#FFXIVHEALERSTRIKE

[Aravell]

Another benefit of decoupling Baneful Impaction from Chain is the event should you are paired with dupe SCHs in 8-24 man contents. We went from "I forgot to press chain the entire fight" to "oops let's just overwrite one another heheh". I honestly know not which one is better, but what I know for sure is neither of them feels great.

Their obsession to consider 8-man savage/ultimate and nothing else is really tiresome to watch. There are also players outside those content, yanno SE?

With how the community acts with numbers and rankings, it gets even worse.

Let's take the chaotic raid for example. Taking into account that there's 24 people hitting into buffs, and Chain lasts 20s, so that's about 8 GCDs under the buff multiplied by 24 people. If you get a SCH in 2 alliances and one chooses to delay their Chain by 1 minute, that's an overall gain......BUT the SCH who chooses to delay will see their numbers suffer, because there's less big hits placed under their buff at 1 minute in and they didn't put their big 2 minute hit under full alignment as well. This leads to people just overwriting each other every 2 minutes for the better personal numbers even though it leads to less party damage overall.

[Supersnow845]

With how the community acts with numbers and rankings, it gets even worse.

Let's take the chaotic raid for example. Taking into account that there's 24 people hitting into buffs, and Chain lasts 20s, so that's about 8 GCDs under the buff multiplied by 24 people. If you get a SCH in 2 alliances and one chooses to delay their Chain by 1 minute, that's an overall gain......BUT the SCH who chooses to delay will see their numbers suffer, because there's less big hits placed under their buff at 1 minute in and they didn't put their big 2 minute hit under full alignment as well. This leads to people just overwriting each other every 2 minutes for the better personal numbers even though it leads to less party damage overall.

Today kids we are learning about the prisoner dilemma as represented by SCH buffs in a chaotic raid

Amazing design squenix

[Rein_eon_Osborne]

This is very much something I dislike with the recent decision to add a bunch of follow-up oGCDs to the raid buffs.

I was playing RDM several weeks back in Jeuno and got a party nearly full of RDM. We somehow managed to co-ordinate (most of the time) with staggering Embolden, but that does come with the cost of delaying the follow-up attack, losing a use of it in any given fight. Thinking about duplicate jobs in alliance that rely on debuffs like SCH makes that idea far worse, because now you're effectively throwing away an alliance buff to try and stay in line with your parties buffs. Before it didn't matter, you just co-ordinate and try to get your buffs to not overlap, now it comes with a loss that just feels bad if you can actually co-ordinate your raid buffs.

Also they're just filler for fillers sake, they don't add anything meaningful to the rotation besides "big number every 2 minutes".

You'd think if their grand idea of DT job design means "lots and lots of follow up oGCDs", they could've at least pick the ones that make sense. But then we got things like:

• Temperance => Divine Caress. Why? Why not things like Plenary Indulgence?
• PoM => Glare IV. Why? Why not Assize?
• Chain Stratagem => Baneful Impaction. Why? Why not Aetherflow?
• Divination => Oracle. Why? And on personal note, is Oracle really thematic for AST?
• Many more, IIRC SMN's Searing Light => Searing Flash, too?

Can't think much else at the moment, but again, shows how uneven the amount of thought they've given to the jobs in general.

[Aravell]

You'd think if their grand idea of DT job design means "lots and lots of follow up oGCDs", they could've at least pick the ones that make sense. But then we got things like:

• Temperance => Divine Caress. Why? Why not things like Plenary Indulgence?
• PoM => Glare IV. Why? Why not Assize?
• Chain Stratagem => Baneful Impaction. Why? Why not Aetherflow?
• Many more, IIRC SMN's Searing Light => Searing Flash, too?

Can't think much else at the moment, but again, shows how uneven the amount of thought they've given to the jobs in general.

I think it's possible that their thought process is:

People use big hits under buff alignment > Big hits belong under buffs > Why not put a big hit as a follow-up to buffs?

[Rein_eon_Osborne]

I think it's possible that their thought process is:

People use big hits under buff alignment > Big hits belong under buffs > Why not put a big hit as a follow-up to buffs?

If that’s the case, then the overwrite-able (de)buffs should be the last one they’d consider. This is how I came to a conclusion that they never consider anything that’s not 8-man savage/ult when they make these sort of decisions.

Aside from questionable pick, my other problem with these new follow-ups is the fact they are pressed so little amount of times or condensed to one specific type of period in a fight.

[Supersnow845]

It seems like they looked at follow ups that actually worked or flow with the rotation and decided that worked for every skill when it didn’t

An example is star prism as a follow up to starry muse which does work as a follow up because it also functions as one of the 5 spells you put under hyperphantasia to proc rainbow bright. The VPR skill that procs a second reawakening (serpents offering?) also giving a rattling coil stack I’d argue is another

It seems like there are jobs that they did make it work so they haphazardly stuck it on every job without really understanding why it worked on the jobs that it did work on

[Azurarok]

really just adds to the notion that healers are an afterthought

[ForsakenRoe]

You'd think if their grand idea of DT job design means "lots and lots of follow up oGCDs", they could've at least pick the ones that make sense. But then we got things like:[LIST]
Temperance => Divine Caress. Why? Why not things like Plenary Indulgence?
PoM => Glare IV. Why? Why not Assize?
Chain Stratagem => Baneful Impaction. Why? Why not Aetherflow?
Divination => Oracle. Why? And on personal note, is Oracle really thematic for AST?

Because their DT job design idea is not 'lots of followup OGCDs' when it comes to Healers, it's 'give them one more damage button, but only to use in the 2min window so it has almost zero impact on the overall rotation'. WHM's isn't even an OGCD (Glare4)

Div>Oracle is a particularly egregious offender. 'We have removed the RNG from the cards, because it didn't feel good to players that they might draw the 'wrong' card in their burst window. Players will suffer their quota of bad RNG via a system they cannot control (whether Oracle crits or not), instead of the one they had some influence over (redrawing/spreading/MA'ing cards)'

If they want to 'fix' Oracle, they could make it hit 12 times (cos it invokes symbolism of the Twelve), that way the DHit/Crit chance is smoothed out across the hits instead of the 'all or nothing' it currently is

allow me since this is very hard for you to do : LINK

With Pictures : HERE, HERE -> taken from THIS site and of course THIS.

Please elaborate on your experience while you correlate with the data presented. I will be here waiting. I am waiting here how your "feelings" correlate with the data presented and how people are playing healers there because it's more "rewarding. (according to you anyway)

Not them (or maybe I am, we're all alts of each other apparently), but A: again you're on about Retail WOW, and I was using Vanilla/Classic as an example, B: some of those links are just things like 'what is the ratio of healers to tanks google' which gives you the answer 'it's 1 Tank, 1 Healer, 3 DPS for a dungeon party' which... has already been mentioned in the thread and doesn't really prove anything, C: only the youtube video actually breaks down the data by SPEC, the others just say 'what class', and when you have the ever-popular Retribution Paladin (DPS) being logged as the same 'class' data as the not-so-played Holy Paladin (Healer), it messes the stats up. Especially for Druid, as they have FOUR specs (Caster, Melee, Tank, Healer)

Lastly, D: Here's some stats for my point about Classic. From about 2 months ago, a reddit post with some census addon data (Aliiance side):

From left to right for classes, you have:
Warrior (Tank/DPS, both work very well)
Paladin (Tank/Healer/DPS, but playing any spec but Healer is 'meme tier' so most picking it will be Healer. Brings 5min duration buffs called 'Blessings', such as increasing attack power, increasing MP regen, or decreasing threat generated)
Hunter (3 DPS specs, gets a pet companion, very popular)
Rogue (3 DPS specs, star of many Warcraft AMVs back in the day due to being able to 100-0 someone in PVP before they can even get out of CC)
Priest (2 Healer specs and one DPS, will be played as a Healer mainly due to Shadow being 'meme tier' damage (though some raids run one Shadow just for the raidbuff it brings))
Mage (3 DPS specs, the best goldfarming class and one of the fastest at levelling, always popular)
Warlock (3 DPS specs, not as popular as Mage, but it can summon allies to their location with Ritual of Summoning, and in a game where you have to run to the dungeon entrance to enter it, that's pretty neat)
Druid (Tank+DPS/Healer/DPS specs, the Tank/DPS spec is a 2-in-1 and isn't completely terrible but most raids prefer to just have 2 Warriors as the tanks. The pure DPS spec goes OOM faster than a RDM on res duty, so it's a meme. The Healer spec is also a bit of a meme (due to being HOT focused, but the HOTs don't stack with other Druids unless you use different spell ranks), but it's the most functional of the three)

And the Horde side from that same server:

Again, from left to right:
Warrior (Tank/DPS, both work very well)
Hunter (3 DPS specs, gets a pet companion, very popular)
Rogue (3 DPS specs, star of many Warcraft AMVs back in the day due to being able to 100-0 someone in PVP before they can even get out of CC)
Priest (2 Healer specs and one DPS, will be played as a Healer mainly due to Shadow being 'meme tier' damage (though some raids run one Shadow just for the raidbuff it brings))
Shaman (2DPS specs and 1 Healer, mainly played as Healer due to its incredible throughput AOE healing via 'Chain Heal'. Brings 2min duration AOE buffs via Totems, such as increasing stats, decreasing threat generation, or auto-cleansing debuffs)
Mage (3 DPS specs, the best goldfarming class and one of the fastest at levelling, always popular)
Warlock (3 DPS specs, not as popular as Mage, but it can summon allies to their location with Ritual of Summoning, and in a game where you have to run to the dungeon entrance to enter it, that's pretty neat)
Druid (Tank+DPS/Healer/DPS specs, the Tank/DPS spec is a 2-in-1 and isn't completely terrible but most raids prefer to just have 2 Warriors as the tanks. The pure DPS spec goes OOM faster than a RDM on res duty, so it's a meme)

And why not, here's a different site's chart for the server, with both factions combined:

If we then assume that the majority of Druid/Paladin/Shaman/Priest players are playing that class as a Healer, and that every Warrior is a tank (god I wish), the roles would stack up like this:

Even if we took an estimate of, say, 50% of Warriors are playing DPS Warrior only and absolutely refuse to Tank (it's probably closer to 75% that refuse to tank but let's be generous for the example), and that about 25% of each of the Healer spec players are playing their scuffed 'meme tier' specs for whatever reason (eg Boomkin, Ret Paladin, etc.), then the Tank column is still vastly lower than the Healer one. There's no Healer population issue in that particular MMO.

Of course, it's a recreation of a 20+year old version of the game and has been mathed out almost completely, such that we now know that 'Shadow Priest has horrid MP issues, if you pick Priest you should expect to be playing as Holy and Healing at endgame', so I imagine that the example doesn't count in your mind

edit: looking at one of your links again:



And in the video you linked (with the spreadsheet), I went through and added up the %s for the specs in each role, and got Tanks at 16.12% total, and Healers at 21.74% total. Bearing in mind that Tanks and Healers occupy one slot in the dungeon group of 5 for the content the data was pulled from (Mythic+), the ideal result is that those two roles make up approximately 20% each. So Healer, according to the data for that content, in that particular Season, was overperforming in pickrate slightly.

Also, these two things in the edit are referring to actual Retail WOW, not Classic. Please proofread your citations because they damage whatever argument you thought you were making

[Maltothoris]

If that’s the case, then the overwrite-able (de)buffs should be the last one they’d consider. This is how I came to a conclusion that they never consider anything that’s not 8-man savage/ult when they make these sort of decisions.

Aside from questionable pick, my other problem with these new follow-ups is the fact they are pressed so little amount of times or condensed to one specific type of period in a fight.

And let's nkt forget that in the 7.0 patch note explanation, they added " to increase attack variation, we added the lvl 92 big hits." That itself is an issue with it since especially glare 4 is the only one thatsan gcd while the others are ogcds and psyche only has a 1 minute cd.

[ForsakenRoe]

Playing through Dawntrail MSQ again to level an alt character, and I couldn't help but notice that, when playing as a DPS for the 93 Dungeon (the mountain one), Alisaie takes on the Healer duties there (despite Krile being present, and still presumably knowing how to be a White Mage?). Anyway, as a Healer-RDM, Alisaie keeps the team alive with Vercure, Vercure 3, and VerMedica2. That's all she needs, to cover the required healing for the dungeon. Beyond that, when healing isn't required, she's able to use the Ver-magics to attack (Fire/Stone/Aero/Thunder), and still has access to the melee combo finisher/gauge spender.

So my question, I guess, is: Why can't I play as a Healer with that kind of 'healing action:damage action' kit balance/ratio, if the Trusts (which are designed to be far more simple in what they do, so as to be more 'predictable' in their output) are apparently capable of it?