Opinion: Cure the Stack, or Cure the Worst?

Vharen

I was curious as to what the forum goers thought when it comes to deciding on what to cure, with consideration for the built-in curing orders. I've dealt with random orders and pickable orders but not the static order seen here, so I thought I'd call on the more experienced.

Option 1 would be just cycling down your priority list and picking the top item to try to cure.

Option 2 would effectively be going through which afflictions would actually be cured by each action and picking the most dangerous one.

If you could, please explain your preference. Also, feel free to recommend other options, if you have them.

Ezalor

I don't think there's one optimal way. The best implementation would be dynamic cure orders based on what you're fighting and the current situation. Impatience, for example, is high on every cure order but if you are fighting a vampire or Luminary you will never realistically get to cure it, so a set cure order will just have you curing stupidity/epilepsy/selfpity over and over. Instead, the best option would be to ignore impatience then and go after confusion, recklessness, etc.

Paralysis is another example, it is aff #1 on everyone's cure order but if you are in danger of getting locked and your tree tattoo is on cooldown for a good while it's better to go after asthma/limpveins instead and just stay paralyzed for a bit (provided you aren't looking to run or shield spam).

Illikaal

Yup, pretty much exactly what Ezalor said. After having fought @Serrice many times, and losing repeatedly after constantly the cure order around, we came to that conclusion. A smart combatant can look at your cure order (if its static) and abuse it if it never changes. I don't think anybody right now has dynamic cure orders in their system, but the first person to come out with it will definitely be making a huge step on the Aetolian battlefront. 

It'll be like the creation of jetpacks and hover cars for commercial use. 

Haven

Nah, I disagree on the bit about paralysis. It is too potent of a venom considering what it does (it stops most if not all offensive and defensive skills while making you vulnerable to things like impale). You don't want to be paralyzed any longer than you have to in my opinion. The longer you're paralyzed, the more time you're giving your opponent to recover and add on top of that while leaving you still unable to retaliate in some truly meaningful way. You shouldn't willingly give your opponent that kind of edge (time) unless like your class gets some kind of benefit from being loaded up or a defense to quickly reverse that or something.

Paralysis > Kelp Tree >  Goldenseal Tree > Bloodroot Tree > Ginseng Tree > Bellwort Tree > Ash Tree > Lobelia Tree should work just fine as a base in my opinion. Then add special conditions for certain afflictions to move up or down your list based on what you 're currently afflicted with, your class, or your opponent's class.

• Confusion should move up if you or your class utilizes equilibrium a lot. Also take into consideration if you have impatience while you have confusion then it should be moved up somewhere within your kelp tree because it'll mean you're vulnerable to disrupt and or being EQ/True locked. (Confusion keeps you from concentrating to regain a forced/disrupted EQ loss in addition to increasing the EQ loss by 50% of willful use of equilibrium.)
• Deafness strip can largely be ignored unless you're fighting a class with some form of battlecry or howls (Yeah, lycans can just put up boneshaking to bypass this defense but I thought I'd mention howls anyway). I... think Templars have battlecry still and then there are the Domination users (Indorani & Cabalists) whose Chimera ent (or was it the hydra? It's one of their billion entities) will periodically stun you if your deafness defense is down. I think that's it for this affliction.
• Blindness strip can be ignored unless you're in group combat or facing any of the following: Ascendril, Sciomancer, Luminary, Sentinel, or a Praenomen. (Maybe Bloodborn too...unsure if they share transfix with Praenomen or have anything similar.) In those instances it should be right after paralysis.
• Recklessness can be ignored unless you're in group combat or you're fighting the following: Bloodborn & Praenomen (Annihilate - instakill at 33% mana) or a Luminary (Absolve - instakill below 50% mana). Otherwise just continually sip health and eat moss while you have the affliction and have elixir/moss balance. If you don't want to use so many resources, you can make some elaborate code to guestimate health/mana loss/usage and sip based on that.
• Sunlight allergy only makes it on the variable list because it will instakill you if you leave it uncured on you for a full minute (or something ridiculously long timer) and are standing in a sunlit room (artificially made with Luminary/Daru shine or otherwise).
• Vomiting can be ignored too until you begin showing signs of hunger or are facing a class that can force hunger like Cabalists, Indorani, or any Infernal still in existance (although Infernals couldn't realiably force hunger). I could be wrong about this but I don't believe vomiting damages your health at all, just decreases your nutrition until you're actually starving then comes the pain.

I think that's it for afflictions you ought to be worried about moving around outside of the static order. Disclaimer: This is all for strictly eating. You should be using tree/reconstitute/focus whenever you are able on top of this order.

Haven

Oh, derp. Misunderstood what you meant about paralysis.

Saybre

Templars do not have battlecry, you cray cray. But prefarar(sensitivity) does have to strip deafness first.

Haven

Saybre said:

Templars do not have battlecry, you cray cray. But prefarar(sensitivity) does have to strip deafness first.

Sensitivity is part of the kelp tree so you'll be okay. :P

Vharen

The exact healing order wasn't my question so much as it was what Ezalor touched on in his response, though I don't think my question was as clear as it could be. I already use an adjustable priority list, though I manually adjust the order via a few macros based on the situation (a basic catchall one, avoid damage, want to keep offense going, want to avoid lock, want to run, class specific, etc).

In Ezalor's example, impatience is clearly important to clean off (if you have focus, which I don't for now -.-), but if there is no hope of getting to it, he would switch to curing something that might be considered less important, but still more important than an anxiety or something that doesn't impact your class much. This would be option 2, and would seem to be the one @Ezalor and @Illidan would prefer, if I'm not mistaken?

For reference, this is the check I use now for slices, and it is an iteration of Option 1. It is also essentially what I think @Haven means in his example, though I think he was talking more about the curing order itself.

[spoiler]

#if (!%ismember("anorexia",@afflictions) and @vitals.herb=1) {

#forall @priority_active {#if (%ismember(@cures.%i,@slice_cures) and !%ismember("eat "@cures.%i,@sent_commands) and !%ismember(slice,@sent_uniques) and %ismember(%i,@afflictions)) {#if @bound=0 {comnobal outc @cures.%i};comnobal eat @cures.%i;comuni slice}

}

}

[/spoiler]

This would be the code version of what I mean for option 2. In this case, if I had confusion, asthma, and baldness, I would cure the confusion first. Obvious issues being that masked afflictions would be able to hide better in some cases, but nixing that confusion instead of wasting time on the baldness would result in a stronger offense and better

[spoiler]

#if (!%ismember("anorexia",@afflictions) and @vitals.herb=1) {

#forall @priority_active {

#if (%ismember(@cures.%i,@slice_cures) and !%ismember("eat "@cures.%i,@sent_commands) and !%ismember(slice,@sent_uniques) and %ismember(%i,@afflictions)) {

cure={@cures.%i"_cured"}

checknum=1

cancel_cure=0

confirm_cure=0

#while (@cancel_cure=0 and @confirm_cure=0 and @checknum<=%numitems(@cure)) {#if %item(@cure,@checknum)=%i {confirm_cure=1} {#if %ismember(%item(@cure,@checknum),@afflictions) {cancel_cure=1};checknum={@checknum+1}}}

#if @confirm_cure=1 {

#if @bound=0 {comnobal outc @cures.%i};comnobal eat @cures.%i;comuni slice

}

}

}

}

[/spoiler]

I think what I'll end up going with is a list of higher priority affs that use option 1 and the rest get funneled to  a second list and use option 2. Not sure, still postulating, so feel free to tell me if I'm being retarded.