Shower thought: suggestion for burning

So here's some background first, focussing around bleeding and burning:

 

Pre-23rd june patch:

Bleeding: deals (relatively) low damage per stack, stacks in intensity.

Burning: deals (relatively) high damage per stack, stacks in duration.

 

In this case, you would want to stack as much bleeds as possible, and need only 1 maintained burn stack for good condi dmg. However, post june 23rd patch:

 

Bleeding: deals (relatively) low damage per stack, stacks in intensity. (same)

Burning: deals (relatively) high damage per stack, stacks in intensity.

 

Which is where we are now. If you can stack burning, why on earth would you bother with bleeding? There is no real difference between the two, other than the damage per tick. A lot of people agree that this is not a good way to design "unique" conditions. Therefore, I suggest the following change to burning:

1. Reduce damage per stack (not sure how much)

2. Make burning deal damage to 3-5 targets close (<180 range?) to the "victim". This damage will be lower than the damage on the "victim" (10-25%?).

 

So say (just a hypothetical) if you are inflicted with burn, you take 100 damage per stack per second. Allies around you take 25 damage^(assuming 25% AoE dmg) per stack^(on you) per second.

This way, burning would be a way to punish stacking as well (or force to cleanse more, if applied frequently).

Imagine a 5 man team, stacked up, all inflicted with 1 stack burning (again the simple 100dmg example). Assuming the AoE dmg from burning would affect 5 targets, each man takes:

100^(damage received from your own stack)

+ 4^(amount of allies near you inflicted with burning)

x 25 = 200 dmg.

Not sure if it's been suggested before, so sorry if I had the same idea. I'll go try and get this text looking pretty now...

 

[EDIT]: for clarity. Those who claim that the burn's AoE would make any mass-burn-applying build insane: The total damage of the burns would have to be toned down for this change to balance it out. Just stating it again here, as obviously, people read over that.