Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Rosin

Disc Priest - Mists of Pandaria

411 posts in this topic

Yup, I agree that Disc is too op with that 1min cd raid save and all of that utility stuff.

We need nerf and sooner it will come, the better it will be.

Now we have utility and hps. Its way out of budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disc is not OP. Our max HPS is still not as good as other healers. We are now better at sticking up big absorption stacks and we don't have to rely exclusively on spirit shell for it.

Blade lord and maybe windlord, disc is OP, but for everything else it is in line with other healers.

Our mana balance is still not as good as other healers. Other classes can switch to int stacking at like 10-11k spirit. I think the multi proc rapture will be nerfed, but 200% rapture is here to stay.

I am getting like 600-700k mana back from rapture on windlord and bladelord.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, i hope that next modification will not be simply to remove them....

Probably our main problem was the amount of mana consumption while using SS.

To reduce cost of spell under SS proc would be better.

Wait & see !

***************

Now, i answer to your post of friday , Havroc.

1/ We agree 600 mastery points are 2.5%

2/

Please don't use the old notation of base + %spellpower. It is frought with errors. Spellpower has been normalised for all spells so it always adds the same % of the base value across the board.

OK, usualy i do not take this notation.(i took it to be more understandable)

Notation that i take is near from you but results are same at the end.

This notation comes from

Average Heal = base Heal + CoefSP * SP = Base Heal * ( 1 + 1%* SP* CoefSP/Base Heal)

becomes

Average Heal = Base Heal * ( 1 + 1%* SP / ScoreSP)

with ScoreSP = Base Heal/CoefSP = 19428/187.1%/100 ~ 103.838

Basicaly k universal constant that you use is not universal but only applied on PWS.

It is the same factor that i have defined in my formula :

k = 1%/ScoreSP = 0.0000963043....

You have found k=0.000096564716 which is probably not correct if Wowhead database is up to date.

But i found new evolution on WoWdb (Power Word: Shield - Baseline - Priest - Class Abilities - Spells - WowDB)

where PWS seems to have a different base value depending on Disc spec.

I have checked IG the correct value and i have confirmed that WoWHead was correct.

PWS = 61427 on tooltip and it is the value shown when casted with SP=12695 and mastery= 5342 points = 0.422583 (42.26% on tooltip)

Verification by formula gives the same result = PWS = 19428* ( 1 + 1%* 12695 / 103.838)*(1 + 42.2583%) = 61427.6 which matchs perfectly well.

Anyway to take k=0.000096564716 or 0.0000963043 will not have a real influence on the result.

And this is not on this value that we have discussed.

I come back on your formula because i think you made a mistake in buff behavior if "spellpower" = total fully buffed spellpower

You wrote

%increase_SP = 100*(Int*B*k)/(1+spellpower*k)

My formula is

%increase_SP = 100*(Int*B)/(100*ScoreSP+spellpower)

Which are exactly the same with k = 1%/ScoreSP

So on this point, we are ok together.

The problem for me is the definition of B

you miss the +10% of raid spell buff (given by sham/warlock/mage).

So you miss a 10% of improvement also done by the +100 INT

so in your example at 25000 spellpower 100 intellect adds

%increase_SP = 0.2826152081*B which is the same result as you if i take ScoreSP~100 as you have tacken k~0.0001.

for reference, you found 100*B*0.0001/(1+2.5)*100 = 0.2857142857*B%

except that B = 1.1*1.1*1.05*1.05 = 1.334025 (instead of yours 1.1*1.05*1.05 = 1.21275)

3.

with 2.5% for 600 points, you wrote :

%increase_mast = 100*(mastRat_added)/(28800+mastRat_total)

Adding in the numbers at 7000 mastery rating, 25000 spellpower and adding 100 mastery:

%increase_mast = 100/(28800+7000)*100 = 0.2793296089 increase in absorbs

OK you did not take the same amount of mastery at the beggining.

Let's go with my formula with your datas :

PWS = Base Heal * ( 1 + 1%* SP / ScoreSP)*(1 + %Mastery)

%increase_mast = 100*(2.5%*mastRat_added)/(ScoreM*(1 + %Mastery))

with ScoreM = 600.

so can also writen :

%increase_mast = 100*(mastRat_added)/(24000*(1 + %Mastery))

With +100 mastery added and 7000 mastery on gear (including the buff raid of 3000 mastery),

%mastery = 2.5%* (8 + 7000/600) = 49.1667%

So

%increase_mast = 0.2793296089

Whis is exactly the same result as you.

So to summarize :

for the same amount of point of INT or Mastery

%increase_INT = 0.2826152081*B (with B= 1.334025 ) = 0.377

%increase_mast = 0.2793296089

So we are agree together that for PWS :

- INT is stronger than MASTERY on Equipement (except gems).

- MASTERY is stronger than INT on gems because of the bonus 2:1

We are also agreed that INT calculation does not take into account OverHeal estimation which reduce the power of INT compare to Mastery which will not create OverAbsorb if PWS is applied on tank for Rapture.

edit : i have canceled this remark because it is not applicable to PWS since INT is including in the absorb and there is no healing part which can Overheal.

So your long memo to explain me that i was wrong was not necessary because i have not not writen anything else for the PWS alone that you wrote.

I quote me :

1/

In any condition of gameplay INT is above Mastery for the same amount of point.

2/

For gems only , we can discuss.... but my conclusion is the same except if

- we take into account the Overheal which reduce the INT stat compare to Mastery stat (and only if absorb made by SS and PWS do not depop)

or

- Gamplay is full oriented PWS because margin of INT stat is not suffisant to compensate the double value on mastery gem

4. Gameplay conclusion

If you consider a standard gameplay with 70% absorbs then there is no way you are going to get intellect being better at 2:1. It requires very heavy overheal on PoH to reach that.

For PoH crit adds 0.001664564943% crit per stat point. At 13% base crit this is 0.001473066321 increase ignoring overheal per stat point. We have shown that mastery increases absorbs by 0.0028% per stat point at 50% mastery.

Absorbs are now 50% of PoH so 1/3rd of the PoH amount meaning mastery increases PoH healing by approximately 9% when all overheal is ignored. This might seem great, but overheal completely obliterates the value of crit for the actual PoH heal. And it no longer adds extra aegis. Crit overheal amount is well over 70% for me (again sampling 30 PoH crits from the logs). Crit is actually a pretty poor stat for PoH, due to the fact that we tend to spam PoH on the raid constantly even for low deficits.

Make the complete gameplay rotation, mastery is poor compare to others stats for PoH (and more poor for the others spells that you use inside the disc gameplay).

The up from 30% to 50% has improved the mastery behavior on PoH but it is still poor compare to INT and Critical stats. and is completely useless for all others spells.

I understand your comment about the effect of critical which is not completly used because of our overheal ratio on PoH.

We need to study both.

First without considering OH and adding in second step the effect of OH on the stats.

As we have different canonic formula but same result at the end, i am sure that you can see it in your simulation when you combine all together all the spell with actual gameplay of disc.

For example (and once again without introducing effect of overheal of stats)

[TABLE]

PW:S 9%

PoH 15%

Atonnement 6%

Aegis 30%

SS PoH 30%

Others 10%

[/TABLE]

Which is a tipical gameplay absorb oriented (84% PWS / POH)

I find the following result :

[TABLE]

For +100 of a given stat

SP INT CRIT MAST HASTE

0,352% 0,435% 0,180% 0,161% 0,224%

[/TABLE]

Which lead me to the conclusion that INT is "always" better than Mastery even on gems.

("always" has to be ponderate with OverHeal done with INT / CRIT on PoH/atonnement and the others spells)

on this example, Mastery is better than Critical because Critical will create more OverHeal than mastery will do.(difference is mainly on the healing part of spells like PoH or "others spells" category)

Haste is a very good stat as usual but is limited to burst mode. If we consider that burst mode is most important behavior of the disc gameplay , then haste is very strong but i hesitate since there is a relationship between Haste and Spirit.

**************

To conclude, i would be enjoyed to continue this discussion, but first agree on point 1, 2 and 3 because we are in line together.

then , we can go more deeply in point 4.

We have shown that mastery increases absorbs by 0.0028% per stat point at 50% mastery.

NO !

We have shown this value for PWS and PoH done under SS, not for PoH spell !

For PoH without SS activation, it is arround 0.0012% per stat point at 50% mastery. (it was at 0.008% before the change on Aegis)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Disc is not OP. Our max HPS is still not as good as other healers. We are now better at sticking up big absorption stacks and we don't have to rely exclusively on spirit shell for it.

Blade lord and maybe windlord, disc is OP, but for everything else it is in line with other healers.

As you said, blade lord and windlord, disc is really OP. You can completely trivialize 2 of the main mechanics of these fights.

On Grand Empress I also found disc to be really good, the absorbs work wonders for the dissonance fields in P1 and every last bit of DA is used up in P3 so you don't have to worry about rolling it.

I'm simply worried that the eventual nerfs may be too harsh, since disc will now always be pretty much overpowered compared to other healers when there are large predictable bursts of damage. On other fights, disc does not seem all that good, but hey that's what holy's for :)

Also may I ask how much spirit you guys are currently using and feeling comfortable with?

I think I will stick with my ~8.5k spirit for now, since I can keep some mana until the end of the fights with both disc and holy, but I have 3 spirit proccs, so that may somewhat screw my feelings towards less static spirit and more int/mastery...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have about 8.8K with also 3 additional spirit proc and i feel very confortable with that level.

I take INT flask and food now because of the ratio 1:1

I do not want to lower this level but keep it at this level even if my mana is still high at the end of the fight.

note that i have a poor experience in raid and not at all in hard mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yeah, forgot to mention the flask and food but I never looked back at the spirit versions after Hamlet made his blog entry about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hamza I am now at 13.5k fully buffed spirit and I have Darkmoon trinket and tailoring spirit proc. I am currently able to practically spam 9:2:1 PoH:PWS:Cascade, with a little PoM, renew and atonement (HF/penance/smite) thrown into the mix for a period of 8 minutes, if I use all my cooldowns correctly. I will now keep my spirit constant and stack mastery int all the way.

4. Gameplay conclusion

Make the complete gameplay rotation, mastery is poor compare to others stats for PoH (and more poor for the others spells that you use inside the disc gameplay).

-----------

As we have different canonic formula but same result at the end, i am sure that you can see it in your simulation when you combine all together all the spell with actual gameplay of disc.

For example (and once again without introducing effect of overheal of stats)

[TABLE]

PW:S 9%

PoH 15%

Atonnement 6%

Aegis 30%

SS PoH 30%

Others 10%

[/TABLE]

Which is a tipical gameplay absorb oriented (84% PWS / POH)

I find the following result :

[TABLE]

For +100 of a given stat

SP INT CRIT MAST HASTE

0,352% 0,435% 0,180% 0,161% 0,224%

[/TABLE]

Which lead me to the conclusion that INT is "always" better than Mastery even on gems.

("always" has to be ponderate with OverHeal done with INT / CRIT on PoH/atonnement and the others spells)

on this example, Mastery is better than Critical because Critical will create more OverHeal than mastery will do.(difference is mainly on the healing part of spells like PoH or "others spells" category)

**************

To conclude, i would be enjoyed to continue this discussion, but first agree on point 1, 2 and 3 because we are in line together.

then , we can go more deeply in point 4.

NO !

We have shown this value for PWS and PoH done under SS, not for PoH spell !

For PoH without SS activation, it is arround 0.0012% per stat point at 50% mastery. (it was at 0.008% before the change on Aegis)

We agree on points 1, 2 and 3. If you look carefully you will see that I calculated B with inner will, not with inner fire. I left B as it is exactly because we have two stances. I did my actual calculations on the values using the value of B for inner fire.

But on 4 we disagree completely, because the values you quoted don't affect overheal. Mastery affects all absorbs in the same way. I dont understand how you find that it doesnt.

The aegis part of PoH is 0.5*base*(1+mastery)*(1+crit). Increaseing mastery by an amount dM leads to an improvement of dM/(1+mastery). Exactly as it does for PoH. I think you confused what I said. I am not saying that mastery improves PoH. I am only concerned about its effect on abosrbs, not on the overall healing of any spell.

The improvement in individual spells is of no interest to me, because it is a value that only has meaning for burst HPS. Overheal modifies the value of int and crit so strongly that it is essentially of little meaning when trying to see the overall effect.

Basically this is the theory. Let us say that your healing breakdown is a% absorbs and (100-a)% normal heals. We assume that we can ignore partial absorbs (this is not the case for a few encounters) so adding M mastery rating will increase the healing from absorbs by M/(28800+total_mastery_rating). We assume that adding I intellect will increase the power both absorbs and heals by I*B*k/(1+spellpower*k). However there is also the question of overheal. We will assume that all spells which overheal by any amount receive zero benefit from increased healing and all other spells receive full benefit (again not true, but a reasonable approximation).

Thus adding M mastery will improve overall healing by a%*M/(28800+total_mastery_rating).

Adding I intellect will improve overall healing by a%*I*B*k/(1+spellpower*k) + (1-a)%*I*B*k/(1+spellpower*k)*(1-OHR), where OHR is the overheal rate, i.e. the percentage of spells that overheal by any mount.

I determine OHR by sampling at random 30 spells from the log and checking how many of them overheal. I find that I have a very high overheal rate, especially on PoH. About 50% of my casts overheal by any amount.

Now if we take mastery and spellpower values, which we used before then intellect is better per point than mastery for absorbs by a factor that is equal to the buff constant B. i.e. we get M/(28800+total_mastery_rating) ~ I*k/(1+spellpower*k). Using inner fire B ~1.31. If we now look at gems where you have a 2:1 ratio, then what you get is that 2 mastery improves absorbs by roughly 50% more than 1 intellect. Thus in order for mastery in gems to be better than intellect we require that:

a%*0.5 > (1-a)%*(1-OHR).

For 60% absorbs that translates to

0.3 > 0.4*(1-OHR). In other words we need OHR to be just 25% in order for mastery on gems to be better than intellect. Usually even my total overheal is more than 25% and here we talking about overheal rate not overall overheal.

At 70% absorbs we get 0.35 > 0.3*(1-OHR). I.e. it is impossible to get a better deal from intellect on gems.

It is safe to say that unless mastery becomes ridiculously high (>60%) for anyone whose absorbs are more than 60% of total healing gemming mastery over intellect gives you a better overall deal.

I personally prefer stacking mastery and spirit, so I am able to spam PoH+PWS+Cascade+atonement without pause at all times. I can't say for sure that its the best strategy as I haven't been able to make into the top 10 in any fight so far, though I made it into the top 20 on several fights, but it is certainly a stategy that produces good results for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now I'm struggling with the difference of amount healed with PoH/DA when casting normal and under Spirit Shell.

The formula as can be found in this thread:

PoH(total) = base*(1+crit)(1.5+0.5mastery)

SSPoH = base(1+crit)(1+mastery)(1+0.3crit)

so

PoH(total)/SSPoH = 1.5 + 0.5mastery/(1+mastery)(1+0.3crit)

so with my usual 55% mastery and 25% crit on PoH (with inner Focus macroed to PoH) this should be

PoH(total)/SSPoH = 1.75/(1.55)(1.083) = 1.0425 which means that the average PoH including DA should be about 4.25% MORE heal than the Spirit Shell under the same conditions. I think at least one of the formulas must be wrong since this is not what can be seen in the logs.

What I usually see when comparing logs is that in fact both of them are quite close to each other but SS coming out ahead a moderate 5-10%.

Being so close together what is the main reason for everybody freaking out about spirit shell being OP when it actually just snipes heal from your healing fellows and provides a pre-stackable shield? I find it nice as a raid-Cooldown for single big bursts, but for actual hps its effect seems to be rather small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

base*(1+mastery)*(1+crit)*1.3 is the ss formula for PoH. What you have there is the formula for direct heals. Direct heals gain a massive 30% boost from SS, but PoH now with the aegis buff gains a lower 10-12% boost. Still very significant considering it is absorb

(1+mastery)*1.3/(1.5+0.5*mastery) at 50% mastery = 1.114285714286. The more mastery you have the better it is though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If mastery <25%, then PoH(total)/PoH(SS) < 1 and SS will lower PoH hps.

If mastery >25%, SS will rise PoH hps. So stack mastery =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with the new formula

PoH(total)/SSPoH = 1.5 + 0.5mastery/(1+mastery)1.3

I plotted the graph and the difference PoH(total)/PoH(SS) ranges from 1.15 at 0 mastery (so PoH being 15% better without SS) to 0.77 at 100% mastery indicating that PoH without SS is 23% less healing than with added SS at 100% mastery and the break-even point is at 25% mastery.

Most Discs should be around 55% raidbuffed mastery at which point a PoH without SS is about 88% of the healing done with activated SS so it is an increse in hps to activate SS but just by a quite small margin. Main advantage is still the big shield you can get on your raid before big bursts of incoming dmg.

Thanks for your corrections Havoc and Szeretlek, this now is way closer to the data I see in the logs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank for your answer

I did my actual calculations on the values using the value of B for inner fire

ok, i did not see that it was inner will.

As we all play in Inner fire in disc spec, it is better to go with this buff in simulation stats since if you compare INT with Mastery, you remove 10% of the improvement that you have on INT.

I would say that the comparison is not fairplay :)

Thank to have taken this 10% in B for your demonstration with OH.

I am not saying that mastery improves PoH. I am only concerned about its effect on abosrbs, not on the overall healing of any spell

I undersdand you now.

It is an evidence that if we consider only the absorb part of a spell, the mastery will be stronger than any others stats.(and also without considering the 2:1 ratio with the INT Stat)

If we want to have a complete comparison , it is necessary to include also healing part.

The improvement in individual spells is of no interest to me, because it is a value that only has meaning for burst HPS. Overheal modifies the value of int and crit so strongly that it is essentially of little meaning when trying to see the overall effect
What behavior is important ?

To have the best average HpS with the help of mastery ?

or to have a best pic HpS when your raid members need heal in addition with the absorbs that have been prepared before burst ?

In others words : is it important to be the best when healing demand is not high ?

anyway, both simulations must be done.

If only the average behavior was important, no player would also stack haste except for haste breakpoint

My proposal was to be in line together without OverHeal effect before to go deeply with the OverHeal effect.

(i have always written "result must be ponderate by OH effect" or "without the OH effect")

And i agree with you that OverHeal effect must also be tacken into account for a complete understanding of stat performances to be able to sort them depending on the raid profil.

For example, OH will be higher in normal mode or raid farming than in hm mode and boss first down.

So conclusion can be different.

So what is important is, of course, to integrate OH in simulation for all spells and estimate breakpoints for which stat1 become better than stat2 or stat3 (example : to choose Mastery rather than INT)

****************

I follow your demonstration which define that OHR breakpoint, for POH, is given by the formula (1-1.5a)% / (1-a)%

I agree on this result.

Let me only check that your assumption is true :

Adding I intellect will improve overall healing by a%*I*B*k/(1+spellpower*k) + (1-a)%*I*B*k/(1+spellpower*k)*(1-OHR),

because you have added improvement coming from heal part and absorb part.

I would used another method and it is neccessary that i use it to compare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you want to maximise peak HPS or overall HPS is a matter of personal choice. For me overall HPS and mastery is more important, because the way I see it my job as disc is to lessen the impact of big damage spikes, so mastery will improve that more than int will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Havoc.

I think you have missed something in your demonstration.

When i make a conclusion , i like to prove it by different manners (2 examples or 2 formulas with the same result).

I have used the direct method by effective healing (tacking in account %OH) and result is completly different.

Of course, it exists a %OH breakpoint for which Mastery gem is better than INT gem for PoH but the breakpoint is higher than 25% with 60% Mastery.

I have estimated almost 80% of OverHeal was necessary for the Mastery to be better than INT on gems.

Below this value of %OH, INT gem is better than Mastery gem when %Mastery = 60%.

The less the %Mastery is , the less the breakpoint will be high. (ex for 50% mastery , %OH breakpoint ~ 75%)

I think i did not make any mistake but it is necessary to check it with a third method which will defintely proves which result is good.

I do not know also where you have make mistake if you have done it.

First, i think that you compare SP instead of INT because Critical seems not taken into account in your formulas.

I think also, there is another mistake but i do not know where yet.

Let me explain how i have calculated this number.

Complete formula for Effective heal by PoH (without metagem) =

PoH = Base*(1 + 1%*SP/ScoreSP)*(1+%crit)*(1 + 50%*(1 + %absorb))

PoH effective = Base*(1 + 1%*SP/ScoreSP)*(1+%crit)*((1-%OH) + 50%*(1 + %Mastery))

note : it is important to not take the simplified formula with the factor (1.5 + 50%* %Mastery)

instead of (1 + 50%*(1 + %Mastery)) because %OH is only applicable to the healing part.

If we transform with your k factor,(k = 1%/ScoreSP = 0,009644962....for PoH)

PoH effective = Base*(1 + k*SP buff)*(1+%crit buff)*((1-%OH) + 50%*(1 + %Mastery buff))

With the same values that we have used :

%Mastery buffed = 60%

SP buff = 25000

%crit buffed = 15% (for example INT buff = 15522 and Crit = 1585 points)

If i add 200 Mastery points , i add 0.83333333% absorb

if i add 100 Int unbuff points, I add 133.4025 spell buff and 0.0434936% critical (26.096 critical point)

With 30% of %OH (i am normally in your condition that Mastery > Int for gem.

PoH effective = Base*(1 + k*SP buff)*(1+%crit buff)*((1-%OH) + 50%*(1 + %Mastery buff))

PoH effective = 51173 (23880 heal part + 27293 aegis part)

+100 Int ==> PoH effective = 51386 (23981 heal part + 27405 aegis part)

+200 Mast ==> PoH effective = 51315 (23880 heal part + 27435 aegis part)

+100 Crit ==> PoH effective = 51321 (23950 heal part + 27371 aegis part)

INT is still better than Mastery for 30% %OH.

Crit is still better than the Mastery but as the Critical heal will produce more OverHeal than Normal heal, the Critical stat effect has also to be reduced compare to Int/SP stat and Mastery stat.

note : as the Crit stat is more susceptible to make %OH, it would be more accurate to calculate an %OH1 link to the Critical effect and an %OH2 link to the spell power effect.

The relationship between %OH1 and %OH2 can be found very easely in a WoL log.

This integration %OH1/%OH2 would have on effect that INT effect would be better compare to the value that i have calculed.

But this is another story which will come later...

Also , even if the OverAbsorb are low, they exist and it would be good also to integrate these %OA in absorb which introduce, this time, a lttle derating of Mastery.

**************

To evaluate the real breakpoint of %OH when Mastery becomes better than INT , it is simple by spell formulas but not easy to write it because the formula is very long (there is probably a way to simplify it but have no time actually to do that)

We are at the breakpoint when :

PoH effective done with +100 INT = PoH effective done with +200 Mast

Result for 60% Mastery is 79.63%

This level would be higher if we introduce the %OA done by absorb and %OH2/%OH1 ratio due to Critical effect.

Formula not simplfied is :

%OH = 1 + 50%*(1+%Mastery) - (50%*A*B*%Mastery2)/(A*%crit2 + (B+%Crit2)*k*SP2 )

with

A = 1+ k*SP = 4.4111959...

B= 1 + %crit = 1.15

%Mastery = 60%

%Mastery2= Mastery % added = 200/600*2.5% = 0.833333....%

%Crit2 = Crit added with 100 INT = 0.0434936...%

SP2 = SP added with 100 INT = 100*1.05*1.05*1.1*1.1 = 133.4025

It is possible to find also the result by taken the canonic formulas which define improvement depending on stats variation.

That is the third methods to compare results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take a shot at getting a discussion rolling our mana-regen tier of talents, by comparing MB vs SF based on fight length, showing that MB really is not that great of a talent.

the use of this talent depends greatly on fight length, since Mindbender is actually worse than Shadowfiend on fights where you can not use your Mindbender any multiple of 3 times (2 mindbender casts return less mana than the 1 shadowfiend cast you could've done instead). Some napkin math resulted in the following timings;

keeping in mind that:

a) In these "simulations" the first mindbender cast would be 30 seconds into the fight, first Shadowfiend cast would be 1 minute into the fight. This varies a lot from fight to fight, fights that have a slow ramp-up time for required healing probably favor Mindbender. (Mindbender won't over cap your mana from ~90%, if you spend at least 3% of your mana during it's uptime. This threshold is a lot lower for Shadowfiend)

b) Hymn of Hope/pots or other mana-enhancing temporary buffs are not considered, but doing so will probably enhance Shadowfiend more than Mindbender due to more mana regen happening during the buff.

c) A cast is considered useful the second it is completed; i.e. 15 seconds after it became available again.

d) This is a pure MB vs. SF comparison, not a "when should you use MB and when a different talent", this would require a great deal more of math.

0:00 -> 1:00 = Mindbender

1:00 -> 2:45 = Shadowfiend

2:45 -> 4:15 = Mindbender

4:15 -> 5:45 = Shadowfiend

5:45 -> 7:15 = Mindbender

7:15 -> 8:45 = Shadowfiend

8:45 -> 10:00 = Mindbender

10:00 -> ??? = Shadowfiend

...And so on...

And here's the crappy timeline I made to visualize it a little

4 numbers for each minute, (15s blocks) with S or M inserted to indicate their respective casts.

Purple = lengths where MB > SF

Black = lengths where SF > MB

00M00 S11M11 22M22 33M33 S44M44 55M55 66M66 S77M77 88M88 99M99 S10*****

in short: MB regen catches up with 1st Shadowfiend regen when 3rd MB is complete. After the 2nd SF cast, MB falls behind again until it's 6th cast completes, and so on.

This is very basic napkin math, I know, but it should give people an idea why Mindbender can be a very bad choice and, even when MB can be used to it's full potential, the break-even point with PW:Solace lies at 3.7 casts per minute (+SF regen of course).

The oddball FDCL equals MB's best scenario in gained output with 1 proc per 3 minutes (3x MB gives 17k mana more than 1 SF, Flash heal costs 17.7k mana). Averaged out that means 1 smite (or any other proccing cast) per archangel cooldown.

Personally this makes me want to favor FDCL for the intense fights where casting solace is nigh impossible, and Solace for any fight with some decent downtime. I'm fairly new to serious Disc healing in this expansion however, so an in-depth analysis by someone with the required knowledge and tools (and time :D) would be very much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polloptress I am pretty sure there is no error in my method. There are some approximations (e.g. ignoring crit), but not enough to skew the results noticeably. Also just to be sure we are talking about the same thing Overheal is not OHR = overheal rate . Overheal rate = % of heals that overheal by any amount. i.e. if you cast 2 spells and one overheals by 1%, while the other overheals for zero then overheal rate = 50% and overheal = 0.5%.

All I see in your calculations is the results for PoH, where is PWS and spirit shell? Also you will need to include cascade, pom and atonement in the mix with an estimate for their own overheal rate. IF you add those you will find that overall mastery shoots ahead of intellect. That is why trying to do it on a per spell basis is problematic. Lumping the absorbs and heals together and treating them as one is a reasonable approximation and it gives you values in the right ballpark.

If you are just using PoH then to get 60% absorb you need 50% overheal, which means an overheal rate of >80% is not just possible but actually quite likely.

However the reason for the high absorbs is that up to 40-45% of our healing is spirit shell and PWS, which are pure absorbs and an additional 20% is aegis from all sources (not just PoH).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also just to be sure we are talking about the same thing Overheal is not OHR = overheal rate .

Ok i have used your "OHR" thinking that it was the % of OverHeal done by the spell.

I will change in the formula i gave but it does not impact, of course, the result.

PoH effective = Base*(1 + k*SP buff)*(1+%crit buff)*((1-%OH) + 50%*(1 + %Mastery buff))

With %OH = The % of Overheal done on the healing part of PoH spell.

This value can easely be known in WoL.

if you agree on this formula (which do not take into account %OverAbsorb et Crit effect which make more %Overheal than a normal heal), you cannot disagree with Result for 60% mastery is 79.63% for POH spell

i.e. if you cast 2 spells and one overheals by 1%, while the other overheals for zero then overheal rate = 50% and overheal = 0.5%

If you demonstration take only the OHR, it is not relevant because you will be have the same result with OH = 0.5% and OH=70% as soon as you count OHR when there is an overheal whatever his value.

I think when we introduce overheal in the demonstration,we must considerer that for little variation of stats, the Overheal part is the same.

If you are just using PoH then to get 60% absorb you need 50% overheal, which means an overheal rate of >80% is not just possible but actually quite likely.

I want also to be sure that we speak about the same thing because i am probably not clear when i speak about %absorb.

60% absorb is the value that you have with the Mastery. Not the total of aegis seen in WoL. and not the value of aegis.

60% absorb is just %mastery with buff raid.

Aegis is the value of absorb and can be estimated with 50% * ( 1 + %absorb).

i took %absorb as i could replace by %mastery.

maybe, it is the reason of misunderstanding. (i am going to replace %absorb by %mastery in all the previous posts to avoid dupplicate name and use an incorrect wording for the % of mastery)

edit : i have read again my previous post and understand why we were not at all speaking about the same thing.

I think my modifications done will clarified the demonstration.

i have also replaced OHR by %OH because it was not the same definition also.

All I see in your calculations is the results for PoH,

Yes, because we were speaking about PoH.

There is no match for SS and PWS that mastery is better than INT for gems because of the double bonus of secondary stats.

I agree that it is necessary to integrate all gameplay spells to made a conclusion.(i wrote it already)

I have foccused on PoH to agree, first, on this spell and the %OH condition for the Mastery to be better than INT.

We can also do the same for the others spell to have a complete estimation.

For the others spell, Mastery will be very low even if we introduce the overheal effect of each spell.

This can be done exactly as i have introduced %OH in the PoH formula.

Total heal+absorb Others spells = Base spell*(1+k*SP buff)*(1+%crit*(1+2*50%*(1+%Mastery)))

and

Total effective heal+absorb Others spells = Base spell*(1+k*SP buff)*((1-%OH)+%crit*((1-%OH)+2*50%*(1+%Mastery)))

with

%OH = % of Overheal done for the given spell.

K = coef for the given spell = 1%/ScoreSP spell = %spell/base spell

(%spell extract from database like for example penance = base + %spell*Sp = 6605.5 + 63.5%*SP)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll take a shot at getting a discussion rolling our mana-regen tier of talents, by comparing MB vs SF based on fight length, showing that MB really is not that great of a talent.

I think it has been fully discussed on another topic. (see http://elitistjerks.com/f77/t130588-priests_5_0_4_i_get_misty/p3/)

To compare the both, you need also to take into account the number of gcd spend by PW solace.

But, of course, depending on the lengh of the fight and the time when you will launch the both , Mindbender can be under Shadowfiend interm of mana return.

Take care because i think that since these demonstrations, MindBender returns now 1.5% per attack instead of 1.3%. (not verified in a log)

Also, Haste have effect on MindBender and i do not think it have effect on Shadowfiend. (Franckly speaking, i have tried to find a formula for haste effect several times with the log done but they gave me always different behavior and i have stopped to understand this behavior...)

Anyway, it is also a personnal thinking, in disc spec, i do not understand to compare MindBender with PW:Solace since we have a good regen now.

A disc must also used smite/HF and penance to create attonement and stack Archangel.

There is not a lot of gcd to use PW:Solace without creating heal.

i think this comparaison is more important for Holy spec.

And i also agree that FDCL is the big talent of this level when you are a disc which plays a lot with smite since our rapture regen has been improved.

It is very good in 5 man party but probably less useleful in raid since others healers are also in the team.

MindBender , even if it is not always stronger than Shadowfiend has the real advantage thant you can use it on CD and is more flexible than the shadowfiend if you need mana for SS (it is just an example).

The problem for shadowfiend is that you always delay its launching while MindBender must be lanched on CD.

With no issue on mana, FDCL is the only one talent of this level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The minimum ratio for mindbender to shadow fiend is 2:1 this normalises quite quickly to 3 in fights over 7 minutes.

With the 30s - 1 minute scheme

Mindbender

30 - 1

1:30 - 2

2:30 - 3

3:30 - 4

4:30 - 5

5:30 - 6

6:30 - 7

7:30 - 8

Shadow fiend

1:00 - 1

4:00 - 2

7:00 - 3

10:00 - 4

Now you might think that for a 7:00 fight you will have 3 uses of shadowfiend and 7 uses of mindbender, but you would be wrong. Shadowfiend will come out of CD at the end of the fight and you won't have time to use up all the shadowfiend attacks let alone the mana return. With mindbender it will come off CD at 6:30 and you will have 15s to burn that mana (which is more than enough time).

thus for a 7 minute fight you will use shadowfiend 2.5 times (use it at 30s and then again at 6:30), while with mindbender you will get 7. Better than 3:1

The longer time required to use up the shadowfiend mana, eats up time at either end so that is a big advantage to mindbender. On the other hand with shadowfiend you can make better use of heroism and hymn of hope. I think a 3:1 ratio is what you want to use for basically all raids.

Thinking that FDCL return equals the mana cost of a flash heal is really wrong. Would you really be using that GCD to cast a flash heal? You have to consider what you are replacing. For example if you were going to cast a PoH, then you can't say that you are replacing a PoH with a flash heal, becuase the free flash heal heals much less than a PoH. Overall the way to think about the mana value of FDCL is to think of it as reducing the cost of the heals that proc it. By taking into account their healing relative to flash heal.

E.g. for flash heal it reduces mana cost by ~17%, but for gheal it only reduces mana cost by ~10%, smite I think is 32% or something like that.

I did the calculation a long time ago and found that you need to cast procing spells for at least 40% of your time to make it even with mindbender.

The problem that disc has, is that for now due to the way blizzard buffed us, what you really want to do is spam PoH, PWS, PoM and cascade ad nauseam. So FDCL suffers because you don't really want to cast a lot of hte spells that proc it. That being said its awesome when you are tank healing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now you might think that for a 7:00 fight you will have 3 uses of shadowfiend and 7 uses of mindbender, but you would be wrong.

I know I'm "wrong" on a lot of points in my post, the calculations really are nothing close to reality. But having the pro's and cons written out here is nice, so we have it somewhere in this thread as compendium for all fellow disc lovers!

I agree with everything u said, but you should also keep in mind it's not too hard to spend the full mana return a mere 5 seconds or less after the shadowfiend despawns, in many fights with the typical burst phase at the end.

Because the time between the start of the fight and the first Bender or Fiend cast can vary a lot as well, you'll typically have to experiment on several (long) tries before being able to evaluate the Mindbender talent properly.

Thinking that FDCL return equals the mana cost of a flash heal is really wrong.

Indeed it is and a lot of people probably realize this on an instinctive level, but not a lot could put it into a nice and clarifying post. That includes me! :)

So FDCL suffers because you don't really want to cast a lot of hte spells that proc it. That being said its awesome when you are tank healing.

Yes, the reason I personally like the FDCL talent is the way it makes smiting actually more useful. It makes our most mana-efficient healing "rotation" generate more healing at the same cost.

And with a good eye on your buff timers you can keep these procs until you really need them, i.e on fights with unpredictable randomly targeted casts/hits.

Besides being an amazing raid-bubbler now, Disc priests still have a place in spot- and single target healing, which I feel is a little overlooked lately, not only by players but also by blizzard. Disc is still viable as spot healing paired up with monk/druid blanket healers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my own opinion, i always take FDCL when i know i will not have problem with mana.

Even if FDCL proc does not generate a high hps compare to PoH spam, i symply like very much this instant heal on single player or tank.

and it procs a lot of time when you smite and use the proc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I'm going to have to stand up for PW:Solace as no one seems to like this poor little talent anymore.

There are quite a few fights where downtime is more than enough to make Solace a clear winner without loosing a significant amount of hps (by this I mean that a phase where you're doing 30-50% overhealing while only healing with atonement is clearly a phase where delaying some smites for Solace is not an hps loss, but rather an overhealing "loss"):

- on stone guards the mana tier is irrelevant (I guess this favors FDCL even though I really don't see even an instant flash heal being better than a poh or even just 3 intelligent heals through an atoned penance)

- feng has two phases with extremely low healing requirements, shadow and earth, even fire has only one burst healing phase with the rest of the phase easily being healed by attonement and PW:S, and therefore makes it easy to weave in PW:Solace.

- gara'jal, again mana is irrelevant.

- four kings clearly is the most advantageous fight to choose PW:Solace what with the horrendous amount of downtime and extremely bursty nature of the damage.

- elegon weave PW:Solace while atonement healing when the sparks pop, spam it when the totems are up, you'll start the final phase with a 100% mana.

- emperor basically anytime the tanks are dancing is a potential regen phase.

- zo'rlok MC and attenuation plateforms are clear regen phases.

- ta'yak is one of those fights where i wouldn't recommend Solace, even though it is still viable.

- garalon, constant damage, clear no-no for Solace, go mindbender.

- mel'Jarak, same, constant high damage, take mindbender (although this can depend on which adds you are controlling).

- Un'sok P1 has very low healing requirements, P2 can get a bit hectic if the other healer gets turned into a golem but the rest of the time Solace can be easily thrown in there.

- shek'zeer P1 the only time you really need to heal is just before and after the explosions, P2 when a few adds have been killed you can easily regen, and then you've got a whole other P1 waiting for you to spam that Solace.

- protectors, again only P3 really demands constant healing.

- tsulong, too much damage, go mindbender.

- lei shi, useless boss, only the run away phase needs healing do whatever you want but Solace has it's use here as well.

- sha, mana irrelevant in P1, never tried P2 so can't say.

In a more general way, since MoP hit, we've lost a few mana regen tricks I found were rather integrated into the way disc was played (and fun)(archangel, BT affecting HoH, rapturing on intell procs, etc) so I guess this spell is the only "trick" left to beat that damned "predefined" amount of mana you get per fight.

(I guess rapturing on spirit procs is basically the same as rapturing on int procs, but I'm guessing this will not be applicable for long as Blizzard seem to not appreciate that kind of mechanic)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, the only fight where I took PW:Solace until now was last week when I had to tank heal WoE HC. My resto druid partner is fine with healing the raid and our soaker, who I occasionally shield, so besides PoM and Cascade I was pretty much spamming PW:Solace to regain every bit of mana possible during dance to bombard the tanks with heals...

On every other fight (MSV 6/6 HC, HoF 2nd+3rd+4th HC, but not everyone of them as disc) I think I use Mindbender just because it eliminates the greatest flaw that Shadowfiend had for me since we got it: Shadowfiend is too bursty in terms of mana regen, I much prefer a smoother steady income through Mindbender. And Mindbender together with Rapture during Spirit proccs is more than enough regen to heal with atonement for most easier fights... Protectors 10N Hard for example is 100% atonement healing when we 3heal it :x

On a different note: In which fights do you think disc is not that good and holy may be better?

Because of the huge amount of dailies during early MoP I had a shadow spec and not my usual Disc+Holy, so I was pretty much holy during the first weeks of progression and I felt fine with it and still like it on certain encounters:

Feng is wonderful as holy, especially since I got the 4piece T14, 4s cd on CoH is pretty nice, but I can imagine disc being op as usual during arcane phase, maybe I should give it a try.

Elegon was also one of my go to fights as holy, because of renew rolling on the tanks and the awesome aoe healing during spark phase, but seeing how trivial the fight has become and that there is an dmg amp mechanic I also can imagine atonement healing being really effective here.

There are two fights where holy felt distinctively superior to me personally so far. On one hand Garalon because people are mostly too spread out in 10 man hc to effectively heal with PoH, so PoM, CoH and Cascade in Sanctuary are amazing. And on the other hand Tsulong where guardian spirit is just amazing coupled with the fact that disc mastery does more or less nothing on tsulong :X

Nearly every other fight I find myself able to benefit the raid much more via dpsing and atonement healing or just because spirit shell is more or less broken right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say that since disc got Spirit Shell I really feel like Holy is not as "safe" as disc, so I'm rather biased towards disc from the start.

The only fights where I see Holy as being clearly better are fights with constant damage coupled with strange positional requirements: Garalon is a clear winner for holy, and probably Will of the Emperor, then again this is only relevant if your raid does not have good positioning (I'm constantly hitting only 2 or 3 people max with a poh on these fights so I guess this is in part me bitching about our ranged dps slacky positioning rather than the fight itself or viability or not of discipline).

I haven't tried Tsulong on heroic yet, but from what I've seen on normal, yes holy is clearly superior simply for the day phase.

As far as Feng goes, Discipline can eat up one arcane velocity out of 2, or soak up an epicenter if the OT couldn't kick it as long as you get a few seconds warning, same for draw flame (in general I'd say any fight with a 30sec or 1min boss ability that does raid wide damage is inherently biased towards discs spirit shell).

Elegon to me is the fight where Disc is absolutely overpowered since the buff to atonement range: 99% atonement healing, even during spark phases, you heal both sides without even realizing it.

As a side note for disc as offspec, shadow gear works really well for a priest focusing on atonement and only spirit shelling the important abilities, so this might be something to take into account.

To go back to the Solace discussion, are you 3 healing most fights? Because I have to admit that we 2 heal everything except for Blade Lord, Gara'jal and Tsulong (these 3 fights could perfectly well be 2 healed if our holy paly wasn't stuck in the cataclysm model of paly healing), and that my healing companions have been rather under par since Dragon Soul so I've been constantly having mana issues when using only Mindbender (we're currently on the same progression level I think, 6/6mv 3/6hof).

As an example, something like Feng heroic was simply impossible for me mana wise without Solace, I'd always be oom arriving into earth phase, with it I'm doing 75% of the healing without sweating.

So yes I'll happily admit Solace is a bit gimmicky, and probably totally irrelevant if you're often 3 healing or even 2 healing with a very competent second healer, or simply playing in ideal conditions.

But for all those times when you're 2 healing with a lousy second healer, or raiding with people who tend to stand in the fire too much, or even when progression hits a dps brick wall and you're forced to switch a healer for a dps, I really feel like Solace is king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SG: we mostly 3heal, just out of convenience but also 2healed it

Feng: 3heal, just safer but I guess with Spirit shell there would be no need for a 3rd healer^^

Rest of MSV: 2heal

During zor'lok progression so far: 3heal

Ta'yak: 3heal

Garalon: 3heal

Mel'jarak: 2 heal

Amber Shaper progression: 3heal because of reshape possibility on healer during p2/3

Normal modes generally can all be 2healed I'd say, I guess we are still 3healing some just out of habit but I end up smiting 100% of the time for those I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.