#FFXIVHEALERSTRIKE

[rawker]

2. The timing is bad, considering we don't know encounter design will be in DT,

Feedback given since Shadowbringers but was ignored...
Feedback given extended to Endwalker... ignored.

In fact, healers were told to play ultimates if we want to have fun. While tanks and DPS can have a modicum of fun in all content, healers shouldn't?

still bad timing? tell me when is it the best time to air our grievances?

[Punslinger]

Coming from a healer who doesn't agree with the strike, because:
1. I've seen too many people advocating for changes (or full-on reworks) to how other jobs/roles play
2. The timing is bad, considering we don't know encounter design will be in DT,

1. If those other jobs (*cough* WAR *cough*) have self-healing abilities to the extent that they make the healer role unnecessary in group content, then this is an obvious balance problem that needs to be fixed. Or Square needs to acknowledge that this isn't a trinity-focused MMO anymore and go full Guild Wars 2, and give every class the tools to take on every role. One of those two things is easier than the other.

2. Copium. We've heard the same "oh, they'll totally make new fights require all this extra healing they're giving us" schtick before, in the run-up to EW, and the run-up to ShB. And did it pan out? Lolnope. WAR was able to solo P1N when it was current, and P1S and P2S were done without healers when they were current, to give you some idea of just how little healing is needed in current encounters. The focus shifted to one-shots and body checks to provide difficulty. When something has followed a consistent pattern for ten years, it is a pretty safe bet that it will continue to follow that pattern in the future. Encounters in DT are going to be designed with even more of a focus on one-shots and body checks.

[Aidorouge]

I should clarify as well my intent wasn't to spread misinformation, and would much rather be wrong about all of this, I just know the idea has popped up in some people's heads in-game and people are quick to say what gets posted on the forums by the "loud minority" doesn't matter, only what the playerbase is doing while logged in has any impact and well, some of them have already decided a strike might not be enough in their minds to bring change, or they might use this chance to get all complaints tossed out by being bad actors. Again, it's probably just bluster and idle threats, but then people probably didn't think forum posts would be getting attention from gaming media and content creators either, so I'd really rather people didn't think griefing is a viable solution and could gain traction regardless of their stance on this.

[Reinha]

I should clarify as well my intent wasn't to spread misinformation, and would much rather be wrong about all of this, I just know the idea has popped up in some people's heads in-game and people are quick to say what gets posted on the forums by the "loud minority" doesn't matter, only what the playerbase is doing while logged in has any impact and well, some of them have already decided a strike might not be enough in their minds to bring change, or they might use this chance to get all complaints tossed out by being bad actors. Again, it's probably just bluster and idle threats, but then people probably didn't think forum posts would be getting attention from gaming media and content creators either, so I'd really rather people didn't think griefing is a viable solution and could gain traction regardless of their stance on this.

In regards to the griefing methods you have seen people talk about, I hope nobody is going to intentionally stand in bad with the idea that it's going to "punish" non striking healers. I say this with complete sincerity, that is actually the only way to make healing fun in the current state of the game and would be completely counterproductive to the goals of the strike which is to show that healing is BORING. It's much better to aim for perfect play and frequent use of self heals.

[Aword3213]

POV: me, coming into the thread to defend strikers against unfounded claims of griefing and support their decision to switch jobs, despite not personally striking for reasons A and B.

Response: "you're wrong, your lack of pesimism is copium and we still think others should have their fun gutted for our benefit". *support not even acknowledged*

Oookay...

Are you tempting people to multiquote you or something?

[Supersnow845]

I mean I’m not speaking on behalf of the strike I’m speaking on my personal opinion of what needs to happen (which other people are going to disagree with) and to me the tanks need to be nerfed to have this work and on that point we fundamentally disagree

I’m not going to gold star anyone for agreeing or disagreeing on any point, people are free to have the opinion they have

[Rithy255]

on the topic of "tank" nerfs I think it's still very ideal to keep the versatile nature of tanks, Sustain and Mitigation are both important to a lot of tank's feel, even utility like providing barriers or a small healing effect to allies is something that can be important, I like that Paladin for example has some healing support, but I think they could tune down some key aspects of this

I don't think "tank nerfs" need to mean take away all forms of sustain or even targeted healing which is honestly a common sentiment I'm hearing from people who want "tank nerfs", I feel as it's important to distinguish the issues and that it's not just sustain values but it's also the absurd mitigation value tanks carry.

I think key factors on the best approach on how to "nerf tanks" should consider how to fairly keep job's Intact, I'll just go over how I'd make every tank job feel a bit more fair. I don't think just removing sustain or all forms of nonhealer healing is a "solution" I'm of the mind that the mitigations are even more out of hand then sustain honestly. (outside warrior lol)

General - Reducing the baseline defensive value tanks currently would have, this might need some tweaking in content to be workable but I think this is important, for short mits instead of removing the "Additional effect" that is sustainm I'd honestly remove the secondary mitigation effect and make them 20%'s that last 6s to better balance this, this also puts back importance on shielding and helping the tank mitigate further through healers mitigation cooldowns.
Paladin - Healing from magic attacks should go, I'd personally extend Holy sheltrons/intervention regen effect to 18s, as the idea would still be to keep some of that sustain (that's a extra 500 potency worth of healing over time that would be a total of like 1000 potency if you had two uses Vs the massive 3200 healing you get per minute from attacks), This would be PLD's only sustain and target healing tool outside clemency, I'd also move a weaker version of the regen (like 100 potency) to the job so it has some form of early game sustain.
Warrior - Needs regens removed from equilibrium, Shake it off, I also would like its sustain effect to be around 300 potency and not apply per enemy. (Also their new 40% shouldn't have a regen), nascent should also not heal both you and your target...
Gunbreaker - I'd tone down it's excog ever so slightly (to 700 potency), I think it's got the best "1, 2, 3" sustain effect and aurora ontop of that Ideally Paladin/Gnb would be on par with each other.
Dark Knight - I just think Dark Mind needs to be changed maybe 15% magic reduction that also reduces 5-10% physical, It gaining a strong excog tied to a 120CD is fine for me.

The key goals should be this is in addition to allowing tanks to pull more, adding more aoe, higher auto attacks and adding more target party member damage on non tanks, that healers and tanks should help out the said party member with their cooldowns.

[aiqa]

snip

That still leaves WAR with a massive oGCD spike heal, which in my opinion is the exact wrong thing to keep. In general I'd prefer dps role to have medium strength spiky selfheals, that lets them help out with any big AoE hits and lower the difference between healing required between dps role and tank tole. For tanks I'd prefer more a constant selfheal that can deal with things like auto attacks from bosses, but no strong oGCD spike heals to also deal with tankbusters and such. The exact mechanics behind those constant selfheals doesn't really matter, it can be tied to normal attacks, HoT added to short cooldown mitigation, a combination of those. The two selfheal mechanics to avoid is stronger oGCD spike heals on high cooldown abilties, and heals scaling up with targets (which is basically a constant spike heal on groupfights).
I am fine with some forms of additional GCD healing for tank and dps role, to keep themselves alive in emergencies and maintain/improve agency over their own health. As long as using those GCD heals lowers their damage output enough that taking a healer is more optimal in any team content.

And teamheals from tank and dps role should either be GCD or highly restricted in some other way (like tiny AoE). Shake it Off and Divine Veil would be fine as mitigation, maybe with a weaker shield. But huge AoE, low ish cooldown, medium/high potency ogcd heals+shield+regen have no place on a tank job.

[Rithy255]

Snip

I personally like equilibrium, my issue is with the absurd regens put on top of the burst sustain is what I find is the issue with warrior, that combined with how strong bloodwhetting is healing wise, I can understand being against "burst healing" in a sense I think if tanks had less baseline mitigation values (such as the tank passive) Auto's would actually have room to do enough damage on the tank for there to be a reason to have a burst heal such as equilibrium. I think War should have the best Self healing (mind you heavily nerfed from current as I think we can at least both agree it's way too far), but lack any sort of team/target healing. Paladins Veil imo is fine, it's a shield and a heal on a 90s cooldown, 400 potency isn't that much but it's even weaker then a healers 400 potency, Warriors shake is sort of a issue because by the design of the ability the regen is already stronger then burst heal but warrior gets to have both the regen, burst heal ect. I don't think these cooldowns are that much of a problem if you removed the regen from warriors, if anything it makes sense for tanks to have a small form of group healing as tanks are fairly manageable with fights, while DPS you can kind of form parties around stacking dps with heals to make healers not needed. (I guess you can stack PLD's or something but its likely better to just bring a healer at that point and not lol). I think fights can much easily take into account tanks utility vs DPS.

Teamheals need to be limited, they don't need to be GCD (if they were they'd never be used and the point of team heals should be to support the healer not have a gcd DPS/Tank who is acting like a healer), Long cooldowns, very limited range (DNC for example), The Summoner's new ability feels overdone, considering Summoner already benefits from the maim and mend passive (that boosts healing by 30%) but also already has phoenix adding a heal every non standard bahamut phase feels as if this is a valid case of a job having too much aoe party heals, Monk also didn't really need healing AOE, it already had mantra. I think the availability of how more common these AOE healing skills are getting are getting way out of hand currently.

healers aren't needed for a lot of content Content like dungeons doesn't even require a tank it just requires one or the other; I think dungeons should aim for both to be important, I wouldn't be against healerless or tankless runs but I think the ideal is that the 1/1/2 split should be meta and not 3dps 1tank (or 3dps and 1 healer which is likely better DPS wise then 1/1/2). I think it says more about the fight design that one or two ogcd heals can replace healers, even removing tools from other jobs wouldn't really make healer more fun or engaging. I see the solution not as "lets remove one thing such as sustain or team healing" but reducing many working parts of the broken system and reforming certain aspects.