I’ve had a few messages asking about updated stat weights for 3.3, instead of responding to each privately, it is probably best if I post my personal values here for others to reference. Of note, I’ve switched from using Paininabox’s spreadsheet to TreeCalcs to handle the bulk of actual computation. All I’ve really done is normalize values (compared to 1 Spell Power), and assigned a percent healing to each. Using this as a guide, I've selected the best loot available to create a rough estimate of BiS for 3.3, I then selected that gear, and repeated this process twice to get a decent idea as to the real BiS values, pre hard modes. As always this assumes full raid buffs. I have two lists, one reflects a druid just starting in ICC (and having the 4pt9 set bonus), the other is to reflect a BiS pre heroic mode gear list.

Both of these models assume the following distribution for healing Spells

Rejuvenation: 45%
Regrowth: 10%
Lifebloom: 5%
Nourish: 10%
Wild Growth: 30%

Both gear listings also assume being under the haste cap. I’ve done this for two reasons. First, this works better to show the relative value of haste. Secondly, even these rankings I was still short of the haste cap when I assembled all my gear. Granted, I took whatever the ranking site told me was best (not labeled Heroic) when assembling this list.

4pt9 Gear List

Regen Stats
Int: .5013
Spirit: .4097
Mp5: 1

Throughput Stats
Int: .088
Spirit: .02
Haste: .8428
Crit: .318
Spell Power: 1

As before I’ve set Spell Power -> Mp5 at a .9 -> 1 ratio, to give a composite ratio of

Int: .5808
Spirit: .5897
Mp5: 1
Haste: .7585
Crit: .2862
Spell Power: .9


BiS Pre ICC Heroic Modes

Regen Stats
Int: .5046
Spirit: .4383
Mp5: 1

Throughput Stats
Int: .0399
Spirit: .02
Haste: .7398
Crit: .1286
Spell Power: 1

Given the amount of regen now available, setting the ratio to a simple 1 -> 1 ratio seems acceptable, giving the following composite.

Int: .5445
Spirit: .6383
Mp5: 1
Haste: .7398
Crit: .1286
Spell Power: 1

Links:
3.3 4pt9 Loot Rankings

3.3 BiS Pre Heroic Modes Loot rankings

Comments, Questions, Concerns:

The ‘Low’ ranking of Haste
For almost all of our spells that haste effects, it is worth more than Spell Power to its throughput. In my t9 listing, this was true for all spells except Lifebloom. I have an issue with the way WrathCalcs computes Hastes value for Wildgrowth. It only effects its application, but not how fast the ticks go. Furthermore, since WG is on a cooldown, (and cannot be spammed), I think the relative value for haste should be divided by that cooldown. I’ve done that with my calcuations. Nourish also runs into reduced value during Natures Grace Procs, further limiting its value. Now, in a Rejuv/Regrowth) only healing rotation…haste is even more valuable, (with a 1.163 and 1.574 Haste/Spell Power) ratio for Rejuv and Regrowth respectively. A druid that uses mainly Rejuv/WG/Nourish will find slightly less value from haste.

Gemming changes:
As has already been discussed, Haste is now a better ‘yellow’ stat than Int for us numerically. Our Gemming should reflect this. No more SP/Int gems, Haste/SP is the way to go!

Yes there is validity through me. I tested this as well. I remember in the early stages this is what happened. It also jumped and overrode other rejuve's to say. However, I wish I knew where I read about this, as they fixed the "consuming" part of the jump, leaving a rejuvenation there.

T10: I made a deal with my guild in regards to tier gear. I am going to pick up 4PC 258 T9, and pass on T10 tokens for a while. I won't be seeing T10 4PC live anytime soon, as my fellow restoration druid in the guild and I are both buying saronite.

EDIT 2: [Mercurial Alchemist Stone] - I have used this a few times. Not too bad. It also buffs the Alch Pots.

Let me start off first by saying how much I respect the work you've done Arawethion. After using TreeCalcs, I have a deep level of respect for it.

In regards to Wild Growth, I’m not contesting that haste scales with its GCD and different than any other spell. It does however have a 6 second cooldown between uses. If this were 3.0, and spamming of WG were still allowed, then the data suggested by TreeCalcs would be accurate. However, since it can only be cast once every 6 seconds, and haste is incapable of changing that, it shouldn’t be treated the same as any of our other spells.

For example, Rejuv, Regrowth, Nourish, and Healing Touch: As soon as we complete the cast on any of these spells, we are able to once again cast that spell again. This means that haste scales well with these spells us to the softcap. The more haste was have, the more of these spells we can get out. Wild Growth on the other hand will be limited to one cast every 6 seconds, regardless of haste.

You can test this yourself. In your current gear with TreeCalcs, take note of Wild Growths total healing done in addition to its cast time. Now add 100 Spell Power, and take note of the effect it has to the total healing done (record it) and also do the same with 100 haste (In regards to the cast time). You should now have 4 different data points. Using these new cast times, calculate how long it will be before you will be able to use WG again, or rather, add the difference between the 2 casts times into the unhasted Wild Growth. Compare the additional HPS done by 100 Spell Power to the Additional HPS done by 100 Haste. My napkin math suggests that Spell Power scales better than Haste for Wild Growth somewhere to the tune of 4:1, which is more or less the same value I arrived at initially.

To clarify, I don’t think that haste should affect the ticks for WG, but due to the cooldown, I think your model has overvalued haste for Wild Growth.

Normalization:
I wanted to compare everything to 1 Spell Power in terms of our throughput stats. As part of this, I needed to take every spell, and compare exactly how each stat compared to spell power on a spell by spell basis. Lets take Rejuvenation with full t9 for example. Using date from TreeCalcs, I ended up with a 3.673 Value for SP, 3.991 Value for haste, and a 1.626 Value for Crit. The easiest way to compare the relative value if each stat to Spell Power is to then divide by Spell Power. Meaning that I would divide 3.673 by 3.673, 3.991 by 3.673, and 1.626 by 3.673, showing me that Spell Power gives the relative contribution of 1 Spell Power (Trivial), Haste is 1.08657 times as valuable for healing throughput as 1 Spell Power, and Crit is .44268 as times as valuable as 1 Spell Power.

(In step by step form)
Values imported from TreeCalcs for Rejuv
SP: 3.673
Haste: 3.991
Crit: 1.626

Normalization Step
SP: -> SP/SP -> 3.673/3.673 -> 1 (Trivial Case)
Haste: -> Haste/SP -> 3.991/3.673 -> 1.0865.... (Relative Value of Haste compared to Spell Power for Rejuv)
Crit: -> Crit/SP -> 1.626/3.673 -> .44268... (Relative Value of Crit Compare to Spell Power for Rejuv)

This set was repeated for all remaining spells.

After the Normalization step, the it was necessary to create a composite based on the amount of healing done by each spell. I have already given the values used in my previous posts. For the example of Rejuvenation, I simply multiplied each normalized stat by the amount of healing done for that spell. I calculated Rejuvenation, for example, to do 45% of my total healing. I multiplied 1 x .45, 1.0865... x .45, and .44268 x .45.

(Normalized Haste For Rejuvenation) x (Rejuvenations% of Healing Expected) = (Rejuvenations Haste Component)

After this was repeated for each spell, it was a simple matter of adding the total of each component, to give me a composite total for what each stat would bring to the table. If you would like, Arawethion, I could email you the spreadsheet so you can see a bit better what I am saying (the spreadsheet is fairly basic, but it would likely do a better job explaining the process than I am doing now).

As always, my numbers for the percentage of healing done by specific spells always is up for debate. I only try to include a good sampling of spells we might use in a given fight.

Do you know if the jump is a "smart" heal? I'm also curious about the range of the jump.

Well it's not really about fitting more rejuvs within the cd (which is also an issue but requires extreme differences in haste, much like in the 2.4-era race to get to 5 LBs), but shortening the length of the 5 rejuv+1 WG cycle. The more haste you have up to the soft cap the closer you get to the optimal 6 seconds, so the throughput increase in this scenario applies to rejuv and WG equally -> 1% increase in haste means you do the same amount of healing 1% faster.

Thanks for the comments on TreeCalcs. If anything where I'm hoping to go with it next is more towards what you're trying to do here by hand--take various mixes of spells that mimic real-world use and compute overall scaling factors. I still have to think some about a good way to go about that though. Maybe I'll at least add in a simple way for the user to specify an arbitrary mix of spell usage, and have the sheet just do the multiplication itself and give totals.

-----

I think you're overthinking haste with WG. There's nothing different going on from any other instant spell which makes you wait out a haste-determined GCD after you cast it, like Rejuv. What the spreadsheet does (and what I think is the right way to analyze overall healer power) is simply to divide the healing done by the time spent to do it. In the case of instants, the "time spent" is the length of that GCD--this is just as true for WG as it is for any other spell. If you gain 1% haste, all of your spells--Rejuv, WG, and everything else--all go 1% faster, and by the end of the fight, you've gotten to cast 1% more. That time gain is attributable to the effect of haste on all your spells, and is represented by the scaling factor for haste for each of them.

------

One issue with the way you're computing things above is that for the final composite you're weighing spells based on healing done by each of them (if I'm reading your above post right). But you really want to be weighing them by time spent casting each of them, which will look different. As an example, this may be why you're seeing too large a contribution from Wild Growth--it does a lot of healing for very little execution time. You can't actually spend 30% of your time casting WG in the first place. Adjust those weights and the scaling might look more coherent as well.

At the time, I did not have it in an environment where I could determine this. I don't think this even being a "smart" heal would help it much if at all. It would have to jump, then tick 3 seconds later. Hasted Rejuve might alter this, but a CoH or flash heal or Riptide etc is normally going to pick up any minor damage that this smart heal would take. Again, referring to Arawethion, this biggest bonus is just giving us an extra spread on aoe fights. When you know everyone is taking damage, then an extra rejuve would be supreme for sure. But look at 4/5 ToGC and the 4/4 ICC. Your not rejuve spamming effectively. I personally am rejuve spamming pulling 20k HPS on almost every fight, BUT it is not effective healing, and about 85-90% over heal.

I would, with the best of my memory and data I could gather, say it wasn't a smart heal, but rather a proximity/HL Glyph like effect.

Allinone,

By your argument, (and ignoring Glyph of Rapid Rejuv), when I'm in a five man, Haste doesn't help any of my HoTs, (or Swiftmend) and in a sense you are right. Haste won't increase my HoTs' raw HPS.

If I had no Haste (and no GotEM or NG) in an idealized HoR, my 18.5s rotation might be approximately:

WG*3+Rj*5+Rg+Lb*2+SM

Give me 10% Haste, and that rotation changes from ...+SM to ...+SM+No (and is now < 18.5s). I suppose you could say that 10% haste made Nourish infinitely more effective (going from 0% healed to 6% healed). I'd prefer to say that 10% haste made all my spells cost 10% less, meaning I could afford to "buy" a Nourish.

Best value means getting the most benefit for the least cost. Haste reduces the cost of WG, and thus increases its value.

I think you might be trying to isolate WG just a little too much. Since WG is not the only spell that we cast during a normal encounter, then I think it would be unwise to isolate it in that way. When trying to measure the overall effective healing, as you are attempting to do, then it is necessary to model what would happen during an actual encounter rather isolating each individual spell.

As an example, consider the 60 seconds worth of casting that you used in your example. While isolating WG will always results in only 10 casts within the 60 seconds, it does not accurately model what happens in an actual encounter. Instead we need to take into consideration what the total implication will be on our overall throughput. Over those 60, your total haste will be anywhere from 1/4th(at 0 haste) to 1/6th(at the haste cap) as effective as it is for all other spell with a base GCD of 1.5 seconds, depending on your current haste level, because of the associated cooldown.

When WG is no longer isolated in the manner that you have been trying to do, the overall benefits that it gains from haste are quantifiable. Using the above example:

0 Haste
10 Wild Growths and 30 Rejuvs, LBs or Nourishes
or
40 Rejuvs, LBs or Nourishes
(Haste is 1/4th as effective for WG at this point because you only are able to cast WG for 1 out of every 4 spells that have a base GCD of 1.5 seconds.)

Haste Cap
10 Wild Growths and 50 Rejuvs, LBs or Nourishes
or
60 Rejuvs, LBs or Nourishes
(Haste is 1/6th as effective for WG at this point because you only are able to cast WG for 1 out of every 6 spells that have a base GCD of 1.5 seconds.)

While haste is not as effective for WG as it is for spells that do not have an extended cooldown, the effectiveness of haste on WG is still present, quantifiable and should be taken into account when determining the overall effective healing. When attempting to model the effectiveness of haste on WG it should only be necessary to apply to proper scaling factor, between 1/4th and 1/6th, to the value of haste derived for a spell that has a base GCD of 1.5 seconds.

I'd be very careful using cost in that example... cost implies mana in most scenarios, which is completely out of scope for the rest of your post. If anything haste made all of your spells 10% faster meaning you could afford to spend the remaining time on a Nourish. But haste has no effect on HPM, and mixing the two would get confusing quickly.

Although I do tend to agree with Allinone, going back to his 1 minute fight. in a latency free world that would be 10 WGs I could have 0 Haste, or 1000 Haste, as he said, and that would still be 10 WGs cast. Yes, if I have more haste I would be able to cast more spells between those 10 WGs, but those are outside focus of WG itself. They are what I believe Allinone is referring to when he says double dipping.

With a 1.0 GCD in 60 seconds I could cast 10 WGs and 50 Rejuvs, OR 60 Rejuvs, OR ~57 Nourish (with 865 Haste my Nourish is now 1.02) or any combination of spells. What I choose to cast effects my HPM/HPS/etc but none of that changes the fact that the maximum amount of times I can cast WGs is 10.

The only argument I really see Haste playing an effect on WG for is letting you get to that next spell sooner, but that effect plays on every spell equally, save I believe LB as it still got the GCD reduction from GotE if I recall correctly. In addition that effect, isn't really a benefit of WG it is a benefit of your overall heal button mashing.

My problem with this is that we're not looking at how haste plays an effect on WGs now, we're looking at how Haste plays an effect on our overall healing strategy and how effective it is.

With these statement I believe I've identified the crux of the problem. While the correct logic is being applied to rejuv, a flawed logic is being applied to WG. Namely, the value of haste in regards to rejuv is being measured according to the relative speed with which you can deliver the next spell. However, for some reason, this same logic is not being applied when WG is thrown into the mix.

In my estimation, haste has two quantifiable values, one minor value and one major value. The minor value is the increased delivery speed of a single spell's healing potential. Whereas, the major value of haste is the increased healing potential over a given period of time, aka "button mashing" potential. Haste doesn't make our spells heal for more or make them more effective, it just allows us to use them more often.

When determining the true value of haste, it is always going to be about the ability to get to the next spell faster and thus increasing our overall healing potential. As a result, quantifying the value of haste should be the same for all of our spells, including WG. When haste is applied to WG it allows you to get to the next spell just as well as when haste is applied to rejuv, regardless of the fact that you won't be able to cast another WG for 6 seconds.

Saying that haste does not affect WG regardless of whether you have 0 haste or 1000 haste is simply just wrong. The only time that would actually hold true is if the only spell you ever used was WG. That should never happen, especially since we are attempting to figure out the maximum healing potential.

Imagine if haste was no longer applied to WG. Instead of 10 WG and 50 Rejuvs in 60 seconds at the haste cap, you would only be able to potentially cast 9 WG and 45 Rejuvs or 10 WG and 40 Rejuvs in 60, theoretically. In essence, the value of haste being applied to WG in that situation is worth 1 WG and 5 Rejuvs or 10 Rejuvs worth of healing over the course of that minute.