sig1043

I can't remember off the top of my head, but if you are at full health and use a healing spell that normally heals for 500, what will show up on the heal parse? Do the game mechanics register that heal as 0?

The reason I ask is because I got

\aITEM -774663725 887937912:Demonstration of Frigid Will\/a the other night and wondered if I could test how much it heals for on a training dummy.

Slippery

Pretty sure it won't show on the parse at all.

Edit: However, there might still be an emote for it.

mafoe

Overheals don't show on the heal parse. Any heal spell that doesnt heal is completely ignored, while heals that partially heal (to max health) are put into the logs only with the amount that they actually healed for.

__________________

Sioned

Yep - that is the bane of druids - a great deal of our heals are wasted unlike shamans and clerics

EQAditu

Heh, don't lump us(clerics) in with Shaman so easily for wasted healing. At least when you put regens on someone that need healing, you know your spell is going to heal them instead of just expiring. A reactive... who knows. But since this is more what you were getting at... reactives are plenty wasted on full health people that have wards. But we are preemtive healers, so we must cast them on full health people anyways.

Sylvanking

All healers potentially cast on full health people, pre-heals are useful for all healers in many situations. Cleric and shaman getting the most out of it but druids certainly use that method as well.

I don't know what you are talking about as far as people lumping (you) clerics in with shaman because wards and reactives are very similar in the way they function.

Druids really are the odd man out with regens/heal over time and the way they function. Casting times and such are supposed to balance all the healers but it is fairly obvious who the superior healing classes are.

Basically heal parses never tell the whole story.

__________________

http://sylvanking.mybrute.com
Resume' over 10 years experience - MUD Gemstone3, EQ1,EQ2 present,Guildwars,Vanguard,CoH/CoV,AoC,WoW,CO,LoN and many others...credible? Probably not.

EQAditu

So would you be willing to admit that only shaman can consistently get the most out of their specialty heals regardless of if it is a preheal or not?

I'm saying don't group us together just because half of the mechanics are the same. Wards and reactives heal upon damage taken. Reactives and regens can only heal damage that is below maximum health. There, I just grouped clerics with both parties... so I'd like it if you didn't only give a one sided analysis.

All three specialty heals are different in how you should cast them and how they can heal. We're all separate. Plainly, if you cast a ward, reactive and a regen all on the same target... they are all going to conflict with each other except for the ward. But the ward numerically does the least... if you wish to call out a balance point.

Even though it's an extremist view... I have always said that encounter level heal parses are just about useless on raids to determine healing strength.

mafoe

Without wanting to sound too rude, you have no clue how useless reactives are. Especially before the templar mythical revamp that made reactives bigger.

The bane with reactives is: incoming damage usually is either much higher than one reactive, providing a measly protection at best, or smaller than the reactive, providing an overkill that usually goes into overheal. Reactives often time out before they're used up, and all that pretty remaining healing power goes to waste.

Without Repent, templars would have no chance to (directly) heal for the same as druids (and they dont, anyway). Druids are in that respect the superior healing classes due to their hots being better than reactives. Reactives are the most inferior special heals of all healing classes. Templars are just lucky to have their arsenal of buffs and lotto heals and other tricks.

__________________

EQAditu

When debating mechanics in general, it's important to understand the giant differences between group situations and raid situations. Many of the points discussed here change depending on which of those we're talking about. The "bane of reactives" that mafoe speaks of is in reference to raid mobs hitting for like 10k and a reactive healing for 1.5k. Of course if you go into a group situation, we're much better off and where we are primarily balanced towards. You can't say that clerics are directly balanced for group situations or people wouldn't say we're overpowered group healers. We're somewhere in the middle and the way that reactives work, they cannot be balanced for both.

In this mechanic, all three healing types are still different. Wards don't care how hard or how often something hits. Regens only care that there is healing to be done every tick. Reactives care how often something hits in order to heal and they don't like that one hit to be too large.

In the mechanic that we were discussing in previous posts, wards always heal damage done, reactives heal next and regens heal what is left as long as people don't direct heal too quickly.

Both of those mechanic explanations make wards sound like the best off and is of course why they numerically heal for the least out of the three types. Regens are second or third and thus are tied or have the highest numerical value(reactives get capped surprisingly low on +heal).

I'll debate healing mechanics all day long with those that wish to, but I'll be clear right now that you have to keep an open mind that there are many situations that could cause certain points to be completely opposite.

Slippery

My reactives generally heal for dick all on raids while in the mt group Reactives do much better without a shaman in group.