Resto Stats

[Grazer]

I totally agree Int>spirit>haste>mastery>crit in that order. But.......
http://elitistjerks.com/f73/t110354-resto_cataclysm_release/
I believe if you read the last few pages of this thread you will see that slourette has done some number crunching and came to very similar conclusions I have. Once you reach the break point in haste - Mastery becomes the better stat especially in longer fights. As our gear gets better and we can reach the next break point (2K+) Then by all means we will need to get enough haste to reach that point. Until that point stacking haste will not give us a tangible benefit like it did in Wrath.

Using Hamlet's spreadsheet as my guide and plugging in my gear at this time. My throughput actually drops when I substitute additional haste for Mastery providing I stay above the 1423 haste break point.  

There are several unanswered questions about Druid mechanics but we are getting off of your original topic. I would love to take this discussion farther maybe in the class forum.

Since Clari and I were going a bit off topic in the previous thread, we thought we would move the discussion here.

I will take a look at treecalcs, but I will say that I find slourette's analysis a bit lacking and suspicious.  He does not take into account haste and speculates that haste (past break points) is the worst stat.  Furthermore, he states:
"I've decided to reforge all of my haste past breakpoints to mastery...to gain throughput for raid healing..."  

However, our mastery is not really a raid healing mastery and how much of our raid heals will be affected by mastery is highly variable.  I think it is safe to say that WG gets almost no benefit from mastery (from a raid healing perspective).  Rejuv also gets very little unless it is purposefully placed on a WG target.  The only raid healing spell that does see significant benefit from mastery is efflorescence since it is casted off of a rejuv or regrowth target.  Thus, if raid healing is the concern, maybe reforging to crit (after haste break points) is the way to go?  However, I think druid raid healing is very limited at this point.  I think the better role is as a tank healer, with minor raid support (WG and eff).

I think there is another aspect of haste that is difficult to model, but is still very important.  That is the interplay between nourish and healing touch.  Increasing our throughput actually helps our mana by allowing us to use more nourish and less healing touch.  On boss fights, I find myself spamming nourish and switching to ht when I get a OOC proc or if the tank dips too low.  By increasing the throughput of nourish I lower the amount of non OOC hts I need to cast, thus saving a significant amount of mana.  As I said, I will take a look at treecalcs, but my understanding was that for nourish and ht the best throughput stat was haste.

[Clarimari]

I feel all calculations done at this time are highly suspect. LOL

And I agree with you that Mastery for raid healing is not where we need to be looking. We may get a little benefit if we get lucky and can use a regrowth/nourish on a raid member that has a wildgowth ticking on them but other than that scenario I can't see us getting any use out of mastery for raid healing. 

I've been looking for the exact numbers on how much haste it takes to reduce nourish/HT by .01 of a second. From my rough calculations (In game calculation and not theoretical) it takes 63 haste to reduce the cast time one hundred (.01) of a second. Using these numbers it will take 630 haste to reduce my HT from 2.3 to 2.2 cast time. For 630 mastery we will get appox. 3.5 % additional healing. Assuming a 60% (I think this might be low) up time on the tank we would be getting 2.1% healing boost on the tank for a .1 of a second reduced cast time.
All of this is based off of current game gear. Of course as soon as we are geared well enough to reach 2K+ in haste we will need to reach for that cap.

[Grazer]

From EJ:

128.05 haste rating gives 1% increased spell haste.
179.28 mastery rating gives 1.25% symbiosis bonus or about
143.42 mastery gives 1% bonus (to make things comparable).

My understanding is that 1% haste literally means you cast 1% faster (or cast times are reduced by 1%) and the gcd is reduced by 1% (except Rejuv which is already at 1 sec gcd).  My guess is that the time between hot tics is also reduced by 1%, but I don't know for sure.  Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong.  Intuitively we might think that 1% haste and 1% increased healing have the same throughput.  In an optimal situation this is true.  Suppose we have a 2 sec cast spell that heals 10k.  If we reduce the cast time by 1%, then the cast time is 1.98 or
10/1.98 = 5.0505k hps.
If we increase the healing by 1% then the total heal is now 10.1k or
10.1/2 = 5.05k hps.
*General Proof Below*
So, 1% haste and 1% increased healing give about the same throughput.  However, the true setting is not as optimal since we have to first have symbiosis, which means, even on a tank, not all spells will be affected (though on a tank, maybe almost all are).  The second, maybe bigger, blow against mastery is that it takes more mastery to get that 1% than haste.  It looks to me that haste, mastery, crit, and spirit are all given roughly the same weight when allocating stats on an item.  Clearly reforging treats them as equal.  Therefore, it still seems to me that haste  >  mastery for tank healing.  For raid healing, rejuv is usually used a bit more, which requires more thought since rejuv is already gcd capped, but in such a setting mastery is not very useful anyway since a much smaller percentage of spells are affected by symbiosis.  

Thus, I still think haste > mastery.  I think mastery > crit when tank healing, but crit > mastery for raid healing unless you are really careful and get 30%+ of your spells affected by symbiosis (according to EJ).

*1% inc healing and 1% inc cast speed are actually slightly different.  Generally, let Y =  proportion of increased healing or inc cast speed.  We want to know, for what Y values is the increase in hps the same, and then we can use that to determine where 1% speed is better than 1% inc healing.  Let X = amount of a heal, and T = cast time (assume > 1 sec).  Then we want
healing from inc speed = X/[T(1-Y)], to equal
healing from inc healing = X(1+Y)/T.
Or
X/[T(1-Y)] =  X(1+Y)/T.

If you carry out the algebra, that happens only when Y = 0 (no increase whatsoever).  Otherwise, some percentage of increased cast speed is always slightly better than the corresponding increase in healing, and that difference grows the higher the percentage is.  The setting is actually even more complicated since symbiosis gets a 10% initial bonus and that 1% from mastery is additive with that bonus, while the 1% from haste is multiplicative with that 10% bonus, but I'm too tired to crunch it out.

[Djfurball]

My understanding is that 1% haste literally means you cast 1% faster (or cast times are reduced by 1%) and the gcd is reduced by 1% (except Rejuv which is already at 1 sec gcd). 

I think it's a little different...

New Cast Time = Base Cast Time / (( 1 + (Haste Rating / 12805 ))

So a 2.5s heal with..
2% haste = 2.4509s cast
10% haste = 2.27272727272727272727272272727s cast
20% haste = 2.08s cast

Which is different from just a % decrease like BCT*(1-HastePercent)
2% haste = 2.45
10% haste = 2.25
20% haste = 2.00

Not sure about the implications on GCD, though.

[Grazer]

Thanks DJ, I think you are right.  According to http://www.wowwiki.com/Casting_speed (it might be a bit dated) it's:
New Casting Time = Base Casting Time / (1 + (% Spell Haste / 100)),

Which means, with my overly simple example, 1% haste and 1% inc healing are exactly the same.  When I get time, I will play with it a bit more, but this means that all things being equal haste rating > mastery for my simple example.  BUT, mastery and haste have a multiplicative effect, which means you wouldn't take all haste and no mastery, but some clever mix of the 2.  Who wants to do the calculus?

[Djfurball]

Oh my god

# Omen of Clarity now procs from damage spells and attacks instead of proc from damage and healing spells.

That sucks.

Also this.

# Rejuvenation now costs 16% of base mana, down from 26% of base mana.

Yay

# Nature's Bounty proc effect removed and replaced with a new effect - Increases the critical effect chance of your Regrowth spell by 20/40/60%. In addition, when you have Rejuvenation active on three or more targets, the cast time of your Nourish spell is reduced by 10/20/30%.

Weird, but yay!

[Grazer]

# Omen of Clarity can no longer trigger from helpful spells (aka heals), unless the Restoration talent Malfurion's Gift is chosen.

Since Malfurion's gift is always chosen, this doesn't sound too bad.  That Rejuv change is huge though.  In fact, I would be surprised if that actually made it through as is.  You still probably wouldn't be able to out right blanket the raid, but you could come close.  That change makes druid raid healing much more viable.

What the hell are they doing with the Regrowth glyph though?  Unless they totally redo the regrowth hot, they should just drop the refresh crap.

[Grazer]

# Nature's Bounty no longer affects Swiftmend, but now has a new effect. When the druid has Rejuvenation on 3 or more targets, the cast time of Nourish is reduced by 10/20/30%.

Woah, I totally missed that.  I'm really not sure what to think of that. 

[Djfurball]

You don't read new posts before adding your own, do you.

[Grazer]

You don't read new posts before adding your own, do you.

My first post was a comment on your posting that OOC from healing was gone, when it can still come from Malfurions gift.  My second post was a comment on missing your nourish buff point (which I read on the patch notes, then came back and saw on your post).  Finally, suck it.

[Djfurball]

Finally, suck it.

Sigh, you win this round.

I'm curious how the Nourish cast reduction will actually work. Meaning, you cast
Rejuv
Nourish
Nourish
Rejuv
Nourish
Rejuv

Do you now gain a self-buff reducing Nourish cast time by 30%? What's the duration on the buff? A set duration or the duration of the oldest remaining of the three rejuvenations? Or does it just happen somewhere in the ether, so you aren't really sure at that point if your Nourish is faster or not?

Also, a 30% reduction is pretty gigantic, since it happens outside of your haste rating. My Nourish right now is a 2.2ish second cast - 2.2*.7 = 1.54. And that's excluding nature's grace and all. Which means... You Haste until +1 rejuv tick, and then uh, keep hasting? More spirit to get more Rejuv? More Int to get more SP? 

Be curious what TreeCalcs shows after this.

The only thing we know for sure is that Mastery will continue to be The Suck.

[Grazer]

Finally, suck it.

Sigh, you win this round.

You know Deej, it's not about winning or losing, it's about love.

I'm curious how the Nourish cast reduction will actually work. Meaning, you cast
Rejuv
Nourish
Nourish
Rejuv
Nourish
Rejuv

Do you now gain a self-buff reducing Nourish cast time by 30%? What's the duration on the buff? A set duration or the duration of the oldest remaining of the three rejuvenations? Or does it just happen somewhere in the ether, so you aren't really sure at that point if your Nourish is faster or not?

Also, a 30% reduction is pretty gigantic, since it happens outside of your haste rating. My Nourish right now is a 2.2ish second cast - 2.2*.7 = 1.54. And that's excluding nature's grace and all. Which means... You Haste until +1 rejuv tick, and then uh, keep hasting? More spirit to get more Rejuv? More Int to get more SP? 

Be curious what TreeCalcs shows after this.

The only thing we know for sure is that Mastery will continue to be The Suck.

My interpretation is that it's not a actual buff, but like a check.  When casting nourish, it checks how many targets have rejuv, and then reduces accordingly.  Even for straight tank healing, this amounts to a 10% reduction in cast time, since the tank always has one of your rejuvs.  I usually squeeze in a couple rejuvs on the raid to help out, so this is a pretty nice buff to nourish.

The buff to rejuv, I think, makes crit an interesting stat.  For a druid focused more on 25m raid healing, haste (after the +1 rejuv tick break) and mastery are pretty much worthless.  Crit is the only secondary stat that increases the heals per cast of rejuv.  Before, rejuv was so expensive that this didn't matter much.  However, now that rejuv can be spammed a bit more, maybe stacking some crit will be viable (when focusing more on raid healing).

[Djfurball]

My interpretation is that it's not a actual buff, but like a check.  When casting nourish, it checks how many targets have rejuv, and then reduces accordingly.  Even for straight tank healing, this amounts to a 10% reduction in cast time, since the tank always has one of your rejuvs.  I usually squeeze in a couple rejuvs on the raid to help out, so this is a pretty nice buff to nourish.

That's not how I'm reading the tip at all.  Given that it's a 3 point talent, it looks to me like it's ...

1/3 points - 3 rejuvs triggers 10% nourish speed bonus
2/3 points - 3 rejuvs triggers 20% nourish speed bonus
3/3 points - 3 rejuvs triggers 30% nourish speed bonus

So you have to have three live rejuvs to proc the bonus (one rejuv on the tank won't give you a 10% bonus, it'll give you no bonus). The question to me, given that interpretation,  is how often does the game check that and how do you know it's up?

[Grazer]

My interpretation is that it's not a actual buff, but like a check.  When casting nourish, it checks how many targets have rejuv, and then reduces accordingly.  Even for straight tank healing, this amounts to a 10% reduction in cast time, since the tank always has one of your rejuvs.  I usually squeeze in a couple rejuvs on the raid to help out, so this is a pretty nice buff to nourish.

That's not how I'm reading the tip at all.  Given that it's a 3 point talent, it looks to me like it's ...

1/3 points - 3 rejuvs triggers 10% nourish speed bonus
2/3 points - 3 rejuvs triggers 20% nourish speed bonus
3/3 points - 3 rejuvs triggers 30% nourish speed bonus

I think you are correct.

[Djfurball]

I think you are correct.

Suck it.