This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Healing Coefficient of Holy Nova
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
razzem
I can't find the healing coefficient for Holy Nova.
I'd really like to know what it is, seeing as the new Glyph will help add lots of healing to it, I'm wondering how much it will heal for in comparison to CoH.
Basically, I want to find out if even though it costs more, it will heal for more, because looking at the base numbers, it does.
Anyone know? It's not on wowwiki or hear, from what I hunted down.
Thanks
Post by
Shaelyaer
http://www.wowwiki.com/Spell_Damage_Coefficients
16% Coef. vs a 21% for CoH?
Post by
murakaz
http://www.wowwiki.com/Spell_Damage_Coefficients
16% Coef. vs a 21% for CoH?
Do note this is for each individual heal that lands, so its about 80% vs. 107% for the whole spell in an ideal situation.
Post by
HighFive
http://www.wowwiki.com/Spell_Damage_Coefficients
16% Coef. vs a 21% for CoH?
Do note this is for each individual heal that lands, so its about 80% vs. 107% for the whole spell in an ideal situation.Actually doesn't holy nova heal
all
raid members within 10 yards?
And this.
Post by
razzem
Yes, this is my point, Highfive. Potentially, you could pack a bunch of people in one area and point-blank HN for quite a bit, especial with the Glyph for HN having it heal for 40% more.
Just trying to see if HN could end up being viable if you do try for a DIsc/Holy hybrid with not enough points for CoH in holy.
Post by
HighFive
In encounters where both persistant raidwide damage and no cleave are present or Meteor-like abilities are used, HN may become viable.
Another thing that comes to mind is that 1.4*0.16=0.224, which is more than CoH's 0.214. Looks like HN will heal for more. However it costs more mana (I'll make a spreadsheet comparing hpm in a minute), has a shorter radius and you have to be next to the people you're healing.
Looks like CoH has more hpm than HN up to 10000 SP. (assuming 6 targets, no talents and critical chance not taken into consideration)
Unless I got something terribly wrong with the math.
I'll try to include talents later.
Post by
Shaelyaer
I doubt you can actually "completely" replace CoH with HN, for the simple fact that you need to be very close to the people you heal to cast HN, so no cross healing? Anyway seeing that HN will be a base ability now, so no longer worth a whole point you have all the freedom to use both with the same talent point investment as before! ;)
Post by
razzem
In encounters where both persistant raidwide damage and no cleave are present or Meteor-like abilities are used, HN may become viable.
Another thing that comes to mind is that 1.4*0.16=0.224, which is more than CoH's 0.214. Looks like HN will heal for more. However it costs more mana (I'll make a spreadsheet comparing hpm in a minute), has a shorter radius and you have to be next to the people you're healing.
Looks like CoH has more hpm than HN up to 10000 SP. (assuming 6 targets, no talents and critical chance not taken into consideration)
Unless I got something terribly wrong with the math.
I'll try to include talents later.
Don't forget the new Glyph of Holy Nova, that adds 40% +heal :D
No, I don't think that it can actually replace CoH due to the range thing... however, just think about it on fights like Nightbane. If you could get people to collapse for just a moment, you could have some great great great healing potency.
Probably not much for a holy priest to worry about, but perhaps if we see some Disc/Holy Hybrids surfacing, it sure could be.
Post by
HighFive
When healing the same amount of targets, Holy Nova results in slightly higher HPS, but notably lower HPM. I don't see HN being used unless in specific encounters.
I kind of steered off the topic though. The coefficients at wowwiki are not updated to WotLK. 1 point of +Healng is converted to 1.88 points of spell power. To compensate, the coefficients are also getting 1.88 times bigger. So 40.23% for CoH and 30.08% for HN (or 42.11% with the glyph).
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.