Plus Heal|Site Info
Page
of 2

Thoughts on Druid Tank heal.

19 replies
427 posts
Untagged users
It would seem to me a more reasonable assignment would be the disc and tree on the tanks, and the holy on the raid. Not that holy can't heal tanks but that it's particularly well suited to healing raid.

That looks like a lot of healing though, meaning there was correspondingly a lot more damage than i'm used to seeing, did you guys have many unpetriifed overloads? Nvm, this is heroic isn't it? I'm seeing the Energized Tiles buff, which is only heroic if I'm not mistaken.

Am I looking at the wrong log? It seems to me your Greater heal and Serenity accounted for only 6% of your healing each, while things like Cascade, Circle of Healing and Renew and PoM (I assume that one fueled by Divine Insight) all did more healing. I tend to think of these as your AoE heals.
HealCalc MoP Healing calculator.
Heal Notes Blog
Posted Oct 19, 12
16 posts
Untagged users
That is heroic and no, we didn't have any unpetrified overloads as those 1-shot all non-tanks.

The thing about Cascade, Pom, CoH and such is that you can't stand there and cast only GH on tanks, as there is a lot of crosshealing and those spells are very efficient and more importantly helpful due to their smart nature and very high HPCT.

Tank-healing spells usage breakdown:
Renew (not all of it, only 65%) 12.6%
GH 6.2%
Serenity 6%
POM (since it is use on tanks on CD and with glyph) 11.8%
Heal 3.1%
Flash 0.8 %

Summary: over 40% of healing is done on tanks, which is insane.

BTW, I didn't take Divine insight on that fight as the PoH usage is minimal and an on-demand mana cost and haste CD is way more useful IMO.

I wasn't sure about assigning a tree instead of me on the tanks. It (+monk) is the only healer I haven't raided on and as I understand it their tank heals are just as bad as Holy Priest's are and since I had to be in Serenity chakra anyway due to the damage patterns I let him focus more on the raid.

I'm still on the fence about leveling a paladin though, just imagining all the dailys again is painful and I still love my priest, not to mention my shadow off-spec will be needed for later bosses that are 2-healable. Maybe I can get our Disc to do it as she mentioned she got a bit tired of her priest and disc is generally less desirable in Mogushan 10hc ^_^
Posted Oct 20, 12
277 posts
Untagged users
Auracen wrote:
Hmmm, I haven't tried Cenarion Ward. What's your thoughts on taking that over Nature's Swiftness?

I thought I would miss NS but I have not found myself in situations where I said to myself that I wished I had NS. In retrospect, I can think of times where the tank dipped pretty low and I mashed what I have available to get him topped up (namely, Swiftmend, a Regrowth, and hitting 'Berserk' to get a faster Healing Touch off). Times like that NS would have been nice. Strictly from a numbers perspective...

Cenarion Ward = 6174 + 57% spell power. Assuming 16k spell power (more than reasonable at current gear level; I think my raid SP is actually around 19k), that's 6174 + 9120 = 15,294 * 3 ticks = 45,882 per 30 seconds.

Healing Touch = 20130 (avg) + 186% spell power. Assuming 16k SP, that's 20130 + 29760 = 49,890. NS gives +50% to that, so 49890 + (49890 *.5 = 24945) = 74835. The bonus part is 24,945 per minute.

Strictly from numbers, NS is giving +24,945 per minute and Cenarion Ward is giving +91,764 per minute, or 3.679 more than NS.

Of course, the instant cast that NS brings is of consideration though I do not know how to mathematically distill that. I suppose it is safe to say that NS is reactive while CW is proactive, both of which have their tradeoffs.

edit: I am considering NS and CW only as used on a tank. I haven't found myself even tempted or interested in putting CW on anyone except a tank (correction, except for on Elegon when the raid splits sides and I put it on myself because the tank didn't need the healing).
Officerchat.org - guild advice for guild leaders
Posted Oct 21, 12
17 posts
Untagged users
If you have any mana issues at all, remember that NS+HT (or NS+RG) costs zero mana. CW costs a bit more than a Rejuv.
Posted Oct 22, 12
277 posts
Untagged users
Erdluf wrote:
If you have any mana issues at all, remember that NS+HT (or NS+RG) costs zero mana. CW costs a bit more than a Rejuv.

Keep in mind that CW has a maximum possible mana cost per duration of fight due to its 30s cooldown. Meaning you cannot OOM yourself by casting CW.

CW cost = 14% of base mana = 75000 * .14 = 10500. Most you can spend on CW per minute is 21000 maximum.

HT cost = 28.9% of base mana = 75000 * .289 = 21675. So Nature's Swiftness saves 21675 per minute maximum.

With the 675 mana difference, they are effectively the same in terms of mana consideration. CW does indeed cost more mana. Another thing to consider is healing per mana cost. This get's too complicated for napkin math but I'll try something...from the above, we know that NS would buff HT to give an additional 24,945 heals and CW gives 91,764.

24945 free = infinity heal per mana; mathematically we'll have to represent it as 24945 heal per mana
91764 heal / 21000 mana = 4.369 heal per mana

Clearly 24945 > 4.369. So now we measure whether or not the smaller free heal from NS is worth more or less than the larger not-free heal from CW. The difference we're looking at is 66819. From here I'm sure how to mathematically figure out if that is more or less "cost" without mapping out the heal per mana cost of every ability and determining if CW falls above/below most/all/none of them. Maybe someone else has an idea?

My gut seems to be telling me that they are close in "cost" just different in approach/method/preference. What we can demonstrate is that over a 5 minute fight (which seems to be the norm for current raid fights), we're looking at NS+HT saving 108k mana and CW costing 105k mana, and NS+HT giving +125k healing and CW giving +459k healing. The healing done looks so massively huge to justify that 105k mana, though the real value is comparing how much the same amount of healing with mana spend from other spells. *shrug* My fingers are now tired of typing...
Officerchat.org - guild advice for guild leaders
Posted Oct 22, 12
177 posts
Untagged users
For the discussion on NS vs CW, don't forget NS scales better with SP and will surpass CW healing done once you hit a cetain amount of spell power.
But that's not the point.
The choice should be: do you want a life saver or another HoT on the tank.
Mana wise NS wins hands down, as HT would cost no mana when cast after NS.
Posted Nov 1, 12
277 posts
Untagged users
Eplixx wrote:
For the discussion on NS vs CW, don't forget NS scales better with SP and will surpass CW healing done once you hit a cetain amount of spell power.
But that's not the point.

It is also incorrect :sick:

As everything is percentage based, scaling remains the same between the two regardless of spell power.

Cenarion Ward Healing Touch Nature’s Swiftness Base 6174 20130 51750 % SP 0.57 1.86 0.5 Total 15864 51750 77625 Spell Power Gain 47592 25875 17000 Diff 21717 -21717 Ratio 1.83930434782609 0.543683812405446


Changing the Spell Power to any number provides a ratio variance beyond the thousandth place (ie. the ratio remains .613 or 1.631). The variance doesn't even change by a thousandth at 1 million spell power.

Strictly in terms of scaling, there is no change based on spell power (or any other factor for that matter).
Officerchat.org - guild advice for guild leaders
Posted Nov 1, 12 · Last edited Nov 1, 12
427 posts
Untagged users
To expand a bit on Lument's point:

First of all, CW actually has a higher spell coefficient than a NS'd HT, if you count all 3 ticks it does.

Now the basic formula for the amount of healing, disregarding other multiplying factors that are common to both and will cancel out, is B+c*SP. If you want to compare two spells, one with base healing B1 and coefficient c1 and the other with B2 and c2, you would compare the ratio:

(B1+c1*SP) / (B2+c2*SP)

Now if we try to factor out a c1 from the numerator and a c2 from the denominator, we are left with:


(c1/c2) * (B1/c1 + SP) / (B2/c2 + SP)

Now the interesting thing that happens is that these B/c ratios tend to always be the same (or anyway very close) for any given spec, for the druids they are around 10830 (priests are closer to 10300). So no matter what your SP is, those two quantities (B1/c1 + SP) and (B2/c2 + SP) are going to be almost identical, hence the ratio of the healing of your two spells will always be very close c1/c2, the ratio of the coefficients (or if you prefer B1/B2, the ratio of the base healing amounts, which will be slightly more accurate).
The key reason for this is this fact that B/c is constant across most of the spells for a given spec. This makes it so that all your spells scale the same with spellpower: If HT is twice the amount of Nourish at some SP amount, it will remain so at higher SP amounts, as they both grow. The healing amount B+c*SP is better written as c*(B/c + SP). B/c is always the same, different spells just have a different c in front and that's what's making them stronger or weaker.

One notable exception to the rule are Holy Fire and Smite, whose B/c is around 1100 and 2800 respectively, making them scale much better than other spells with spellpower.

Hope I didn't completely derail this thread with all that math.
HealCalc MoP Healing calculator.
Heal Notes Blog
Posted Nov 1, 12
277 posts
Untagged users
Nice explanation, Adinne.

In haste I forgot that my numbers for CW are per tick. As such I've corrected the values to reflect the higher total output of CW (which may justify its mana cost to some).
Officerchat.org - guild advice for guild leaders
Posted Nov 1, 12
17 posts
Untagged users
For CW vs NS, I look at three tank-healing situations:

1) Very mana-tight. Some time is spent not casting. Marginal mana gains/losses are charged to Nourish.
2) Pure throughput. Ignore mana. Any "marginal" spell you cast is stealing time from Regrowth.
3) In-between. You are always casting. Marginal mana/time tradeoffs affect your ratio of Nourish and Regrowth

Spells numbes from a treecalcs. YMMV.
SpellHealManaTimeHPMHPSMPS
Regrowth107994178201.2216.0608844714595
CenWard12052687601.22113.759
Nourish4169461202.0276.813205693019
NSRG16199201.221132672

I'm leaving off HT. With the (optimistic) assumption that Living Seeds don't get wasted, HT is not worth casting.

Mana tight, CW costs some mana, which means you can't cast so much Nourish.
NS adds 162k/minute
CW adds 241k/minute from CW, loses 119k/minute from Nourish. Net is 122k.
NSRG is stronger.

No mana issue:
NSRG gains one NS bonus each minute. Net gain 54k
CW gains two CW (241k), loses two Regrowths (216k), Net gain 25k
NS is stronger.

For the always casting case we see that we can convert 1s of Nourish to Regrowth and gain 67878 healing at the cost of 11575 mana. The extra healing effectively comes at a cost of 5.864 HPM.
NS gave us 162k of healing. It also means we spent one GCD not burning mana on Nourish. That saved mana can be used to spend some future time casting Regrowth instead of Nourish. That buys another 22k of healing per minute. NS net is 184k per minute.
CW gave us 241k healing, but also burned 10147 more mana than Nourish would have in those two GCD's. We'll have to make up for that later, converting some Rg's into Nourishes. That costs 60k healing per minute. CW gives a net gain of 182k per minute.
NS and CW are essentially dead even.
Posted Nov 2, 12
Page
of 2
Announcement of