So ignore comment 17 :-p

[...] off, of course Valithria doesn’t show up on Grid. However, thanks to Keeva’s awesome guide, I was prepared. Or at least semi-prepared – I didn’t know we were going to do [...]

WG will only heal the dragon for a tiny amount, and it’s not worth using that GCD for it. Yes, as another hot on the target it will boost Nourish again – but not enough to make it worth spending a GCD that could be used for another of our spells.
Keeva´s last blog ..Glyph of Rapid Rejuvenation and 25man raid healing

If Wild Growth is another instant-cast HoT, wouldn’t it have a better HPET than Nourish, or is my top-of-my-head guesstimate off base? It seems like it would also make Nourish 6% better with the glyph, too.

This assumes just LB and Nourish while LB is ticking and doesnt take into consideration rejuv every 12 secs

Fast stack LB = 1476592 healed over 130 secs

Roling LB (3 stack no bloom) = 1582438 healed over 134 secs with a single bloom at the end of the cycle

Slow LB = 1588994 over 134 secs (6k More than rolling over 134 secs)

based on this there isnt realy much difirence over the long term between Rolling LB and Slow stack LB (with Glyph)

I guess the benifit here for slow stack LB is the slighty improved healing and the Mana refund

over a 6 minute fight, this will be about 18k more healing done, definately worth having

Basic logic tells us that punching out a bunch of fast-stacked blooms in half the time of a slow stack will be better – I mean, it seems logical that 32k healing over 12 seconds is a better strategy than 43k healing over 24 seconds, because the HPS is substantially higher.

Remember though, it’s not about HPS here, it’s about HPET (Healing Per Execute Time). When you’re thinking like a DPSer, it’s the HPET that you have to focus on. How much healing you’re going to get out of your casts. The bang you’re getting for your buck.

Using your numbers, the slow stack is doing 43462 healing, and takes 3 seconds of execution time (3 casts). That’s 14487 HPET.

The fast stack is doing 32104 healing, and also takes 3 seconds of execution time (3 casts, just further apart). That’s 10701 HPET.

The HPS of the fast stack is higher, and at first glance looks more attractive than the lower HPS of the slow stack. But, for your same 3 GCDs, a slow stack will give you 43k total healing, while the fast stack will only give you 32k healing.

Again, it’s easy to think “Yeah, but it’s 32k healing in half the time, so in 24 seconds I could be doing 63k healing from fast stacking, instead of 43k from slow stacking!” – but it doesn’t work that way with HPET. Fast stacking will lock you into far more LB GCDs, where you really should be using them for higher HPET spells (again, getting more bang for your GCD buck). The HPET of a 3-HoT Nourish is higher than the HPET of a fast-stacked Lifebloom, so it is the better spell for your GCD cost.

You will get more healing out of slow stacking LB and Nourishing in between, than fast stacking Lifeblooms and locking yourself into a lot of LB GCDs.

This may seem to contradict what I said about it being wrong to want Rejuv to last 18 seconds because you could squeeze more Nourishes in between Rejuv refreshes. RR has a higher HPET than Nourish, so it’s the better choice of the two – recasting Rejuv is a GOOD thing in this case, and it’s not “wasting time that you could be Nourishing”. On the other hand, fast stacked Lifebloom has a lower HPET than Nourish, so having to recast it constantly is hurting your Nourish (and overall) output, because it IS wasting time that you could be Nourishing.

I hope that makes sense.
Keeva´s last blog ..Healers and Killing Blows