#FFXIVHEALERSTRIKE

[ForsakenRoe]

I got a question for you Flowerkatie. I would tentatively agree, that it makes sense to solve the healer dilemma by asking 'more healing' required from the healer. To burden our kits enough that we have to start using GCDs, which would replace the boring damage GCDs we have.

A SCH currently has 22 Broils and 2 Biolysis per minute. Let's assume we want to have enough healing to get the player to use only 18 Broils, so 4 GCDs per minute (or one per 15s on average) are changed over to be heals. So my question is, can you tell me how much 'raidwide' damage a dungeon boss would need to do, per raidwide attack (to the nearest thousand) and how often those raidwides need to go out, in order to achieve the modest goal of swapping only 4 Broils to healing GCDs like Succor?

[flowerkatie]

If you did, then you should be able to find the posts I referenced and add more detail to the discussion, which is point of this thread, if you can offer a fresh viewpoint I would genuinely welcome it.
i have not as yet seen that from you in the healer sub-forums (as you have very few posts), as we've spent more attention here, only recently.

That's funny because you've already quoted one of my posts from the healer sub-forums which wasn't even my latest so you've evidently had to scroll through my profile to find that and still lacked the initiative to think that my opinion might've been established before your response and not within the 5 minutes between.

You do that whilst expecting me to know which of the 160,000 posts in that forum you're referring to because simply referencing anything is too difficult, or the more likely truth at this point — you had nothing to reference.

A SCH currently has 22 Broils and 2 Biolysis per minute. Let's assume we want to have enough healing to get the player to use only 18 Broils, so 4 GCDs per minute (or one per 15s on average) are changed over to be heals. So my question is, can you tell me how much 'raidwide' damage a dungeon boss would need to do, per raidwide attack (to the nearest thousand) and how often those raidwides need to go out, in order to achieve the modest goal of swapping only 4 Broils to healing GCDs like Succor?

And (once again) we're wondering why I've come to disagree with so many of these suggestions. You actually believe that 'more healing' is a simple case of making raid-wide attacks do more damage when there are a wide plethora of other potential changes that can also support in achieving this goal such as providing less oGCD's in the toolkit of a healer or making them weaker with options to 'buff' or 'proc' based on GCD options which would begin forcing more healing-based actions rather than simply pressing your damage button.

Though, the real question is why I bothered responding to this obvious troll post cause you full-well know that stuff like that isn't changed based on paper-calculations and gets simulated through actual testing and adjusted accordingly. Unless you're under the impression I'm more capable than the developers in my understanding.

[IDontPetLalas]

That's funny because you've already quoted one of my posts from the healer sub-forums which wasn't even my latest so you've evidently had to scroll through my profile to find that and still lacked the initiative to think that my opinion might've been established before your response and not within the 5 minutes between.

You do that whilst expecting me to know which of the 160,000 posts in that forum you're referring to because simply referencing anything is too difficult, or the more likely truth at this point — you had nothing to reference.

Let's get this straight, you only had about 30 posts. I've never interacted with you, in any discussion, over the years. You can see in my profile I have posted considerably more than you have. I have no idea whatsoever of your position. This is a discussion forum- hence- we exchange opinions. There have been extensive exchanges over the years, and I know that I' don't need to regurgitate them with multiple people here.

if you can't/won't search for yourself, but expect me to do the work for you, either by searching through the sub-forums or via Google or another engine, just because you can't be bothered to do so yourself- you're going to be waiting for a long time.

[flowerkatie]

if you can't/won't search for yourself, but expect me to do the work for you, either by searching through the sub-forums or via Google or another engine, just because you can't be bothered to do so yourself- you're going to be waiting for a long time.

No worries, so your source is 'Google' and a forum of over 160,000 posts, that's not at all a cop-out to having no reference. I agree, I am not going to be spending the time to search through an entire sub-forum of that many posts to try and discern which ones you've personally deemed to be valid, detailed and/or extensive.

Look, critical thinking is hard, you know?

Some would lead you to believe, sadly.

[IDontPetLalas]

No worries, so your source is 'Google' and a forum of over 160,000 posts, that's not at all a cop-out to having no reference. I agree, I am not going to be spending the time to search through an entire sub-forum of that many posts to try and discern which ones you've personally deemed to be valid, detailed and/or extensive.


Some would lead you to believe, sadly.

No, however responding to someone who likes to quote someone out of context and who so quickly jumps to calling someone a troll has now convinced that I wasted far too much time down this sidetrack with you.

[flowerkatie]

No, however responding to someone who likes to quote someone out of context and

Feel free to point out areas where I've responded to you without context, though since we've been struggling to source our claims this entire time I won't hold my breath.

who so quickly jumps to calling someone a troll has now convinced that I wasted far too much time down this sidetrack with you.

Somebody asked how much 'raidwide damage' is required to force 4 dropped GCD's with zero information on hit points, party composition and is just generally a nonsensical question. Has this really been the arguments on healing for the past few years? I'm not at all surprised anymore why the developers haven't been listening.

I will agree that things have become derailed, if you have any response to me that has anything to do with the discussion - I'll respond.

[ForsakenRoe]

And (once again) we're wondering why I've come to disagree with so many of these suggestions. You actually believe that 'more healing' is a simple case of making raid-wide attacks do more damage when there are a wide plethora of other potential changes that can also support in achieving this goal such as providing less oGCD's in the toolkit of a healer or making them weaker with options to 'buff' or 'proc' based on GCD options which would begin forcing more healing-based actions rather than simply pressing your damage button.

Though, the real question is why I bothered responding to this obvious troll post cause you full-well know that stuff like that isn't changed based on paper-calculations and gets simulated through actual testing and adjusted accordingly. Unless you're under the impression I'm more capable than the developers in my understanding.

It's not a troll post. Genuine question. I also don't believe it's just a case of 'how hard does raidwide hit', or 'how often does raidwide hit'. But IMO there are three aspects to what creates the 'challenge' in healing: how hard it hits, how fast it hits, and how much the game forces the healer to stop healing (eg via movement). If we're going to be increasing healing required of the player in some way, it's presumably going to be via option one or two, harder hits, or faster hits (or some combination of the two). So, I simply ask 'how hard/fast does the raidwide damage come in, in order to get the player to have to GCD heal (and replace their damage GCDs with some healing GCDs)?'. If you perceive that as a 'troll question', then that's on you. I think it's a very valid thing to ask when we're talking about, y'know, how we potentially address healer issues by increasing healing requirements?

As for making OGCDs weaker, removing them, etc. We've seen over the years that SE is deathly allergic to the idea of making anyone weaker. It feels bad to be a player and lose power to a nerf, let alone an outright ability removal. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'buff or proc based on GCD options', you might have to give some examples.

I've previously posted myself, an idea of 'What if we had 'Barrier Check' mechanics more often', wherein an aspect of an enemy attack is negated if a Barrier is applied. Thinking of Vulcan Burst in UWU, where the knockback doesn't take place if you have a Barrier. So, as an example, imagine a raidwide which does two hits, the first is 200 damage exactly and applies a nasty bleed, and the second hit hits a millisecond later and deals the actual damage of the raidwide. Then the player can choose: do they put a Barrier up and block the bleed, do they heal through the bleed with their HPS (maybe better for certain jobs, eg AST with its 3 HOTs), or maybe the bleed can be Esuna'd and some healer has a hypothetical AOE Esuna, maybe that'd be the more efficient route?

But I recognize that this idea has an issue of its own: Not every healer has access to party-wide Barrier application. So the 'choice' in this example would be removed for a WHM, who cannot apply Barriers partywide, their options as it stands would be limited to just 'HPS power through the bleed'. And unfortunately for any dreams of 'use more GCD heals', WHM has the perfect tool to deal with raidwide bleeds: The Overheal Weed.

I don't expect you to be more capable than the developers. But I would hope that, if we're going to have a proper discussion on healer jobs, whether or not they have issues, and how to rectify those issues (especially those that concern actual numbers like 'we don't get asked to heal enough'), that we'd be talking about actual stats and maths. I wonder, how do you think the developers get the first stats to 'test and adjust accordingly'? Just guessing? No, they presumably have calculations to work out what a job's kit is capable of. So, my question was simply to do that first calculation, to find that baseline of 'how much healing is enough to achieve equilibrium with our OGCD kit on SCH'.

The fact you don't want to answer (or can't) makes me think that maybe you're the troll. But I'm willing to wait for you to do the maths. Also, if I'm trolling, I assume you'd be able to report my posts for being 'troll posts', surely?

[flowerkatie]

So, I simply ask 'how hard/fast does the raidwide damage come in, in order to get the player to have to GCD heal (and replace their damage GCDs with some healing GCDs)?'. If you perceive that as a 'troll question', then that's on you

If you're not a troll then go ahead, feel free to enlighten me how you, based on the information you provided would calculate how fast and much that raid-wide damage would need to be. Given the fact you provided no information on the composition of the party, no information on the size of the party, and least of all not a single piece of information on the hit points of the party. You call it maths and calculations whilst not providing any context that would be required to make those calculations. Even if you provided every single piece of needed context, you'd still be asking me to do something in the least efficient and most nonsensical way ever.

MMO balancing is not done with paper-calculations, its balanced via in-game testing and experimenting. Encounters are ran tens of times to balance certain aspects of the game, and if you don't understand that - I don't know what to say.

The fact you don't want to answer (or can't) makes me think that maybe you're the troll.

Then believe me to be a troll because I wont entertain nonsense if you seriously believe that based on the information you provided any meaningful inference can be made. And in your own words, "if I'm trolling, I assume you'd be able to report my posts for being 'troll posts', surely?"

[Isala]

MMO balancing is not done with paper-calculations, its balanced via in-game testing and experimenting. Encounters are ran tens of times to balance certain aspects of the game, and if you don't understand that - I don't know what to say.

This is wrong, and the devs actually put out an apology post explaining their paper calculations after overtuning a fight. They admitted to taking the numbers their teams were capable of reaching, and adding percentage points based on what they felt the actual players were capable of. Literally paper-calculations.

[flowerkatie]

This is wrong, and the devs actually put out an apology post explaining their paper calculations after overtuning a fight. They admitted to taking the numbers their teams were capable of reaching, and adding percentage points based on what they felt the actual players were capable of. Literally paper-calculations.

Feel free to reference this where they've stated the overtuning came from paper-calculations, might be the first time we actually get a real piece of evidence behind these statements.

Edit: Re-reading your statement actually I realize this doesn't prove anything wrong. You said yourself, "They admitted to taking the numbers their teams were capable of reaching" and then applied a percentage to that. So you're saying they did do in-game testing and balancing, but then on-top of that they proceeded to make the mistake of adding a % increase.

Meanwhile, I was asked to try and somehow come up with an arbitrary value of a pretend raidwide damage for a party we have no context on. That's totally the same situation (/s)