New Inner Beast DR.. the end all be all skill

[Leiron]

As long as people will bring a FALSE statement, you'll see this popping again.
The fact that you generally need less MP to bring a PLD full life is NOT a healing bonus.

Less damage taken= less HP needed to restore= indirect healing bonus.


@Paikis: I was factoring Tumult's into the equation.

[Kitru]

Indeed, and you don't really need to silence it anyway. The only time Tumult is going to kill you is if you only have 3-4 players left alive. At that point, you deserve to fail.

The Titan groups I run with do it all the time anyway because it allows the healers to get away with casting only a single AoE heal (Medica II covers 3 Tumult ticks all on its own, no need for Succor) whereas letting the Tumults go off without interruption generally means that the healers both have to spam their AoEs a bit (WHM doing Medica II and then following it up with 1-2 Medica I, SCH just throwing out Succors). Also, if we're bringing along a relatively undergeared carry, they can sometimes die to chain Tumults even *with* AoE heals.

[Reynhart]

I don't understand why people do crazy equations or invent obscure terms like "Indirect healing bonus" to just explain "damage reduce"...

Next time, we'll see "Sword Oath provides an indirect-non-missed-non-skills-enmity-bonus"...Hmm, no, it just gives you an additionnal weaker auto-attack

[Leiron]

I don't understand why people do crazy equations or invent obscure terms like "Indirect healing bonus" to just explain "damage reduce"...

Less damage taken = less healing needed.
For a WAR to have the equivalent percentile of healing recovered per heal, a 25% healing bonus is required.
Hence, mitigation provides an indirect form of a healing bonus.
There is math that proves it.

Next time, we'll see "Sword Oath provides an indirect-non-missed-non-skills-enmity-bonus"...Hmm, no, it just gives you an additionnal weaker auto-attack

I like how you've gone from trying to make an actual argument, to just throwing out quips because its too hard to try and hold a form of discussion.
If you don't like the fact people disagree with you, and can actually prove their points, then perhaps you should simply keep your opinions to yourself.

[Reynhart]

The only thing math proves is that -20% damage taken is better than +20% healing received.
Mitigation provides...mitigation.

People are just making up terms to explain something else.

And besides, why did the discussion go on "Which one is better" ? Did I mention "WAR" in my original post ?

[Giantbane]

The only thing math proves is that -20% damage taken is better than +20% healing received.
Mitigation provides...mitigation.

People are just making up terms to explain something else.

And besides, why did the discussion go on "Which one is better" ? Did I mention "WAR" in my original post ?

effective hp and effective healing explicitly define what someone is talking about when using "math" to compare less damage taken to either more hp or more healing received.

effective hp = how much damage you can take when damage reduction is removed from the equation
effective heals = how much damage is healed when damage reduction and bonus healing are both removed from the equation

When you convert damage reduction, bonus hp and/or bonus healing into either effective hp or effective heals (depending on what you're talking about), then it's much easier to make meaningful comparisons between the two abilities that detail exactly why one is better than the other.

They're not terms made up to sound fancy for no good reason. They are precise terms to explain exactly what's going on.

[Leiron]

The only thing math proves is that -20% damage taken is better than +20% healing received.

Congratulations on agreeing.
20% mitigation translates to the following.
25% eHP
25% healing bonus

It is not made up terms, it is called math.