1. #1

    Theorycraft: Regrowth+Glyph vs Healing Touch

    Cross post from http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/5967267323#1

    Before we start I want to say that I did not count in Healing Touch being able to crit. The reason for this is that I don't a healing should rely on their heals criting. Healing should be steady and reliable. But when healing Touch crit, it will always be better than Regrowth.

    If I have done any mistakes please let me know so I can edit the post accordingly.

    Regrowth+Glyph vs Healing Touch

    ***Spells***

    [Healing Touch] Level 90
    28.9% of base mana 40 yd range
    2.5 sec cast
    Requires level 26
    Heals a friendly target for 18460 to 21800 (+ 186% of SpellPower).

    [Regrowth] Level 90
    29.7% of base mana 40 yd range
    1.5 sec cast
    Requires Druid (Restoration)
    Requires level 18
    Heals a friendly target for 9813 to 10954 (+ 95.8% of SpellPower)
    Regrowth has a 60% increased chance for a critical effect.

    [Glyph of Regrowth]
    Major Glyph
    Classes: Druid
    Requires Level 25
    Item Level 25
    Increases the critical strike chance of your Regrowth by 40%, but removes the periodic component of the spell.

    ***Healing***

    Regrowth
    0.958 = 95.8%
    (9813+(Spellpower*0.958))*2 = X
    (10954+(Spellpower*0.958))*2 = X
    Average:
    10383.5 + (Spellpower*0.958) * 2 = X

    Healing Touch
    1.86 = 186%
    18460+(Spellpower*1.86) = Y
    21800+(Spellpower*1.86) = Y
    Average:
    20130 + (Spellpower*1.86) = Y

    Q. Can Y become bigger than X?
    A. No. The reason is, with Glyph of Regrowth, Regrowth it has a 100% chanse to crit.
    Giving Regrowth 0.958*2 = 1.916 = 191.6% vs 186% from Healing Touch
    For each Spellpower you get regrowth will pull more ahead.

    ***Mana***

    Regrowth = 29.7% of base mana
    Healing Touch = 28.9% of base mana

    28.9/100*29.7 = 8.5833

    Regrowth cost 8.5833% more mana than Regrowth.

    ***Healing per Mana***

    Q. When does Regrowth become more cost efficient than Healing Touch?
    A. When Regrowth heal more than 8.5833% then Healing Touch.

    Q. When does Regrowth heal more than 8.5833% then Healing Touch?
    A.
    1.916-1.86 = 0.056
    For each Spellpower Regrowth heal 0.056 more than Healing Touch.

    Minimum Regrowth heal with 0 Spellpower = 9813*2 = 19626
    Minimum Healing Touch with 0 spellpower * 8.5833% = 20044.477
    20044.477-19626 = 418.477
    418.477/0.056 = 7472.804

    Maximum Regrowth heal with 0 Spellpower = 10954*2 = 21908
    Maximum Healing Touch with 0 spellpower * 8.5833% = 23671.159
    23671.159-21908 = 1763.159
    1763.159/0.056 = 31484.982

    Average Regrowth heal with 0 Spellpower = 10383.5*2 = 20767
    Average Healing Touch with 0 spellpower * 8.5833% = 21857.818
    21857.818-20767 = 1090.818
    1090.818/0.056 = 19478.893


    When you get more than 7'473 Spellpower, the minimum heal off Regrowth is more cost efficient than Healing Touch.

    When you get more than 31'485 Spellpower, the maximum heal off Regrowth is more cost efficient than Healing Touch.

    When you get more than 19'479 Spellpower, the average heal off Regrowth is more cost efficient than Healing Touch.
    Last edited by Pusekatten; 2012-11-23 at 01:24 AM.

  2. #2
    Glyphed Regrowth gives guaranteed living seed too. that's kinda important imo, especially on tanks

  3. #3
    You left the crit chance on Healing Touch out or did i miss it?

  4. #4
    This analysis is flawed and looks at the problem from the completely wrong angle. The real question is not at which Spellpower values RG becomes better, but for which crit chance Healing Touch is better. By leaving out HT crit chance, Living Seed, and Mastery, non-crit Healing Touch looks much better than in reality, while crit HT looks much worse. The healing for Regrowth is always higher than non-crit HT, no matter how much Spell Power you have, while the healing from critical HT completely blows RG out of the water. Without delving into the math, just some numbers from my raid yesterday:

    RG + NS: 210k, with LS: 273k
    noncrit HT + NS: 210k
    crit HT + NS: 420k, with LS: 546k

    So the theoretical throughput breakpoint would be around ~19% crit (for my values). Personally, I would never trade the chance for a 550k heal of my o-shit button for guaranteed 60k more minimum healing (which only exists in Living Seed, the direct healing is the same for RG crit and HT noncrit).
    Last edited by Thalur; 2012-11-23 at 10:30 AM.

  5. #5
    Thalur. Yes. When HT crits its alot better, but I would choose (in your case) a spell that always healed for 273k /w LS over a 19/81 to heal 546k or 210k.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Pusekatten View Post
    Thalur. Yes. When HT crits its alot better, but I would choose (in your case) a spell that always healed for 273k /w LS over a 19/81 to heal 546k or 210k.
    So you would chose a lesser heal? When you NS, you want healing done immidiately. Living Seed only procs after next hit, which is irrelevant. You want the guy to survive that hit, in which case HT is either the same (non-crit) or better (crit).

    The thing you did each druid can do by just manually checking in game numbers. It's not theorycrafting, it's just basic testing.
    Tortie - Night Elf Druid - The Maelstrom EU

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Torty View Post
    So you would chose a lesser heal? When you NS, you want healing done immidiately. Living Seed only procs after next hit, which is irrelevant. You want the guy to survive that hit, in which case HT is either the same (non-crit) or better (crit).

    The thing you did each druid can do by just manually checking in game numbers. It's not theorycrafting, it's just basic testing.
    Yeah but that's just for when you NS, in any other case RG is more reliable, unless you stack crit (which obviously is retarded for a healer)
    "The secret of life is to appreciate the pleasure of being terribly, terribly deceived." -Oscar Wilde

    http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/characte...dinga/advanced

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Crysthalica View Post
    Yeah but that's just for when you NS, in any other case RG is more reliable, unless you stack crit (which obviously is retarded for a healer)
    Yes, but that's not the issue here. The topic is specifically about NS.

    For non-NS, personally I mostly use RG when I need a big tank heal, because it's fast and heals more than HT non crit. But while RG is better HPS, HT is still slightly better HPM, so on fights like Will while tank-healing, I tend to use both spells depending on whether I need a fast heal or not.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Thalur View Post
    Yes, but that's not the issue here. The topic is specifically about NS.

    For non-NS, personally I mostly use RG when I need a big tank heal, because it's fast and heals more than HT non crit. But while RG is better HPS, HT is still slightly better HPM, so on fights like Will while tank-healing, I tend to use both spells depending on whether I need a fast heal or not.
    The OP doesn't mention NS though...
    "The secret of life is to appreciate the pleasure of being terribly, terribly deceived." -Oscar Wilde

    http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/characte...dinga/advanced

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Crysthalica View Post
    The OP doesn't mention NS though...
    Oh, my bad. Somehow I thought OP was referring to NS.

    As I said before, Regrowth is my usual choice for direct healing as it heals more than non-crit HT and is faster. For fights with constant tank damage, however, I also use HT, since it is more mana efficient (OP's calculation is wrong since he does not account for crits).

  11. #11
    I made this topic to inform those who says that HT is always better, and is stuck with thinking RG is as bad as it was pre-mop. And also showing when RG becomes more cost effective than HT with no living seed.
    For NS, I'm a little stuck on which one I should use. With RG I know I will heal for atleast 30% more than more than HT if you count in LS, but with HT I have a slight chance (in my case <10%) to do some great healing.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Pusekatten View Post
    I made this topic to inform those who says that HT is always better, and is stuck with thinking RG is as bad as it was pre-mop. And also showing when RG becomes more cost effective than HT with no living seed.
    For NS, I'm a little stuck on which one I should use. With RG I know I will heal for atleast 30% more than more than HT if you count in LS, but with HT I have a slight chance (in my case <10%) to do some great healing.
    It's not possible to have < 10% crit, you get that much from int alone plus 5% raid buffs plus crit rating. I usually have around 17-19% crit in raids.

    @Topic: it's a good idea to advocate using glyphed RG. I don't think we would be very viable in tank healing without it. However, your math doesn't really help, as it raises more questions than it answeres.

  13. #13
    Interesting discussion. The regrowth glyph is compelling.

    My feeling is that an HT crit is over-valued. Due to the rng nature, it's much more likely to be over-heal.

    Am I right in thinking the regrowth glyph and HT glyph are mutually exclusive?

  14. #14
    Zookeeper Sunfyre's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Sunfyre's Nest
    Posts
    1,764
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinsoul View Post
    Interesting discussion. The regrowth glyph is compelling.

    My feeling is that an HT crit is over-valued. Due to the rng nature, it's much more likely to be over-heal.

    Am I right in thinking the regrowth glyph and HT glyph are mutually exclusive?
    Not specifically, but the glyph of wild growth and lifebloom are so attractive that you're only left with room for one of the two.

    Sunfyre | Blog | Twitter

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •