So one of the two opponents in a fight should be pre-determined to eventually die...and you would consider that balanced? So 1v1 the healer's teammates should help them. That isn't 1v1 then, is it? Most DPS that post on this forum want to press 2 or 3 of their big damage skills and rip through people hulk smash style without engaging a few brain cells or considering even the most basic tactical methods. There, now we've both made insulting hyperbolic exaggerations that add nothing substantive to the discussion and amount to nothing more than flinging ***** at each other. I could live through several derp-tastic players pre-1.2 or die to 1 that knew what they were doing and outplayed me. One thing is for sure, we can spot the derps rather easily, they're the ones who spew nonsense about invincible healers they can't kill.

Is it possible to get an augmented version of these by critting them? I haven't had any luck after about a dozen attempts or seen them on the GTN, just wondering if it is bad luck or simply not possible.

I want to meet these 4 people so I can give them their signs.

Actually in my experience, if a team had more than 2 healers, they lacked the DPS to get objectives completed. A healer should absolutely be able to survive one DPS assaulting them. If the DPSer is using all of their resources to dish out damage and the healer is using all of their resources to maintain health, it should come out a wash. Insisting other players should be reliant on outside help when you require none of your own is not balance, sorry. The situation now is one where "preventative healing" reigns supreme. The concept is that you can actually increase survivability more through removing incoming DPS faster with your own DPS than you can by bringing a healer and babysitting them. If I'm reading that right, the other team had more total healing output, yet your team still won. Which entirely invalidates your own point. Also, one screen shot doesn't remotely prove that "80% of games" went this way. Your anecdotal experience is countered by mine where I was either the only healer or there was one other in 80% of my games. Again, having 3 or more in the same match was usually an instant signal to me that we should expect a loss as we would not be able to kill enemies fast enough before the first to die had respawned and returned to prevent captures/plants.

Well, the scenario you present involves 3 players coordinating well together. That means 3 other players need to do just as good if not better a job of coordinating together to beat them.

The current grind for WH is anomalous to what is actually intended since there are no rated warzones, so you have to trade regular warzone comms. As far as the time the average player would get to BM, well that depends on a whole host of factors, At a 50% win rate (which is obviously the average across the whole playerbase) you could expect 70 comms per match. Assuming 5 minute queues and 15 minute matches ~12,000 comms for the full set 12,000 / 70=171 matches 171 matches x 20 minutes = 3420 minutes 3420 minutes / 60 = 57 hours Dailies can cut into that, but at 99 comms a day they don't add a whole lot. Even at a 100% win rate, the figure comes out to 40 hours, again assuming you can get 5 minute queues all day long (which a lot of servers cannot). I haven't had a chance to look at the new typical win/loss commendation numbers, so obviously this math is now out of date, but I'm addressing your having done this in just the past week. Only a miniscule sliver of the overall game community is going to put 40-60 hours of playtime into a video game in 4 days time. At 2 hours a night 5 nights a week you're looking at 5-6 weeks to gear up with 1.2 numbers, maybe down to 3-4 as of this last patch/hotfix. The truth is, many of these players that people assume magically geared up in 3-4 days probably already had half or more BM done already.

I don't disagree at all, I loathe RNG reward systems with every fiber in my being :9. Before, trying to gauge some kind of macro-economic average was a downright PitA. Seeing as a bag was a supposed 25% chance for a token and a token cost the equivalent of 4000 WZ comms, a bag was therefore worth 1000 WZ comms over the long average. The aggregate effect of dailies on this very simplified idea was impossible to figure because it would be different based on how much you played beyond the required 3 wins (6 matches average over the total population). This is part of why I'm thankful that post-1.2 BM and pre-1.2 Champion are the the more proper comparisons, imo :9.

Define "quick" as this is an entirely subjective term. As I demonstrated, it is basically the exact same pace to achieve BM now as it took to achieve Champion before and both were the middle of 3 tiers in their respective settings. Also, the advantage your BM gear has over recruit gear is greater than the advantage it was giving you over Champion gear prior to 1.2. (4% increase rather than 0.6%, a significant improvement). You did not have to put in any additional time to receive that 3.4% increase in performance, it was handed to you over night in a patch.

With the introduction of 1.2 those in BM gear were given an increase in their performance capabilities relative to the lower tiers without any additional work required at all. BM now represents the middle of 3 tiers of PvP gear. You could achieve a piece of Champion gear (the previous middle tier) every 2-3 days with about a 2 hour daily investment if you were on a decently populated server (no more than 10 minute queues, 15 minute matches, 50% win rate). The same holds true for BM gear now. Meanwhile, a new top tier has been added for those, like yourself, who prefer to spend larger chunks of time to achieve. You tell others that time=performance increases is the way of MMOs. What you seem to be missing is that new tiers being released=older tiers being easier to get is also a frequently experienced reality of MMOs, as well. Overall, the middle and top tiers of gear require roughly the same time commitment as they did previously. Therefore the basic pace of progression has remained static. Also, the gaps have widened, as well. Pre-1.2: http://dulfy.net/2012/02/20/useful-warzonepvp-info-statistics-3/ Centurion - ~9.7% Champion- ~12% (2.3% gain) Battlemaster- ~12.6% (0.6% gain) Post 1.2: http://dulfy.net/2012/03/22/pvp-gearing-in-1-2/ Centurion- ~10.5% (obsolete) Champion- ~14% (obsolete) Recruit- ~18.2% Battlemaster- ~22.2% (4% gain) War Hero- ~24% (1.8% gain)

I"m still not buying the "bug" excuse (any more than the medium graphics setting was a "bug" ) It is listed in the "General" section under Warzones, not in a special ranked warzones area (which was lifted from the patch notes entirely). This change was implemented on the test server a few days before the final move to live. Many people weren't sure if this was put on test simply to allow for better PvP testing since so few players were queuing at all. The point being, the devs were made aware of it and the overall feedback was that it would not be a good move for it to be put in live. As far as the line about it not being good for ranked Warzones to have a game end early from quitters, the ranked system already has the deserter penalty to discourage that, anyways. Why can't they ever just say "we made a decision and it turned out to have bad consequences, so we're changing our minds now, sorry about that." It's always either a supposed bug or something the players did and it's their fault...yeah. Own up, make corrections, move on. Enough excuses.

Your descriptions of those who do not agree with your assessment, not just myself, are those which portray the "other" as being beneath you and filled with negative connotations which attempt to undermine and demean. It is not a matter of "perceiving" insult where there is none. It doesn't exactly take a genius to see the pattern and identify its purpose. Yes, let's "whip them out and compare." How quaint.

When have I ever stated what my level of gear was to begin with? You just presume yours is better, apparently. That reveals a lot. Having better gear has nothing to do with whether or not you understand your role in your team composition or not, I'm baffled at how you connect those two concepts together like that. Your having better gear than me or not doesn't really prove anything, by the way. This is merely a chest-thumping pronouncement to make you feel better about yourself. Congratulations on your fantastic virtual accomplishments! "Grow a spine" is just another emotionally-charged impotent outburst. I'm not exactly weeping in a corner over your attacks, obviously. I only point them out because it is generally understood that if the only way you have to make your point is to engage in vitriolic rhetoric you must not have any factual ground to stand on.

Like I said earlier, good luck with this mentality once rated WZs hit. I prefer to tie up the stronger opponents so that they will be taken out of commission, killing a weak player doesn't inflict as much damage on the enemy team as killing a strong one. Over the long-term, I will be a better player for it and that helps my team in a larger, more strategic sense.

I'll take actually calculating the amount of time it takes to get the gear together vs. your randomly picking a number that makes it seem trivial because it suits your narrative. That's not "over-analyzing" that's actually being honest about it. Yes, comparing someone who dares to challenge your fictitious, made-up-on-the-spot exaggerations to " a corner camper in COD" is just hurling demeaning insults at the other person. It is devoid of substance and reveals you have no actual basis for your position.

I already know the numbers, I want you to demonstrate you are even willing to look at them rather than just insisting you know what is what. Also, I see you have returned to merely hurling insulting imagery at others who disagree with you. You've readily admitted you prefer just hunting for the weak target, after all, so this must be a frustrating experience being challenged at every turn.

Full BM gear requires ~12,000 comms. In order to gear up in one week would require: 7 dailies+1 weekly = 792 regular comms leaving ~11,200 Prior to today's patch, a win was around 100 and a loss around 40, the average is 70 comms per match 11,200/70=160 games 160 games/7 days=~23 matches per day At 15 minutes per full match and assuming instant queues that would be: 23 matchesx15 minutes=345 minutes per day 345 minutes/60=5.75 hours per day. So nearly 6 hours of impossibly instant queuing per day would get you BM in a week. That is not going to be the norm AT ALL.

Average number of hours played to achieve a given tier and the degree of performance difference between those tiers is the matter I am asking you to focus on. BM is not the top tier anymore, so it does not require top-tier time commitment. I notice that rather than answer any of my questions or address any of my points, you crafted a lengthy set of rationalizations to sidestep them entirely.

Back in my day we had to exploit Ilum to get geared up that fast! :9

How long did it take you to get Champion? That is the proper comparison to make here. Pre-1.2 Champion was the middle tier of gear, post 1.2 BM is the middle tier of gear. So you compare old Champion to new BM and compare old BM to WH. Also, you are overlooking that fresh 50 to BM, the gap was widened massively from them raising the amount of Expertise on each piece while also lifting the diminishing returns cap significantly. What was the % gap from Centurion-to-Champion previously? What is the % gap from Recruit-to-BM now? That would be the equivalent comparison.

The other issue a lot of people are missing is they are acting like BM is BiS for PvP still. BM now inhabits the space that Champion used to, it is the middle tier, not the top tier. So the proper comparison would be how long it took to obtain Champion before vs. how long it takes to obtain BM now. The OP can now work towards WH if he's so concerned with being top dog.

There are more variables than just the binary win vs. loss How many medals did you earn, what numbers did you put up, how long did the match last, how close was the game, etc.

Not to mention this theoretical 8 healers group would only be sensible in some kind of death-match scenario. The second objectives come into play, 8 healers is a bad idea. They would have such low damage output they couldn't possibly clear the enemy team out before respawn to take a point. Most PUG games having even 3 or more healers is a bad omen, I've found.

If you are already winning, why do you need better gear? It should also be noted that in this discussion, you are the one doing the complaining.

Only because the "nerf healers" threads that filled half the first page on a daily basis before 1.2 weren't conveniently consolidated in one thread.

Well played :9.