# [WOTLK 4.0] Restoration Discussion

### #821

Posted 25 November 2010 - 03:21 PM

What I did notice though is that 4.0.3 brought on some mana issues (granted, our mana regen before patch was through the roof). I'm currently running with 3/3 Furor, but I see a lot of build here where people recommend 2/3 Furor and 3/3 Moonglow at 85. Is moonglow really better?

I'm at 45000 mana before counting in furor. Furor gives me 6750 extra mana, which in turn generates 6750*0,02 = 135 mana / 12 seconds from Revitalize. Also, 6750 extra mana gives 67,5 extra mana / 10 seconds by replenishment. Thus, (135/12) + (67,5/10) = 18 mana/sec = 90 mp5. This is assuming we have replenishment up constantly and that Revitalize proccs on CD, so probably a little less. Per point, this would mean about 2250 mana and <30mp5 for Furor.

Moonglow on the other hand reduces all healing spells mana cost by 3%. With a mana of 45000, this would mean mana savings of 45000*0,03 when casting until oom = 1350 extra mana.

It seems to me that 3/3 Furor and 2/3 Moonglow would be superior to 2/3 Furor and 3/3 Moonglow. Am I missing something?

Also, while on the subject - if I have to choose between Nature's Grace and Nature's Majesty (and I have to on lvl 80), which is better? Is 10% haste every 15 sec/minute (averages 2.5% haste increase) better than 4% crit, throughput-wise?

### #822

Posted 25 November 2010 - 03:42 PM

I didn't check your numbers, but I've given the means to compute this in this thread already. The answer is: 3/3 moonglow + 2/3 furor is _better_ than 2/3 moonglow + 3/3 furor exactly when the average cost of your spells is less than four times the part of your regeneration that is not based on your maximal mana. Without having looked any numbers or any playing experience after 4.0.1 I guess that 3/3 furor is the better option here.

### #823

Posted 25 November 2010 - 04:21 PM

When computing moonglow's effect, you're missing the fact that you're regenerating mana, and the usage of this will also have the benefit of moonglow. For Furor's effect, you should include innervate.

I didn't check your numbers, but I've given the means to compute this in this thread already. The answer is: 3/3 moonglow + 2/3 furor is _better_ than 2/3 moonglow + 3/3 furor exactly when the average cost of your spells is less than four times the part of your regeneration that is not based on your maximal mana. Without having looked any numbers or any playing experience after 4.0.1 I guess that 3/3 furor is the better option here.

Ah, I missed your previous post on that, sorry about that. And yes, innervate and such also plays a part without a doubt. My numbers were napkin math done while writing the post, so there are probably some more things to consider there. Thank you for the explanation.

About the second question, has anyone done some calculations on Nature's Grace vs Nature's Majesty? With 2 points to spare in the tree for the next few weeks, is 4% static crit better than 10% haste every 15 sec per minute?

### #824

Posted 25 November 2010 - 07:55 PM

Ah, I missed your previous post on that, sorry about that. And yes, innervate and such also plays a part without a doubt. My numbers were napkin math done while writing the post, so there are probably some more things to consider there. Thank you for the explanation.

About the second question, has anyone done some calculations on Nature's Grace vs Nature's Majesty? With 2 points to spare in the tree for the next few weeks, is 4% static crit better than 10% haste every 15 sec per minute?

I'd consider 4% crit better. Unless you have a mod tracking NG and you're fine forcing yourself into using regrowth on the minute mark everytime, the uptime of NG will probably be lower than expected.

### #825

Posted 25 November 2010 - 08:06 PM

When computing moonglow's effect, you're missing the fact that you're regenerating mana, and the usage of this will also have the benefit of moonglow. For Furor's effect, you should include innervate.

I didn't check your numbers, but I've given the means to compute this in this thread already. The answer is: 3/3 moonglow + 2/3 furor is _better_ than 2/3 moonglow + 3/3 furor exactly when the average cost of your spells is less than four times the part of your regeneration that is not based on your maximal mana. Without having looked any numbers or any playing experience after 4.0.1 I guess that 3/3 furor is the better option here.

Wasn't all the previous napkin math from before Revitalize was nerfed? On the Beta forums everyone was assuming moonglow>furor now because so much less of our regen is from % based mechanics due to the nerf.

### #826

Posted 25 November 2010 - 08:11 PM

### #827

Posted 25 November 2010 - 08:19 PM

Wasn't all the previous napkin math from before Revitalize was nerfed? On the Beta forums everyone was assuming moonglow>furor now because so much less of our regen is from % base

Can't tell you about napkin math, my computation is still valid though. See http://elitistjerks....17/#post1757871 for details.

### #828

Posted 25 November 2010 - 09:46 PM

Links: Twitter | Resto Guide | Balance Guide | Games Blog (and spreadsheets) | Challenge Mode Videos (Warlords)

### #829

Posted 26 November 2010 - 08:55 AM

I can't find the spell cost of the rotation though, can that be read of anywhere easily? There's "total passive regen" and "net mp5", but there's no number for the 'nonpassive' regen, is there?

(e) Couldn't see if it is up-to-date, does it include the latest number?

### #830

Posted 28 November 2010 - 12:04 AM

I just used your default values in your sheet, and the last point in furor comes out on top (slightly though).

I can't find the spell cost of the rotation though, can that be read of anywhere easily? There's "total passive regen" and "net mp5", but there's no number for the 'nonpassive' regen, is there?

(e) Couldn't see if it is up-to-date, does it include the latest number?

I am assuming the spreadsheet is not up-to-date since it allows for 3 points in Revitalize, and it's the changes to Revitalize which make furor worth less than moonglow at 3/3.

### #831

Posted 29 November 2010 - 11:16 AM

... and it's the changes to Revitalize which make furor worth less than moonglow at 3/3.

Which isn't true. It impacts how much better one is than the other in total numbers, but the "sweet spot" where both are of equal value is not changed by this.

### #832

Posted 05 December 2010 - 04:01 AM

We don't seem to spam rejuv so much, and haste already helps the GCD, since we tend to prefer it as a secondary stat. I was thinking of dropping it at 85. Thoughts?

### #833

Posted 05 December 2010 - 04:34 AM

Question for folks who healed raids at 85: what is the value of the swift rejuvenation talent point?

We don't seem to spam rejuv so much, and haste already helps the GCD, since we tend to prefer it as a secondary stat. I was thinking of dropping it at 85. Thoughts?

It's probably one of the better single talents points you can possibly get. You might not "spam" rejuv as much, but it is usually still the largest portion of your healing.

A lot of the fights the damage can be very bursty, being able to lay down 9 rj's between each WG for instance is very valuable. As to the haste, yes once we near the gcd cap the value is reduced. We won't be anywhere close the first tier though.

#### 0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users