How to Calculate Your Healing Effectiveness (Debunking Healing Myths) - Page 2 — Guild Wars 2 Forums
Home Fractals/Dungeons/Strike Missions/Raids

How to Calculate Your Healing Effectiveness (Debunking Healing Myths)

2>

Comments

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2, 2021

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    This thread would have been very useful IF it had been done with the mainstream support builds

    So i went ahead and did this calculation. I ended up not taking kitty's build because it was basically the same thing as the meta druid build with just slight variation.


    MetaBattle Druid Healer

    Calculation was done using an arbitrary 3 minute (180s) long engagment. This calculation was also done with no quickness and no alacrity. For calculations that involve quickness or alacrity, there are footnotes and ranges specifically to address the impact of those boons on those skills.

    Healing Modifiers

    10% - Natural Mender
    10% - Transference
    10% - Food
    13% - Utility
    20% - Runes of The Monk

    approx: 60%

    Stone Spirit Passive

    -33% Damage can be broken down into components of healing in the form of
    "preventative healing." Assuming that 15,000 health is the average
    health pool of a group of players, then we would take the maximum amount
    of damage one could take from an enemy and use that as the maximum
    limit for how much protection can protect a player for. If a player takes
    15,000 damage in 1 second, protection will protect them for 33% of that
    damage, or approx 5,000 damage in that one second.

    5,000 x 10 allies = 50,000 preventative healing in 1 second. We now provide
    the range at which one can upkeep protection. Without Alacrity, this would
    be 16 seconds out of every 20 seconds. With Alacrity it can effectivly be
    permanently maintained, giving us the value below as the potential limit.

    7,200,000 - 9,000,000

    7,200,000 - 9,000,000

    Cosmic Ray:

    1,483 x 5 allies = 7,416 x 30 uses every 25 seconds = 222,480 x 7 uses over
    the course of 180 seconds = 1,557,360

    1,557,360

    Regeneration:

    The following assumes that the player can maintain regeneration in perpetuity.
    This is done using a combination of quickdraw procs between Sublime Conversion
    Call of the Wild, and Water Spirits Active Effect. For purposes of easier
    calculation, the potential healing effectiveness of these three abilities
    will be labeled under the umbrella term "Regeneration."
    In addition, sublime Conversion and Water Spirits Active can effect 10+ allies,
    and thus will be calculated as such below.

    504 x 10 allies = 5,042 per second x 180 uses = 907,605

    907,605

    Seed of Life:

    1,478 x 5 allies = 7,392 x 10 uses per 25 seconds = 73,920 x 7 uses per
    180 seconds = 517,440

    517,440

    Nature Spirit Passive

    244 x 10 allies = 2448 per 1 second x 180 uses = 440,640

    440,640

    Rejuvenating Tides:

    Below assumes the player is not an idiot and is given charitable interpretation,
    in that they would have effectivly tried to make optimal use of quickdraw procs.

    1,336 x 5 pulses = 6,680 x 5 allies = 33,400 per 10.75 seconds. Can be used
    once every 25 seconds, for a total of 7 uses per 180 seconds = 233,800. If
    utilizing quickdraw procs, this ability can be used twice every 25 seconds,
    for a total of 467,600.

    467,600

    Lunar Impact:

    Again, this calculation assumes that the player is given charitable
    interpretation in that the player would utilize quickdraw procs to make the
    best usage of these skills.
    Note: Quickdraw can only be used on one skill. So if quickdraw is used on Lunar
    Impact, Rejuvenating Tides potential drops in exchange, and visa versa. The sum
    of the calculation at the end will however ignore this discrepancy.
    read notes below

    6,009 x 5 allies = 30,048 per 8.75 seconds. Can be used once every 25 seconds
    for a total of 7 uses per 180 seconds for a total of 210,336. With Quickdraw
    procs, this ability can be used twice every 25 seconds for 420,672.

    Notes: It is possible to use at least one of these abilites twice in one
    transform of Celestial Avatar. Celestial Avatar seems to not obey an
    exact 15 second duration. Therefor, the previous mentioned quickdraw
    discrepencies will be ignored, and the higher potential will be counted,
    to make up for the difference.

    420,672

    Ancestral Grace:

    4707 x 5 allies = 23,536 x 12 uses per 180 seconds = 282,432

    282,432

    Solar Beam:

    153 x 3 pulses = 460 x 3 allies = 1,382 x 144 uses per 180 seconds = 199,008

    199,008

    Water Spirit Passive:

    863 x 10 allies = 8,630 x 18 uses per 180 seconds = 155,340
    notes: Water Spirit Passive is not effected by player healing power
    or Outgoing Healing Modifiers.

    155,340

    -------------------------Total

    12,148,097 - 13,948,097


    Take a moment and reflect on what the above information is saying here. Now it's obvious that some abilities can not be used over and over without sacrificing the healing of other abilities due to the gating nature of the spec. For example, when you look at a particular segment of time, if you use only Seed of life, Lunar Impact and Rejuvenating Tides in a rotation during your time spent in Celestial Avatar, that is the equivalent of just spamming Cosmic Ray over and over and over again every time you are inside Celestial Avatar. This kind of information means that you don't need to break your neck focusing on Quickdraw procs...but it gives you the option to do one or the other based on whatever situation you find yourself in.

    Another thing to note is the hilarious contribution of protection on the build. The only reason the number is this large, is because the class is able keep it on 10 players permanently. Protection however is not unique to the druid class, and it means that your effectiveness goes down if someone else also brings protection.

    This is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of analysis of the build, and can give you some information about what is exactly contributing to the build and what isn't. In conclusion, you also should have an efficacy when doing the potential calculation for a build, so that you can compare theoretical information with practical observation...otherwise it's just an HPS in a vacuum with no context.

    I'll abbreviate what you wrote for simplicity:
    A. know which skills to use when for boons or cc or utility, which is the actual dictation of the rotation for support builds
    B. know which skills are your primary heal skills in case things go south and you need to deviate from your ideal rotation thus sacrificing boon uptime and other utility in favor of healing

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
    So If 3 skills on your build have a lot of value, then your just using those 3 skills, and everything else just becomes filler, rather than the other way around which is how rotation deals with playstyle. Personally that's a much easier playstyle than trying to remember very complicated rotations and such.

    and in PvE the primary value comes from NOT the healing aspect of most support builds. Thus a pure healing analysis is very limited in its usefulness besides knowing your big heals.

    How is this news? You literally provided proof that outside of maximizing healing, which happens when players know which their primary heal skills are, your analysis is useless. I refer you to what was said earlier multiple times: in PvE pure healing output is NOT the deciding factor in most cases for support builds or choice thereof.

    You indirectly even criticize this in your comment on 10 player protection uptime of druid. That too falls under utility which this build would have over certain other healing builds unrelated to healing output, and it matters not that it skewes the values in anyway (on the contrary, it just proves how certain utility skills far supersede pure healing). Can other classes provide protection? Sure, but not all can do so to 10 players thus that is something which needs to be accounted for on at least 1 of both supports (if running a 2 player support composition, with 1 support this gets drastically harder given the choice of support is reduced to only 10 player protection providing support classes if protection is desired).

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2, 2021

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    I'll abbreviate what you wrote for simplicity:
    A. know which skills to use when for boons or cc or utility, which is the actual dictation of the rotation for support builds
    B. know which skills are your primary heal skills in case things go south and you need to deviate from your ideal rotation thus sacrificing boon uptime and other utility in favor of healing

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
    So If 3 skills on your build have a lot of value, then your just using those 3 skills, and everything else just becomes filler, rather than the other way around which is how rotation deals with playstyle. Personally that's a much easier playstyle than trying to remember very complicated rotations and such.

    and in PvE the primary value comes from NOT the healing aspect of most support builds. Thus a pure healing analysis is very limited in its usefulness besides knowing your big heals.

    How is this news? You literally provided proof that outside of maximizing healing, which happens when players know which their primary heal skills are, your analysis is useless. I refer you to what was said earlier multiple times: in PvE pure healing output is NOT the deciding factor in most cases for support builds or choice thereof.

    You indirectly even criticize this in your comment on 10 player protection uptime of druid. That too falls under utility which this build would have over certain other healing builds unrelated to healing output, and it matters not that it skewes the values in anyway (on the contrary, it just proves how certain utility skills far supersede pure healing). Can other classes provide protection? Sure, but not all can do so to 10 players thus that is something which needs to be accounted for on at least 1 of both supports (if running a 2 player support composition, with 1 support this gets drastically harder given the choice of support is reduced to only 10 player protection providing support classes if protection is desired).

    Sigh...let me say this one more time. This is not about utility vs direct healing...I don't understand WHY you keep bringing it up it has nothing to do with the topic.

    And also, the analysis completely flew over your head. I'm not criticizing protection AT ALL. I'm criticizing how druid's most valuable healing ability is something that is NOT UNIQUE to the druid class, and in addition, anyone in the group that also provides protection reduces the efficacy at which you are able to utilize the build...because again protection isn't unique to druid.

    If each player brings enough protection output to cover a squad, then your efficacy at which you are using stone spirit plummets to at most 1/10th of it's potential. That is what I was criticizing here...is that druid is not some special healer above all other healers because it provides "utility" which isn't even unique to druid class.

    Now if you are solo healing on a druid, and you can fully utilize protection, then that's actually more power to it, and allows specialization to your group allowing them to not need to bring protection. That's optimal thinking...but 2 druid healers...why exactly would you do this if your most valuable healing abilities (Regeneration and Protection) get cut in half by doing so.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2, 2021

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    I'll abbreviate what you wrote for simplicity:
    A. know which skills to use when for boons or cc or utility, which is the actual dictation of the rotation for support builds
    B. know which skills are your primary heal skills in case things go south and you need to deviate from your ideal rotation thus sacrificing boon uptime and other utility in favor of healing

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
    So If 3 skills on your build have a lot of value, then your just using those 3 skills, and everything else just becomes filler, rather than the other way around which is how rotation deals with playstyle. Personally that's a much easier playstyle than trying to remember very complicated rotations and such.

    and in PvE the primary value comes from NOT the healing aspect of most support builds. Thus a pure healing analysis is very limited in its usefulness besides knowing your big heals.

    How is this news? You literally provided proof that outside of maximizing healing, which happens when players know which their primary heal skills are, your analysis is useless. I refer you to what was said earlier multiple times: in PvE pure healing output is NOT the deciding factor in most cases for support builds or choice thereof.

    You indirectly even criticize this in your comment on 10 player protection uptime of druid. That too falls under utility which this build would have over certain other healing builds unrelated to healing output, and it matters not that it skewes the values in anyway (on the contrary, it just proves how certain utility skills far supersede pure healing). Can other classes provide protection? Sure, but not all can do so to 10 players thus that is something which needs to be accounted for on at least 1 of both supports (if running a 2 player support composition, with 1 support this gets drastically harder given the choice of support is reduced to only 10 player protection providing support classes if protection is desired).

    Sigh...let me say this one more time. This is not about utility vs direct healing...I don't understand WHY you keep bringing it up it has nothing to do with the topic.

    And also, the analysis completely flew over your head. I'm not criticizing protection AT ALL. I'm criticizing how druid's most valuable healing ability is something that is NOT UNIQUE to the druid class, and in addition, anyone in the group that also provides protection reduces the efficacy at which you are able to utilize the build...because again protection isn't unique to druid.

    which is the reason why in usual setups others don't bring protection. I did not mean you criticizing as in disagreeing but literally proving that utility can and is more valuable than healing output.

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
    If each player brings enough protection output to cover a squad, then your efficacy at which you are using stone spirit plummets to at most 1/10th of it's potential. That is what I was criticizing here...is that druid is not some special healer above all other healers because it provides "utility" which isn't even unique to druid class.

    How is this an argument? If each player brought enough healing, there would be no need for healers. If each player brought enough might, there would be no need for might boons from support.

    The benefit in group compositions if derived from specialization and having dedicated classes bring something so others don't have to.

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
    Now if you are solo healing on a druid, and you can fully utilize protection, then that's actually more power to it, and allows specialization to your group allowing them to not need to bring protection. That's optimal thinking...but 2 druid healers...why exactly would you do this if your most valuable healing abilities (Regeneration and Protection) get cut in half by doing so.

    This is beyond solo healing on druid. This extends to having a second more powerful healer for example in healing output NOT having to bring protection or other boons which the druid provides.

    Again: this is specialization and division of work between classes at work.

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
    But I know why...it's because of Might, another mechanic not unique to the druid class and...that's about it really. Because it has a target cap of 5 players, and because players want EVEN distribution, then that's why they will opt to bring 2 druids...just for might at the expense of actually bringing meaningful healing contribution and a damage dealer that would have given you more DPS at the cost of uneven buff distribution...which if you are a good player, is not even necessary because of how distribution of buffs works in this game. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about but if you don't ill gladly oblige you.

    Most groups do not bring 2 druids in the current meta in pve. At least those with half a brain. Not sure which meta you are playing or how long you have not raided any longer.

    In fact, most bring a healfirebrand, heal tempest, heal necro or any other healer besides druid. The reason for that is again: those healers provide benefits which the druid would not and allow a change in the groups composition and most often, this has little to do with healing output.

    In case you were not aware, the double chrono and double druid meta ended around 2 years ago and even most PUG groups have moved on by now.

    EDIT:
    I will give you props though, by looking at a classes utility, even if only relating to it's healing output, in this case protection, you did show that bringing 2 druids is not beneficial if compared to other healers (not new information and also not an issue for a long time, but still now we have mathematical proof for those missing it). Now imagine how useful this information would be if incorporating other utility skills as well, which brings us back to what I said about mainstream healer:

    Is it useful from a game play perspective or goal focus? No. Boons and utility are the deciding factor in this game for almost all situations. This originates in the initial design that never focused on healers to begin with and while this role was expanded upon, both in terms of class design and itemization availability, some core features still remain. The limited nature of group sizes and the resulting necessity for utility in almost all situations does the rest.

    Since utility is the deciding factor for which healer to bring, a comparison between healing output WHILE a support is providing it's unique benefits and a comparison what the maximum healing output is when fully focusing on healing (while geared and skilled in his regular build since one can not expect or plan for things to go wrong) is the information which would be most valuable and even then only if it actually disrupts the current assumptions and status quo (unless to confirm).

  • @Cyninja.2954 said:
    I will give you props though, by looking at a classes utility, even if only relating to it's healing output, in this case protection, you did show that bringing 2 druids is not beneficial if compared to other healers (not new information and also not an issue for a long time, but still now we have mathematical proof for those missing it). Now imagine how useful this information would be if incorporating other utility skills as well, which brings us back to what I said about mainstream healer:

    Since utility is the deciding factor for which healer to bring, a comparison between healing output WHILE a support is providing it's unique benefits and a comparison what the maximum healing output is when fully focusing on healing (while geared and skilled in his regular build since one can not expect or plan for things to go wrong) is the information which would be most valuable and even then only if it actually disrupts the current assumptions and status quo (unless to confirm).

    look please stop with this. This thread isn't about utility...its about healing. You can play whatever you want with whatever idea you can come up with...this has nothing to do with utility. Its a thread about healing, calculating that healing and how to derive an analysis about your performance from that calculation...why do i keep having to repeat this over and over again.

    How is this an argument? If each player brought enough healing, there would be no need for healers. If each player brought enough might, there would be no need for might boons from support.

    right exactly...that is the point. Druid's most valuable healing ability is something that is not unique to the class, therefor the idea that boon utility defines healer performance makes no sense because those specific utilities are not unique to just healers let alone the druid class. It's like saying that because Tempest can't provide stability, they are bad healers...

    Again this thread has NOTHING to do with utility. The utility you bring is your build you decide what you want to bring for encounters. This thread is about calculating HEALING effectiveness...The two things are mutually exclusive.

  • Cyninja.2954Cyninja.2954 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2, 2021

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    I will give you props though, by looking at a classes utility, even if only relating to it's healing output, in this case protection, you did show that bringing 2 druids is not beneficial if compared to other healers (not new information and also not an issue for a long time, but still now we have mathematical proof for those missing it). Now imagine how useful this information would be if incorporating other utility skills as well, which brings us back to what I said about mainstream healer:

    Since utility is the deciding factor for which healer to bring, a comparison between healing output WHILE a support is providing it's unique benefits and a comparison what the maximum healing output is when fully focusing on healing (while geared and skilled in his regular build since one can not expect or plan for things to go wrong) is the information which would be most valuable and even then only if it actually disrupts the current assumptions and status quo (unless to confirm).

    look please stop with this. This thread isn't about utility...its about healing. You can play whatever you want with whatever idea you can come up with...this has nothing to do with utility. Its a thread about healing, calculating that healing and how to derive an analysis about your performance from that calculation...why do i keep having to repeat this over and over again.

    Yes, we noticed. It would also not have mattered if you had called the thread:"How to Calculate Your Healing Effectiveness". Period. Each of us would have moved on given punching some numbers in a basic formula is not hard.

    What I take issue with is the second part of the title: You have not yet done any debunking of any myths as far as actual healers in this game. That would be literally impossible given healing is not the reason specific builds are being run.

    Unfortunately telling players who are less experienced that healing matters is not only useless, it's near well damaging. If players who do not understand support compositions and how they work for this game start basing their builds around only healing, they will get kicked out of nearly every single group. That's the second issue I take with this thread.

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Cyninja.2954 said:
    How is this an argument? If each player brought enough healing, there would be no need for healers. If each player brought enough might, there would be no need for might boons from support.

    right exactly...that is the point. Druid's most valuable healing ability is something that is not unique to the class, therefor the idea that boon utility defines healer performance makes no sense because those specific utilities are not unique to just healers let alone the druid class. It's like saying that because Tempest can't provide stability, they are bad healers...

    Your main argument showed up pages later, based around a defensive boon in relation to healing, after I had to poke and force you to actually look beyond only healing abilities? That seems like a gross omission on your part no?

    If stability was needed, the support specialization which is the best at providing it will see primary use, nearly unrelated to its ability to heal. Come to think of it: say hello to Firebrand in WvW which is a significantly weaker healer than Tempest or Scrapper, yet the primary support in that game mode. So yes, if having to chose between Tempest or Firebrand, I'm pretty sure most would go with Firebrand first (and that is with Tempest even having access to stability, which many other support builds completely lack).

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
    Again this thread has NOTHING to do with utility. The utility you bring is your build you decide what you want to bring for encounters. This thread is about calculating HEALING effectiveness...The two things are mutually exclusive.

    The utility one brings decides also what maximum healing effectiveness the build has given often different itemization, traits and utility skills. As such calculating anything without taking it in consideration is meaningless.

    Which brings us back to what I was saying how this calculation would be useful to actual in-game application, and how it is not.

    I am going to quit poking at your math exercise though. It has become rather clear to me that you are interested in an intellectual debate over something which just does not matter as far as build choice in this game given there are nearly no 2 identical support builds (ironically dagger/wh tempest being likely the closest to druid, and losing out to just the remaining utility it can't provide while being the superior "healer").

  • maddoctor.2738maddoctor.2738 Member ✭✭✭✭

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
    I hope this information was helpful for those that want to become better healers.

    I want to stand on that "better healers" part.

    It's math that can be used to find out your own healing potential, if you care to find it the first place, I find it pointless information. But I'd never use math like that to compare the effectiveness of players as healers, to find which is a "better healer", that's because the results of such math is gonna be irrelevant in any practical application. Let's say 2 players are playing Druid on Vale Guardian, using the exact same build, different squads, different times, not on the same run. Using your calculations, player 1 gets a 30% efficiency and player 2 gets 12% efficiency. Which player is the "better healer"? You can't say that player 1 is a better healer just by their efficiency numbers alone. Congrats, player 1 healed more, but what if player 2 didn't need to heal as much in the first place?

    The life of a healer is much more complicated than getting big numbers out. No, I'm not gonna talk about utility, boons, cc or anything like that but from a pure healing number perspective. If your team is good at playing the game, then you need less and less healing in the first place. In that case is much more optimal to drop healing gear, food and/or traits and do more damage instead. The better the team (and easier the encounter) the less healing-oriented gear you should have.

    I've run all Raid encounters with my Druid and in many cases I decided to heal alone, change some gear to Berserker, or other ways to make my healing harder, because it wasn't needed for many encounters. That's why "optimizing" my healing efficiency is a rather pointless metric for me. But hey, power to those that find such calculations useful.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2, 2021

    I think the problem I have with this kind of analysis is that Support and Healing kinds of builds are reactive, so 'optimizing' such a thing is more about just about a player knowing how to react to whatever the game throws at them and not about how much healing they can give over time. Any 'analysis' of that simply about knowing the most appropriate skill for the current state. If anything, the most optimal heal builds are the ones that give the most exact healing (ie, no over healing) with the fewest skills ... so the analysis is really lacking in considering number of skills needed and 'bandwidth' to execute healing.

    I mean, sure, we can look at a healing 'rotation' and determine what class is most appropriate for different things ... but that's not an accurate or even appropriate way to play the game. For example, It might help someone choose a class if they have a question like 'what class has the biggest 3-skill burst heal'. But even then, these are pretty specific or weird questions to ask because that would mean a 3-skill burst is assumed to be the most optimal healing scenario.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2, 2021

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I mean, sure, we can look at a healing 'rotation' and determine what class is most appropriate for different things ... but that's not an accurate or even appropriate way to play the game.

    The thing i keep repeating in this thread, is that this is not how you are supposed to use the calculation. It's about calculating a potential of a build, and the efficacy at which you reach the potential of that build to determine relative performance between what you did, and the potential to what you can do...It's not meant to compare builds between each other. This is why people actually get mad when what build has a potential higher or lower than another but that reaction is silly and cyninja points out exactly why just a post ago....if you take a utility, or do any other sub task that is not healing, the potential for HEALING is going to be lower. That does not mean that the efficacy to which you meet that potential is going to be lower... just means it can't meet the demand for an encounter that requires a higher healing potential.

    If you fight a boss that usually does 2 million damage to your group, and your potential for healing is 15 million, then in this encounter you are always going to have a low healing efficacy. This is information that you can use to assess why your performance is not good in this fight...and the reason is because the encounter doesn't do enough damage for you to heal...therefor if you were to do this encounter again, you can change things on your build where if you don't need X Y Z you can replace them with A B C and do something else because you can still meet the demand of that encounter. Mad doctor above basically said exactly this. He finds he doesn't have to heal in certain fights therefor he tries to do some DPS...that's the whole point of the method...it gives you better information as to WHAT you should replace so that you can know how much potential you sacrifice for utility/damage or whatever else you want to do.

    For example, It might help someone choose a class if they have a question like 'what class has the biggest 3-skill burst heal'. But even then, these are pretty specific or weird questions to ask because that would mean a 3-skill burst is assumed to be the most optimal healing scenario....If anything, the most optimal heal builds are the ones that give the most exact healing (ie, no over healing) with the fewest skills ... so the analysis is really lacking in considering number of skills needed and 'bandwidth' to execute healing.

    To me this is a perfectly valid question. And your conclusion even though it seems "specific and weird" is actually true, except the calculation says nothing about optimal healing scenario. You can, using the calculation, find out what the strongest 3 skill burst combination of healing in the game....and that information is meant to inform you about the skills you are using. Just because you have the most optimal potential, does not mean you will be able to use it to its most optimal efficacy. If these 3 skills give you the biggest burst healing potential, then that is going to be the most optimal healing when you need to do a big burst heal... But if you are using this 3 skill burst to try to passively heal players, then the efficacy to which you are using those skills may go down, because when the demand for healing arrives, and your most valuable skills are on cooldown, you can not meet the demand for that healing at that period in time, and would have to resort to use low priority skills instead. This is also one reason why you can never have a perfect efficacy, because if you could, you'd have to be clairvoyant and use your skills at exactly the right time where each situation allows you to use each skill at 100% efficacy. I stated this way earlier in the conversation to another person, but ill requote it again

    For example, a boss can do 10,000 damage every 10 seconds in two ways. Either 1000 damage per second, or 10,000 damage in 1 second and do nothing for the remaining 9 seconds. In both situations, a skill that heals for 1000 healing per second will at the end of 10 seconds, heal all 10,000 damage in both scenarios. Likewise, just as an enemy can inflict burst damage on you, the same applies for when you apply burst healing to allies. You can either heal 1000 healing per second, or do 10,000 healing in one second, and do nothing for the remaining 9 seconds. In practice, it's always a combination of both happening in tandem, where a burst will occur followed by pressure, or pressure is followed by a burst, and will always go back and forth between the two, and one of your jobs as the healer is to respond to each situation with the appropriate counter situation so that you and your allies health is always returning to100% as soon as possible so you can deal with the next phase of bursts and pressure.

    In other instances, some skills are just more valuable than others in so many ways, that using those less valuable skills will almost ALWAYS give you lower efficacy than if you just used higher valued skills...therefor in any healing scenario, it means you'd have higher efficacy by just using higher priority skills at anytime. This is kind of like looking at Stone Spirit and Water Spirit on Druid. Stone Spirit is so valuable, that not upkeeping protection for even 4 seconds in a 3 minute fight, is worth the grand total of water spirits contribution to healing in the entirety of those 3 minutes. Think about that for a second. Focusing your brain power to cast your healing ability 30 times in a 3 minute fight is less valuable than forgetting to refresh stone spirits active for 4 seconds. In almost all scenario's, Stone Spirits is too important to not prioritize at all times over anything else.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2, 2021

    Well, I think that's the point ... we can wax academic all we want and look at charts of numbers ... but healing potential is not really relevant to how the game is designed. Sure, you can determine it ... but the practical value of that information is low for numerous reasons. Maybe if the healing potential of some build was SO large that it would allow even the worst players to facetank to complete content or the best players to execute perfect DPS rotations ... then there would be something in all of this to consider.

    Really, I think that these numbers are even less relevant than DPS potential ... because if a player is considering a build based on how much it heals ... they are already in the class of players that can't execute actions optimally in the first place; if you need optimal healing potential to play this game, you're not good enough to pull off optimal healing actions to begin with.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • @maddoctor.2738 said:

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:
    I hope this information was helpful for those that want to become better healers.

    I want to stand on that "better healers" part.

    It's math that can be used to find out your own healing potential, if you care to find it the first place, I find it pointless information. But I'd never use math like that to compare the effectiveness of players as healers, to find which is a "better healer", that's because the results of such math is gonna be irrelevant in any practical application. Let's say 2 players are playing Druid on Vale Guardian, using the exact same build, different squads, different times, not on the same run. Using your calculations, player 1 gets a 30% efficiency and player 2 gets 12% efficiency. Which player is the "better healer"? You can't say that player 1 is a better healer just by their efficiency numbers alone. Congrats, player 1 healed more, but what if player 2 didn't need to heal as much in the first place?

    A good question. Glad you pointed this out because it's a logical question to ask when it comes to this kind of calculation.

    The more healers you have with you in an encounter, then each players healing effectiveness decreases. This doesn't say anything about which healer is better...it means that the efficacy at which you are utilizing the build has dropped...and your performance will drop and rightly so. If you were solo-healing you can more effectively utilize your build, and thus the your performance goes up. This doesn't say which healer is better or worse. make sense?

    This is the same reason why if you were to look at an HPS meter, If you and a friend healer heal a boss for 11k HPS and 9k HPS respectively, then if you were to solo heal the same encounter, you'd be mistaken to think you would be doing 21k HPS. If you can't heal 21khps (maybe you can only heal 13kHPS) then something must be going on right? What if it were the case where your friend who did 9k earlier, can heal 18k HPS as a solo healer. The squad would think that the 11k HPS healer is better than the 9k HPS healer even though solo he could heal nearly twice as much. You can see the flaws in trying to gleam information about which healer is better or worse based on HPS numbers alone...and especially when trying to compare players performance relative to one another, rather than your efficacy to it's potential.

    If the player that can heal 13khps solo has a potential of 13khps...then he's reaching nearly 100% efficacy, which means he's fully utilizing his build (and thus has near perfect performance as he can get with the build. If the player that can heal 18khps solo has a potential of 40k, then he's barely reaching 50% efficacy. which means his build is underutilized. This can be due to performance or to his actual build having higher potential than the encounter demands for.

    The above is a great example of why when you look at just HPS numbers, alone, it doesn't tell you enough information about whether you are performing well or not. The calculation allows you to determine the potential HPS (it's rather just total healing over the course of any period of time) so that you can assess the limits of which you can perform, and then try to meet those limits. It says nothing and it's never meant to say anything about comparing performances relative to other builds or classes.

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 2, 2021

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Well, I think that's the point ... we can wax academic all we want ... but healing potential is not really relevant to how the game is designed. Sure, you can determine it ... but the practical value of that information is low for numerous reasons. Maybe if the healing potential of some build was SO large that it would allow even the worst players to facetank to complete content or the best players to execute perfect DPS rotations ... then there would be something in all of this to consider.

    When i look at the game's design, I see 3 things. Damage, Healing, and Control. The reason I see the game like this, is because that's what you can identify and measure in your combat logs.

    Control (buffs,debuffs,utility etc...) can not be measured in any meaningful sense. For example we can't compare the value of immobilize to the value of stability. They are too estranged and can't be measured in terms of value...and it all comes down to judgement call...Is immobilize gonna help you land this burst damage? Or is stability gonna help you land this burst damage? Honestly it's an interesting topic but it has nothing to do with this thread...it's a completely different thing that is so far removed from talking about the other two things in the game's design.

    Now the other two things, Damage and Healing are measurable and comparable. Those mechanics are skills, traits, boons, conditions etc., that can be broken down into components of either damage or healing. This thread focuses on healing. A lot of things like boons and utility fall under this umbrella, so long as whatever it is, can be measured it can be condensed, calculated and compared with all other things in that category.

    The above is just a way to analyze information that's all....it's how you are able to extract, analyze and then use that information which determines how useful it's gonna be for you. But the information here is public and not personal...everyone here has access and is universally applicable (math) of course if we play in a zero-sum it will always be in your favor to have more information available to you.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 3, 2021

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Well, I think that's the point ... we can wax academic all we want ... but healing potential is not really relevant to how the game is designed. Sure, you can determine it ... but the practical value of that information is low for numerous reasons. Maybe if the healing potential of some build was SO large that it would allow even the worst players to facetank to complete content or the best players to execute perfect DPS rotations ... then there would be something in all of this to consider.

    When i look at the game's design, I see 3 things. Damage, Healing, and Control. The reason I see the game like this, is because that's what you can identify and measure in your combat logs.

    So basically you only see the things you can measure ... and that's the problem. I see Damage, Damage mitigation and Control. The BEST damage mitigation in this game are things you can't measure. This is why I think the value of assessing healing potential is low because it's ability to mitigate damage while measurable ... is questionable.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 3, 2021

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    The BEST damage mitigation in this game are things you can't measure.

    But how can you prove or show that if you can't measure it? If it's the best it clearly must be measurable to some extent and if it's measurable it can be broken down into components of healing.

    What are the best damage mitigation mechanics that your referring to btw? I talked about Aegis and Protection already so i'm curious.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 3, 2021

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    The BEST damage mitigation in this game are things you can't measure.

    But how can you prove or show that if you can't measure it?

    Because dodging big DPS hits is more effective damage mitigation than healing them ... and I don't need a measurement to know that. Again ... just the measurements for healing is insufficient in the practical consideration of the game because of the things you CAN'T measure. You can't measure how much DPS mitigation Aegis gives, or dodging or even protection but I can assure you with a high skilled player, those things are worth more than any heal they can get.

    See, that's really leading us to a valuable line of thinking about who you're trying to sell the value of this assessment to and what questions your answering with it. I'm going to make this generalization: Heals are more important to lower skilled players than higher skilled ones. That's important because higher skilled players are going to use the better mitigation strategies available to them because it allows them to play more optimally. I would argue that optimal play, whether it's for healing, CC, or DPS, is still in the realm of higher skill players .. and we know higher skilled players aren't making high healing builds to be successful in this game ... for good reason.

    If you REALLY want to sell healing to people, I wouldn't be talking about healing potential. I would start considering the builds/classes that passively heal/mitigate DPS themselves the best. Then look at the building that picture with on-proc heals (like on crit or on hit) ... THEN look at active heals.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 3, 2021

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Because dodging big DPS hits more effective damage mitigation than healing them ... and I don't need a measurement to know that. Again ... just the measurements for healing is insufficient in the practical consideration of the game because of the things you CAN'T measure. You can't measure how much DPS mitigation Aegis gives, or dodging or even protection but I can assure you with a high skilled player, those things are worth more than any heal they can get.

    that's simply not true Aegis, Dodging, protection and a slew of other things can be measured in terms of healing. I already outlined how you do this earlier in the thread.

    See, that's really leading us to a valuable line of thinking about who you're trying to sell the value of this assessment to and what questions your answering with it. I'm going to make this generalization: Heals are more important to lower skilled players than higher skilled ones.

    This just has no basis it's literally an opinion.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 3, 2021

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Because dodging big DPS hits more effective damage mitigation than healing them ... and I don't need a measurement to know that. Again ... just the measurements for healing is insufficient in the practical consideration of the game because of the things you CAN'T measure. You can't measure how much DPS mitigation Aegis gives, or dodging or even protection but I can assure you with a high skilled player, those things are worth more than any heal they can get.

    that's simply not true Aegis, Dodging, protection and a slew of other things can be measured in terms of healing. I already outlined how you do this earlier in the thread.

    OK but that doesn't invalidate what I said: Dodging/blocking big DPS hits is more effective damage mitigation than healing them ... so I don't need to measure them to prove it ... it's empirical. You see it, even if it can't be measured or predictable. I mean, we know there are big hits in known encounters... you dodge them for a reason ... because it's the MOST effective way to avoid their damage. This isn't arguable ... it's a known.

    See, that's really leading us to a valuable line of thinking about who you're trying to sell the value of this assessment to and what questions your answering with it. I'm going to make this generalization: Heals are more important to lower skilled players than higher skilled ones.

    This just has no basis it's literally an opinion.

    Sure, but it's a pretty well informed opinion because if heals were more valuable to higher skilled players than lower skilled ones, you would see healing more significantly reflected in the meta and build comps for instanced content. I mean, this goes back to my point: The game is designed so that as you gain skill, you can increasingly AVOID healing as a primary damage mitigation ... so it's not crazy to say that heals are more important to lower skilled players than higher skilled ones . I don't see how we can sensibly talk about healing in terms of optimal and efficient play when heals are, at worst, not optimal and at best, no better than the non-healing damage mitigations.

    Anyways, it's not my intent to break up the parade ... if people want to go out and make optimal healing builds, the game doesn't stop them. If they are fun for those people, they can play them. This is all just waxing academic anyways.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 3, 2021

    @Obtena.7952 said:

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Because dodging big DPS hits more effective damage mitigation than healing them ... and I don't need a measurement to know that. Again ... just the measurements for healing is insufficient in the practical consideration of the game because of the things you CAN'T measure. You can't measure how much DPS mitigation Aegis gives, or dodging or even protection but I can assure you with a high skilled player, those things are worth more than any heal they can get.

    that's simply not true Aegis, Dodging, protection and a slew of other things can be measured in terms of healing. I already outlined how you do this earlier in the thread.

    >
    I'm just going to disagree ... you can't measure those things because how much they mitigate DPS is variable.

    how much they mitigate is variable, but it's reconciled by doing a mathematical exercise, by being able to be be brought into a practical range that you can evaluate as an average of how much a dodge or an aegis can negate damage for.

    I explained this already but ill just say it again. A Dodge or a block can potentially negate an infinite amount of damage. But what you are interested in, is taking the average potential. Logically, any number that is above the number of damage for which you would have otherwise died, is the range at which these negations are between. So if your average health is 20,000 then a hit that would have otherwise killed you is the maximum potential for for a dodge or a block for that one attack.

    In other words, the range that you could dodge an attack for is 0 - 20,000. All hits in between this range is what really matters because anything above hits that would otherwise kill you anyway is basically mathematically meaningless. This is what's called normalizing, in which the effective range of a unit of measure is squashed between 0 and 1 where 1 is infinite and 0 is 0.

    so the average would be the median of that range, which in this case is 10,000. So for every attack, the AVERAGE POTENTIAL of that mitigation will be 10,000. This means that sometimes you will block an attack for 25k (get's normalized to 20k), or an attack for 1k, or an attack for 7k or an attack for whatever-k and on average it will hover around 10,000, the median of that range. Again any number above 20,000 is normalized, because it is in practice meaningless to talk about any hit above 20,000 which would have otherwise killed you anyway...in other words, saying that the range could be infinite is like saying that on average you will negate an infinite amount of damage, which is just not mathematically true nor in practice.

    Beyond that, you can go out and measure how much damage you actually took from a fight and use that to figure out the potential average for particular encounters. If you look in your combat logs, and you see that you took 4k, 2k, 10k, 3k 1k in a fight, then you just find the mean average of that data, (in this case 4k) and the average potential would be for that encounter, 4k. The more accurate and lengthy the data, the more accurate the average you can calculate, and when you do that encounter again, you can expect an average for how much damage you are essentially negating when you go out into the field.

    The information above tells you something. That if you were to use your aegis, dodges or blocks on cooldown at 100% efficacy (which means always mitigating attacks that would have otherwise killed you), you would on average be negating X amount of damage during an encounter. That information alone is quiet useful, especially when you are giving AEGIS or some other mitigation buff to other players, in which you don't know what attack will be negated, therefore an average can still tell you a lot of useful information. Not as useful as an exact number, but still useful enough to make decisions about how and when to use it. The point then becomes how well you can try to attain 100% efficacy, and that's the performance part of how you utilize those mechanics in a fight.

    Sure, but it's a pretty well informed opinion because if heals were valuable to higher skilled players, you would see such things reflected in the meta and build comps for raids and such.

    I disagree. We could go into this but I don't feel like doing so right now. Mostly comes down to players accepted beliefs...and some people are unwavering in what they believe is meta even when video's, images, mathematics are thrown directly in their face to the contrary. I have topped cleansing charts on every single cleansing class in WvW by significant margins (using the same philosophy in calculation), and even on classes and builds people didn't think were possible. I've provided evidence and what do people say? I don't believe calm your ego >.> Okay. Nothing to do with ego just frustrated people can't do the mathematics on their own and when I show evidence of so and so to be the case, it's like attacking a religious sect. "You don't believe therefor you are wrong. and nothing you show me can change my mind."

    I am friends with...many high level players (particularly from pvp) who have the most backward thinking of these sort of mechanics...i do not believe that there are any correlations between being a good player, and applying logical analysis to understand how to play a game good. Some people just have intuitions and philosophies that co-align with the actual science behind it. This to me is the difference between the theory crafters, and the high level players. Boots is a good example of a guy who really understands theory-crafting, and has made builds that most people didn't even think were possible. The reason rev's with Mad-king runes exist the way they did in this current time is because of people like boots (actually boots himself) and also necro builds have their origins in philosophy defined by Nemesis...probably one of the most controversial and hated players because of his way of looking at the game...which didn't surprise me that the meta community would go after him...and yet the builds we use today are linked directly to him.

    Just saying that just because the meta doesn't reflect certain builds doesn't mean those builds aren't as good if not better than the meta...or that the meta itself isn't a farce to begin with.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 3, 2021

    Well, I'm going to make sure we understand each other ... your approach is not a measurement of how much DPS blocks/dodges can mitigate ... that is an inference and that inference is a massive underestimation of the damage mitigation potential of these things, especially when in the hands of skilled players who actually use these things to optimize their play and DPS output. For these players, the heal equivalence of block/dodges isn't an average of the DPS from hits they could have taken because high skilled players don't randomly dodge/block hits. For them, it's the MAXIMUM.

    Dodging/blocking big DPS hits is more effective damage mitigation than healing. There is no 'proof' here other than seeing how the game is played optimally which there is plenty of historical record of. I'm more than aware of Nemesis ... and one of the things he's shown us is how to measure DPS ... very helpful when assessing what is meta and what isn't ... so yes, we have a REALLY good idea of what is meta and what isn't. Certainly knowing the winning condition of an encounter, we know the bandwidth in the meta for non-DPS considerations for highly skilled players is intentionally minimized for the sake of highest DPS output. What you are presenting here is bordering on the the opposite of that. The idea that there is bandwidth in PVE optimization that involves healing just doesn't go with how the game is designed.

    Again, I got no problem with people playing whatever builds they want, optimal or not. What you have presented here is the idea you can measure healing output and some assessments of different skills/builds. I would be mindful about any claims beyond that, especially related to optimal play and usefulness of such information. From where I sit, the idea of playing PVE optimally and talking about builds with high healing potential are actually contradictory ideas.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • Fuchslein.8639Fuchslein.8639 Member ✭✭✭
    edited January 3, 2021

    I have read nothing here because I thought it was about a completely different topic.
    But on the subject of healing vs dodging. When I was still actively raiding, there were some constelations, not only at Vale Guard, where we healed and should not dodge to be able to make more dmg and save time. This was even meta at the time with many bosses, as most were super easy anyway.
    I also played in some groups at the time with people who weren't quite as good. They could run a Rota, but at the same time pay attention to the enemy and dodging properly was often not in it in most fractals. There to work with healers / mesmer was often the answer and has us in the end saved time because the people have driven their dps and 1 or 2 people has blocked the dmg and the push's.

    I really don't understand this discussion of trying to tell others what to do just because it works for oneself.
    People are different and if the game was still designed in this style they would not have introduced healers and so many ways to support the group with protection.


    Oh wait, i see, its THAT kind of diskussion ... k, nevermind.
    I don't want to stop anyone from going around in circles because of opinions.

  • @Obtena.7952 said:
    Well, I think that's the point ... we can wax academic all we want and look at charts of numbers ... but healing potential is not really relevant to how the game is designed. Sure, you can determine it ... but the practical value of that information is low for numerous reasons. Maybe if the healing potential of some build was SO large that it would allow even the worst players to facetank to complete content or the best players to execute perfect DPS rotations ... then there would be something in all of this to consider.

    Really, I think that these numbers are even less relevant than DPS potential ... because if a player is considering a build based on how much it heals ... they are already in the class of players that can't execute actions optimally in the first place; if you need optimal healing potential to play this game, you're not good enough to pull off optimal healing actions to begin with.

    This game... isn't designed like that at all. The meta strats are the product of independent design decisions, and are predicated on the players having a high drive to performance, and no profession loyalties or restrictions. As a contrast, consider this: the infinitely incompetent also require an infinite amount of healing. I've traded group damage for greater healing a couple of times myself, because I mostly PUG and those groups can be unpredictable.

    Though this is in the raid forum, healing potential applies to more than just raids. I've had trouble healing teammates during bounty trains due to Ley Energy Build-Up. Keeping a squad alive in Dragon's Stand's pod phase is a full time job, especially if Axe Master Hareth decides to go for a walk. In WvW an enemy group has nearly limitless pressure potential.

    Total healing potential only seems useless if you presume an environment that makes it useless. Healing potential doesn't mean much in optimal groups with perfect dodging, but in so many words that is just saying "heal output isn't good in circumstances where you don't need heals." Playing with sub-optimal players doesn't mean they are beyond consideration.

    "Self awareness is knowing when you're sitting at the throne of ignorance." --Leo G.

  • @Obtena.7952 said:
    I'm more than aware of Nemesis ... and one of the things he's shown us is how to measure DPS ... very helpful when assessing what is meta and what isn't ... so yes, we have a REALLY good idea of what is meta and what isn't. Certainly knowing the winning condition of an encounter, we know the bandwidth in the meta for non-DPS considerations for highly skilled players is intentionally minimized for the sake of highest DPS output. What you are presenting here is bordering on the the opposite of that. The idea that there is bandwidth in PVE optimization that involves healing just doesn't go with how the game is designed.

    You are aware of Nemesis right. He uses the same kind of calculations. He words things a bit differently, but he calculates the potential of skills, and then correlates it with how each build is built to deal with specific encounters to make the most usage of the build...this is akin to efficacy.

    I would link his video's, but he's got quiet a few gems and I wouldn't be doing his work the courtesy by just linking a single video...instead here is a picture where he uses a potentials calculations in order to find that Epidemic was one of the strongest skills in the game... it's no surprise that he was in fact correct and it became meta.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 3, 2021

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I'm more than aware of Nemesis ... and one of the things he's shown us is how to measure DPS ... very helpful when assessing what is meta and what isn't ... so yes, we have a REALLY good idea of what is meta and what isn't. Certainly knowing the winning condition of an encounter, we know the bandwidth in the meta for non-DPS considerations for highly skilled players is intentionally minimized for the sake of highest DPS output. What you are presenting here is bordering on the the opposite of that. The idea that there is bandwidth in PVE optimization that involves healing just doesn't go with how the game is designed.

    You are aware of Nemesis right. He uses the same kind of calculations. He words things a bit differently, but he calculates the potential of skills, and then correlates it with how each build is built to deal with specific encounters to make the most usage of the build...this is akin to efficacy.

    I would link his video's, but he's got quiet a few gems and I wouldn't be doing his work the courtesy by just linking a single video...instead here is a picture where he uses a potentials calculations in order to find that Epidemic was one of the strongest skills in the game... it's no surprise that he was in fact correct and it became meta.

    Nemesis' real contribution was that he actually MEASURED dps output, not calculated it (there are numerous videos where he times encounters and counts the damage applied). This was novel at the time because until that point, people were just using spreadsheet calculations based on the skill durations, CD's and damage values ... and they were WAY far off what was really happening in the game. They didn't even have the build ranking correct it was so bad. Obviously, the measurement was better and it's standard practice to measure DPS with golems now, so any estimate of the meta is probably very close to optimal. I was a proponent of what Nemesis was selling because there were many reasons to suspect the information/calculation approach was misleading to a false conclusion. I have no doubt that if someone wanted to at this point, they could make a much more accurate model of a DPS output since it can be verified ingame now with the golem.

    Unlike DPS that is completely reported in the log, there is the added complication that damage mitigation has unmeasurable/unreported effects; The problem with a calculation for damage mitigation is that attributing an equivalent healing value to those effects will be dependent on who is using them, not game mechanics. I suspect that calculations for healing are going to have as much potential to mislead if not more than the DPS ones.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 3, 2021

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Nemesis' real contribution was that he actually MEASURED dps output, not calculated it

    uhh no...let me correct you. Back then, all DPS was measured that way because DPS meters didn't exist. The difference with what he did, was HOW he analyzed the information, and expose how the mathematics can be skewed... which was the following:

    1) The shorter the engagement, the more burst builds gain an advantage in DPS meters. If you do a burst sequence that does 100,000 in 3 seconds, and then nothing else for 30 seconds, then if the fight lasts for 9 seconds, the Damage would read 11,111 Damage However if the engagement lasted 30 seconds, then the Damage would read 3,333 Damage. This was the problem with people who were just using pure damage per second....purposefully skewing the time portion of the equation by using engagements smaller then the time it took for those burst sequences to even refresh, to artificially boost the DPS number. This is why he makes a distinction between SUSTAINED DPS and BURST DPS. Shorter engagements favor burst builds, longer engagements favor sustained damage builds.

    2) He made a distinction that, there is the THEORETICAL maximum number, and then there is the PRACTICAL application of a theoretical number. This is akin to again, the potential and finding out the efficacy of that potential. Back then people were basing their judgments on the theoretical maximum damage ALONE, and not taking into account that in practice things are never 100% ideal. This is actually what you are saying weren't you...that players will always use dodge to its maximal effectiveness all the time?...See this is not the case and, and Nemesis identified that one needs to make theoretical and practical comparisons in order to make the "ACTUAL REAL DPS NUMBERS." Because otherwise if everything was taken at it's maximal effectiveness, you will get math in a void calculations and unrealistic DPS benchmarks, which is when people see that a class does 40k dps but in 99.99% of the time you will only reach a fraction of that number because those benchmarks were done on golems in prebuff conditions using incredibly short time scales that skews numbers like mentioned in #1.

    3) That the calculations you make should be time-scalable (and also reversible). Yes DPS you do in a 3 minute fight should roughly scale with damage you do in a 15 minute fight. The lower the duration of the engagement the less accurate the number will be. The reason for this is that a rotation has specific time slots in order to be used the most often within the period in which all skills come off their cooldowns. So a if the full rotation is 30 seconds, then the DPS should scale to all engagements in segments of 30 seconds.
    Example - A 30 second fight yields 15k dps. Thus a 3 minute fight should also yield 15k dps.

    If you were to use an engagement that was 2 minutes and 15 seconds, then you are purposefully omitting 15 seconds of a fight in order to shorten the engagement to artificially boost the number by giving the calculation a 15 second window that would be considered a burst sequence rather than a full rotation. This is why when you select an arbitrary amount of time for an engagement, you need to use the maximum rather than the minimum number of times you could use the skill in that time frame. This is why when you divide for example, 180 seconds by the number of times you can use overload water, you get a fraction. You round DOWN no matter what fraction that number is...otherwise you skew the number to be theoretically higher than what's actually possible. so in 180 seconds, you can at most use Overload Water 8.57 times, which is automatically lowered to 8 times...if you rounded UP to 9, that means you are including a burst sequence to your calculation, which will inflate your HPS.

    4) He made a distinction about buffs and how using Alacrity and Quickness boosted numbers by shortening the engagement time, again in favor of burst builds. He made a note to mention that because these buffs could not be perma'd and weren't exactly readily available back then they shouldn't be used to calculate values for fights as if they could be perma'd...in other words if you don't have quickness, alacrity or any other buff anywhere in the fight you should not include it in a calculation otherwise it skews the numbers and gives you unrealistically higher numbers. Everything that is available and there should be calculated...its that simple.

    5)About non-measurable things, yes damage mitigation is not measurable. You can only give a range of it's effectivness...but that doesn't mean you can't make an educated guess about how much damage you are mitigating, and Nemesis supports that line of thinking. (Using educated estimates to judge effectiveness of things that can't be measured or reported in the combat log...yes he has a video on this too btw) and that when you do give a theoretical estimate, you should always know that there is a practical application of that theoretical number which you can either meet or not meet based on your performance. Assuming you always perform 100% optimally is what Nemesis would consider to be fake meta because its unrealistic to assume you are ever playing at 100% optimality.

    Edit: If you read through all of my posts here, you will notice and see that all of my calculations and even the language with which i describe stuff, follow closely these philosophies he outlined many years ago.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 3, 2021

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Nemesis' real contribution was that he actually MEASURED dps output, not calculated it

    uhh no...let me correct you. Back then, all DPS was measured that way because DPS meters didn't exist.

    No correction needed ... I'm not talking about how DPS was measured before DPS meters existed .. and yes there was a time where the people pushing meta were not measuring at all. I'm talking about the large difference between calculated and measured DPS and how Nemesis was involved with exposing the 'false' meta using measurements and not calculations. That's relevant here because his exposure of this false meta was a result of theoretical vs. practical approach to determining what is optimal in the game.

    What I would recommend is that if you want to take some calculation approach to damage mitigation and approximate non-measurable elements, you need to do it in a range for a specific scenario ... because the best players will avoid the largest hits with block/dodge and the scrubs will blow heals and waste their dodge/blocks ... if they use them at all. There are just too many damage mitigating elements that are dependent on the person playing to come up with some approach to make claims about optimizing play.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 3, 2021

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    No correction needed ... I'm talking when NO one was measuring it all.

    Again no. People measured it this way back then. The measurement itself was BIASED. He identified those biases because those people were missing how to analyze essential information about DPS which is damage PER second. You can manipulate the DAMAGE side of the equation by manipulating the TIME it takes to do that damage.

    What I said isn't invalidated by any of this though ... no agreeable calculation can be made for damage mitigation because there are damage mitigating elements that are dependent on the person playing,

    Is this not exactly what I've said and the opposite of what you were saying earlier? You said dodging is "the best" without needing to measure it, and I said that you can by giving it an average that brings it out of the realm of the unrealistic (dodging infinite amounts of damage) to realistic dodging as an average of the amount you will face in an encounter.

    Someone already commented that dodging is sometimes omitted in favor of just healing through it...that's information based on practical behavior. You don't know if what you will dodge will always kill you, nor can you dodge every single ability to maximum efficiency. If a boss does an attack that does 7k, then according to you, one would dodge this 7k damage, when it is perfectly plausible to just heal through this damage. In other instances, where an attack does 25k damage, healing through it becomes implausible and dodging becomes the most optimal strategy. Your assumption is that dodging in either case is the most optimal strategy, which is not true, just because it can mitigate a potentially infinite number does not mean it always will.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 3, 2021

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    No correction needed ... I'm talking when NO one was measuring it all.

    Again no. People measured it this way back then. The measurement itself was BIASED. He identified those biases because those people were missing essential information about DPS which is damage PER second. You can manipulate the DAMAGE side of the equation by manipulating the TIME it takes to do that damage.

    What I said isn't invalidated by any of this though ... no agreeable calculation can be made for damage mitigation because there are damage mitigating elements that are dependent on the person playing,

    Is this not exactly what I've said and the opposite of what you were saying earlier? You said dodging is "the best" without needing to measure it, and I said that you can by giving it an average that brings it out of the realm of the unrealistic (dodging infinite amounts of damage) to realistic dodging as an average of the amount you will face in an encounter.

    So dodging can't be the best damage mitigation unless we measure it? "Giving it an average" is now a measurement? Again, let's not confuse measurement with calculation ... you aren't measuring anything if you just assign a value to how much damage a dodge can mitigate. That's why this theoretical exercise is misleading ... because the result depends on the player. Sure, present your calculated optimal healing values ... but other than that, no claims can be made about optimal play using them ... EVEN if you want to talk about healing.

    This calculation approach was how false meta was pushed before DPS was being measured at the beginning of this game ... and it was proven inaccurate by people like Nemesis when they ACTUALLY measured it. Don't fall into the same trap where you did something on paper and you convinced yourself it's THE answer. That answer is incomplete if you are going to talk about optimal play.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 3, 2021

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    "Giving it an average" is now a measurement?

    The average is the AVERAGE POTENTIAL, which is a theoretical potential for which dodging will mitigate over the course of some arbitrary amount of time, and this potential is and can only be expressed as an average. This means that if one WERE to be playing at 100% efficacy over any period of time, they would mitigate on average the median number of the hits you would take during an engagement. The average potential (10,000 from the previous example) is what CAN be measured, where as the efficacy can only be estimated, but will always be some number lower than the theoretical maximum potential (0 - 20,000 from the previous example).

    The efficacy CAN actually be practically measured (using the same technique laid out by Nemesis) but it requires knowing what the enemy does, and how much damage it would have done if you otherwise wouldn't have dodged. For example, Let's say you were to dodge every time off cooldown, meaning every 10 seconds you dodge. Let's say now that you were to fight a boss that does some arbitrary number of attacks during an 180 second long engagement. In this fight you've dodged 18 times. If the boss did 100,000 damage by the end when you never dodge, then on average, you took approx~ 550 damage per second. Dodging 18 times means you will ON AVERAGE dodge approx 10,000 damage over the course of 180 seconds (550 x 18 dodges). If the average theoretical maximum of mitigation from dodging is the median number mentioned before (10,000 damage per second) then your efficacy to which you are utilizing your dodges in this fight is 5.5% of the average potential.

    Gaining higher efficacy in the above scenario, means dodging attacks that do the most damage. But that number will always range between 0 and 20,000. make sense?

    This is the SAME approach that people were using to push optimal play with DPS before it was being measured ... and it was proven inaccurate by people like Nemesis when they ACTUALLY measured it.

    No it's definitely not the same. The entire point of the exercise follows the philosophy laid out by Nemesis. You extrapolate a theoretical maximum number (The potential), and you go and you see how well you meet that number in the field (The efficacy). The potential because it is the theoretical maximum is the upper limit to how much you could do in perfectly ideal conditions, and the efficacy at which you play your build will ALWAYS be a fraction of that number. This is how Nemesis makes his builds...by creating builds that can attain high efficacy during engagements where you aren't in the most ideal situations...

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 3, 2021

    Again ... 'giving' something a value isn't NOT a measurement. No matter how you justify that assignment, no calculation is going to account for the influence that player behaviour has on the value of non-measured damage mitigation actions. That's important to recognize because that consideration is related to the suspicion I have that higher skilled players are much less reliant on heals for damage mitigation than lower skilled ones. You can't just gloss over that with an average because these differences will likely result in orders of magnitude differences in whatever is being calculated. That was the case for DPS and I have no doubt that since the mechanics are similar here, it will be the case here as well.

    I am just going to tell you the same thing I told the meta calculators 8 years ago. You're calculations don't mean much without a practical consideration of what is happening in the game. And just like those meta calculator guys, I have no doubt that such a simple healing potential calculation is grossly inaccurate as well.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 3, 2021

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Again ... 'giving' something a value isn't NOT a measurement, so no matter how you justify it, no calculation is going to account for the damage mitigation differences account from player behaviour. That's important because that consideration is related to the suspicion I have that higher skilled players are much less reliant on heals than lower skilled ones. You can't just gloss over that...

    Your suspicion is not relevant here either. Nor is your conclusion that dodging will always be the most optimal mechanic for all situations because it's not true...

    About measurement, you need to understand something very basic here which is common scientific knowledge. NOTHING not even in physics can ever be accurately measured courtesy of quantum mechanics (not even just QM, its a mathematical Axiom). You will never have exact values in the real world, nor would you have exact values in the game...because the game has by virtue of it's design has variables built into it's very fabric that you simply can not get around. This is another thing Nemesis points out btw...Ever notice the Damage range on a weapon being 1099-1199? That is CEMENTED as a range for all DPS calculations and you can NEVER get an exact DPS value for every encounter, even if all conditions are ideally met and all things are in a perfectly controlled environment. The game will ALWAYS give you a RANGE at which your DPS will fluctuate by virtue of the above, and therefor all DPS calculations are just AVERAGES between RANGES.

    The range for evaluating damage mitigation is no different than the range that a DPS weapon can give you...It's just that Damage is shown to you in a combat log where as mitigation is not...therefor you can not give yourself anything more than an educated guess about how much it is mitigating.

    Ill say it like this... a non educated guess would be assuming, that protection gives you a near infinite amount of damage reduction because in theory if you took for example, 33 billion damage in one second, protection would mitigate 10 billion damage. This statement is TRUE...but it is NOT PRACTICAL because you would have died 22.99998 billion damage ago. It would be ridiculous to assume that protection or any other damage mitigation for that matter, is the best thing in the game due to having theoretically no upper limit on its mitigation in theory and, that saying otherwise is tantamount to denial of any educated guess on how much it could be ACTUALLY mitigating. Sound familiar...It's Nemesis signature slogan "ACTUAL DPS VALUES."

    The purpose of the average's is to give you a more practical value in the form of an average (derived from a range) that helps you access a MORE ACCURATE value in practice.

    If you asked me you should go back and watch Nemesis's video's cause
    A ) you either haven't or...
    B ) You don't understand what he really did or how important it was.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 4, 2021

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    Again ... 'giving' something a value isn't NOT a measurement, so no matter how you justify it, no calculation is going to account for the damage mitigation differences account from player behaviour. That's important because that consideration is related to the suspicion I have that higher skilled players are much less reliant on heals than lower skilled ones. You can't just gloss over that...

    Your suspicion is not relevant here either. Nor is your conclusion that dodging will always be the most optimal mechanic for all situations because it's not true...

    About measurement, you need to understand something very basic here which is common scientific knowledge. NOTHING not even in physics can ever be accurately measured courtesy of quantum mechanics (not even just QM, its a mathematical Axiom).

    Except I'm not questioning the accuracy of a measurement here ... we are talking about a calculation and the question at hand is how accurate that calculation is based on the collective experience and history of the game. I'm proposing it can't be accurate be because of numerous factors, one of them being the variable nature of the non-measurable damage mitigations that you have simply assigned some value to. As for quantum limitations on measurement accuracy ... the changes in times and energies involved with the measurement of DPS videos and Golem Kills will result in NOTHING near that limit ... so you can file that in the "I read something on Google about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle one time" bin.

    The people calculating DPS to push meta were wrong 8 years ago. That was a result of TOO many unconsidered factors that had a significant impact on the practical DPS values from real ingame play vs. the theoretical ones they calculated. Why do you think this calculation for healing potential is any different? My suspicion relating non-measurable mitigation values to player skill is just ONE of those factors. The additional factors are the same ones that made the DPS calculations not just inaccurate ... but plain wrong.

    I mean, even if you want to assign a value to increase your accuracy, what scenario have you LIMITED your calculation to for that value to be at all relevant? What is the RESULTING accuracy of your calculation after you made those assignments? There simply isn't a general calculation you can make to determine the 'value' of healing or it's potential to players; it's not only highly dependent on the players skill, it's also dependent on the scenario in question where this healing is being applied.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 4, 2021

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    As for quantum limitations on measurement accuracy ... the changes in times and energies involved with the measurement of DPS videos and Golem Kills will result in NOTHING near that limit ... so you can file that in the "I read something on Google about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle one time" bin.

    lol. oh of course you would say something like that. GUESS i have to explain this one too since you clearly don't understand why measurement is always described as an average within a range.

    It's an axiom in mathematics about measurement called "The measurement problem," and it has 3 axioms, only 1 of which are relevant to non-physics

    1) In order to measure anything to 100% precision, the experiment must be done an infinite number of times, infinitely often.

    This rule here isn't a physics thing...this is an axiom in statistics about experiment and receiving results from doing a measurement. Not something you can just "google and throw in the trash bin." This is extremely important when talking about making ANY measurement of any kind.

    When we talk about DPS video's and Golem kills, no matter how insignificant the margin of error, there will always be a margin of error. Nemesis clearly talks about this in a video which you clearly did not watch and if you actually knew what he was really about, you wouldn't be discounting what he said because what he said applies to more than just weapon damage ranges...It's boss armor, it's boss mechanics, its player behaviour...those things are not insignificant at all...and frankly neither is the range in DPS weapons...the entire point is that no matter what you do in any and all measurement, the value you get will ALWAYS be some AVERAGE within an ACCEPTABLE Range...

    Except I'm not questioning the accuracy of a measurement here ... we are talking about a calculation and the question at hand is how accurate that calculation is based on the collective experience and history of the game. I'm proposing it can't be accurate be because of numerous factors, one of them being the variable nature of the non-measurable damage mitigations that you have simply assigned some value to.
    I mean, even if you want to assign a value to increase your accuracy, what scenario have you LIMITED your calculation to for that value to be at all relevant?

    Again you don't seem to understand what is being said cause i keep having to repeat it.

    You want to know how accurate the calculation is...the accuracy is literally that range of 0 to 20,000. Hopefully you haven't forgotten why I'm saying 20,000? (Please don't make me repeat myself a hundred times.) 20,000 is just the typical health of the player, where any hit above 20,000 would have otherwise killed that player. the number you will mitigate an attack for will be between 0 and 20,000 because anything above 20,000 is the same as just being hit by something that does 20,000...because in both scenarios you would die. Therefor you NORMALIZE numbers above 20,000 to a range of 0 to 20,000. This is a very basic and essential mathematical exercise in order to remove infinities. Talk trash about google all you want, but you need to look this up if you don't understand how to do this.

    Again...the amount of damage you will mitigate will fall as some number between 0 and 20,000. The average of that range is just the MEDIAN number. If you have a data set for measurement, you would use those numbers in the dataset and use the mean. All it tells you is ON AVERAGE how much you can EXPECT the maximum damage to be, when you mitigate an attack for...it doesn't say that dodge is "always worth 10k healing" it says it's worth some healing value between 0 - 20,000, and on average, that value is 10,000. You need to set your thinking cap forward and learn how to evaluate information so that you can ask better questions, cause now I'm just getting tired of repeating myself over and over the same things.

    The people calculating DPS to push meta were wrong 8 years ago. That was a result of TOO many unconsidered factors that had a significant impact on the practical DPS values from real ingame play vs. the theoretical ones they calculated. Why do you think this calculation for healing potential is any different? My suspicion relating non-measurable mitigation values to player skill is just ONE of those factors. The additional factors are the same ones that made the DPS calculations not just inaccurate ... but plain wrong.

    I'm not gonna talk bout this. Do you really think i'm some meta pusher when all i talk about on the forum is build diversity? Come on now...

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 4, 2021

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    As for quantum limitations on measurement accuracy ... the changes in times and energies involved with the measurement of DPS videos and Golem Kills will result in NOTHING near that limit ... so you can file that in the "I read something on Google about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle one time" bin.

    lol. oh of course you would say something like that. GUESS i have to explain this one too since you clearly don't understand why measurement is always described as an average within a range.

    It's an axiom in mathematics about measurement called "The measurement problem," and it has 3 axioms, only 1 of which are relevant to non-physics

    1) In order to measure anything to 100% precision, the experiment must be done an infinite number of times, infinitely often.

    This rule here isn't a physics thing...this is an axiom in statistics about experiment and receiving results from doing a measurement. Not something you can just "google and throw in the trash bin." This is extremely important when talking about making ANY measurement of any kind.'

    Again, if you were MAKING a measurement here, all this would be relevant ... but you aren't. You are making a calculation.

    You want to know how accurate the calculation is...the accuracy is literally that range of 0 to 20,000.

    No I understand you are making simplifying your calculation with this assignment; I think there is a problem with that, but I've moved on from that unresolved issue. I'm asking you now for something far more relevant to the thread.

    The accuracy of your calculation is the amount your calculated values relates to the actual values. So you did the calculation for healing potential ... how does it relate to the ACTUAL healing potential in the game? You're whole claim is you debunked the myth you can calculate healing potential ... is one of how accurately your calculation matches ingame reality.

    I'm not gonna talk bout this.

    I didn't expect you would ... even though the same factors plague your calculations as badly as they did the people that used DPS calculations to push a false meta.

    You can't calculate your effectiveness as a healer ... but it's not because of a lack of a meter ... it's because the calculations can't consider all the factors that would tell how effective a healer someone can be ... just like the DPS calculations couldn't calculate people's effectiveness as DPS dealers either.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 4, 2021

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    The accuracy of your calculation is the amount your calculated values relates to the actual values.

    Yes. Because all hits that occur only MATTER when they do damage within the range of your health how much more accurate can you get really?

    Fact, when you are hit for more then the health of your HP, you will go to downstate because you become invulnerable upon death, thus blocking all additional damage that comes to values above your HP. In the combat log, if you took a million damage in a single hit, it registers in the combat log as taking 1,000,000 damage but you only take the amount of damage equal to your health anyway. So the calculated MAXIMUM potential value is going to range between 0 and the typical player health.

    The combat log is going to show you exactly what happened to you...but it doesn't ACTUALLY matter that you took a million or only took 20,000. This is why you normalize.

    And also, you can measure damage mitigation because the combat log does give you enough information to tell you what you mitigated. You literately can backtrack everything you blocked, evaded or mitigated. So long as the mechanic has a name, you can find it, evaluate how much damage it does or can do and then add that up using Nemesis's method. Your literally being irrational to think you can't backtrack to find realistic in field values for mitigation. But if you want to continue thinking dodges have infinite value go head...i won't stop you.

    Example:

    Guardian's Wrath hits me 9 times. i evaded the attack once ,blocked it 3 times, and was hit by it 5 times.

    In total, Wrath hits me for 4,169. (1153+772+748+748+748 = 4169)

    The average damage that my block and evade has in value is this number divided by 5. which means the healing value of my block and evade in this encounter is on average 833.8 healing.

    You understand?

    Throw in an attack that hits me for 150,000 damage that I also happen to block. the average unnormalized damage that i took would be 1153+772+748+748+748+150,000 = 154,169 and divide by 6 attacks to get an average. Therefore according to YOU, on average I mitigated/healed 25,694 , even though my health is only 11,645.

    so what happens to the remaining 14 thousand damage per attack? Does it just go POOF and fly away into my inflated value for the damage I just mitigated? Or do we actually evaluate it where it matters, which is at the boundary of player health? who cares if i blocked an attack for one billion damage or 12,000 damage...it literally does not matter how much i took if everything after 11,645 puts me into downstate.

    Notice below after attacking a legendary defender. I'm hit for over 120,000ish damage even though i only have 19,000 health (and 3x downstate health for total of 72,000 Health)

    So tell me... i took 120,000ish damage when I only had 72,000 Health (which includes downstate health). Do you really think I should include an extra 50,000 damage that literally does not matter and exists only to inflate the numbers beyond any meaningfully accurate measurement.

    Again you are being irrational if you don't think you can measure mitigation in a meaningful way, and believe that the value of blocks and dodges should be evaluated at infinity rather than being normalized, which any mathematician will tell you is how you would evaluate this kind of data. The above point i'm trying to make here also supports how using inflated numbers can give you values that are actually UNREALISTIC through measurement of something by biasing the measurement. That is again the whole point of what Nemesis set out to disprove.

    Edit: made a small mistake just fixed.

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 4, 2021

    OK ... but none of that addresses my question to you. If you can't show your calculation is accurate based on what's really happening in the game ... you haven't actually shown the thing you claim. I mean, you're showing me things I know; I'm not into being patronized with anecdotes about measurement theory and videos I've seen ... these aren't answering the questions I'm asking you. You're claiming you calculated healing potential to debunk a myth you can't calculate it ... but to debunk that myth, you have show that calculation has SOME level of accuracy ... seems to me the reasonable thing to do here is to actually MEASURE the healing potential of whatever scenario you chose to make your assignments to non-measurable mitigation effects. So specifically ... you have a calculated healing potential in HP over time ... so the expectation is you do what the DPS guys do ... go heal something over time and compare that to your calculation.

    I'm not debating why you normalize something or not; I don't care ... I'm asking you to show the thing you claim you have debunked ... that you can calculate healing potential. That's a pretty tall order to me, considering the DPS guys failed miserably trying the same thing and you are faced with the same mechanics that messed up their calculations.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • @Obtena.7952 said:
    OK ... but none of that addresses my question to you. If you can't show your calculation is accurate based on what's really happening in the game ... you haven't actually shown the thing you claim.

    I must be failing to understand your question at all. I keep repeating the accuracy of everything.

    look let's go back to the above example for Wrath.

    Wrath hits me for 1153, 772, 748, 748 and 748 damage in the above example.

    In theory, the next hit from wrath (or any skill for that matter) can range from 0 to infinity. Course, why should you believe that the next wrath hit should hit you for infinity rather than some value that actually occurs...in order to understand why you are less likely to be hit with a wrath that crits your for infinity damage, you need to do a little math, which I've already explained a hundred times now.

    So what you do is you normalize to firstly get rid of infinity since it's invalidated anyway by player health-

    So now in theory the next hit from wrath can range from 0 to (YourTypicalHealth) which we will say is 11645.

    That above is the range for the damage that wrath could ever possibly do to me. I can assume that whatever damage I mitigate from this skill could in theory fall between this number and that's where the accuracy stops for the calculation...BUT we can go further.

    You can determine a tighter accuracy by looking at what the enemy can do. If you do the math and find out how much damage Wrath can do on the enemies build, then you can further squash that range between the range of that number. Let's just say for now that Wrath can do some number between 200 and 1500 damage...don't ask me to go look that up because I don't have the time right now...but the point is that you can go and LOOK and do the math to determine the amount of damage that Wrath could ever possibly do and use that range to further compress the accuracy. So now when you block an attack, if that attack is Wrath, then you can identify that it will block some number between 200 and 1500 (or whatever it is)

    The method I use mostly here just abridges the above step, where instead of narrowing down enemy skills to components (which you can in fact do), it just takes the damage you could take from any hit from the encounter as an average of all hits that you took.

    So if I'm hit for X Y and Z from the fight, and i block A B and C, then you just take the damage that you took from all sources, normalize any hits that are above your level of health, and divide by the number of times you were hit. You already know that number will fall between some number that ranges between zero and your health because of normalization, so the number will always give you back some value between that range. The average of that number is what you can expect a block or dodge to mitigate on average based on the encounter.

    You're claiming you calculated healing potential to debunk a myth you can't calculate it ... but to debunk that myth, you have show that calculation has SOME level of accuracy ... seems to me the reasonable thing to do here is to actually MEASURE the healing potential of whatever scenario you chose to make your assignments to non-measurable mitigation effects.

    Okay instead of asking me this question that i keep answering over and over again, let me ask YOU a question, then i can at least correct your responses.

    Look at this picture

    You are hit 6 times in this picture by a legendary Defender. 4 of the hits are absorbed and 2 of the 6 hits so far has done 63,752 damage. What do you think, using the magical powers of deduction do you believe is going to be the damage that you absorbed is?

  • Obtena.7952Obtena.7952 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 4, 2021

    @JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    OK ... but none of that addresses my question to you. If you can't show your calculation is accurate based on what's really happening in the game ... you haven't actually shown the thing you claim.

    I must be failing to understand your question at all. I keep repeating the accuracy of everything.

    I'm not asking you the accuracy of the individual bits of healing you are doing. I'm asking you the accuracy of the total healing potential ... those things you presented in the posts earlier on. For instance you have a post showing a calculated total healing potential for Druid ... 12,148,097 - 13,948,097. What's the actual ingame result with that build? Maybe your intent had nothing to do with showing heals over time for a specific build and just individual skills?

    I mean, the compliment here is DPS ... and it's not really interesting to calculate the individual DPS of a single skill or a build because attempts to do so have bad results ... so we just measure it in game. I would think the same for heals. You got a log, it tracks the heals you get in a specific build, if you WANT to convince yourself a dodge/block has a certain value based on the encounter ... you can do that too.

    The relevant question for any calculation is how accurate it is to the ACTUAL value. If it's not close, it has no predictive value. So ... if you calculate heal "x" is 1500 HPS ... and in game it's ... not ... then the question is how close is it. I'm just looking for the value being presented in the thread because I do refer people to info threads and bookmark them. Calculations are great if they are accurate ... because then you don't NEED to make the build and see what the heals are yourself. You can calculate and have confidence you know what will happen.

    If you're on a highway and roadrunner goes "beep beep"
    Just step aside or you might end up in a heap

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 4, 2021

    @Obtena.7952 said:
    I'm not asking you the accuracy of the individual bits of healing you are doing. I'm asking you the accuracy of the total healing potential ... those things you presented in the posts earlier on. For instance you have a post showing a calculated total healing potential for Druid ... 12,148,097 - 13,948,097. What's the actual ingame result with that build? Maybe your intent had nothing to do with showing heals over time for a specific build and just individual skills?

    The in game result is called the efficacy. The efficacy is a percentage to which you are utilizing the builds potential. This is outlined in the original post as to why it exists, and why its essential to use because otherwise you are just playing with numbers in a void.

    If the druid build has a potential to heal for 12 million to 13 million, (4 million of which comes from actual healing with green numbers, while the remaining 8 million comes from upkeeping protection permanently) Then after an encounter you count up all the healing you did using the information that you have available to you and you see what percentage of that healing you did in the fight.

    There are a number of ways to assess finding out protections mitigation potential, but the most accurate way, is to count up all the applications of the boon by using the duration. If the duration of the fight was 3 minutes, that means if it was perma'd180 seconds of the boon was applied to each player, For 10 characters that's 1800 concurrent seconds of protection. So the number in ARCDPS will show some number from 0 seconds to 1800 seconds of protection (per player it would be some number between 0s - 180s,) and if protections value is evaluated at mitigating 5000 (where if the typical health is 15,000, then an attack that strikes you at or above 15,000 would have killed you, thus making the range of damage range from 0 - 15,000. we take 33% of that maximum to get 5000), then that is 9 million maximum healing in the form of mitigation.

    The above potential means that in order to get close to this number the player needs to
    A ) Mitigate attacks of 15,000 per second damage always with protection.
    B ) Maintain Protection at all times.

    So the efficacy for protection in this build here, is the ability to meet the above 2 conditions, which in practice is impossible to do. You can get close...but you can never get 100% efficacy, because you will never always mitigate 15,000 damage per second (It will always range from 0 to 15,000 meaning that on average, it will be some value sitting around 7500, and lower and higher depending on the fight). An argument here could be that the mitigation should be taken AFTER the attack rather than before, which pushes the potential higher ( again if evaluating, player health at 15,000, 21,000 damage would be the highest attack you could take before protection comes in to reduce that damage down to 15,000 which is a number between the range of 0 and typical player health.) That's up for debate, but it only means that the potential for protection would be even higher then the number I had originally given it. We could debate this that's no issue and really would be a more interesting question to discuss rather than me explaining how to do the method 100 times.

    Now back to the concept, In most cases, the efficacy is always going to be a significant fraction less then the potential. The purpose of the calculation is to try and better meet the above conditions by pushing your efficacy up...and that can be done in a variety of ways based on the information you gleam from the calculation. That's all it's meant to do...give you a value to compare your performance to so you can make better and better decisions about things. Rather then the typical way players compare values (which is comparing HPS numbers to other players using different builds) you are just comparing your build to the same build used at 100% efficacy.

    The relevant question for any calculation is how accurate it is to the ACTUAL value. If it's not close, it has no predictive value. So ... if you calculate heal "x" is 1500 HPS ... and in game it's ... not ... then the question is how close is it. I'm just looking for the value being presented in the thread because I do refer people to info threads and bookmark them. Calculations are great if they are accurate ... because then you don't NEED to make the build and see what the heals are yourself. You can calculate and have confidence you know what will happen.

    So your asking essentially how accurate did I research to find out the numbers... well that's what independent confirmation is for. If for example I'm wrong about Druid's protections theoretical maximum value, someone may come along, show the value of protection is some other number, and then we either agree or disagree, usually the outcome is a better method to determine that value.

    Now I go and I show the math in the spoiler tags, usually along with cliff notes to describe how the calculation was made, so that one can independently verify that number by going in and doing the calculation themselves to confirm that number is an accurate number.

    Aside from that, the method is designed to never be able to reach the theoretical maximum anyway. If you can reach and go above the maximum (100% efficacy) it means the math is wrong. So if you can heal in practice for 14 million healing on druid using that meta build, when the theoretical limit is 13.9 million, then either the claim is wrong or the calculation is wrong. That's really the entire point of having a theoretical limit and comparing it to the efficacy to which one reaches that limit.

    Lastly, i never came here to actually do the calculations myself. I just wanted to provide others with THE METHOD to do the calculation, so that THEY can do the calculation themselves. I was basically just forced to do the calculation because others here demanded I do so...which I'm fine with doing, but that's not why I'm here in the first place. I'm also not infallible, I make mistakes on calculations and I correct those mistakes if I find them.

  • JusticeRetroHunter.7684JusticeRetroHunter.7684 Member ✭✭✭✭
    edited January 4, 2021

    @Obtena.7952

    Here let me explain the calculation like this.

    There are two versions of Obtena. There is You, the "real Obtena", and then there is the 100% efficacy version of you, "the Perfect Obtena". Both Obtena's play the same build, but the perfect Obtena version of you plays the build absolutely perfectly in the most ideal conditions imaginable. The real Obtena plays the build at some fraction of Perfect Obtena's performance. This fraction is expressed as a percentage, and is called The Efficacy to which you are playing the build in comparison to Perfect Obtena.

    The point in the exercise is to understand how to play as well as the perfect version of you. If perfect version of you can do X Y Z you want to try to figure out how to better and better meet those conditions of X Y and Z.

    The caveat is that you will NEVER play as perfect as perfect Obtena. It's is impossible to do because Perfect Obtena is perfect in every way imaginable.

    The understanding here, is that we can calculate and figure out how to play like perfect Obtena by adding up values that are the absolute limits of abilities on her build, and we try to evaluate those values by assuming they are used perfectly...which means used on cooldown, and are never under-utilized etc.

    When we go into the field, we evaluate our efficacy (as best as we can), and try to get closer and closer to 100%, even though we can't actually reach 100%.