(Holy) Healing is Trivial - Half Guide, Half Rant

[Bhodi]

From what you have said here, you seem to be expecting a SWP level of complexity in Cataclysm dungeons? Or are you comparing TBC heroics to Cata heroics in your forward?

I was a good healer in TBC, but nothing amazing. I managed to heal all the heroics without much difficulty, if I had the self-awareness that I have now about my class, other classes and general game mechanics, TBC dungeon healing might as well have been what it was in Wrath.

So, what are comparing? Dungeon to dungeon healing or TBC/Wrath raid healing to Cata dungeon healing?

It really isn't a matter of difficulty.


Slow casting speed from 1.5s to 2.5s. Scale up healthpools, scale down raid damage in relation to those healthpools. Keep healing the same and make resource management an issue again. Cata healing is 1/2 the pace of TBC. All aspects of clutch healing are gone, even on fights that are supposed to require tight healer focus such as Chimaeron with the 10k limit and massacre. You have forever to make decisions, and even if you make the completely wrong one you have even longer to fix it up.


Given a choice between WotLK or Cata healer I would refuse to say that one is "better" than another, but rather point out that they are flawed in their own way.

WotLK was poorly balanced but it was fast paced, and clutch healing was king on fights that mattered such as LK HM 25 (which I did) or most of the Ulduar HM's when it was fresh. Cata is slow and clunky, though the balancing is superb. If that makes sense.

[[-Spiritus-]]

To rebutt for Angelfeeties, your relative experience in cata [not skill] is relevant to your argument because, in order for it to be true [not valid], we must assume that your understanding of "trival" is communicably accepted.

Quoting from Wikipedia's article on the "appeal to authority" fallacy:

Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

1. Source A says that p is true.
2. Source A is authoritative.
3. Therefore, p is true.

In this case:
A= Nwim
p= "Nwim's definition of trivial"

The first premises is true:
(1)Nwim says that "Nwim's definition of trivial" is true.

The second premises is:
(2)Nwim is authoritative
By asking us to accept your definition of "trivial," you are communicating from an authoritative position.

(3) Therefore, "Nwim's definition of trivial" is true.
The conclusion meets the conditions for an "appeal to authority" fallacy.

=====================================================

A speaker may dispute the claims of the audience by either demonstrating authority or providing logical proof.

By Aristotle's artificial proofs, a speaker is credible[or authoritative] if he establishes pathos, ethos, & logos. To establish ethos, a speaker must demonstrate three sub-categories, including phronesis, which is defined as practical knowledge, or experience. An audience may deem a speaker to have a low ethos valence if the speaker cannot demonstrate expertise, which is gained through practical experience.

Ergo, since your audience has judged you as having a low ethos valence, you may be categorized as lacking authority to establish the definition of "trivial."

Without the capacity to effectively establish the definition of "trivial," your argument becomes not true, even if it is valid.

=======================================
EDIT:
In layman's terms, is it reasonable for me to ask someone who has played a round of miniature golf if "putting is trivial?" Or is it more reasonable for me to ask Tiger Woods? I would suspect that Tiger Woods would conclude that "putting is trivial" when playing miniature golf, but not so much when playing in the Masters.

[Nwim]

It really isn't a matter of difficulty.


Slow casting speed from 1.5s to 2.5s. Scale up healthpools, scale down raid damage in relation to those healthpools. Keep healing the same and make resource management an issue again. Cata healing is 1/2 the pace of TBC. All aspects of clutch healing are gone, even on fights that are supposed to require tight healer focus such as Chimaeron with the 10k limit and massacre. You have forever to make decisions, and even if you make the completely wrong one you have even longer to fix it up.


Given a choice between WotLK or Cata healer I would refuse to say that one is "better" than another, but rather point out that they are flawed in their own way.

WotLK was poorly balanced but it was fast paced, and clutch healing was king on fights that mattered such as LK HM 25 (which I did) or most of the Ulduar HM's when it was fresh. Cata is slow and clunky, though the balancing is superb. If that makes sense.

Thank you. You just put my argument in far better words than I did.

You said in one sentence what I've been trying to get across all this time:

You have forever to make decisions, and even if you make the completely wrong one you have even longer to fix it up.

[[-Spiritus-]]

I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.

The parameters of what defines "trivial" is: "the length of time one has between making a mistake and being able to correct it."

Just want to make sure.

[harky]

Premise 2 is not the conclusion.
Premise 2 states that in any single scenario, for any single spell, it is "trivial" to determine whether or not that spell is an incorrect move.
The conclusion is that generating a sequence of spells which contains no incorrect spells is "trivial."

Yes, the latter seems to very obviously follow from the first ("Just generate them one at a time"), but it actually doesn't - not without the other premises.

I do not doubt that you believe that Premise 2 is not the same as the conclusion, but your belief does not make it true.

Here are your premises:
1. In every situation, casting any spell is either right or wrong (See: Terms).
2. It is trivial to discern whether or not casting a particular spell is wrong (See: Lemmas).
3. Healing in a fight can be partitioned into a series of challenges in which a healer must select a right move in a series of situations (See: Partionability).
4. If a challenge can be partitioned into a series of other challenges, the total difficulty of the challenge is equal to the difficulty of the hardest individual challenge (See: Combination of Challenges).
Intermediate Steps:
5. In any situation, if casting a spell is not wrong, it must be right (1, equivalent disjunction).
6. It is trivial to discern whether or not casting a spell is right (2, 5, modus tolens).
7. Healing can be partitioned into a series of trivial challenges (3, 6, substitution).
Therefore:
9. Healing is trivial (4, 7, modus ponens).

Premises 3, and 4 define the difficulty of healing. These taken together state this: Healing is a series of choosing between casts whose difficulty is determined by the most complex decision in the series. Premise 1 dictates that heals can only be right, or wrong. 5, 6 and 7 are intermediary points and are superfluous. They are directly implied by 1, 2, 3 and 4. Premises 1, 3 and 4 can then infer the following: The difficulty of healing is determined by the complexity of any individual solution for right, or wrong spell casts. Premise 2 then states that for all spell casting decisions determining if a spell is wrong are trivial. Premise 1, 3 and 4 define 'Healing' as the ability to discern if a spell is 'right' or 'wrong'. Premise 2 then stats that determining if a spell is 'right' or 'wrong' is trivial. Since premise 1, 3 and 4 define 'determining if a spell is right or wrong' as 'Healing' this means Premise 2 reads: Healing is trivial.

To clarify this a little, you could construct the argument as follows:
Heals can only be right or wrong.
Determining if a heal is wrong is easy.
Healing is only as hard as it is to determine if a heal is right or wrong.
Healing is easy.

This is not the only issue with your argument. The arguing to authority problem is a serious issue. You are not an authority on defining 'trivial', which you have attempted to do. Neither are you qualified to redefine 'Healing' in the manner you are. Nor are you qualified to define 'difficulty' as you have. When you construct this type of argument the goal should be to actually prove something. Instead you are simply arguing your own opinion. When you reference, such as (See: Lemmas) and such you then must answer for that reference. Your argument is mostly sophistry. You're intentionally over-complicating a simple statement which you wanted to make: I believe healing is trivial.

[Ithrowmagicz]

Alright, bro. This goes to you, and everyone else complaining about things being too hard, easy, messed up, or stupid.
This is the first real patch of cataclysm. New content is coming. New patches and class changes are coming. I'm not trying to start an argument, but try to understand that this game is constantly (Well, every few months or so) changing. Chances are, holy priest healing will get harder.
Personally, I love healing on my priest. Maybe it's because I'm new to the class, seeing as this is the first time I've had a max level priest. But I think it's fun and challenging.
Which brings me to my next point. You've done heroics and think they're easy and makes healing trivial? Try a raid, then get back to us.

[Warrenar]

Do people forget this is a game?

WoW has a design and there are limits to that design. Every spell in your spell book was designed with intent for you to use it in a certain situation.

The fact that you have spent enough time playing the game to make this decision making instinctual doesn't mean the game is trivial, it just means you've mastered your area.

Do you think this game is just going to evolve on it's own? It's not designed by some alien race; it's designed by human beings just like you and me. There are ways it's designed to be played. Do you think Blizzard designs a spell without an intent for it in mind? Try to understand the concept of game design.

Come back to reality and realize that this is a game.

[tyden49]

Your assertion that spell selection is trivial is not sufficiently supported. As such your conclusion does not follow. For all the eloquence of your logic you have relied solely on circular reasoning.

Premise 1 states that spell casts are either right, or wrong.
Premise 2 states that determining if a spell is wrong is trivial.
Premise 3 states that healing is a series of spell casts.
Premise 4 states that the difficulty of a series is determined by the most complex part of that series.
From this you conclude that healing is trivial.

You offer no proof, other than personal opinion that determining if a spell is wrong is trivial. Furthermore Premise 4 is fallacious. It implies that a long complex sequence of events is only as complex as the most complex single decision. This is used purely to affirm a consequent. Your argument is in fact this:

Healing is a sequence of spell casts which can be only right, or wrong.
The difficulty of Healing is determined by the most difficult individual spell casting decision.
It is trivial to determine if any spell cast is wrong, therefor Healing is trivial.

This is not only incorrect, but a stock propositional fallacy. In this case even if Premise 2 is true the conclusion does not follow. It is a circular argument. Healing is trivial because spell selection is trivial. Okay. Why is spell selection trivial? You yourself needed a very complex argument to even explain how trivial it was. Additionally because the argument is based on a fallacious premise even if Premise 2 was true, Premise 4 can not be true. If healing was a sequence of moves in which each could be considered in advance, then it is possible that Premise 4 could be accepted. But again, even if this were the case Premise 2 has not been sufficiently proven. The only evidence for Premise 2 that is supplied is, "In my opinion all of these things are obvious by inspection." Your conclusion could best have been summed up as, "In my opinion Healing is trivial." There is no other relevant information supplied. Only that you believe spell selection is trivial and therefor healing is trivial.

ZING. Pretty much exactly what i wanted to say, but didnt want to put the time or effort into doing it. If i did it still wouldnt be half as good as this post.

GJ Harky

[Moliere]

This is not the only issue with your argument. The arguing to authority problem is a serious issue. You are not an authority on defining 'trivial', which you have attempted to do. Neither are you qualified to redefine 'Healing' in the manner you are. Nor are you qualified to define 'difficulty' as you have. When you construct this type of argument the goal should be to actually prove something. Instead you are simply arguing your own opinion. When you reference, such as (See: Lemmas) and such you then must answer for that reference. Your argument is mostly sophistry. You're intentionally over-complicating a simple statement which you wanted to make: I believe healing is trivial.

A million times this. I'm confused why someone who doesn't appear to have even healed a Cata raid, much less a heroic, has any credibility to discuss whether healing in its present state is trival/easy/etc.

[Herrenos]

I would argue that current healing is no more trivial than in naxxramas25.

In fact, current healing is LESS trivial than at a similar point in the expansion, simply because it mattered very little which buttons you pushed in naxxramas, all of them would overheal.

Give cata some time.

INT, STR, AGI, SPI, haste, crit, mastery...... all of these stats will, by necessity, scale more quickly than health pools. If this is NOT the case, blizzard will essentially be taking us back to content-gating again.... one must run the 4.0.3 raids, then the 4.1 raids, then the 4.2 raids before one has enough health to even survive in the 4.3 raid for normal raid damage.

Blizzard, as far as I can tell, basically has three options:

1) Allow gear progression to continue as I expect, with each tier of gear being 13 item level points higher than the one previous, and each content patch containing 2 tiers. The consequence of this will be healers who once again have virtually unlimited mana and tanks who have the absorption and avoidance to make the usage of that mana unimportant. In order to challenge people, they will have to introduce wrath-like damage.

2) Limit gear progression to a much slower pace. This would make new gear from new content less desirable, and depending on itemization may make previous tier's gear more desirable. This is counterintuitive to the standard MMO reward model.

3) Allow health pools to scale at the same rate that other stats will scale. This would force players into running raids sequentially. Blizzard has specifically stated they don't want players to have to do this in later tiers of content.

I guess the overall response to your post is "yes, healing is easy; it's intended to be... the first tier of raiding in an expansion always is easy".

[KevJB]

You state in your first post that you've run a couple heroics, if http://us.battle.net/wow/en/characte...ment#168:15067 is indeed your character then your armory does not agree with your claim.
Certainly your experience in heroics is a great deal different than most healers I know (except the holy pally who has since been nerfed).
It seems to me a lot of people who are complaining about the difficulty are the people who outgear the instances. If you have mostly 333 then healing regulars will be trivial, if you have all heroic gear then healing a heroic will be mostly trivial.
If you're that desperate for a challenge but can't be bothered to step up to the next level of content try getting rid of all your spirit gear to try and simulate the old 5sr.

[Nwim]

To rebutt for Angelfeeties, your relative experience in cata [not skill] is relevant to your argument because, in order for it to be true [not valid], we must assume that your understanding of "trival" is communicably accepted.

In this case:
A= Nwim
p= "Healing is trivial"

The first premises is true:
(1)Nwim says that "Healing is trival"

The second premises is:
(2)Nwim is authoritative

By Aristotle's artificial proofs, a speaker is credible[or authoritative] if he establishes Pathos, Ethos, & Logos. To establish Ethos, a speaker must demonstrate three sub-catagoies, which include phronesis, or practical knowledge. An audience may deem a speaker to have a low ethos valence if the speaker cannot demonstrate expertise, which is gained through practical experience.

Ergo, since your audience has judged you as having a low ethos valence, you may be categorized as lacking authority to establish

(3) Therefore, "Healing is trival" is true.

The conclusion meets the conditions for an "appeal to authority" fallacy.

Except that my argument isn't "Healing is trivial because I said so." My "Obvious by inspection" line referred specifically to the handful of rules I posted for determining if a particular heal was wrong.

Here are the arguments I have seen for and against Premise 2, which is the one in question here.

For: Here are a set of rules that will select an optimal spell in any situation.
-Against: Those rules do not apply in raids where you are not the only one responsible for healing.
--For: The healing game in the past has been deep both inside and out of raids, and reducing its depth out of raids is unacceptable when most players spend more time outside of raids than in them.
-Against: Those rules don't catch decisions when healing is insufficient to keep everyone alive
--For: Those decisions are not made frequently enough to add meaningful depth. If the challenge of the game boils down to making one right call per fight, that's not enough (for me, in my opinion, whatever).
-Against: Those rules will sometimes fail to catch a suboptimal move, for example, casting Renew while standing still when you may have to move later. (Proof by counterexample)
--For: The cost for failing when these rules fail is very low. If this is where you meant to imply that I don't have the authority to speak, you are absolutely right. I do not have the authority to quantify the proportion of situations where this cost of failing is high enough to make or break a fight.
-Against: I am not a legitimate source to define what Trivial is.
--For: I have attempted to define it. I have not seen any objections to my definition of it other than that I am not qualified to define it. Please argue with my points instead of with my person.

I do not doubt that you believe that Premise 2 is not the same as the conclusion, but your belief does not make it true.

Deductive arguments don't prove the conclusion to be true in a vacuum, they prove that the conclusions truth follows from premises. Of course my conclusion is implied by the premises. That's what deductive logic is.

The point of that proof is not to say, "Everyone who disagrees with me is illogical."
The point of that proof was to open up four lines by which I could be argued against:
1. That there exists a spell for which there exists a situation where it is neither right nor wrong.
2. That there exists a situation where it is not trivial to determine if a single heal is a wrong move.
3. That healing cannot be partitioned into smaller challenges.
4. That the difficulty of a set of challenges is not determined by the hardest one. (In hindsight, I really should not have made this simplification. It does destroy my entire argument.)

5. I didn't anticipate having to argue the definition of trivial, but that is also a legitimate line of attack.

People have made attacks on all of those, and with a lot of good points. I've rebutted some of them - others, like the point about movement making orderings that place instant cast spells before you have to move being suboptimal, I have no answer for. That counterexample shoots my premise 2 entirely, unless I back down and settle for "It's trivial to be 'close' to full effectiveness."

Premise 4 has also been demolished - heck, I demolished it myself in my original post. Still working on that program; I'll get it written once I stop letting myself get distracted by posting here. If I can't get it written, or if it doesn't do what I think it will, or if my complicated definition is as bad as my simplified one, then my entire argument is irreparably shot.

I'm happy to discuss the definition of Trivial, or the definition of Difficulty. I am not willing to battle an argument line that simply states that any definition for those terms that I provide is unusable simply because I produced it. (Or that anything I say at all is invalid because I'm the one who said it.)

---

@People saying "It's still the first patch"

Yes, I'm aware of that. I wouldn't be making this post if it were 4.1. I'm hoping that 4.1 will make the game into something that I am willing to come back to, and the road to change is paved with debate and well-reasoned arguments.

My argument, as people have pointed out, is not well reasoned. So I go back and I revise it until eventually I have something convincing.

[Docta]

It boggles my mind that you continue to try and defend your argument that when you're beginning to outgear 5 mans and know all the mechanics for fights (and your group does too) they become "trivial". Heroics arent supposed to be very difficult once everyone knows the mechanics and you have enough gear... it's entry level stuff... your entire argument just crumbles as soon as you try to take it outside a 5 man so why even bother? just let it go man.

[-Ethos-]

I just click Prayer of Healing until the boss dies and win healing meters.

So yeah. Who knows what you people are all talking about.

[[-Spiritus-]]

Except that my argument isn't "Healing is trivial because I said so." My "Obvious by inspection" line referred specifically to the handful of rules I posted for determining if a particular heal was wrong.

I realized immediately after posting that I applied the fallacy incorrectly. I rephrased it and now reflects the more legitimate criticism: "Nwim's definition of trivial is true because Nwim said so."

However, you have opened up the floor to argue the semantics of both "trivial" and "difficulty," both of which are paramount to your argument.

If I am to understand your previous post correctly, you state that the parameter that defines "trivial" and "difficult" is: "the length of time one has between making a mistake and being able to correct it."

Is this correct?

=====================================================

As an addendum, there is a difference between an ad hominem fallacy and a legitimate challenge to credibility. However, I will rephrase the credibility challenge to your argument.

Given that you're breadth of experience is limited to Cataclysm 5-man Heroics in 4.0.1, then your observations must be premised on this fact. If you simply rephrase your conclusion to "Healing Cataclysm 5-man Heroics in 4.0.1 is Trivial," then you solve all your problems with semantics.

[Ulqiorra]

Logical arguments can't hinge on one's own opinion (or definition) that is not accepted by the audience as true, lest they cease to be logical arguments.

Try again.

[Nwim]

You state in your first post that you've run a couple heroics, if http://us.battle.net/wow/en/characte...ment#168:15067 is indeed your character then your armory does not agree with your claim.
Certainly your experience in heroics is a great deal different than most healers I know (except the holy pally who has since been nerfed).
It seems to me a lot of people who are complaining about the difficulty are the people who outgear the instances. If you have mostly 333 then healing regulars will be trivial, if you have all heroic gear then healing a heroic will be mostly trivial.
If you're that desperate for a challenge but can't be bothered to step up to the next level of content try getting rid of all your spirit gear to try and simulate the old 5sr.

Hrm. You're right that my armory isn't showing the heroics I completed, or anything that I did on the 22nd, which was the last day I played. I completed H. Throne and H. Lost City - the second with an in-progress group that was wiping on the Lockmaw when I got there.

I can't prove that. My account is frozen because I don't feel like paying for a game I'm not playing, so I can't log out and in to force an armory refresh (though surely it should have refreshed by now; I'm quite puzzled). And you have no reason to take me at my word. This puts me at a very disadvantaged position to argue from - even moreso than I expected.

Very well, I'll not begrudge anyone who wants to consider my entire argument as if it came from someone who's done no heroics. Since there are heroic dungeons that I haven't done, it's not that much different. Does it change my argument, other than people's rights to say that I don't have the authority to even discuss the topic?

[Skarrd]

Players who aren't in heroic raid content don't have the right to say an entire spectrum of the PvE side of this game is too easy. I'm playing casually and I agree that heroic 5 mans were easy with a well organized group the day i hit 85. I also agree that they are now easy in the vast majority of pugs if you are a talented healer (who can manage a few mistakes now and again by compensating with talent).

I've only been to 3 of the 4 entry level bosses (not conclave) on my priest, and I can say they were all very easy to heal provided your raid doesn't make a lot of mistakes. It was a pug by my eyes (4 people from a guild I don't really know and 6 randoms, including myself). Given that not many guilds are even 10/13 heroic yet, I'd say heroic mode fights are fairly challenging.

Honestly, don't call things easy until you at least attempt them. SO many people called ICC a joke at the end of wrath. Yeah, Heroic ICC is a joke with 4.0 talents/hp and 30% buff, who knew. Try ICC25 heroics with 0% buff. They were not faceroll, especially considering most raiders weren't even in half 264's (though the other half was probably 258). People jump all over the "omgwowissoeasy" bandwagon in a second without any experience to back it up all the damn time. If that's how you want to do things go nuts, but I'll continue to live in the real world where I make my decisions from more than just hearsay or things that are designed to be 1/50th the difficulty of the thing I'm calling easy. I thought precalc was a joke, should I then believe that actual calculus is just as easy? I could, but it wouldn't make much sense to do that.

Don't generalize about the entire game until you -kill- at least half of the heroic raid encounters. Feel free to call heroic healing easy, but don't call the entire broad topic of healing as a holy priest easy. One does not necessarily mean the other. The premises don't even need to be read because they are all made under the assumption that you have the experience of every healing encounter this game has to offer, and you do not.

[Nwim]

I realized immediately after posting that I applied the fallacy incorrectly. I rephrased it and now reflects the more legitimate criticism: "Nwim's definition of trivial is true because Nwim said so."

However, you have opened up the floor to argue the semantics of both "trivial" and "difficulty," both of which are paramount to your argument.

If I am to understand your previous post correctly, you state that the parameter that defines "trivial" and "difficult" is: "the length of time one has between making a mistake and being able to correct it."

Is this correct?

You can refuse my definition of trivial and difficulty on authority. I realize that I have none, especially without proof (as I realized when I checked my own armory), but unless you present your own definition, we might as well be arguing about burrowgroves being mimsy.

In regards to that particular parameter, I would say it contributes.
It's a definition very favorable to my proof, but let's try, "Difficulty is a ratio between of the number of incorrect moves which cannot be eliminated by a set of binary rules (which must be able to be applied within the time frame allowed for the decision) to the total number of moves remaining, where a move is only incorrect if it is impossible to return to the optimal path after making it."
For example, if If there are 40 possible moves, of which 34 are incorrect moves, and I can quickly eliminate 34 moves, of which 33 are incorrect (suppose that my system falsely eliminated one correct move) then the difficulty of that game (with that system applied) is 1/6.

If, after the obvious "wrong" moves are eliminated, you could arrive at a correct move >95% of the time by randomly selecting one of the remaining moves, then a challenge is "trivial."

[deneweth]

Nice read. I would say the entire idea of debating this is flawed since "trivial" is subjective and can't be quantified. Of course its trivial for people that don't have problems choosing the right heal, or selecting the right gear, or finding a good group etc. I would go as far to say that the majority of the challenge of healing doesn't come from healing itself, but the circumstances of the fight.

I've been working on my healing on my druid alt this week and did my first heroic. I barely made the gear requirement and probably even cheated a little due to some pvp gear I crafted that I didn't realize was in my bags. I got into a lost city group on the 2nd to last boss. The group was a premade from the same guild. They did very well but I was really strained for mana, every decision mattered and we ended up one shotting both bosses with me scraping by on mana just to keep everyone alive at the end of the fights. They said I did a good job and that the healer before me was much better geared but did a much worse job. If player skill plays any factor at all in performance how can healing be trivial? It obviously wasn't trivial for the healer that was with them for the wipe and left the group.


My main issue with the logic of the actual argument is as followed:

"4. If a challenge can be partitioned into a series of other challenges, the total difficulty of the challenge is equal to the difficulty of the hardest individual challenge (See: Combination of Challenges)."

This is simply not true. This assumes that each challenge is pass/fail only and if you can do it once you can always do it. Binary challenges such as "move before you're one shot" work on percent success rate. Each time that mechanic occurs each player subject to the challenge has to pass. No one will have a 100% pass rate. Some times you're distracted by another challenge or the results thereof or simply screw up. You might have an 90% success rate, but a fight where you have to overcome this challenge once will be greatly less challenging than a fight where you have to overcome this challenge 10 or more times. Other challenges like "get out of the fire" work on the same principle but will have different outcomes. Sometimes you get out of the fire before it even ticks, sometimes there's lag and you get a tick. While getting out of the fire isn't very challenging in and of itself, over the course of the fight, and combined with other things can make a much more challenging encounter. This can also effect the challenge of decision making. It might be the "right" decision to use your slow, efficient heal on a DPS player that is good at avoiding optional damage, but do you want to risk it with someone who isn't? You now have to decide between risking someone dying from avoidable damage or potentially running into mana issues later. There isn't a "right" answer for this because the rate of incoming damage is unknown.