The armour on a Zealot debate never ends. Personally I'm not in favour of it as it doesn't protect you from non-physical damage (spirit/corp/ele/morale) and most good melee will bypass most or all of your armour anyway. I've always stacked wounds as it works vs everything and hopefully gives the other healers enough time to get single target heals on you (or gives you time to react). Others swear by putting armour on a Zealot but for ORvR or warbands I just don't see why. I can see it having a use in 6v6 as there's potentially less things hitting you and almost everyone is doing physical damage.Toggle wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 9:55 pmAlright, thanks! I'm pretty close to invader, so I didn't want to waste the cash on armor talismans and whatnot if I could stick with vanq. Do you try and hit that 3,300 armor spot or no? I find I have a tough time reaching it without sacrificing lots of my wounds. I'm sitting at 7.6k right now, which isn't too bad. And I have 30% crit chance for heals. That sound decent?Omegus wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 4:27 pmPersonally I went from Vanquisher to Sovereign and skipped Invader. The Vanquisher set had better heal crit (9%) compared to Invader (7%) and I found the AP and cast time procs on the Vanquisher set far more useful than the cleanse and healing power procs on Invader.
I'm usually playing in WBs (either pug or organised) for ORvR or city and the wounds allows me to deal with damage from a wider variety of enemies.