Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst
1
2
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Klatar View Post
    On average 25% behind disci priests in 25m.
    first, the author of raidbot does this "specscore" which attempts to fight "broken" mechanics on some fight and what not, and ask everyone to use this mesure instead of "overall dps/hps" as it's more meaningfull. Now if you watch this you see chaman currently being 4th in 25m hm overall, with disc beeing "best" on every single fight since 5.1 (before it was monk).

    Now problem is that even this "spec score" is based on hps. Shamans brings LOTS of utility to a raid (stormlash, MTT, +10% hp, SLT), and as stated, shaman are weaker in a "easy" environment : on farm progress, there is usually less mistakes than on progress, so overall raid takes less damage. A disc with more gear will place bigger absorbs, and (assuming there is enough damage done to the raid), will therefore heal for more. But given that the total amount of healing needed don't change, it means other healer have less to heal, and as stated shamans are not good at stealing heal to other healer (and anyway that's not an important metric). If you look at "spec score" for shaman in 10h in the 3 last month, we progressively went from "middle of the pack" to "worst" class. This doesn't mean that shamans healer are progressively getting less good for progression, but that, 3 months ago when most raids were progression we were good, but now that more and more boss kill are "farmed content", shamans appear to be less good "overall".

    TL;DR : shamans are still awesome on progression fight, but become more and more useless on farmed fight once you're running with "too many" healers (problem with 10man is you can't run with 2.5 heal in your raid, so you take 3, and one will have next-to-nothing to heal, and usually that'll be the shaman).

  2. #22
    Deleted
    WTF awesome? Are you serious?

    MTT is a reason to bring 1 resto shaman in a 25m raid, but that's it. That's why you ignore resto shamans in 10m where they also suffer because of still missing effective tools to heal spreaded raids.

    And all you say is ' shamans are fine in the first week', but even during progression, shamans are mediocre at best. And progress is still ongoing. In 10m, they simply allout suck because even on stacked fights, they are not better than other classes.


    Look at heroic HOF while the first progression was and it still shows shamans to be at best compeitive on very few fights (those where raids are stacked) and only at the beginning. But on the other hand, mediocre on one fight, very bad on the other fight averages at a bad level. And discis are also during progression the clear winner over druids and shamans.


    Here's the 3 months curve:
    http://raidbots.com/dpsbot/Overall_D...00000000111111

    You see where monks got nerfed, priests buffed and so on. But you also see shaman underperforming from day 1. Farming Content has made them only a little weaker. The difference was already big at the first week of heroic progression, as the graphs show up. The problem is here that our main heal, HR, doesn't work in 10m.

    It will stay that way coming 5.2. In 25m, it's better than in 10m, but at best mediocre. 10m is simply painful. Resto would still need a massive overhaul to aoe spreaded healing for 10m raiding.

    And finally: being the healer, who is only a supporter - well, it sucks over time. I'd strongly advise to any healer that if he has the choice between resto shaman and anohter healing class, get the hell out as long as you can.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Klatar View Post
    WTF awesome? Are you serious?

    MTT is a reason to bring 1 resto shaman in a 25m raid, but that's it. That's why you ignore resto shamans in 10m where they also suffer because of still missing effective tools to heal spreaded raids.

    And all you say is ' shamans are fine in the first week', but even during progression, shamans are mediocre at best. And progress is still ongoing. In 10m, they simply allout suck because even on stacked fights, they are not better than other classes.


    Look at heroic HOF while the first progression was and it still shows shamans to be at best compeitive on very few fights (those where raids are stacked) and only at the beginning. But on the other hand, mediocre on one fight, very bad on the other fight averages at a bad level. And discis are also during progression the clear winner over druids and shamans.


    Here's the 3 months curve:
    http://raidbots.com/dpsbot/Overall_D...00000000111111

    You see where monks got nerfed, priests buffed and so on. But you also see shaman underperforming from day 1. Farming Content has made them only a little weaker. The difference was already big at the first week of heroic progression, as the graphs show up. The problem is here that our main heal, HR, doesn't work in 10m.

    It will stay that way coming 5.2. In 25m, it's better than in 10m, but at best mediocre. 10m is simply painful. Resto would still need a massive overhaul to aoe spreaded healing for 10m raiding.

    And finally: being the healer, who is only a supporter - well, it sucks over time. I'd strongly advise to any healer that if he has the choice between resto shaman and anohter healing class, get the hell out as long as you can.
    Realistically, the difference in output between farm and progression content due to mastery is pretty overstated. If you assume a Shaman has 50% mastery, and on progression content, people sit at 70% HP on average and on farm people sit at 90% HP on average, there is only going to be like a 5% drop in Shaman output.

    Shaman were strong the first few weeks and probably 2nd to only Mistweavers. We have just fallen significantly since then, as it appears that we don't scale as well as other healers. This is probably caused by the fact that so much of our output is from Healing Rain/HST/HTT, which are cooldown restricted and which we are not going to be able to cast more often as we get more gear. They will heal for more, but the real scaling we get from gear is being able to use Healing Surge/Greater Healing Wave/Chain Heal more often, which just doesn't compare with what other healers can do with more regen/throughput.

    It's kind of likely that Resto Shaman will continue to scale poorer than other healers going into future tiers as gear continues to improve. The problem is, with Resto so strong in PvP, they probably can not buff them for PvE without creating major problems. The only thing they might be able to do is buff Healing Rain even further since it is not very useful in PvP.

    However, there isn't anything to worry about yet. Resto shaman have greater representation in heroic kills than any other healing spec (although Priests have slightly more overall when you combine Holy and Disc). Most Heroic Sha kills are using 2 resto shaman. MTT stacks, so there is plenty of benefit in having 2 shaman in 25 man raid. It lets other healers cast more aggressively and possibly drop more regen stats for throughput stats. Ironically, MTT probably buffs other healers more than it buffs Shaman. At any rate, Shaman utility will continue to result in Shaman being desirable, at least until throughput starts to fall 20%+ below other healers

  4. #24
    If you are looking at sites as raidbots to measure if we are decent or not then go hit your self in the head with a hammer, because it an utterly shit way to messure classes. Furthermore, the majority of top guilds have only recently started with public logs, and I might be wrong - but from my perspective you would see quite a lot more shamans in the "top" which would alter the result that e.g tools like raidbot gets.

    In addition we are the class that is hit the hardest when content gets on farm due to the way that regn. / througput increases (and usually inc. dmg decreases due to nerfs) so HR which constitues for between 1/5th to 3/5th of our healing on a given encounter gets diminished whereas e.g. disco priests doesn't suffer in the same way.

    Furthermore, if you look purely at healers from a HPs pov I pitty your raid team - healing isn't about keeping the biggest number at the end, but making sure that when it is needed you aren't loosing people just because you are unable to throw out some burst healing, and talking about pure burst - we.are.the.kings - Primal Elementalist, HTT, Ascendance and SLT.


    Only fight in HoS where shaman doesn't bring a lot is Wind Lord and just because we aren't doing most HPs to show off our epeen doesn't mean that a shaman is a shit class to bring - quite the opposite. Being able to rotate your CDs for whatever inc. raid dmg. is what make it a first kill, and SLT is properly the most undervalued CD.

    In Terrace we are even better than in HoS, and if you look purely at HPs you would most likely bench shamans, but in terms of big tank heals - throughput CDs for inc. dmg and general utilities e.g. on Sha HC the 10% extra HP is quite nifty for the tanks, and your 100-300k GHWs is amazing as well as HST during Huddle as well as Ascendance and HTT for when 2-3 healers gets Huddle.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Eijnar View Post
    If you are looking at sites as raidbots to measure if we are decent or not then go hit your self in the head with a hammer, because it an utterly shit way to messure classes. Furthermore, the majority of top guilds have only recently started with public logs, and I might be wrong - but from my perspective you would see quite a lot more shamans in the "top" which would alter the result that e.g tools like raidbot gets.

    In
    At least half of the top 100 guilds have been using public logs since the start of the expansion, so that it really isn't a major issue. Also, why would the fact that some guilds have private logs make one class over another represent differently? When looking at RaidBots, you generally want to change the settings from "Top 100" to "All Parses", because top parses tend to skew the overall results, whereas all parses gives a better view of the overall potential of the class. One possible concern is that ToES heroics still do not show up as heroic kills on WoL, so there is no data from them, and HoF heroics had the same issue for the first 2-3 weeks they were available.

    However, if you look at Raidbots for what it is, it is a very good indication of where different specs line up from a throughput perspective. Of course it doesn't take into account utility, and people can argue back and forth if specs should be taxed for different utility that they bring. I think that it has been said by GC before that healers and DPS are balanced around being within a reasonable range in terms of total output (i.e. not more than 10%), and that there is no longer a hybrid tax/utility tax imposed.

  6. #26
    Because if you want to meassure how classes is in comparrison to one another, then you want the information provided by people who play close the full capacity of the class, instead of someone playing it at 60% because e.g. playing a disc priest as 60% won't differ as much as a rshaman playing at 60%. But I think we disagree on that point whether you want data from top100 or just all the possible data. However, if you are discussing the potential of the class you will have to ditch the data where people aren't playing within 80-90% of their potential hence you want data from top100.

    Furthermore, since most of the top100 kill bosses while being somewhat undergeared it shows a "clearer" result (That is my impression) than going in with 2 x disc priests after the patch and brute forcing the boss since your healers got the gear to substain Shelling whenever on CD. In addition this far in the farm period you are going to see people doing stupid stuff / asking other healers not to heal unless nessecary in order to get ranks, and that also affects the result.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Eijnar View Post
    Because if you want to meassure how classes is in comparrison to one another, then you want the information provided by people who play close the full capacity of the class, instead of someone playing it at 60% because e.g. playing a disc priest as 60% won't differ as much as a rshaman playing at 60%. But I think we disagree on that point whether you want data from top100 or just all the possible data. However, if you are discussing the potential of the class you will have to ditch the data where people aren't playing within 80-90% of their potential hence you want data from top100.

    Furthermore, since most of the top100 kill bosses while being somewhat undergeared it shows a "clearer" result (That is my impression) than going in with 2 x disc priests after the patch and brute forcing the boss since your healers got the gear to substain Shelling whenever on CD. In addition this far in the farm period you are going to see people doing stupid stuff / asking other healers not to heal unless nessecary in order to get ranks, and that also affects the result.
    I think the problem with using only the top parses is that unlike DPS in most cases, doing the higher HPS doesn't necessarily mean you are capturing the best players. You can continue to spam AoE spells like an idiot while a tank dies and do higher HPS and look better on a parse, but you're still an idiot. A lot of top parses are also flat out cheesed where you either drop well below the number of healers most guilds typically bring, or you have people deliberately stand in stuff, etc, etc. I have never felt that they are a good indication of anything.

  8. #28
    Stood in the Fire Algearond's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Grand Rapids, MI
    Posts
    464
    I only heal Random 5 man's and LFR on my main (I run Resto PvE) and I am usually in the top 2........no complaints ATM.
    For the night is dark and full of terrors

  9. #29
    We are saying the same thing, but from two different sides. HPs is a bad way of meassuring how healers performe (to some extend), however, that does also mean that a tool like raidbots is worthless to determine how "good" the different classes is in comparrison. You argue that the top pharses is biased and therefore not giving the correct picture (which I agree with you to some extend), and I would argue that you have to cut a fairly large quantity of the lower part of the player data since they aren't performing on a level where the data they bring is any better than the "look at my epenis" pharses.
    Some fights can be cheesed a clearcut example is disc priests on Blade Lord and Wind Lord, but how would you setup the parameters to cut those out, and as well as people going with a healer more or less due to either going for bruteforce or a specific healing setup in order to have enough cooldowns for it ? In that case you would have to look at each log manually, and I seriously don't hope that anyone would force themselves to do such a horrendous thing to themselves.

    So are we not back to square one where we can agree on the data is to skewed in both directions to say anything decent ? Healing is working as a team, and your strengths and weaknesses is countered by the other classes, so the real challenge is to know who takes care of the different tasks disregarding their personal epeenis (hello tank duty).

  10. #30
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by tibbee View Post
    Realistically, the difference in output between farm and progression content due to mastery is pretty overstated. If you assume a Shaman has 50% mastery, and on progression content, people sit at 70% HP on average and on farm people sit at 90% HP on average, there is only going to be like a 5% drop in Shaman output.

    Shaman were strong the first few weeks and probably 2nd to only Mistweavers. We have just fallen significantly since then, as it appears that we don't scale as well as other healers. This is probably caused by the fact that so much of our output is from Healing Rain/HST/HTT, which are cooldown restricted and which we are not going to be able to cast more often as we get more gear. They will heal for more, but the real scaling we get from gear is being able to use Healing Surge/Greater Healing Wave/Chain Heal more often, which just doesn't compare with what other healers can do with more regen/throughput.

    It's kind of likely that Resto Shaman will continue to scale poorer than other healers going into future tiers as gear continues to improve. The problem is, with Resto so strong in PvP, they probably can not buff them for PvE without creating major problems. The only thing they might be able to do is buff Healing Rain even further since it is not very useful in PvP.

    However, there isn't anything to worry about yet. Resto shaman have greater representation in heroic kills than any other healing spec (although Priests have slightly more overall when you combine Holy and Disc). Most Heroic Sha kills are using 2 resto shaman. MTT stacks, so there is plenty of benefit in having 2 shaman in 25 man raid. It lets other healers cast more aggressively and possibly drop more regen stats for throughput stats. Ironically, MTT probably buffs other healers more than it buffs Shaman. At any rate, Shaman utility will continue to result in Shaman being desirable, at least until throughput starts to fall 20%+ below other healers
    So we have some powerful buffs, that's the reason to bring a shaman. MTT buffs the healing output of the real healing classes...

    Being the buff bots works in 25m. It surely as hell doesn't work in 10m. When you have to two-heal a hard fight, output and certrain utilities matter. Palas are therefore much more useful. Discis anyways in it's current state. Their problem was from the beginning their low mana reggen, not that their output was too weak. Now that they have their mana reggen, they just totally trump shamans.

    And well, 20% behind other healers? That's just worse than Cata...

    And i totally doubt your assumption that top guilds that many top guilds used two resto schamis for their heroic sha kill.

    25m might work in our buffbot niche, we will be taken despite of slacking output because we buff the rest of the raid.

    But 10m resto shamans are going to die out. Most raids only take them because they have no choice, Those who have, well...

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-26 at 05:54 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Eijnar View Post
    We are saying the same thing, but from two different sides. HPs is a bad way of meassuring how healers performe (to some extend), however, that does also mean that a tool like raidbots is worthless to determine how "good" the different classes is in comparrison. You argue that the top pharses is biased and therefore not giving the correct picture (which I agree with you to some extend), and I would argue that you have to cut a fairly large quantity of the lower part of the player data since they aren't performing on a level where the data they bring is any better than the "look at my epenis" pharses.
    Some fights can be cheesed a clearcut example is disc priests on Blade Lord and Wind Lord, but how would you setup the parameters to cut those out, and as well as people going with a healer more or less due to either going for bruteforce or a specific healing setup in order to have enough cooldowns for it ? In that case you would have to look at each log manually, and I seriously don't hope that anyone would force themselves to do such a horrendous thing to themselves.

    So are we not back to square one where we can agree on the data is to skewed in both directions to say anything decent ? Healing is working as a team, and your strengths and weaknesses is countered by the other classes, so the real challenge is to know who takes care of the different tasks disregarding their personal epeenis (hello tank duty).
    On paper, yes.

    But what happens in reality?

    We are a 25m raid, but just for Christmas made a 10m raid on Sunday. We had 4 healers, a resto shaman, resto druid, pala und disci. In the end, we changed the shaman and resto druid on druid on two fights because they had problems to heal. In the end, our raidleader, the heal druid, went after one hour of trying will of the empereor heroic, because that fight was not doable for us with a resto druid. A Disci came in, so we had Pala/Disci in the end - whch worked great from try 1 on, 20 minutes later he went down. Even pala healer told us that it was suddenly a lot easier to heal with a disci instead of a resto druid.

    I know it would've been the same for the shamen instead of the druid. Output matters to some extend, especially in 10m, where you have only two healers.

    25m works for different reasons a lot better. Buffing ehaling rain by another 15% might perhaps be enough to make resto viable in 25m on its own, not because of MTT.

    But 10m is really in a bad shape.
    Last edited by mmoc4ec7d51a68; 2012-12-26 at 04:56 PM.

  11. #31
    Deleted
    People throwing the phrase 'HPS is not a good indicator of a healers performance' really need to stop. Although it's true to a certain extent, if you're doing very little or even no overhealing whilst not being able to compete with other healing classes who are bringing more throughput regardless of how much goes to overhealing, HPS really is a good factor in terms of class strength. Now don't go bashing this as a 'meters mean everything' statement, because it's not, but at the end of the day throughput matters. Its been too long that people have tried to sugar coat out lack of throughput with the above said phrase.

    Having said this, I really can't complain with the state of resto shamans at the moment, as we're probably in one of the best states we've been in a long time. This doesn't make up for the fact that we're average at best of all the healer classes overall (depending on the fight obviously), and there could be a few simple changes that could be implemented. At least MoP has given us a strong arsenal of throughput CDs, which at least are a reason for us to be brought to raids (talking bring the class not necessarily the player cases here).

    Our mastery is dog compared to other healers. Yes it's useful on progress, but even then, does it shine so much that we can compete with the top healing classes? Nope. Not to mention that by the time we have significant mastery levels on our gear for it to make a difference, content is over and we're onto farm. I posted in the other thread an idea for a mastery change that would be similar to that of druids, however wouldn't rely on the raid being low and wouldn't have any issues PvP wise.

    'Casting a direct heal buffs the shaman with the 'Deeper Healing' buff, increasing all periodic healing effects by 20% for 15 seconds' (or something similar numbers wise) Remember, totem ticks are periodic too!

    The other gripe I've had with resto shaman since MoP has come out is the fact that too much of our healing is passive (in the sense that, you can know what spells to use, but once you've used them, the game does the hard work for you). HST change was great, but it's too powerful for how easy it is, same with HTT. I'd personally like to see a small nerf to these and a buff to other heals so I can actually feel like I'm doing the healing, not just dropping a totem to do the thinking for me. I guess that's why they call it smart heals hurr durrr.


    As I said before though, overall pretty happy so far, it's nice to be able to look at healing meters and see most classes ( besides lolmonkprenerf & current discs) being all relatively close on throughput. But please resto community, stop with the 'HPS isn't everything', for too long have we been a buffer class, 'the jack of all trades'. The best part of MoP so far is that we're a much better stand alone healer, which is a definite plus.
    Last edited by mmocc4d6b0379b; 2012-12-26 at 05:52 PM.

  12. #32
    The Lightbringer Ragnarocket's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    3,185
    I'm ok with where we are at the moment. I'm not thrilled but I'm not unhappy either. As a HM10 man raider at the moment I feel that I usually have all the tools I need if I two heal a heroic fight. Between me and the other healer (usually a Holy Pally or Disc Priest) they can prevent a lot of damage while I have the burst capability to bring people back up to full if there's an ability that strikes people down low. That said...I think I'd have that "burst" capability even without the mastery we currently have.

    While I understand the usefulness of our mastery I do wish it was a bit different, I've never thought of it as one of the better healing masteries. I look a bit enviously at things like the Holy Pally mastery and just wish we had something a bit more enjoyable than a flat (and slightly complicated to calculate) healing increase to injured allies mastery. While the idea is sound it's just not as enjoyable as some of the other masteries I believe. I'd almost prefer something to the effect of a mini-version of our Ascendance ability where the healing can "splash" out to additional people who need it. I've just always enjoyed that aspect of our healing that it can smartly go where needed. I'd just like to see our mastery play more to that then this "Deep Healing" we've had.

    I'll rephrase though that I AM happy at our current state. I'm not THRILLED, but I'm most definitely not complaining. (loudly )
    “The rains have ceased, and we have been graced with another beautiful day. But you are not here to see it.”

  13. #33
    I never said we where good at doing high hps, even during progress. I said we were good enough to heal whatever the circumstances, and that we had tool to do most of the roles that could be asked to a healer. I did said that our "utility" becomes less relevant once on progress, and that the "hps gap" get wider.

    "shamans are awesome on progress" doesn't mean our hps is awesome (it's not), just that we have high versatility, lots of powerful cd (healing and dps wise), and that the way our class heal means that, as long as there are people consistently going low hp, we'll be good at "saving" them.

    Finally, shaman are taken in raid, a LOT more than druid, monks or holy. If you look at "sample" measure on raidbot (10H, 25H), we are the most represented healer in 25hc (really close to disc and paladin, when there's nearly half as many druid/monks than shaman) and we're the 2nd (equal with disc, with paladin being ahead) most represented healer in 10hc. This doesn't necessarily mean that our spec is perfect, but it can't be "broken to the point nobody wants to take resto shaman in raids".
    Last edited by Bethan; 2012-12-26 at 10:59 PM.

  14. #34
    Let us rephrase it to "HPs is not the only nor the most important factor in determining the performance of a healer, however, it is a fairly large part of determining how "strong" a healer class is." Throughput matters that there is no question about, but it is equally important to where you can dish it out, and if you are "locked" to e.g. purely AoE or you can dip into single target healing quite easily.
    Also there needs to be some difference between classes and their utility, and currently I think the balance and differences is quite good. Some excel in some situations and other in others, but everyone is capable of doing the job without too many difficulties.


    I do agree with you in regards to our mastery, and that it needs a major overhaul to either the direction of rdruids or hpriests.

Posting Permissions

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