Gemming is done according to these links (in the particular example you noted, both would have 2x Teardrops; it's a pretty close call). I wanted to get just the 4 piece bonus from T6 off the strongest pieces (Chest, Bracers, Belt, Boots).

Overall:
Loot Rank

HPS:
Loot Rank

HPM:
Loot Rank

I'm an Enchanter/Alchemist, so I can't access the Sunwell crafted chest.

I agree with the t6 shoulder remark and am also wondering why in the overall set you prefer naj'entus ring over hyjal rep or Blessed band.

Probably because I didn't take into account the hyjal rep ring's proc in my weights, which now that I've noticed it, I will use once I hit exalted.

vs. Blessed Band it's really a haste v. crit trade off that's very close (139.6 v 137.26).

I wish there were more healing items out there with haste _and_ crit. Unfortunately there are just two: Items - World of Warcraft (T6 belt, T6 boots)

Note that my gear sets aren't meant to be 'ultimate best end all be all.' This was a rather mechanical effort of looking at the best items by item weights. It's more a reference for me to look at when deciding what to roll on for what purpose, and I put enough time into it I figured it might be useful to post for others to use.

That said, I appreciate the commentary and critiques.

This kind of calculation has no effect on gear choices nor playstyle, and therefore is completely pointless. You're not going to pick your rank based on that and you're not going to pick gear based on that. What matters is how much burst you can put up and how much healing you can do during the whole fight using all your mana.

As for bruttalus, I wouldn't call spending 57% of the time casting a "I have the mana for it" situation especially when you end the fight with 0 mana. Spending some of that time on FoL would allow to do more total healing with the same mana (and spending more time in the fight actaully doing something). You can't say you're not canceling if you only cast a heal every 3.5s becuase it pretty much means you on average cancel every 2nd heal (or isntead don't even start casting it). Considering the boss doesn't stop attacking at any point in the fight, it means every second of that 43% remaining time was not used for anything - either the heal got canceled becuase the tank wasn't low enough or wasn't even casted in the firstplace. Both cases Adding FoLs could help.

And again, even if the paladin class did not have a FoL spell my theorycraft would remain the same, only the FoL would be replaced with some HL rank.

First of all for HPS crit=0 as while it provies average HPS, you can't rely on it. It will still increase efficiency but will not increase your ability to reliably save a tank the way you're trying to do with max HPS and ignoring mana effficiency.

Then int is 0.35 healing without kings and without crit, 0.385 with kings. Why did u rate it 3.4?

For efficiency you're way over-estimating crit, and that mp5 value fits the one I have when I have a shadow priest + resto shaman + chain potting - any less of those buffs and mp5 value goes way higher all the way to 6~7. And you have haste as a negative - even if you ignore the fact that higher HPS allows slightly better efficiency it would be 0 and not negative. And HPS provides and obvious >0 efficiency benefit. I mean it's not huge but it makes +healing and haste (and to a much lesser degree crit and int) an extra benefit over mp5. In fact if you ignore that benefit mp5 should be quite higher than 6-7 healing, more like 10+ (although obviuosly not correct as you need to take the HPS->efficiency benefit into account).

The actual overall stat ratings would be somewhere between max HPS and max efficiency, depending on how much you need both. Just remember that most stats help one by a lot and the other by nothing or not much, while +healing is either 2nd best or best stat (depending on your (shadow priest etc) standards) for both efficiency (2nd to mp5) and HPS (2nd to haste), and not too far behind. So if you need both about equally, +healing is by far the best stat. On the other hand, you sometimes don't "need them both equally" but rather need "as much HPS as I can get with not a lot of need for efficiency" and sometimes (although a lot less often) "as much efficiency as I can get while not really caring about HPS becuase I'm going to need all my mana sustaining heals rather than handling bursts".

Well, gal, let's look again at real, not theoretical fight.

Imagine me assigned to tank doing usual job - FoL spam with reactive HL after burts. You say that with extra +healing you can FoL more and HL less for same healing done and thus increase the efficiency. I say that for any realistical +healing you are still going to spam FoL and reactive HL. Thus you will follow the same healing pattern (doing bigger heals ofc, which is safer). I can hardly imagine a situation where you added +heal enough to FoL after burst and thus not casting HL. The nature of MT pala healing binds us more not to our mana, but to certain cast sequence. And I am NOT (I think you don't as well) gonna cast FoL on tank less often only because I have more +heal. Since FoL isn't reactive healing and only a mean to create a stream of small heals, thats why you cast it more or less non stop on a single target. If you have 1900 healing or 2500 you gonna do it on about same pace and thus use same amount of mana per minute. Do you agree with me?

From a practical point of view, I would rather look at what stat is more efficient to have assuming constant cast sequence/healing pattern (say cast each 2 sec, HL or FoL depending on tank HP; or FoL spam with HL after each burst). It will definitely change the weight of different stats.

Once more in short - for most fights assuming usual assignement (MT healing) extra +heal will makes healing safer but will hardly add efficiency. And this fact, imho, should be reflected in calculations.

Wether you use your extra +healing to cast less or do more healing, it helps either way. What you really need to get is that gear changes make very small difference. That extra +20 healing is not going to be gamebreaking. It's less than +1% to your efficiency, which means 100 FoLs will become equivalent to 101.

Sometimes when things are real easy I actually do cancel FoL if the tank is full HP and I know all healers that are supposed to be on him are alright (not running from doomfires, not feared etc).

And as for using less mana because of higher HPS, even if you end up using rank9 HLs instead of rank11 and then rank7 instead of a rank9 and then a FoL instead of a rank7, it's the same as if you used a FoL instead of a rank11. Granted there's some room to play around with it here, but the end result is that if you ever cast FoL, no matter how you break down the spells you will more or less end up gaining the same HPS->efficiency benefit as if you were using it to replace HL11s with FoLs. If you really want to be more accurate you can use your spell distribution and actual downranks you use, but the difference in accuracy of the calculation will be very small.

At the end it's also not really impossible to have it happen once in a fight where you casted 1-2 FoL instead of max rank HL because your HPS was high enough to afford it but slightly lower HPS wouldn't allow it. Remember at the end your HPS determines a breakpoint of required HPS that once crossed you stop the FoL and cast a HL - having more HPS will help you cross that line slightly less often. This principle can be applied to any combination of spells and ranks, and while I agree it's more realistic to do a calculation based on more "continous downraking", the actual results are too similar to simply calculating HL11->FoL to bother (again, as long as your lowest HPS heal used is FoL, although I bet you wouldn't get extremely different results even if your lowest rank is, say, HL7 or 8).

Ok. But I think you still see my point - mana vs. healing done is valued differently based on who you ask. Some pallies like more mana efficiency via mp5 and FoL more, some like more crit and HL more, etc.

Basically, mana efficiency is a stat that differs in value depending on the person and the situation. Yes, your equivalence point between healing and mana efficiency may be valid for a lot of people, but yea there are other ways of valuing it.

For instance, I add an arbitrary 20% more to my haste coefficients just because I feel like that's what I'm lacking at the moment.

Zurm mentioned that Divine Intervention may be the short end of the stick in terms of wipe protection. It does give you options however, and if used in a combat situation it may also function as an advanced dispel.

At Kaz'rogal for example you repetitively get a non-dispellable debuff which drains mana. Once your mana pool is empty, you blow up. When you are completely drained with mana pots/demonic runes on cooldown and mana tides/innervates unavailable, you can use Divine Intervention, not as a wipe protection, but as a means to remove the debuff from another caster like a priest and give them time to regenerate mana out of combat, ready to reenter the fight when every other healer is drained or dead.

While this certainly is not your everyday use of Divine Intervention, it is nice to at least be aware of this option. You never know when it might come in handy.

Assumption - the more efficiency you have the less likely you are to use all your efficiency, and thus the more you have the less you need it.

FoL users have more efficiency than HL users, and thus actually don't need it as much and can afford more "pure burst" gearing that more and more people seem to swear by.

HL users have a lot less efficiency and thus actually need it a lot more.

Neither FoL users nor HL users have any different max burst (assuming same gear). Since mp5 and crit neither really affect your max burst then the people you claim who "FoL with mp5" and "HL with crit" must be doing it for efficiency, right? But hey let's look at the actual efficiency you get - even HL will get noticeably more efficiency with mp5 than crit even if you already have a lot of crit, at least as long as you assume any realistic amount of crit overhealing (as in, as long as you don't assume each crit heals for 1.5x - because it's not realistic to get full advantage of the extra healing from crits). The only argument I seem to hear from HL users for equipping more crit is "I use mana faster and therefore crit returns more mana", which is completely irrelevent if you followed any of this and/or the other thread.

Since both "styles" use the same kind of "burst" to heal on an emergency, they gain exactly the same burst from the same stats (healing/haste).

For bread&butter healing the only gain from having HPS is the more HPS -> can use more efficient heals to keep up -> more healing done with same mana. This is because you never use rank11 HL for bread&butter healing - there's no fight in the game where you can do all the healing in the fight with rank11 HL (unless you're way overgearing it and can allow to burn mana stupidly like that). On top of that you should look at the actual DPS tanks get and the actual HPS of FoL and HL and the number of healers usually on the tank. HL11 is always an overkill when the tank isn't getting unlucky and/or other healers are unable to heal at that moment for whatever reason.

When did I ever say "gear haste/healing purely becaue it helps your efficiency"? I never said that. The main purpose of haste/healing is bigger burst to help heal the tank when he takes a burst. I'm just saying the extra HPS also has a small increase to your efficiency when healing outside of a burst, on top of it. I never said haste is a great stat for efficiency becuase it isn't.

Ocourse if you want to be more efficient you don't gear haste. While the efficiency increases are there, they're much smaller than the efficiency increases you would get from +healing/mp5. This is probably the 50th time I'm saying this, I don't know why it didn't get through the first time.

Remember to seperate the "consistent healing" from "burst healing":

You cannot use max rank HL nor do you need to use max rank HL for the consistent healing. This means that if you increase the HPS of whatever spell you're using during your consistent healing, you will be able to use slightly more efficient spells during that time as you can't use any more HPS effectively, as in without adding massive overheal and going oom. If you could, you'd be using a higher HPS heal in the firstplace and go back to the beginning of this paragraph. Here the HPS of haste, +healing (and even crit to a lesser degree) help you be more efficient - not by much, but it gives you something so when you compare items for efficiency you need to add these values. This means if I get enough +healing to get 1% bigger heals, my efficiency increase will actually be bigger than 1%. This also means that I will get some small efficiency gains from haste - much smaller than other stats would give, but far from 0 and definitely not negative. Even the small HPS increase from crit can help a little but it's a much smaller factor as the majority of the crit benefit is the mana return and the little bigger heals on average provide an even smaller HPS->efficiency increase as an added benefit to what you would normally consider crit to give.

During a burst, you don't care about mana, you're just casting your biggest meanest heal to save the tank from dying. The threshhold of tank HP depends on the fight, phase, and general raid status and is up to you to decide when it happens, how often and how important it is to be able to handle it better. This is where haste, and to a bit lesser degree +healing, are the only stats that really do anything useful.

The problem is that the more often you need to use your max burst in a fight, it'll also require more efficiency and vice-versa. Determining how important each aspect of healing is isn't simple, although it seems to be mostly leaning more towards HPS than efficiency considering a raid will, in general, see a lot more tank deaths than oom healers during its progress.


As for HL vs FoL, the MP5 vs crit in terms of efficiency really doesn't change as much as you claim it to be changing. The people that say HL=crit and FoL=mp5 generally calculate their crit value based on their mana/sec usage which is just wrong. While HL does have a bit higher base crit it's not enough to make crit all that great compared to mp5 or even +healing for efficiency. And the fact a lot of top-end paladins use 22 healing gems makes your "but top paladins gem crit and succeed so crit was tested to be great" claim doesn't mean anything. And this is in addition to the fact that you cannot really "test" the effect of those stats by WWS/healingmeters/whatever, as there are so many other factors that are a lot more significant than what gear you're wearing that affect what you see on WWS/meters. Again it's like comparing who has his car tuned to drive faster by driving them through a high traffic town at different hours with different traffic and different luck on traffic lights and each driver testing differently. Not only I've yet to see someone who had everything gemmed with crit one day and then the other gemmed everything with 22 healing and said what the difference is, and to be honest even if that was economically feasible I doubt someone could really feel the difference unless he swapped a rediculessly high amount of gems.