What makes WHM special? Nothing anymore.

[Mutemutt]

This is the beauty of AST class design. You can pull back party support for MP and vice versa.

Compare this with Assize: spam on gcd and lose healing efficiency, dont spam and lose MP restore efficiency. No tradeoff, just varying degrees of loss.

*snip*

In your average situation, in my experience, it's pretty rare to be in a situation where you don't have a use for free cure or the heal part of assize.

Extra point about assize, if there was no way to get even a bit of a heal out of it then the party is taking no damage, giving the opportunity to use it for dps, because it has that kind of flexibility. Free of charge, besides needing to go into cleric stance at least (but there's no damage, so plenty of leeway).

You talk about varying degrees of loss, but the cost of using ewer/spear for mp out weighs any possible loss from assize or a free cure 2. It would be a different story if you could exchange that free cure proc for something else. As it stands right now, the free cure 2 and assize are just extra mp with very little opportunity cost.

[Assirra]

This is the beauty of AST class design. You can pull back party support for MP and vice versa.

Compare this with Assize: spam on gcd and lose healing efficiency, dont spam and lose MP restore efficiency. No tradeoff, just varying degrees of loss.

Compared with WHM RNG: WHM has little to no control when the proc hits. If what you're healing calls for cure I, using the cure II proc is a waste of potency, but while the its proc'd subsequent cure I's wont proc, you could wait a bit for your healing target, but if you cant wait at least a cleric stance cycle you're just idling. again, varying degrees of loss.

Wait a second.
You are arguing that AST has actually less RNG then WHM?
Excuse me, do you live on another planet where ast has pure control over their card draw?

We can't pull back back party suport and vice versa. We got 1 card we can lock, the rest is all up to fate.
Today i was in fractal and from the second boss on till the last boss was dead i tried every way to get a balance card by drawing and suffling on cd.
I never got it. But please keep going on how we seemingly got any control over our cards.

[winsock]

How do you get 75% shuffle doesn't increase your chances of pulling a card anymore than buying multiple lottery tickets will increase your chances of winning.

You're making 2 different comparisons here.


First a simplified lottery example cause it's the easiest to explain (this isnt how AST works btw:
Let's say i put 10 marbles into a bag and one if them is red. If you draw the red marble you win, if you dont, you get to keep the marble. Since the marbles don't go back into the bag, if you played 10 times you would absolutely win.

AST doesnt work like that though. A simple comparison to AST RNG would be more like: You flip a coin 2 times, what is the chance of it landing on heads at least once? You determine this by first finding all possible outcomes (this is very comparable to the ast example i gave you because if you want 1 of 3 cards in a deck of 6 i.e. 3/6 = 1/2):
Heads, Heads
Heads, Tails
Tails, Heads
Tails, Tails

^ There are 3 combinations out of 4 possible outcomes that hit heads at least once. 3/4 is a 75% chance.

[J-Dax]

You're making 2 different comparison here.


First a simplified lottery example cause it's the easiest to explain (this isnt how AST works btw:
Let's say if put 10 marbles into a bag and one if them is red. If you draw the red marble you win, if you dont, you get to keep the marble. Since the marbles don't go back into the bag, if you played 10 times you would absolutely win.

AST doesnt work like that though. A simple comparison to AST RNG would be more like: You flip a coin 2 times, what is the chance of it landing on heads once? You determine this by first finding all possible outcomes (this is very comparable to the ast example i gave you because if you want 1 of 3 cards in a deck of 6 i.e. 3/6 = 1/2):
Heads, Heads
Heads, Tails
Tails, Heads
Tails, Tails

^ There are 3 combinations out of 4 possible that hit heads at least once. 3/4 is a 75% chance.

Thats not how the lottery works btw and its called a gamblers fallacy.
AST cards work in a similiar manner just smaller number pool. You have a 1 in 6 chance of drawing a card, period. Each draw is its own separate event, giving you the same chance of pulling a particular card.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

[winsock]

Wait a second.

Excuse me, do you live on another planet where ast has pure control over their card draw?

U've been using some very dramatic language. "do you live on another panel" "utterly retarded". As if criticism of AST is aim at you personally. It isnt that deep. We're all friends here!

You are arguing that AST has actually less RNG then WHM?

Technically it does use a RNG less frequently.

We can't pull back back party suport and vice versa. We got 1 card we can lock, the rest is all up to fate.
Today i was in fractal and from the second boss on till the last boss was dead i tried every way to get a balance card by drawing and suffling on cd.
I never got it. But please keep going on how we seemingly got any control over our cards.

Dungeons are even more flexible. Yes, you have control. You are not helpless. Lets assume you never once draw balance or arrow during a dungeon run.
Bole, less dmg on tank means more time for you to DPS.
Spear, good on nin, bard, and mch. You could also decrease you tank's cd or reducing your own LA/Synastry cd to help you increase your own dps.
TP, depends on party comp and what you're doing, TP can help many classes sustain AoE damage.
Ewer depends on comp and what youre doing.

[winsock]

Thats not how the lottery works btw and its called a gamblers fallacy.
AST cards work in a similiar manner just smaller number pool. You have a 1 in 6 chance of drawing a card, period. Each draw is its own separate event, giving you the same chance of pulling a particular card.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_fallacy

That is not the Gambler Fallacy.
The gambler fallacy would be like: "I drew Spire 3 times in a row, so the next one cant be Spire" or "I drew Spire 3 times in a row, so the next one will be Spire"

Gambler fallacy applies to the lottery when ppl say numbers like 1,2,3,4,5 has less of a chance to win vs something like 23,54,78,65,12

Just a quick example to show you why these are different. Flip a coin 10 times, if heads lands at least once, you win, if it never appears you lose. See how many times you can flip the coin in a set of 10, without it landing on heads once. By you're logic, about half of your sets of 10s will be all tails. This will not be the case.

[J-Dax]

That is not the Gambler Fallacy.
The gambler fallacy would be like: "I drew Spire 3 times in a row, so the next one cant be Spire" or "I drew Spire 3 times in a row, so the next one will be Spire"

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future, or that, if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, it will happen more frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature). In situations where what is being observed is truly random (i.e., independent trials of a random process),

The idea that the lottery works like drawing marbles out of a bag until you win is a gamblers fallacy.

The point is if it is truly random, then probability doesn't change between draws as long as each individual draw maintains the same amount of possible outcomes.
The chance of drawing spire is 1 in 6. If I shuffle its still only 1 in 6. Drawing more than once does not effect this unless shuffle removes the possibility of drawing spire again.

[Eisenhower]

[clutch healing tricks]

Thanks! I'll try this next lockout!

[Fevelle]

Why people keep bringing AST into the table? This is nothing about ASTs, if you disagree about WHM needing changes then why forcing a debate about another class here?

[winsock]

The gambler's fallacy, also known as the Monte Carlo fallacy or the fallacy of the maturity of chances, is the mistaken belief that, if something happens more frequently than normal during some period, it will happen less frequently in the future, or that, if something happens less frequently than normal during some period, it will happen more frequently in the future (presumably as a means of balancing nature). In situations where what is being observed is truly random (i.e., independent trials of a random process),

The idea that drawing more than once increases or decreases the likely hood of an outcome is gamblers fallacy.

Lol this is not the gambler fallacy.
Flip a coin in sets of 10.
Count how many sets where heads appears at least once.
Count how many times you get an entire set of tails.
by your logic they should be 50/50. but that is not the case

There is only one possible outcome for "TTTTTTTTTT" but there are several possible outcomes that contain at least 1 head, each possible outcome has an equal chance of appearing, but there are more outcomes that contain at least 1 H