Disc Priest - Mists of Pandaria - Page 18

Gloryrider · 02/01/13, 7:57 PM

Originally Posted by Havoc12

Gloryrider, lowering the healing of other healers is never a concern for maximising output. If there is too little damage for the other healers to heal, one of them goes DPS.

Obviously if you're 2-healing in a 10-man group and there is a lull in the damage intake, you should just soloheal the whole thing. And when the Druid pops tranq and everyone gets topped, I shouldn't have been healer in the first place...

I understand fully where you're coming from, it's even in my post, right there, that it's something to consider. Especially the DPS gain.
Of course stopping casts lowers your healing done, that goes without explanation. I just disagree with you when you say there's no time whatsoever that you can stop casting or 'interval-cast', because many fights do.If the drop in HPS is worth the gain in mana (because you're healing at insanely high overheal rates) then you should indeed, skip a couple casts. There's enough discussion about this on the subject of the current PW:Solace, no need to reiterate on this further.

And the value of haste is subject to the same rules as crit in these situations since the extra healing you do is pointless, the extra dps you do is not. Just like with crit. And yes, haste > crit for atonement DPS so indeed. Mastery still falls behind but I guess everyone figured that out already

Originally Posted by Havoc12

However doing that means choosing to not push your HPS to its limit. That means you and I have different aims and hence there is little point in a discussion. (...) Haste is only limited by mana when you are chain cast as much as you possibly can.

As Szeretlek pointed out already as well, you'll need the mana to go with that. Before some decent calculations are done about exactly how much extra mana you spend on filler spells because of a certain amount of haste, there is no point discussing either. You're saying it's your aim to chain cast all the time, but you're not proving that it's even possible to chain cast with those levels of haste.
Having more haste with a limited mana pool will only push your spell selection towards mana-efficient spells that can be continuously cast. If then a huge damage spike comes and you are stuck casting low HPS spells (or high HPS spells, resulting in being out of mana completely afterwards), your raid will be dead sooner than later.

Originally Posted by Havoc12

I am afraid you didn't think this through. If overheal is high the incoming damage is low so aegis is being wasted. Aegis only matters when you can be certain it will be absorbed i.e. when you can keep it alive through PoH spam.

...but you can't, I know. But you've never even considered the fact that sometimes the biggest overheal on your crit comes from the raw healing, and that the aegis later gets absorbed. That is a very likely scenario whenever your atonement crits the tank. Even with 100% raw healing overhealed your Aegis will still be absorbed by the next melee hit(s). As it will on raid members with a dot, low raid damage, high raid damage dealt with by cooldowns like Tranquility & Divine Hymn, etc, etc.

Originally Posted by Havoc12

I considered aegis and its "overheal" in all theoretical calculations.

It was an honest question, I'm not as mathematically skilled as many (everyone?) here and it wasn't entirely clear. Thanks for confirming.

EDIT: I don't think anyone expects crit to have 100% of it's full value anytime. It would be extremely powerful if it did. The question is what the value is and this question goes for both crit ánd haste still.

Havoc12 · 02/01/13, 11:45 PM

If there is really no damage to heal at all then you can take a break without affecting the value of haste. This a break that is enforced by the raid mechanics, making essentially dead time. Dead time does not affect the value of haste.

In order for haste to not lose value you should be able to cast x% more spells if you have x% more haste. That is the only requirement. If you are not using all the cast time available to you then haste obviously loses value, but you can't cast anything during dead space anyway, so it is not part of your available time.

So we are basically back to what I said in the begining. Haste is only limited by mana. It does not care how much you overheal.

As for having enough mana, you certainly will. In 5.2 any fight where you dont smite mostly outside spirit shell disc is bad.

Perkeyone · 02/02/13, 1:50 AM

I still think it's very biased to say haste does not contribute to overheal.
If you increase your hps without the damage taken also increasing, you get more overheal. Period.

Gloryrider · 02/02/13, 7:30 AM

Havoc, I was only disagreeing with you that haste is simply equally (un)affected by whether or not you choose to halt your healing or not when there is mostly overheal. And following your logic, crit is also unaffected when there is a break due to raid mechanics, putting them on equal terms. Which is different from what you stated:

Patently untrue, haste is not affected by overheal as long as its not 100% overheal. I have proven that in previous posts. Crit is disproportionally affected by overheal compared to any other stat.

I daresay crit is less affected simply because it inherently has a shielding mechanic, for reasons I stated above. At least a shield is better than a heal when everyone is already at(/near) full health.

In any case, it seems that it's incredibly hard to value both haste (due to mana limitations) and crit (due to 'overheal' and the shielding mechanics) are very hard to mathematically value right now. I believe a lot will be clear once we get to the actual tier and the actual raid encounters.

A last thing that pops in my mind is the difference of mana regen between 10 and 25 mans... Considering a 25m team probably has, say, a shaman and an extra priest and some extra boomkins, isn't the mana regen greater than in a regular 10m team? If this is the case then haste might increase in value for 25m compared to 10m.
Is this difference something to consider? I'm not familiar enough with 25m to actually draw a valid conclusion here.

Jeges · 02/02/13, 6:17 PM

Caveat: I'm not trying to start a fight, or to perpetuate one, or to "win". I'm happy to be convinced of anything, as long as it's true. I'm trying to get at what is true.

Originally Posted by Havoc12

7% is actually quite a lot and you are dividing it so the error is variable1/variable2*sqrt((error1/variable1)^2 + (error2/variable2)^2), so its magnified. Then you are using a poison(10) so you are pretty much looking at 10% fractions. For means for your calculation 10% overheal and 19% overheal are the treated as the same.....

I think if we could come to a consensus on the value of crit to within 7% I'd be very satisfied. My point with that silly distribution wasn't to claim that I had modeled exactly how health deficits are distributed, but rather to show that a random variable that's reasonably of the sort one might expect when looking at the PDF for health deficits can have its mean reasonably estimated with only 100 samples. I don't follow what you're saying with "...variable1/variable2..., so it's magnified." I'm not trying to predict overheal. Just showing that 100 samples allows you to get a pretty good estimate of a mean, even for a funny-shaped distribution.

Originally Posted by Havoc12

More importantly even though d is for health deficits, you are using that as a proxy for overheal estimate. To get the overheal estimate you don't want just d you also want the size of the heal. Then again the distribution varies with time, so you have a different sample size for the different distributions at different parts of the fight. You are not dealing with a 1-dimensional distribution but a multi-dimensional one.

Nuts, the LaTeX tags don't seem to work here.
I'm not using d as a proxy for overheal estimates. Let f be the PDF on health deficits (instead of d, for clarity). Let h be the value of a normal heal. Then the expected actual value of a heal is:
integral_0^h f(x)*x dx + h * integral_h^infinity f(x) dx
The expected actual value of a crit (not counting DA) is:
integral_0^2.06h f(x)*x dx + 2.06h * integral_2.06h^infinity f(x) dx
The best estimators of these values, from the data, are the respective means of heals and crits. You can argue about whether expected value of a heal and expected value of a crit are important metrics, you can propose others and see how they do, etc... To me, for example, I'm most interested in how much I can heal during the most healing-intensive phases of a fight, and so looking at means actually will tend to undervalue crit (since spells are less likely to overheal when there's heavy damage going out). But, to me, looking at the ratio of how much healing I get from an average crit to how much healing I get from an average noncrit is a pretty reasonable way to asses how useful a crit is to me.

Originally Posted by Havoc12

If you are still confident about your calculation post your logs and we can calculate the benefit for each individual heal. This is the foolproof way of doing it, because crits don't magically prefer lower deficit targets.

As long as you promise not to laugh at how poorly-progressed we are...

Just hit "Healing by spell" to see my breakdowns
Details for Chebag - 29-01 20:04 - Exhumed - World of Logs
Details for Chebag - 31-01 20:13 - Exhumed - World of Logs
Details for Chebag - 22-01 20:23 - Exhumed - World of Logs

Originally Posted by Havoc12

As for a normal distribution being a "plausible" model for raid HP deficits. If it was mate then crits would always have more overheal and they would depreciate twice as fast with overheal as normal heals. When they don't its exactly because they dont follow a normal distribution.

All in all your model is wrong, what you are calculating is an artifact of using averages when its inappropriate to do so.

In my defense, it was a Poisson plus sometimes a gaussian. But, again, I wasn't trying to accurately model hp deficits, just to show that you could estimate a mean reasonably well with 100 samples. The mean may not be the most informative statistic for a multimodal distribution, of course.

Originally Posted by Havoc12

Crit heals simple cant have 100% value. The distributions required are just too rare. It is mathematically impossible for crits to have more than 100% value.

I really don't understand how you can fail to see where your own arguments are leading you. A 2:1 ratio of crits to heals means that crits have the same overheal as normal heals. If d is the same for crits as it is for heals, then it is simply not possible to have crits with the same overheal as heals. Your own data tells you that the distributions of crits and normal heals are different. There is a difference in d due to sampling errors, which in this system are considerable and more importantly there are key differences in the size of the heals due to CDs.

Crits can have 106% value due to meta gem. As I mentioned, and you mentioned, int procs/CDs can further inflate this, though it's a fairly small effect. We both agree that there's some sampling error, though this error decreases with more samples. My claim, which I stand behind confidently, is that (for me) the amount I crit with a spell is generally in the neighborhood of twice the amount that I heal for non-crit with that same spell. Plus, there's DA. I take from that observation that crit is a useful stat.

Originally Posted by Havoc12

consider 10, heals for 20k each on a deficit of 18k and then the same 10 heals with a 25% boost on a deficit of 100k.

you can expect 1 crit in each. The average for non crit heals is 18/2+25/2 = 21.5 the average for crits is 18/2+50/2 = 34

Without the 25% boost you get 18/2+20/2 = 19 for non crits and and 18/2+40/2 = 29 for crits

34/21.5 = 1.58

29/19 = 1.53

Do you see how the exact same d with non-varying heal size and 100% accurate crit rate still gives different crit/non-crit ratios?

As if that was not enough you are averaging the crit/non-crit ratios from different heals.

What I see in your example is that using a throughput CD (playing well?) when there's a lot to be healed makes crit a more attractive stat. Is this supposed to be self-evidently absurd? What's happening is that half the time there's almost nothing to be healed, so your stats don't really matter. The other half the time, there's a lot to be healed. By increasing your throughput during that time, you're increasing your total throughput, but you're also increasing the fraction of your throughput accounted for by the high-healing phase. Personally, I don't have any throughput procs under my control (I am bad and macro Inner Focus to PoH and GH) so, statistically speaking, my underlying distribution d on health deficits is truly the same for crits and noncrits. While crit certainly suffers from a lack of control, it offers me the best available throughput with no increase in mana expenditure. The lack of control is somewhat mitigated by the huge number of smart heals flying around these days. It works for me, mathematically and practically.

Havoc12 · 02/02/13, 7:50 PM

Originally Posted by Gloryrider

Havoc, I was only disagreeing with you that haste is simply equally (un)affected by whether or not you choose to halt your healing or not when there is mostly overheal. And following your logic, crit is also unaffected when there is a break due to raid mechanics.....

I daresay crit is less affected simply because it inherently has a shielding mechanic, for reasons I stated above. At least a shield is better than a heal when everyone is already at(/near) full health.

A last thing that pops in my mind is the difference of mana regen between 10 and 25 mans...

You seem to be confused. Crit is not affected at all by any breaks in casting, whether they are due to mana, raid mechanics, taking a break to ponder the meaning of life, scratching your nose or whatever. You get a % benefit in every cast no matter how many casts you get off. Haste is only unaffected by enforced break in casting because you have to do something else to prevent your raid wiping or because there is no healing to be done. If you run oom, or you decide to not chain cast even through you can the the value of haste plummets. On the other hand crit is strongly affected by high overheal, but haste is not. Shields are not only good when there is constant damage in which case it makes sense to chain cast. Crit has lower value because of overheal even if shields are absorbed 100% but haste is completely unaffected.

So to recap: If you are not chain casting or you are running oom, haste loses value. If you overheal lots crit loses value. Its really simple and there is nothing else that can be said about it really.

Mana regen in 25man can be higher, but mana expenditure is disproportionally higher. We don't always have a shaman and boomkins are not feeding me with innervate. They are feeding everyone else. I have 14k raid buffed spirit so I don't run oom and chain cast constantly without break. I experimented with the spirit I need and I found that by switching food and flask to int I run oom typically in the burn phases where I should be producing my max HPS, so more spirit gives me superior results, especially if something goes wrong and my mana management cannot be maximised.

After hitting 60% mastery raid buffed I started experimenting with adding crit and haste. Haste gives me consistently higher values, so I am going haste.

Originally Posted by Jeges

I think if we could come to a consensus on the value of crit to within 7%... 100 samples allows you to get a pretty good estimate of a mean, even for a funny-shaped distribution.

I'm not using d as a proxy for overheal estimates. Let f be the PDF on health deficits (instead of d, for clarity). Let h be the value of a normal heal. Then the expected actual value of a heal is:
integral_0^h f(x)*x dx + h * integral_h^infinity f(x) dx
The expected actual value of a crit (not counting DA) is:
integral_0^2.06h f(x)*x dx + 2.06h * integral_2.06h^infinity f(x) dx
The best estimators of these values, from the data, are the respective means of heals and crits. You can argue about whether expected value of a heal and expected value of a crit are important metrics, you can propose others and see how they do, etc... To me, for example, I'm most interested in how much I can heal during the most healing-intensive phases of a fight, and so looking at means actually will tend to undervalue crit (since spells are less likely to overheal when there's heavy damage going out). But, to me, looking at the ratio of how much healing I get from an average crit to how much healing I get from an average noncrit is a pretty reasonable way to asses how useful a crit is to me.

In my defense, it was a Poisson plus sometimes a gaussian. But, again, I wasn't trying to accurately model hp deficits, just to show that you could estimate a mean reasonably well with 100 samples. The mean may not be the most informative statistic for a multimodal distribution, of course.

Crits can have 106% value due to meta gem. A

What I see in your example is that using a throughput CD (playing well?) when there's a lot to be healed makes crit a more attractive stat.

Its 7% with your poisson 10 distribution. Your actual estimates are wildly off and it won't be a 7% estimate for crit value but for the averages themselves. Then when you divide them to get your value you are magnifying the error.

Your calculation is wrong. Because a heal does not have a value h, its value is variable. And no the estimates averages have a large error due to sampling and CD usage.

100% means 100% of the expected value, be it 106% or 1000000006%. Crit can never have more than 100% its expected value. If you are seeing more than 100% then the only explanation is that you are chaining skull banners and you atonement spam 24/7 or you have a sampling error. The latter one is the explanation. 100% value requires either 0% overheal or all heals either overhealing by 100% or 0%. You are not seeing that, so you have an artifact.

I am afraid you see it wrong. What you are seeing is the average being inflated but not the actual value of crit.

You think crit is great for hard spikes but its actually the worse possible stat. Crit only works when there is constant high level damage, and that is rarely the case.

Think of it like this your raid takes 5 big hits over 5 seconds, if you use PoH you can land 3 PoHs in that period of time and then maybe 2 PoH after the spike is over. The first PoH criticals can probably overheal because you pre-cast it and it lands as the damage starts, but all aegis will absorbed. Crits for the 2nd 3rd will probably not overheal but aegis will probably not be absorbed. Any PoHs you will land later crits will overheal and ALL aegis will be lost. That is why crit is terrible, especially with a slow hitting party limited spell.

Even worse you have no guarantee everyone will get a crit. If you are trying to chase serious damage with 3 PoHs, which will be lethal if you don't crit then, even with 35% crit why dont we calculate what the chances are that one person will not get a crit.

The chances of one person getting not getting a crit is (1-0.35)^3 = 0.274625 and you got 5 targets. So what you get is 5*(1-0.35)^3*(1-(1-0.35)^3)^4 = 0.38. If you have to chase damage that is lethal without crit you will lose someone nearly 40% of the time.

Worse of all even if its not lethal damage you just have no guarantee that your next PoH won't crit on those with the smaller deficits.

For atonement and smart heals the fact that you are targeting the lowest health person is slightly better, but the same problem applies you just have no guarantee that you crits will happen at the wrong time.

It is pointless to take crit to increase your burst HPS. Crit has one and only one benefit to increase your overall HPS and mana efficiency over the whole fight. Haste and mastery is what you take if you want to increase your ability to chase burst damage.

Looking at your logs:

Expression Editor - 29-01 20:04 - Exhumed - World of Logs

All your atonement crits.

I add effective healing and overheal, averaged it and divided by two. So if you didnt crit there your average heal would be 22670.5. Your average non crit heal without overheal however is 19808.7. Do you see what I am talking about? you have 67 heals and you have an error in estimating average heal of 15%!!!. This is before you factor in the health deficit distribution.

Now lets go look at another example, of how erroneous your method is: Look at cascade. Your method suggests that you are getting zero benefit from crit: Details for Chebag - 29-01 20:04 - Exhumed - World of Logs. Crits are roughly equal to heals. Is this true? Lets see

[20:39:33.548] Chebag Cascade Risen Ally +*56684* (O: 41738)
[20:39:36.861] Chebag Cascade Shadowfiend +*23505* (O: 78515)
[20:41:14.277] Chebag Cascade Kapaneus +*52925*
[20:41:15.553] Chebag Cascade Beast +*0* (O: 107528)
[20:41:15.553] Chebag Cascade Axel +*16500* (O: 91028)
[20:41:17.958] Chebag Cascade Fatfu +*97379*

The answer is nope. Crit is still giving you value. because you would lose healing if you converted some of those crits to normal heals.

The sampling error here is really high, but that is because of the small sample size.

Look at this:

Details for Chebag - 31-01 20:13 - Exhumed - World of Logs

You have 1000 heals for atonement here, but just look at how many you have for the rest. Since you are averaging for all spells you are giving all groups the same weight despite the fact that all other groups except atonement have extremely small sample sizes. Look at the overheal of atonement crits vs atonement non crits, which is the only one that actually has a decent sample size (which is still too small for assuming that you have equal distributions of d and accurate estimation of the the average heal).

The rest of your heals have extremely small sample sizes. I don't have time right now to sit down and calculate the value of crit for that aggregate, nor is it worth my time to do so. So I just had a quick look. First I calculate your real crit/non-crit ratio

At: 		1.461730463	908
PoH: 		2.285245564	170
casc: 	2.644428052	162
FHl: 		1.952764449	39
PoM:		1.772283875	80

The 2nd colum is crit to non crit and the last is the number of spell casts.

Averaging after weighing for number of casts gives us 1.738102188. Which is for course no where near accurate. My quick look says the ratio is around 1.6.

So even for this large number of casts you are still using a very inaccurate value.

The data you posted at least the stuff I looked at does not support a 2:1 ratio for crits to heals. Not even close. Despite having relatively low overheal values and spamming mostly atonement you are still a long way off from achieving 100% value from crits.

Whether or not you are convinced that you method is wrong and you have handled your data incorrectly is now your problem. I am pretty much done discussing this. Its not worth my time, since your playstyle is very different from mine and any conclusions you make are simply inapplicable to me.

At the end of the day for everyone else, this was as expected a red herring. Crit does not have 100% value ever, not even with the very little overheal (protectors hard) and it is mathematically impossible to get more than 100% value no matter what the fight is like.

Depending on your playstyle you can evaluate crit from 0.7 to 1.7% per point, but that is average over a large range of crit. The first points of crit (coming just from intellect and buffs) have a much higher value than any additional crit you get from rating. Since we are looking at 15-17% base crit, the real value of adding crit is lower.

Perkeyone · 02/02/13, 8:57 PM

Haste is affected by overheal.

Beshar · 02/02/13, 8:57 PM

I read this discussion over the past few days. I don't understand why you even consider stacking haste. Have you ever taken mana into account? You swap int flask with spirit flask because of mana (But ooming if you have only 12.7k?). With the Rapture nerfs you will need WAY more spirit for the haste equip.

To prove this I looked at my spellbreakdown of heroic shekzeer 25man. I counted every cast and calclulate mana spent ( 4.11 million ). Then i reforged my gear to haste and swapped mixed gems to look how much haste i can get, 6.5k. After this i calculated how much i would have beeing able to cast with that much haste and calculated again the mana cost increase. I spent 4.81 million in this simulation. Thats an 8.5% increase.

To regen that much mana you need ~ 2000-2500 Spirit with 5.2 Rapture and MP5. That also means you need to swap int with spirit gems and equip regen trinket like will hc trinket.

4.5k Crit and 2k Int is WAY better than 4.5k Haste and the spirit to offset the mana increase(~4.5k secondary stats is the amount you can reforge/gem around with BiS Gear) regardless of overheal which is really low in progression anyways. You also can equip sha heroic trinket which is a HUGE boost for spirit shell ( 2 PoH cast per spirit shell ) and you can control the procs perfectly to sync with every second spirit shell. If you still can play with nearly maximum int and chain cast haste is probably better than crit ( Encounter mechanics that regen mana as fuck for example ). But in any other situation int + crit is better than haste + spirit.

Currently on the live servers i also have haste equip because i like the playstyle and it doesnt matter in farm raids. I need 11k Spirit for Protectors HC Elite to be ok. But when the next progress starts i will change to crit. Maybye ill take enough haste for the spirit shell breakpoint (~4.8k haste for non goblins) on certain fights were it is needed.

Szeretlek · 02/03/13, 1:23 AM

I read this discussion over the past few days. I don't understand why you even consider stacking haste. Have you ever taken mana into account?

I agreed with you totally, btw. I posted about haste and mana consumption earlier.

For the purpose of haste I repeat myself:

Originally Posted by Szeretlek

Haste is good when you close heroics in non hardcore mode (and gear becomes better every week), or on farm where you can slack and cast non-stop. If you stop casting, haste bonus is gone fast.

Haste is good for discs only in situations where mana doesnt matter. Where you dont need to stack spirit to offset faster mana consumption.

If you have 6k haste and 13k spirit, for the purpose of healing you have 6k haste and 9k spirit, because 4k is a price for that 6k haste.

It is much better to have 13k spirit and 6k crit instead. In that case you really have 13k spirit.

=============

Btw, let me summirize that wall of numbers about Crit.

After analyzing of real logs from Shek`Zeer 10hm (hard PoH) and 2nd phase of Sha 10hm (hard attonement, PoH only for SS) we get those values (overheal included):

Shekzeer 10hm ~100k ehps:
1% crit = 0.8% hps increase
1% mastery = 1.2% hps increase

Sha 10hm ~60k ehps:
1% crit = 1.5% hps increase
1% mastery = 1.1% hps increase

You may think whatever you want, but this is real numbers. For 25man they may vary somehow, so I dont responsible for that kind of extrapolation.

korkkari · 02/03/13, 4:26 AM

Have any of you done any calculation about our professions?

"Rapture now reduces the cost of Power Word: Shield by 25% and provides mana equal to 150% (up from 200%) of the Priest's Spirit, but no longer benefits from Spirit provided by short-duration bonuses."

So tailoring enchant will not benefit from rapture anymore when ie. alchemy will. 480spirit x 1.05 (BoK) x 2.5 (rapture)

So my guestion is how close alchemy will be to tailoring if the current patch notes go live?

And do you think its likely they will buff up rapture a bit. like back to 200%?

Beshar · 02/03/13, 6:02 AM

Tailoring will be by far the worst profession. Spirit procs will be insanly bad because they dont provide any benefit for rapture. I already swapped my second profession from tailoring to engineering. I like engineering alot because you can sync it perfectly with spirit shell and i really love rocket boots since lich king hc

.

PoHs during spirit shell with 30 ms between every cast, 2880 haste and fully upgraded Essence of Terror (EOT) HC.

Nothing: 6.69

EOT: 7.97

BT: 6.82

BT + EOT: 8.10

PI: 8.01

PI + EOT: 9.53

PI + BT: 8.13

PI+ BT +EOT: 9.66

BL: 8.66

BL + EOT: 10.31

BL + BT: 8.79

BL + BT + EOT: 10.44

2880 or a little bit less (because of the queue system the delay between casts should be less then 30ms, need to test it so) seems to be the right amount of haste to maximize spirit shell throughput.

Havoc12 · 02/03/13, 8:11 AM

I am waiting to see what the fights are like. The man 10man fights so far look like atonement spam ad nauseum then spirit shell before burst, but this does not translate well to 25man.

Beshar, where is your proof? Please prove that int and crit are better. I disagree with you. A combination of maxed spirit, haste and crit is better than int and crit. I have explained it theoretically and with examples and models.

With the inflation of int in the hc and 5.2 gear outstripping spirit, spirit is made even better.

You only need 15% raid buffed haste to reach the first spirit shell break point, assuming you are good enough to chain a PWS beforehand.

Haste is affected by overheal.

Where is the math? No maths = might as well not post anything. I have proven conclusively that haste is unaffected by overheal. If you disagree you need to disprove my maths.

Beshar · 02/03/13, 9:40 AM

There it is, my math: Disc Crit vs. Haste

You can add or subtract stats @ the Stat Changes Sheet.

I know that this doesnt include overheal, PoH, SS, BL, PI or anything. But you can see the difference pretty good. DPS wise the difference between 4k Crit and 2k Int is very small compared to 4k Haste and 2k Spirit. The difference in HPS is huge. Haste Buffs (BL;BT;PI) will bring haste a little bit closer to crit.

You cant calculate the amount of overheal because its highly dependent on encounters, raid size, difficulty and heal lineup. Its different for every fight. I know that this isnt a real answer to the crit overheal discusion but in my opinion it isnt possible to generalize every fight and find THE one and only solution to everything.

Haste is really bad for Spirit Shell btw, because it doesnt affect it that much, as i mentioned earlier and you will lose crit and int. You can get 8 casts during SS with EoT and PI. Haste above the ~2880 breakpoint is useless for SS.

Havoc12 · 02/03/13, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by Beshar

There it is, my math: Disc Crit vs. Haste

You can add or subtract stats @ the Stat Changes Sheet.

I know that this doesnt include overheal, PoH, SS, BL, PI or anything. But you can see the difference pretty good. DPS wise the difference between 4k Crit and 2k Int is very small compared to 4k Haste and 2k Spirit. The difference in HPS is huge. Haste Buffs (BL;BT;PI) will bring haste a little bit closer to crit.

You cant calculate the amount of overheal because its highly dependent on encounters, raid size, difficulty and heal lineup. Its different for every fight. I know that this isnt a real answer to the crit overheal discusion but in my opinion it isnt possible to generalize every fight and find THE one and only solution to everything.

Haste is really bad for Spirit Shell btw, because it doesnt affect it that much, as i mentioned earlier and you will lose crit and int. You can get 8 casts during SS with EoT and PI. Haste above the ~2880 breakpoint is useless for SS.

We know that crit is better than haste on paper, but the whole point is that overheal is a huge issue. Also overheal affects crit but not haste. Int is affected by your overheal RATE not your overall overheal. If you can't take overheal into account then you can't make any conclusions on what the best stat is. Crit to heal ratio for disc with 40% mastery is 3.4 to 1. So it has more than double the value of haste per stat point, but it is devalued quickly because you are getting crit from int and from the crit buff and it is devalued by overheal, while haste buffs don't affect the value of haste. In real terms for a real fight with real values, using a zero-overheal value for crit is a pointless exercise. Especially considering that if its a fight where random aegis is useful you should be holy not disc.

I already calculated before the value of PI on crit on haste and haste comes ahead.

I won't be getting essense of terror for healing and I completely disagree with you that you can synch a 105s ICD 15% chance on harmful spell cast with spirit shell effectively. I am still taking the darkmoon trinket over it. Or perhaps a new spirit/int proc trinket if there is one in the new tier.

You need 4.2k haste rating to hit the first spirit shell breakpoint (or less if you are a goblin), with borrowed time and you will get an extra cast both during PI and during normal spirit shell (by using borrowed time).

Otherwise the discussion above applies again. If mana is limiting then spirit is the best stat and stacking it will leave more things free for other stats. All gems/enchants need to be spirit, unless the set bonus is spirit or 120 int. Any other set bonus = ignore. You can replace spirit food with int and use an int flask (if you are not alche like I am), if you want to shed spirit. Or potentially switch an int trinket with spirit trinket. Proc spirit even in 5.2 is more valuable than procs of any other secondary stat, so nothing changes there.

Perkeyone · 02/03/13, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by Perkeyone

If you increase your hps without the damage taken also increasing, you get more overheal. Period.

Originally Posted by Perkeyone

Your haste does not change how much damage the raid is receiving.
If each party member is taking 40k damage per second (with 2 parties) and your PoH is healing them for 100k per second thats 20% over heal. Bump up your hps by 10% and you get...
27% overheal.

These numbers are arbitrary, but here is the math.
With 2 groups taking 40k dps each, the raid wide dtps is 80k. If the healing output is 100k/s, 20% of that would overheal (100-80)/100.
With 110k hps, 10% more than before, your overhealing would go up to 27% (110-80)/110

Haste is affected by overheal.

Your example here is flawed. Your extra hps needs extra damage or it becomes overheal.

Originally Posted by Havoc12

If you cast 1 spell with 80% overheal without haste you will cast 1.1 spells with 80% overheal with 10% haste. For every part of the fight whether a high overheal or a low overheal part haste increases your number of casts in the same amount of time so it increases your HPS by a % rather than adding extra healing. In other words if you cast 10 spells at 99% overheal and 10 spells at 10% overheal you will cast 11 spells at 99% and 11 spells at 10% so it is still exactly 10% more HPS.

It does not matter if you are overhealing by 99% haste is unaffected. If you are overhealing by 100% then (100+x)%*0 = 0. So you are doing zero HPS in that phase no matter how much haste you have.

Unless you are overhealing by 100% haste is unaffected. The only thing that affects the value of haste really is mana. High HPS cds can potentially devalue haste, but not always.

Potentially you might think that it is better to wait until the damage becomes enough for you to not overheal. The obviously haste has zero value for you. You can however achieve better HPS by chain casting.