Jump to content


Photo

[WOTLK 4.0] Restoration Discussion


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
832 replies to this topic

#21 Nethris

Nethris

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 23 June 2010 - 10:24 AM

I would hope that we'd continue to see a variety in the healing required in bossfights as we do at least somewhat now, but I'm not sure the changes to druid healing are going to make us quite as versatile as Blizzard seems to be hoping. In constant damage fights or fights where the raid spends most of the time at less than 95% hp, I'd expect Rejuv and Regrowth to continue to be our best heals, since that's more or less ideal circumstances for HoTs in general, and with our mastery buffing them on damaged targets they should win out fairly easily - I do expect that Blizzard will tweak Regrowth enough that we'll want to use it when standing still and Rejuv when moving or if we need more on a target with Regrowth up already, which will be more interesting.

Tank healing looks decent, but unless they tweak the relative mana numbers for Nourish and/or HT, tank healing is going to remain a much higher mana drain than "normal" druid healing, which poses a problem for being capable of doing both. However, without any tank buffs from our heals, I see it ending up with druids being the worst choice for dedicated tank healing and thus our tank healing still mostly being limited to using HoTs to assist a little and helping with Swiftmend and Nourish on damage spikes on heavy tank damage fights even if we end up capable of a more dedicated role, though that's not really a problem.

Kinda worried about our ability to quickly top off random spike damage though, at least at the first raid tier or two before gear scaling removes most mana worries again. If they succeed in causing us to stop constantly keeping HoTs on a large portion of the raid when they don't need it, I don't see Nourish being of much use for spike damage other than as a follow-up spell to Rejuv or Regrowth if one is needed and Swiftmend is on CD. Regrowth seems like the most likely candidate for spike raid healing - but with a major HoT attached I'm not sure how that's going to end up being powerful enough to match other healers while not being much more expensive than other "flash heals." If it does end up that strong, it's going to be a little ridiculous in situations where more of the HoT is useful.

Efflorescence seems interesting, but I do question just how many tools a raid needs to heal up groups of people - I think we're already at a point where healing the melee on a standard spread out fight tends to not be an issue unless something blows up in the middle of them that isn't supposed to, at least compared to how difficult healing the ranged is on the same fight. Unless we see more fights where the ranged clump up as well, the usefulness may be a bit limited though we'll at least have the extra healing on the primary target.


One major question on my mind though is whether or not you get mastery bonuses from trees outside the one you have the most points in, as for some reason I've gotten the impression that you may. If so, that could put odd pressures on resto druid talent specs to skip any mediocre to bad talents they can in the resto tree to instead pick up otherwise bad or useless talents in balance for the haste mastery bonus. I imagine the effects will be limited as I'm not currently seeing useful places to put some of the 16 more or less required points in balance - but I'd rather not have pressure on me to skip improved barkskin for something I'd otherwise consider much less useful than the marginal PvE benefit of a better damage reduction cooldown and actually having armor in my primary healing form, just because I'd have 51+ points in resto without it and balance points would give me a bit of haste.

#22 Erdluf

Erdluf

    Great Tiger

  • Members
  • 968 posts

Posted 23 June 2010 - 11:57 AM

Tank healing looks decent, but unless they tweak the relative mana numbers for Nourish and/or HT, tank healing is going to remain a much higher mana drain than "normal" druid healing, which poses a problem for being capable of doing both.


If they change nothing other than the talent trees we've already seen, tank healing will require much less mana than a WG + Rj*x rotation.

Rejuv in 3.5: 18% of base mana, benefits from Moonglow (9%), OoC (~6%), and ToL (20%).
Nourish in 3.5: 18% of base mana, benefits from Moonglow (9%), OoC (~6%), and TS (up to 10%, but 2-4% in typical builds).
Revitalize in 3.5: A raid-healing druid probably has Rejuv up on himself. Returns about 1% total mana every 20s (about 0.4% of base mana every second, at ICC levels).

The raid healer conserves mana largely because ToL >> TS, and partly because of Revitalize.

In 4.0: ToL mana reduction goes away. Revitalize gets no benefit from WG+Rj. However, maintain Rg and Lb (Lb is maintained by Nourish) on two tanks, and Revitalize will give you 3% of total mana every 10s or so (over 2% of base mana every second at ICC levels), even at low crit rates.

Also, the preview talent tree (wowhead) shows WG at 66% base mana (up from 23% on live).

A tank healer (particularly if he specs 5/5 Tranquil Spirit) will be able to last quite a bit longer than a Rejuv+WG healer.

#23 Nethris

Nethris

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 24 June 2010 - 01:39 AM

In 4.0: ToL mana reduction goes away.


I'm not sure how I missed that of all things - you're right, that does make the mana consumption pretty even with tank healing being cheaper. The 66% increase in the effective cost of a bloomed LB seems like it could make LB much less attractive if not rolling it with nourish. That does increase my concern that regrowth will end up very expensive for flash heal style use, though worrying about mana costs too much without seeing the numbers they're using currently is probably pointless.

I do wonder how much mana each point of int is giving with the comment on the stat preview that it will give less - Dreamstate is currently pretty terrible but that change could make it somewhat less so in a relative sense, and if ToL ends up being an at most once a fight cooldown and not used for damage in PvE, skipping imp ToL and imp Barkskin for getting a couple points in Dreamstate may make sense for at least the first tier. For comparison, with 10 second average Revitalize procs with tank healing or regrowth heavy raid healing being a simple assumption I'm getting that Revitalize points would be a little under 3 times as effective as the second or third Dreamstate point with my current gear, while with 10 mana per int it would be pretty close to twice as effective - though lower gear levels in early Cata will favor Revitalize more.

#24 Playered

Playered

    Soda Popinski

  • Members
  • 4,054 posts

Posted 24 June 2010 - 04:31 PM

If they change nothing other than the talent trees we've already seen, tank healing will require much less mana than a WG + Rj*x rotation.

~/~

In 4.0: ToL mana reduction goes away. Revitalize gets no benefit from WG+Rj. However, maintain Rg and Lb (Lb is maintained by Nourish) on two tanks, and Revitalize will give you 3% of total mana every 10s or so (over 2% of base mana every second at ICC levels), even at low crit rates.

Also, the preview talent tree (wowhead) shows WG at 66% base mana (up from 23% on live).

A tank healer (particularly if he specs 5/5 Tranquil Spirit) will be able to last quite a bit longer than a Rejuv+WG healer.


I don't know how you can even contemplate anything regarding mana consumption without actual spell costs at level 85, typical mana and regeneration levels when you will enter the first tier of raiding at least. This ignores the actual output levels of the spells too which is a slightly significant factor in these areas as well.

I don't know anything


#25 Vorick

Vorick

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 26 June 2010 - 11:47 PM

Any thoughts on why they (Blizz) would put the movement reduction back on ToL?? IMHO, 50% is crucial in many PvE boss encounters and is obviously is an awful "debuff" in PvP. =( .....sure we have the 240% armor increase, but that's not gonna help me much running 1/2 speed and trying to LoS that mage before he gibs me. *chuckle*

Not whining here folks, just wondering why they would re-implement something they found terrible enough to remove from the game previously?


- V -

#26 moxy

moxy

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 27 posts

Posted 27 June 2010 - 12:27 AM

Any thoughts on why they (Blizz) would put the movement reduction back on ToL?? IMHO, 50% is crucial in many PvE boss encounters and is obviously is an awful "debuff" in PvP. =( .....sure we have the 240% armor increase, but that's not gonna help me much running 1/2 speed and trying to LoS that mage before he gibs me. *chuckle*

Not whining here folks, just wondering why they would re-implement something they found terrible enough to remove from the game previously?


- V -


I'm guess GC would say they find giving up mobility 100% of the time a less fun type of decision than giving up mobility something like 15% of the time, when you choose to. We are already too mobile compared to other healers if the aim was to bring the healers a little closer together (less so as RJ/WG become less attractive). I think it could be an interesting tactic to decide when to exploit our mobility and when to trade off mobility for burst.

#27 Hamlet

Hamlet

    Mike Tyson

  • • Guide Author
  • 11,567 posts

Posted 27 June 2010 - 12:42 AM

I don't understand the point of it. I think that saddling abilities with pure unfun and inconvenience is against Blizzard's usual style. 45s of stationary time is a lot to expect in any interesting PvE encounter. The choice of when to pop it will often wind up dominated by opportunity rather than by any healing-related need.

#28 Travaggie

Travaggie

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 27 June 2010 - 04:45 AM

So the more I think about and pour over the patch notes and discussion for cata resto, the more I think in it's current form Blizzard will be successful in changing our healing in a way, but only in the sense that instead of spamming rejuv we will spam regrowth unless we're on the move. Mix in your wild growths (depending on mana) and swiftmends and we'll be pretty formidable. Here's my line of thinking and where we could be headed and granted I know for certain alot of this is bound to change:

If Blizzard is successful in creating an environment where on average raid members spend far less time at 100% health, and in effect the initial heal of regrowth if spammed lands and overheals less, this should benefit regrowth when comparing to rejuv greatly. Granted rejuv now gets 15% instaheal, but considering Regrowth will be 1.5sec cast, probably shoot to hit 1sec hasted, we could also have regrowth up on literally everybody in the raid at once.

Now consider the fact that on top of that, each crit could sprout Efflorescence essentially giving us a free wild growth on probably 30-40% of our heals that may not heal for as much but heals EVERYONE within 15 yeards not capped at 5 people.....crazy good.

And to top it all off, we essentially will be returned 3% of our mana every 7-8 seconds on average, we could almost spam infinitely with very little mana concern.

Crit and haste values would essentially become equal as well. Crit affecting regrowth crits for more effloresence procs, and all hots critting for more HPS; Haste now increasing decreasing the time between hot ticks and effectively increasing your MP5 by a small margin for revitalization procs.

#29 Rijndael

Rijndael

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 300 posts

Posted 27 June 2010 - 06:15 PM

Crit and haste values would essentially become equal as well. Crit affecting regrowth crits for more effloresence procs, and all hots critting for more HPS; Haste now increasing decreasing the time between hot ticks and effectively increasing your MP5 by a small margin for revitalization procs.


I agree with your conclusions about spells. It would be interesting to crunch numbers about relative values of crit vs haste, it's just difficult to do without knowing the details of how haste affects hots. My intuition is crit will actually be a lot stronger for Regrowth spam than haste, past the soft haste cap (in other words after haste reduces Regrowth to 1 second casts). This is because after the soft haste cap, haste will only improve Regrowth throughput in one way (by shortening hot ticks), while crit will continue to benefit hots in two ways (via crit hot ticks and via proccing Efflorescence more).

#30 Hoticehunter

Hoticehunter

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 3 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 02:08 AM

I agree with your conclusions about spells. It would be interesting to crunch numbers about relative values of crit vs haste, it's just difficult to do without knowing the details of how haste affects hots. My intuition is crit will actually be a lot stronger for Regrowth spam than haste, past the soft haste cap (in other words after haste reduces Regrowth to 1 second casts). This is because after the soft haste cap, haste will only improve Regrowth throughput in one way (by shortening hot ticks), while crit will continue to benefit hots in two ways (via crit hot ticks and via proccing Efflorescence more).


I really don't think we're going to be seeing one second regrowths, or hitting the soft haste cap for hots in Cata. We're losing the 10% haste from GotEM, we're losing the 3% haste from Celestial Focus. I think we're losing a raid haste buff. And to top it all off, GC has stated multiple times that they let item levels inflate higher than they had intended in order to give incentive to doing hard modes. The only way I think we'll have a chance at hitting the soft haste cap in Cata is to focus every piece possible on haste and to reforge as much haste as we can on to our gear.

Though I'm not convinced at this point that that would be an entirely terrible idea to do. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but haste will still lower the GCD when you cast spells, right? Then that should mean hots will get twice the benefit of haste as they do now. There'll be the casting more of them benefit, 3 hots when you would have 2 otherwise. And there will be the ticking more often benefit, making each hot heal for more over it's duration and more often in terms of tick frequency. Twice the benefit. So I don't see how anything else will come close to the throughput bonus that haste will be giving. Ya, there's efflorescence, and that'll be nice, but still... I guess we'll just have to wait and see the numbers. Speculation only goes so far.

#31 Nethris

Nethris

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 163 posts

Posted 28 June 2010 - 04:09 AM

Do we know at this point if reforging can be undone (and then redone)? If we do end up primarily concerned about efficiency early in Cata, we could easily end up wanting just enough haste to get as many ticks of regrowth as we can, then wanting crit (or spirit). Not sure anything will compare that favorably to gemming for int almost exclusively, but I can see ending up doing reforging shuffling quite frequently with gear upgrades if that's possible. Will be interesting to see if they manage to make mastery rating powerful enough to make it anything other than an OK stat for druids that gets reforged away from by default to something that doesn't care what health our target is at.

The more I think about the ToL self-slow, the more I end up thinking that's going to make there be a pretty major difference in the utility of ToL depending on whether or not you have engineering for rocket boots to give some burst mobility to get out of a fire once in that 45 seconds. That would be rather annoying if that aspect remains.

#32 dreamtgm

dreamtgm

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 1 posts

Posted 03 July 2010 - 04:31 AM

I noticed in the Cataclysm beta that Nature's Splendor has been moved to a 16 point talent in the Balance tree (it is 11 points in the current live version). I personally don't like this, as it takes away 5 points from Resto and makes it difficult to get all of the top tier talents a healer would like to have. I now have to decide between Nature's Splendor vs giving up one of the following: Imp Tree of Life or Revitalize or Efflorescence. Has anyone analyzed the pros/cons of this change and what will be the more optimal talents in Cata?

#33 Hamlet

Hamlet

    Mike Tyson

  • • Guide Author
  • 11,567 posts

Posted 03 July 2010 - 05:20 AM

I noticed in the Cataclysm beta that Nature's Splendor has been moved to a 16 point talent in the Balance tree (it is 11 points in the current live version). I personally don't like this, as it takes away 5 points from Resto and makes it difficult to get all of the top tier talents a healer would like to have. I now have to decide between Nature's Splendor vs giving up one of the following: Imp Tree of Life or Revitalize or Efflorescence. Has anyone analyzed the pros/cons of this change and what will be the more optimal talents in Cata?


I had a similar comment when I first saw the trees. It is a problem right now, since there are no new useful talents in the Balance tree that we'd want to take, so we're basically wasting points to try to get to Splendor. And forcing 16 in Balance just takes away from potential choice in the Resto tree.

-----

I've been paying more attention to Moonkin than Resto so far, but a few things:

WG is on a 10s cooldown now.

Known Tree of Life spell effects are: LB stacks twice on one cast, Regrowth instant cast, and +2 targets for Wild Growth. Overall I think these are a good focus for feedback. They are currently both underpowered and awkward. Specifically:
--LB stacking twice is just unwieldy when it has a max stack of 3 and can only be applied to one target. Now I can stack it in 2 GCD's instead of 3. Also, if rolling it on the tank (which may well become common again), there's no benefit at all.
--Regrowth instant cast is totally antisynergistic. The primary benefit of instant cast is being able to cast while moving, and Tree form snares us by 50%. The only other benefit is casting speedup, but Regrowth is 2s base vs. a 1.5s GCD--again, very minor gain.
-- +2 targets on WG is probably okay, but feels potentially weak. Since you can only cast WG 5 times during the shift, it's not a really good reason to shift. But if the other bonuses are improved so that there's a clear benefit to shifting when things get rough, this might be a fine perk.
Also, I am highly skeptical of the ToL snare being really workable.

The ToL ability can be cleaned up with some iteration, and other things are going in the right direction. The WG cooldown doesn't change much really, so I guess I'm indifferent to it. Lifebloom only on one target I think I approve of. It gives it a better niche compared to Rejuv and gives us back some ability to focus on tanks, which was lacking all through WLK. More importantly, they can safely revive the spell from the completely neutered state it was in for much of WLK.

Rejuv is getting knocked down to 12s (not surprising, since they tried to sneak that one in during WLK). I'm not really a fan in principle, it reduces our unique emphasis on delayed healing/HoT's. But there will probably be little real effect on the ground.

I'm not aware of any fix to Tranquility so far. That was a problem spell in WLK.

On a totally random note, I just noticed they knocked down all our armor bonuses. Moonkin Form armor, and base Resto Druid armor (e.g. ToL or Imp. Barkskin). That's too bad, it was always kind of a neat random perk.

#34 Galashin

Galashin

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 03 July 2010 - 06:42 AM

Yes, it's very early to really be looking at specific talents and synergies. That said, early on is the best time to seek changes...

1) The push for homogenization doesn't take into account that healers function as a team, while DPS are, for the most part, playing individually. Even when the DPS have to work together to burst something down, it's still each player utilizing their own burst ability. The big concern here is...

2) HoTs. Will coupling the return to efficiency (which is a great move) plus the homogenized toolkits result in HoTs being used more because that's just what we happen to have (or to prop up nourish) than for their own intrinsic value? If a target is in danger of dying, a HoT doesn't cut it. If a target isn't in danger of dying, the only reasons to use a HoT instead of a direct heal are if it's more efficient or to combat a gimmick (i.e. damage aura pulses effectively healed by the HoT)--but it seems that each other healing spec is purposefully being given a particularly efficient heal, while our HoTs are losing emphasis.

3) Our mastery will need very careful balance. Naturally, a target low on health is a prime contender for a direct heal: to ensure survival, because slow-but-efficient direct heal will be effective, and (for shaman) to utilize their mastery. If the bonus kicks in too high, however, it might as well be passive. I admit, I don't really understand the logic behind our bonus--HoTs, by nature, (outside of the infrequent-but-heavy-raid-damage gimmick) are not the primary tool for low health targets. The numbers can always be balanced to make the bonus worthwhile, of course, but the question is why? Neither of the options I've considered seem appealing: a very high bonus that we can only expect to apply to one or two ticks, or high threshhold for the mastery to kick in but a low effect. Alternatively, a game in which players are regularly kept at 30% (or 10% or 40% or whatever the threshhold for a significant effect will be), but then healing just becomes DPS, with the addition of "burst" on a specific target, called a tank. There could be another direction they intend to take it, of course.

4) Yes, we will be balanced around being in caster, which is effectively a buff compared to how we're currently balanced around being in tree. Assuming they increase our coefficients to account for being the only healer without a bonus stat-->spellpower talent (or remove those across the board) and work out the aura we share with only prot pallies (it may also just be removed). But what did we really gain? Offensive spells while healing...? Disc get a stacking buff that they can eat for mana, shaman can trade 25% of the mana for a shock for a 120% heal *plus* get mana back from LB, pallies seem to be retaining haste for judgments (plus the effect of the judgment). We, as of yet, don't seem to get any synergy, just a low proc chance to burn a gcd for some damage. CC while healing? Sure, but it could have just as easily been allowed in form. All we really gain is a cooldown (which also could have simply been added without removing the form)...moving on from the dead horse, however: what about the cooldown itself? Two stacks of lifebloom at a time, sure, except it doesn't seem that we'll be spamming lifebloom (if we use it on anyone but the tanks, anyway). Regrowths while moving, except we move at 50% anyway (for now)--seems pretty pointless. Additional targets for our 10 second cooldown AoE HoT. And bonuses to damage spells. We don't need a throughput cooldown--in the situations in which we can predict widespread damage we can pre-HoT. Mend and NS both, plus rapid-fire nourishes, for burst. All that we lack from the "standard" kit is a tank save, which could be added in a druid-centric way. For example, have it buff a target with a reverse-ignite effect: over x seconds, all incoming damage enters a pool while only y% of the stored damage is dealt to the target each second, followed by a period of z additional seconds over which the remaining stored damage is evenly distributed (incoming damage during the z is assessed normally). Add in a healing taken bonus, if you're concerned about how the incoming dps actually increases during z. The point is, a tank save designed around giving HoTs time to tick (and lifebloom time to expire)--and I came up with it off the top of my head in less than two minutes. I'm sure the Devs could think of something much cooler.

The sky isn't falling. We were fine in vanilla, fine in BC, fine in WotLK, and we'll be fine in Cataclysm. The question is if we'll still be fun as well, for those who're drawn to the class for its unique niche. Maybe it's just a case of the grass being greener, but it does seem like we've gotten the short end of the stick so far. A cooldown with a steep penalty and (at best) questionable utility (it's far better for damage than healing, it seems--which could change, of course), free damage from a low proc chance and lacking synergy, what's effectively just a model change affecting only our role among druids (folding the passive tree bonuses into caster), an interesting addition to regrowth that's underwritten by the reduction of its triggering ability (that is, the restriction on its crit bonus), and a nerf to revitalize (more mana, but far fewer procs overall)--oh, and nature's splendor got moved down, without additional healing-friendly talents above it (yet) to get us there (especially with grace being removed). Admittedly, nourish refreshing lifebloom is pretty interesting...except it's underwritten by the added restrictions to lifebloom. The T8 talented bonus for rejuv is nice as well...except they're also reducing our use of rejuv.

Whereas disc priests get synergy from their damage (the effect on penance--or has that been removed?), holy gets benefits both for weaving heals and repeating heals, plus life grip and a mid-level heal for both, pallies picked up a unique AoE heal and a mid-heal *and* shock becoming a very efficient regrowth-lite, shaman get awesome looking synergy for shocks (25% of the cost of a shock = damage plus a 120% heal...?) and LB (spare gcds = mana?), a second AoE heal, a second mini-swiftmend-PLUS-a-buff (unleash weapon on top of riptide), andthe counterpart to our mastery...except it makes much more sense for direct heals (again, I'm not worried about it being effective--they can just mess with numbers--but with it being logical regarding the trigger conditions).

I agree that we don't need spells added to our kit, like Pallies obviously do. Maybe we've been spoiled, due to already having the toolkit, but new healing spells aren't the only things getting passed around. Again...the sky isn't falling, but nor are we gazing up at a meteor shower, beautiful sunset, or awe-inspiring cloud system. Overall, it just pretty much looks like our healing ability isn't changing, but rather just being moved away from efficiency and HoTs toward direct (tank?) healing.

#35 Thendariel

Thendariel

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 12 posts

Posted 03 July 2010 - 12:03 PM

--Regrowth instant cast is totally antisynergistic. The primary benefit of instant cast is being able to cast while moving, and Tree form snares us by 50%. The only other benefit is casting speedup, but Regrowth is 2s base vs. a 1.5s GCD--again, very minor gain.

Looking on overall HPS this is minor grain but in critical situations (someone is near death) 2s difference in moment when heal actually lands can save someone live.

#36 Playered

Playered

    Soda Popinski

  • Members
  • 4,054 posts

Posted 03 July 2010 - 12:05 PM

I had a similar comment when I first saw the trees. It is a problem right now, since there are no new useful talents in the Balance tree that we'd want to take, so we're basically wasting points to try to get to Splendor. And forcing 16 in Balance just takes away from potential choice in the Resto tree.

-----

WG is on a 10s cooldown now.

Known Tree of Life spell effects are: LB stacks twice on one cast, Regrowth instant cast, and +2 targets for Wild Growth. Overall I think these are a good focus for feedback. They are currently both underpowered and awkward. Specifically:
--LB stacking twice is just unwieldy when it has a max stack of 3 and can only be applied to one target. Now I can stack it in 2 GCD's instead of 3. Also, if rolling it on the tank (which may well become common again), there's no benefit at all.

The ToL ability can be cleaned up with some iteration, and other things are going in the right direction. The WG cooldown doesn't change much really, so I guess I'm indifferent to it. Lifebloom only on one target I think I approve of. It gives it a better niche compared to Rejuv and gives us back some ability to focus on tanks, which was lacking all through WLK. More importantly, they can safely revive the spell from the completely neutered state it was in for much of WLK.

Rejuv is getting knocked down to 12s (not surprising, since they tried to sneak that one in during WLK). I'm not really a fan in principle, it reduces our unique emphasis on delayed healing/HoT's. But there will probably be little real effect on the ground.


I don't really see what's wrong with needing 16 points in Balance in regards to forcing you to make choices in the Resto tree however a simple build like this one has pretty much everything you need with 6 spare points and some room for deviation (ie dump Subtlety and take Perseverance) to amend it as you wish. Considering we'll never hit the haste cap this time and all our spells have longer cast times Nature's Grace should be a little better although I still dislike the current design of it (having it classified as TBR should mean they are looking to fix that too) so then we really only have 1 empty talent point to dump into Nature's Reach or something.

Lifebloom being one target only will be a suitable trade-off if we can get the spell back to a similar power it once had however I agree that the ToL modification seems outdated to this design. When you only have 1 stack to maintain I don't really see the point in having it refreshed by Nourish as if the spell is actually a powerful heal then it deserves to be maintained normally as a trade-off for its strength. I would rather have it so Empowered Touch allowed your Nourish & HT to refresh LB on the target only when they are under 25% HP which allows them to keep the function in at times when you need it (ie tank is being beaten pretty hard and you can't afford the GCD to refresh LB then) without completely removing any need to think about the spell past the first 4 seconds of the encounter.
- I'm curious how it works when you have a 3 stack on one target and you cast the spell on a second one - does it remove the whole stack on the first target?

Rejuvenation becoming 12 seconds again is something I feel is for the best too. Blanketing only really became an issue in Wrath because of the 18 second duration and the lack of need to use LB at all so you had GCDs flowing freely. The lazy design of most encounters to simply make everything raid wide or multiple random targets didn't help either in conjunction with that length. We'll still have 15 seconds on the spell which is great but I would not be surprised if Blizzard almost go out of their way to exclude or weaken Rejuvenation on almost all fronts in a knee-jerk reaction to the power it had in Wrath - shortening the length and downgrading its power/mana should be enough and it would be a shame if they gave it the LB treatment.

Did they change anything on Regrowth by the way? obviously mana costs and scaling aren't finalized but any difference in the hot duration or the balance of power between the direct/hot? if not then hopefully it is something they will get around to as really this legacy design has been flawed since TBC - even more so if they intend RG to be more like the Flash Heal spell for us.

On the ToL modifications I have to say the RG one seems fine to me assuming mana constraints will not allow you to brainlessly chain cast it, the LB one seems dumb with the current design (allowing any direct heal to refresh it while in ToL combined with my suggestion on ET would be one of my ideal choices for it) and the WG one seems lazy - reducing the CD of the spell to 5 seconds or so would suit better I believe.

I'm going to assume nothing has changed on how WG works either? I always felt it was an error of ignorance that each tick only got reduced by 29~ regardless of your SP but I guess if they are happy with our 'front-loaded' aoe hot as it is..

I don't know anything


#37 Shelendil

Shelendil

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 105 posts

Posted 03 July 2010 - 03:21 PM

Lifebloom being one target only will be a suitable trade-off if we can get the spell back to a similar power it once had however I agree that the ToL modification seems outdated to this design. When you only have 1 stack to maintain I don't really see the point in having it refreshed by Nourish as if the spell is actually a powerful heal then it deserves to be maintained normally as a trade-off for its strength. I would rather have it so Empowered Touch allowed your Nourish & HT to refresh LB on the target only when they are under 25% HP which allows them to keep the function in at times when you need it (ie tank is being beaten pretty hard and you can't afford the GCD to refresh LB then) without completely removing any need to think about the spell past the first 4 seconds of the encounter.
- I'm curious how it works when you have a 3 stack on one target and you cast the spell on a second one - does it remove the whole stack on the first target?


I can't answer your other questions, but I would imagine that Lifebloom will function exactly like Grace does now for disc priests. As soon as you put one stack on a target, it's removed from any other target.

#38 Hamlet

Hamlet

    Mike Tyson

  • • Guide Author
  • 11,567 posts

Posted 03 July 2010 - 04:03 PM

I can't answer your other questions, but I would imagine that Lifebloom will function exactly like Grace does now for disc priests. As soon as you put one stack on a target, it's removed from any other target.


Well, I think the implied question is--will it bloom (probably not)?

#39 Roywyn

Roywyn

    Bald Bull

  • Members
  • 1,398 posts

Posted 03 July 2010 - 05:25 PM

On a totally random note, I just noticed they knocked down all our armor bonuses. Moonkin Form armor, and base Resto Druid armor (e.g. ToL or Imp. Barkskin). That's too bad, it was always kind of a neat random perk.

As a totally random reply, they have majorly boosted all non-plate armour. Compare them on www/cata.wowhead.com, check the ilvl 277 Heroic Icecrown sets, the armour sum of the 5 pieces:
Plate: 11.197, Mail: 6.265 to 8.308, Leather: 2.821 to 6.085, Cloth: 1.500 to 4.867. Also, most caster gear has had their stamina increased. Massively increased, with a capital M. (Mages going from 21k to 32k HP unbuffed.)

Eyeballing these numbers and the talents in the calculator, you seem to be looking at similar armour level right now as you did before.
Chaotic Meta Gems in Cataclysm: http://elitistjerks....p2/#post1794256

DPS spec and class comparison in Naxxramas gear: http://code.google.c...ki/SampleOutput
The Blue Bar and you - the complete Fire Mage 2.4 mana compendium: http://elitistjerks....0-post3191.html

And doesn't proc on AM.
Neither does since 3.1.

#40 Guest_aceofsween_*

Guest_aceofsween_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 July 2010 - 06:14 PM

I believe it's intended to be no net change.

Keep in mind that Dire Bear Form also only has a 120% armor increase, same as Moonkin Form. If my quick math is accurate, using the updated armor values I think Feral and Balance druids stand to gain a little bit of armor in comparison to Plate wearers. And because armor is being buffed across the board, there is no need for the armor buffing talents Resto druids used to have.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users