Value of Haste for Holy Priests in 4.3

Priest
Prev 1 3 4 5 6 Next
12/11/2011 11:51 PMPosted by Volios
Don't get me wrong, I am not claiming Haste to be inferior to Mastery or vice versa. They both serve a purpose for a Holy Priest. The only point I was trying to get at is that it depends on your situation. There is no one size fits all, this approach is always correct, do this or you're bad answer to the question of, "do I gear Haste or Mastery?". You have to look at your own situation and ask if you need to prioritize healing output or efficiency, or a bit of both.


Actually, mastery doesn't really serve much of a purpose for a Holy Priest. In any given situation, it's generally either inferior to haste or it's inferior to critical. It's never a very good stat, and frequently a very bad one.

When I see a Holy Priest who is geared for mastery, I either assume they're still in 5-man gear (where it's disadvantages don't come fully into play) or they're not gearing properly.
12/12/2011 03:24 AMPosted by Calaris
Don't get me wrong, I am not claiming Haste to be inferior to Mastery or vice versa. They both serve a purpose for a Holy Priest. The only point I was trying to get at is that it depends on your situation. There is no one size fits all, this approach is always correct, do this or you're bad answer to the question of, "do I gear Haste or Mastery?". You have to look at your own situation and ask if you need to prioritize healing output or efficiency, or a bit of both.


Actually, mastery doesn't really serve much of a purpose for a Holy Priest. In any given situation, it's generally either inferior to haste or it's inferior to critical. It's never a very good stat, and frequently a very bad one.

When I see a Holy Priest who is geared for mastery, I either assume they're still in 5-man gear (where it's disadvantages don't come fully into play) or they're not gearing properly.


That would probably be because you seem to believe Critical is better than Mastery on a Holy Priest. In response I'd have to ask you to prove it.

When I see a Holy Priest who is geared for mastery, I either assume they're still in 5-man gear (where it's disadvantages don't come fully into play) or they're not gearing properly.


I can see where you're coming from, yet never-the-less, I've had something of a reconciliation with my mastery these past 2 weeks Calaris. Being back in content with significant AoE damage, with a 2 healing 10man group, I'm happier with my Echoes than I have been for some time. Seeing them largely run their course is pretty gratifying. I may not be in 5man content, but the stat feels as advantageous to me as it does when I solo heal. I certainly don't feel that my back end healing is being wasted in 10s at the moment. (But yes, in truth, my opinion may change as we go further into the gear level).
12/12/2011 06:39 AMPosted by Volios


Actually, mastery doesn't really serve much of a purpose for a Holy Priest. In any given situation, it's generally either inferior to haste or it's inferior to critical. It's never a very good stat, and frequently a very bad one.

When I see a Holy Priest who is geared for mastery, I either assume they're still in 5-man gear (where it's disadvantages don't come fully into play) or they're not gearing properly.


That would probably be because you seem to believe Critical is better than Mastery on a Holy Priest. In response I'd have to ask you to prove it.


http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-w82i1afbiwjjngxg/details/8/?enc=bosses&boss=53879

Let's start with overhealing. It's 40.7% for Echo of Light. For simplicity, we'll just check Flash Heal (the highest heal).

The average Flash Heal is 20211.7. The average Flash Heal critical is 38768.7. We'd expect those criticals to be 40423.4 if they had the same overhealing as non-criticals. So they actually have 4.1% overhealing compared to the ideal.

If you're getting 1.25 times the stat value from mastery, with 40.7% overheal vs. 4.1% overheal that means you're actually getting 29.4% more return from critical stat points than mastery stat points.

Or consider your healing mix. Mastery doesn't generate additional healing from Renew, Lightwell Renew, Glyph of Prayer of Healing, Gift of the Naruu, PW:S or Echo of Light (25.5% of the healing). Critical doesn't generate additional healing from Divine Touch, Desperate Prayer or PW:S (2.2% of the healing). So mastery increases 74.5% of healing by a 1.25 factor (93.125) while critical increases 97.8% of healing by a 1 factor (97.8).

That's not even getting into the factors I discussed earlier about how even non-overhealing Echo of Light tends to be superfluous in a multi-healer situation since so much of it involves competing with all the other trailing HoT healing (and doing so worse than other such HoT due to the rear-loading rolling).

These are quick-and-dirty looks at what's going on behind the scenes, but they don't look very pretty for mastery. And while this is only a single snapshot of data, I can attest that you'll find that the same sort of balance with virtually every reasonably mainstream log.

In a multi-healer environment, Holy's mastery is truly horrible. It is far and away the worst healer mastery - by a huge margin.
herro pweest
I would argue if you have the endurance to last the encounter, you should always pick the higher throughput stat. Damage can always go up. Someone can always make a mistake, the other healer(s) can always have an off night and need you to pick up the throughput. I would never even dream of choosing an inferior throughput stat just because "I don't need the extra throughput and it gives me better mana efficiency to do it this way" when the next encounter could very well be the encounter that requires extra throughput, or requires cutting healers. Although you can say the same thing about endurance, you can actually chart out what your mana pool will look like if the fight goes until the enrage timer fairly easily and compare it with hypothetical mana expenditures you are considering for the fight to see when, if ever, you will OOM.


The issue I see with that is when someone makes a mistake, it was probably within your maximum throughput capacity to heal through it even without haste. You just use flash heal a bit more. Healing through mistakes and shortcomings of other healers usually tests your mana as much as it does your throughput, if not more. Particularly as a holy priest, your mana is likely to be your issue well before throughput - conversely, if throughput is your issue, then you probably won't have the mana to sustain it anyway.
They both serve a purpose for a Holy Priest. The only point I was trying to get at is that it depends on your situation. There is no one size fits all, this approach is always correct, do this or you're bad answer to the question of, "do I gear Haste or Mastery?".


Exactly! Which depends on several external factors, including the type of content you're facing, the strength of your other healers, and the strength of your DPS. There is no rule that says either throughput or longevity will be your issue (or both). There's no rule that says if neither is an issue, you need to go either which way. Appropriate use of throughput cooldowns like tranq/hymn as well as heavy throughput reduce your need for gearing for throughput just as good mana management and use of mana CD's reduce your need for gearing for longevity.

Consider a special case with Disc priests... In some cases, disc priests would be relied on to shield everyone to trivialize certain mechanics.... in essence, this disc priest sacrificed their longevity in order to attain a very high HPS for just one moment. This reduces the required HPS of all the other healers, allowing them greater longevity, and the option to gear for that longevity. Reducing the peak HPS requirements of all the other healers is one of the prime advantages a disc priest can bring to the group. Were that disc priest not there, the choices in gear may have been different for all the other healers to focus more on throughput and less on longevity. Similarly, haivng a paladin reduces the need for quick single-target heals, as they totally have that covered. Healing is a team effort, so consider the strengths of your other healers when you start positioning yourself in the mix.

Or consider a case of having really good DPS or really poor DPS. Poor DPS naturally requires you to have much more longevity. You must stretch your mana pool over a longer fight, and you'll probably be spending more mana per second healing the bad DPS through the fire they stood in.

There really is no one-size-fits-all to gearing/spec decisions for healers. Look at your situation, decide what you need to prepare most for, and if it doesn't matter then just go with what you prefer :-)
http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-w82i1afbiwjjngxg/details/8/?enc=bosses&boss=53879

Let's start with overhealing. It's 40.7% for Echo of Light. For simplicity, we'll just check Flash Heal (the highest heal).

The average Flash Heal is 20211.7. The average Flash Heal critical is 38768.7. We'd expect those criticals to be 40423.4 if they had the same overhealing as non-criticals. So they actually have 4.1% overhealing compared to the ideal.

If you're getting 1.25 times the stat value from mastery, with 40.7% overheal vs. 4.1% overheal that means you're actually getting 29.4% more return from critical stat points than mastery stat points.


Meaningless. You can create as much overhealing as you want with something that's cheap or free, it is of no analytical significance whatsoever. EoL is free, so the only question is how effective it is when it's NOT overhealing. We already know it's cheap (free), so it is the way to go if you are aiming for efficiency and you don't need any more throughput.

12/12/2011 08:18 AMPosted by Calaris
That's not even getting into the factors I discussed earlier about how even non-overhealing Echo of Light tends to be superfluous in a multi-healer situation since so much of it involves competing with all the other trailing HoT healing (and doing so worse than other such HoT due to the rear-loading rolling).


Again, meaningless because EoL is free, and the other healers already spent their mana, so it did not create a mana-loss. It just means in this particular scenario it didn't add to throughput. You can look all day at what EoL didn't do, the only question is what it did do and what it costed.

A spell/effect can create all the overheal in the world... this only suggests that it may be possible to turn more of that overheal into effective healing. The overheal does NOT, however, have anything to do with evaluating the effective healing it already causes. The only question is what DID it do and at what cost.

Just to illustreate, I'll try to create a stupid example... let's imagine we had some move that constantly healed everyone in the raid for 50k each person, every second - a passive ability that costs no mana. Obviously the overheal on this ability would be absolutly rediculous - like 95% overheal. And yet, despite the overheal, I doubt anyone would say this is a poor ability - again, because the only question is A: What did it actually do, and B: What did it cost. In this case, it was free, and it did a large amount of healing - the overheal is of absolutely no significance in deciding how good or bad the move is.

Now, obviously EoL is not that OP. My only point was to illustrate that the overheal is meaningless to analyze except to determin if you can turn more of it into effective healing with better timing/placement. It does nothing to devalue the effective healing already caused.
12/12/2011 10:09 AMPosted by Hershe
Meaningless. You can create as much overhealing as you want with something that's cheap or free, it is of no analytical significance whatsoever.


Both critical and mastery are 'free' in this sense. However, what the overhealing reveals is how effectively that 'free' healing is deployed. With Echo of Light, the return on the healing is significantly less than it is for critical.

The entire argument for mastery > critical is that 1.25% > 1.00%. What the overhealing demonstrates is that the effective return on that 1.25% is a lot less than the effective return on that 1.00%.

Again, meaningless because EoL is free, and the other healers already spent their mana, so it did not create a mana-loss.


Except that they probably wouldn't have spent the mana if the healing was upfront rather than delayed.

A good way to think about it is to imagine "Flash Renew". This will heal the same as Flash Heal, cast in 1.5 sec, cost the same mana as Flash Heal and otherwise be identical to Flash Heal - except it delivers the healing over the course of 6 secs rather than upon resolution. Would this be a good spell?

Of course not. Flash Heal would be a strictly better spell. The delayed healing is worth less than the immediate healing - largely because while they have the same total healing, the actual healing "Flash Renew" realistically deploys is less than what Flash Heal does due to overhealing.

Now, obviously EoL is not that OP. My only point was to illustrate that the overheal is meaningless to analyze except to determin if you can turn more of it into effective healing with better timing/placement. It does nothing to devalue the effective healing already caused.


I also demonstrated that critical returned more healing using the actual healing breakdown as well, so your objections about overhealing (however spurious) don't really matter. Do you have some other way of looking at the performance that actually demonstrates mastery > critical?
Both critical and mastery are 'free' in this sense. However, what the overhealing reveals is how effectively that 'free' healing is deployed. With Echo of Light, the return on the healing is significantly less than it is for critical.


Took me a bit to get where you were going. While the overheal itself doesn't matter, if I understand you correctly you're saying your flash heal had very little overheal because the crits average healing was only 4% below twice the heal of a non-crit... the difference being the variance in overhealing. So you lose little from it.

One might say this is entirely true and expected from the Flash Heal spell, since you specifically use this on targets that are low on health, so naturally it will produce less overheal when used appropriately. So let's call this your "ideal scenario" for crit, where you'd probably see less of this for your other spells, like greater heal and prayer of healing. You chose flash heal because it was your biggest heal that fight, but that doesn't mean it was more than your other spells combined - so you can't just simplify it down to one spell.

12/12/2011 01:42 PMPosted by Calaris
Except that they probably wouldn't have spent the mana if the healing was upfront rather than delayed.


Depends on the hot. There's only about a 4 second delay between what would have been the culmination of a second PoH and the ticking of Echo of light, so that's the window we're talking about where another healer (or smart heal) would have made a different decision. Rejuv lasts 10 seconds, so would have been placed on well before. Wild Growth and Effloresence are closer with ~ 7.5 second window. Wild Growth could choose a target who has, or will have, EoL ticking. Effloresence can chance who it's ticking on with each tick, so this one has a bit of a stoploss in place. Healing rain and sanctuary don't matter because they hit everyone regardless, so there is no different decision that would have been made. So the only substantial loss in mana I could see where a "better" decision might have been made is with wild growth.



And that all said, this is only really applicable during the tail-end of AoE healing anyway... a time where you can correct any mistakes in decisions cheaply, so the cost of the mistake isn't that expensive, when it happens.

And then I also addressed this previously by pointing out how the mana is spent one way or the other... in the case of the haste-stacking priest, they would spend the mana casting an additional (perhaps better placed) second PoH. This is as opposed to the scenario where another healer would have made a different decision if EoL was instant- or at least as instant as a second PoH (~2 seconds), wasting their mana. Either way, the mana is spent either by you or another healer.

Finally, consider also how a haste-stacking priest has a window also where different decisions would have been made... the cast time of the second PoH that the haste-stacking priest squeezes in (~2 seconds) This is 1/3 the window EoL's 6 second ticks, but it still further reduces the variance between the two alternatives in addition to all the previous mentioned reasons.

A good way to think about it is to imagine "Flash Renew". This will heal the same as Flash Heal, cast in 1.5 sec, cost the same mana as Flash Heal and otherwise be identical to Flash Heal - except it delivers the healing over the course of 6 secs rather than upon resolution. Would this be a good spell?

Of course not. Flash Heal would be a strictly better spell. The delayed healing is worth less than the immediate healing - largely because while they have the same total healing, the actual healing "Flash Renew" realistically deploys is less than what Flash Heal does due to overhealing.


Naturally, but to make this scenario parallel to what we are considering now, you'd have to also add that flash renew is free while flash heal is not, or that they have abnormally high HPS to make up for the difference... this is usually the case with HoT's in the game... they are expected to frequently go to waste, that's why they are cheaper and highly effective to begin with, or at least expected to be used only in appropriate scenarios. If the hot is not cheap enough or effective enough or there aren't enough scenarios that call for it, then yes, its a bad spell. But to say tat hots are always bad kinda says druids are a waste, which isn't true by any stretch... hots have their place and strength even if they have the disadvantage of not being instant and causing different decisions to be made.
I also demonstrated that critical returned more healing using the actual healing breakdown as well, so your objections about overhealing (however spurious) don't really matter. Do you have some other way of looking at the performance that actually demonstrates mastery > critical?


Well, using the logs you provided and yourself as anecdotal evidence, would it be wrong to just look at the numbers directly?

So the Grand Total of all critical healing you did was 481,7058 (summing the total of your crits, dividing it by 2). Echo of Light, on the other hand, healed for 285,0175.

Of course I don't know the points were invested in mastery vs crit, so that needs to be taken into consideration. It's also one particular character with their own playstyle on one boss that may favor crit, but that would take a much deeper look to hash out. Finally, we know what the stats did, but we can't be sure of the incremental gain of adding additional points to either.
http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-w82i1afbiwjjngxg/details/8/?enc=bosses&boss=53879

Let's start with overhealing. It's 40.7% for Echo of Light. For simplicity, we'll just check Flash Heal (the highest heal).

The average Flash Heal is 20211.7. The average Flash Heal critical is 38768.7. We'd expect those criticals to be 40423.4 if they had the same overhealing as non-criticals. So they actually have 4.1% overhealing compared to the ideal.

If you're getting 1.25 times the stat value from mastery, with 40.7% overheal vs. 4.1% overheal that means you're actually getting 29.4% more return from critical stat points than mastery stat points.

Or consider your healing mix. Mastery doesn't generate additional healing from Renew, Lightwell Renew, Glyph of Prayer of Healing, Gift of the Naruu, PW:S or Echo of Light (25.5% of the healing). Critical doesn't generate additional healing from Divine Touch, Desperate Prayer or PW:S (2.2% of the healing). So mastery increases 74.5% of healing by a 1.25 factor (93.125) while critical increases 97.8% of healing by a 1 factor (97.8).

That's not even getting into the factors I discussed earlier about how even non-overhealing Echo of Light tends to be superfluous in a multi-healer situation since so much of it involves competing with all the other trailing HoT healing (and doing so worse than other such HoT due to the rear-loading rolling).

These are quick-and-dirty looks at what's going on behind the scenes, but they don't look very pretty for mastery. And while this is only a single snapshot of data, I can attest that you'll find that the same sort of balance with virtually every reasonably mainstream log.

In a multi-healer environment, Holy's mastery is truly horrible. It is far and away the worst healer mastery - by a huge margin.


Well, first of all, I am going to disregard your hand picked log for obvious reasons (not even including the fact that you counted in three wipes in your "sample"). That fight by it's very nature isn't friendly to a Mastery approach in general. Due to the urgency of pushing off Searing Plasma no matter what approach you take over-heal is likely to be a fact of life. That, and the fact that you absolutely want players close to topped as often as possible, would lend itself to Haste being the optimal stat for the fight. And all of that isn't accounting for the fact that you chose to look at the Mastery over-healing for the entirety of the fight but only the Crit over-healing on a single-spell (and, evidently I made some really poor choices in that particular log anyway :)).

Secondly, if you're so opposed to a Mastery approach Crit doesn't seem like a solid alternative (and I am not saying you believe it is as you clearly champion Haste). If you Crit, presumably Mastery also gets doubled (since it's a percentage of the heal tacked on top). So, if you are going to gear Crit and Mastery tends toward over-healing, by extension Crit tends toward over-healing. That isn't even including the fact that Crit, by itself, can tend toward over-healing even if you ignore Mastery altogether.

An example? You cast 20 consecutive PoH casts on the same group for a total of 100 heals. If you have 20 percent crit and each player gets 20 heals it's theoretically possible for the same player to receive a crit every cast. Or, you could land crits on players topped by the various smart heals being cast across the raid. If you're dealing with constant ticking aura damage spread across a raid evenly, this is not good for business (as is the case with Madness, which you'll notice EoL made significant contributions on with much lower over-healing). Conversely, with Mastery this just cannot occur as the EoL is spread across all five players (short of the whole raid being topped it's going to heal someone).

In addition, using the above scenario, it's possible with 20 percent crit you only get 15 critical heals, or 50, 80, 10, 100 or 0. You cannot predict with absolute certainty when the crits will come, who they will go on or whether you even need them.

While looking at the numbers, and assuming 20ish pct over-heal from Mastery (20ish pct appears to be somewhat average for most fights), Crit would pull ahead on a spell such as PoH provided the Crit didn't yield significant over-healing and you had the expected number of crits. The problem is you can't say with absolute certainty either of these things will be true.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, nor am I saying Crit is inferior to Mastery. I'm saying that before we got Crits that multiplied the original heal by a factor of two Mastery would probably pull ahead in most situations. That and the fact that Crit is perceived as, and often can be, unreliable seems to be the major reason many people are a bit apprehensive of Crit taking over.
12/12/2011 03:16 PMPosted by Hershe
One might say this is entirely true and expected from the Flash Heal spell, since you specifically use this on targets that are low on health, so naturally it will produce less overheal when used appropriately.


I picked Flash Heal rather arbitrarily since it was the top heal for the encounter (which I also picked arbitrarily). However, even Prayer of Healing only has 14.1% overhealing on critical.

And I noted that looking at just one spell was an oversimplification. However, the point wasn't to prevent a comprehensive 'proof' but rather to demonstrate that we could actually check logs to validate the "mastery > critical" idea - and that when we did, it didn't tend to look very good for mastery.

Naturally, but to make this scenario parallel to what we are considering now, you'd have to also add that flash renew is free while flash heal is not, or that they have abnormally high HPS to make up for the difference...


The comparison is critical vs. mastery. Both 'cost' the same, but one delivers the extra healing immediately vs. over-time. The over-time version applies to less of your healing, but grants a slightly larger total amount of healing.

The point isn't that HoT are bad effects. Rather, it's that all else being equal, a HoT is less valuable than the same healing as a direct heal.


12/12/2011 03:18 PMPosted by Hershe
Well, using the logs you provided and yourself as anecdotal evidence, would it be wrong to just look at the numbers directly?


That's more difficult than it may seem. For example, your total critical healing ignores the effect of critical on both Glyph of Prayer of Healing and Echo of Light. If you've got 20% critical, that means about 1/6th of your total Echo of Light is due to critical.

In terms of stats, mastery is easy - just do a log query on the caster and scroll down until you hit the first Echo of Light, trace it back to the spell that spawned it and then do the division.

Critical is a bit more difficult. The easiest way is to simply look at the character on battle.net and hope he hasn't re-geared too much. The actual critical rate can be determined by running through the list of spells and dividing the number of criticals by the total number of heals for each heal.
12/12/2011 03:46 PMPosted by Volios
Well, first of all, I am going to disregard your hand picked log for obvious reasons (not even including the fact that you counted in three wipes in your "sample").


It wasn't "hand-picked". I wanted to avoid Ultraxion/Spine, so I just picked the last DS raid other than Ultraxion/Spine. I then picked the first boss I could find where you healed as Holy. As I stated above, the goal wasn't to say that one specific log proves a general point but rather to demonstrate how we could move towards an answer.

The hope is that people look at that log and say "hey, that looks kinda like what I see from my own logs, let me see what the numbers reveal there".

Secondly, if you're so opposed to a Mastery approach Crit doesn't seem like a solid alternative (and I am not saying you believe it is as you clearly champion Haste).


The overhealing from critical filtered through mastery is rather trivial compared to the overhealing of mastery itself. Mastery gets 100% of its own overhealing, while critical might get perhaps 20% of it. And critical's overhealing tends to be much, much less than mastery's.

The problem is you can't say with absolute certainty either of these things will be true.


You don't need to say "with certainty". You just need to say that a certain performance is more likely. If you want certainty, then you can't say anything is better than anything else since there are always examples we can come up with that demonstrate inferior or superior performance.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, nor am I saying Crit is inferior to Mastery. I'm saying that before we got Crits that multiplied the original heal by a factor of two Mastery would probably pull ahead in most situations.


This is certainly true. However, critical effects are now 200% and the relationship changes.

I think the real problem is that people are unwilling to take a look at their logs and run the numbers to see how mastery/critical are actually performing. It's just a lot easier to say "well, mastery is 1.25% vs. critical's 1.00%, so mastery must be better".

Unfortunately, almost every time I do look at a log, this isn't the case. Mastery simply underperforms compared to critical. Barring the massive effort to perform a comprehensive analysis, every additional log that demonstrates better performance from critical than mastery is another indication that the conventional wisdom is simply incorrect on mastery vs. critical.

Moreover, when I do bring up this relationship, I inevitably get a number of spurious objections - but never get someone saying "ok, here's a log that demonstrate a raid/composition/style that favors mastery, and this is how I calculate it". Which strongly indicates that all those folks saying mastery is better than critical don't actually know whether it is or not.
12/12/2011 07:06 PMPosted by Calaris
In terms of stats, mastery is easy - just do a log query on the caster and scroll down until you hit the first Echo of Light, trace it back to the spell that spawned it and then do the division.


Presumably it's jsut as difficult for mastery, as much of the mastery overheal could have been caused by a crit, which would have been effective healing instead.

Either way, I just finished my final exams and I'm a little too brain dead for the conversation at the moment, I'll be back later >.<
Standing back a bit to look at the flaws of crit:

-Crits can undo the decision smart-heal and direct decision making of others, where they would have spent their mana elsewhere. Crit is far more guilty of this than mastery, as the mastery sniping is only substantial towards the end of topping someone off and is generally spread around multiple players in smaller increments. Crit can snipe the hots that are already on a target much sooner. Crit is also guilty for its portion of the echo of light sniping.

-Mastery can be relied on as throughput, while crit is sporadic.... you can expect crit to do a certain amount over the course of a fight, but not necessarily where you expect/need it.

-Crit on PoH creates "uneven" healing, causing your future casts of PoH to be less effective when one player gets capped off while others need more. This resuls in either reduced effectiveness of the PoH, or in the decision to use more mana intensive single target spells.


The more I think about it, the more I think logs make it particularly difficult to answer this question - you pointed out how mastery can "superfluously" snipe heal in place of hots that are already on a target. Similarly, critical strike will do the same thing to a mastery hot that was on someone - whether it was a critical strike done by yourself, or even someone else. And not only will crit devalue your own EoL hot, but everyone else's hots as well. Crit itself devalues mastery, as does any decisions (or oversights, or intentional sniping) that lands before mastery has time to tick. Crit is front-loaded, so will not suffer from this looking at the logs.

Therefore, what you're looking at on the logs is almost the bare minimum of what mastery was able to accomplish. Crit, being front-loaded, is showing just about all it had to offer, much of which was "sniped" from other hots and smart heals already on the target.


Moreover, when I do bring up this relationship, I inevitably get a number of spurious objections - but never get someone saying "ok, here's a log that demonstrate a raid/composition/style that favors mastery, and this is how I calculate it". Which strongly indicates that all those folks saying mastery is better than critical don't actually know whether it is or not.


In a discussion about haste vs mastery, in a general forum often involving non-sophisticated theorycrafters, you shouldn't be surprised that the participants in the forum rely heavily on generally accepted rules created by theorycrafters... without actually knowing the details themselves. You did little more than provide a (slightly off topic) spurious argument for crit > mastery yourself, so it's a little hypocritical for you to be complaining about the answers you received in turn. Do you actually know, or are you just accusing us of the same thing you're guilty of? You are the one flying against conventional wisdom, the burden of proof is on you my friend. So let's turn the tide back on you, as it's obviously far easier to pick appart the crafting and explanations of someone else than it is to make your own ;-P

Or we can just go back on topic and suffice it to say ... if you truely beleive crit > mastery, go for it... that is not the question at hand. The question started with the value of haste and where it stops. At that point you have 3 choices:

Stack more haste for throughput.
Stack more mastery for sustainability (conventional)
Stack Crit for sustainability (unconventional)

The decision for haste vs mastery/crit comes with determining your need for additional throughput vs longevity. If you don't need either, then take your pick, the choice is yours. I (and others) argue that you are far more likely to rech your mana limit before your throughput limit, so you are best planning for longevity after acquiring the haste cap. But this is still mostly a matter of preference.

Anything else on-topic to add?
I understand that there is the "haste-cap" and while I did not manage to read every post here as I am at a time constraint atm. I love holy, I leveled from 1-85 as holy(when I healed) and then I started raiding and was asked to go disc for firelands.

When I saw the buffs to holy for 4.3 I immediately jumped onto it and got warmed up, but like the OP, I am having mana issues late in the game. I save torrent for around 70k mana as it's tied to jaws atm. Are there any tips for my gear, spec, etc etc?

I understand I am haste stacking, I am doing it for a reason. Our healing comp is a holy paladin and resto druid and I just felt I needed to pick up some slack while we get situated into DS.

http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/u13858rctwqs0vf2/sum/healingDone/
Above are some logs, they are from our first night of dragonsoul. I will get new ones hopefully this week, but if you check out TC you will see our other logs where I play disc as well.
12/13/2011 02:08 AMPosted by Grannos
I save torrent for around 70k mana as it's tied to jaws atm.

Curious - is there any reason to hold off on using Jaws? Isn't it pretty much useful regardless of your mana as long as you're going to be spamming heals? That's how I've always used it. The more uses you can get of it over an encounter, the better - at least that's been my understanding.

I wouldn't macro the two together, personally.

Other than that, as far as mana issues go - ensure you're getting 2 fiends per encounter, and use Conc Pots or Mana Pots as well as HoH. If you're doing all of that I'm not sure what to tell ya.
12/12/2011 07:06 PMPosted by Calaris
One might say this is entirely true and expected from the Flash Heal spell, since you specifically use this on targets that are low on health, so naturally it will produce less overheal when used appropriately.


I picked Flash Heal rather arbitrarily since it was the top heal for the encounter (which I also picked arbitrarily). However, even Prayer of Healing only has 14.1% overhealing on critical.

And I noted that looking at just one spell was an oversimplification. However, the point wasn't to prevent a comprehensive 'proof' but rather to demonstrate that we could actually check logs to validate the "mastery > critical" idea - and that when we did, it didn't tend to look very good for mastery.


The problem I have here is you are looking at the effect of Mastery on every spell cast over the course of the entire encounter. Yet, when you say critical only resulted in 4.1 percent over-healing and compare that to the Mastery effect with 40 percent over-healing, you only look at a single spell. This is like comparing orange apples to red oranges.

Both Mastery and Critical are efficient stats in that both provide additional healing free of mana cost. Assuming zero over-healing Mastery would pull ahead slightly on a spell such as PoH. What I believe you are claiming is that Mastery tends to over-heal more than Crit, thereby reducing it's value below Crit. The issue I have is you didn't really address whether this was true or not by comparing Mastery over-healing on all spells to Crit over-healing on a single spell.

In order to really "prove" this you would have to compare the effect Critical had on everything over the entire encounter to the effect Mastery had on everything over the entire encounter. I just don't see how comparing the healing and over-healing on Flash Heal crits to the healing and over-healing on Mastery for everything is a fair comparison.

12/12/2011 07:34 PMPosted by Calaris
Well, first of all, I am going to disregard your hand picked log for obvious reasons (not even including the fact that you counted in three wipes in your "sample").


It wasn't "hand-picked". I wanted to avoid Ultraxion/Spine, so I just picked the last DS raid other than Ultraxion/Spine. I then picked the first boss I could find where you healed as Holy. As I stated above, the goal wasn't to say that one specific log proves a general point but rather to demonstrate how we could move towards an answer.

The hope is that people look at that log and say "hey, that looks kinda like what I see from my own logs, let me see what the numbers reveal there".


Now I am confused. You wanted to avoid Ultraxion and Spine yet the log you linked and cited for comparison was from Spine attempts. Care to elaborate?

Secondly, if you're so opposed to a Mastery approach Crit doesn't seem like a solid alternative (and I am not saying you believe it is as you clearly champion Haste).


The overhealing from critical filtered through mastery is rather trivial compared to the overhealing of mastery itself. Mastery gets 100% of its own overhealing, while critical might get perhaps 20% of it. And critical's overhealing tends to be much, much less than mastery's.


It's still relevant.


Lastly, again, I am not claiming you are wrong because of any of this. I am not saying you are right either. It is definitely worth looking into, however, and I will probably look at my logs more in-depth and fiddle with a Crit approach just to see the results.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum