[Theorycrafting] Sage Heal Stats

[Nibbon]

Oh I see the two casts in the sample are combined.

 

Well, it may have took a page of back and forth and while I would not say that I am convinced I would definitely want to see the hypothesis examined by either Noim or Orderken. Figuring out whether it is mathematically sound, let alone correct is beyond me. For instance I have no idea where you got the cooldown coefficient from (even after scanning formulas and delving into the first page of the spreadsheet).

 

If it proves to be correct, bravo to you Nibbon. Will it also affect the DPS gearing or is the fact that half the slots are taken up by accuracy too restrictive?

 

The coefficient isn't exactly a real thing, per se. It was just my best way of explaining it. What is really happening is the cooldown timing, it creates the "dynamic coefficient". Again, the most basic explanation is - your best abilities have a cooldown, so you have to use a filler between cooldowns, thus your HPS (or DPS) does not increase by the cast time - it still has to account for the cooldowns and when those spells are specifically casted (and how much the lesser heals actually hit for in comparison to the bigger heals). Obviously saying that there is a dynamic coefficient is easier, even if it is a half truth. The reason it is true is because there is always a number you can apply to another number to reach ... any number. The mere fact that it is dynamic makes it not exactly a coefficient. Sorry if I am being extremely confusing, but I assure you that I have a full understanding of it in my own head even if I have trouble expressing it to others.

 

As for DPS - it is already taken into account: http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=627405 That is my thread that I created at the beginning of 2.0. No one has really disputed it as far as I am aware. Obviously DPS is a lot more simple and straightforward than healing because you actually have a real rotation to follow. The only trouble I have proving that it exists for heals too is because healing is a much more dynamic activity DPS also has the advantage of dummy parses - of which I do quite well on myself, but also the people following my advice tend to be up towards the top. Obviously there are exceptions, but beyond just blaming them on luck, I can mathematically prove they are luck by drawing a line between expected crit damage and actual crit damage. I can go on about that for a while, but hopefully that is sufficient enough of an explanation as needed ;p

 

 

 

edit: p.s. - I don't know Noim or Orderken, but happy to discuss my analysis and methodology with them.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Nibbon

[Nibbon]

That being said, I have to question your hypothesis, NIbbon. In my experience, typically one already has to choose between idling and delaying a higher priority ability past CD because of a filler delaying it. You seem to be saying that higher alacrity results in a statistically significant increase in the number of times when you would delay something like HT or Salvation. I haven't found this to be the case in practice.

 

Ew, I don't like idling. There is never a break in casting in that analysis - what you have is an overlap. The overlap is the cast time going off from the non-cooldown spell - the spell coming off cooldown and then being casted - resetting the cooldown timer. I did a separate analysis that even a very slight idle is worse for HPS than filling with a lesser heal. Call me lazy, but I've already done a lot of work on this so I am not going to recreate it

 

I disagree entirely with your statement, though. I am not suggesting anything gets delayed more often. I admit that in the hypothesis page it would look like that, and may be overstating slightly the effect (but the effect exists regardless). On the HPS spreadsheet, though, we have partial heals (as in, 55.15 rejuvenations, for examples). Those partial heals are basically the lack of an overlap - so it really diminishes the "delay" you are worried about. So the fact that alacrity takes such a huge hit seems all the more real to me.

 

One note about things in practice. Besides ability lag - it is difficult to see how much of your spells are overlapping. The way the UI currently works is - if a spell will come off CD when another spell is going through the GCD cycle - it will appear like it is ready - in reality you can't interrupt an ability that casts over the length of a GCD (I mean you can, but you can't begin casting something in that time, you have to wait for GCD to finish). What I'm saying is - it might look like you aren't overlapping, but you definitely are, even if by fractions of a second (which is really what we are talking about here).

[Darth_Dreselus]

I assure you that I have a full understanding of it in my own head even if I have trouble expressing it to others.

 

Well that's...reassuring I guess

 

DPS also has the advantage of dummy parses

 

This. So much of this. I have actually tried to parse at least ST healing.

 

Best way I came up was grouping with a tank and have him constantly taunt some low level mob and I just heal him with an efficient rotation, then like a 10s burst, 30s burst etc. Works pretty well on Scoundrels and Commandos. But I wanted to know about Sages. Now I am 'wasting' a GCD on NS but that's fine Scoundrels have to DS and Mandos have to HS. The problem is that it takes away my health so my limitation was always going to be HP, Force or the combination of the two. And If I skipped the NS it would not be an efficient rotation so all I could measure was burst. So instead I just idled for a GCD instead but I still could not get the 5 min parse I wanted. So I then used Salvation which I guess kind of worked but it again was not the rotation I wanted.

 

I later realised I could just have another healer topping me up (possibly even a companion would work). But I just waved my hand and went with the old "as long as content is cleared that's all that matters".

 

This was pre 2.0 I guess I could try again with the heal from Force Armour.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Darth_Dreselus

[Aurojiin]

Perhaps I'm fundamentally misunderstanding your hypothesis. Are you saying that Alacrity's efficacy with respect to HPS is reduced because you have to use a larger number of inferior filler abilities while waiting for cooldowns?

[Darth_Dreselus]

Also I think I am going to load up TOR, get an EV going and just hit some keys on my keyboard and watch the pretty green numbers after all this.

[Nibbon]

Perhaps I'm fundamentally misunderstanding your hypothesis. Are you saying that Alacrity's efficacy with respect to HPS is reduced because you have to use a larger number of inferior filler abilities while waiting for cooldowns?

 

edit:

I think that is an oversimplification.

 

Let me explain a tad further - the point isn't so much the filler. It is the fact that cooldowns exist at all. What good is the ability to cast spells faster when you can only cast that spell every 20 seconds anyway?

 

So the importance of the filler is that it lowers the entire average of your heals (and all the connected metrics, like HPS, heal per cast time, heal per global cooldown which is essentially the same ...).

Edited June 8, 2013 by Nibbon

[Aurojiin]

Makes sense.

 

The only reason I bring up practical experience is that I am almost always delaying HT past its cooldown to finish a cast (rather than idling), so alacrity in the small quantities we're talking about let me get a little closer to casting it on CD, meaning I am actually using it more often in a fight.

[Orderken]

The formula for each tick of Resurgence|Rejuvenate in cell J15 shouldn't refer to cell B2. After this update, I believe that your spreadsheet recommends 6 Alacrity and 4 Surge enhancements.

 

For my own spreadsheet, as well as my complete feedback on your spreadsheet, please see http://mmo-mechanics.com/swtor/forums/thread-1199.html.

Edited June 10, 2013 by Orderken

[Nibbon]

The formula for each tick of Resurgence|Rejuvenate in cell J15 shouldn't refer to cell B2. After this update, I believe that your spreadsheet recommends 6 Alacrity and 4 Surge enhancements.

 

For my own spreadsheet, as well as my complete feedback on your spreadsheet, please see http://mmo-mechanics.com/swtor/forums/thread-1199.html.

 

I disagree with your feedback but that error is completely correct. I think the fact that they both return the same result regardless speaks loudly that it is probably correct.

 

My extreme thanks for catching that error, although small, it obviously had a large effect on the results.

 

So indeed, we are in agreement 6alacrity 4surge is the right path, I'll amend the OP later today.

 

edit: everything is updated including the graphics of the benefits of incremental surge and alacrity. I think that these two are the most important images:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/oimg?key=0AgCWcFAbOaZwdDZ2YVBnY3BocnA2dTg2d0xxWWNBZ2c&oid=6&zx=39b6ibzgg3bd

 

and

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/oimg?key=0AgCWcFAbOaZwdDZ2YVBnY3BocnA2dTg2d0xxWWNBZ2c&oid=4&zx=xmuodrz0c6zf

Edited June 10, 2013 by Nibbon

[Anthraxal]

IRL is eating me alive, I hope to be able to come with a more constructive comment soon.

 

Anyway, just a few thoughts :

1 - My own conception of heal theorycrafting is closer to Orderken's than to yours, but still different : you use HPS, he uses EHPS, and I focus on HPCT.

2 - What's "funny" is how different arguements and points of interest finally come down to equivalent results : you boil it all down to 6/10 Alacrity and 4/10 Surge (a setup that I myself considered at some point) while Orderken's calcs and mine yielded a 7/10 Alacrity and 3/10 Surge result.

3 - What's less funny is how we all agree on the full Power setups. This is a huge failure from Bioware's part imo to introduce such nobrainers. According to my calcs, Kell Dragon level of gear should make it less of an evidence, but still, SWTOR was already not much in the field of "twinking" games, and the move they made with formulas made it even worse.

 

Ultimately, a healer in challenging encounters can't go wrong by going for either of our suggestions, but he might as well go his own way. Hell, a guild from my server ownd 16m TFB Nightmare on the PTS with its main Sorcerer healer having a setup based on full Power and 10/10 Surge (and some of them Enhancements not even being 72...). It proves that even if maths are of "some" importance, the main point is to have a setup that actually matches your gamestyle and/or raid task distribution.

 

Thanks for the very constructive and instructive discussion to both of you.

 

Cheers,

 

Noim

[Darth_Dreselus]

Hell, a guild from my server ownd 16m TFB Nightmare on the PTS with its main Sorcerer healer having a setup based on full Power and 10/10 Surge (and some of them Enhancements not even being 72...). It proves that even if maths are of "some" importance, the main point is to have a setup that actually matches your gamestyle and/or raid task distribution.

 

Gee thanks, so much to look forward to

[Nibbon]

IRL is eating me alive, I hope to be able to come with a more constructive comment soon.

 

Anyway, just a few thoughts :

1 - My own conception of heal theorycrafting is closer to Orderken's than to yours, but still different : you use HPS, he uses EHPS, and I focus on HPCT.

2 - What's "funny" is how different arguements and points of interest finally come down to equivalent results : you boil it all down to 6/10 Alacrity and 4/10 Surge (a setup that I myself considered at some point) while Orderken's calcs and mine yielded a 7/10 Alacrity and 3/10 Surge result.

3 - What's less funny is how we all agree on the full Power setups. This is a huge failure from Bioware's part imo to introduce such nobrainers. According to my calcs, Kell Dragon level of gear should make it less of an evidence, but still, SWTOR was already not much in the field of "twinking" games, and the move they made with formulas made it even worse.

 

Ultimately, a healer in challenging encounters can't go wrong by going for either of our suggestions, but he might as well go his own way. Hell, a guild from my server ownd 16m TFB Nightmare on the PTS with its main Sorcerer healer having a setup based on full Power and 10/10 Surge (and some of them Enhancements not even being 72...). It proves that even if maths are of "some" importance, the main point is to have a setup that actually matches your gamestyle and/or raid task distribution.

 

Thanks for the very constructive and instructive discussion to both of you.

 

Cheers,

 

Noim

 

Yeah, it is nice that we all come to a similar conclusion, at least. The difference (from my analysis) in HPS to 3/7 is like .1% - so really minor - and I'd expect from both of your analysis the step to 4/6 is probably pretty minor as well.

 

The reason I didn't bother with the work into healer theorycrafting in the first place is pretty much as you described above - it simply is not needed. Unlike DPS, healing can be all over the board on the same fight and depends a bit more on the other players in your group (avoiding mechanics, raising their mitigation). The result is that, as long as you can keep people alive, it doesn't really matter how optimized your gear is. Bioware made it so that the different stat mixes achieve similar results, no matter how skewed. I'll refer again to this image:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/oimg?key=0AgCWcFAbOaZwdDZ2YVBnY3BocnA2dTg2d0xxWWNBZ2c&oid=6&zx=39b6ibzgg3bd

The difference between 10/0 alacrity and 6alacrity/4surge is raising your base healing by 7.2% vs 9.8%. Point being, it is really hard to mess up your stats so badly that you aren't a viable in your group if you are a good player (this is assuming kell dragon level gear, full power).

 

But yeah, I do think it was a mistake that they couldn't tell their crit formula made 0 crit optimal, they should have had better foresight there.

 

In any case, the discussion is valuable and hopefully helpful to the masses to get some information out there. My goal with all my theorycrafting is to provide the tools to make everyone in the game better players - and that happens whether they follow my advice or it leads them to reach their own conclusions

 

 

Actually -Noim, I have a question. I think HPCT is closer in relationship to HPS than EHPS - so when you say your conception of heal theorycrafting was closer to Order's did you mean in result or actual method or calculations?

Edited June 11, 2013 by Nibbon

[Krazy_Karl]

Yeah, it is nice that we all come to a similar conclusion, at least. The difference (from my analysis) in HPS to 3/7 is like .1% - so really minor - and I'd expect from both of your analysis the step to 4/6 is probably pretty minor as well.

 

The reason I didn't bother with the work into healer theorycrafting in the first place is pretty much as you described above - it simply is not needed. Unlike DPS, healing can be all over the board on the same fight and depends a bit more on the other players in your group (avoiding mechanics, raising their mitigation). The result is that, as long as you can keep people alive, it doesn't really matter how optimized your gear is. Bioware made it so that the different stat mixes achieve similar results, no matter how skewed. I'll refer again to this image:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/oimg?key=0AgCWcFAbOaZwdDZ2YVBnY3BocnA2dTg2d0xxWWNBZ2c&oid=6&zx=39b6ibzgg3bd

The difference between 10/0 alacrity and 6alacrity/4surge is raising your base healing by 7.2% vs 9.8%. Point being, it is really hard to mess up your stats so badly that you aren't a viable in your group if you are a good player (this is assuming kell dragon level gear, full power).

 

But yeah, I do think it was a mistake that they couldn't tell their crit formula made 0 crit optimal, they should have had better foresight there.

 

In any case, the discussion is valuable and hopefully helpful to the masses to get some information out there. My goal with all my theorycrafting is to provide the tools to make everyone in the game better players - and that happens whether they follow my advice or it leads them to reach their own conclusions

 

 

Actually -Noim, I have a question. I think HPCT is closer in relationship to HPS than EHPS - so when you say your conception of heal theorycrafting was closer to Order's did you mean in result or actual method or calculations?

 

All of this assumes the healers are doing nothing but healing.

 

For anyone who cleared S&V 8M HM the first week (while significantly undergeared), it should be known that not only did the healers need to heal, they needed to contribute DPS (where the formulas and ideal stat distribution change) as well in order to beat the enrage.

 

Given min/maxing as the gearing progression goes once the content is defeated, these formulas become viable again (albeit unnecessary). Until Bioware creates content that not only encourages min/maxing but actually requires it, these discussions are pretty much a moot point.

 

I personally run a 5/10 Alacrity/Surge (accuracy gear in my inventory just in case) and ~200 Crit for the sole reason that nothing in the game actually requires min/maxing to a particular role (and I am too lazy to continue to pull good enhancements from set gear), and it is much more likely (when going for server first kills) that you need to be well balanced versus specialized.

 

I have main healed as a Sage all content in the game. My guild and I were World 3rd and US 1st for the Warstalker title and we double Sage healed it (which to my knowledge no other guild accomplished). Skill matters far more than eeking out a few extra HPS, HPCT, EHPS, etc.

 

Unfortunately for this game, min/maxing has become a trivial and meaningless endeavor.

 

Regards,

KK

[Nibbon]

Karl - I fully agree with you. Some people just want to min/max and I enjoy providing the analysis even if it is completely useless. From what I heard in NiM, healing is a bit more intense for 16 man, at least - though I didn't experience it myself to be able to confirm.

 

But ya, skill matters a ton more than min/maxing to this degree.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Nibbon

[Krazy_Karl]

Karl - I fully agree with you. Some people just want to min/max and I enjoy providing the analysis even if it is completely useless. From what I heard in NiM, healing is a bit more intense for 16 man, at least - though I didn't experience it myself to be able to confirm.

 

But ya, skill matters a ton more than min/maxing to this degree.

 

PTS is a waste of time and ruins the content. Bioware has already established they have no desire to listen or even respond to those who test, so what is the point (other than to make the content obsolete before it is released, ruin any type of progression race, practice strategies that even a drunken monkey could execute, etc.)

 

Bioware's idea of difficult content is creating imbalances between ranged and melee DPS classes in addition to the already glaring issues they have with the three tanking classes. Creating raid wide damage to the extent that success or failure largely rests on the healers ability to multitask (what are you doing with your extra GCD's?), or having tank swap mechanics that require tanks to not be deaf/mutes.

 

Nightmare was Bioware's last chance to get end-game raiding correct with introducing new and dynamic mechanics. Based on the response to the feedback (or lackthereof) I fully expect the instance to have zero changes from the PTS version, for it to be cleared in the first week, and to see Euro/PTS guilds with the title the day the patch is released. And subsequently, the game to go through the same decline we saw with the release of NiM EC.

 

Oops, looks like I am off topic.

 

Yeah, Sage healing is easy. Min/Maxing doesn't matter.

 

Regards,

KK

[Orderken]

1 - My own conception of heal theorycrafting is closer to Orderken's than to yours, but still different : you use HPS, he uses EHPS, and I focus on HPCT.

 

To clarify, my method is HPCT, and then I use EHPS to weight each ability's change in HPCT when deriving an overall change in HPCT. You might say that my "rotation" is each ability's contribution to my overall EHPS.

 

2 - What's "funny" is how different arguements and points of interest finally come down to equivalent results : you boil it all down to 6/10 Alacrity and 4/10 Surge (a setup that I myself considered at some point) while Orderken's calcs and mine yielded a 7/10 Alacrity and 3/10 Surge result.

 

I spent a couple of recent nights testing alternative metrics to my EHPCT, but scrapped this project. Each metric that reduced the benefit of Alacrity for abilities that have cooldowns didn't change the gear that my model predicted to be BIS. The flatness of Alacrity's diminishing return curve, and the steepness of Surge's, overwhelmed any adjustments.

 

Though we've all arrived at the same place, it occurred to me today that one reason that Nibbon's model prefers Surge more than mine or your is that it doesn't use Overload|Force Wave. In the encounters with the most healing before 2.2 (i.e., Thrasher and Styrak), this ability accounts for about 10% of my effective healing.

[Nibbon]

To clarify, my method is HPCT, and then I use EHPS to weight each ability's change in HPCT when deriving an overall change in HPCT. You might say that my "rotation" is each ability's contribution to my overall EHPS.

 

Good to know. I'd like to point out that my rotation is the same thing, each ability's contribution to expected overall HPS ;p

 

Though we've all arrived at the same place, it occurred to me today that one reason that Nibbon's model prefers Surge more than mine or your is that it doesn't use Overload|Force Wave. In the encounters with the most healing before 2.2 (i.e., Thrasher and Styrak), this ability accounts for about 10% of my effective healing.

 

Maybe, I can try adding it just to say (I already have all the info in there!)

 

I would think any AoE heal would benefit from Surge since each hit can crit as opposed to just the initial cast/gcd having an effect from alacrity. Same thing with salvation - surge is really being understated because the model only has one person standing in the actual AoE heal. When I was first building the model, I had 5 people standing in the heal circle and surge's importance skyrocketed. The reason I left it at one was, in a very very small part, just to account for overheal.

[Gathur]

 

For the record, you want all willpower augments.

 

 

Hi Nibbon,

 

I find your points very heplfull but I cant understand why you would use all willpower augments and not power since power is a lot better then crit. Plz tell me what I'm missing.

 

Cheers and keep up the good work!

[Nibbon]

Hi Nibbon,

 

I find your points very heplfull but I cant understand why you would use all willpower augments and not power since power is a lot better then crit. Plz tell me what I'm missing.

 

Cheers and keep up the good work!

 

You are missing the 6% talent boost to willpower and the 5% class buff to willpower (power has no such adjustments). With that the bonus healing is a lot closer, willpower is .14 so X 1.11 = .1554, as compared to powers .17. The .0146 gap in bonus healing is made up for by the crit increase willpower gives.

[Gathur]

You are missing the 6% talent boost to willpower and the 5% class buff to willpower (power has no such adjustments). With that the bonus healing is a lot closer, willpower is .14 so X 1.11 = .1554, as compared to powers .17. The .0146 gap in bonus healing is made up for by the crit increase willpower gives.

 

Thx for explaining

[ArissArgile]

I haven't seen anyone argue the point here in Nibbon's thread or in Orderken's compendium so I'm going to. While I agree with the Math they both do to arrive at what they are calling the BiS gear for healing Sage/Sorc, I do not agree in actuality that it is BiS. Stealing a saying from my guildie Fenrir/Hippolyta, "Dps is a science, Healing is an art, Tanking is strategy." What I mean by this is they can all analyze numbers from spreadsheets and whatnot, but only dps can be the most trusted.

 

Healing is an art... you can run all the numbers you want in whatever spreadsheet, but it's all going to be based on constant casting and standing still, which is not at all how the actual healing goes in fights. Every boss pull is different. Sometimes dps will do a great job of avoiding dmg they can avoid and sometimes they won't. Sometimes tanks will take spiky dmg and sometimes they won't. Sometimes tanks and dps will take this dmg at the same time and sometimes they won't. Sometimes the tanks will stay close to full hp for a short while and the raid won't be taking dmg or significant dmg. You get the point.

 

So I think we can agree that you are not healing every single second of the fight. You are not constantly standing still. You might even be adding in a little extra dmg if the fight and force management allows for it. During periods of intense dmg it would actually be beneficial to have a burst in healing, something that crit helps make possible in a small time frame as opposed to over the entire fight. So yes I'm saying the numbers and the belief of having 0 crit rating is wrong and not BiS as far as a healer painting the best masterpiece they can since healing is art and not science. So in my opinion based on hours of raiding, when you're buffed and stimmed you want your crit to be about 30%, which is just shy of 300 crit rating. You then went surge to be at the soft cap of 450 rating. The rest you dump into alacrity because while it's certainly useful, it's importance is over-stated and the spreadsheet is more of an artificial intelligence healer, unable to account for the variability that is damage taken and thus healing done.

 

Consider this situation: Tank is taking huge hits like NiM DG, NiM Kephess, and NiM TFB. Tank is real low like 5-8k hp. The 0 crit all power heal lands and doesn't crit. My build with crit lands and doesn't crit. Ok I'll guess your heal does 600 more healing and lands on the tank for @7k. However I will have about 4-5% more chance for my heal to crit and if it does it will heal for @10k. That could easily make the difference in that tank dying or living. So...

 

My current stats buffed, stimed, willpower augments, and all the willpower datacrons and +10 datacron:

1135.2 Bonus Healing

30.12% Crit Chance (291 crit rating)

73.36% Crit Multiplier (488 crit rating)

8.5 Force Regen Rate (330 alacrity rating)

6.51% Alacrity (330 alacrity rating)

 

Current gear is min 72's.

(75) Ear

1 (75) Implant

(75) armoring in Boots and Bracers

2 (75) Mods

2 (75) Enhancements

Edited July 13, 2013 by ArissArgile

[Darth_Dreselus]

Stuff

 

While healing using stats gained from 'gut feeling' and raid experience work marvels in this game the point of this thread is figuring out the BiS stats for highest HPS and in turn highest healing potential. Using this and also a HPTC, HPF analyses the 0 crit 3/7 or 4/6 sur/ala (depending on which analysis is used) split produces the best results and thus is the valid conclusion for this thread.

 

The OP also states that up to 400 crit is reasonable as the loss of HP is less than 1% percent.

 

Relying on crits just seems strange, given the cds and adrenals that can be used for burst. I heal with non critted heals in mind meaning I will not gamble losing a tank due to not critting a heal. Any crit healing is just a bonus allowing more breathing room for Force management.

[ArissArgile]

While healing using stats gained from 'gut feeling' and raid experience work marvels in this game the point of this thread is figuring out the BiS stats for highest HPS and in turn highest healing potential. Using this and also a HPTC, HPF analyses the 0 crit 3/7 or 4/6 sur/ala (depending on which analysis is used) split produces the best results and thus is the valid conclusion for this thread..

 

I read the disclaimer about hypothetical and variations and such, but most people will take this thread as saying use such and such stats and gear. So what's the point of figuring all this out since it doesn't translate properly to the actual game play. Based on what you're saying and the disclaimer this threads existence is basically pointless and misleading.

 

I'm here to tell you that math in a spreadsheet is nice, but in the real world of actually playing the game, it's not accurate like a dps rotation/spreadsheet is. Just because something is proven by math on paper does not mean it translates to practical use. Thus, I'm making the claim that the BiS stats for the actual healing done in game and not the spreadsheet, is not what these players are suggesting rather it is what I'm suggesting. So the valid conclusion is that this thread is misleading for players looking to figure out how to get the best performance out of the sage healing class.

[Nibbon]

I read the disclaimer about hypothetical and variations and such, but most people will take this thread as saying use such and such stats and gear. So what's the point of figuring all this out since it doesn't translate properly to the actual game play. Based on what you're saying and the disclaimer this threads existence is basically pointless and misleading.

 

I'm here to tell you that math in a spreadsheet is nice, but in the real world of actually playing the game, it's not accurate like a dps rotation/spreadsheet is. Just because something is proven by math on paper does not mean it translates to practical use. Thus, I'm making the claim that the BiS stats for the actual healing done in game and not the spreadsheet, is not what these players are suggesting rather it is what I'm suggesting. So the valid conclusion is that this thread is misleading for players looking to figure out how to get the best performance out of the sage healing class.

 

I don't really take issue with your way of gearing, but I do take issue with a lot of things you said about my work. You say that you read my disclaimers and you say I am being misleading. This thread existed to answer a question that I get asked a lot - how I think that someone should gear their healing sage and to provide support. I obviously went about this task with many reservations, most of which I described and you accurately covered as well. So again, if anyone took any time to read the entire OP, they would see those reservations, and I'd hope, prevent me form "misleading" them. There is a reason I presented this thread as theorycrafting and not as a guide (like I did for my actual DPS suggestions).

 

Now, as to actually answering the question posed to me - I decided that the best way was to maximize HPS - to me that means that every individual heal is maximizing its potential to save a life. If you move from 25% crit to 30% crit, but our healing on average 700 (500 or whatever it is) less health on a non crit, then I'm not certain that is a good tradeoff in every case. Also, I have recently become more convinced that anything more than 400 surge rating is probably not a good idea, the curve is just too weak - I'll mainly focus on crit here, though.

 

As to my ultimate conclusion, I am merely suggesting what I think maximizes HPS - which is my suggestion to what I would gear towards. I am certainly not telling anyone to gear this way definitively - again I share too many of the same reservations that you describe. As Darth_Dreselus correctly pointed out above, increasing crit all the way to 400 only decreases your hypothetical HPS output by less than a percent. Therefore, I think it is entirely justifiable, based on player preference to go to 400 (or perhaps more) crit rating since you can't possibly point to a spreadsheet to cover something so diverse as mechanical damage (damage from mechanics in game~) or RNG. In the end, I am much more comfortable offering a definitive suggestion for DPS than I am healing.

 

As you mentioned, and I agree with entirely, healing is an art. While better stats will certainly help you as a healer, a truly good healer is less dependent on stats than any other role (tank mitigation, damagers DPS). So healing is more reactive than any of the others. Knowing when to force armor or healing trance or rejuvenate and salvation is entirely up to the player - while the others have much more finite rotations or priority lists. Another challenge healers face is to eliminate waste - or prevent overhealing too much. Other elements are those life saving abilities/times which might mean the 1/10 a second that having alacrity might gift you in getting a heal off in time, or boosting the damage prevented by your force armor by having the few additional points of power vs crit %.

 

So let's take a look at your own hypothetical:

Tank is taking huge hits like NiM DG, NiM Kephess, and NiM TFB. Tank is real low like 5-8k hp. The 0 crit all power heal lands and doesn't crit. My build with crit lands and doesn't crit. Ok I'll guess your heal does 600 more healing and lands on the tank for @7k. However I will have about 4-5% more chance for my heal to crit and if it does it will heal for @10k. That could easily make the difference in that tank dying or living.

 

So the tank has 5k health. You throw out your big heal for 7k which has a 25% chance of critting for ... let's call it 12.5k. You can also throw out your 6.5k heal which has a 30% chance of critting for 11.6k (same ratio of surge). Firstly, Mathemtically the crit/no crit average is higher for power at 11.125 vs. 10.07. Art or not, the math is important because there is still a large chance you might not crit with the increase crit percentage and lower power. So let's look at the "art" part of this.

 

Let's say the average hit of the boss varies, 11k, 11.8k, 12.5k, 17k, 20k

at 5k health - your heal will either crit or not crit, but the amount healed varies based on stat allocation. These are the scenarios, using the numbers above:

high power no crit: 5k + 7k = 12k health

high power crit: 5k + 12.5k = 17.5k health

low power no crit: 5k + 6.5k = 11.5k health

low power crit: 5k + 11.6k = 16.6k health

 

These are, under our example scenarios, the health the tank might end up with before the next big hit. In the 5 example hits I listed the results would be ...

 

1-@12k = lives through two lower and dies to three higher

2-@ 17.5k = lives through all but highest

3-@ 11.5k = lives through only the lowest

4-@ 16.6k = lives through the three lower but not two higher

 

So "1" would occur 75% and "2" at 25%

"3" at 30% and "4" at 70%.

 

In the end the 1-2 scenario saves you 6/10 and 3-4 saves you 4/10. Now, the hits were somewhere arbitrary, but to illustrate a few examples - power also effects surge, making your crits more life saving - when there is no crit (still the majority of the time) depending on what the next hit is, can make the difference as much as not as having an increased chance to crit (I'd like to note more power is more reliable as well since it will occur on every heal).

 

Also consider, I think that force armor might be the best life saver when your tank has 5k health right before a hit (it is your largest single heal, in a sense). Force armor cannot crit, but it is affected by power.

 

Anyway, despite appearances, I did not write this to argue that one way or the other is better. Simply, there are a ton of considerations that need to be taken into account. I already have and will continue to readily admit that a spreadsheet is not nearly dynamic enough to take into account every scenario. I would also hope you can agree with me that, no matter your experience, you can't possibly be ready for every scenario either. There will be times when you absolutely needed a crit for your tank to survive and times where your tank has died by not having that extra 500 health more power would have granted off crit. There may also be times when your crit heal wasn't enough, either way, or times where your crit heal wasn't enough because you didn't have enough base power. I suppose the only way to know which is better is to look at all the times your tank died and see how much health it was by... hardly seems worth the time.

 

In the end, what truly matters more than these slight variations of theory on stats is player skill. What I tried to express in my math is - given a tank who can never be fully healed (close to death would be such a state) - what would raise his health the highest. Again, HPS is the number you need to maximize to reach that conclusion, so that is what I did. Is it the aboluste best way? No, not for everyone - given the variation in playstyle of the individual (hell, some may opt for for armor to save a life, or the lesser heal, or healing trance ...) there are too many possibilities to overcome to definitively give a "best" way.

 

The purpose of the spreadsheet, just like the purpose of your post, was to give the community more information to work with. I assume you are part of the main heal team of Severity, in which there is little doubt that you are very skilled. I would urge anyone reading this to greatly consider every scenario presented and to make their own decisions based on their own experiences and playstyle.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Nibbon

[Orderken]

Healing is an art... you can run all the numbers you want in whatever spreadsheet, but it's all going to be based on constant casting and standing still, which is not at all how the actual healing goes in fights. Every boss pull is different. Sometimes dps will do a great job of avoiding dmg they can avoid and sometimes they won't. Sometimes tanks will take spiky dmg and sometimes they won't. Sometimes tanks and dps will take this dmg at the same time and sometimes they won't. Sometimes the tanks will stay close to full hp for a short while and the raid won't be taking dmg or significant dmg. You get the point.

 

So I think we can agree that you are not healing every single second of the fight. You are not constantly standing still. You might even be adding in a little extra dmg if the fight and force management allows for it. During periods of intense dmg it would actually be beneficial to have a burst in healing...

 

Ariss, I created my model long after being a healer in SWTOR. I treat my model as supporting my in-game experience, not overruling it. In fact, if I'd found that gear different from what my model recommends would perform better for me, I wouldn't release a model. I was pleased when my model supported with theory the gear choices that I'd made based on my experience.

 

The point that you raise is crucial to me and the methodology that I chose for my model, since I'm a healer, too. My model is HPCT; i.e., burst healing. You're correct that Nibbon's model isn't, but as Nibbon and I have already discussed in detail on my thread (http://mmo-mechanics.com/swtor/forums/thread-1199.html), I don't believe that Nibbon's model is ideal for healing for numerous reasons, especially the one that you've raise. While you've identified, as I had, a potential drawback of Nibbon's methodology, this isn't a potential drawback of my methodology.

 

Unlike Nibbon's model, my model can't be dismissed as artificial or unresponsive to the variety of actual circumstances that healers face in game, because my model is driven entirely by actual healing data. There's not a single presumption of a rotation or ability precedence, timing, or order in my model. In my thread, Nibbon called my approach "bull****", when in fact it's called "statistics". Such an approach is necessary when modeling something as fluid as healing.

 

Whether you realize it or not, your argument against modeling is, in fact, an argument that someone modeling healing should use a methodology like my model's.

 

(Note that despite our differences in methodology, Nibbon's model arrived at nearly identical stat recommendations. This is because differences in methodology were trumped by the steepness of Surge's curve and the flatness of Critical's curve. The convergence of our results is further support for our common stat recommendation.)

 

***

 

Ariss, my initial build was similar, for two reasons, to the one that you're now recommending. First, before RotHC, I had a much higher Critical rating (nearly 40% with full buffs at level 50). Second, the most common healing failure in my 16-man operations were (and remain) tank deaths from spike damage, so I held onto Critical for some time. With at least as much NiM TFB and NiM S&V 16-man experience under my belt, I believe that the higher Alacrity build that I recommend as BIS is better than the higher Critical and Surge build that you recommend for preventing deaths from spike damage. Even after I had attained the high Alacrity build that I recommend, and that works better for me, I reverted to a higher Critical build on the PTS for NiM TFB. I liked it less. I've found that landing some healing or absorbing quicker on a target that's about to take, or has just taken, spike damage to be more likely to save them than landing a heal that's always slower and rarely larger.

 

I did address the philosophical point about healing that you've raised in my guide (http://mmo-mechanics.com/swtor/forums/thread-1199.html), as the first topic under heading "PVE Advice". I didn't discuss it in mathematical or gear stat terms, because that usually makes non-mathematicians' eyes glaze over. I wrote that healing isn't about outputting higher HPS (as Nibbon, the DPSer at heart that he is, has suggested), but rather is about the art of triage, or saving lives. DPS who moonlight as heals or switch to heals rarely understand this, and I have spent many a raid covering for them as HPS meters rather than triage drive their decision-making. In my experience covering for such a healer in RotHC, I've found high Alacrity more valuable than Critical and high Surge.

 

I don't doubt that your build is working better for you, but this is likely due to differences in tanking styles and healing styles between our 16-mans. I'm comfortable that high Alacrity is optimal for me, and I believe that it's generally optimal for a Sorcerer|Sage healer.

 

Last, Dreselus replied with a point that I believe worth reiterating. We have cooldowns, including Recklessness|Force Potency. I'm surprised that these haven't been more helpful for you. After many pulls of a boss, I've usually identified when to use such cooldowns to avoid most tank deaths. Identifying these moments, and having one or more cooldowns available, is a crucial insight that I aim to learn from our first pulls of a boss. My gear recommendations assume that healers use cooldowns wisely, and I'm comfortable with that.

Edited September 6, 2013 by Orderken