Guild Wars 2

Obscure One.4357:

This is as self-evident as it is irrelevant to furthering the dialog in improving Healing Signet. Whereas removing conditions from your Warrior is clearly a Learn to Play issue, Healing Signet is really lackluster standing between Healing Surge and Mending, no matter how skilled one becomes in its use.

You’re either misunderstanding my stance or you’re preaching to the choir.

The passive effect needs to be improved, but my thoughts are towards making it more viable among builds focused on healing power, just as Mending is a clear choice for my builds high volume of condition mitigation, and Healing Surge is optimal for my adrenaline building weapon swapper. Ideally a boost to healing power, making it more responsive to healing power, reducing the cooldown and activation times would give it more of an impact.

There’s also the dev stated goal of making Healing Signet viable for more builds other than defensive ones and I think that’s a perfectly respectable goal. I’d even agree that Healing Signet should be usable for any build just like pretty much all the other heals in the game…but passive healing is a no-no for a mainly offensive build. That’s why I suggest improving the active heal in addition to helping the passive scaling for defensive builds.

Koppartikus.2396:

Actually, I believe the active is in line with the others. It’s in the middle of the pack with a 20s cooldown (Malice has 15, Restoration has 25) and all heal for ~3300 with a .5 Healing Power ratio.

I’m basing my information off of the wiki:

http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Signet_of_Malice
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Signet_of_Restoration
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Healing_Signet

If the information’s wrong in there I’ll retract my statement, but I’m pretty sure the active is fine. It’s the passive that’s not pulling its weight in builds it should support.

I was more talking about the other heals for Warrior (Mending and Healing Surge). Taking into account the possible use of just using the active every time it’s up or just using the passive and not the active, I feel Healing Signet should be at least equal to the other two before traits. Taking Signet Mastery should just help the offensive build who uses the active more often, IMO.

I don’t believe that’s currently the case…and then you factor in Mending removing conditions, Healing Surge granting Adrenaline, and both synergizing well with on-heal traits/gear vs Healing Signet giving something up for that effect (namely, half of its effect).

I don’t think the skill needs a HUGE improvement, but a re-thinking and re-balancing might help it…for example, would it be easier to increase the active heal if said heal occurred over a period of time (such as Troll Unguent)?

Leo G.4501:

I was more talking about the other heals for Warrior (Mending and Healing Surge). Taking into account the possible use of just using the active every time it’s up or just using the passive and not the active, I feel Healing Signet should be at least equal to the other two before traits. Taking Signet Mastery should just help the offensive build who uses the active more often, IMO.

I don’t believe that’s currently the case…and then you factor in Mending removing conditions, Healing Surge granting Adrenaline, and both synergizing well with on-heal traits/gear vs Healing Signet giving something up for that effect (namely, half of its effect).

I don’t think the skill needs a HUGE improvement, but a re-thinking and re-balancing might help it…for example, would it be easier to increase the active heal if said heal occurred over a period of time (such as Troll Unguent)?

Gotcha – I do agree that it’s a bit lackluster baseline and wouldn’t mind a bit of love here, but not such that it starts to fall out of line with some of the other signets I mentioned (as the skill seems to be modeled on that structure). Perhaps halving the passive when it’s activated instead of completely removing it? Probably a bit too powerful. I like your idea of making the heal a strong HoT over something like 4 or 5 seconds – meshes with the vibe of the skill pretty well.

I’d love to see the skill fill a niche for builds who want to leverage activating their heals as much as possible. we already have a strong tier 1 trait that would synergize well with this kind of gameplay (Restorative Strength) and coupled with Signet Mastery you have a 16 second heal that has a lot of flexibility in how you want to use it. This might also give less durable builds incentive to run it.

How about this: Remove the Active on Healing Signet, make passive much much better, this would make the Healing Signet unique in the fact it has a powerful passive sustained healing, but no way to activate.

Mending is now a “Physical” skill.
Grandmaster: Physical Training – Physical utility skills do 100% more damage and healing and recharge 20% faster.

Now we can have a powerful active heal and a powerful passive heal.

Bull’s Charge (Reduced CD to 25 from 40.)
Kick (Reduced CD to 12 from 20.)
Stomp (Reduced CD to 30 from 60, can now be used while moving.)
Throw Bolas (Reduced CD to 12 from 20, projectile goes 2x faster.)
(To make physical skills better as well to go with that.)

Now we have two different play styles, Adrenal Surge should be changed as well, not sure to what yet though.

@ Sebrent
YOU compare a Healing skill to a Utility Skill, that is your first mistake. That is like comparing military aircraft to a cargo plane, of course the military aircraft is going to be a lot faster.

Likewise comparing a healing skill to a utility skill its like, OF COURSE a healing skill is superior in healing (or should be) to a utility skill that heals.
You also do realize that that on paper we can achieve OK regeneration. Notice how I say ON PAPER because crunching numbers on a spreadsheet means absolutely nothing if you do not at all consider its practicality and how it actually works. It is like a psychologist quantifying the degree of cognitive impairment and assuming that this is fully representative of how they actually function in real life situations without any actual observation.

So firstly, you assume a lot of things. You assume that the healing signet passive will never be used and that we will always have the 200 hp/sec. Some people may never use it in order to have that 200 hp/sec regen, that means they don’t have any source of burst healing, which is more valuable than kitten regen, coming back to the point where people are complaining about lacking sustainability. If we take a burst heal, we lack severely in regeneration and have almost next to none. When we take the healing signet, we sacrifice BURST healing, meaning our ability to sustain burst damage is significantly reduced. Adrenal Health can be unreliable, you aren’t always going to have full adrenaline to reap the maximum benefits from it.

You say rangers have to sacrifice more to get more hp/sec, yet rangers do not have to sacrifice a BURST HEAL for 200 hp/sec which is inferior in almost any situation. I don’t get your logic there and I don’t think you appreciate the fact that it is a HUGE sacrifice which 85% of warriors will not ever do. You also fail to account for the fact that our hp/sec is less reliable than the ranger’s (if we use adrenaline say bye bye to our 360 hp every 3 seconds and say bye bye to what little sustainability we have).

A ranger can have that burst healing while also attaining reliable regeneration.

Taking the warrior’s healing skills at face value, you can see how it is inferior.

Healing Surge (max adreanaline): 8,440/31 = 272 hp/sec
Mending: 5,560/26 = 213 HP/Sec
Healing Signet (regen only): 200 hp/sec
Healing Signet (signet mastery, constant use): 3,320/17.25 = 192 hp/sec

Based on these values, Healing Signet is an inferior heal to any of our other heals (unless of course we are not healing at full adrenaline with healing surge). Healing Signet is also inferior in the sense that it doesn’t give you any additional affects (i.e max adreanaline, condition removal). Most warriors do not run healing signets for these reasons, because you sacrifice burst healing for sustained healing which really isn’t sustainable at all because you have no burst healing.

Now let us compare a Warrior’s healing to a Ranger’s.

Troll Unguent: 856 × 10 = 8,560/26 = 329 hp/sec
Heal as One: 6,520/21.25 = 307 hp/sec
Healing Spring (with nature’s bounty): 4,920 +3,120 (regen)/ 30.5 = 263 HP/Sec
Healing Spring: 4,920 + 2,340 (regen) = 7,260/30.5 = 238 HP/Sec

Granted you need to be standing on the healing spring to get the regen, but the fact it cures conditions on yourself and allies, is a combo field and gives regen to allies as well far outweighs the utility of any warrior heals.

Keep in mind this is just a comparison of healing skills only. I have not included any other sources of regen as they are too unreliable to put into perspective in a calculation of who has better sustain.

Dogged March and Oakheart Salve are comparable and roughly equal. Dogged March will give you 3 seconds of regen every 10 seconds while Oakheart Salve will give you 5 seconds of regen every 20 seconds. Adrenal Health gives anywhere from 0-120 HP/sec (let us assume 60 HP/sec on average) while Signet of the Wild gives 62 HP/sec. Rangers also have Ranger’s Bounty which gives 33% longer regeneration and rejuvenation which gives regen at 75% health and that 30 trait in Beastmastery that bumps them up a little bit. Ranger’s overall do have the advantage in terms of healing outside of healing skills, mostly due to the Ranger’s bounty and rejuvenation trait, but I will not even consider that in the subsequent calculations as it is situational, people have different builds, and honestly, it might not even be an appreciable difference between a Warrior’s and a Ranger’s outside utility healing sources.

Also remember, I am taking a lot of these values at face value, which means I am not
even taking into account HP. If we do take into account HP, we see a lot different of a picture. So let us assume Base HP without any added vitality.

Warrior Base HP: 18,372

Healing Surge (max adreanaline): 8,440/31 = 272 hp/sec = 1.48% of max HP/sec
Mending: 5,560/26 = 213 HP/Sec = 1.15% of max HP/sec
Healing Signet (regen only): 200 hp/sec = 1.08% max HP/sec
Healing Signet (signet mastery, constant use): 3,320/17.25 = 192 hp/sec = 1.05% max HP/sec

In other Words

With Healing Surge (max adreanaline). it will take a Warrior roughly 67.5 seconds to fully heal (or 3 Healing Surges realistically which is 93 Seconds)

With Mending, it will take about 87 seconds to fully heal (which realistically is about 4 mendings in 104 seconds)

With Healing Signet (regen only) it will take about 92.6 seconds to fully heal (since it is an actual hp/sec skill, this is the accurate amount of time)

With Healing Signet active and signet mastery, it will take about 95.2 seconds to fully heal (realistically about 6 active uses in about 103.5 seconds)

Ranger’s Base HP: 15,082

Troll Unguent: 856 × 10 = 8,560/26 = 329 hp/sec = 2.18% of Max HP/sec
Heal as One: 6,520/21.25 = 307 hp/sec = 2.03% of Max HP
Healing Spring (with nature’s bounty): 4,920 +3,120 (regen)/ 30.5 = 263 HP/Sec = 1.74% of Max HP/sec
Healing Spring: 4,920 + 2,340 (regen) = 7,260/30.5 = 238 HP/Sec = 1.58% of Max HP/sec

In other words …

Troll Unguent fully heals a ranger in roughly 45.9 Seconds. This is roughly through 2 uses of it (52 seconds). Since it this heal is not a burst heal, you will have to wait about 8 seconds for it to actually heal you to full, so realistically it will take about 60 seconds till you get full health.

Heal as One fully heals a ranger in 49.26 seconds. Realistically, you need to use this heal 3 times (63.75 seconds) to attain full HP.

Healing Spring (w/ Natures bounty) fully heals a ranger in about 57.5 seconds. This is roughly in two uses of this skill (61.5 seconds). However you have to consider that regeneration takes time in healing, much like Troll Unguent. To fully heal you, taking into account regen, I have worked it out to be around 77.8 seconds.

As you can see, in a practical setting, it will take a warrior much longer to get to full health than a ranger (even the weakest ranger heal will get a ranger to full health around 14-15 seconds faster than a warrior’s best heal, and that is assuming full adrenaline). As I said before, number crunch all you want but numbers on a spreadsheet mean diddly squat if you do not consider the practicality of them and how they actually work out in a WvW situation.

I realize these calculations are not perfect whatsoever but it does support the opinion and complaints that warriors do lack a lot of sustain, they are rarely ever at full health when it comes to combat in general and WvW. Rangers are mostly a ranged class, Warriors are mostly a melee class, at least according to the WvW meta. Who is inevitably going to take more damage and who is in more need of sustainability? Now rangers do have melee options and warriors do have ranged options, and good ones at that. But, rangers having better sustainability is kind of bass ackwards and doesn’t make sense, at least according to today’s current WvW meta.

Now one thing I have failed to account for is armor. Yes, warriors do have slightly more armor (2127 to 1980) with level 80 exotics. This is roughly 7.4% more armor. Which translates to about 7.4% damage reduction considering certain aspects constant. However, armor tends to become less valuable as you invest into it so at a certain point, 147 extra armor really isn’t huge at all when you consider other ways to mitigate, avoid and heal damage. A ranger can easily become as tanky and even miles tankier/sustainable than the average warrior. The difference between medium and heavy armor really isn’t what people make it out to be and honestly isn’t really that significant at all if you put it in context of other aspects of the game that contribute to survivability that far surpass a 147 armor difference.

I did not want to delve deeply into these type of calculations because you have to take into account alot of other things such as endurance, protection (rangers have a nifty trait called Bark skin too), invulnerabilities, condition removal etc. Clearly though, the average ranger is superior to the warrior in endurance/evasion, vigor and protection. Warriors may have the slight edge in invulnerabilities depending on whether a warrior uses a shield and whether a ranger can get off protect me if their pet isn’t dead. Based on the current meta, being a ranged class, or having a ranged weapon in general gives you a slight advantage of being harder to hit. In terms of mobility, Warriors and Rangers are about even, condition removal, I would give rangers the edge.

I have a ranger and a warrior, and really what I have mathematically explained is in lines with what I observe when I play these two classes in WvW or sPvP. Having a Shortbow/Greatsword on my ranger and having two melee sets on my Warrior. I find that my Ranger rarely has any sustainability/healing issues and tend to live longer and tend to have full health. This is partly due to my playstyle (half melee/half ranged) and partly due to better inherent sustainability and survivability mechanics of the ranger. Since I go full melee on my warrior, I will inevitably take more damage, I have sustainability and healing issues when I go into melee and I am more likely to die then on my ranger. For a warrior to be sustainable in melee in WvW, they tend to rely on a Guardian or an Elementalist for heals. Maybe if I was using a rifle, these problems would be minimized, but even then, it is clear a ranger has better sustainability and survival mechanics.

It is clear as day in sPvP, a bunker ranger is clearly superior to a bunker warrior. And a lot of that has to do with sustainability/survivability. Taking into context everything, warriors lack sustainability in general and healing signet needs a buff because it is highly inferior in terms of hp/sec to other healing skills.

I know ppl will argue that well, Warriors have 3K more HP than rangers. Which will lead me to ask. Why are Bunker Guardians, Eles, Rangers, Mesmers, Engies more survivable than warriors despite the larger HP pool? We have been given a large HP pool and heavy armor to compensate for our lack of defensive boon generation and sustainable healing capabilities. And clearly what sPvP and WvW has shown is that the latter is much superior to the former and is imbalanced.

Since this thread is about how worthless Healing Signet is, a fair change would be to bump the passive healing to at least 300 HP/sec. Granted, when you compare other classes heals and their HP (i.e a Mesmer’s Ether Feast), it is still quite inferior. However, 300 HP/sec would make this utility healing skill viable as it is slightly above the calculated HP/sec of the other heals (which makes sense when you think about the concept of the delay of gratification).

Another reasonable change to the Healing Signet would be to completely change the active because nobody would use it because the burst healing is bad in general and you give up the sustainability that this heal gives.

Some possible actives could be a three second block, seven seconds of protection/regeneration/vigor, convert a random condition into a seven second boon, condition immunity for three seconds, a 75% damage decrease for two-three seconds, etc. And probably change the cooldown to every 30 seconds.

Daecollo.9578:

Olba.5376:

Daecollo.9578:

Obscure One.4357:

Healing Signet update concept:
-Cooldown reduced from 20 seconds to 15 seconds.
-Activation time reduced from 1 1/4 seconds to 1/2 second.
-Passive healing now scales at .05 and also increases healing power by 180.

Dip dat Signet in yo Signets!

So basicly it goes from 200 to 209. That will really improve Warriors in SPVP!

How about we improve the passive to 400-450 and make it scale 0.1 with HP (like Signet of Malice), then make Activation time reduced from 1 1/4 seconds to 1/2 second. No active change.

We need good healing and condition (conversion or removal, I prefer conversion.)

So you want warriors with nearly 3k armor, 25k hp and ridiculous hp regen?

3k Armor, after 2.7k Armor, armor goes into dimishing returns where it becomes way less, the difference between 2.7k-3k-4k armor is actually very little. Protection pretty much doubles your armor, I find that many people who use the “armor” argument do not know the value of statistics.

Do you? I’ve seen people pull 2.7k out of thin air with no math to back it up. Armor does not scale differently after 2.7k than it does before, so even if there is diminishing returns (which I question), there’s no justification for the 2.7k figure rather than 3.5k or 2.0k.

2700 Armor = 32% Damage Reduction. (+1788 Toughness.)

3400 Armor = 46% Damage Reduction. (+2488 Toughness.)

This means after you get 2700 armor, you need 700 more toughness to get 14% DR, AKA it gets less and less and less, that is a whole crap load of toughness (Full Ascended Soldier/Soldier-Soldier gear, its JUST NOT WORTH IT. Imo)

You start with base armor of 2127 as a Warrior/Guardian
You start with base armor of 1980 as a Ranger.

This means “Heavy Armor” is only a 147 difference. (Which is about one piece of gear.)

Its far easier to get 573 toughness (for a total of 2700 armor.) as a guardian, get 32% Damage reduction. Then get Protection which is 33% which in total is 65% DR, then add in there signet which is 15% with traits and get 80% Damage Reduction.

Wheras warriors can only get 32% with 2700. This makes guardians FAR tankier.

Rangers can pretty much get an entire extra set of armor with protection, since its pretty much equal to 2750 armor. Plus the fact they get almost double our endurance regeneration and evades is the reason why they are so tanky, and that 147 armor difference is NOT going to make up for it.
________________________________________________

On another note
THANK YOU KILLAHMANYE, that is one of the best posts i’ve ever seen on the forums before, and I am sorry for blabbing over it. I just wanted to provide statistics to non-believers.

Thank you Killahmanye you pretty must hit the nail hard as I always kept saying in my post. They have the data spreadsheets, but not the actual combat to see whats the difference.

We ask them to try the builds out, but they don’t want to play with them because they know the real truth about how warriors perform in pvp. They just don’t want to see warriors being truly competitive in pvp.

Yaki.9563:

Daecollo.9578:

Olba.5376:

Daecollo.9578:

Obscure One.4357:

Healing Signet update concept:
-Cooldown reduced from 20 seconds to 15 seconds.
-Activation time reduced from 1 1/4 seconds to 1/2 second.
-Passive healing now scales at .05 and also increases healing power by 180.

Dip dat Signet in yo Signets!

So basicly it goes from 200 to 209. That will really improve Warriors in SPVP!

How about we improve the passive to 400-450 and make it scale 0.1 with HP (like Signet of Malice), then make Activation time reduced from 1 1/4 seconds to 1/2 second. No active change.

We need good healing and condition (conversion or removal, I prefer conversion.)

So you want warriors with nearly 3k armor, 25k hp and ridiculous hp regen?

3k Armor, after 2.7k Armor, armor goes into dimishing returns where it becomes way less, the difference between 2.7k-3k-4k armor is actually very little. Protection pretty much doubles your armor, I find that many people who use the “armor” argument do not know the value of statistics.

Do you? I’ve seen people pull 2.7k out of thin air with no math to back it up. Armor does not scale differently after 2.7k than it does before, so even if there is diminishing returns (which I question), there’s no justification for the 2.7k figure rather than 3.5k or 2.0k.

People like to use 2.7K as a very arbitrary number where they can still keep most of the “cannon” aspect of a glass cannon while still being somewhat survivable.

Armor scales differently for each additional point in armor you add, which means, the more armor you have, the more additional points you put into it sees diminishing returns in damage reduction. You can even test this for yourself on gw2buildcraft.com, the damage reduction values indeed go down even though you add the same constant to toughness every time.

Using the website, for example. Going from 2.7K armor to 3K armor provides a 6.8% damage reduction. However, to get an additional 6.8% damage reduction you need to go from 3K armor to 3,375 armor, an additional 75 armor.

Now, this diminishing return isn’t that huge when you think about it, but you have to consider that 1 point in vitality will increase your eHP much more than 1 point in toughness will if you have been stacking armor and not HP. So in that sense it becomes a diminishing return because you are not making efficient use of your stats.

Another, sort of diminishing return comes from the plethora of damage modifiers that warriors have. Stacking lots of toughness will most likely bring power/precision/crit damage values way down. The way that these damage modifiers stack is that the more power/precision/crit damage you have, the more that you will benefit from these damage modifiers.

In other words, you disproportionately kitten your damage severely at a certain point for some more toughness. And this is made even worse for a warrior because we lack any protection buffs or signets that provide a flat % damage reduction.

Daecollo.9578:

2700 Armor = 32% Damage Reduction. (+1788 Toughness.)

3400 Armor = 46% Damage Reduction. (+2488 Toughness.)

This means after you get 2700 armor, you need 700 more toughness to get 14% DR, AKA it gets less and less and less, that is a whole crap load of toughness (Full Ascended Soldier/Soldier-Soldier gear, its JUST NOT WORTH IT. Imo)

You still didn’t show what 2700 has to do with anything. It’s a number you pulled out of thin air. Why not just say toughness is worthless because it has DR so you shouldn’t bother getting any of it? At least that would be logically consistent.

GW2 wiki gives this as the direct damage formula:

Damage done = (weapon damage) * Power * (skill-specific coefficient) / (target’s Armor)

If that’s the case, the damage reduction for any given amount of armor is:

[1 – (Old Armor / New Armor)] * 100

Armor with no toughness from gear = 2147

2700 Armor, and increase of 553 armor gives you [1- (2147/2700)] * 100 = 20.5% damage reduction

An additional increase of 553 armor gives you [1-(2700/3253)] * 100 = 17% damage reduction

So there is clearly diminishing returns. However, the diminishing returns are not even close to the magnitude you make them out to be. You’d have to be completely irrational to say “20.5% damage reduction is great, but 17% absolutely sucks”. That leaves you with 3 logical options:

1. You think 20.5% damage reduction isn’t worth 553 stat points and can argue your case based on math and/or personal experience. Consequently you don’t wear any toughness gear.
2. You think 20.5% damage reduction is worth 553 stat points, but only barely. You base this on math and distinguish between 20% and 17% in your calculations comparing it with other stat effects.
3. You think both 20.5% and 17% are worth 553 stat points and can argue your case based on math and/or personal experience. Then you wear as much toughness as you can (with perhaps some exceptions on specific pieces because they offer exceptional value in other stats, like crit damage).

You have done none of those and the little math you have shown is not only wrong, but shows that you don’t understand the concept of damage reduction in the first place.

http://gw2buildcraft.com/calculator/
Here you can see the curves of toughness, after a bit toughness just isn’t worth the investment that you could be putting into other stats to increase your survivability.

Boon Duration/Protection is worth so much more then toughness its not even funny. That is why i’m laughing, because “Protection” gives you 2750 worth of armor in damage reduction. If you combine 2750 toughness with protection, you can lower incoming damage by 33%, then another 33%, Its ridiculous.

I made it simple and easy for you to understand, please reread killahmayne.9518’s posts. Healing Signet deserves a significant passive increase.

Daecollo.9578:

http://gw2buildcraft.com/calculator/
Here you can see the curves of toughness, after a bit toughness just isn’t worth the investment that you could be putting into other stats to increase your survivability.

Boon Duration/Protection is worth so much more then toughness its not even funny. That is why i’m laughing, because “Protection” gives you 2750 worth of armor in damage reduction. If you combine 2750 toughness with protection, you can lower incoming damage by 33%, then another 33%, Its ridiculous.

I made it simple and easy for you to understand, please reread killahmayne.9518’s posts. Healing Signet deserves a significant passive increase.

Protection has nothing to do with it, because we simply don’t have access to protection. Not only that, but toughness and protection aren’t mutually exclusive. You can have protection and damage reduction from toughness. Protection doesn’t provide 2750 worth of armor unless you happen to have 5580 armor. I don’t know anyone that has that. If you have 2750 armor, protection provides the equivalent of 1355 armor.

You were completely wrong in your previous post about toughness. 1+1=3 might be simple and easy, but it’s wrong so basically useless. I get the feeling that you don’t actually know what you are talking about and are just repeating what you read from other people, and either taking it out of context or misunderstanding it.

killahmayne.9518:

Yaki.9563:

Daecollo.9578:

Olba.5376:

Daecollo.9578:

Obscure One.4357:

Healing Signet update concept:
-Cooldown reduced from 20 seconds to 15 seconds.
-Activation time reduced from 1 1/4 seconds to 1/2 second.
-Passive healing now scales at .05 and also increases healing power by 180.

Dip dat Signet in yo Signets!

So basicly it goes from 200 to 209. That will really improve Warriors in SPVP!

How about we improve the passive to 400-450 and make it scale 0.1 with HP (like Signet of Malice), then make Activation time reduced from 1 1/4 seconds to 1/2 second. No active change.

We need good healing and condition (conversion or removal, I prefer conversion.)

So you want warriors with nearly 3k armor, 25k hp and ridiculous hp regen?

3k Armor, after 2.7k Armor, armor goes into dimishing returns where it becomes way less, the difference between 2.7k-3k-4k armor is actually very little. Protection pretty much doubles your armor, I find that many people who use the “armor” argument do not know the value of statistics.

Do you? I’ve seen people pull 2.7k out of thin air with no math to back it up. Armor does not scale differently after 2.7k than it does before, so even if there is diminishing returns (which I question), there’s no justification for the 2.7k figure rather than 3.5k or 2.0k.

People like to use 2.7K as a very arbitrary number where they can still keep most of the “cannon” aspect of a glass cannon while still being somewhat survivable.

Armor scales differently for each additional point in armor you add, which means, the more armor you have, the more additional points you put into it sees diminishing returns in damage reduction. You can even test this for yourself on gw2buildcraft.com, the damage reduction values indeed go down even though you add the same constant to toughness every time.

Using the website, for example. Going from 2.7K armor to 3K armor provides a 6.8% damage reduction. However, to get an additional 6.8% damage reduction you need to go from 3K armor to 3,375 armor, an additional 75 armor.

Now, this diminishing return isn’t that huge when you think about it, but you have to consider that 1 point in vitality will increase your eHP much more than 1 point in toughness will if you have been stacking armor and not HP. So in that sense it becomes a diminishing return because you are not making efficient use of your stats.

Another, sort of diminishing return comes from the plethora of damage modifiers that warriors have. Stacking lots of toughness will most likely bring power/precision/crit damage values way down. The way that these damage modifiers stack is that the more power/precision/crit damage you have, the more that you will benefit from these damage modifiers.

In other words, you disproportionately kitten your damage severely at a certain point for some more toughness. And this is made even worse for a warrior because we lack any protection buffs or signets that provide a flat % damage reduction.

So warriors shouldn’t bother with toughness at all. Full berserker. Ok, at least that’s a rational opinion though personally I think it is probably not correct.

EH is not an accurate measure of survivability unless you have no heals at all and take no condition damage. I don’t know about you but my #6 button is a heal and I have access to some passive healing as well. There’s also not many classes that do 0 condition damage.

Lets return to discussing how bad healing signet it, you came in late when we were talking about rangers.

lol does Yaki still not understand the 3k armor threshold at this point? This was fact 6 months ago if you know how to use the forums you can search for the posts about it.

We could use a bit more Healing. I run a shout cleric build. I know heals work because they let me solo face tank a camp where sentinel would not.

We start with a thick HP pool and generally we do better dps then other classes all stats held the same. Giving us ele healing would break the game.

My suggestion is make GM Shout trait proc regen + heal and let banners have a healing pulse every 3 seconds in addition to regen.

Why? Because we don’t need to be giving extra healing to a HP heavy dps class. That’s like giving theives an extra second of stealth on all of their skills.

I think healing, and clerics gear should be viable for Warriors, but only for dedicated healing warriors.

great here we go with the warriors have high base health argument again. great shout heals. great I can face tank a supply camp. great comparing warriors to thieves. zzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzzz

I am desperately trying to get all builds out of 30 Vitality.

@ Yaki

That is not even close to what I said or what I was suggesting, all I said was that there are diminishing returns on armor stacking (which you doubted) and that at a certain point it would be more worthwhile to pump other stats such as vitality in order to be more efficient.

And full berserkers is viable and optimal in a few situations (mostly dungeons) where you can run with 1 or 2 guardians, an ele and another warrior and still not even be close to ever dieing, so what you deem to probably not being correct is probably the best way in certain situations. I have a problem with using the word correct because there is no such thing as a correct build, only builds that are more efficient than others given the situation and one’s playstyle.

If somebody runs a full berserker set in WvW, kills a lot of people and barely ever dies, who is to say the way he built his warrior isn’t “correct” and who is anyone to criticize somebody who is successful at what they are running.

Like i said, there are diminishing returns on toughness, but it isn’t huge. And the fact that alot of classes do condition damage merely reinforces that pumping HP at a certain point would be better than toughness.

Effective HP is not an accurate measure of survivability anyways because clearly on paper warriors have the highest, but it is dodging, invulnerabilities, kiting, healing, condition removal, etc that are the biggest determinants. But it is still a useful statistic in maximizing stat allocation.

JonPeters.5630:

but it currently has NO place in a berserker build.

Jon

I solo’d the last bosses of the Molten Facility as a berserker with healing signet. It was pretty helpful.

When you make a skill, you never make it specifically for any type of build, you make it “stand alone.” so its good with all types of gear and a good skill, not a skill that relies on a gear set or gimmicks, if you put such things on a set, it creates the problem of what we have now, “Lack of Builds.” which is why almost all warriors have “30 Vitality/20 Discipline.” Glued to there bars, because its almost required now to be competitive and good. However this is not fun, nore is it how it should be, we need a better defensive tree and more viable builds, this would be the start to that, please don’t ruin it by making it low and a high hp requirement.

At least “Healing Signet” does not do armor reduction as it was the fall in Guildwars 1. ^^

But i agree with you. Overall the healing on warrior it´s less and they have long cooldowns. They could overall reduced the cooldown on healing skills, to compensate for the weak healing, but i do not think will ever happen. They could however remove the passive healing from the signet, and replace it with an X amount condition removal every X secs, instead of heal/sec.

Alternative, if they do not plan to change that, they could bring “Eviscerate” to it´s former glory from Guildwars 1 which applied also “Deep Wound” condition. To those that are not familiar with the condition, basically that condition was reducing the maximum Health of a target by 20% and that target would receive less benefit from healing.

Another alternative would be to make this condition “Trait wise” to do exactly that i have mentioned above. But not something that would have to spend 30 trait points, just like the “Boon Hate”, which is rediculous.

Regards

Seed

Please don’t use phrases like diminishing returns without actually know what it means.
Armor does not have diminishing returns. Let’s use a very low 1000 armor as a standard. 2000 armor takes 50% of the damage 1000 armor does. 2500 takes 40%. 3000 takes 33%. Yes, the % is decreasing a smaller amount of the original each time, but that doesn’t mean diminishing returns. 2k armor survives twice as much damage, 2.5k survives 2.5 times the amount, 3k survives times the amount, thus the effect itself is not diminishing. It only appears to be DR because it’s constantly (incorrectly) compared to the original in that view.

example 2: Going from 100% damage taken to 50% damage taken is the same boost as going from 50% damage taken to 25% damage taken. People say “Look, 25% reduction is much less than 50% reduction, so it’s diminishing returns!”, but that’s wrong. Sure, that second reduction of “only” 25% looks like less, but would still effectively double your health again, which is 4 times the original effective health at 4 times the original armor.

What is diminishing returns? 10 workers produce 100 widgets/hour. 15 produce 150 widgets/hour. 20 produce 190/hour. DR alert! The additional 5 workers did not add as much production as the 5 additional 5 workers earlier. If it was really diminishing, additional amounts would eventually reduce until more of that stat no longer adds any advantage. So 25 workers may only increase production to 220 widgets/hour and then 30 workers to 240 widgets/hour and so on.
This is not the case when it comes to armor, so it’s not diminishing returns.

Like a couple other people I think you missed the point of what was being talked about when it comes to stacking armor past a certain point on a warrior.

AlBundy.7851:

lol does Yaki still not understand the 3k armor threshold at this point? This was fact 6 months ago if you know how to use the forums you can search for the posts about it.

I understand your bad math (or faith in someone else’s bad math) and your lack of understanding. But hey, by all means continue your ignorance.

Navzar.2938:

Please don’t use phrases like diminishing returns without actually know what it means.
Armor does not have diminishing returns. Let’s use a very low 1000 armor as a standard. 2000 armor takes 50% of the damage 1000 armor does. 2500 takes 40%. 3000 takes 33%. Yes, the % is decreasing a smaller amount of the original each time, but that doesn’t mean diminishing returns. 2k armor survives twice as much damage, 2.5k survives 2.5 times the amount, 3k survives times the amount, thus the effect itself is not diminishing. It only appears to be DR because it’s constantly (incorrectly) compared to the original in that view.

There actually is diminishing returns. Just not the gigantic amount some people around here think there is. I showed the math in one of my previous posts.

bad math? I think your not understanding what was being talked about in general? You should reread killahmayne’s posts a couple times.

Navzar.2938:

Please don’t use phrases like diminishing returns without actually know what it means.
Armor does not have diminishing returns. Let’s use a very low 1000 armor as a standard. 2000 armor takes 50% of the damage 1000 armor does. 2500 takes 40%. 3000 takes 33%. Yes, the % is decreasing a smaller amount of the original each time, but that doesn’t mean diminishing returns. 2k armor survives twice as much damage, 2.5k survives 2.5 times the amount, 3k survives times the amount, thus the effect itself is not diminishing. It only appears to be DR because it’s constantly (incorrectly) compared to the original in that view.

example 2: Going from 100% damage taken to 50% damage taken is the same boost as going from 50% damage taken to 25% damage taken. People say “Look, 25% reduction is much less than 50% reduction, so it’s diminishing returns!”, but that’s wrong. Sure, that second reduction of “only” 25% looks like less, but would still effectively double your health again, which is 4 times the original effective health at 4 times the original armor.

What is diminishing returns? 10 workers produce 100 widgets/hour. 15 produce 150 widgets/hour. 20 produce 190/hour. DR alert! The additional 5 workers did not add as much production as the 5 additional 5 workers earlier. If it was really diminishing, additional amounts would eventually reduce until more of that stat no longer adds any advantage. So 25 workers may only increase production to 220 widgets/hour and then 30 workers to 240 widgets/hour and so on.
This is not the case when it comes to armor, so it’s not diminishing returns.

Armor DOES have diminishing returns. Refer to my posts above. Why does it have diminishing returns?

Because you have to invest more and more armor to achieve a certain amount of damage reduction. Each point in armor you gain is worth less and less damage reduction

There is a big problem with your second example. Going from 100% to 50% is NOT the same as going from 50% to 25% damage taken. According to your logic then going from 2% damage taken to 1% damage taken is the same, which it clearly isn’t.

For example, say a person takes 1000 damage (100% damage taken) then goes from 100% damage taken to 50% damage taken and takes 500 damage. That is a 500 damage decrease. Then lets say that person goes from 50% to 25% damage taken. That is going from 500 damage to 250 damage, which is a 250 decrease, less than the 500 damage decrease.

Lets take it a step further, say somebody goes from 2% damage taken to 1% damage taken. That is going from 20 damage to 10 damage, only a 10 damage difference. Sure, you are reducing the amount of damage taken by a factor of two, but what is anything times zero? Is going from 10 damage to 5 damage worth it, is going from 2 to 1 damage worth it? At the end of day, no matter if you are doubling your effective HP, one damage less is STILL one damage less, no matter how you like to spin the numbers.

That is the point i am trying to get across, on paper, it looks like you are reducing a lot of damage (oh I am going from 2% to 1% I am doubling my effective HP) but in reality in the context of this game, going from an already small amount of damage taken to an even smaller amount of damage taken usually isn’t worth it as it takes an increasingly larger investment. If you take the numbers for their actual values, you can see why.

Even test it out in the gw2buildcraft website. It takes some ridiculous amount like 100,000 toughness to go from 98% damage reduction to 99%. It is already astronomically high any further investments would be useless. 100k toughness for 1%. If that was theoretically possible would that be worth it? Then say getting 100K of something else you lack?

Healing Signet:
Updated skill facts to show the passive effect and accurately display the healing value for the active effect.

Yeah!

Now someone give me good news and tell me the passive healing is better

Its exactly the same. Only the tooltip changed to add in the passive heal amount. The buff is now you know how much its going to heal you before you equip it.

patch notes for warrior

Leg Specialist:
This trait will no longer function with the Burning Oil siege weapon in WvW.
Healing Signet:
Updated skill facts to show the passive effect and accurately display the healing value for the active effect.

They buffed healing signet to much

Kuruptz.4782:

patch notes for warrior

Leg Specialist:
This trait will no longer function with the Burning Oil siege weapon in WvW.
Healing Signet:
Updated skill facts to show the passive effect and accurately display the healing value for the active effect.

They buffed healing signet to much

No they didn’t. The regeneration data stayed the same, but the active received a nerf. Before the patch I was able to heal for 4234 and using the tactics banner it raised to 4454.
Now it heals for 3757 and with tactics banner 3842.

Edit: If anything it gotten worst lol.

Well that makes perfect sense. A skill that provides no burst healing should heal less in the long run and MUST be weak. Take that healing signet.

Aarean.5398:

Well that makes perfect sense. A skill that provides no burst healing should heal less in the long run and MUST be weak. Take that healing signet.

It wasn’t even good in the first place plus it barely gave warriors some survivability and that makes perfect sense to you??. You are so silly for that truly you are.
This is there game after all and I don’t even care now. I already know how their style is so I shouldn’t be surprise on this approach.

Besides how many warriors do you see using this in pvp anyway? Not many I bet.

Brutalistik.6473:

Aarean.5398:

Well that makes perfect sense. A skill that provides no burst healing should heal less in the long run and MUST be weak. Take that healing signet.

It wasn’t even good in the first place plus it barely gave warriors some survivability and that makes perfect sense to you??. You are so silly for that truly you are.
This is there game after all and I don’t even care now. I already know how their style is so I shouldn’t be surprise on this approach.

Besides how many warriors do you see using this in pvp anyway? Not many I bet.

I know I don’t use it and haha reading from your post not many will be using it at all. Sorry for your disappointment though, but you should be use to this style I mean warcraft was the same way.

Wow, the active got nerfed. lol.

Its less then it was before.

Brutalistik.6473:

Aarean.5398:

Well that makes perfect sense. A skill that provides no burst healing should heal less in the long run and MUST be weak. Take that healing signet.

It wasn’t even good in the first place plus it barely gave warriors some survivability and that makes perfect sense to you??. You are so silly for that truly you are.
This is there game after all and I don’t even care now. I already know how their style is so I shouldn’t be surprise on this approach.

Besides how many warriors do you see using this in pvp anyway? Not many I bet.

My entire last post was pure sarcasm. The passive heal needs to be 250-300 per tick baseline for it to be a reasonable choice. It isnt burst. It should heal more over a long time. It suffers from poison of which you have no control. 400 per tick would be too powerful but 250-300 would be just right.

Aarean.5398:

Brutalistik.6473:

Aarean.5398:

Well that makes perfect sense. A skill that provides no burst healing should heal less in the long run and MUST be weak. Take that healing signet.

It wasn’t even good in the first place plus it barely gave warriors some survivability and that makes perfect sense to you??. You are so silly for that truly you are.
This is there game after all and I don’t even care now. I already know how their style is so I shouldn’t be surprise on this approach.

Besides how many warriors do you see using this in pvp anyway? Not many I bet.

My entire last post was pure sarcasm. The passive heal needs to be 250-300 per tick baseline for it to be a reasonable choice. It isnt burst. It should heal more over a long time. It suffers from poison of which you have no control. 400 per tick would be too powerful but 250-300 would be just right.

463 per tick would make it “Along the lines.” of Necromancer’s healing abilities.

It would be too powerful. I can safely tell you i would destroy anyone if it was 450 per tick. I love this signet and will continue to use it. But 450 would be god mode because if someones bursting i would use defense cds and stall the fight a few seconds and have too much regen. 300 would make my day though

Guys your armor calculations are so so wrong. Toughness does not have Diminish Return in GW2, it is so easy to calculate.

Take the formula and make the test calculations yourself.

Damage done = (weapon damage) * Power * (skill-specific coefficient) / (target’s Armor)

3k attack, 3k armor
1000*3000*1/3000 = 1000 damage

3.5k attack, 3.5k armor
1000*3500*1/3500 = 1000 damage

3.5k attack, 3k armor
1000*3500*1/3000 = 1166.67 damage

3k attack, 3.5k armor
1000*3000*1/3500 = 857.143 damage

26.53% less than 3k armor

3.5k attack, 2.7k armor
1000*3500*1/2700 = 1296.296 damage

33.88% less than named 2.7k “best value” armor against 3.5k armor

At the end the more the better, especialy if armor is more than attacker power.

Comparision for Damage reduction in % for armor in GW2 is incorect.

Aarean.5398:

Brutalistik.6473:

Aarean.5398:

Well that makes perfect sense. A skill that provides no burst healing should heal less in the long run and MUST be weak. Take that healing signet.

It wasn’t even good in the first place plus it barely gave warriors some survivability and that makes perfect sense to you??. You are so silly for that truly you are.
This is there game after all and I don’t even care now. I already know how their style is so I shouldn’t be surprise on this approach.

Besides how many warriors do you see using this in pvp anyway? Not many I bet.

My entire last post was pure sarcasm. The passive heal needs to be 250-300 per tick baseline for it to be a reasonable choice. It isnt burst. It should heal more over a long time. It suffers from poison of which you have no control. 400 per tick would be too powerful but 250-300 would be just right.

I can careless if it was pure sarcasm because you know a lot of warriors 100% was looking forward for this change and to get results like this. All I can say to them is stick to mending or healing surge. Use healing signet in pve only because the diversity just got cut down in half.

I agree the baseline should be 300 then adds more with healing power, but they did not want to see that change obviously. So happy birthday to those who were against the ideas hoping it would not happen.

Aarean.5398:

It would be too powerful. I can safely tell you i would destroy anyone if it was 450 per tick. I love this signet and will continue to use it. But 450 would be god mode because if someones bursting i would use defense cds and stall the fight a few seconds and have too much regen. 300 would make my day though

How would you “destroy anyone” in PvP I can barely GET to my target much less destroy them.

You know how horrible PvP as a warrior is atm?

Our Defensive CDs do NOTHING against condition damage.

I don’t think they nerfed it, I think they just fixed the tooltip showing the wrong information.

Healing Signet was actually more worthless than we thought, guys!

Aarean.5398:

It would be too powerful. I can safely tell you i would destroy anyone if it was 450 per tick. I love this signet and will continue to use it. But 450 would be god mode because if someones bursting i would use defense cds and stall the fight a few seconds and have too much regen. 300 would make my day though

Even if it was ticking for 450 which would be good for warriors because knowing their survivability next to a thief w/o stealth support. They’re good as gone regardless of their so call bunker build / condition removal build lol. I know how this game runs for this profession.

robocafaz.9017:

I don’t think they nerfed it, I think they just fixed the tooltip showing the wrong information.

Healing Signet was actually more worthless than we thought, guys!

Dang you just rubbing it in on them. I’m glad I never chose that healing skill because the benefits were horrible.

I set my guy for mobility and defense. So i can hurt my target. Remove conds. And stall damage completely. Sword shield and rifle so they cant stop rifle damage. And shield brings a cooldown. I use healing signet although i probably shouldnt. But i like the idea behind it too much. Maybe they will buff it sometime this month

No hope for warrior ;< 5 signet Jon will take everything from us as we are killing machines in hotjoins.

Aarean.5398:

I set my guy for mobility and defense. So i can hurt my target. Remove conds. And stall damage completely. Sword shield and rifle so they cant stop rifle damage. And shield brings a cooldown. I use healing signet although i probably shouldnt. But i like the idea behind it too much. Maybe they will buff it sometime this month

Nah as a regen healing bunker warrior. I’m not wasting my time with that false hope. That’s just telling me to chase the carrot more. I mean I’ll still give good feedback to support the profession, but I wouldn’t be surprise if nothing happens.

Brutalistik.6473:

Aarean.5398:

I set my guy for mobility and defense. So i can hurt my target. Remove conds. And stall damage completely. Sword shield and rifle so they cant stop rifle damage. And shield brings a cooldown. I use healing signet although i probably shouldnt. But i like the idea behind it too much. Maybe they will buff it sometime this month

Nah as a regen healing bunker warrior. I’m not wasting my time with that false hope. That’s just telling me to chase the carrot more. I mean I’ll still give good feedback to support the profession, but I wouldn’t be surprise if nothing happens.

Well i guess ill keep a kitten healing method. Warriors got nothing but buffs on the way fro their current standing