 |
02/23/10, 6:56 PM
|
#166
|
|
Von Kaiser
Night Elf Druid
Kel'Thuzad
|
Originally Posted by cloudscraper
I have to recognize that the fights you have pointed our attention to, Slourette, are clearly fights in which wild growth gets very very very good, but having it hit 5 people instead of 6 is nowhere near making it utter crap.
What I mean is that, considering that a single druid can keep hotted a whole 10men raid when the heavily-aoe'd style of the boss requires it, adding to the hot blanketing a 5-men wild growth usually helps a lot anyway.
|
Saying that WG is "good enough" as it is as a very bad reason to not increase its healing by 20%, assuming it will hit 6 people, which I am currently assuming since it does in my raids. Increasing the raw healing of wg, which is usually 20-30% of my healing, by 20% is a raw healing increase of 4-6%, which is a very strong benefit from a glyph.
Originally Posted by Sekke
Except that you seem to be forgetting the role that SM has on fights where movement is important (essentially every single fight except Dreamwalker). Being able to SM someone while running out of the fire, or whatever, is extremely handy. Our ability to be mobile while still healing is one of our biggest strengths, and SM Glyph adds to that in a MASSIVE way.
|
Even if you have SM glyphed and it is your best friend, SM makes up < 10% of our GCD's, meaning that if you have to move out of fire, only 1/10 times will you be casting SM while moving out of fire, which is at most once per fight. With the exception of this case, SM could be replaced by nourish or regrowth in your regular healing rotation as I stated in my previous post. This means that about once per fight I will expect to SM someone due to movement and I will lose a "MASSIVE" fraction of a rejuv. I would rather have an extra tick of WG every second for the majority of the encounter. I think that the only fight in ICC where this isn't true is Putricide, where SM is superior to nourish and regrowth as a spot heal due to movement.
Originally Posted by MegaVolt
You are using a best case scenario to make your argument which in my opinion is fundamentally flawed. If you are doing a boss where everything goes well you might as well run without any glyphs at all, you will still down him. Fights in which your raids execution is perfect (meaning: encounters you have a lot of experience with, encounters that are on farm) should never be used to justify a glyph choice.
It's a bit like the Glyph of Rejuvenation: Yes, if everything goes well it is a wasted glyph. But during progression fights not everything will go well.
A glyph that improves my healing in an emergency situation is what I want. I don't need any glyphs at all as long as the fight goes well, I need glyphs to save the day when someone stood in fire too long or when the tank healer died for some reason and for all the other things that can go wrong in a fight.
|
You bring up a valid point. The more people need emergency healing, the more you will use swiftmend, and the better glyph of swiftmend is. However the glyph does basically nothing to buff the emergency utility. It does, however, allow you to heal someone now and not fall as much behind later, but emergency healing is all about now and nothing about later. My point is that neither Glyph of SM nor Glyph of WG buff our emergency healing.
In all of my healing without glyphed SM, including really, really messy encounters, I have never used SM more than 6-7 times in a fight, which is about 3 rejuvs (since on average you only clip 1/2 of a rejuv). 3 free rejuvs is decent if you are getting them when you need them most, but it's not amazing and I think it is still comparable to glyph of wild growth.
Originally Posted by MegaVolt
Swiftmend - especially in 10man - is absolutely vital in those situations and when stuff goes wrong the single saved GCD from that glyph can mean the difference between a wipe and a kill.
|
I really have a hard time taking this comment seriously. I completely agree with the first half and completely disagree with the second. When you SM someone, the remaining 3 ticks of of rejuv, which won't take full effect for 9 seconds, on a target who was nearly topped of by a SM is really, really, really, unlikely to change the outcome of the raid. That's like blaming your wipe on your fourset not proccing enough rejuvs.
Rejuv + WG are proactive heals. SM is a reactive heal. If your swiftmend is not glyphed, you don't lose any reactive healing, you just lose proactive healing (the rejuv) in a fight that is dominated by "reactive healing" (spike damage on usually random raid members), ie. a fight where proactive healing isn't as important. Fights where SM is important are fights where you wouldn't be rolling rejuvs on everyone, but rather spot healing and placing rejuvs when you have nothing better to do.
|
|
|
|
|
02/23/10, 8:37 PM
|
#167
|
|
Von Kaiser
Night Elf Druid
Kel'Thuzad
|
I don't think holding onto swiftmend is a wise idea in most cases. Swiftmend should be used as soon as there is a reasonable target. For one, it's a 15 second cooldown. Saving it for a "real emergency" is often going to result in wasting entire cooldown cycles. Now, for some fights you may want to plan when to use swiftmend -- for example, holding onto swiftmend for Pact of the Darkfallen works very nicely -- but in the general case, we should have a "use it early use it often" attitude, much the same attitude holy priests should approach glyphed guardian spirit.
Aside from healing for about 30% more than nourish (albeit at a lower crit rate), swiftmend has a very useful side-effect that most people won't think about: since it is an instant, the heal actually lands the moment you press that button. This allows other healers to react to your healing choice and smartly pick their target. For example, your 1-second nourish might drop onto someone that got pegged with a chainheal or CoH while you were casting, whereas a swiftmend would have landed first and the smart-heal would have selected a different target.
|
|
|
|
|
02/24/10, 8:02 AM
|
#168
|
|
Von Kaiser
Night Elf Druid
Turalyon (EU)
|
Originally Posted by slourette
Rejuv + WG are proactive heals. SM is a reactive heal. If your swiftmend is not glyphed, you don't lose any reactive healing, you just lose proactive healing (the rejuv) in a fight that is dominated by "reactive healing" (spike damage on usually random raid members), ie. a fight where proactive healing isn't as important. Fights where SM is important are fights where you wouldn't be rolling rejuvs on everyone, but rather spot healing and placing rejuvs when you have nothing better to do.
|
In my experience people that were just in need of a Swiftmend often still take additional damage. In 10mans I run with Glyph of Rejuvenation and Glyph of Rapid Rejuvenation, meaning those 3 ticks that are left on the guy provide valuable healing. Especially when on the move this can come in handy.
Additionally the remaining HoT on the target will buff all Nourish casts. I end up spot healing a lot since we are running with 1 Paladin + 2 Druids and not glyphing Swiftmend will either cost me 1 GCD in an emergency situation to re-apply Rejuvenation (which is a very bad idea), I have to heal with a crippled Nourish (not great either) or I can't use Swiftmend in the first place (again, not good).
I guess the biggest benefit in emergency situations (which I didn't really point out in my previous post) is the remaining HoT for follow up casts of Nourish.
It may also just depend on the healing team you are running with. I've never seen an encounter in which our raid healing throughput is even remotely challenged and the WG glyph, even if we assume that it always hits 6 targets (which I find highly questionable) it's only a throughput gain.
In case you are running with 2x Paladin and 1x Druid it may very well be that any spot heals are more than covered so you never have to SM anyway and the additional raid healing from WG becomes valuable.
Just to avoid any misunderstandings: I'm only talking about 10mans here. I consider the WG glyph mandatory in 25mans and I wouldn't even think for a second about replacing it there.
Last edited by MegaVolt : 02/24/10 at 9:04 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
02/24/10, 8:30 AM
|
#169
|
|
Piston Honda
Tauren Druid
Shadowsong (EU)
|
Originally Posted by slourette
Saying that WG is "good enough" as it is as a very bad reason to not increase its healing by 20%, assuming it will hit 6 people, which I am currently assuming since it does in my raids. Increasing the raw healing of wg, which is usually 20-30% of my healing, by 20% is a raw healing increase of 4-6%, which is a very strong benefit from a glyph.
|
Can you show some logs of a raid or two where your WGs are routinely hitting 6 people in a 10 man raid? Something covering 8-10 different bosses would be good because I have never had a raid where WG would regularly hit six people. If the WG glyph is a 4-6% healing increase for you I'd sure like to see that.
|
Even if you have SM glyphed and it is your best friend, SM makes up < 10% of our GCD's, meaning that if you have to move out of fire, only 1/10 times will you be casting SM while moving out of fire, which is at most once per fight. With the exception of this case, SM could be replaced by nourish or regrowth in your regular healing rotation as I stated in my previous post.
|
This is just totally incorrect. While SM may make up <10% of your total GCDs, the GCD's it does use ARE the ones where you are moving and thus could not use a Nourish or Regrowth. Having the heal actually land 1 - 1.2 seconds earlier is also something you do not take into account when comparing SM and Nourish. That can often be the difference between life and death in progression encounters.
|
|
|
|
|
02/24/10, 11:11 AM
|
#170
|
|
Glass Joe
|
Originally Posted by cloudscraper
I am a 10-men only raider, and I have to say that, for what involves 10men only, you won't have 6 people bunched up a time.
Excluding very particular setups, that I can barely imagine you're not going to have either 2 tanks +4 melees or 2 healers + 4 ranged DPS and have them bunched up all of the time. WG's radius is such that with only 10 people, you're better off using a glyph like swiftmend, imho.
|
I must disagree with cloudscraper. As mobility and healing on-the-fly is one of a Tree's greatest strengths, I have found it effective to position myself in a bridging position between groups that need healing, then targetting the Wild Growth on myself, ensuring that all six HoTs land on the ranged as well as the melee. Or, failing that, then as many as possible. Admittedly, this is somewhat of a practices argument to the value of Glyph of Wild Growth, but I found it exceedingly useful when healing certain encounters in 10-man ToC (Acidmaw/Dreadscale, Twin Val'kyr). I will not be able to say so regarding ICC, as I now currently tank 10-man content and heal 25-man, but I suspect that any time that DPS and tanks/melee are not stacking up a la Marrowgar, this will ensure that you get the most out of your Wild Growth, glyphed or not.
|
|
|
|
|
02/24/10, 2:58 PM
|
#171
|
|
Glass Joe
Night Elf Druid
Runetotem
|
Originally Posted by swills
Can you show some logs of a raid or two where your WGs are routinely hitting 6 people in a 10 man raid? Something covering 8-10 different bosses would be good because I have never had a raid where WG would regularly hit six people. If the WG glyph is a 4-6% healing increase for you I'd sure like to see that.
|
A disclaimer: I don't have access to the raw combat logs from recent ICC raids, so I can only show results from Ulduar.
I wrote a little python script that searches out my Wild Growth casts and tells me how many people they hit. Right now it doesn't do any boss filtering or anything, so you need to give it a log that's trimmed for a single boss only if that's what you care about.

def parseLog(file_in, file_out):
# file_in - combat log'
# file_out - combatlog with only WG casts and applications
fi = open(file_in, 'r')
fo = open(file_out, 'w')
# this holds all the data from the combatlog
igot = fi.readlines()
# find all the wild growth casts
for line in igot:
if line.find("Wild Growth") > -1:
if line.find("SPELL_AURA_APPLIED") > -1:
fo.write(line)
elif line.find("SPELL_CAST_SUCCESS") > -1:
fo.write(line)
fi.close()
fo.close()
def parseWG(file_in, file_out):
# file_in - combat log lines with just WG applications
# file_out - each line is: time, number of people hit
fi = open(file_in, 'r')
fo = open(file_out, 'w')
# capture all the lines
igot = fi.readlines()
# first we read the current line's cast type
# if its a cast success, we print the last cast's numbers
# and then start a new count
# if its an aura, we just add one to the count
# counters and such
count = 0
s = ','
n = '\n'
for line in igot:
temp = line.split()
temp2 = temp[2].split(',')
if temp2[0] == "SPELL_CAST_SUCCESS":
# uncomment these if you want to see cast times
#fo.write(temp[1])
#fo.write(s)
fo.write(str(count))
fo.write(n)
count = 0
else:
count = count+1
fi.close()
fo.close()
I ran this on aset of Firefighter attempts I had available, and got the following results (I ran the numbers through matlab to get these, the python just generates a list of casts):
Total casts: 200
Mean: 3.88
Median: 4
Standard Deviation: 1.5354
6: 24
5: 63
4: 43
3: 25
2: 29
1: 12
If you want to know if you're getting useful results out of your WG glyph, I think this can tell you. Personally, I probably need to work on hitting more than 1-2 people before I start to worry about the glyph. When I get home I'll run it on some ICC 10 man bosses and see what comes out.
edit: The script does not handle multiple druids all casting WG in the same raid. I'll fix it up tonight to add this and some other features so that its more useful for people to try out.
Last edited by Jynnothyst : 02/24/10 at 3:45 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
02/24/10, 3:02 PM
|
#172
|
|
Don Flamenco
|
Wonderful! Thank you VERY much for this script. I have been trying to measure Wild Growth casts for a while, because I suspected (see this post and this post) most of my casts were not hitting 6 targets, and this script confirms my suspicions. Now all one needs to do to evaluate the glyph is run a full raid with the glyph and one full raid without it, and compare the means! So far it looks like the glyph is giving an improvement to Wild Growth nowhere near the often quoted 20%.
edit: In fact, using your above numbers, if you had not glyphed Wild Growth, all your 6 target casts would have been 5 target casts, and your mean would have become: 3.8367. Which means the glyph is giving you an improvement of ... 2%. If Wild Growth is accounting for 20% of your healing, the glyph is giving you 0.4% throughput. Apparently, Wild Growth is a bad glyph! I will wait for more testing, but if the results stay consistent across casting regimes, I will modify the glyph guide appropriately.
Last edited by Rijndael : 02/24/10 at 4:44 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
02/24/10, 4:36 PM
|
#173
|
|
Glass Joe
Night Elf Druid
Proudmoore
|
It would be really interesting to run the script with logs from 25 man raids as well. I have the _feeling_ that the WG glyph is really good for a lot of 25 man encounters, but never really backed it up with numbers that show the 6th person getting hit.
Last edited by Svartalf : 02/24/10 at 4:51 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
02/24/10, 6:38 PM
|
#174
|
|
Piston Honda
|
Another potentially useful feature for the parser would be to further break down the WG casts based on how many were on actual players and how many landed on player pets. If you're comparing a non-glyphed log with a glyphed log, if the additional target is often a pet that might influence your decision on whether it's useful or not.
|
|
|
|
|
02/24/10, 11:35 PM
|
#175
|
|
Glass Joe
Night Elf Druid
Runetotem
|
Here's the updated script, the first piece of code is the script I use to run it, the second is the script proper.
I updated the method by which I parse so that it should count all the wild growth applications correctly. The combat log doesn't always get the order right, so my previous attempt was miscounting some aura applications that happened before the spell was even cast. This version will also allow you to cut the log around a single boss of interest, and to only look at the wild growths cast by a single druid. Make sure you update the run script with your boss and druid's name before you run it. The name doesn't need to be full, its just doing a partial match.
import parse
parse.chopLog('ICC.txt', 'chop.out', 'Festergut')
parse.parseAll('chop.out', 'Rosar')

# chops out all the parts of the log that dont
# belong to a certain boss fight
# does not work for A, B, A fight orders
def chopLog(file_in, file_out, boss):
# file_in - raw combat log
# file_out - portion of raw combat log
# boss - boss name for which you wish to find attempts
fi = open(file_in, 'r')
fo = open(file_out, 'w')
first = 0
last = 0
# find the first mention of the boss
for line in fi:
if line.find(boss) > -1:
first = fi.tell()
break
# find the last mention of the boss
for line in fi:
if line.find(boss) > -1:
last = fi.tell()
fi.seek(first)
# print out the file
for line in fi:
if fi.tell() > first:
fo.write(line)
if fi.tell() > last:
break
fi.close()
fo.close()
# does all parsing in a single pass
def parseAll(file_in, player):
# file_in - combatlog
# player - resto druid
fi = open(file_in, 'r')
# data holders
time = []
players = []
pets = []
both = []
# control parameters
current_time = 0
# main loop
for line in fi:
if line.find('Wild Growth') > -1:
if line.find(player) > -1:
if line.find('SPELL_AURA_APPLIED') > -1:
# first we do a little parsing to get the timestamp
temp = line.split()
time_raw = temp[1].split('.')
time_str = time_raw[0].split(':')
time_num = int(time_str[0])*10000 + int(time_str[1])*100 + int(time_str[2])
# now we compare the timestamp to the last event
# new casts are more than a second after the last event
if time_num > current_time+1:
# for a new cast, we update all the lists
time.append(time_num)
players.append(0)
pets.append(0)
both.append(0)
current_time = time_num
# for all events we update what kind it is
temp2 = temp[2].split(',')
hex = temp2[4]
type = hex[4]
if type == '8':
players.append(players.pop() + 1)
elif type == '4':
pets.append(pets.pop() + 1)
both.append(both.pop() + 1)
fi.close()
# now we need to display the results
total = len(players)
sum = 1.0*players.count(1) + 2*players.count(2) + 3*players.count(3) + 4*players.count(4) + 5*players.count(5) + 6*players.count(6)
print('Total Casts on Players: %d' % (total))
print('1: %d' % (players.count(1)))
print('2: %d' % (players.count(2)))
print('3: %d' % (players.count(3)))
print('4: %d' % (players.count(4)))
print('5: %d' % (players.count(5)))
print('6: %d' % (players.count(6)))
print('Mean: %f' % (sum / total))
total = len(both)
sum = 1.0*both.count(1) + 2*both.count(2) + 3*both.count(3) + 4*both.count(4) + 5*both.count(5) + 6*both.count(6)
print('Total Casts on Players and Pets: %d' % (total))
print('1: %d' % (both.count(1)))
print('2: %d' % (both.count(2)))
print('3: %d' % (both.count(3)))
print('4: %d' % (both.count(4)))
print('5: %d' % (both.count(5)))
print('6: %d' % (both.count(6)))
print('Mean: %f' % (sum / total))
Here's some sample results from a few ICC bosses. Sadly, I have only run the glyph for the last few weeks, and I haven't had a chance to run all the bosses recently, so I only have a few readily available:
Festergut
Total Casts on Players: 55
1: 5
2: 2
3: 2
4: 10
5: 12
6: 24
Mean: 4.709091
Total Casts on Players and Pets: 55
1: 4
2: 3
3: 1
4: 0
5: 2
6: 45
Mean: 5.327273
Rotface
Total Casts on Players: 187
1: 38
2: 27
3: 27
4: 31
5: 40
6: 24
Mean: 3.427807
Total Casts on Players and Pets: 187
1: 32
2: 27
3: 20
4: 10
5: 13
6: 85
Mean: 4.069519
As you can see, I never hit just pets, but a fair number of my 6th WG casts go onto pets. I'm sure hunters and locks will love this glyph, but I'm not so sure I love it anymore. I'll have to do more testing personally with and without before I make the call, but I'd love to see some other people's numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
02/24/10, 11:51 PM
|
#176
|
|
Glass Joe
Night Elf Druid
Spirestone
|
While it seems like you do end up healing the pets a lot, you can't assume that the 6th target provided by the WG glyph is a pet. All things being equal (and without looking through more parses with and without the glyph), it's much more likely that you would have ended up with 4 player targets and 1 pet without the glyph, right? The various pet avoidance abilities does make it more likely to find a player at lower health, but that doesn't seem easy to model and probably varies from boss to boss (damage taken for players vs. pets in Sindragosa maybe be different than on Festergut for example).
|
|
|
|
|
02/25/10, 12:20 AM
|
#177
|
|
Von Kaiser
Night Elf Druid
Kel'Thuzad
|
What makes you so sure that it was the 6th rejuv that hit the pets? It might have been one of the first 5 too. If you cast an unglyphed WG on 5 players and 1 pet, 4/5 times one of the players will not get a rejuv. And healing pets isn't that bad... compared to when treants and army of the dead eat up every single tick.
Great job on the script btw!
Originally Posted by swills
Can you show some logs of a raid or two where your WGs are routinely hitting 6 people in a 10 man raid? Something covering 8-10 different bosses would be good because I have never had a raid where WG would regularly hit six people. If the WG glyph is a 4-6% healing increase for you I'd sure like to see that.
This is just totally incorrect. While SM may make up <10% of your total GCDs, the GCD's it does use ARE the ones where you are moving and thus could not use a Nourish or Regrowth. Having the heal actually land 1 - 1.2 seconds earlier is also something you do not take into account when comparing SM and Nourish. That can often be the difference between life and death in progression encounters.
|
Just to clarify, I said a 4-6% in raw healing (effective + ineffective). Since WG is smart, it's likely that the 6th WG will overheal more than the others, which will translate to a significantly smaller increase in effective healing. Also 8-10 boss fights is asking a bit much, since I swap glyphs depending on the fight. I would definitely use glyphed WG on Marrogar, Blood Queen, Festergut and Rotface though.
Sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear in my last post. If I think my target is in danger of dying within 1 sec or if I am moving and need to spot heal, I swiftmend. My point is that for AoE healing intensive fights (the fights where I think glyph of Wild Growth is best), only about say 10% of my heals/gcd's are spot heals, meaning that if I am moving out of fire, there is a good chance I wasn't going to nourish/regrowth anyways, thus I don't have to SM and lose the hot.

Originally Posted by MegaVolt
In my experience people that were just in need of a Swiftmend often still take additional damage. In 10mans I run with Glyph of Rejuvenation and Glyph of Rapid Rejuvenation, meaning those 3 ticks that are left on the guy provide valuable healing. Especially when on the move this can come in handy.
Additionally the remaining HoT on the target will buff all Nourish casts. I end up spot healing a lot since we are running with 1 Paladin + 2 Druids and not glyphing Swiftmend will either cost me 1 GCD in an emergency situation to re-apply Rejuvenation (which is a very bad idea), I have to heal with a crippled Nourish (not great either) or I can't use Swiftmend in the first place (again, not good).
I guess the biggest benefit in emergency situations (which I didn't really point out in my previous post) is the remaining HoT for follow up casts of Nourish.
It may also just depend on the healing team you are running with. I've never seen an encounter in which our raid healing throughput is even remotely challenged and the WG glyph, even if we assume that it always hits 6 targets (which I find highly questionable) it's only a throughput gain.
In case you are running with 2x Paladin and 1x Druid it may very well be that any spot heals are more than covered so you never have to SM anyway and the additional raid healing from WG becomes valuable.
Just to avoid any misunderstandings: I'm only talking about 10mans here. I consider the WG glyph mandatory in 25mans and I wouldn't even think for a second about replacing it there.
|
After SM'ing (unglyphed) a target who is continuting to take damage, follow up with regrowth instead of a nourish or a rejuv. If they are taking heavy damage, rejuv doesn't tick fast enough to make a difference anyways, and if they aren't, they won't die. You are simply trading throughput from the rejuv for throughput from the WG, so whichever provides the larger throughput gain is the glyph you should take. Rejuv doesn't "save people" it prevents them from getting low in the first place so they don't need a spot heal, so consuming the rejuv does nothing to your emergency healing other then requiring you to cast a regrowth instead of nourish.
I'm not trying to say gWG > gSM, I'm trying to say there are situations where you would want to swap glyphs and that you should consider both.
|
|
|
|
|
02/25/10, 7:37 AM
|
#178
|
|
Von Kaiser
Night Elf Druid
Neptulon (EU)
|
Originally Posted by Jynnothyst
Festergut
Total Casts on Players: 55
1: 5
2: 2
3: 2
4: 10
5: 12
6: 24
Mean: 4.709091
Total Casts on Players and Pets: 55
1: 4
2: 3
3: 1
4: 0
5: 2
6: 45
Mean: 5.327273
|
I don't understand this part. If these are from the same encounter, I would've thought "...and pets" means your script also counts the WG hitting a pet target (compared to the first results which only count how many players got hit each time) but that would never result in that 4:0.
|
|
|
|
|
02/25/10, 10:09 AM
|
#179
|
|
Great Tiger
Night Elf Druid
Echo Isles
|
Originally Posted by oopsminded
I don't understand this part. If these are from the same encounter, I would've thought "...and pets" means your script also counts the WG hitting a pet target (compared to the first results which only count how many players got hit each time) but that would never result in that 4:0.
|
He's saying that all 10 casts that hit exactly 4 players, also hit one or more pets. There was no cast that hit exactly four targets (when targets includes pets).
|
|
|
|
|
02/25/10, 10:22 AM
|
#180
|
|
Glass Joe
|
Macros
@Ara
I had a bit of trouble with the macros so I rewrote them a bit.
Changed out /use for /cast and added a [] before the spell name.
#showtooltip Rejuvenation
/use 13
/cast [@mouseover, help] [] Rejuvenation
|
13 is my haste trinket slot. This way I'm always keeping it active, when available.
The [] enabled me to auto selfcast when no one was "targeted"
This was the only way I could get it to work. I use a Razer Naga and have the side buttons to the keyboard (not the number pad)
Creating those macros for all of my spells on the specific macros tab I placed them on my Action Bars.
Now the Razer buttons will cast when I mouseover a toon, xperl, or grid.
I still use clique. I put my NS-HT on wheel button
#showtooltip Nature's Swiftness
/stopcasting
/cast Nature's Swiftness
/cast [@mouseover, help] [] Healing Touch
|
And bound Decurse and Abolish Poison on buttons 4 and 5. (Just to the left of the left click)
Worked awesome in Wintergrasp last night, ready to try raiding tonight.
Quartz is cool addon and will take some time to get used to the timing.
I was always watching my cast bar until it got right to the end.
A mage friend and I were experimenting and when you get the timing just right, it's almost like a music beat.
Regrowth, then Rejuv is like
1, cast, cast, 4
rather than 1, cast, 3, cast without "spell queing"
the mage it looked like he cast an ice blast on fire. Dru looked like he was doing the resto tree boogie version of "Stayin' Alive!"
The trick is to begin casting Regrowth/Nourish/HT and press and hold Rejuv/LB/WG release the button in the middle of the red zone on the Quartz cast bar. You will eventually get use to your own haste and rhythm.
This is probably a d'uh here's your sign. But, I disable all non essential addons for a raid. Having ADHD, this was a challenge to remember at first.
PS I'm not using the Razer Naga WoW Addon yet because I haven't had the patience to set it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|