Major change to Lifebloom? Please explain.

#0 - Feb. 27, 2009, 7:08 p.m.
Blizzard Post
Once again, from EU forums:

• Lifebloom: Mana cost of all ranks doubled. When Lifebloom blooms or is dispelled, it now refunds half the base mana cost of the spell per application of Lifebloom, and the heal effect is multiplied by the number of applications.

This looks to many like a giant nerf to single-target (tank) healing for druids.

I'll wait to hear from the devs before settling on an opinion. I started a new thread because the existing one(s) were tainted by QQ and flaming and Ghostcrawler expressed reluctance to participate.

Discuss, but please leave the QQ and flaming out of the thread. Be respectful so that we might get a bit of info on the reasoning behind this.

Ball's in your court, GC.
#27 - Feb. 27, 2009, 8:31 p.m.
Blizzard Post
Rolling Lifeblooms on 2-3 tanks is just hands down one of the most -- probably the most -- efficient heals in the game. We didn't want to nerf the amount Lifebloom heals, but we were concerned druids would jump to the top of the healer stack pretty quickly with the recent mana changes.

We added the bonus to the bloom to improve its use in PvP, where you can't always keep 3 stacks rolling, and for say throwing a single spell on a rogue where you don't plan on keeping it rolling.

Keep in mind that yanking the hot removal of DKs is also a druid buff for PvP.

Edit: I meant to add that we discussed getting the same effect by having the 2nd or 3rd application of the spell on the same target increase in mana cost. But that becomes pretty complex to explain in a tooltip and might be too mathy for quick calculations when deciding whether you want to roll blooms or not.
#50 - Feb. 27, 2009, 8:45 p.m.
Blizzard Post
Q u o t e:
Are druids intended to continue to roll lifeblooms in PvE and just consume mana faster, or is there an intention to change druid healing style away from LB rolling?


No, we think rolling is a fun part of the spell. It's just too efficient and makes Lifebloom the best heal per second and heal per mana. We don't want you to change the way you use the spell, at least in terms of single tank healing. The bonus on a bloom or dispel is just supposed to be a bonus.

If the numbers aren't right, we'll continue to tweak them. It may be that the cost needed to go up by 75% instead of 100% for example.

Q u o t e:
It's pretty clear that they don't want us to roll LBs on multiple targets.


No, that's fine behavior. We just don't want it to be very efficient to do so.
#62 - Feb. 27, 2009, 8:49 p.m.
Blizzard Post
Q u o t e:
My rejuvenation heals for about as much as a full lifebloom stack if none of it goes to overhealing, and it's swiftmendable. Is Rejuvenation next?


Rejuv is great for is efficiency. That's why you want to cast it. But with such a long duration and a three second tick, it's never going to be a great single-target heal. It's awesome for having a little extra cushion or keeping folks topped off.
#92 - Feb. 27, 2009, 9 p.m.
Blizzard Post
Q u o t e:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q u o t e:


Will it be possible though to still roll lifebloom on 2-3 tanks? Or will it only be possible for 1 tank at the most.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Of course it will be possible, it'll just be twice as expensive.


Exactly.

Now it does potentially give you a new healing style, where perhaps you roll the 3 stacks on the MT but do 3 stacks and let it bloom on the OT. You can imagine a Patchwerk scenario where the MT is taking damage consistently and the OT takes it in bursts. The traditional roll is more expensive, but keeps the healing per second high and consistent. Allowing for a bloom is more mana efficient at the expense of having the hot up 100% of the time.

We have done a lot of calculations on this, but we also need to see how it plays out in Ulduar on the PTR in a real raid scenario, as well as seeing if any theorycrafters can poke holes in the model.
#134 - Feb. 27, 2009, 9:16 p.m.
Blizzard Post
Q u o t e:
We can't control the Bloom.


If you stop casting after 3 stacks, it will bloom.
#145 - Feb. 27, 2009, 9:18 p.m.
Blizzard Post
Q u o t e:
GC, if you're still around, can you confirm whether or not the mana return is a static value or not? As in, is it always calculated off of the base untalented cost, or does it take into account all talents and buffs (such as tree)? The first way is the way I hope it's implemented.


It is the first way. You can game it a little.
#197 - Feb. 27, 2009, 9:32 p.m.
Blizzard Post
Q u o t e:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q u o t e:


If you stop casting after 3 stacks, it will bloom.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oooh, sarcasm! That's original!


Apologies. It wasn't intended as a sarcastic response. I can time Lifebloom on say Loatheb or Maexxna to bloom at the right time. I think all the time about whether to renew a LB or not on non MTs.

I know everyone has their own experiences, so that isn't a particularly strong argument, but it seems like there might be some potential that letting Lifebloom bloom might be an interesting decision.

Again, that was not the main intent of the change however, just a thought that some players suggested. The main intent was to make it not so mana efficient when rolling.
#416 - Feb. 28, 2009, 7:05 a.m.
Blizzard Post
Q u o t e:
Sorry another reply the thread got alot of activity while I was writing my last one. I dont see any situation where I would favor the healing strategy of building a 3 stack specificly to let it bloom. To make use of said style you would need to predict a damage spike 9-10s in the future. OK sometimes you can do that but save that thought. Now assuming you accurately predicted the timeing of the spike you just spent 3X900ish mana for 9 ticks of a hot that may or may not be overheal during that time for an ~8-9k heal.


Okay, if you don’t think it will work out for you, just roll them on the tank like you are used to. It will be more expensive, so you might run out of mana if you do that on 2 or 3 tanks. As I said, some players (on another forum I believe) suggested that there might be a strategy to let it bloom on purpose sometimes and we thought that was interesting so I thought I would mention it.

Q u o t e:
And those are about the only two really solid examples that illustrate that because of how predictable the timing is.

Do you use bigwigs or dbm or some other boss helper mod when you raid? I'm curious. I wonder if you have a bar counting down to the next web spray or to when the necrotic aura will go away.


I don't think it's helpful to make too big a deal of my own experiences, because everyone has antecdotal data. I do try and play with and without mods, just to get the experience of what the game is like in both situations. I think our default raid UI could be improved to make healing less mod-dependent. (We like mods, but they should feel optional.)

Q u o t e:
________________________________________
Q u o t e:


No, if you double-purge Lifebloom it will cause TWO a double-bloom, now.
________________________________________


No, purging lifebloom removes applications, not the entire stack.

Purging a 3-stack causes it to become a 1-stack, with no bloom.


The implementation we discussed was that if you remove 2 from the stack of 3 that those 2 will bloom. The remaining 1 will bloom eventually if you don't stack it up again.

Q u o t e:
Since efficiency is down by a factor of 2 and rolling multiple stacks is no longer a no brainer (I believe that was your goal), you might want to consider shifting some part of the bloom back into the HoT. LB was also a reasonable raid healing spell due to its low cost and fast HoT but the doubling makes it much less appealing given the low HoT output since the bloom typically overheals by a massive amount. By moving some of the bloom into the HoT, the value for raid healing will be partially restored. Upping the HoT by say 50% will still result in 25% reduction in HoT efficiency but it will become much more attractive and useful for raid healing.


Yes that was our goal, and that is not a bad suggestion. There have been several good suggestions in this thread. (And some flamers too, but those people are gone.)

Q u o t e:
This is the problem. The current numbers show that Nourish is now as efficient with regards to HPM as a 3xLB stack. Lifebloom will effectively lose its niche if the change goes through.


I said above that we don’t want Lifebloom to be both the highest HPM and HPS spell available. We do want efficiency to matter more than it currently does on live, but you still need to keep the raid alive in the short term too.

Nevertheless, I also said above that if the price becomes so steep that the spell becomes unattractive, then we can try the spell at 75 or 80% more expensive rather than 100%. Maybe less. But we haven’t seen enough theorycrafting yet to convince us that is the case and certainly not enough Ulduar healing yet.

Q u o t e:
If we are supposed to be rolling them like you said GC then whats the point of the return bonus?


To acknowledge that you can’t always roll them. Sometimes rolling isn’t needed. Sometimes you have to do something else, like heal another player or run away. This is especially true in PvP where you aren’t just rolling 3 stacks on the whole team constantly.

Q u o t e:
the fact that there will always be gear upgrades means that eventually all healers will ALWAYS hit a point of near infinite mana.


Well sure, but we don’t have to worry about eventually. We only have to worry about a few more tiers. A lot of the game will collapse if players are running around with gigantic mana pools and 300 Int but casting the same old ranks of spells. I point this out only because it’s an argument that comes up a lot on the forums. “Our spells don’t scale as well, so eventually our competitor class will pass us by.” Well, yeah, but it’s irrelevant if that happens only at 10,000 spellpower.
#948 - March 3, 2009, 9:40 p.m.
Blizzard Post
1) I am still reading. I read all of these threads.

2) I would never suggest trying to turn length of a thread or attitude of the posters into any kind of meaningful statistic (as some posters suggested). Inevitably, the thing that will persuade us is the strength of your arguments.

3) Here is the standard caveat not to post insulting, mindless or uselss replies that will get you banned.

4) Remember our stated goals. In PvE the goal was to make rolling Lifeblooms on tanks more expensive. We didn't nerf the amount healed by the spell. Currently, rolling LBs + Rejuv on a tank can be as much healing as a priest or paladin who is just spamming all of their heals on the tank. That is a totally fine thing for a druid to be able to do. But currently the druid can do all of that on more than one tank AND also add in some raid healing. That is just too good. We're cool with rolling LBs on a tank and raid healing. We're cool rolling LBs on two tanks. But once you are rolling LBs on 2 (or 3!) tanks and have enough mana left over for a lot of other raid heals, then you are just too efficient a healer. I understand not all of you were able to do that. But many players were.

5) In PvP we realize that the goal may be to keep rolling LBs on as many players as possible, but realistically there are lot of situations where you are going to fail to do that (dispels, CC and LOS to name a few). In those cases, LB will now heal for more and your overall cost for Lifebloom will be about the same as it is now (and it might possibly be a buff in tree form). For those druids who really could keep 3 LBs rolling on multiple targets in Arenas, it will be a nerf, but it is probably a nerf that was needed anyway from a mana-per-heal standpoint. We think Resto druids are under-represented in Arenas at the moment. We don't think the way to improve that is by letting Lifebloom rolling heal for an amount we feel is unbalanced.

6) Once we get the PTR updated, get out there and try it out.