#FFXIVHEALERSTRIKE

[Nanananami773]

Hello!

I was one person who posted over on JP, but I did have a friend look over it who was able to do a little bit of proofreader first and I hope mine did not come across as invasive.

I think your opinion was conveyed to the JP users almost without misunderstanding.
There were relatively many people who pressed the GOOD button on the "I thought SGE was going to be the healer's GNB..." content.
If there is one thing we can say, it is that the phrase "green dps" may have provoked some unfortunate people to react without reading the part describing its meaning.
But most people got the meaning, and I think it would be wonderful if I could combine dps and healing.

[ty_taurus]

I think your opinion was conveyed to the JP users almost without misunderstanding.
There were relatively many people who pressed the GOOD button on the "I thought SGE was going to be the healer's GNB..." content.
If there is one thing we can say, it is that the phrase "green dps" may have provoked some unfortunate people to react without reading the part describing its meaning.
But most people got the meaning, and I think it would be wonderful if I could combine dps and healing.

Ah, I understand. I am sorry for any confusion. But thank you for letting me know. I'm glad we're getting a chance to learn more about each other's thoughts and feelings.

[SamLeens]

There will be 2 new DPS jobs, I'm pretty sure we have seen the same issue during Stormblood (RDM&SAM). DPS ques were actually horrible!
Honestly, this situation could play into the cards for the strike. And I slowly understand why some people seem overly scared.

I don't think the "strike" really accomplishes anything except unnecessary drama.
Yes, Stormblood was a dream for me. As a tank and healer, i always got in instantly everywhere. But we also have the option of going in with an ai, and even if the content takes longer, people still get in and can play normally.
i have 4 healers and tanks that i can level up. Since i don't play DDs, the 2 new jobs don't bother me and i don't know why anyone should be worried about this supposed "strike".

[Loggos]

The problem is that you either have it your way and any time a healer F'd up and die its a wipe unless the boss is almost dead and you punish the all party for the healer mistake or you gives the party a chance to succeed.

A few month ago i had a Ghimlyt Dark run where the healer dc'd mid fight on last boss nobody got mad when the paladin started to keep us alive with clemency quite the opposite actually.

Genuine question, but isn't this the original goal of the trinity: different responsibilities that each role needs to enact to ensure joint success, and any role failing will cause a cost (e.g. a wipe) for the group?

Tanks not managing the enemy --> enemy gets out of control, kills the group
Healers not managing health --> team dies
DPS not providing enough DPS --> can't kill boss in time/ trigger enrage --> kills the group/duty fails

I know this is not necessarily the state we are in right now (at least in casual content) but I think ideally trinity-based content should be designed in a way that each role has its distinctive responsibility and that their contribution to success (or failure thereof) is more or less valued equally.

Any of the roles not performing well should endanger everyone's victory imo. DPS not being able to execute their rotations and securing enough damage while doing mechanics should also punish the group, just as a healer or a tank not doing their job does.

I'm not saying that the trinity is the end all be all. I do enjoy the open system of PVP quite a lot. I just think that if you enforce a trinity its necessity should actually be reflected in the encounter design and the way the group has to play together.

[Bun_Vivant]

Genuine question, but isn't this the original goal of the trinity: different responsibilities that each role needs to enact to ensure joint success, and any role failing will cause a cost (e.g. a wipe) for the group?

I doubt it. For one thing, every job has to be able to clear the solo content of the MSQ in a reasonable amount of time and with only a modest level of skill. So "tanks" and "healers" need to have decent DPS, and DPS needs some survivability. Unless you want the kit for a job to change radically when you enter multi-player content, this inescapably leads to the roles of the trinity becoming less distinct.

Alolalo Island (sp?) is an interesting example. The kit is modified, of course, but I found clear times didn't vary much based on which role I or my spouse used (or between solo and group runs). Clear times do vary by class in other content of course: in a ridiculous example, I can't match the 7 second clear time we can get for Howling Eye Extreme on a pair of unsynced WARs when we do it on other classes, but that's a way-off-the-norms case.

[Loggos]

I doubt it. For one thing, every job has to be able to clear the solo content of the MSQ in a reasonable amount of time and with only a modest level of skill. So "tanks" and "healers" need to have decent DPS, and DPS needs some survivability. Unless you want the kit for a job to change radically when you enter multi-player content, this inescapably leads to the roles of the trinity becoming less distinct.

Alolalo Island (sp?) is an interesting example. The kit is modified, of course, but I found clear times didn't vary much based on which role I or my spouse used (or between solo and group runs). Clear times do vary by class in other content of course: in a ridiculous example, I can't match the 7 second clear time we can get for Howling Eye Extreme on a pair of unsynced WARs when we do it on other classes, but that's a way-off-the-norms case.

Hm tbh I don't agree with this because if you want to commit to a trinity system then I don't think that solo content should be able hold group content "hostage" like this. If solo content is the weak link then I'd rather have solo content be adapted than group-based classes having to be molded in a way to accomodate the occasional solo duty in the MSQ. In the end the foundation of this MMO is still group play. Even in trusts you still play with an NPC party. So in the context of a trinity design I think orienting class design towards group content should take precedence.

I don't know how many people truly think MSQ solo duties are all that fun anyways (or at least on par with the much more common group content). I think healers struggling in solo content should be tackled differently. For example by adding extra skills as you can do in variant dungeons. A DPS in a solo duty could get a heal button like the pvp recuperate skill and healers could get an extra dps button. Is this the pinnacle of game design and fun? Definitely not. But I'd rather have group content be fun than the rather rare solo duties that often feel kind of forced/contrived anyway.

Or you could also take a bit of an eccentric route and use PVP classes for solo content including pvp actions like recuperate, purify and guard. With pvp classes you already have kits that make every class a viable dps with survivability readily available while being relatively simple. So you wouldn't have to develop anything new. It could also be a nice advertisment for pvp because people would be exposed to its gameplay flavour within the MSQ and might have their interest piqued.

I'd actually really enjoy it if the pvp kit design was appreciated and applicable in some limited contend beyond pvp since I do think they are really well executed. Certain solo content (with the necessary adaptations) could be a good place for this.

[Gemina]

I doubt it. For one thing, every job has to be able to clear the solo content of the MSQ in a reasonable amount of time and with only a modest level of skill. So "tanks" and "healers" need to have decent DPS, and DPS needs some survivability. Unless you want the kit for a job to change radically when you enter multi-player content, this inescapably leads to the roles of the trinity becoming less distinct.

This post is several pages back now, but I wanted to point out that FFXI had a solo instance to break the level cap at lv 70 against the NPC Maat. This fight, the tactics used, and requirements to win changed based on the job you faced him with. This is not an argument against you, but rather an expression on how fight design in solo instances could be made to exemplify and distinguish the roles from each other. The dev team wouldn't even have to make the solo instances different for each job, but rather based on the role. They could do this if they really wanted to. This would have been fantastic when facing Zenos at the end of EW.

Now, this was present in the form of job specific questlines prior to ShB, and they went away from it in favor of role quests, but this happens only once per expansion. I am not saying the dev team has to do this for every solo instance in the game, but it would be nice to see it used more often like once per patch, or even every other patch as a show of good faith that they care about the longevity and integrity of the trinity. This would go a long way towards showing healers that they are valued.

[Sesera]

Genuine question, but isn't this the original goal of the trinity: different responsibilities that each role needs to enact to ensure joint success, and any role failing will cause a cost (e.g. a wipe) for the group?

Tanks not managing the enemy --> enemy gets out of control, kills the group
Healers not managing health --> team dies
DPS not providing enough DPS --> can't kill boss in time/ trigger enrage --> kills the group/duty fails

I know this is not necessarily the state we are in right now (at least in casual content) but I think ideally trinity-based content should be designed in a way that each role has its distinctive responsibility and that their contribution to success (or failure thereof) is more or less valued equally.

Any of the roles not performing well should endanger everyone's victory imo. DPS not being able to execute their rotations and securing enough damage while doing mechanics should also punish the group, just as a healer or a tank not doing their job does.

I'm not saying that the trinity is the end all be all. I do enjoy the open system of PVP quite a lot. I just think that if you enforce a trinity its necessity should actually be reflected in the encounter design and the way the group has to play together.

I think it's perfectly fine to have encounter that are designed to be punishing. You are talking about dps failing -> enrage -> wipe which is clearly savage/ultmate stuff and i think it's fine for a failure to cause a wipe there since it's designed like that. You fail as a dps/healer/tank = wipe all good for me i have no issue whatsoever.

My issue comes when the failure isn't tied to the encounter but the person who failed.

Like I remember a run of The Aetherochemical Research Facility where we wiped several times on PA because the healer failed the mechanic. If any one else had failed instead of the healer especially a dps we wouldn't had to restart 5 or more times.

[Loggos]

I think it's perfectly fine to have encounter that are designed to be punishing. You are talking about dps failing -> enrage -> wipe which is clearly savage/ultmate stuff and i think it's fine for a failure to cause a wipe there since it's designed like that. You fail as a dps/healer/tank = wipe all good for me i have no issue whatsoever.

My issue comes when the failure isn't tied to the encounter but the person who failed.

Like I remember a run of The Aetherochemical Research Facility where we wiped several times on PA because the healer failed the mechanic. If any one else had failed instead of the healer especially a dps we wouldn't had to restart 5 or more times.

But I wonder if such extreme cases could be salvaged differently than designing kits, that have to be played in every kind of content, a certain way?
Just like we get the echo in trials if we fail too often I wonder if for casual dungeons implementing, for example, a partywide emergency res as a shared extra action might be a better solution. You could tie it to the LB bar, which in casual dungeons is rarely a necessary tool anyway. It's mostly used to burn down trash mobs or for a little victory moment at the end of a boss fight. So giving it this second utility might actually give it more meaning. But you could also just implement a normal party-rez that's not tied to the LB. Whatever works better.
That's obviously not the only way to go about it. This is really just supposed to be one example.

It would only exist in this kind of content (and would be in line with the philosophy that story dungeons clears can be more or less guaranteed). I'd rather get some specific "crutches" or "safety nets" for story content instead of forcing the foundation of battle classes for all content to be designed in such a way that fail-safe mechanisms end up being direct contradiction to class expression.

[Supersnow845]

Modern healer tooltips are absolutely hot garbage at conveying their actual effects

You can see this with seraphism

Ask a SCH main what seraphism is and they will tell you “ugly spreadlo amplifier”
Ask someone not very knowledgeable about SCH but decently knowledgeable about healers and you’ll get “pure healing god mode”
Ask someone who has no idea about healers to read the tooltip and explain it and you’ll probably get a blank look

The healing tooltips need to be so much better written