A look at healing numbers from PTS

[RuQu]

There is another question that concerns me .

 

From the total heal and HPS you can easy see the lenght of the fight. But they seems really different.

 

On the first fight: between 225 sec (Arnold) and 273 sec (Cali).

On the second fight: between 302 sec (Cali) and 326 sec (both sorcs).

 

The second one is not this big, but the difference on the first fight seems alot. I have honestly no idea when and how the parser start the messure.

 

I wonder if the HPS is really HPCT and only sums the time spent casting, and not the start combat - end combat times.

[RuQu]

last time i checked they were not nerfing the "fun" part of the class. but then i guess it depends on your definition of "fun"

 

For a Trooper, I consider SCC to be a large part of the "fun" of healing.

 

"I heal by literally shooting my friends healthier, and you want to push me? Have it your way. Kolto Bomb!"

 

Yeah, you can get the job done without it, and the nerf to it is so bad that the only real effect anymore will be the cooldown removal, but it was a fun way to crank it up to 11.

[hrelas]

Edit: something else that would be interessting. How much room was there for more healing. How hard was the BH already on overheating, or could he have done more. Same with the sorcs. Were they always struggeling on force, or did they have some more room to burst more.

 

Since we are talking normal mode or "story" if you wish, with 4 healers you can probably expect that the healers had plenty of time to worry about energy conservation. The only data that can solidify the already parsed data, is the addition of values for individual spells, or alternatively how much time/ how many GCD's the healers used. It is easy to imagine a healer simply conserving energy/force/heat for crisis situations if the healing requirements are low, in layman terms: some of the healers might be slacking. Only when I can see 1000 similar reports will I draw a conclusion.

[gramz]

There is another question that concerns me .

 

From the total heal and HPS you can easy see the lenght of the fight. But they seems really different.

 

On the first fight: between 225 sec (Arnold) and 273 sec (Cali).

On the second fight: between 302 sec (Cali) and 326 sec (both sorcs).

 

The second one is not this big, but the difference on the first fight seems alot. I have honestly no idea when and how the parser start the messure.

 

 

hm thats interesting, i'll have to look if either of them died early during the fight.

[Aritok]

Since we are talking normal mode or "story" if you wish, with 4 healers you can probably expect that the healers had plenty of time to worry about energy conservation. The only data that can solidify the already parsed data, is the addition of values for individual spells, or alternatively how much time/ how many GCD's the healers used. It is easy to imagine a healer simply conserving energy/force/heat for crisis situations if the healing requirements are low, in layman terms: some of the healers might be slacking. Only when I can see 1000 similar reports will I draw a conclusion.

 

We are talking about 16 player Explosive Conflict Story mode!

And i doubt the healers had much "spare" time.

 

 

These numbers are in one point really interessting. I changed my excel sheet as well to the changed healing spells in 1.2.

 

When i check out a time window of 5 min, i get a max healing of 320k (with realstic Surge, crit, alacrity values). You can not heal much more than this just because your ammo is limited. So with 290k in 4,5 min, i guess he already was healing on the limit with the ammo.

 

And a HPS of 1200 on the second fight sound as well correct (my list give out 1150 with my gear). You just CANT heal much more than this. I would guess a max would be 1300 or 1400 with the new gear. Your ammo/Heat just dont allow much more.

So i guess Cali was already healing at the extrem limit on the second fight, and had some more room on the first. But only Cali can really say how hard on the edge the fight was for her/him.

 

 

Stuns, knockbacks, AEs you have to dodge. All these reduce the HPS as well. So all formulars you can make are only working on the paper. But still, there is just a limit how much you can heal. And this limit is reached for the merc on this test run (only my guess).

 

Just to compare. with the same stats, i could get a HPS of 1150 on 1.2 and 1350 on 1.1.5. Just for a compare how 1.1.5 is right now. It is still way less than the sorcs are doing in 1.2.

 

Really funny is how sorcs can reach 1400 - 1700 HPS with 1.2, and this is called "equal" .

Sure, the sorcs did alot more overheal. And i bet the most of the healing was coming from the AE heal. But alone the ability to heal this much more shows me there is something wrong. And the "hard" nerfs for the commando are to much (my opinion).

 

So without any info from the healers on this fight, its all worthless talking. But my guess is that the BH was at, or near the limit of healing.

Edited March 28, 2012 by Aritok

[hrelas]

We are talking about 16 player Explosive Conflict Story mode!

And i doubt the healers had much "spare" time.

 

 

These numbers are in one point really interessting. I changed my excel sheet as well to the changed healing spells in 1.2.

 

When i check out a time window of 5 min, i get a max healing of 320k (with realstic Surge, crit, alacrity values). You can not heal much more than this just because your ammo is limited. So with 290k in 4,5 min, i guess he already was healing on the limit with the ammo.

 

And a HPS of 1200 on the second fight sound as well correct (my list give out 1150 with my gear). You just CANT heal much more than this. I would guess a max would be 1300 or 1400 with the new gear. Your ammo/Heat just dont allow much more.

So i guess Cali was already healing at the extrem limit on the second fight, and had some more room on the first. But only Cali can really say how hard on the edge the fight was for her/him.

 

 

Stuns, knockbacks, AEs you have to dodge. All these reduce the HPS as well. So all formulars you can make are only working on the paper. But still, there is just a limit how much you can heal. And this limit is reached for the merc on this test run (only my guess).

 

Just to compare. with the same stats, i could get a HPS of 1150 on 1.2 and 1350 on 1.1.5. Just for a compare how 1.1.5 is right now. It is still way less than the sorcs are doing in 1.2.

 

Really funny is how sorcs can reach 1400 - 1700 HPS with 1.2, and this is called "equal" .

Sure, the sorcs did alot more overheal. And i bet the most of the healing was coming from the AE heal. But alone the ability to heal this much more shows me there is something wrong. And the "hard" nerfs for the commando are to much (my opinion).

 

So without any info from the healers on this fight, its all worthless talking. But my guess is that the BH was at, or near the limit of healing.

 

Some valid points. I honestly don't know much about bodyguard/combat medic, since I heal operative. And maybe being an operative has me biased towards the data, but to me the disparity does not seem game-breaking. Once 1.2 is released, or if anyone on PTS cares to do it, we will be able to log max healing numbers at ideal conditions ie. on training dummies, and see how it really looks. This ofc does not make up for the sorc shield, and I do not know whether the sorc healing spells are balanced towards having this.

[Mumnoch]

The "off-spec" sorc healer healed more than all the pure healers? I find this thread suspect~

[gramz]

The "off-spec" sorc healer healed more than all the pure healers? I find this thread suspect~

 

except he didnt, his overhealing was way higher than anyone elses.

[RuQu]

The "off-spec" sorc healer healed more than all the pure healers? I find this thread suspect~

 

Did you miss all of the posts that specifically said that the "off-spec" healer had respecced to full heal-spec? His gear was DPS gear, and that's his normal role. He had all the right talents, though.

[Kexin]

So if I'm reading the charts right it seems that Sage/sorcs are still the best healers in the game? I'm also disappointed in operative healing numbers. I thought they're buffing ops and scound healers in 1.2? If they did then the numbers isn't there to back it up.

[stephenjohnp]

So if I'm reading the charts right it seems that Sage/sorcs are still the best healers in the game? I'm also disappointed in operative healing numbers. I thought they're buffing ops and scound healers in 1.2? If they did then the numbers isn't there to back it up.

 

They're not buffing the amount they heal... Look at the fricking patch notes. It's Quality of Life buffs. It simply makes it easier to heal as an Operative/Scoundrel, it doesn't make you output more heals.

[Valfodr]

Wait, that would imply the BH nerfs were uncalled for, and that Sorcs are still the best, and were way OP pre 1.2...

 

 

UNPOSSIBLE. Mercs were so ZOMGOPPREASENERF!!!! Just ask the Sorcs. Kinda surprised the IA wasn't closer to on Par with the Sorc though. They're within kinda acceptable limits at least.

 

EDIT: Oh, and to the guy above, they did buff the throughput of IA's AoE heal, which is important in Operations. Very important. And one of the reasons Sorcs were considered by far above and beyond Mercs/IAs pre 1.2, bubbles and they were the only one who had a good AoE.

Edited April 3, 2012 by Valfodr

[RuQu]

EDIT: Oh, and to the guy above, they did buff the throughput of IA's AoE heal, which is important in Operations. Very important. And one of the reasons Sorcs were considered by far above and beyond Mercs/IAs pre 1.2, bubbles and they were the only one who had a good AoE.

 

And they still will be, as they are still the only AC with an 8-player AoE. The new IA AoE is 4-capped and a 15s cooldown (same as Sorc), so there is no way they can heal the entire Ops group in one 15s window without resorting to single-target spam. Contrast a 2-Sage team that drops two circles, healing everyone for the entire duration while they are free to do ST heals if needed (and they won't be).

 

BW seems to be intentionally and willfully ignorant of the fact that player caps combined with cooldowns and a lack of smart healing are why one AC is, and shall remain, considered far superior for Operations.

[oredith]

BW seems to be intentionally and willfully ignorant of the fact that player caps combined with cooldowns and a lack of smart healing are why one AC is, and shall remain, considered far superior for Operations.

that, or they're applying some INSANE bonus value to the mobility of the op/bh "aoe" heal.

[Valfodr]

And they still will be, as they are still the only AC with an 8-player AoE. The new IA AoE is 4-capped and a 15s cooldown (same as Sorc), so there is no way they can heal the entire Ops group in one 15s window without resorting to single-target spam. Contrast a 2-Sage team that drops two circles, healing everyone for the entire duration while they are free to do ST heals if needed (and they won't be).

 

BW seems to be intentionally and willfully ignorant of the fact that player caps combined with cooldowns and a lack of smart healing are why one AC is, and shall remain, considered far superior for Operations.

 

I'm not debating Sorcs will still be the best, anyone who has seen the data and can do math knows that. I was playing devil's advocate to your, "They received no healing done buffs" which they did.

 

I suppose I should have made it more clear I was in agreement and only reminding you that they did get some throughput buffs with their AoE and the fact they can roll 2 TA's instead of 1. (2% only on that, obviously.)

 

BW just sucks bad at balance, basically.

[RuQu]

I'm not debating Sorcs will still be the best, anyone who has seen the data and can do math knows that. I was playing devil's advocate to your, "They received no healing done buffs" which they did.

 

I suppose I should have made it more clear I was in agreement and only reminding you that they did get some throughput buffs with their AoE and the fact they can roll 2 TA's instead of 1. (2% only on that, obviously.)

 

BW just sucks bad at balance, basically.

 

Actually I think you were replying to the two people after me. I've never said that Sc/Op didn't get buffed.

 

The UH/TA change is more than just QoL, it allows them to maintain the 6% healing buff from 1 stack while using the second stack on rotation without risking wasting a SRMP/KP proc of UH/TA. It also opens up use of Kolto Pack/Infusion as UH/TA is less valuable and there is less risk of losing the proc from SRMP/KP while casting KPa/KInf. Increased KPa/KInf use is a direct increase in HPS vs EMP/SP.

 

As for the AoE, examining the coefficient changes reveals that it is a 3.6% increase in total healing done vs the current Live version, and that healing is done in 6s instead of 15s, so it is a significant HPS increase, althout it can still only be used once per 15s (acknowledging that the Live version is a 12s CD but a 15s duration and therefore rarely worth casting 3s early).

[Dayfax]

As for the fact shields are not accounted for; I am uncomfortable with this. This reminds me of the early version of the Recount mod in wow that did not count for absorbs from disc priests. The writers provided an addon for the mod and then eventually built it into the mod. Skada also provided this in their mod. The main issue was, with these incomplete logs, we were not seeing the total effective healing from Disc priests and in this case from Sorc healers. You have to include absorbs to get a complete picture of what Sorc healers are dishing out.

 

This post should be the biggest takeaway from the thread.

 

It points to the problem with simple healing meters in general, which is that they're only really good for rough comparisons between players of the same class and role.

 

Any class with HoTs is always going to have more overheals, any mitigation won't show up at all (how much damage did the Merc's armor buff prevent during these fights?) and someone who is tank healing will have lower overall numbers than raid healers.

[Valfodr]

Actually I think you were replying to the two people after me. I've never said that Sc/Op didn't get buffed.

 

The UH/TA change is more than just QoL, it allows them to maintain the 6% healing buff from 1 stack while using the second stack on rotation without risking wasting a SRMP/KP proc of UH/TA. It also opens up use of Kolto Pack/Infusion as UH/TA is less valuable and there is less risk of losing the proc from SRMP/KP while casting KPa/KInf. Increased KPa/KInf use is a direct increase in HPS vs EMP/SP.

 

As for the AoE, examining the coefficient changes reveals that it is a 3.6% increase in total healing done vs the current Live version, and that healing is done in 6s instead of 15s, so it is a significant HPS increase, althout it can still only be used once per 15s (acknowledging that the Live version is a 12s CD but a 15s duration and therefore rarely worth casting 3s early).

 

True. I just saw you quoted my post directed at that guy and didn't pay attention to the name. Long night, etc.

 

I still find the meter troubling. I would take it with a grain of salt if the Sorc was abit behind, since it doesn't factor in static barrier. But they're a fair chunk ahead even without it being factored in. That bubble isn't kolto shell or if an IA didn't have one stack of a person's HoT factored in. Either way, I think we're all talking in circles at this point. Bioware doesn't care if experienced raiders, casual raiders, semi hardcore raiders, or anyone can't seem to duplicate this balanced Healing Triangle. Nor do they care if people thought it was unnecessary to begin with.

 

Whatever reason they use to determine it is obviously going to kill us if we read it. Although I personally believe it's because they had to shove some measuring system together last minute due to deadline pressure and will not show us it because believe it or not, there are those out there with degrees and mathematical aptitude and they fear the backlash it would cause if someone pointed out how terribly bad it is.

 

Of course, the silver lining if my theory is correct is that it implies no ill will or presumed ignorance on the playerbase's parts, and just means they need time to work out a better system.

[oredith]

Whatever reason they use to determine it is obviously going to kill us if we read it. Although I personally believe it's because they had to shove some measuring system together last minute due to deadline pressure and will not show us it because believe it or not, there are those out there with degrees and mathematical aptitude and they fear the backlash it would cause if someone pointed out how terribly bad it is.

playing the devil's advocate:

 

would it be a greater backlash to post about their faulty metrics for public scrutiny (of which there would be A LOT, no doubt) - or face the current backlash they already suffer?

 

my guess is that they've already cut their losses, and decided that they've lost the healer community, and they'll push forward with their metrics unpublished / undiscussed, and ride it out as much as they can.

 

i think we, the vocal forum users, have simply been discarded as expendable. after all, they have millions of subscribers, and we are only a few hundred..

[RuQu]

Whatever reason they use to determine it is obviously going to kill us if we read it. Although I personally believe it's because they had to shove some measuring system together last minute due to deadline pressure and will not show us it because believe it or not, there are those out there with degrees and mathematical aptitude and they fear the backlash it would cause if someone pointed out how terribly bad it is.

 

Of course, the silver lining if my theory is correct is that it implies no ill will or presumed ignorance on the playerbase's parts, and just means they need time to work out a better system.

 

This is almost certainly why they don't release it. WoW has been around for ages and people still disagree on if it is even possible to reasonably compare healer performance between different classes with any metric besides "can or cannot clear content." Simulators for healers are rare or non-existant, even for a game with such a massive theory community as WoW has.

 

If they released their healing metrics, no matter what they are, there would be a sizable chunk of the community pointing out why they are a poor metric for a given use. Worse, many of them would be correct, since healing really is hard to analyze that way. On the other hand, reading through that feedback might help them settle on better metrics or better ways of controlling healer balance, but it would take a willingness to deal with the response to their current metrics first.

[Valfodr]

playing the devil's advocate:

 

would it be a greater backlash to post about their faulty metrics for public scrutiny (of which there would be A LOT, no doubt) - or face the current backlash they already suffer?

 

my guess is that they've already cut their losses, and decided that they've lost the healer community, and they'll push forward with their metrics unpublished / undiscussed, and ride it out as much as they can.

 

i think we, the vocal forum users, have simply been discarded as expendable. after all, they have millions of subscribers, and we are only a few hundred..

 

I'm sure you've read the forums, there's no shortage of people who believe the Developer is always right. As long as they say there are a set of numbers that no one else can see that makes them right, a good percentage of the playerbase will agree.

 

Outright admitting their ways are faulty? Very very poor PR move, and it would be hard to recover from, those who believe BW made a giant mistake would fall into two major camps: Those who appreciate the honesty and will stay longer than they normally would due to it, and those who expect them to have the real system in place by 1.2 AND all the balancing perfect.

 

If that doesn't happen, they could lose alot of subscribers. People tend to get impatient when someone admits they delivered an unfinished product and then takes awhile to fix it.

[RuQu]

I'm sure you've read the forums, there's no shortage of people who believe the Developer is always right. As long as they say there are a set of numbers that no one else can see that makes them right, a good percentage of the playerbase will agree.

 

 

Prelaunch I saw an article, think it was an interview, somewhere, maybe darthhater, that said that if SWTOR could keep 500k subscribers for the first year they would be happy.

 

It's quite possible they don't mind losing anyone unhappy right now. As far as we know, they consider this first year "Beta 2." It gives them time to finish systems they have always said they wanted in at launch, like Legacy, while being funded by subscriptions instead of sucking money from BW/EA. Perhaps they figure they will get more people after the game hammers out its flaws if they can just stay afloat until then. They don't need the critics right now, and they don't want the feedback as they are still working on getting the game to match their initial "vision."

 

Whether or not people will be willing to give it a second try in a year when they finally deal with the problems and get things hammered out is another question.

[Valfodr]

Prelaunch I saw an article, think it was an interview, somewhere, maybe darthhater, that said that if SWTOR could keep 500k subscribers for the first year they would be happy.

 

It's quite possible they don't mind losing anyone unhappy right now. As far as we know, they consider this first year "Beta 2." It gives them time to finish systems they have always said they wanted in at launch, like Legacy, while being funded by subscriptions instead of sucking money from BW/EA. Perhaps they figure they will get more people after the game hammers out its flaws if they can just stay afloat until then. They don't need the critics right now, and they don't want the feedback as they are still working on getting the game to match their initial "vision."

 

Whether or not people will be willing to give it a second try in a year when they finally deal with the problems and get things hammered out is another question.

 

Valid point. It still sucks though. I don't even like Star Wars really. Maybe that's why I like my BH/IA more than my Sorc. I like the game though, but I'm really frustrated feeling as though I have to roll Sorc to not be dead weight.

[RuQu]

Valid point. It still sucks though. I don't even like Star Wars really. Maybe that's why I like my BH/IA more than my Sorc. I like the game though, but I'm really frustrated feeling as though I have to roll Sorc to not be dead weight.

 

I really like some things about this game. I like the idea of Legacy. I love their emphasis on story. I want this game to succeed even if just to prove that a "story-based MMO" is worth doing.

 

That said there are some things that need major work. Look at the mechanics for healers. They are extremely simple and basic. Compare them to the new Monk in WoW, the Warding of some MMO someone mentioned the other day but Ive never played, the ability interaction in WoW's healers and the ability to customize abilities to suit your needs (ie, remove cooldown on riptide but it loses its instant component and becomes only a HoT).

 

I don't mind waiting for them to catch up to how modern gameplay should be. Story was their #1 from the get-go. Get that right, then work on catching up on the rest...but if I'm going to bend over backwards with patience while waiting for you to make compelling gameplay, you should make a point to listen to feedback about how to improve your simplistic gameplay! Ignoring the community, not communicating, and making inexplicable changes that increase the simplicity does not make me think you are moving in the right direction. If I'm going to wait for you to get to where any modern MMO should have been at launch as a "thank you" for story, I need to at least know you are headed in that general direction. But if I want the gameplay to go North (more decisions, more complex mechanics) and you are going South (simplification, standard rotations instead of decisions), there isn't much point in that patience...you will never get where I want you to go. And now I'm left with the dilemma, should I:

 

• Keep paying because I want to support story-based MMOs as a concept.
  
• Stop paying because I don't want to support terrible community relations by the Devs, the simplification of already archaic mechanics, and catering to PvP complaints at the cost of PvE balance?
  

 

I did say I wanted decisions, so I should at least thank them for giving me this one to make.