I'm not trying to say everything is realistic, but at least there is a vauge sense of realism.
Haha, no there isn't. How realistic that spiders carry gold coins and swords, animal skins instantly turn to leather when cut from the body, you can carry 100 gold bars around and be as encumbered as if you were carrying 100 flowers, and so on. You can rationalize the behavior of the random number generator, but that's not realism. But who cares? Game mechanics before realism. When realism gets in the way of the game, realism gets out of the way. They didn't make wolves sometimes not drop a liver because it's "realistic" that your Decaptitate attack damaged its liver. They did it to stretch out how long it takes to collect N wolf livers.
Yeah, because it's great when the main incentive is for everyone to play the same character. Who is going to play a buff/support class if your benefit from going about buffing everyone is zip. Or if you get "credit", then it invalidates your statement about design below.
I take it you're talking about this statement: "so hey let's assume they'll design it so that you get nothing if you try to heal but it isn't needed!" That was about how you were assuming it would be designed, because it produced a negative outcome, rather than assume they do something smart.
Similarly, there is no reason to assume that your reward scales directly with the amount of damage you do, ergo no reason to assume anyone would only focus on maximum damage classes and ignore support classes -- any more than they already do, simply because people like doing the most damage! It is trivial to think of ways to implement this mechanic so it doesn't encourage what you fear. But you choose to assume the opposite.
What I was getting at is you will have people chain healing the tank for the sole purpose of trying to get the heal to hit as soon as they lose health so they can be getting credit for it.
Yes that was perfectly clear. What I was getting at is that you're making a number of unsupported assumptions about what constitutes "seriously contributing", like that only effective healing counts and that you need enough of it that you'll have to continuously try to snipe heals in order to reach the threshold when not much healing is needed. You forgot to mention that under these bad assumptions, there are cases where no healer would get any credit at all!
Nice assumption, too bad the article completely contradicts you.
No, as with everything else you have assumed, it is possible to interpret it that way, but not necessarily the case. "Everyone gets rewarded" does not necessarily mean "every possible piece of loot is given to everyone". It could mean that each participant gets their own loot roll and thus different equipment, or any other number of possibilities before you even get to the concept that it may not apply unchanged for all encounters.
By consistently assuming the one possibility that would create the negative results you predict, you are simply begging the question.