eliminates the possibility of mistakes.)
Now, absence of proof is not proof of absence. But I find it curious that all else being equal, no one has come along to describe, in detail, some design point within the Realm of Possibility that approaches 100% healing GCD uptime, or even tries.

And that is the real point to consider. Because a priori, there is no reason to reject "increased healing requirements" as a potential answer to "boring healer damage rotations." But to have that discussion would require that there be an actual design, or a shadow of a design, to talk about — much like how the merits and demerits of "more damage options" can be discussed via the many proposals that have been put forth.