SOA + PS or SB?

I recently had a discussion with someone about the skill bar of a GVG RC monk

We had a disagreement about the combination of either Protective Spirit or Spirit Bond with Shield of Absorption. The build required the RC monk to work further up into the mid line while an infuse monk remained safely in the back line.

My thought was that because the RC monk had no self heal the combination of SOA+SB would provide much more survivability than Protective Spirit because it of the health returned by SB + the damage negation of SOA. The example I used was a searing flames spike

At 15 fire the spike would do 112 damage.

Assuming the target has 550 health with 13 in Prot SB would return 92 with SOA negating an additions 5. However the target would take 55 - 5 points of damage with protective spirit.

Is this correct, or am I missing something?

Thanks

In order for PS to prevent more damage than SB per hit, the incident damage must be greater than (10% target max hp + SB heal). Assuming a target with 640hp and a 96-point SB, if the incident damage is exactly 160, SB and PS will prevent exactly the same amount of damage. For values above 160, PS prevents more; for values below, SB.

PS is good primarily because of its long duration and effectiveness on DP'd targets, as well as its excellent synergy with SB. In terms of damage prevention, most of the damage you encounter in PvP formats will fall in the range where SB negates more damage per hit than PS. None of this really has anything to do with SoA.

but isn't it so that after PS has mitigated the damage to 10% we see SoA kick in and reduce it further ? ... If this is the case, the combo PS + SoA might very fast lead to 0 damage recieved, and as such is better in my opinion.

Quote: Originally Posted by Burst Cancel

The way that prot skills work is it doesn't not change the amount of dmg received. It does change the amount of dmg delt to you.

For example you have SB and PS on at the same time. You get hit with the fire spike for 113 dmg. The game registers the dmg as a 113 dmg. Because the dmg is more than 60 SB triggers healing you and because its more than 10% of your life total PS triggers reducing the dmg.

In the case of SoA the 113 dmg is registered. Since its more than 10% of your life PS kicks in and you only take 55 dmg. Now that you have taken dmg SoA kicks in and absorbs the dmg. SoA doesn't have a check when the dmg is received like SB and PS do. It only triggers when you take dmg.

Quote: Originally Posted by Fiddlers Black

For GvG I would personally go with SB.

Quote: Originally Posted by Fiddlers Black

Quote: Originally Posted by Burst Cancel No. If anything, PS actually makes SoA less efficient than it could be. Assume a target with 600 health. PS reduces all damage to 60, and then SoA subtracts 5 for each hit. That means that SoA reaches maximum efficiency after 60/5 = 12 hits. On the 13th hit, SoA alone would have prevented 65 damage, but with PS, it can only prevent 60.

Since SoA is applied after PS and SB, it doesn't actually affect the amount of damage that those two prevent. However, PS and SB *do* affect the amount of damage that SoA can prevent. As shown above, PS typically limits the efficiency of SoA.

In a 55 situation (where the PS+SoA combo is most popular), which spell is doing the real work? Hint: it's PS, not SoA.

My point is this: in situations where you think PS+SoA is more effective than SB+SoA, it's actually because PS is already more effective than SB in that situation even without SoA. The SoA doesn't actually change the comparison at all. ... ok, maybe i got something wrong in my fuzzy head.
You show the 55 example. Do you think this build could work without SoA ? No! So PS is not doing the real work. Both Are ! (like the ps an sb farmer before the nerf. both enchantments were crucial).

Quote: If anything, PS actually makes SoA less efficient than it could be. Assume a target with 600 health. PS reduces all damage to 60, and then SoA subtracts 5 for each hit. That means that SoA reaches maximum efficiency after 60/5 = 12 hits. On the 13th hit, SoA alone would have prevented 65 damage, but with PS, it can only prevent 60. you just tell me you want soa to prevent more then less ? why would you want that ? the faster it gets to 0 dmg the better for you . i cant imagine how many times i had 2 thumpers try to bash my head to the ground who just gave up after they saw a bunch of 0 float above me . how come ps makes soa less efficient ? it helps soa in preventing the bigger amount and letting soa prevent the leftovers, works good (if we take it from the mathematical point , you are right. From the practical , no you're not! ) .

You're still missing the point. The OP wants to compare PS and SB in the context of SoA. My argument is that SoA doesn't actually change the comparison between PS and SB. You can compare PS and SB in any given situation and you would end up with the same result with or without SoA.

Quote: Originally Posted by Fiddlers Black ... ok, maybe i got something wrong in my fuzzy head.
You show the 55 example. Do you think this build could work without SoA ? No! So PS is not doing the real work. Both Are ! (like the ps an sb farmer before the nerf. both enchantments were crucial). Since you didn't get it the first time, let me rephrase: which spell prevents more damage? It's PS, for sure. You'll notice that the one constant factor in all 55 builds is PS. The second skill in the combo will change (First it was Breeze, then SB, then SoA), but the PS is absolutely critical because it's the spell that prevents the most damage.

Quote: Originally Posted by Fiddlers Black you just tell me you want soa to prevent more then less ? why would you want that ? Why would I want my prot spell to prevent more damage? Is this a serious question?

Quote: Originally Posted by Fiddlers Black the faster it gets to 0 dmg the better for you . i cant imagine how many times i had 2 thumpers try to bash my head to the ground who just gave up after they saw a bunch of 0 float above me . how come ps makes soa less efficient ? it helps soa in preventing the bigger amount and letting soa prevent the leftovers, works good (if we take it from the mathematical point , you are right. From the practical , no you're not! ). There's no difference between the mathematical point and the practical point. The math demonstrates the principle - you can't agree with the math and then turn around and say it's not actually real. The fact is that the faster SoA goes to zero, the less damage it prevents, and the less efficient it becomes.

its funny how you crop my sentences to fit your need.

discussion with you is like talking to a wall. I give up, you win. I dont like wasting time.
there are so many inconsistencies in what you say it just makes my head hurt, its like explaining how to lick a lolipop to a kid. I'll pass.

Translation: "I'm sure you're wrong, but I don't have any real arguments so I'll just insult you instead." If you really didn't like wasting time, you wouldn't have posted anything.

"Inconsistency" implies that my arguments are self-contradictory, which is false given that the only arguments being contradicted are yours.

Quote: If anything, PS actually makes SoA less efficient than it could be. Assume a target with 600 health. PS reduces all damage to 60, and then SoA subtracts 5 for each hit. That means that SoA reaches maximum efficiency after 60/5 = 12 hits. On the 13th hit, SoA alone would have prevented 65 damage, but with PS, it can only prevent 60. WHOA. Hold the phone here for a second.... Uhh i think its your math that may be a bit messed up... you kind of forgot some numbers.

PS on a 600hp target=60hp max hit
SoA on 60hp= 12 hits for nullification of damage.

ok at this rate, the target is losing 0 life per hit because of the synergy between PS and SoA. Now, what your saying is that soa would be more effective if not being used on a target that has PS on them... Ok so lets look at it like this.

protted target(600hp) vs SF Spike. lets assume its 4 sf eles, 2 monk backline (HA for example). you are hit with 3 spikes of 119 damage on the first wave. prot spirit and SoA would reduce that damage down to 55 on the first instance of damage taken, 50 on the next, and 45 on the third. In another 2 sec, there will be another wave of 4 SF's hitting, assuming they landed on the same SoA (they should). So now, we have the reduction to 40 dmg, 35, 30, and 25 dmg.

Had we used SoA only...

first wave: 114, 109, 104
second wave: 99, 94, 89, 84.

guess what that just showed us? SoA is better with PS.


I'm going to be honest and ask why the hell you even brought this up in the first place. As if it weren't nightmarishly obvious the way these skills work, you have to come here and post some off the wall theory on how these spells are applied that was completely wrong!

Your example is worthless. The only thing you managed to prove is that using two prots together prevents more total damage than using only one prot. Good job, Captain Obvious.

What you failed to do is look at how much damage each prot is preventing. When you compare SoA and SoA+PS, does SoA itself actually prevent more damage in the second case? No. The extra damage prevention comes solely from PS.

Again, let's take a target with 55hp.
- If you use PS+SoA, the maximum damage that SoA can prevent is 5 per hit. Over 10 hits, this amounts to 50 damage prevented.
- If you use SoA alone, the maximum damage that SoA can prevent is 5x, where x is the number of hits you sustain while under SoA. Over the same ten hits, this amounts to: 5+10+15+...+50 = 275 damage prevented.

SoA is less efficient under Prot Spirit.

I'm going to say this one more time, because I honestly don't know how to make it any clearer:

The original question is a comparion between SB and PS in the context of SoA. My argument is that SoA doesn't affect the comparison.

EFFICIENCY DOESNT MATTER WHEN THE TARGET IS DEAD DUMBASS.

you obviously completely fail to realize the futility of debating SoA in this instance. the enchantment alone is shit, theres no use because you are guarunteed to run into higher amounts of damage than SoA can prevent before a target dies. If you even think of using SoA alone, dont ever gvg monk again. SoA is a spike saver. It works best when coupled with PS BECAUSE the damage can be NEGATED faster. Your claim to the efficiency of SoA doesn't even matter dude. the damage it prevented is not the issue, especially seeing as how the damage went through probably killed your ass.

your examples are conditional, and even worse... PvE related. maybe you should have answered the guys question correctly in the first place than make yourself look like a moron and use unreal examples to back up an incorrect assumption.


TO THE OP to hopefully FINALLY answer your question... In my experience, the combination of SB and SoA is good, but not as good as PS/SoA. in a gvg atmosphere, im guessing that you had 2 monks, one packing PS and one packing SB. when it comes down to this, there isnt much of a worry. However, the condition on SB, that being the negation of 10 attacks only, its too conditional in a gvg setting IMO. i like the skill, but i would rather have something like PS, that will last a full 20 sec and SoA, to better negate the damage. Im not saying to not bring both Ps and Sb, you should have them, but what im saying is that for that instance of damage, with the sf eles, that SB will drop in 4 seconds (about, depending on recharge of spells), whereas PS would provide a 20 some second protection against that instance. Also, mind you that PS is negating some 60 damage ever shot and absorbing an addition 5 each time (with SoA).

ok ok can u both stop please before world war 3 breaks out. form what i have read of both of ur post, as a neutral party. and form what i have seen you r both right. yes SoA, works extremely well with Ps, as shown in the 135hp invici monk. but i see that Burst Cancel unlike crucifix (who i have great respect in monking, ive seen a couple of good post in the ha section of the form u) has looked at the bigger picture. as u have said SoA, works well with PS as u quoted in the SF example, but if u where to have a continuous SoA, hell that’s a constant 0 damage, it might take its time but that’s what the other monk is for to heal. also i have played ha a fair bit ( i may only have 80 fame, but its 80 fame i never use to have) and i have seen 1 SoA, buy its self save me/ countless others and seen the constant 0 or the odd 19 dam come flying off it in witch with out it would have killed me/the ghostly. so in my view im going with Burst Cancel because i believe in what s/he said ( wasn’t trying to flame u, sorry if it comes across in that way)

I honestly don't know why this is so hard to understand.

Prot Spirit doesn't make SoA better. SoA doesn't make Prot Spirit better. You know why PS+SoA is better than just SoA? Because two prots prevents more damage than one prot. Wow, who would have thought. Oh wait, I mentioned that in my last post:

Quote: The only thing you managed to prove is that using two prots together prevents more total damage than using only one prot. Good job, Captain Obvious. But here, let's spell it out, plain and simple:

When you use PS+SoA, PS prevents a certain amount of damage, and SoA prevents a certain amount of damage. The amount that PS prevents will be the same whether you use SoA or not. The amount that SoA prevents depends on how much damage is left over from PS, and will never be greater than the amount of damage it would have prevented if used on its own. Using the two prots together is effective because the total damage reduction is the sum of the damage reduced by each prot. Neither spell is actually better when used together - they are behaving as they would if used alone.

Here's your GvG example: 600hp target, taking five 100-damage hits.
SoA alone:
- SoA prevents 5+10+15+20+25 = 75 damage
- Total damage prevented: 75

PS alone:
- PS prevents 40*5 = 200 damage
- Total damage prevented: 200

PS+SoA:
- PS prevents 40*5 = 200 damage
- SoA prevents 5+10+15+20+25 = 75 damage
- Total damage prevented: 275

Both SoA and PS perform exactly the same when used together as when they are used alone. Therefore, if you are making a comparison of how well PS or SoA function, this shows that you might as well consider them alone, because they are not individually any more effective when considered in combination.

It's also worth pointing out (to the OP) that in the above example:
Spirit Bond alone:
- Spirit Bond prevents 96*5 = 480 damage
- Total damage prevented: 480

PS+SB:
- Prot Spirit prevents 40*5 = 200 damage
- Spirit Bond 'prevents' 96*5 = 480 damage
- Total damage 'prevented': 680 (which is to say, the target is actually healed for up to 180 health)

Efficiency matters. Monks are simply a mechanism for converting Time and Energy into Health. The more efficiently they can do this, the more likely their team is to win. If (for example) you are using SoA in a situation where it, itself, will only prevent 50 damage, regardless of whatever else you are using with it, you are losing efficiency.

For instance, in the above example, SoA only prevented 75 damage. Reversal would have actually prevented more in that instance, meaning PS+RoF would have been better than PS+SoA. This is why the individual efficiency of each spell is important, whether you are using it alone or in combination.

My answer to the OP has always been that SoA is completely irrelevant to the argument. If PS+SoA is better than SB+SoA in any given situation, it's because PS is better in that situation than SB is. Whether you use SoA or not makes absolutely no difference to the comparison. And yeah, I've said that four or five times now.

Hmm thanks all for the enlightening responses.

My argument for efficiency was based on the amount of health returned by SB, not negation alone. Like all skills maximum efficiency is situational.

I certainly didn’t intend this to turn into a shouting match.

TK