Archived

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

Hamlet

Resto PvE Compendium and General Discussion

421 posts in this topic

The throughput on Rapid Rejuv is zero when doing 5x1 rotation, since the only thing that matters is the health per cast time which is independent of Rapid Rejuv; the only case where RR does actually effect your throughput is when you have less than 15 people to cast it on, which is always in 10mans and not yet happened in 25mans (in terms of raid AoE damage healing).

((Warning: I completely ignore the effects of Revitalize for the remainder of this post, as I'm not trying to say one way or the other if RR is useful, I'm merely pointing out situations where RR could be useful that I didn't see already posted. My point is merely that RR allows you to tailor to your raid group more than without RR.))

However, that being said, I would prefer to use 2 druids with RR on 25man Lana'thel over 2 druids without it. This is due to the mechanic where your dps are "vampires" and get 15% lifesteal. This means that the healers need significantly more healing and thus it is noticeably better to use 2 druids who cover 1 caster group and the healer group each. It's not completely dependent on the fight mechanic either, as dps will tend to get other things such as JoL procs. I pretty much always WG on melee in a 5x1 situation, and the more druids/shamans/paladins with HL glyph/holy priests or just healers with trauma you have, the less reason to ever RJ melee/tank groups and the more reason to stick to RJing the ranged classes.

For another example of it's uses, if you have two rdruids(very common in my guild) with RR on a fight like Twin Val'kyr, you can clump together the people you expect to take the most orb damage into one group and have both druids RJ that group and 1 other group each. This will be 3/4 of the healing of just having two druids spam on all 3 on the two other groups and 3/2 of the healing on the group that both druids are hitting.

p.s. I know this is generally unneeded, but I would feel amiss if I didn't include it: To give some basis to the numbers 3/4 and 3/2, going from a 18sec RJ to a 12sec RJ gives 50% boost to throughput for each RJ for 10 targets, meaning 3/2 amount of RJ on the group with both druids, but the other two groups have 1/2 of the RJ of the group that is getting focused, meaning the other two groups have 3/2 * 1/2 = 3/4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The throughput on Rapid Rejuv is zero when doing 5x1 rotation, since the only thing that matters is the health per cast time which is independent of Rapid Rejuv; the only case where RR does actually effect your throughput is when you have less than 15 people to cast it on, which is always in 10mans and not yet happened in 25mans (in terms of raid AoE damage healing).

The best terminology for how RR affects healing is concentration vs. spread. Spread being expressed as number of targets and concentration being stated as ticks per target.

Assuming 5x1, and just considering Rejuv, at haste cap a tree will have the following from an 18 second sample:

Without RR a spread of 15 and a concentration of 6.

With RR a spread of 10 and a concentration of 9.

For 2 druids:

Without RR a spread of 25 (the raid max) and a concentration of 7.2

With RR a spread of 20 and a concentration of 9.

If we talk about slipping other spells into rotation though, the numbers start to explain the "feeling" of falling behind, assuming less casts for each, lets see 4x1x1

Without: spread=12 concentration=6

With: spread=8 concentration=9

For 2 druids:

Without: spread=24 concentration=6

With: spread=16 concentration=9

So you can see easily why it feels like you've fallen behind with RR and 2 druids, 9 or 25 raiders aren't swiftmendable and are completely uncovered by a rejuv, a 25% difference in spread. That said, the 16 that are covered by RR are receiving 50% more healing. Raid strategy comes into play here, do your druids cover everyone and your other healers help top off everyone OR are your druids dedicated to the 16 they cover and the other healers dedicated to the remaining 9.

For a class that is used to providing raid wide stability, the former is the status quo and thus what a lot of us feel more comfortable with and expect when raiding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carebare, I'm curious of how you do your 'centered on our feral' part. I do something very similar with my WG only on a warrior, although your point of ferals/dks getting more out of revitalize may have me changing it. I only pick our fury warrior because he, for the most part, is aware enough not to fail on things.

Anyways, do you just target your feral and hit WG (mouseover/target+keybind) or do you have it macro'd? Currently I have a focus macro made for my WG that will cast it on anyone I have focused. (Bound to Q) and then my normal WG spell (Bound to 6) for when I need my WG to go somewhere else (A cluster of ranged for example). My macro just seems somewhat ... clunky at times, and if he moves out of range it won't cast so I've been trying to work a more effective way to do that piece of my 5x1 rotation especially on fights where I need it (BQ /Putricide P3)

I do not mouseover heal at all. I don't like it. I definitely don't mean to start a debate on it either. We run our groups nearly identically every week. I know precisely who is where and I've kind of memorized their general position on grid. I was selecting the feral then pressing 'c' -- my WG key. The only macro healing I have is 1 and 2, which are each bound to /target tankname /cast lifebloom. That way with free globals I can quickly stack the tanks without having to click on their names. I have a bar that lines up with grid of all of my abilities with cooldowns, so I can quickly see as my WG is coming off CD and then sort of keep in my head "OK 2 more RJs then smack WG". To make sure I am maintaining every global I will pick out someone I don't have RJ on to be the follow-up cast so I won't lose anytime trying to figure out my next target. In a strict 5x1 like Queen, I find that basically planning 4-5 moves ahead works. If I have to slip in a mend I just pick back up off that mental list after I've casted it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The LB macros are a really good idea I'll have to see where I can find two bind keys I think. We have a pretty solid attendance on our 25s as well, for about 22 slots, and although people constantly get shuffled around (annoys me to no end) the key people are always there. I have my grid slightly larger so I can see the countdown on my WG from within it and just use that to keep tabs on my CD as well.

Being new to the more dedicated 5x1 healing I find planning a few moves ahead helps me a lot. I have been debating having a talk with our other tree and essentially setting up a 'Okay I'll cover groups 1,3,5 you cover groups 1,2,4' (group1 is tanks and a couple other key people) to focus our rejuv blanketing, but I find range makes that hard to follow at times, more so on fights where people are wandering around a lot so I haven't bothered yet and we just kind of 'wing it'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea I never liked rigid assignments for that reason really. This is probably why I'm not a huge fan of RR glyph which kind of requires that you do that. On twins we've just always taken opposite sides of the room and gone with heal what's in range strategy. For Queen we did loose assignments, I'll take 1/2, you take 4/5 and we'll cross cover 3. It worked well enough and we both liked the less assigned version. It really is a play style thing and hey whatever works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I raid with another excellent Tree, and instead of specific group assignments we use a priority system. I will prioritize group 1 > group 5, while she prioritizes group 5 > group 1. This doesn't tie you into a specific group in the case you are out of range or your group isn't really going take damage, but it also ensures everyone is someone's priority to heal. We both use the RR glyph. On a few specific fights, notably Twins, we are split up and will cover our respective clusters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another note on the RR glyph: you can mimic its focusing mechanism by sacrificing extra GCDs on rolling lifeblooms on top of ordinary rejuvs on targets that require it. If this is almost always sufficient to handle "focused targets," perhaps this glyph isn't so strong after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another note on the RR glyph: you can mimic its focusing mechanism by sacrificing extra GCDs on rolling lifeblooms on top of ordinary rejuvs on targets that require it. If this is almost always sufficient to handle "focused targets," perhaps this glyph isn't so strong after all.

Lifebloom doesn't proc Revitalize and doesn't benefit from any set bonuses. Not to mention the fact that we don't really have any glyphs that are completely mandatory, we can definitely afford to drop another glyph for RR. Even if you could replicate the same amount of healing by rolling lifeblooms along with it, which I am not convinced you can, it is clearly not worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Minor OP update, fixed Tree of Life and Hurricane macros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rapid Rejuv is not something that any of our resto druids find useful, its certainly not useful at all for any 25 man content currently available. The healers in our guild (and virtually all of our raiders) deal with 400-500ms latency as normal when playing (Oceanic players playing on a US based "Oceanic" realm), so that might vary the results, as effectively we do lose reaction time and GCDs even with spell queuing due to that latency.

If you were doing a lot of substantial tank healing RR might be useful, but then I'd be going for Nourish and Lifebloom glyphs more than likely if that were the case. The only upcoming fight that I'll glyph it for again will be Valithria, as it will be an outright increase in healing output, but that fight is obviously an anomaly compared to every other encounter in ICC.

For Lana'thel we ran two resto druids, which we usually do as our standard healing setup anyway and the raid healing was very stable apart from when people did silly things. I used the normal Glyph of Rejuv (as did our other tree), but it was only on our wipe attempts that it did any useful healing as people were doing stupid things, whereas on our kill the healing it did was almost nothing (i.e. 10k) which was different from Twins where it'd almost always do what I'd consider a "life saving" amount of healing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My other Tree druid and I ran rapid rejuv on the Lanathel fight merely because of the 2sec healing tick to counter her 2sec aura-dot. In theory it makes sense. We split up the raid, each of us covering two groups, with the last group covered by a chain healing shaman (group 1 is our tanks and two melee) and typical main tank heals.

I found it to be pretty difficult to maintain uptime on all targets throughout the fight, but at no point were we ever in danger of losing anyone due to the raidwide damage. Its hard to say that its necessary, but I can notice a significant amount of hps throughput difference when I did the fight without Rapid Rejuv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rapid Rejuv is not something that any of our resto druids find useful, its certainly not useful at all for any 25 man content currently available. The healers in our guild (and virtually all of our raiders) deal with 400-500ms latency as normal when playing (Oceanic players playing on a US based "Oceanic" realm), so that might vary the results, as effectively we do lose reaction time and GCDs even with spell queuing due to that latency.

If you were doing a lot of substantial tank healing RR might be useful, but then I'd be going for Nourish and Lifebloom glyphs more than likely if that were the case. The only upcoming fight that I'll glyph it for again will be Valithria, as it will be an outright increase in healing output, but that fight is obviously an anomaly compared to every other encounter in ICC.

For Lana'thel we ran two resto druids, which we usually do as our standard healing setup anyway and the raid healing was very stable apart from when people did silly things. I used the normal Glyph of Rejuv (as did our other tree), but it was only on our wipe attempts that it did any useful healing as people were doing stupid things, whereas on our kill the healing it did was almost nothing (i.e. 10k) which was different from Twins where it'd almost always do what I'd consider a "life saving" amount of healing.

I pretty much find that I use Rapid Rejuv for two reasons in 25-mans. The first being for blanketing rejuv on a small amount of people, for example, on BQL I take care of the two melee groups with RR while the other raid healers focus on the other 3. This allows for a higher amount of revitalize procs and is just a fairly easy/logical way of assigning healers.

The second use is on fights where I am not going to be constantly spamming Rejuv, but I can use Rejuv as a more reactive heal. Fights like Marrowgar, Rotface and depending on our healing setup, putricide.

It is still just a glyph; it isn't going to change things drastically especially in 25 mans. It does, however, have its uses and to believe that it is 'not useful at all for any 25 man content currently available' is a little closed-minded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to the equation M = LN(B/A)*H, I would say that though this is a good attempt at calculating the effectiveness of heals (and would like to thank Rijndael and Paininabox for starting the groundwork on this), it overly favors direct heals by a VERY wide margin, to the point that I think it would make Druids appear to be sub-standard healers even on fights like Twins and BQL. I would love to see an effective weighing system developed for heals, and eventually even an addon that implements this system.

Perhaps the problem is that the starting equation, 1/x, has too steep a change in slopes. Maybe 1/[2sqrt(x)] would work better? The anti derivative over (A,B) is [sqrt(B) - sqrt(A)], and therefor M = H[sqrt(B) - sqrt(A)]. The alternative (M = LN(B/A)*H) exponentially favors heals cast as the target gets closer to 0. M = H[sqrt(B) - sqrt(A)] still favors heals that come when the target is close to 0, but not excessively so.

I was inclined to suggest a much more simple equation, M = C*H, where C represents the target's health deficit (as a percent), which would have a linear slope and would not factor in how high the target's health was after the heal. The only reason I consider the other suggested formula M = H[sqrt(B) - sqrt(A)] to be better is that it arbitrarily factors in a "minimum threshold" of hp by having a sharper curve when the target's at lower hp.

Last thought: a starting equation of 3/(4x^.25) would provide an M = H*[b^(3/4) - A^(3/4)], which is less steep than the other two options while still favoring heals coming in at lower health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is, you seem to have a particular outcome in mind, and you are tweaking the formula until the result you want (healer value approximately equal) comes out. But there's no reason to suppose healers are equal. Different healers are good at different things -- burst healers (shamans, holy priests) really are a LOT better than maintenance healers (resto druids) at saving people from death, whereas maintenance healers are better at keeping a ton of people out of trouble in the first place (as Carebare was saying).

This is why I wrote my post with a particular "objective" metric in mind (death probability). If it turns out burst healers come out better with respect to that metric, well we just have to take that at face value and conclude they are better at saving people from death in this sense. No one is going to stop inviting resto druids to raids if some death probability addon shows them as low on the meters -- because druids still have a useful job to do that no other healer can do as well as them.

Healing is more complicated than dps, so we need more metrics to evaluating healing in raids. Different healers will come out better or worse depending on the metric you use. With dps it's just a single number (although some encounters favor less tangible things like burst or target switching or mobility).

edit: Incidentally, death probability is completely self-calculating, you can start with a prior probability P(death|current hp, encounter), and simply update it as people die to obtain posterior probabilities (if multiple people run the addon, the death data can be shared as well to obtain a large sample size across servers/guilds).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Death probability also has a lot to do with the fight in question (and so would be different from fight to fight, guild to guild, etc.). All we can really hope to achieve is a "reasonable" estimation of death probability based on a very small sample of variables compared to the vast number of variables that actually affect it.

You are right that I was trying to tweak the values with an outcome in mind, but that outcome was not to make all healers equal. I was trying to find a "proper" way to value the preventative nature of hots in a system that would obviously favor direct heals. Ultimately I was trying to value heals based on their ability to maximize health pools rather than on their ability to reduce the probability of death - which perhaps was the wrong perspective to take.

Edit: The reason for this perspective is that I think such an addon/formula would be providing false calculations if it undervalues hots. In 10 man, for example, on Blood Queen Lana'thel, a druid can essentially solo heal the raid in a 2-healer group. I suspect a priest can too. But I highly doubt a shaman could. The shaman would be providing much larger heals than the druid, and yet the shaman's party would probably be wiping (if the shaman were the only raid healer). And yet I believe this formula would declare the shaman to be the more effective healer.

Edit2: Perhaps some other things worth taking into consideration in this formula would be:

1) Health restored relative to damage taken: (H/D)*H.

Where H = healing done, and D = health deficit. This would make small heals for heavy damage somewhat useless, but if the damage is small and the healing is small, the healing receives nearly full value.

2) Time between damage taken and healing done: 1/[sqrt(T)+1]*H.

Where T = time in seconds between the damage received and healing done. The longer it takes to receive the heal, the less that heal would be worth. I choose sqrt(T)+1 as a means to avoid dividing by values very close to 0 if the healing occurs nearly instantly after damage is taken and to avoid diminishing the value too much as time goes on. (This would probably be a somewhat complicated value to determine because of the effect that different sources of damage would have on the time intervals.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The second use is on fights where I am not going to be constantly spamming Rejuv, but I can use Rejuv as a more reactive heal. Fights like Marrowgar, Rotface and depending on our healing setup, putricide.

It is still just a glyph; it isn't going to change things drastically especially in 25 mans. It does, however, have its uses and to believe that it is 'not useful at all for any 25 man content currently available' is a little closed-minded.

It probably does vary based on what other healers you're running with and how they heal, as that can vary how effective types of healing would be. Our typical 6 healer setup is 2 druids, a shaman, holy priest, disc priest and a paladin, if we add a 7th healer its usually another paladin for tank healing, otherwise if we drop to 5 healers, the shaman goes elemental. The holy priest is specced/glyphed for (ab)using empowered renew, so is generally a raid healer and general sniper healer, which is hard to beat when they can land an instant-cast heal before any of my casted ones could land (unless I can swiftmend a pre-existing HoT). As we run 2 druids for virtually every fight, we can have the entire raid blanketed depending on the encounter anyway.

One of the big reasons why I feel that RR is weak, is because generally people don't take enough damage for RR to be effective when taking into account the crossover in healing that we do in our raids, it just generally results in more overheal than effective heal, and this is exactly what all 3 of our resto druids experienced when using it. I also don't feel that it allows you to do anything other than Rejuv people give the limited number of people you can have it up on at the time and that you have to refresh people with it quicker. I prefer to have a longer duration Rejuv that can cover more people, and give me free GCDs to cast other heals to fill in gaps in other areas of healing in the encounter, especially when you have random elements that mean other healers might be running away from things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best way to view healing effectiveness would be to simply look at incoming damage. There's no need to derive a strict mathematical model and/or look at health deficit. We could simply assume the goal is to keep people at 100% as much as it is to keep them above 0%. Maybe we can't achieve 100% health 100% of the time, but stating it as the ultimate goal would probably make analysis easier. We don't easily have the information in the logs about health deficit, but we certainly have it for incoming damage.

You simply say "here is the damage profile" for a particular fight. Given the available tools, what is the best way to counter that damage profile? Obviously, this is what we actually do every time we step foot (branch, root?) into a raid. If you still want a strict mathematical model, then model the damage, not the healing. But really, there's no need because we already have all the data for the real thing, and don't need to rely on approximations.

If you wanted an addon to tell you effective healing, then it could (possibly for each fight) have an expected damage profile (and possibly also an expected healing profile). It would then tell you if the situation was or wasn't matching the profile, whether that be DPS standing in fire, or healers doing the wrong things. Then we could discuss the benefits of different profiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really agree with this...

1. With RR your Rejuv should be around 12-13 seconds. Covering 9-10 targets that gives you 2-4 'free' GCDs assuming a good latency. Without RR your Rejuv is 18 seconds. Covering 13-14 targets (your estimate) that gives you 4-5 'free' GCDs assuming a good latency. +0-3 GCD

b) There are now 5-7 targets that need picked up by another healer. In either case I am going to be GCD locked (as you stated still casting as fast as I can), with SM or WGs being tossed in my 'free GCDs' slots.

c) Those 5-7 targets are now eating up someone elses manapool.

E.g.

Lets say for the sake of this example, that we have TreeA with a 12s RR Rejuv and that 10 Rejuv, +2 WG cost 2000 mana,

Lets also say that we have TreeB with a 18s Rejuv and that 15 Rejuc, + 3 WG costs 3000 mana

After 3 minutes (180 seconds) the RR Rejuv cycle would have been repeated 15 times (180s/12s) and cost that person

30k mana. After 3 minutes (180 seconds) the Normal Rejuv cycle would have been repeated 10 times (180s/18s) and cost that person 30k mana. Everything is equal, between the two druids, right? Except for there are 5-7 targets that some other healer has had to cover because I couldn't as TreeA. So where it didn't hurt TreeA's mana at all to use RR, it did hurt the overall manapool of the healers in the raid.

So many things related to comp and strategy come into play and being able to swiftmend anyone in the raid at pretty much any time is certainly very powerful.

I don't want to bog down the thread restating things I've said before much, but the short of it is that everything left that I quoted assumes that it makes no difference for the targets survivability whether they have a RR or a normal rejuv on them. In situations where that is the case, and there seems to be agreement that 25 normal BQ is one of them, you'd be crazy to run with RR. However, in a case where you'd have to cast some additional heal on someone with a regular rejuv but not on someone with RR most of those objections don't hold up.

Positioning is a huge consideration and the main source of the strength of RR. Looking over the fights in ICC sofar, in pretty much every fight where ranged don't clump up in melee range of the boss, they spread out trying to put 10 yards or so between them, making raid healing ranged classes much more difficult. Look at how you're using your spells in a 5x1 rotation too. Do you find you have a tendency to WG the melee because you know it'll hit 6 people there. Do those people really need rejuv on top of all the CoH and WG and Chain heal and Glyph of HL and JoL heals they're most likely already getting?

I feel myself fixing to go on for a while, so I'll cut myself off. Looking at the average HPS per target and evenness of the spread of healing casting rejuv x5 on ranged people followed by WG x1 on melee I think RR will prove to be very valuable in any situation where people need more hps than a single unhasted rejuv provides, which I expect to be the case in most hard modes.

P.S. A good way of clarifying my point using the terminology used recently in this thread: If I were designing a formula to normalize the value of raid healing I would include a term that significantly discounted the value of healing people who are standing close to other people relative to healing people who are 10+ yards from the closest person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you guys planning to do for Valithria on 25? I'm not sure how our single target HPS compares to Holy Priests (Shamans & Paladins will be on Valithria), but I'm guessing we will be the ones that raid heal and stay out of portals (throwing spare GCDs on her ofc). Or if every healer can go in, spec and glyph for Nourish?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will have to wait until we see the fight. We don't know how much, and what kind, of actual healing the fight requires. Also, do we know for sure whether you can put Beacon of Light on the boss?

Either way, if for whatever reason we wind up trying to heal her, just heal it like a tank--HoT's and a specced out Nourish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are you guys planning to do for Valithria on 25? I'm not sure how our single target HPS compares to Holy Priests (Shamans & Paladins will be on Valithria), but I'm guessing we will be the ones that raid heal and stay out of portals (throwing spare GCDs on her ofc). Or if every healer can go in, spec and glyph for Nourish?

One other consideration and a question to be answered is whether she is affected by Tree of Life aura or not. If she is and you zone into the portal as the only resto druid, everyone outside suddenly loses 6% off of their heals, which is probably enough to mean that if you're only using 1 tree you'd probably never want to have them going into portals as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are you guys planning to do for Valithria on 25? I'm not sure how our single target HPS compares to Holy Priests (Shamans & Paladins will be on Valithria), but I'm guessing we will be the ones that raid heal and stay out of portals (throwing spare GCDs on her ofc). Or if every healer can go in, spec and glyph for Nourish?

I missed the last round of testing her on the PTR, but when I went in on 10s we had three healers (two trees, and a shaman) even with 6-7 stacks of the buff from the portal I would notice very little change in my HoT ticks most of my Nourishs would crit around the 16-18k mark (as opposed to the normal 10k ish) The Resto shaman was hitting well into the 20-25k range. I would suspect a Paladin well up into the 30k

I have a feeling this will very much be a holy pally/priest fight with shamans after that. Us Trees and the Disc priests will be outside to hold things together there. I think it actually works out pretty well for us as there is a lot going on outside and movement is a very big concern. However if your raid is attentive a lot of the damage can be avoided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So many things related to comp and strategy come into play and being able to swiftmend anyone in the raid at pretty much any time is certainly very powerful.

I don't want to bog down the thread restating things I've said before much, but the short of it is that everything left that I quoted assumes that it makes no difference for the targets survivability whether they have a RR or a normal rejuv on them. In situations where that is the case, and there seems to be agreement that 25 normal BQ is one of them, you'd be crazy to run with RR. However, in a case where you'd have to cast some additional heal on someone with a regular rejuv but not on someone with RR most of those objections don't hold up.

Positioning is a huge consideration and the main source of the strength of RR. Looking over the fights in ICC sofar, in pretty much every fight where ranged don't clump up in melee range of the boss, they spread out trying to put 10 yards or so between them, making raid healing ranged classes much more difficult. Look at how you're using your spells in a 5x1 rotation too. Do you find you have a tendency to WG the melee because you know it'll hit 6 people there. Do those people really need rejuv on top of all the CoH and WG and Chain heal and Glyph of HL and JoL heals they're most likely already getting?

I feel myself fixing to go on for a while, so I'll cut myself off. Looking at the average HPS per target and evenness of the spread of healing casting rejuv x5 on ranged people followed by WG x1 on melee I think RR will prove to be very valuable in any situation where people need more hps than a single unhasted rejuv provides, which I expect to be the case in most hard modes.

P.S. A good way of clarifying my point using the terminology used recently in this thread: If I were designing a formula to normalize the value of raid healing I would include a term that significantly discounted the value of healing people who are standing close to other people relative to healing people who are 10+ yards from the closest person.

I agree 100% that raid comp, and strategy definitely makes a huge difference on fights. Although, I believe you missed one of the key points in my post. I wasn't as worried about the survivability as I am to the overall manapool of the 5-7 healers your raid may run with.

I think the example you are looking for / getting at is something like Saurfang. Where you have tanks taking damage, some light damage to the raid (Boiling Blood), some occasional heavier raid damage (Blood Nova) and then a few raid targets that are getting hammered (Mark of the Fallen Champion targets) but even this fight is only really 'intense' for the last portion of it when you have 2-3+ people with Marks on them.

Can you give an example of these cases where someone would need more hps than a single unhasted Rejuv would provide? In addition how you would compensate for the 5-7 people that required a third raid healer to cover. Bring a 7th healer, go lighter on tank healers, etc?

I am sold on RR, I can definitely see its uses, to the point where I just had 20 glyphs made... for my 10m group. However, I had 20 because I fully intend on having to switch it out for 25s every week. Currently I don't see a value to the glyph that doesn't hurt something else in a major way on 25s. Will that change with 25m Herocis? Possibly, but all of that is just guess work at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, BQL and Twins aura damage is greater than an unhasted Rejuv. That's not really the point though. I've been saying for awhile, RR is an issue of focus vs. spread. Raidwide auras are pretty much the worst situation for increased focus. The obvious example is Saurfang, where all the damage is focused (tank, Mark, and Boiling Blood).

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.