Talk:Mending/archive1

Why is mending listed as +1...3 when it is "actually" +1...4? Why not simply list it as +1...4?


 * Mending is 1..3 on attribute levels from 0 to 12. That's our standard for listing skills in the game, the skill at 0 to the skill at 12. --Karlos 18:43, 25 Sep 2005 (EST)

Copied the table from Blood is Power and filled in the data that I had accordingly with my Monk character as reference. I don't have a Rune of Superior Healing Prayers, nor do I have the headgear that give me a bonus to healing, so my data is incomplete. Also note that the chart goes to 18, which I have no conceivable way of getting to that high in the game, but it was in the Blood is Power article, so perhaps the author continued the sequence or has some other sort of ability to alter stats.--FngKestrel 16:54, 4 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Awaken the Blood gives +2 Blood Magic, so it's possible to get to 18 without hoping for both your 20% items to trigger at once.. However, be careful when copying numbers over; it might not be exactly the same past 12, since rounding often obscures any differences for low attribute totals.


 * I only copied the format of the table, being that I'm new to the vagaries of Wiki formatting. For the numbers, I fired up Guild Wars and altered my stats and observed the values given to me in the spell.  That's why there's questions marks at the higher levels.  I lacked that knowledge and couldn't extrapolate.--FngKestrel 17:34, 4 Oct 2005 (EST)

Err, one question about the chart, just to make sure I'm not missing something: is it really useful to talk about this figure? If I enter a PVP arena and cast Mending on one of my teammates as the first thing I do, I will be able to just stand there for 20 seconds and get all of my energy back before the fight begins. Similarly, pretty much all PVE players will cast their maintained enchantments, wait for energy to come back, and then go into battle. So the chart's certainly relevant if Mending gets removed, but I don't think it matters much otherwise. Or is there something important that I'm missing here? --130.58 22:54, 16 February 2006 (CST)

That mending note
Personally I don't like it. It's nothing specific to mending. It's true for every maintained enchantment, and is essentially the entirity of Blessed Signet's function. Thus we would be essentially describing Blessed Signet on every single maintained enchantment article.

And that's like adding a note, for every Spell skill and every skill that interrupt spells, to warn that the spell might be interrupted by that skill. Bad idea. -PanSola 17:37, 14 February 2006 (CST)


 * I thought it was relevant to the subject of energy efficiency, but I couldn't think of a good way to shoehorn it into the section of healing to energy ratio. Most of the non-elite spells that cause exhaustion, including all the non-elite spells that cause exhaustion mention Glyph of Energy in the notes. I guess it would be better to merge it with the note about Mending being an enchantment. Although it might be a better mention Blessed Signet in the notes section of the maintained enchantment article, and then stick something like this ...
 * See general Maintained Enchantment notes.
 * ... at the top or bottom of the notes sections for various enchantment articles. -- Gordon Ecker 15:44, 16 February 2006 (CST)


 * Mending is such a criticised skill that discussion of efficiency is worthwhile. The healing efficiency is affected by the use of Blessed Signet and actually become very reasonable when supoorted in that way.  While 24 healing per energy is sub par for a monk, maintaining it with Blessed Signet you pay a mere 0.25 pips per enchantment, so you get an efficiency of 96 healing per energy - much higher than a skill like heal party, and you can extend it easily to everyone (I run a monk this way in PvE for fun, and it's actually the most efficient monk I've used to combat consistent party-wide damage).  Anyway, with the reputation Mending has as an inefficient heal I can see why a note to justify its use by a monk with blessed signet would be good. --Epinephrine 03:45, 11 March 2006 (CST)