[Implemented] Group cleansing.

[Chaoself]

Spoiler:

I expected this topic would bog (and think it is still quite bogged atm), so my strategy has changed.

AM/Shaman are getting a variant of group cleansing, and if the introduction of their variant means that there is too much cleansing in the game, then both WP/DoK and AM/Shaman will have their group cleanses nerfed.

What I think is very important is to make it clear that WP/DoK will not be allowed to monopolize the powerful cleanse effect. AM/Shaman are going to have a power cleanse, and they're going to keep that power cleanse, and we're going to adjust all of them at once if there are any problems. If that means I have to force a state in which there is too much cleansing (in order to allay fears of too much DPS) so that we can then tackle both cleanses, then that's fine, I'm used to having to do things like that.

WP/DoK monopolizing the cleanse? Seems that you need to check Zeal/RP then since they can spam cleanse and be WAY more useful to the focus target than DoK/WP.

Read below - Penril

[Fey]

Spoiler:

Cleanse more than twice in a row and your target will likely die because you're not healing. It's hard enough keeping HoT up on three people and deal with burst when it comes. I use cleanse often in my heal rotation, but when the target is getting focused it doesn't mean much. An extra base effect for cleanse would go a long way to increasing it's effectiveness in a heal rotation. The Zealot/RP cleanse tactic is a joke.

Read below - Penril

[Penril]

Read the issues raised by the OP. If you disagree, then post a valid argument why you think those issues don't exist.

Issue 1: Poor sacrifice/reward balance
Issue 2: Ease of use
Issue 3: Lack of discrimination

[Bozzax]

Well, on one hand I've got people saying that gcleanse is necessary to stop an abundance of damage, on the other hand I've got AM/Shaman being the only healer without a significant cleanse tactic, then somewhere in the middle we have analyses that assume they have worked out how a theoretical DoK/Sham / WP/AM group is going to play while considering things from the WP/RP / DoK/Ze / DoK/DoK meta and people are using that as arguments against AM/Shaman having gcleanse... you'll have to forgive me if I'm not entirely sure where to go from here.

My instinct is to implement either 1b) or 4) on WP/DoK, trash CW II and CW III (wish I'd never implemented them), bring K'W down somehow (possibly limit number of debuffs it can cleanse at once) and give AM/Shaman an AoE cleanse linked to the tactic, with a higher cooldown when slotted. No doubt many will disagree.

Going with 1b would leave group cleanse pretty much "as is" which I personally find a bit ironic considering previous posts.

Looking at "solution 4", this will mainly affect kiting a larger force as group cleanse is spammed every 5s as a "heal".

When your side is pushing or static you have the option to heal/gheal instead of cleansing so a CD won't affect this really, a part from being harder on resources.

GC'/IE on group.
A very reasonable change especially if the hot is group wide and all other healers except AM/SH have group hots.

The only "snag" is making those tactics mandatory just like dok/wp versions. For healing AM/Shams it is a QOL improvement regardless. (An alternative to adding more group cleanse spam could be to reduce the CDs on GC/IE for a more potent ST cleanse. Would be very potent with the stacking of hots).

If you decide to nerf K'W you shift the realm balance. Order healers have a "base" +10% heal crit and an incoming +15% heals on focused target. There are no mirrors for these and there are also several other less common un mirrored heal increasers on order side.

Handling K'W proposal in a seperate thread would be much more appropriate and avoid doing all at once.

[Qwack]

Well, on one hand I've got people saying that gcleanse is necessary to stop an abundance of damage, on the other hand I've got AM/Shaman being the only healer without a significant cleanse tactic, then somewhere in the middle we have analyses that assume they have worked out how a theoretical DoK/Sham / WP/AM group is going to play while considering things from the WP/RP / DoK/Ze / DoK/DoK meta and people are using that as arguments against AM/Shaman having gcleanse... you'll have to forgive me if I'm not entirely sure where to go from here.

Whatever is decided, make the first step measured and manageable. Too many changes at once could blow up into a big cloud of confusion.

An increase of AP and Cooldown on all group cleanses is manageable. Adding group cleanse to AM/Shamans is manageable. Then let the players test it and sort it out.

Then take another step If necessary...

[Danielle]

I agree with the issues raised, my prefered solution would be:

1b. If Purify is used on one of your group members, it will also cleanse all groupmates within 100ft of you, but this will not affect you (i.e. the WP or DoK must choose to cleanse himself or cleanse his group)

Solutions 2 & 3 would for OK, but they seem meh for the reasons stated in the OP itself.
Solution 4 is too much of a cost for the tactic imo, it would risk making it non-viable, 1b works on a similar principle, but is better as explained in OP.

I don't like the DoK/WP not being able to cleanse themselves as per 1a. it would make the tactic weird, with interactions with cleansing winds, DoK m2 etc.. People would run a certain level of cleansing winds and double DoK or strategies like that to work around it and keep the tactic the same or similar strength level. However, I believe the trade-off in 1b isn't enough of a trade-off for how strong the tactic is for people to think about using it or not. In addition to implementing 1b I would suggest the cost of the cleanse increases by 5-10RF when the tactic is slotted. That still makes it good for large scale/roaming, but people would think about it more for smaller scale engagements, rather than just use it by default. There would be a trade off for using it and by having the 100ft condition it would force the DoK/WP to play closer to melee, better working around how the class concept should work in the first place.

[Tholkienn]

is the dok have the clean m2?

[Idrinth]

I personally prefer #3 of the original post with an added range reduction to 65 feet, because:
- it makes the healers sacrifice one of their huge benefits for the other or reduce their base effectiveness
- it gives a reason to spec the melee healing(!) tree, that is mostly in line in regards to risk and reward
- it does not require every single dot to be looked at and adjusted
- it does not require making the healers identical in regards to how they do their job

From my point of view the passive resource gain, that was mentioned a few time, is another thing that should be looked at, but one that has little to do with the current topic and should not affect the outcome.

[Tesq]

feedbacking the new change this just made sqguisher dok vs situation where he really need to cleanse all group like vs shatter limbs and made me play more backline.
So you basically buffed aoe CD increase; basically the st rotation do not get more powerfull and the aoe stuff which was alredy good enough after being buried over other dots is even better now. CD decrease problem was yet not solved, and now order and to some extend destru, can benefith from spam cleanse st on 1 ppl in another group while also g-cleanse his group under CD decrease.

[Penril]

It's been 2 weeks. Locking.