After this is all over, can we never claim "WHM is fine"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galbsadi

Daily reminder that this is FALSE.

Here's WHM out-healing SCH and AST both in Eden (normal, b/c Savage isn't out yet): https://www.fflogs.com/zone/statisti...gregate=amount

Here's WHM out-healing SCH and AST both in EX Trials: https://www.fflogs.com/zone/statisti...gregate=amount

Here's WHM out-healing SCH (but not AST) in lv80 Dungeons: https://www.fflogs.com/zone/statisti...gregate=amount

...note that all of these includes shielding as healing.

Also note that this is in addition to WHM pDPS outshining the total rDPS of both AST and SCH.

---

Are you able to cross reference those rankings with DPS rankings to check that white mages doing that level of HPS are also keeping up their DPS? Likewise with SCH?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaberMaxwell

Are you able to cross reference those rankings with DPS rankings to check that white mages doing that level of HPS are also keeping up their DPS? Likewise with SCH?

---

I'm sure if somebody wanted to dig deep enough they could find where the trade-offs lie, but that's also where things get more complicated.

For example, just earlier this week I had somebody trying to talk down my parses as SCH on a run with a PUG that took a lot of avoidable damage and had unnecessary deaths....which naturally led to lower DPS numbers (but led to higher than normal HPS numbers). Conversely, had a run with mostly static members (as a warmup into EX trials for some that still need gear there)...and almost no avoidable damage was taken, leading to purple DPS parses...but much lower HPS ones.

So, it's possible, but that'd be a much deeper level of research than I have the time (or wherewithal) to partake in right now. The information I linked is all public, however, so anybody else is welcome to...but the point stands that WHM are both capable of significantly higher DPS numbers and significantly higher HPS numbers...which mind you, I'm not saying is a good or a bad thing....merely that it's false to say they're "lower DPS than SCH."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galbsadi

I'm sure if somebody wanted to dig deep enough they could find where the trade-offs lie, but that's also where things get more complicated.

---

I'll elaborate further, but it's those trade-offs and complications where the discussion prompted by the statement "SCH has more HPS than WHM" lies.

Quote:

---

For example, just earlier this week I had somebody trying to talk down my parses as SCH on a run with a PUG that took a lot of avoidable damage and had unnecessary deaths....which naturally led to lower DPS numbers (but led to higher than normal HPS numbers). Conversely, had a run with mostly static members (as a warmup into EX trials for some that still need gear there)...and almost no avoidable damage was taken, leading to purple DPS parses...but much lower HPS ones.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

So, it's possible, but that'd be a much deeper level of research than I have the time (or wherewithal) to partake in right now. The information I linked is all public, however, so anybody else is welcome to...but the point stands that WHM are both capable of significantly higher DPS numbers and significantly higher HPS numbers...which mind you, I'm not saying is a good or a bad thing....merely that it's false to say they're "lower DPS than SCH."

---

"And" is a bold word. "Or" is probably a better word.

I suppose by word of the statement, yes you're right. Stick a SCH and a WHM together and have them healspam, WHM will win. Generally when people make a statement like that though, they're talking about those very trade-offs you'd have to do research on to find. What are the HPS of two healers maximizing DPS, and thus minimizing HPS? Looking at 10th percentile, SCH wins here for instance. Can I correlate a low HPS with a high DPS? Not really, like you I don't have the data to support that theory because FFLogs itself doesn't offer that kind of data, or if it does it's not a feature I've personally found.

Part of that reason is opportunity cost. Or rather, how much DPS do those skills cost.

Because Scholar has many, many healing skills that cost 0 DPS, it should be obvious that they use their free skills first, and in an optimized situation, they should be the one healing more... At least, until the free stuff runs out. After that, it gets murky.

If DPS does need to be spent, then Afflatus is best here - you get a refund on the DPS even! And if things are really as and you want to spend all your DPS to keep everyone up... Well, that's where WHM also shines, right?

@SaberMaxwell - I think I'll just to answer your question using myself as an anecdote with a recent Titania EX I was in:

I did 6,931.3 HPS which is considered a 97th percentile when compared to 102,945 parses within the last two weeks. In the very same fight I achieved 5,132.2 pDPS which is considered 66th percentile when compared to 102,945 parses within the last two weeks.

A scholar in the 70th percentile range achieves 4,809.7 DPS (this includes both rDPS and pDPS). A 99th percentile SCH achieves 6,8326.24 HPS.

So using this one metric, my one run of Titania exceeds SCH in both the HPS and DPS category. Of course this is only metric in a pool of over 100,000 entries so obviously take it with a grain of salt but yes, it is possible for a WHM to surpass a SCH in both HPS and DPS within the same fight.

I think in order to do a proper analysis of what you're inquiring, you'll probably need to find the point where a WHM parse whom is of equal percentile in both HPS and DPS as this will indicate that they do both equally as well - then compare that value with SCH in the same percentile range and see how they compare.

[edit] I think it's important to note that WHM also loses less potency versus SCH when they have to weave oGCDs because of how Lilies operate. Afflatus basically acts like a 225 potency GCD weaving tool when you can use Misery (so 75 potency loss from Glare). Ruin II is a 200 potency GCD weaving tool (also an 80 potency loss from Broil III). So, it's more beneficial for WHM to use their weaving tool first versus SCH, thus increasing WHM's overall healing just because their weaving tool both acts as a heal and is an overall lesser potency loss versus the SCH equivalent. This will skew results at the high end optimization in WHM's favour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaberMaxwell

Stick a SCH and a WHM together and have them healspam, WHM will win. Generally when people make a statement like that though, they're talking about those very trade-offs you'd have to do research on to find. What are the HPS of two healers maximizing DPS, and thus minimizing HPS? Looking at 10th percentile, SCH wins here for instance. Can I correlate a low HPS with a high DPS? Not really, like you I don't have the data to support that theory because FFLogs itself doesn't offer that kind of data, or if it does it's not a feature I've personally found.

---

Even that's not necessarily so black and white, however.

For example, here's the top parse as DPS for BOTH WHM and SCH on Eden Prime (same run, they ran together):

https://www.fflogs.com/reports/fmWKC...pe=damage-done

While the SCH does have higher healing here, note that the SCH is still parsing 46th percentile healing, whereas the WHM is parsing 9%. One might argue that this is a tradeoff where SCH has an advantage...or one might argue how the WHM had 53% overheal (as compared to 35% for the WHM). Another argument might be that this is strategic, focusing entirely on oGCD healing and pure weaving on the part of the WHM (here roughly 75% of the SCH healing was oGCD or instant [hardcasts being 5 Succors], and roughly 82% of the WHM healing was as well [hardcasts being literally one Cure3 and two Medica2 casts]). (Note that these were all hardcasts, as all usage of Swiftcast by either player was added to their primary damage ability.) Like I said, to put it matter of factly is, IMO, pretty wrong unless you have some serious backup to support that.

This difference can also be seen on the DPS end, with the SCH only having 77 casts of Broil3, compared to 83 casts of Glare from the WHM, as well as some slightly reduced DoT usage (9 Biolysis vs. 13 Dia).

If one was to dig deeper, though, this is probably a good starting point, as overall activity was similar for both healers here (138 casts, or 24.9 CPM from the SCH, and 137 casts, or 24.8 CPM from the WHM).

For a bit deeper looking, here's another top-performing WHM on DPS...coupled with a high performing...WHM on DPS. https://www.fflogs.com/reports/z3xfD...pe=damage-done

One WHM parsed 99% DPS but only 9% healing....but the other parsed 77% DPS...and 86% healing. This suggests that it may not necessarily be a tradeoff as much as suggested.

Also supporting this, the highest ranking AST log (https://www.fflogs.com/reports/7zthZ...pe=damage-done) also features a SCH who parses well on both DPS (92%) and healing (77%).

Finally, here's another parse showing a WHM parsing both more DPS and healing than SCH...at a high level (97% DPS on WHM, 99% on SCH): https://www.fflogs.com/reports/QZbMq...9&type=healing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by galbsadi

Even that's not necessarily so black and white, however.

For example, here's the top parse as DPS for BOTH WHM and SCH on Eden Prime (same run, they ran together):

https://www.fflogs.com/reports/fmWKC...pe=damage-done

While the SCH does have higher healing here, note that the SCH is still parsing 46th percentile healing, whereas the WHM is parsing 9%. One might argue that this is a tradeoff where SCH has an advantage...or one might argue how the WHM had 53% overheal (as compared to 35% for the WHM). Another argument might be that this is strategic, focusing entirely on oGCD healing and pure weaving on the part of the WHM (here roughly 75% of the SCH healing was oGCD or instant [hardcasts being 5 Succors], and roughly 82% of the WHM healing was as well [hardcasts being literally one Cure3 and two Medica2 casts]). (Note that these were all hardcasts, as all usage of Swiftcast by either player was added to their primary damage ability.) Like I said, to put it matter of factly is, IMO, pretty wrong unless you have some serious backup to support that.

---

Fair enough. I'll just say I'm not equipped to have this conversation; I'm not a healer main, I'm not an expert on the tools that they have. My point from the outset is that you're answering the wrong question when you say "WHM has higher HPS than SCH just look at the upper percentiles." With the research you've subsequently done, I accept the conclusion drawn much more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebazy

The reality is that the 3 healers should be getting designed to be synergistic with each other rather than facing off as competition for 1 of the 2 seats.

2.0 demonstrated that SE's job design team are capable of doing this. I've assume the fall from grace is a case of them just not having the time or resources to keep up the standard of their earlier work.

---

For me, I think this is why they need an even number of healers to balance with instead of having an odd number, which they have to balance around AST, who has to both do its own thing (cards) and fill either WHM's or SCH's role but not as well.
With an even number, you can have 2 proactive healers (shields and/or buffs/heals before damage) and 2 reactive healers (heals after damage with burst and HoTs), while still giving everyone the minimum they need to do casual content in the event a party gets 2 of the same type of healer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SaberMaxwell

Fair enough. I'll just say I'm not equipped to have this conversation; I'm not a healer main, I'm not an expert on the tools that they have. My point from the outset is that you're answering the wrong question when you say "WHM has higher HPS than SCH just look at the upper percentiles." With the research you've subsequently done, I accept the conclusion drawn much more.

---

Note: I could still be wrong here too, as my knowledge, while perhaps better suited as I do main a healer and do some raid content....still isn't that of a HC progression raider (and never will be again, I got burned out of that race years ago in WoW...I game for fun, not a second job).

However, as to why I'm using higher percentiles here: this is intentional as it implies that people are looking at optimization at this point and what the job is actually capable of...and this is what tends to shape the meta when it forms. Realistically it's fair to point out that this doesn't necessarily apply to the majority of players...as it's fully possible to clear without having anywhere near an orange parse in the entire group. (I can't speak to minimums to clear in this game in particular, but when I last led a raid team in WoW [early Legion, when EN was current] it was somewhere around lower greens on average being necessary to clear most Normal and Heroic content, with higher parses merely being a bonus or allowing one to carry another's weight in particular content).

I'm also, while I consider myself decent, far from the best player out there. My parses typically average blue (roughly median), partially because I don't stress *too* much about optimization (unless we're not clearing). After all, for me the reward is to fight the content and to beat it, not to have my name in orange or purple (despite the fact that my parses do actually show purple, largely b/c they run off 'best', not average).

Comparing HP/S on logs is a terrible, terrible idea.

HP/S is capped, and the more your cohealer heals, the less you can heal.