I have also fixed any mistakes spotted by peer review, so it should be pretty accurate now.
The weighting works by looking at both peak throughput, and total output over a given period, considering regen for two scenarios, and then compares them as percentage changes to the output. This is done for HL, FoL and HS, and then weighted by the relative effectiveness of those strategies. The stat weightings produced for a paladin in 3.2 at a similar gear level to me would be:
Note these weightings are normalised as "percentage all-round improvement of healing done".
I hope you find this useful. If anyone spots any mistakes in the spreadsheet (created in Numbers on OS X, and also exported as XLS for Windows users), I'd appreciate the feedback.
I had a whole long post worked up for this, but lost it. Luckily, SirSilk seems to have summed up my opinion on this matter pretty conclusively. If all changes make it more or less to live, look what we have left.
We will remain primarily a tank healer, via Beacon of Light. On 1 tank fights, we'll be using BoL on tank and spamming heals on random raid members (probably melee). Where we will do decently well is a 2 tank fight when tanks can stay in range, but to be honest, we're pretty good at that with proper beacon usage as it is already.
A word on mana. I took last weeks Iron Council (Medium-25) parse to see how it would have effected me there. I used this because I had it on hand and I remember ending the fight at something like 50% mana. I would lose 32,500 mana between Illumination (27k), and Replenishment (5k). Too compensate, over a 7 minute fight, I will need to gain about 385 mana5. I'm also omitting the 5% nerf to Divine Intellect which will hurt initial mana and slightly effect regen. Granted, I was not using Divine Plea often due to the MS and was rarely in melee range. Also, was using a 2:1 HL/FoL ratio (roughly).
After the patch, we will move from being a top notch tank healer able to sustain high HPS for long durations, to a mediocre tank healer and mediocre raid healer. Smart heals via a buffed range Chain Heal and PoH/CoH are still much better raid healing tools then glyphed HL and by a pretty good margin. Our options are to either significantly reduce HPS by mixing in more spell power and mp5 while using FoL to a large degree (and in an era of 40k+ tanks and FoLs that do only 10-15% of that, making us an inferior tank healer), or to continue to attempt to use HL primarily and find new mana returns.
In a game where min/max'ing is the key, being in the middle ground is not a good thing. The flash of light HoT is going to be generally irrelevant for PVE unless it can A)proc via Beacon, B)stack ala lifebloom, C)tick despite constant overwriting.
Honestly, with Illumination now nerfed 70% of it's original value, I'd rather they just scrap it and give us a new heal halfway between Holy Light and Flash of Light, in both cost and output.
(Maybe I was the only person who LIKED stacking Int and casting HL. Additionally, now the awesome proc from [Val'anyr, Hammer of Ancient Kings] will be significantly less useful. Glad we gave ours to a shaman, who's picking up a great tank healing buff in the form of -10% damage reduction proc on crits.)
I feel this is a very well negative view of it all. What the Mana regen nerfs me is that we HAVE TO LEARN the fight, Time when a Boss hits the target and make sure HL lands right after. Sure I don't like this very much, but I was in BC and I remember doing this because to sit there and spam HL meant you would go oom and you had to time it. MS or not I will use DP to make up the difference, there will be enough healers to make up the difference while you have the MS debuff on you. We are going back to the days of when Paladins really need to know what they are doing. I'm thinking many Holy Paladins that started in Wrath will reroll, but those of us who know this playstyle will fall right back into it. We don't know what will happen. I doubt it that the patch notes we are seeing right now will be the final product.
I do believe the nerf to Illumination went way to far, and I believe the PTR will show Paladins lagging behind in that area now, but I also believe like another poster said that Blizzard doesn't want a repeat of Sunwell where all a Holy paladin had to look forward to was standing outside buffing while the raid went in to kill bosses. PTR is about testing and if it happens where we can't even do our job because we have no mana they will change it. There are a lot of good changes this patch. I for one think the Lay on Hands change is amazing. If you time it just right, with DS that can be a 50% damage reduction. THat is quite high.
It still makes no sense how you model what spells are casted in the specified fight. You seem to model 3 different fights, one where you spam HL, one where you spam FoL, and one with spamming HS. Then you just take the weighted sum of the 3, and see what percent increase 1 to a stat provided. That is an extremely poor model, that does not accurately reflect how people actually cast in fights at all. For example when you gain more mana you cast more Holy Lights, but you have to cast less Flash of Lights in there place, because you were casting some spell for the duration of the fight anyway.
Beacon of Light --> The changes here reflect our comminity's QQ over being limited to tank healing. Buffing Beacon's range to 60 yards is ENORMOUS, may I repeat agian, ENORMOUS. Furthermore - 100% of the heal, regardless of overheal, being converted to the Beacon target? Can we say OP? This obviously gives the paladin the ability to effectively raid heal, while not having to worry about getting clipped and losing Beacon procs on the Beacon target. HOWEVER, I ultimately view these changes as allowing for lazy, slow, and not smart healing. Even now, before these changes, paladins are effectively raid healers who get free heals on the tank. In fights like Kologarn, one paladin alone can keep up the main tank and the three people in grip, through HL spam rotation on the 3 targets with beacon on the tank. After shockwave? A paladin using a HL rotation on the raid / certain groups, when done by a smart fast paladin who doesn't get clipped, basically means that the new buff to BOL is rendered less OP than we once thought.
FOL HOT--> I honestly don't see this having much of an inpact in PVE. Since SS can now only be cast on 1 target per paladin, I can only see it being useful on 1-3 tanks, depending on how many paladins are in the raid. I am not sure how the HOT works (Does it go towards beacon? Does it stack? Does it tick even when overwritten or does the tick timer reset?), and depending on how it works, it will vary between being completely useless to having minimal utility. I am pessimistic about this simply because there are so few SS's up in a raid with its new limitations.
Illumination--> This is where I (pardon) flip a s%@#&!!! From 60% to 30%, in a raid where we can expect about 50% crit on HL, means that pallies who rely on crit mana returns (like myself and probably everyone else) are going to see HUGE mana loss when spamming HL. Understandably, Blizz is trying to divert us from having never ending mana pools, but I don't see a nerf of this proportion capable of evening out the healing field, so to speak, in any way. Per HL crit, we get back 765 mana... this is being reduced to 382 mana. In a raid, we can expect about 50% HL crit, with a 1.5 second cast. In 2 casts (3 seconds) we expect, therefore, 756 mana back, which is reduced to 382, effectively giving us HL spammers a loss of a maximum of 637 MP5. (I say loss of a maximum because you need a few GCD's to refresh BOL/SS/Judge, etc etc.)
Replenishment--> Replenishment needed a nerf, no doubt, but not one like this. This strongly favors classes with high MP5, and greatly hurts caster DPS. Shamans are now at a huge advantage over, say, priests and pallies. Blizz mentioned that they would try to even out the huge nerf by increasin the MP5 on our gear, but I don't see it coming even close to recompensating for the nerf. I am definitely interseted in seeing new numbers on stats' regen v. output performance (are there some already posted that I missed?).
I would appreciate any knowledge / feedback on these topics.... As of now, I am very put down by these changes. I see them having over-nerfed the admittedly needed nerf on our regen, and I see the BOL changes as giving every noob the ability to do what once took finesse.
EDIT: I am considering changing to the 51/20/0 spec because of these changes.
It still makes no sense how you model what spells are casted in the specified fight. You seem to model 3 different fights, one where you spam HL, one where you spam FoL, and one with spamming HS. Then you just take the weighted sum of the 3, and see what percent increase 1 to a stat provided. That is an extremely poor model, that does not accurately reflect how people actually cast in fights at all. For example when you gain more mana you cast more Holy Lights, but you have to cast less Flash of Lights in there place, because you were casting some spell for the duration of the fight anyway.
I'd be interested in seeing how you model it in your spreadsheet, and how that model produces significantly different results that invalidate my methodology. I'd like to think the readers of this forum can muster a bit more rigour than "lol u r wrong" when critiquing a spreadsheet.
I stand by my methodology. No, it doesn't simulate a specific fight, but that's not the goal. I measure how each of the major spells perform in terms of total healing done, with a given scenario, and compare performance between scenarios to give an indication of how much any given stat improvement translates into an improvement - in general - for a paladins healing.
I'd be interested in seeing how you model it in your spreadsheet, and how that model produces significantly different results that invalidate my methodology. I'd like to think the readers of this forum can muster a bit more rigour than "lol u r wrong" when critiquing a spreadsheet.
I stand by my methodology. No, it doesn't simulate a specific fight, but that's not the goal. I measure how each of the major spells perform in terms of total healing done, with a given scenario, and compare performance between scenarios to give an indication of how much any given stat improvement translates into an improvement - in general - for a paladins healing.
I agree with this sentiment. As many have stated throughout the course of this thread, HL spam is not the only option for paladins, and will be even less of one post-3.2. Some fights require FoL, some fights require HS, some fights require HL, some fights require a mix. Versatility is key to any healer's success. If you devise a weighting scale based on any mix of healing "rotations," then it's by default going to be a decent, well-rounded, middle-of-the-road estimate. On some fights, it will be suboptimal compared to a specifically modeled rotation, and on some fights it will be more optimal.
Vezax is a great fight for FOL rotations. You'll find a lot of value for MP5 here.
Thorim is a great fight for HL rotations. You'll find a lot of value for crit here.
So what do you do, grab every single piece of plate and mail that drops in the hopes that you'll be able to switch out for every single fight? While maintaining multiple healing sets is a very smart practice, it's simply not practical to collect every piece of healing gear in the game, especially when loot rules come into play. As such, I can see how it'd be acceptable to develop an "average" weighting scale that will sort your stats to be acceptable (but not phenomenal) for Vezax while simultaneously being acceptable (but not phenomenal) for Thorim. At the very least in the short term, until the rest of the guild gears up some. Then you're free to fill all your bag slots with healing gear for every fight/circumstance/weather condition/hair day.
I feel this is a very well negative view of it all. What the Mana regen nerfs me is that we HAVE TO LEARN the fight, Time when a Boss hits the target and make sure HL lands right after. Sure I don't like this very much, but I was in BC and I remember doing this because to sit there and spam HL meant you would go oom and you had to time it. MS or not I will use DP to make up the difference, there will be enough healers to make up the difference while you have the MS debuff on you. We are going back to the days of when Paladins really need to know what they are doing. I'm thinking many Holy Paladins that started in Wrath will reroll, but those of us who know this playstyle will fall right back into it. We don't know what will happen. I doubt it that the patch notes we are seeing right now will be the final product.
I do believe the nerf to Illumination went way to far, and I believe the PTR will show Paladins lagging behind in that area now, but I also believe like another poster said that Blizzard doesn't want a repeat of Sunwell where all a Holy paladin had to look forward to was standing outside buffing while the raid went in to kill bosses. PTR is about testing and if it happens where we can't even do our job because we have no mana they will change it. There are a lot of good changes this patch. I for one think the Lay on Hands change is amazing. If you time it just right, with DS that can be a 50% damage reduction. THat is quite high.
Quite the contradictory statement there. I don't know what you were doing in sunwell, but I certainly wasn't FoLing around. Having to downrank, but nonetheless spam HL isn't much more skillful than today's healing style.
On a different subject - nerfing our mana regen to the ground will be forcing us into heavy DP usage (read: on cooldown). The same patch they designed to make us heal "smarter" will counter their own logic regarding our onlyc active source of manaregen - use it wisely, not mindlessly as soon as it's up. My guess is that at least the illumination nerf will be tuned down rigorously.
I'd be interested in seeing how you model it in your spreadsheet, and how that model produces significantly different results that invalidate my methodology. I'd like to think the readers of this forum can muster a bit more rigour than "lol u r wrong" when critiquing a spreadsheet.
I stand by my methodology. No, it doesn't simulate a specific fight, but that's not the goal. I measure how each of the major spells perform in terms of total healing done, with a given scenario, and compare performance between scenarios to give an indication of how much any given stat improvement translates into an improvement - in general - for a paladins healing.
It models spamming HL for 6 minutes, spamming FoL for 6 minutes and spamming Holy Shock. If you are short on mana you will just not cast, instead of casting a lower MPS spell like FoL. That is not representative of any fight in the game, so the results are totally irrelevant. It is going to overvalue mana stats, because it is representing them as you casting Holy Light where you previously were casting nothing. In actual in fights though, gaining more mana means we cast Holy Lights instead of Flash of Light. I hope you can see the difference, and how it will effect the results.
For Rawr, first I calculate how much mana and time is used on maintaining buffs and stuff (SS, BoL JotP, HS, etc). Then with the remaining mana and time left in the fight I calculate the maximum amount of time you can cast Holy Light, while still casting at least Flash of Light for the whole fight.
That is not representative of any fight in the game, so the results are totally irrelevant.
Respectfully, you have not shown that the results are irrelevant. I have explained that my methodology is not simulation based, but a measurement of the strength of the spell under multiple scenarios. You have not show any error in my results.
Originally Posted by Endoscient
It is going to overvalue mana stats, because it is representing them as you casting Holy Light where you previously were casting nothing.
Which is counterbalanced in the weighting table by the fact that regen adds no value for the FoL or HS columns. Regen is very important to HL spam, and not at all to FoL or HS.
Originally Posted by Endoscient
In actual in fights though, gaining more mana means we cast Holy Lights instead of Flash of Light. I hope you can see the difference, and how it will effect the results.
Please elaborate on how exactly my spreadsheet is wrong on this matter. More mana, in the spreadsheet, does show up as more HL cast.
Originally Posted by Endoscient
For Rawr, first I calculate how much mana and time is used on maintaining buffs and stuff (SS, BoL JotP, HS, etc). Then with the remaining mana and time left in the fight I calculate the maximum amount of time you can cast Holy Light, while still casting at least Flash of Light for the whole fight.
Rawr is an excellent tool, I don't dispute that, and I thank you for your feedback, but I think your being unreasonably dismissive of the results, simply because the methodology differs from your own.
Respectfully, you have not shown that the results are irrelevant. I have explained that my methodology is not simulation based, but a measurement of the strength of the spell under multiple scenarios. You have not show any error in my results.
Which is counterbalanced in the weighting table by the fact that regen adds no value for the FoL or HS columns. Regen is very important to HL spam, and not at all to FoL or HS.
Please elaborate on how exactly my spreadsheet is wrong on this matter. More mana, in the spreadsheet, does show up as more HL cast.
Just because it represents more mana as casting more Holy Lights, doesn't mean it is showing a proper relationship between the two.
You haven't shown how the weightings are relevant. If they aren't trying to model a fight, then what exactly is it modeling and why is that relevant?
If something is trying to model a given fight, the relevance is clear cut. This stat will increase how much I will heal over the whole fight by X, and will increase how much my max burst healing is by Y. It is quite easy from there to map the values onto a real fight.
What do your weightings mean? If I spam HL for 6 mins, get to full mana then spam FoL for 6 minutes, then get to full mana and spam HS for 6 minutes, these stats will increase how much overall healing that will do by Z. Where is the relationship between what that number is and actually healing a fight in Ulduar?
This will allow you to first put your Sacred Shield on any target, and the second macro will allow you to then cast Flash of Lights onto that target without switching targets. This is useful, as you can keep up your FoL HoT on the SS target effortlessly.
I wonder, if the changes go live how they are and spamming HL is nearly impossible, would a sheathe spec be viable?
Gem complete SP, with nearly BIS gear and a furious libram and your FoL SP will be around 3500.
FoL will hit for around 5500 and you can stack sheath hots on the tank along with a new FoL hot (assuming it works the same way as sheathe, or similar and doesnt not allow the hot to tick), then you can go around using FoL on the raid, thus giving them the hot as well when the tank is not in need of immediate healing. Could be effective maybe? One thing that could kill the spec is if the sheathe and FoL hots dont stack, which could be possible because of implications for ret in pvp.
FoL will hit for around 5500 and you can stack sheath hots on the tank along with a new FoL hot, then you can go around using FoL on the raid, thus giving them the hot as well when the tank is not in need of immediate healing. Could be effective maybe?
If we calculate with your numbers, 5500 Non-Crit FoL means 8250 Crit. -> Thats 8250 Hot Heal over 12sec and another 2475 over 12sec. Seems a bit low, especially if we count what talents we sacrifice in Holy to reach Sheat of Light. Also any Tree Druid can be much more effective with their hots, than we can reach with gimmick specs.
So I don't think it will be ever a good healing spec.
Sacred Shield: When a paladin casts Flash of Light on a target with this buff, they also now place a heal over time effect on the target, healing that target for 100% of the Flash of Light amount over 12 seconds.
and
First, we are changing Flash of Light so that it places a heal-over-time effect on any target with Sacred Shield on them (the effect will be similar to Sheathe of Light). This should make Flash see a little more use.
similar to Sheathe of Light, sounds interesting.
Sheat of Light:
Whenever you critt with a healing spell the Duration of the sheatbuff is renewed.
When you critt 2 times the buff is not overwritten, the next ticks heal for a greater amount.
So whean you spam FoL on the shielded target you shoud get an hot that builds itself up.
So one Hot lasts 12 seconds in these 12 seconds you can roughly cast 8 FoLs that should lead to a hot ticking with 10k or more (depending on gear and critt rate) every 3 secs and in addition you got the FoL heals every 1.5 secs (not regarding haste).
And considering the low mana costs of FoL thats a relativly high single target HPS for very very low manacosts.
And if this hot can also be copied with beacon you have 10k hots and FoL on 2 Tanks. (or double if you got 2 paladins).
If I missunderstood something regarding sheat I would be glad to be enlightened.
It would be nice to know how this new Hot actually works, are there any posts in the US Forums regarding these matters ?
I suppose if Holy Light spam was no longer possible it would probably still just be better to stack alot of SP and use alot of FoL with a beacon spec, but if the sheathe and FoL hots can stack to great amounts, and stack on top of each other it could be quite powerful.
I am not 100% certain on how the sheathe hot works, so if someone who is can put in their opinion it would be great. But if the sheathe hot does tick for more the more crits you have then lets say you have a hot that heals for 10,000 over 12 seconds, then a second FoL hot that works similarly to the sheathe hot that heals for maybe 15,000 over 12 seconds. All the while spamming 5,500 non crit and 8.5-12k crit FoL's. I dont know, the sheath hots and FoL hots would have to work in a very specific way for it to work.
Just because it represents more mana as casting more Holy Lights, doesn't mean it is showing a proper relationship between the two.
You haven't shown how the weightings are relevant. If they aren't trying to model a fight, then what exactly is it modeling and why is that relevant?
If something is trying to model a given fight, the relevance is clear cut. This stat will increase how much I will heal over the whole fight by X, and will increase how much my max burst healing is by Y. It is quite easy from there to map the values onto a real fight.
What do your weightings mean? If I spam HL for 6 mins, get to full mana then spam FoL for 6 minutes, then get to full mana and spam HS for 6 minutes, these stats will increase how much overall healing that will do by Z. Where is the relationship between what that number is and actually healing a fight in Ulduar?
I really can't be bothered with you any more. Your argument is specious. A simulation can tell you one thing: Can you heal this fight. Yes or no. If you can, any "improvement" is irrelevant. If you can't, any improvement that is less than enough is irrelevant. You seem to have a problem with the idea of a generalisation, to the point that you reject it - and thus the way 99% of all raiders select gear - out of hand. My spreadsheet aims to do just as I've said, it compares "how much" healing a paladin can do, and the weightings represent the percentage improvement each is, it helps a player select the right stats to improve their character.
I realise you are the author of (or at least personally invested in) the healadin module for Rawr, and I actually have a lot of respect for that tool, so I'll put this too you: What item, picked as BiS by my spreadsheets weightings, do you think is *wrong*, and *why*? Or, if you prefer, what fight do you think a paladin who uses my spreadhseet would fail on, and why?
I really can't be bothered with you any more. Your argument is specious. A simulation can tell you one thing: Can you heal this fight. Yes or no. If you can, any "improvement" is irrelevant. If you can't, any improvement that is less than enough is irrelevant. You seem to have a problem with the idea of a generalisation, to the point that you reject it - and thus the way 99% of all raiders select gear - out of hand. My spreadsheet aims to do just as I've said, it compares "how much" healing a paladin can do, and the weightings represent the percentage improvement each is, it helps a player select the right stats to improve their character.
I realise you are the author of (or at least personally invested in) the healadin module for Rawr, and I actually have a lot of respect for that tool, so I'll put this too you: What item, picked as BiS by my spreadsheets weightings, do you think is *wrong*, and *why*? Or, if you prefer, what fight do you think a paladin who uses my spreadhseet would fail on, and why?
You are saying, modeling a fight doesn't generalize gear selection enough, so instead I am going to model a totally arbitrary situation. Then just hope it does a better job, but spend absolutely no time or effort trying to establish its relevance. I am just asking you to explain why you believe the situation you model will accurately reflect the effectiveness of gear in a general situation, yet you refuse to. Instead saying its true until proven otherwise, while providing no reasoning for it.
I will look more into finding a specific counter example later.
A simulation can tell you one thing: Can you heal this fight. Yes or no. If you can, any "improvement" is irrelevant.
This is the same line of thinking as: "Healers shouldn't get gear if they can already heal a fight, all gear should go to the DPS so that the fight can be quicker next time."
As theorycrafters and posters on the EJ boards, we're expected to hold ourselves and our classes under the finest magnification possible. We're not looking for "good enough", we're looking for the most mathematically sound result possible. There are guys and gals running thousands of tests and crunching calculus-level math to find the grain of truth that's hidden in Blizzard's design. We should never be happy because we just "healed" a fight. Our job is to heal it the best that it's ever been healed, in every aspect. We should have the highest throughput, mana regeneration, burst healing, etc that is possible from our class. We're not here because gemming SP is "good enough" and you're able to heal Algalon with it so it must be the best. We're here to squeeze out every last drop from our gear, as long as there is a mathematical principle behind it.
The further your model varies from an actual fight, the lower its value. Imagine this same simulation from a Rogue's point of view. If you're running a simulation that doesn't accurately reflect a REAL Rogue cycle, you're not telling me a single thing that I want to know. Just because a healer may be able to follow your model more closely than a Rogue would does not mean that your model is good. It simply means it doesn't suck as hard as it could, which is not the standard that any of us should be looking for.
I'm trying to say i don't model a fight scenario, i try to measure how powerful each of the spells are with a given gear set, in order to determine what the 'better' gear set would be. I am happy to concede that it is up for debate what exactly "powerful" means. I hope my spreadhsheet gives a reasonably balanced answer to that question, considering peak throughput and an endurance centric measurement of total healing done in a given time frame, and for the 3 major paladin spells. But it's not trying to mimic how an encounter goes down or what exact spells a paladin casts, and I don't think that approach automatically invalidates the results.
Thanks for the time you've spent discussing this. I know my tone/the way I write can seem a bit combatative at times, and I apologise for that if I've caused offence.
I'm trying to say i don't model a fight scenario, i try to measure how powerful each of the spells are with a given gear set, in order to determine what the 'better' gear set would be. I am happy to concede that it is up for debate what exactly "powerful" means. I hope my spreadhsheet gives a reasonably balanced answer to that question, considering peak throughput and an endurance centric measurement of total healing done in a given time frame, and for the 3 major paladin spells. But it's not trying to mimic how an encounter goes down or what exact spells a paladin casts, and I don't think that approach automatically invalidates the results.
Thanks for the time you've spent discussing this. I know my tone/the way I write can seem a bit combatative at times, and I apologise for that if I've caused offence.
The spreadsheet seems to not be working too well with Excel 2007 (for me at least) but from what I can understand, it would only need some parameters to be more relevant. Allowing the user to input a fight duration would allow stats weighting to be more accurate in most situations. One could see what is the best gear setup they could get if they wanted to spam Holy Lights for X minutes (regen stats would get more importance) or Flash of Light for X minutes (throughput stats would get more importance).
Then some parameters to let the user input the % of usage of each spells would make it more relevant again since it would model pretty much what the user really is casting, and not just compare each stat for someone who is casting only one spell.
I realize that this would come to modelling a specific fight, which you seem reluctant in doing it, but the best way to compare stats and gear is to compare them in a realistic situation. Madsushi's example for a damage dealer is pretty good here. If you want to compare stats, you have to consider the whole rotation and not just one spell or ability.
I'm trying to say i don't model a fight scenario, i try to measure how powerful each of the spells are with a given gear set, in order to determine what the 'better' gear set would be. I am happy to concede that it is up for debate what exactly "powerful" means. I hope my spreadhsheet gives a reasonably balanced answer to that question, considering peak throughput and an endurance centric measurement of total healing done in a given time frame, and for the 3 major paladin spells. But it's not trying to mimic how an encounter goes down or what exact spells a paladin casts, and I don't think that approach automatically invalidates the results.
Thanks for the time you've spent discussing this. I know my tone/the way I write can seem a bit combatative at times, and I apologise for that if I've caused offence.
You are measuring the increase of an arbitrary situation without showing how these values are actually relevant to reality. Your results are invalid until you can demonstrate their relevance to real scenarios.
Why is it useful to know how much of an increase I get to spamming HL for 6 mins, getting to full mana, then spamming FoL for 6 minutes, then getting to full mana, and then spamming HS for 6 minutes?
06/20/09, 4:08 AM
Similar Threads
