Originally Posted by
Zonex
Having Overheals is okay up to an extent, but blatantly saying that because you finished the fight with 95% overhealing and mana to spare is idiotic.
Its common logic that a HoT based class is going to have Overhealing, especially MW, seeing as we have the choice of blanketing 65% of the raid with ReM before a burst phase with TFT, and then spamming uplift to put out some numbers, the anticipation up to that point will lead to excessive overhealing.
However, people who spout the fact that because you can get away with SCK, ReM and Uplift spamming, it is the best way to heal based on the fact that the top parses in the WoL says so, are also wrong in a sense..
Why? Well the game isn't so simple anymore, tanks dont just take damage anymore, they actively react to it with self heals or preemptive absorb spells or mitigation abiltiies on short cooldowns. DPS like ferals can throw out heals as part of their rotation on people dangerously low (wont do anything in the vast majority of the time, but its still something from another role of the holy trinity). So why is it that healers are set on the fact that just because they are a healer. that it is their sole job on a kill or an encounter? Healers may not have tanking capabilties, but they sure do have damage dealing ones, and the best healers will find a compromise within the limits of their mana to do both, whilst keeping the raid alive.
How does this relate back to Overhealing? Well.. the mana you waste on excessive (over the regular amount of OH) overhealing, can be used to dps. A very good MW would have abut 30-40% overhealing through out a fight. However, there are people here who claim they are just as good as these MW monks, spewing the fact that they got a higher HPS but also about 60% overhealing..
That 15% healing worth of mana can be used on dealing damage, and perhaps more actual healing (smart healing through eminence).
Now finally, "my job is a healer, so i'll just heal"; this kind of mindset is often said by the people achieving or aiming for the highest HPS rankings on a fight. Why is it wrong? Well lets take a look at an example.. which is vastly simplified.
-- 2 healers exist in this raid. Each one of them overheal for 50%. Now, in a perfect world, that is 50% healing wasted mana that could've been used on dps.
Let's look at the compromise;
-- 1 healer, 0% overheals, and 1 extra dps.
Because the discrepancy of wasting mana when the healing was not needed is avoided, the raid as a whole gains an actual dps class, who offers to down the boss faster, cc more adds, all in all create more control over the fight.
Now obviously, this is a gross simplification, but it just illustrates that overhealing past a due point in any Healing class, in this case MWs (with a high base OH rate) is detrimental to the raid, if you as a player are serious about minmaxing - and want to maximize your utility to the raid. Now most guilds won't sit their 6th healer, just because there is no need for him if the other 5 come closer to their respective base OH rates, however this is not an excuse for WoL jockeys to compete with their own healers to show a blatantly inflated HPS number, when that same resource could've been delegated to shortening the length of the fight (by dpsing).
One core example of this? Paragon's Heroic Ragnaros kill. They had 4 healers on a fight that even 5 competent healers had extreme trouble over. So how did it work? well they werent so much as competing against each other (obviously) as they were maximizing their united limited resource pool (mana) into healing and letting a class more suited for dps take over the 5th healer spot,for the tight enrage. This automatically led to a low over heal rate, and a successful strategy to overcome an insanely difficult and tight encounter.
All in all, Overhealing is an inevitability, but what most "hardcore" raiders (self-acclaimed apparently) don't realize is that their overhealing is what should set them apart from the other healers, assuming that pooled resource is used efficiently somewhere else.