View Full Forums : "Gift of Mana" and "Abundant Healing" proc checks?


Kagonis
04-19-2006, 02:03 PM
From the patch message today:
The stacking issues related to Gift of Mana and Abundant Healing have been resolved. Abundant Healing is once again available to purchase for healing classes and should now work properly if you also have Gift of Mana. You cannot proc both of them with one spell, but should see both of them procing now.I've highlighted the important part with bold.

Now I'm wondering how the checks are done, since it's only one or the other that will proc.

Is it:

Gift of Mana check, then Abundant Healing check? If Gift of Mana procced it will not do a Abundant Healing check.
Abundant Healing check, then Gift of Mana check? If Abundant Healing procced it will not do a Gift of Mana check.
Check if the spell should proc, then random between which should proc?
A 4th. option I didn't consider?


I would personally prefer number 1, but it is ofcourse a question of individual preference how you would like it to work.

From my viewpoint, about all the above scenarios except number 1, is bad.

Number 2 is bad because it would essentially allow for less proccing of Gift of Mana, due to some checks will have Abundant Healing proc first.

Number 3 is bad because it would essentially half my chance that Gift of Mana will proc from my heals.


Anyone that knows more, or just have something they want to share on this topic? :)

Fanra
04-19-2006, 02:19 PM
This has been talked about in the General-EQ forum here under the Patch message thread.

Here are the highlights:

Spell procs, including GM and AH, now work similarly to how normal procs do. The change was to allow all spell procs to continue processing if the first one failed and there are other ones that can still be triggered. It tries one first and if that fails, tries the next until it either runs out of ones to try or one succeeds. Order is based on "greatest effect" like other focus effects. In this case, greatest effect is determined by the chance to proc so one with a high chance to proc takes precedence over one with a lesser chance to proc.

Rashere

Geez, can't they ever give a straight answer?

Here is my reply:

Thank you for responding. However, your reply still does not answer our question.

Which one has been "nerfed"? Meaning, if I already have GM and buy AH, will GM now proc less often on 65 and above healing spells or will AH just proc less than if I didn't have GM?

His response:
Like I said, its based on the chance to proc. If you have max ranks in GM and only a couple in AH, then you have a greater chance to proc GM so it gets checked first. If you have max ranks in both, AH gets checked first since it has the greater chance to proc.

The chance for either to proc is small enough, though, that the reduced chance for the second one to proc would be hard to even notice without an extended parse.

Rashere
My response:
Thank you, Rashere.

The reason your first answer was not clear was that you said it was based on the chance to proc.

I have no way of know the chances of two different AAs to proc. What you are now saying is that both AAs (GM and AH) have the exact same chance to proc based on the level purchased. Since GM only has a max of three levels, and AH has a max of five, then if you buy all levels, then AH has a greater chance to proc. But what if you only buy three levels of each?

As you can see, simply saying based on chance to proc is not very helpful for us.

I doubt (or I think I do) that every AA proc rate is exactly the same based on only level. The fact that GM and AH are is something I now know.

So if I buy 5 levels of DD crit, it has the exact same chance to crit as 5 levels of healing crit? This is something that 99.9% of the players do not know.

Still waiting his next response. Thread is here: http://eqforums.station.sony.com/eq/board/message?board.id=Veterans&message.id=219042

Fanra
04-19-2006, 02:22 PM
Latest response:
The chance to proc varies from ability to ability. AH and GM don't have the same chance to proc per level, but you can have a greater chance to proc AH than GM or visa versa depending on how many ranks you have in either. Whichever one has the greatest chance for you to proc it gets checked first.

Rashere

Dari
04-19-2006, 04:04 PM
Well that about settles it for me. Not getting AH. I would MUCH rather get a GOM proc.
Nice dancing around details for Rashere though. He should go into politics.

tatankawd
04-19-2006, 05:34 PM
Maybe I don't get it, but every response I've seen today indicates people won't get AH. I have neither GoM or AH yet, but it seems to me that getting a few occasional less procs of GoM will be more than offset by the procs of AH that you do get. Also, if it does work the way Rashere says, you should still be able to buy one or two ranks of AH and have a greater chance to proc GoM, since GoM would still be checked first in that case.

I know GoM3 is supposed to proc 10% of the time. Let's pick 12% for AH5, since we know it's more than GoM3, but keeping it low for comparison purposes. The other data point I don't know is, how much extra healing do you get from an AH proc? Let's assume 50% extra (i.e. a 3000 pt heal will then get 1500 more over the next several ticks). So, in this illustration, an AH proc is worth half of a GoM proc for that heal.

If we cast 60 heals an hour, and only have GoM3, you will get approx. 6 free heals.

If you have AH5, and use the assumption of 12% proc rate, and GoM3, then AH will proc 7 times, for 3.5 free heals, and GoM will proc about 5 times (60-7 * 10%), for 5 more free heals. That's a total of 8.5 free heals, which is more than 6. Seems like a net benefit to me.

Of course, if the extra portion of an AH is much less than 50%, then this would skew things away from AH. But then, if it's higher than 50%, or procs more than 12% of the time, it's an even better deal.

Other factors include heals not being fully used, but then if you use your GoM proc for a followup heal, that may not be fully used either. If you use the GoM for a nuke, it can be fully or partially resisted, so it probably all balances out.

Just some food for thought.

Tat

Kaidman
04-19-2006, 05:37 PM
AH (1) - 2%
AH (2) - 4%
AH (3) - 6%
AH (4) - 8%
AH (5) - 10%

GoM (1) - 3%
GoM (2) - 6%
GoM (3) - 10%

There is the chances posted by Rashere. So in theory a person could get AH4 / GoM3 and GoM would take precedence(sp) if both happen to proc in 1 round. No idea how it decides when both are maxed since they both are 10%.

Fanra
04-20-2006, 09:30 AM
Few things...

First, as others noted, it looks like GM/AH is still not working properly on live servers. I did some checking and it looks like while the data side of the fix is there, the code to support it didn't make it into the patch to live servers. I'm working with the coders to schedule a patch to correct this issue, so hopefully we can get it resolved soon.

Second, the breakdown of AH and GoM proc rates is as follows:

AH (1) - 2%
AH (2) - 4%
AH (3) - 6%
AH (4) - 8%
AH (5) - 10%

GoM (1) - 3%
GoM (2) - 6%
GoM (3) - 10%

Third, like combat procs, you can get a proc from spells, items, and AAs in a single cast...but only one of each. It's possible to proc up to 3 spells on a single cast if you were to proc one from each.

Rashere
Still broken. Do not buy AH.

Lots of complaints on Sony boards. Basically saying that once AH is fixed, either decrease AH5 to 9% or increase GoM3 to 11%. Other suggestions were cap AH at AH4 or leave the percents alone and just have it check GoM first.

Frankly the best one was "increase GoM3 to 11% as a reward for us having to deal with this :bs: for so long".

Kamion
04-20-2006, 09:51 PM
Could (a working) AH trigger off of moonshadow?

Fanra
04-21-2006, 01:06 AM
Posted April 20, 2006 on Sony board:
We usually have dozens of code changes going on at any time, so when we want to put something live, it has to be manually added to the live code. In this case, we had a lot of things we didn't want to include because they aren't ready to go out yet and mistakingly missed adding the code part of the spell proc fix to the patch. It's been working on test for a while now...it just didn't get added to the patch to go live. So, I apologize. We know its a big issue for a lot of folks so we're going to patch tonight specifically to add this fix to the live servers.

Regarding the interaction of AH/GoM, while the actual in-game impact of having AH check before GoM is minor, I can understand the psychological implications and am willing to lower AH by a percent across the board to ensure that GoM always checks before AH does. That change won't go out until our next large patch, though.

Rashere

Nimchip
04-21-2006, 03:30 PM
April 21st, 2006
_____________________

- Added the fix for the spell proc stacking issue. The Abundant Healing and Gift of Mana AAs should now both have a chance to proc if a player has both of those abilities.

This is from today's mini patch.

Marpedod
04-21-2006, 03:40 PM
Makes sense to me...not like these two should have been mutually exclusive from the start

Kagonis
04-23-2006, 06:03 PM
No idea how it decides when both are maxed since they both are 10%.From what Rashere wrote (as you probably have read, merely posting here for others that might come along to read), it will check the ability which was loaded in the character file first. What exactly this means I don't know, but I'm guessing it's something along the lines of, what ability you bought first (this is a guess on my part, not fact).

Anyhow, this is becoming irellevant from the next "big" patch, where they'll (according to Rashere) lower AH5 from 10% to 9%, that way forcing GoM to always be checked first, due to GoM3 still being 10% .

tatankawd
04-23-2006, 06:23 PM
Amazing. They are nerfing it from 10% to 9% (and even the 9% is 45 AA's to buy, I believe), and people are happy. Just amazing.

Would have been better to keep your trap shut, and not bought AH5. Because AH5 + GoM3 >> just GoM3.

Kagonis
04-23-2006, 06:35 PM
Amazing. They are nerfing it from 10% to 9% (and even the 9% is 45 AA's to buy, I believe), and people are happy. Just amazing.

Would have been better to keep your trap shut, and not bought AH5. Because AH5 + GoM3 >> just GoM3.
I'm hoping the "45 AA's" you wrote is a typo :) AH5 cost 25 AA's total (5 AA per rank).

You still get both AH5 and GoM3.

GoM and AH both works, however they both cannot proc on the same spell.

F.ex: I cast Ancient: Chlorobon.
Right now it's different from character to character if it checks GoM3 first or AH5 first, since as written before it depends on the order the ability is read from the character file.
Let's for arguments sake say that AH5 was loaded first, then GoM3, that means AH5 will always be checked before GoM3 is, so if AH5 procs, GoM3 will not even be checked.

To take some of the calculations that are already made:

1000 casts
10% of those gives 100 AH5 procs. Since those 100 is used up, they no longer count in the GoM3 checks.
That gives us 900 casts left to work with
10% of those gives 90 GoM3 procs.

From the next big patch it will instead work as follows:

1000 casts.
10% of 1000 = 100 GoM3 procs
1000 - 100 = 900 casts for AH5 to proc on.
9% of 900 = 81 AH5 procs.

We loose 9 AH5 procs in every 1000 casts, but we're now sure to always have the maximum benefit from GoM3, which is by far the better of the 2 abilities.

tatankawd
04-24-2006, 01:12 AM
yeah typo, meant 25 AA's

"We loose 9 AH5 procs in every 1000 casts, but we're now sure to always have the maximum benefit from GoM3, which is by far the better of the 2 abilities"

Yes, but it's less than before. Before you got 10 AHs and 9 GoMs. Now you get 10 GoMs and 8 AHs (9% if 90% = 8.1%).

Well, OK, I guess I will agree with it as far as it goes... we gan a GoM at the expense of an AH.

But I hate to see the solution be that they took something away. Just seems like a bad precedent.

Tat

Athunder Taima
04-24-2006, 04:02 AM
A better way to do this would be making AH 3 ranks instead of 5, with 3% per level and around 7 aa's per rank. We would still get 9% total that way so getting GoM proc's first, but wouldnt have to pay 5 aa's for the final rank which will be nerfed to only 1% gain.

Of course an even better way would be just raise GoM to 11%, hardly game breaking and would be a nice gesture for all this time we've missed out on this ability.

Dayuna
04-24-2006, 09:42 AM
Until they figure out a way to code it so both check and work (and assuming they are going to bother to do so, which is unlikely), I'd say this will be the fix for it. 1% is barely noticable if at all, but at least both will proc and GoM will not be cancelled out by AH procs.

Fanra
04-24-2006, 11:32 AM
But I hate to see the solution be that they took something away. Just seems like a bad precedent.
Err, you have been playing EQ for more than a week right? :)

Said 'precedent' was established years ago and has always been the case.

The 'solution' to every 'problem' is the nerf bat. At least that's the way Sony works.

tatankawd
04-24-2006, 01:32 PM
I guess I meant to say, they nerfed it, and we are happy with that. THAT'S what I think is the bad precedent.

Of course, maybe it works like reverse psychology! That's it, beg for more nerfs!!!! They love doing the opposite of what we want ;)

Tat

Marpedod
04-24-2006, 01:37 PM
I don't understand why they can't just let them both proc on the same cast...Who cares? So we get a free hot and a free spell off the same spell....big deal. Had to spend 43 AAs to get there anyways, not like you didn't earn it.

Dayuna
04-24-2006, 01:47 PM
It's not a question of balance, it's a matter of coding it. The original intent was to have them both able to proc on the same spell. There were coding issues and this is the current fix so that both AAs will work, abeit interchangably until a true fix is patched.

Dari
04-24-2006, 03:06 PM
... There were coding issues and this is the current fix so that both AAs will work, abeit interchangably until a true fix is patched.

And that patch will be forthcoming some time in the year 2010.

Vekx
04-24-2006, 04:41 PM
And that patch will be forthcoming some time in the year 2010.

Correct, two years after the Exodus fix.

Erikochan
04-29-2006, 01:59 PM
Correct, two years after the Exodus fix.

You are STUNNED!
You have been knocked unconscious.
You are bleeding to death!
You have died.
LOADING, PLEASE WAIT! XD
You have entered the Lobby.
You begin casting Exodus (...)
LOADING, PLEASE WAIT! XD
You have entered the Lobby.

$#@$#@$#@ ! :bs:

Essem
05-20-2006, 09:28 AM
Anyone have status of the GoM/AH issue? Did AH5 get gimped to 9% to force GoM3 to proc first? I have GoM3 and AH4 at the moment and I'm trying to decide if I purchase AH5 or not.

Fenier
05-20-2006, 09:30 AM
Next content update.

wanderinglefty
06-15-2006, 02:09 AM
I maxed both the AH and GOM thinking that was the thing to do based off the aa descriptions (SMACK).

I don't think GOM fires off every 10 percent for me (just a guess from observations), but does go off enough for me to like it. AH I have only seen go off twice, and that was back to back while in the assent zone. Don't know what's up there but I do think it odd that I've only seen it once and that one time it fired back to back.

Possible that AH goes off some and I miss it, I know that I would probably notice GOM going off easier than AH because GOM makes a sound and pops up in my song window. AH the only way I know of to tell if it goes off is if the person I heal tells me or if I heal myself and see it in the song window.

At any rate, for me I dont think i'm seeing much value on the aa i spent for AH and if I could I'd refund them, course thats not an option.

malibu66
06-19-2006, 02:21 AM
I'd be happy if they got rid of AH altogether and let us buy down the SoTG/CoS timer. I'd gladly pay 50 AA to knock the timer down to 5 minutes (5 AA per minute reduction). Gets rid of an etherial healing ability for better access to badly needed group healing ability. Just a thought ...

Fenier
06-19-2006, 07:53 AM
. Gets rid of an etherial healing ability for better access to badly needed group healing ability.

Something like.. Moonshadow? Oh wait, we have that already =p

I can see seperate timers for CoS and SoTG - but reducing the timer to 5 minutes I feel is a bit much.

-Fenier