What Healer kit (not encounter) change would make GCD heals NOT bad gameplay?

[Shurrikhan]

Except you would have to count pure healing or TQC would artificially inflate shield healers.

No. Again. Damage Nullified.
Not "shield health provided", but "Damage Nullified".

I just put the barrier up. How much damage has it nullified thus far? None.
It can nullify up to that amount of damage absorption. That does not mean it will do so.



If I put a Regen up, have I instantly healed for 1500 potency's worth of healing? No.
If a Regen ticks on a full-HP ally, has it restored any additional healing? No. It contributes nothing to the healer's HPS, because that only counts effective healing, a.k.a. "health restored", not "health that would have been restored if the ally had been sufficiently wounded."

So why would you assume otherwise for something that's already as unambiguously labelled as "damage nullified"?

The only question (irrelevant though it be) thereafter would be whether that was from a maximum-and-current HP increase, a finite barrier, or percentile mitigation/suppression, or some combination of the three.


Again, the way fflogs is currently set up penalizes personal throughput (especially on those with lower than average indirect [e.g., raidbuff-based] contribution) for maximizing party throughput, provides a skewed view of job balance, encourages chadding one's cohealer, and generally provides a far poorer than necessary estimate of actual performance. It absolutely can be improved.

[ForsakenRoe]

The only question (irrelevant though it be) thereafter would be whether that was from a maximum-and-current HP increase, a finite barrier, or percentile mitigation/suppression, or some combination of the three.

Doesn't FFlogs already consider mitigated damage as 'HPS' in some form, ie: you Kerachole a 100k hit, 10k of HP is attributed to the SGE's HPS numbers? I guess the question would then be 'how do you create a unified metric that calculates that and damage at teh same time' without the system skewing hard to one of the two. Also, it'd be padded to hell, with stuff like 'don't use shields here, so the WAR can get a good parse by having his Shake be the only mit, and then cos we barely live, the regen will get full effectiveness' but that's not my problem cos people complain about small things till it's changed so that X counts or Y doesn't, like adds don't count or P8S double damage buff doesn't count, or Golden Bahamut's double damage buff DOES count, make your minds up

Sorry, rant again. Anyway, as an answer to 'what if pure healers are at a disadvantage because pure healing is not considered/not weighted as heavily', I hate to say it but, I think we can solve that by removing the Pure/Barrier split (shocker). Like, if WHM's boned by the stats because it doesn't have shields besides Benison, or because it doesn't have a 60s mit like AST does, then giving it some extra tools like Stoneskin and Protect would help it both be more dynamic in what it can respond to, and also make it more competitive on this hypothetical metric, surely

[Shurrikhan]

Doesn't FFlogs already consider mitigated damage as 'HPS' in some form, ie: you Kerachole a 100k hit, 10k of HP is attributed to the SGE's HPS numbers?

It does, with pretty decent accuracy, as of a year or so ago, I think? (It previously had issues accounting for percentile mitigation, but they seem to have finally brought over the improvements seen also on Warcraftlogs.)

Which is why I do not know why Supersnow is assuming accounting for percentile mitigation (which we already do) would give some flat or otherwise inflated sustain value just because we'd now have a handy metric for seeing one's HPS and DPS together for the job's/player's Total Contribution.

All I'm asking for are metrics that...

• do not let a Warrior go "But we deserve DPS parity (at no cost)!" and actually have people nod in agreement at that proposed "fairness"... when WAR's combined effective HPS+DPS is already >20% over 2nd place (but that metric simply doesn't presently have a nice set of bars to point at),
  
  
• do not let DRKs (in their hay day) pretend that tank balance shouldn't account for each kit's ability to exploit raid buffs and be balanced around an average degree of raidbuffs (just because most default to looking only at the rDPS bars without being mindful that they only tell at most half the story of job balance), and
  
  
• do not let us underestimate the value of pure DPS just because the entirety of their synergies' value in exploiting external buffs is purposely hidden by their rDPS metric.

Doesn't FFlogs already consider mitigated damage as 'HPS' in some form, ie: you Kerachole a 100k hit, 10k of HP is attributed to the SGE's HPS numbers? I guess the question would then be 'how do you create a unified metric that calculates that and damage at teh same time' without the system skewing hard to one of the two. Also, it'd be padded to hell, with stuff like 'don't use shields here, so the WAR can get a good parse by having his Shake be the only mit...

Again, I'm just recommending that it be an available metric. It would indeed have some further possible issues surrounding that "exchange rate", so to speak... much like healer's only metric to presently matter (rDPS) currently suffers if they don't take as much raid mitigation as possible, don't chad their co-healer, don't have perfect Card recipients (NIN, MNK, BLM), etc.

The averaging of aDPS and rDPS together (or, giving half the credit of synergetic value each to buffer and exploiters) is the only clear, easy, and immediate win, imo.

[Supersnow845]

No. Again. Damage Nullified.
Not "shield health provided", but "Damage Nullified".

I just put the barrier up. How much damage has it nullified thus far? None.
It can nullify up to that amount of damage absorption. That does not mean it will do so.



If I put a Regen up, have I instantly healed for 1500 potency's worth of healing? No.
If a Regen ticks on a full-HP ally, has it restored any additional healing? No. It contributes nothing to the healer's HPS, because that only counts effective healing, a.k.a. "health restored".

So why would you assume otherwise for something that's already as unambiguously labelled as "damage nullified"?

The only question (irrelevant though it be) thereafter would be whether that was from a maximum-and-current HP increase, a finite barrier, or percentile mitigation/suppression, or some combination of the three.


Again, the way fflogs is currently set up penalizes personal throughput (especially on those with lower than average indirect [e.g., raidbuff-based] contribution) for maximizing party throughput, provides a skewed view of job balance, encourages chadding one's cohealer, and generally provides a far poorer than necessary estimate of actual performance. It absolutely can be improved.

If you are counting a regen ticking on a party member who is at less than full health as “damage nullified” you have got to make that clearer in a game where actuAl percentage mitigation is a thing

[Shurrikhan]

If you are counting a regen ticking on a party member who is at less than full health as “damage nullified”.

No, I'm not. I never said anything like that.

You said that fflogs could only (correctly) account for percentile mitigation if it also counted all pure healing (overheal or otherwise). It doesn't. It literally accounts for the actual amount of damage negated and simultaneously accounts only for what healing is not in excess.

There is no metric-exploiting benefit to using your %mitigation where it would not have the greatest effect. The problem you're insisting exists... does not exist.

The only metric-exploitation right now is that caused by rDPS crediting each 'clap' of synergy between raid buffs and potency exploiting it to a single hand (the buffer). That causes holding attack CDs for any amount of time (e.g., for raid buffs) to produce less rDPS for you even when that would produce more throughput overall and net an earlier clear, by simple fact that you receive no share of that synergy pie despite being half its cause.

[Supersnow845]

No I said that if you are going to introduce a system that counts effective mitigation (like kerachole and holos) and count is as a combined metric with DPS then you are going to unfairly bias the shield healers in this calculation because they have more mitigation than the regen healers, if however you attempted to balanced this by adding in pure healing to this mechanic then it becomes a race to weave in as much extra healing as possible and “chadding but reverse” by trying to heal first so your cohealer’s heals end up in the overheal category

[Shurrikhan]

No I said that if you are going to introduce a system that counts effective mitigation (like kerachole and holos) and count is as a combined metric with DPS then you are going to unfairly bias the shield healers in this calculation because they have more mitigation than the regen healers, if however you attempted to balanced this by adding in pure healing to this mechanic then it becomes a race to weave in as much extra healing as possible and “chadding but reverse” by trying to heal first so your cohealer’s heals end up in the overheal category

We currently have four character metrics housed on fflogs: rDPS, aDPS, nDPS, and HPS. I'm proposing only to...

1. add pDPS, a middle-ground between aDPS and rDPS so the contributions to party synergies of both buffers and exploiters are accounted for, and use that instead of rDPS as the default by which job statistics and character rankings are sorted as to give a fairer/more comprehensive at-a-glance picture of actual value/contribution, and
   
   
2. include "HPS+pDPS" or "Total Contribution" as a metric one can easily click on as an option (not the default) by which to sort pages -- especially/at least the Statistics ("Job Balance") and Character History pages.

Healers fighting for orange parses would still be min-maxing their party and competing with each other exactly as before. Heal-sniping would still be far from a metrics-accentuated part of gameplay.

:: This isn't WoW, where elite parties look at Healer's HPS first, then their combined HPS+DPS, and only then at their DPS itself (and only for M+ or very niche fights). We'd still be in a game where healing requirements are largely a joke, and the default metrics hasn't changed to encourage any new behaviors.

In general, you'd just see pDPS, with the next featured option being Total Contribution, and the one after that being just its HPS.

(OR: You'd just see "Damage", "Sustain", and "Both"/"Combined".)

For example, when I'm looking at a Warrior, I'd presently see from pDPS (average of rDPS and aDPS / half the synergy each goes to buffer and its exploiters) that, yes, it's OP. And then I could include sustain and see via Total Contribution that the imbalanced is even worse than it first appeared. And if I'm curious by how much its HPS exceeds the other tanks, I could easily do that.

Rather than getting half the picture each from rDPS and aDPS, I can get an actually useful DPS measurement, and I can then top or replace that with a view of sustain as I please.

[Zeastria]

Have seperate GCD for heals abilites and dmg abilites.

[ForsakenRoe]

Rather than getting half the picture each from rDPS and aDPS, I can get an actually useful DPS measurement, and I can then top or replace that with a view of sustain as I please.[/HB]

I can kinda see where he's coming from, based on the current situation healers are in. If we were to say that the healers are balanced in RDPS contribution, such that WHM and SCH are doing 'about the same RDPS', then the SCH would win on the 'TQC' metric, because where the WHM can only put forward it's contribution during moments when the party is not healed, the SCH can always Soil a raidwide, there's not always healing needed, but there's always 'some damage to mitigate'. Also, SE screws the WHM over more because Soil regenerates HP too so SCH doubledips on that front. If the healer split remains (ie WHM cannot mit or shield still), then the only way to keep things fair would be if FFlogs were to split the healers into Pure/Barrier in the tabs, when comparing stats across roles (crap solution imo), or to only count Shields, and not % mitigations, as both shields and pureheals are 1:1 actions, if that makes sense. You put up a 500p shield, or a 500p regen, you get 500p of stat on the log. But with a %mit like Temperance or Soil, things get weird because eg tanks take less damage than other classes, other people's mits make the calculations wonky cos multiplicative/diminishing returns, etc

And before the issue arises of 'then SCH doesn't want to use Soil only Shields', Succor's 200p of heal and 320p shielding. Soil's 500p of regen (600 with the instant tick) and is OGCD, it's probably not a problem

Wait that's genius, if you make it so that only the user is considered for the potency of a move if said move is AOE, that puts eg Succor at 520, which is a gain over Broil's 295, but if you tried to spam it for free brownie points, you lose out on 200 if people are full health, or 320 if people's shields aren't broken yet (or both), leading you to only want to use shields when they're relevant, but at the same time, wanting to use shields when they're relevant because it's a gain. Medica 2 isn't 'ridiculous OP' because it's not 1000p on 8 people, it's 1000 being considered on 'the WHM', and is coming at the cost of the Glare it could have been (so you're gaining 690, not 1000), and then you have to also factor in that Rapture is 400, so the gain becomes 290, and if you overheal AT ALL from the HOT capping you out on HP (which would be after just 2 ticks at this point), then you lose even more potency, just typing this out thinking about it, it feels like it could be... fun in it's own way? The only issue would be, instead of 'chadding' being 'you force the coheal to do everything', it'd become like Vanilla WOW where everyone got mad at Paladins for sniping low HP targets with Flash of Light, but if that gets people to use their heals then that's probably a good thing

[Shurrikhan]

I can kinda see where he's coming from, based on the current situation healers are in. If we were to say that the healers are balanced in RDPS contribution, such that WHM and SCH are doing 'about the same RDPS', then the SCH would win on the 'TQC' metric, because where the WHM can only put forward it's contribution during moments when the party is not healed, the SCH can always Soil a raidwide, there's not always healing needed, but there's always 'some damage to mitigate'.

Okay, but consider: Is that not accurate? At present, are "barrier" healers not, on average, going to have higher total contribution? Is it not legitimately a quantifiable advantage... for one's sustain not to be capped, especially with relative healing requirements so low?

We can contextualize that, sure, to note that there are diminishing returns for taking a second barrier healer, but... isn't that just telling the truth?

If the general consensus is that "barrier" healers are at least faintly stronger in their sustain potential than "pure" healers, is it really a problem that, sure enough, adding HPS and DPS together would show that when accounting for both, they have at least a faint advantage at present?

Also, SE screws the WHM over more because Soil regenerates HP too so SCH doubledips on that front. If the healer split remains (ie WHM cannot mit or shield still), then the only way to keep things fair would be if FFlogs were to split the healers into Pure/Barrier in the tabs

Or they could just... better balance" pure" healers against "barrier" healers, no? So that you wouldn't need separate tabs for "first class" vs. "second class" healers in terms of HPS (or AST/SCH>SGE>>>WHM overall)?

If the test shows that barrier healers have an advantage, the test could be flawed, sure... but it could also just literally be that barrier healers have an advantage, in which case that deserves to be addressed at a speed respective to its imbalance (not awful, so not super urgent, but worth doing something about in time).