Stat Optimizer : Healing Equation

[Dawdler.8521]

1 minute ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

And here is your claim, proven false:

https://i.gyazo.com/f239cb5a3fdcb24b8ead422f480eaef3.mp4

Here in this test I'm using no gear (i have 50 heal power from borderlands boost, but its inconsequential for the purpose of the test). I have 3 active outgoing modifiers here : The Traits Lingering Light (20% Outgoing Healing), Natural Mender (15% Outgoing Healing) and Sigil of Transference (10%) on my staff, which also has no stats on it, for a total of 45% Outgoing Heal Modifers.

The Skill i use here is Lunar Impact, which has a Base heal of 1215 in WvW (and a 1.0 coefficient. With 50 healing power thats 50 additional healing) which you see when hovering over the skill in the first few seconds, is 1265 Healing.

The Stat Optomizer predicts, i should do 1834 Healing, as shown here in this image, where i inputted all of these values : Fig 1

And in this test i do exactly 1834 healing as shown in this screenshot from that gyazo gif : Fig 2

If Outgoing Healing didn't effect Base Healing, i would have done 1265 healing.

That's not what I said *at all*.

My calculation:

[1215 + (50*1.0)] * 1.45 = 1834.25

Your calculation:

E = ACD + CD + AB + B = 1.45*50*1.0 +50*1.0 + 1.45*1215 + 1215 = 72.5 + 1761.75 + 1215 = 3049.25

Am I going crosseyed?

[A Hamster.2580]

I did in game testing of the wiki's E=ACD+AB and your E = ACD + CD + AB + B and the wiki was correct.

Your equation results in double the wiki's result (when healing modifier is 0).

Edited July 28 by A Hamster.2580

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

3 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

E = ACD + CD + AB + B = 1.45*50*1.0 +50*1.0 + 1.45*1215 + 1215 = 72.5 + 1761.75 + 1215 = 3049.25

Am I going crosseyed?

you used a "1.45" here for the term of A...which is wrong. A value of .5 is 50%. a value of 1.5 is 150%

[Dawdler.8521]

1 minute ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

you used a "1.45" here for the term of A...which is wrong. A value of .5 is 50%. a value of 1.5 is 150%

No it's not. 1.5 is 50% more. 0.5 is half.

[Arete.7019]

3 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

you used a "1.45" here for the term of A...which is wrong. A value of .5 is 50%. a value of 1.5 is 150%

.5 is a 50% decrease, 1.5 is a 50% increase. 1.45 is correct if you have an outgoing healing increase of 45%. Also base healing on a skill can be affected by outgoing healing modifiers fwiw, this is easily testable in game, just go use rice balls in the raid training area

Edited July 28 by Arete.7019

[A Hamster.2580]

Here are the 2 skills I tested with 0 healing modifier:

Astral Wisp: 

Base Healing: 322

Healing Coefficient: 0.15

Healing Power: 1614

Healing Modifier: 1

ACD+AB = 564.1 which is what it healed for in game

ACD + CD + AB + B = 1128.2

Glyph of Rejuvenation (non cele) self heal:

Base Healing: 4860

Healing Coefficient: 1.708

Healing Power: 1614

Healing Modifier: 1

ACD+AB = 7616.712 which is what it healed for in game

ACD + CD + AB + B = 15233.42

Edited July 28 by A Hamster.2580

[Dawdler.8521]

Just now, Arete.7019 said:

.5 is a 50% decrease, 1.5 is a 50% increase. 1.45 is correct if you have an outgoing healing increase of 45%. Also base healing can be affected by outgoing healing modifiers fwiw, this is easily testable in game, just go use rice balls in the raid training area

But its not base healing that's affect, technically - its the sum of your healing (ie base + power*coef). You're seeing your healing increase not the base healing increase. Even at 0 healing power, your base heal is still calculated to your heal... which is then modified. 

[Arete.7019]

1 minute ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

But its not base healing that's affect, technically - its the sum of your healing (ie base + power*coef). You're seeing your healing increase not the base healing increase. Even at 0 healing power, your base heal is still calculated to your heal... which is then modified. 

I'm a bit confused if we even disagree here. Say you have 0 healing power and 10% outgoing healing. You use a skill with a base healing of 1000. It will heal for 1100 (1000 * 1.1) (on allies only, since outgoing healing doesn't increase self heal).

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

6 minutes ago, Arete.7019 said:

.5 is a 50% decrease, 1.5 is a 50% increase. 1.45 is correct if you have an outgoing healing increase of 45%. Also base healing can be affected by outgoing healing modifiers fwiw, this is easily testable in game, just go use rice balls in the raid training area

Nope, It's a common mistake, your actually normalizing the percentage of a number that sits between say, 1 - 3, rather than 0 - 2, which is why people by default, add 100%. that extra 100% is a tack on artifact from not having a proper healing equation, which is why you have to specify in english, that "its a 50% increase" which in the context of math you need to specify what that means... in normal mathematics "50%" of something means you are taking half of something.

Edited July 28 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Dawdler.8521]

Just now, Arete.7019 said:

I'm a bit confused if we even disagree here. Say you have 0 healing power and 10% outgoing healing. You use a skill with a base healing of 1000. It will heal for 1100 (1000 * 1.1) (on allies only, since outgoing healing doesn't increase self heal).

Yep!

But in the calculation base heal is still 1000. Base heal is not suddenly 1100. 

[1000 + 0] * 1.1 = 1100.

That 1100 is not your base heal. 1000 is your base heal.

[Arete.7019]

Just now, Dawdler.8521 said:

Yep!

But in the calculation base heal is still 1000. Base heal is not suddenly 1100. 

[1000 + 0] * 1.1 = 1100.

That 1100 is not your base heal. 1000 is your base heal.

Yeah ok, we're on the same page

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

15 minutes ago, A Hamster.2580 said:

Here are the 2 skills I tested with 0 healing modifier:

Astral Wisp: 

Base Healing: 322

Healing Coefficient: 0.15

Healing Power: 1614

Healing Modifier: 1

ACD+AB = 564.1 which is what it healed for in game

ACD + CD + AB + B = 1128.2

Glyph of Rejuvenation (non cele) self heal:

Base Healing: 4860

Healing Coefficient: 1.708

Healing Power: 1614

Healing Modifier: 1

ACD+AB = 7616.712 which is what it healed for in game

ACD + CD + AB + B = 15233.42

I'd refer you to some of the previous comments left here that i made. but if i have to take a guess, i think you just did the same mistake everyone else made so far, in that you used a healing modier of 1, but its actually a healing modifier of 0% correct? Fig 1

If you have no healing modifications on your build, then you need to input into the healing modifier zone a value of 0. Intuitively that makes sense; if you have no healing modifications on your gear, you shouldn't be adding any values to that slider either. 

Edited July 28 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Dawdler.8521]

16 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

Nope, It's a common mistake, your actually normalizing the percentage of a number that sits between say, 1 - 3, rather than 0 - 2, which is why people by default, add 100%. that extra 100% is a tack on artifact from not having a proper healing equation, which is why you have to specify in english, that "its a 50% increase" which in the context of math you need to specify what that means... in normal mathematics "50%" of something means you are taking half of something.

Next time I see my stats and 50% boon duration I’m gonna cry over having half the boon duration as my 0% boon duration build.

I think.

Sidenote: isn’t saying that 50% mean 50% more and that 150% is 1.5 also the same as saying 50% = 150%? That can’t be good for math.

Edited July 28 by Dawdler.8521

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

Just now, Dawdler.8521 said:

Next time I see my stats and 50% boon duration I’m gonna cry over having half the boon duration as my 0% boon duration build.

I think.

Hey, its a great observation to make. When i was making the tool, i made the same mistake at first!

But anyway, the same rules apply.

If you have say a duration of 10 seconds, and you have a modifier of .5, you are doing 10 + 10*.5 which is 10s + 5s = 15 seconds. 

It's the same idea, just your values are normalized from 0 - X rather than having a value that's normalized from 1 - X. You can imagine that if you were playing around with much larger modifiers...like say 113...it's awkward to say oh, 113 is actually 114 on the slider, without giving some reason as to why. 

 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

2 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Sidenote: isn’t saying that 50% mean 50% more and that 150% is 1.5 also the same as saying 50% = 150%? That can’t be good for math.

About this sidenote: Yes, +50% healing modifiers (simply expressed as 0.5) is equivalent to 150% Total Healing. This is why the two are interchangeable and why the equations work the same. The reason you want to go with the former, rather than the ladder, is so that you don't have to normalize your values from 1 - X, rather than the more appropriate 0 - X, so that you don't need to specify any +100% kind of thing. I mention this in the previous comment, but basically if you consider large values, it's awkward to move the slider to say 112, and have to remind yourself that 112 is actually 113 because in your mind you have to do an unnecessary +100% calculation. The equation automatically does this for you essentially, it just forms the equation into a more proper form, so that 112x modifier is a 112x modifier, and not 113x. 

Btw, sidenote to a sidenote, I'm thinking of adding negative values to the heal equation, so that players can play around with negative modifiers too, to see how those impact healing builds and the optimization of their stats.

 

Edited July 29 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[A Hamster.2580]

Ok so this tool looks at one skill at a time. I did mess around with it, but I will be honest and say it didn't really change my mind regarding buildcrafting for healers.

If it is suppose to prove that something like metabattle (WvW section) should not be relied on, this tool did not do it for me. I still think a majority of organized guilds out there (probably 90%+) would be better off just following metabattle for their guild builds instead of trying to make their own. And when they do make their own builds, they almost never provide a written explanation on how to play the build unlike metabattle. So players end up using a suboptimal build and playing that even more sub optimally.

I like roaming on cele stats so I am not saying all this just to advocate for nerfing cele btw. I'm leaning towards the side of not nerfing cele but rather nerfing the boon outputs from some meta zerg builds.

On another note, I saw you claim that taking Quickfire for Firebrand is really bad and any of the other two traits would be better. May I ask why?

 

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

48 minutes ago, A Hamster.2580 said:

On another note, I saw you claim that taking Quickfire for Firebrand is really bad and any of the other two traits would be better. May I ask why?

Oh, Ya Quickfire itself is actually fine because it allows you to keep the Justice Effect Active, which is a critical component to the burn damage aspect of any guardian build (the Passive Justice Effect)

So you can ignore what i said there.

The second part "Granting Quickness to an Ally also grants Ashes of the Just" is god awful because it has an ICD. It applies to only one ally every 7 seconds. So it just does its 1 stack of burn to 1 person every 7 seconds. It was nerfed some time ago where the ICD was per target, providing the effect to multiple targets (very useful to rack up burns)

The update in question was this one:

November 29, 2022

This trait now also retains the Tome of Justice passive effect while it is on cooldown. This trait can no longer affect multiple targets simultaneously.

Considering you get to keep the Justice Passive after you eat a tome, These balance itself out to be not terrible, but just ehh...it's basically fine, is the best way to word it. All in all just carry on using that trait on that build, and just ignore what i said on the thread. Was a kneejerk response cause I forgot about the first part of that traits effect.

Quote

 

Ok so this tool looks at one skill at a time. I did mess around with it, but I will be honest and say it didn't really change my mind regarding buildcrafting for healers.

If it is suppose to prove that something like metabattle (WvW section) should not be relied on, this tool did not do it for me. I still think a majority of organized guilds out there (probably 90%+) would be better off just following metabattle for their guild builds instead of trying to make their own. And when they do make their own builds, they almost never provide a written explanation on how to play the build unlike metabattle. So players end up using a suboptimal build and playing that even more sub optimally.

I like roaming on cele stats so I am not saying all this just to advocate for nerfing cele btw. I'm leaning towards the side of not nerfing cele but rather nerfing the boon outputs from some meta zerg builds.

 

I get ya. This tool is meant to display information. To better understand how the variables in the healing equation effect one another, and how important each of those variables are in determining how much they are being utilized. You can choose to use the tool to make builds, if you want...or you don't. Me personally, since I've been using it myself today exploring different skills, I uncovered a lot of interesting connections and relations I didn't previously think about before, which is one reason why i like doing this kind of stuff.

Today, i discovered that a trait i had usually used with Healing Power was actually far more effective with 0 healing power and just outgoing healing modifiers. For this trait in particular it was counter intuitive that that would be the case, so i was pleasantly surprised, and it revealed to me a new way to think about the traitline as a whole (in some kind of pure damage or condi + support build). Figuring out how to make that work in a practical setting is not easy, but taking the time to explore it is fun, and might lead to some very fruitful new builds to test out.

I think one trend i'm noticing as ive been going through skills is how crazy Outgoing Healing Modifiers are. Its a monster stat that even though i knew it was very important before, i underestimated it even then, and it's now changed my mind on a couple of things and i'd be doing some adjustments to some builds.

There's new sliders i'm gonna add soon to this tool, like # of Targets because that also is a modifier that greatly impacts the stat utilization of skills...so as i explore this space im finding out more and more that these force multipliers are really no joke, and so to me, its worth going into my builds and revaluating certain decisions.

Cheers,

Edited July 29 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Dawdler.8521]

2 hours ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

About this sidenote: Yes, +50% healing modifiers (simply expressed as 0.5) is equivalent to 150% Total Healing. This is why the two are interchangeable and why the equations work the same. The reason you want to go with the former, rather than the ladder, is so that you don't have to normalize your values from 1 - X, rather than the more appropriate 0 - X, so that you don't need to specify any +100% kind of thing. I mention this in the previous comment, but basically if you consider large values, it's awkward to move the slider to say 112, and have to remind yourself that 112 is actually 113 because in your mind you have to do an unnecessary +100% calculation. The equation automatically does this for you essentially, it just forms the equation into a more proper form, so that 112x modifier is a 112x modifier, and not 113x. 

Btw, sidenote to a sidenote, I'm thinking of adding negative values to the heal equation, so that players can play around with negative modifiers too, to see how those impact healing builds and the optimization of their stats.

 

Well there is a reason why one use multipliers, not percentages. It simplifies the math considerably so you dont have to do all that and can instead use the calculation that's on the wiki not the awkward E = ACD + CD + AB + B.

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

15 hours ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

And if I am wrong and there is another gearset than celestial in combination with a build that has all the advantages of celestial but also so much healing power it's optimized, I'd like to know.

The main one that comes to mind for me is Marshals.  I used to run this on elementalist before celestial was buffed, and before the healing coefficients were reduced in WvW.  It's a 4-stat set with Power and Healing ad its dominant stats, with the full set giving 1173 healing power.  It's quite high, tied with Minstrels in total output, but the set still gives plenty of power, precision, and condition damage for offense.

My brain can't do math anymore, so I've been glazing over all of the equations and numbers, but if there's a candidate where healing modifier investments could hit some break points, it is going to be Marshals.   

[Dawdler.8521]

5 minutes ago, Blood Red Arachnid.2493 said:

The main one that comes to mind for me is Marshals.  I used to run this on elementalist before celestial was buffed, and before the healing coefficients were reduced in WvW.  It's a 4-stat set with Power and Healing ad its dominant stats, with the full set giving 1173 healing power.  It's quite high, tied with Minstrels in total output, but the set still gives plenty of power, precision, and condition damage for offense.

My brain can't do math anymore, so I've been glazing over all of the equations and numbers, but if there's a candidate where healing modifier investments could hit some break points, it is going to be Marshals.   

You're a complete glasscannon with no toughness or vitality on that. Also no boon duration.

At the end of the day, damage trumps healing power by alot. Like, really alot. Even on my 2000/2000 toughness/vitality builds a willbender can burst like 70% of that in a second lol.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

25 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Well there is a reason why one use multipliers, not percentages. It simplifies the math considerably so you dont have to do all that and can instead use the calculation that's on the wiki not the awkward E = ACD + CD + AB + B.

This equation (E = ACD +CD + AB + B) are all multipliers. Plus that's not awkward, that's the simplified form of (1+A)(B+CD), and its the actual correct form of the equation for Total Healing done. If you remember back in middle school algebra when they made you simplify those annoying equations via distribution, that's what you are supposed to get.

Like I pointed out on the last page, the healing equation listed on the wiki doesn't output a correct answer, and we went through that, showing in real time it producing a clearly bad answer (outputting less heal than the base heal, which is impossible). That equation on the wiki outputs this equation in simple form, which is not a correct equation for the total healing. 

Edited July 29 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Dawdler.8521]

1 hour ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

This equation (E = ACD +CD + AB + B) are all multipliers. Plus that's not awkward, that's the simplified form of (1+A)(B+CD), and its the actual correct form of the equation for Total Healing done. If you remember back in middle school algebra when they made you simplify those annoying equations via distribution, that's what you are supposed to get.

Like I pointed out on the last page, the healing equation listed on the wiki doesn't output a correct answer, and we went through that, showing in real time it producing a clearly bad answer (outputting less heal than the base heal, which is impossible). That equation on the wiki outputs this equation in simple form, which is not a correct equation for the total healing. 

But… I used the equation on the wiki to calculate the exact healing as per your ingame example. Did you miss that?

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

24 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

But… I used the equation on the wiki to calculate the exact healing as per your ingame example. Did you miss that?

we just had this conversation. You multiplied terms in your calculation by “1.45” instead of .45 which is 45%.
 

I explained that you have to do an extra “+100%” procedure in order for your equation to get a proper result, where as the equation I use already does this. As I said both are the same equation except my equation is normalized from 0 - X where as yours is normalized from 1 - X, which is why you have to do an extra adding step that isn’t present in the equation. 
 

you have to essentially compensate the range of 1-X with a -1 hence the +100% operation you have to do. My equation has a +1 in its terms so that you don’t have to do this. As I said it’s the same thing you just don’t get why you have to do your extra step where mine doesn’t. 
 

 

Edited July 29 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684

[Dawdler.8521]

4 minutes ago, JusticeRetroHunter.7684 said:

we just had this conversation. You multiplied terms in your calculation by “1.45” instead of .45 which is 45%.
 

I explained that you have to do an extra “+100%” procedure in order for your equation to get a proper result, where as the equation I use already does this. As I said both are the same equation except my equation is normalized from 0 - X where as yours is normalized from 1 - X, which is why you have to do an extra adding step that isn’t present in the equation. 
 

you have to essentially compensate the range of 1-X with a -1 hence the +100% operation you have to do. My equation has a +1 in its terms so that you don’t have to do this. As I said it’s the same thing you just don’t get why you have to do your extra step where mine doesn’t. 
 

 

And we tried to explain to you that 45% isn’t a multiplier. 1.45 is its multiplier. The wiki says the sum of the healing multipliers. Not the sum of healing percentages. Each outgoing heal percentage is converted to a proper multiplier at calculation (1% is equal to 1.01 etc).

But I give up we’re getting nowhere. Fact is the wiki is correct and give the correct healing number. You’re just doing it in another way.

[JusticeRetroHunter.7684]

21 minutes ago, Dawdler.8521 said:

Each outgoing heal percentage is converted to a proper multiplier at calculation (1% is equal to 1.01 etc).

That "conversion" is literately the extra step you are doing, that the equation I have is already calculating lol.

In other words, the thing I have (+1) in my terms, is the conversion.

You had to put that in by hand, from your brain, turning a 1% into a 1.01. 1% is not 1.01 btw it is 0.01.

1.01 is 101% of 1. 

1.01 is NOT 1% of 1 it is not 1% of 10, it is not 1% of 100, it is not 1% of 1000 and so on. The expression you are trying to describe, is a "+1% increase" which is a vague term you have to define mathematically, like how it is defined in my equation.

If you have trouble understanding this, please use a proportion calculator like Wyzant.com so you can get a better grasp on what a percent is : Fig 1

 

Edited July 29 by JusticeRetroHunter.7684