You can't count spellpower as "but it overheals" stat while ignoring crit overhealing. If anything, crits probably cause a lot more overhealing than spellpower. If you don't count the extra healing from crits but rather just the mana returns, crit becomes not as great of a stat. And you should also look at effective overhealing caused by having mana left at the end of the fight - it's just as bad as overhealing done during the fight. I mean if you're going to factor in overhealing, do it fully.
You can't count spellpower as "but it overheals" stat while ignoring crit overhealing. If anything, crits probably cause a lot more overhealing than spellpower.
Which is better:
A) A stat that increases overhealing and returns mana.
B) A stat that increases overhealing and does not return mana.
Answers on a postcard, please.
Also, there is no such thing as "overhealing caused by having mana left". Not needing to spend mana is not the same as spending mana when you don't need to. All having mana at the end of a fight means is that you can continue to keep your target alive if the fight runs long for any reason. You seem to believe that this is a bad thing for a healer to be doing. I respectfully disagree.
quick question about the next talent improving sacred shield by 20% for 2 talent points.
would the end result be 1st or 2nd equation:
[500 + (500 * .20)] + .75X - where X is Spellpower
[(500 + .75X) * .20] + (500 + .75X)
plug in 2000 spellpower for x and in the first equation you get 2100 absorbed from SS
do the same for the second equation and you get 2400 absorbed from SS
You can't count spellpower as "but it overheals" stat while ignoring crit overhealing. If anything, crits probably cause a lot more overhealing than spellpower. If you don't count the extra healing from crits but rather just the mana returns, crit becomes not as great of a stat. And you should also look at effective overhealing caused by having mana left at the end of the fight - it's just as bad as overhealing done during the fight. I mean if you're going to factor in overhealing, do it fully.
Malleus basically demonstrated that:
at worst --> crit provides mana return in the case of overheals while divinity does not
at best --> if they don't overheal, the difference in extra throughput at equal point investment in Sanctity only results in 50% lower increase in throughput. Losing 1.5% in throughput to gain a guaranteed 1.8% more mana return is something I doubt anyone wouldn't consider a fair trade.
Divinity only comes out on top if you care tremendously about the extra healing received... which prot and, to a lesser extent, retribution would. Seems more of a pvp talent for us.
Taking a quick look at rawr in my current gear:
Heal done 1% = 56 SP per point (+healing on self effect) (-sacred shield absorb numbers)
Crit 1% . . . .= 45 Crit per point
My point is that these talents are worth the same amount of stat points. It is well known that SP increases your burst healing by 2.5-3 times more then crit does (assuming int gemmed gear, raid buffs). So saying, "they both give healing done but 1 gives regen" is not a logical argument.
Rawr spells it out nicely, crit will allow you more casts of HL, SP will increase the healing done by each cast by more on average. Just put your gear in, do the raid buff thing and equip different battlemaster's trinkets.
In the end, rawr's message to me was that their overall healing done (battlemasters 111 SP and 95 crit) difference was favored crit slightly ([crit] 150 value vs. [sp] 136 value), while the burst healing was drastic ([SP] 56 vs [crit] 23).
So crit's regen effect/crit healing amounts in an endurance fights gives you 10% more effective healing per stat point, while SP gives 140% more burst healing done per stat point. Crit is 10% better for overall healing done then divinity per point, while divinity provides 140% more burst healing then crit talents per point.
These are the numbers, form your own opinions on what to do with them, but leave the "that's just overheal" arguments in your own head, because it isn't always OH, typically it is the full cast that is OH, followed by a full cast that is effective heal, not some constant % of the spell where additional healing per spell means nothing.
You don't need to care tremendously about burst - in fact you need to hardly care at all about burst in order to pick crit over healing, as shown above and as I've posted before and as can be seen by using rawr.
Originally Posted by Malleus
Which is better:
A) A stat that increases overhealing and returns mana.
B) A stat that increases overhealing and does not return mana.
Answers on a postcard, please.
more like:
A) A stat that increases mostly overhealing and a bit of effective healing and returns mana.
B) A stat that increases some healing and some overhealing and does not return mana.
All of a sudden it's not that obvious, is it? You need to factor in all the overhealing numbers if you want to take overhealing into account. You can't just count all extra healing done as overhealing, or else we'd be all running with 0 spellpower if we could.
Originally Posted by Malleus
Also, there is no such thing as "overhealing caused by having mana left". Not needing to spend mana is not the same as spending mana when you don't need to. All having mana at the end of a fight means is that you can continue to keep your target alive if the fight runs long for any reason. You seem to believe that this is a bad thing for a healer to be doing. I respectfully disagree.
I don't see what's the big advantage in "having mana left so I can heal longer if the fight continues" over "I had bigger heals so I could heal bigger spikes if they'd happen". Which one is better depends on the fight, while people often seem to suggest the former is better than the latter in all situations. It's just not true. Having mana left at the end of the fight is just as bad overhealing as the overhealing that shows on the meters - except nobody will yell at you for it since it doesn't show on the meters. If you ask me, though, obviously both types of overhealing are not avoidable and should not be used as a form of performance measurement, but if you're going to look at one type you should also look at the other.
Remember we overheal because we don't know how much damage the target will take between the reaction time + latency time prior to spell completion to the actual spell completion, and even if we know how much damage is going to be dealt we won't know how much damage will be dealt by next heal (so we know if we can cancel anyway or have to overheal the target to full). If we were psychic like that we would be able to do much better overhealing theorycrafting and actually factor all of these things. But since damage is generally unpredictable at least to some degree, the more healing you do the better, even if it overhealed now - you couldn't have known it in advance. If you can get a model that will properly take the effects of crit overhealing VS spellpower overhealing VS mana left at end of fight overhealing and show how they change how good each stat is for succeeding in a raid encounter, I'd love to see it.
As long as divinity is double-tapping into glyph of holy light and beacon of light I think I'd go for it over 5% crit. If that gets changed/fixed I might reconsider (unless it's been changed already?). Extra burst healing also seems quite useful for being able to maintain healing under divine plea. If the fight offers a chance to easily get plea out then this is a bit redundant of course.
It seems like they're not liking any kind of double dipping on beacon - at least DP's double dipping is said to get fixed, I'm assuming all other kinds of double dipping will get fixed as well.
When yer talking about SP vs crit, also have to look at worst case scenarios. If a tank takes a spike and our heal is a non-crit, our spell power still helps us where the crit doesnt. If we're lucky, our crits line up perfectly where they come exactly when they need to; when the tank takes a big spike, it does happen that way often too. But if I was healing a tank, he took a spike and I didnt crit him. I'd feel really stupid if when asked why I let the tank die I say it was because I didn't crit. That's an extreme example, but my point is crit is great for HPS via the extra healing and mana returns but spell power is a much more reliable stat and will give us a more stable tank.
It seems like they're not liking any kind of double dipping on beacon - at least DP's double dipping is said to get fixed, I'm assuming all other kinds of double dipping will get fixed as well.
Could be, however Blizzard's been extremely slow at fixing this in many cases, especially when the effect hasn't been disproportionate.
They've gone ahead and fixed ignite while leaving beast slaying (troll racial) unaffected for ages. They "fixed" beacon but that was really just them changing divine plea to only affect holy light, holy shock and flash of light. They seem to have fixed glyph of rejuvenation. So yea, they might fix divinity but it seems every fix they do does require a separate change instead of one global change. They might not take the time to fix divinity (and certain other such abilities) for quite a while still.
When yer talking about SP vs crit, also have to look at worst case scenarios. If a tank takes a spike and our heal is a non-crit, our spell power still helps us where the crit doesnt. If we're lucky, our crits line up perfectly where they come exactly when they need to; when the tank takes a big spike, it does happen that way often too. But if I was healing a tank, he took a spike and I didnt crit him. I'd feel really stupid if when asked why I let the tank die I say it was because I didn't crit. That's an extreme example, but my point is crit is great for HPS via the extra healing and mana returns but spell power is a much more reliable stat and will give us a more stable tank.
The opposite, it only makes SP better as it increases your non-crit healing while crit does not. Just like HP increases your ability to survive no-avoidance-streaks while avoidance does not.
On another note, MMO-Champion is listing the Spark of Hope trinket as a piece of 10-man loot, meaning paladins may actually have a chance in hell of equipping one and seeing if it really is BiS.
What are people's thoughts on the Scale of Fates? (25-man Thorim) While it doesn't have any stats, the haste on demand would be like a better version of the Egg of Mortal Essences wouldn't it? (for the SP/Haste fans) I might just get it for the haste burst, also would probably go well in a burst healing set.
What are people's thoughts on the Scale of Fates? (25-man Thorim) While it doesn't have any stats, the haste on demand would be like a better version of the Egg of Mortal Essences wouldn't it? (for the SP/Haste fans) I might just get it for the haste burst, also would probably go well in a burst healing set.
If you're going for a pure SP kit for maximizing Sacred Shield, I could see some benefit to it. But even then, it's a niche item. The haste effect is on demand, and the duration is twice as long, but the ICD of the Egg and its Arachnid counterpart were both ~45 seconds, as opposed to the 2-minute cooldown on this beaut.
the ICD of the Egg and its Arachnid counterpart were both ~45 seconds, as opposed to the 2-minute cooldown on this beaut.
It's nothing special or horrible, really.
It is an upgrade if you are using the Egg or the Spider version of the trinket. Being able to control the haste and having more spell power is good.
Millions of words are written annually purporting to tell how to beat the races, whereas the best possible advice on the subject is found in the three monosyllables: 'Do not try.'
It is an upgrade if you are using the Egg or the Spider version of the trinket. Being able to control the haste and having more spell power is good.
I agree, but the catch is, should you really be using the Egg or Spider trinket at all vs. Nobles, JC, Alchemy Stone, etc.
It's the best option for a pure SP/Haste trinket, yet it's still not groundbreaking or something to right home about. I find Pandora's Plea and the oh-so-coveted spirit trinket far more interesting.
I'd only use it for fights that requires this sort of on-use burst, but for most ("normal") fights sapphire owl / darkmoon / soul of the dead will be better.
What are people's thoughts on the Scale of Fates? (25-man Thorim) While it doesn't have any stats, the haste on demand would be like a better version of the Egg of Mortal Essences wouldn't it? (for the SP/Haste fans) I might just get it for the haste burst, also would probably go well in a burst healing set.
I'd be very hesitant to take it over caster DPS or other healers, but I'd probably pick one up eventually. It's gooood but if you roll on it then you lose bargaining power when trying to get the really good trinkets for us.
Spark of Life is iLvL 219, so yeah I believe that that's 10 man regular mode? Or perhaps hard mode. I'm slightly confused, but it should be obtainable if you run it regularly with the same group.
Regarding overhealing, the old addage "it's irrelevant unless you're oom" is still a pretty good fit, although I'd go further and say that it's good unless you're oom. I'm relatively suspect of players with very low levels of overheal, since I generally assume that it means that they're putting the tank at risk. Personally, I'm generally happy with an overheal figure 10-20% more than the tank's average avoidance over the course of a fight, so that if the tank had not avoided a single swing throughout the entire fight, they still would have lived. This isn't something that I'd expect to see on challenging content, it's more of a "if my overhealing goes beyond that number, then things are getting kinda stupid ..." figure. Overhealing is generally a very necessary by-product of healing, simply due to the random nature of avoidance / resistance (although less so these days) and the lack of perfect synchronisation between boss swing times / hit damage and heal cast times / amounts healed. If a tank's just been hit for 8k, then hitting him with a 10k heal is the right thing to do, not chip away at the deficit with 3.5-4k heals.
Assuming that I don't want DG/DS from prot, then I'd still probably drop 5% crit from ret for 5% healing done from Prot. Whoever was saying that you can't just average out overhealing over a fight made a good point. Most overhealing comes from landing a heal on a tank after they've avoided a swing, not because they're consistantly taking hits for 40-60% of whatever your primary heal is healing for.
A latent appliance fetishist is someone who refuses to admit to his or herself that sexual gratification can only be achieved through the use of machines.
- L. Ron Hoover
HL heals for so much that it's hard for me to think of extra healing as a burst stat. I believe that if the damage is healable solo, the tank will survive on a non-crit HL until the next HL lands without divinity or gemming for spellpower.
Crit isn't a stellar survivability stat either, but I think the different between a crit and a non-crit HL is big enough to remove the need for a second HL occasionally.
If divinity was haste/healing taken instead I might actually choose it over more crit.
I personally see crit as a regen-stat, with some bonus healing tacked on top of it.
Crit is a unreliable stat, and I don't want to "sometimes" be able to heal through some bad avoidance rolls, and "sometimes" not.
I can't plan for crits(not counting DF), and i can't change my next spells after a crit in most cases.
Reliability > Luck
edit: I also kind of dislike crit as a regen stat, because of the randomness. Now if MP5 weren't just so god-damn awful...
And i also dislike all kinds of procs for healing.
The crit extra healing is not to save a tank from dying to a random burst, as that's obviously unreliable. The crit extra healing does, however, do more healing requiring less healing from other healers when that happens in "normal" (non-burst) situations. Of course how much you can actually take advantage of that extra healing done by crits is argueable, but what's not argueable is the fact that extra healing is done beyond just the mana return and that it does not have anywhere near 0 value.
..., but what's not arguable is the fact that extra healing is done beyond just the mana return and that it does not have anywhere near 0 value.
Originally Posted by KYA1337
I personally see crit as a regen-stat, with some bonus healing tacked on top of it.
Of course crit has a value for healing, thats what makes it better than MP5.
Crit is great for Raid healing, for example, especially with GoHL(not as much as before, but still).
Its just that i don't think it to be very valuable for Tank healing - which is what i, and most paladins, do most of the time.
^^^ I’ve seen a lot of “looking for arguments no one made” and “disagreeing and then stating the exact same opinion” the past few pages, kind of weird.
On topic though the extra crit vs +healing comes down to what you’re looking for out of your spec. The only reason (in my opinion, take it for what it’s worth) to not spec 51/17/3 is to increase your longevity, so it seems logical to just go all out with the crit and spec 51/0/20 (or 51/2/18 if you don’t like PoJ).
For the first few weeks after 3.1 hits I’m going to have 51/17/03 and 51/0/20 as my two specs, but I have a feeling 51/0/20 will rarely get used and probably get changed to some type of pvp or farming spec. The one fight I could see holy/ret shining is the hard mode for General Vezax, I haven’t been on the ptr but it sounds like mana will be tight. Even if that’s the case divine sacrifice might end up saving more mana raid wide than 8% crit.
Crit doesn't help anything for mana regen in the Genreal Vezax fight since you don't get mana back from Illumination.
Int doesnt help anything for regen in that fight either so havning divinity, stacking spellpower and using more FoL is probably better there.
As for an earlier discussion about best in slot trinkets, Spark of Hope seems like a really nice trinket for that fight.
03/28/09, 12:06 PM
Similar Threads
