[Mage] TC after 2.3 - Page 16

Kavan · 10/26/07, 11:51 PM

Here's some data for Morogrim Tidewalker with arcane spells.

118 penetration, 84 hit rating, 14% hit
Full resist: 1
75% resist: 12
50% resist: 51
25% resist: 124
No resist: 902

118 penetration, 84 hit rating, 11% hit
Full resist: 1
75% resist: 14
50% resist: 66
25% resist: 147
No resist: 1004

138 penetration, 52 hit rating, 11% hit
Full resist: 5
75% resist: 3
50% resist: 46
25% resist: 80
No resist: 719

138 penetration, 52 hit rating, 10% hit
Full resist: 9
75% resist: 26
50% resist: 122
25% resist: 269
No resist: 1966

This and a lot more data like this doesn't give any evidence that normal bosses would fully resist as a result of innate level-based resistance. If you have any data to suggest otherwise I'd like to see it.

Here's a link to the last discussion about 24 vs 28: TBC Mage Theorycrafting

Zure · 10/27/07, 12:15 AM

Just a reminder, AV weekend is a great chance to gather data! Just use your test spell on Bal/Van/Galv/Drek, and an off spec spell for everything else.

Sancus · 10/27/07, 4:06 AM

just the overall chance for the 5.14% mitigation chance to give a full resist.

If you believe Blizzard's chart then it's impossible for 24 or 28 resist to be causing full resists.

A boss needs 350 resist to have 75% resist to your spells, vs 250 if you were level 50, so that means that if you adjust the table for resist-vs-level-70-spells, the first column is 70 resist, and yet still there are 0% full resists, and 0% chance to resist 100% of the damage even.

Now, it seems to me that you can prove whether 28 resist produces full resists or not pretty easily IF you assume that we know the correct formulas for hit chance. In this case, if you gather enough data for nuking level 73 bosses with *known spellhit ratings* you can subtract the expected number of full resists due to level from the actual number, and if you were consistently left with a certain number of unexplainable full resists, then you'd have found something.

How much data you would need to be sufficiently confident in proving though, I have no idea, since it's likely that, if 28 spell resist DOES produce full resists, it produces an extremely small amount of them.

frosty · 10/27/07, 6:47 AM

So i worked through the parses 03-06 again, checking my crit rates this time. I left out 01, 02, 07 and 08 b/c i had a Moonkin in my group there, and due to its limited range i definitely didn't have the critbonus full time.

03 - 282 crit rating - 584 int - 20.96% theoretical base crit chance - link: Frostbringer - WWS
04 - 299 - 575 - 21.63% - Frostbringer - WWS
05 - 299 - 575 - 21.63% - Frostbringer - WWS
06 - 300 - 571 - 21.62% - Frostbringer - WWS

Note: i read the int-based crit chance off the ingame tooltip, i.e. i put on gear with 584 int and used the 8.2% crit chance that was shown there, and then added 282/22.1 to get to 20.96% base chance excluding Emp. Frostbolt and Winter's Chill.

I left out Kazrogal, Council, Astromancer, Mother and RoS b/c i switched gear there. I also excluded Kael and Akama, b/c the ramp-up-time for WC is too high there. There is still ramp-up on Illidan, but all the parses were wipes, mostly in p2 i think, were ramp-up shouldn't have been a big deal - it's hardly an issue in p1 that is 35% of the fight, and you also only do it twice in p2 too.

Considering no ramp-up on WC you would expect something around 36.5% crit chance (~21.5% base + 5% emp fb + 10% WC), the result over the remaining boss fights (Azgalor, Archimonde, 8 Illidan Wipes (YAY), Alar, Voidreaver, Najentus, Supremus, 2* Gorefiend, Bloodboil) was however:

752 normal hits
481 crits
= 39%

That doesn't indicate, that Emp. Frostbolt is buggy. I'm actually wondering why it is even higher than expected.

Edit: I finally realized that i was using Molten Armor which explains it all. So the crit% in practice is pretty much where it should be.

Plankel · 10/27/07, 8:02 AM

Originally Posted by Hate Monkey

If a higher level mob is attacking you, you need higher stats to counter his attacks. But if you're attacking a higher level mob, you need higher to break through his stats. But for the higher level mob he does not need higher stats to counter your attacks. So your first argument is not valid as it uses the wrong logic.

uhm, that is completely wrong.

The amount of resistance you need for a certain lvl of mitigation is solely based on the level of the attacker. So if a lvl 50 mob attacks you and you have 50 resist (no matter what level you are), you will have 0% chance of a full resist

If a lvl 73 boss attacks you, you will need 365 resist to reach the resist cap, no matter what level you are. Against a lvl 70 the cap is 350 resist, against a lvl 67 it is 335 etc.

the 50 resist from the chart is equivalent to 70 resist at lvl 70. If blizzards table is correct and there is indeed 0% chance to have a resist on a target with 70 resistance, then it must be 0% as well for a target with 24 resistance.

And for your second one, thats for melee attacks which follow the Miss/Hit/Partial resist/Crit/Be dodge/parried stuff, it is not the same for casted spells, so that one has no meaning for what we want. That is because mob based spells can either Hit/Resist and in some cases Partial resist.

Blizzards data sheet is intented for resisting spelldamage and yet looking at that thread I see graphs which perfectly match with data blizzard provided us, with the following adaptions:

1 All 100% resists, are counted as 75% resist
2 Above 68% resist orso you will always partial resist the damage (not 1% full hits as blizzard said)
3 The average resist in not lineair increasing past 50% resistance and caps out at 70% resist

If we assume 1 and 2 to be characteristics of melee elemental damage, then we can explain reason 3 easily enough: your 100% resists are converted to 75% resists without compensation (except the 1% full hits).

If we assume all resist graphs are piecewise lineair between 0-25%, 25-50% and 50-75% resist and the data points blizzard gives us are correct I can think of two models for 100% resist between 0-25%:

Best case scenario:
- a flat 0, meaning they never happen till you reach 25% resistance

Worst case scenario:
- the resistance goes lineair from 0 at 0% to 0.49 at 15% (50 resist at lvl 50, blizzards first data point) This means that you get 0.168% full resists at 5.14% resistance (24 resist at 70) and 0.196% full resists at 6% resistance (28 at 70).

the boss will thus resist between 0 and 0.2% of your spells because of partial resist, this is low enough to be a non-problem when we are looking for a 3% difference.

Vhad · 10/27/07, 10:57 AM

Not to nitpick or anything, but there's always a 1% chance of a full resist. I've had Defias Pillagers resist my ice lance.

Hate Monkey · 10/27/07, 4:01 PM

Originally Posted by Plankel

uhm, that is completely wrong.

The amount of resistance you need for a certain lvl of mitigation is solely based on the level of the attacker. So if a lvl 50 mob attacks you and you have 50 resist (no matter what level you are), you will have 0% chance of a full resist

If a lvl 73 boss attacks you, you will need 365 resist to reach the resist cap, no matter what level you are. Against a lvl 70 the cap is 350 resist, against a lvl 67 it is 335 etc.

Maybe you didn't understand what I posted, but you just said the same thing as me, so I'll assume you just didn't comprehend my sentence.

the 50 resist from the chart is equivalent to 70 resist at lvl 70. If blizzards table is correct and there is indeed 0% chance to have a resist on a target with 70 resistance, then it must be 0% as well for a target with 24 resistance.

Blizzards data sheet is intented for resisting spelldamage and yet looking at that thread I see graphs which perfectly match with data blizzard provided us, with the following adaptions:

1 All 100% resists, are counted as 75% resist
2 Above 68% resist orso you will always partial resist the damage (not 1% full hits as blizzard said)
3 The average resist in not lineair increasing past 50% resistance and caps out at 70% resist

Couple problems here. First off the Blizzard's chart doesn't work for Binary spells. Second they say there is a difference between resisting 100% of the damage, and resisting the spell, and this is what we're trying to get to. When can you tell the difference. Third, that chart is for player vs player, all the examples are using the player based casting on a player for those numbers.

And as long as the chance to full resist based of resistance exists, it is a big enough problem to be concerned about.

Now to get back to where we were a bit ago, Elemental Precision really being bugged to grant 6% spell hit for frost. Need more testing and possibly bugged for fire too?

Plankel · 10/27/07, 4:45 PM

Originally Posted by Hate Monkey

Couple problems here. First off the Blizzard's chart doesn't work for Binary spells.

This made my jaw drop. Ofcourse a chart for partial resists does not work for binary spells. Binary spells also dont have the 5% (or 6) boss resistance, so I am at a total loss why you would bring this up.

Originally Posted by Hate Monkey

Second they say there is a difference between resisting 100% of the damage, and resisting the spell, and this is what we're trying to get to. When can you tell the difference.

You can't distinguish between these two in the game, only thing you can do is calculate the chance of them happening and account for that when you are looking at results from experimental testing. I don't see why that is a problem with what I posted though.

Originally Posted by Hate Monkey

Third, that chart is for player vs player, all the examples are using the player based casting on a player for those numbers.

and yet they match the data of of a mob hitting a tank with resistance gear. If elemental melee attacks use the same chart, then do you have any reason why mob magic attacks would not?

Originally Posted by Hate Monkey

And as long as the chance to full resist based of resistance exists, it is a big enough problem to be concerned about.

This sentence had me puzzled for a bit, but maybe I know what you are thinking. You think it there are 3 kinds of full resisted hits:

- full resist because you "miss" the boss
- full resist because the target "resists" the attack from resistance
- 100% of damage resisted from spell because of resistance.

For some reason you seem to think the last two are different, when they are in fact one and the same. I don't have a clue where you would get this idea from though, but it is the only reason I can see behind your post.

galzohar · 10/27/07, 5:06 PM

I can't really follow the 11 pages but after reading the initial post I have to say you're not going to be as mana efficient with frost as you will with fire if you're spccing 61 in frost. Clearcasts are requirered for frost to not get greatly beaten by fire's DPM, and IIRC even with clearcasts fire is slightly more mana efficient.

Hate Monkey · 10/27/07, 5:25 PM

Originally Posted by Plankel

This sentence had me puzzled for a bit, but maybe I know what you are thinking. You think it there are 3 kinds of full resisted hits:

- full resist because you "miss" the boss
- full resist because the target "resists" the attack from resistance
- 100% of damage resisted from spell because of resistance.

For some reason you seem to think the last two are different, when they are in fact one and the same. I don't have a clue where you would get this idea from though, but it is the only reason I can see behind your post.

Show me where I explicitly stated that please. I know they are the same, and I've said nothing to counter it.

And since when were we talking about attacks made against a tank, or melee elemental attacks? There are a few difference's: Mob based spells cannot crit, however melee elemental based attacks can crit, and so forth with the differences. You need to stop bringing in that part, it's not help us here.

As for the chart part, what I tried to imply was that only posting information about the non-binary spells doesn't help us with the problem at hand. We want the chance that the resistance a boss has, without funky resist levels, to fully resist a spell. And if the binary spell parts were to be stated, we wouldn't be talking about this right now.

Plankel · 10/27/07, 6:00 PM

Originally Posted by Hate Monkey

Show me where I explicitly stated that please. I know they are the same, and I've said nothing to counter it.

You never did, I just got that idea from reading your post. Good to know that was not the problem though

Originally Posted by Hate Monkey

And since when were we talking about attacks made against a tank, or melee elemental attacks? There are a few difference's: Mob based spells cannot crit, however melee elemental based attacks can crit, and so forth with the differences. You need to stop bringing in that part, it's not help us here.

I have brought in melee elemental attacks from the very start. I did so for a good reason: There is a lot of testing done with them and that testing showed how they work and they match the chart blizzard provided us with a few adaptions.

From that I assumed partly resisted spells work the same, only without the adaptions (seeing how the chart blizzard make was intented for spells in the first place). This seems a very reasonable assumption to me, unless you have some kind of evidence that it does not work that way?

About the crits, I made a typo there. I mean players casting spells on mobs and those can crit for sure. My bad.

Originally Posted by Hate Monkey

As for the chart part, what I tried to imply was that only posting information about the non-binary spells doesn't help us with the problem at hand. We want the chance that the resistance a boss has, without funky resist levels, to fully resist a spell. And if the binary spell parts were to be stated, we wouldn't be talking about this right now.

ehm.. binary spells are not effected by the 5% resistance the boss has. So the chance that a boss resists a binary spell because of his 24 (or 28 resistance) is 0. This has been common knowledge for ages and said at least 5 times in this thread.

Hate Monkey · 10/27/07, 6:08 PM

Originally Posted by Plankel

ehm.. binary spells are not effected by the 5% resistance the boss has. So the chance that a boss resists a binary spell because of his 24 (or 28 resistance) is 0. This has been common knowledge for ages and said at least 5 times in this thread.

Common knowledge? Must be why I've never seen the work done on it. Would you like to provide me with a link to show me it? Because as you should know, that with binary spells when you reach the resist "cap" you'll resist 75% of the attacks, or should.

One thing I keep forgetting to mention is the fact that melee elemental attacks cannot be fully resisted, normal hits that is. Thats the big difference there.

Plankel · 10/27/07, 6:39 PM

Originally Posted by Copernicus

The 5% boss resistance only happens with non-binary spells, and only happens with partial resists.

I don't think Blizzard has ever acknowledged it exists, unless you count the spell penetration that keeps popping up on PvE gear.

Originally Posted by Vontre

Frost has never been affected by partial resists, and I've always accounted for the 6% "buff" in damage relative to fire/arcane.

Two credibely posters in this thread.

Just look at any WWS frosty posted. If binary spells where effected by the 5% resistance the boss had he should have around 6% missrate or higher in all of them.

Kavan · 10/27/07, 6:45 PM

The latest tests I remember being done were by Yeonora (TBC Mage Theorycrafting), unfortunately the screenshots he posted aren't there anymore. But it's basically the same data as we are having here. That is if the hit chance is over/near the cap, the actual miss rate will be close to 1%, not 6-7% you would expect if binary was affected by level-based resistances.

If you want to claim that binary spells are affected by level-based resistances you would have to show that either:
1) level-based resistances are not the same for all spell schools (you can easily test this with partially resistable frost spells)
2) binary spells miss rate is not product of level based and resistance based miss (harder to test in pve, but I believe there were tests done regarding this in pvp)

So far I have no reason to believe that either of the two is true.

Plankel · 10/27/07, 6:48 PM

nvm, wrong button - delete please

chase · 10/27/07, 7:18 PM

Originally Posted by Plankel

Two credibely posters in this thread.

Just look at any WWS frosty posted. If binary spells where effected by the 5% resistance the boss had he should have around 6% missrate or higher in all of them.

The semantics of the english language and non-native speakers is hitting us hard here.

A boss has 24 (26?) resist from level difference.

For non-binary spells that means 5% of your damage will be mitigated by partials. (A full resist IS a partial resist. Resist and miss are different beasts, hence the semantics.)

What is up for debate is what exactly that 24 resist is doing with binary spells.

Group A) It is totally circumvented by binary spells and therefore can be ommited.
- The partial resists in 25%, 50%, 75% catagory can not happen, because frost is...well binary.
- The partial resist in the form of 100% resist can not happen because 24 resist doesn't allow for full resists in the weighted average table.

Group B) It is totally circumvented by binary spells and therefore can be ommited.
- The partial resists in 25%, 50%, 75% catagory can not happen, because frost is...well binary.
- The partial resist in the form of 100% resist can happen because 24 resist does allow a full resist in the weighted average table.

Therefore the difference in oppion is what is happening in the weighted average table.

Some are using PvP tables. Some are using melee PvE tables. Some are saying we have no clue on how level based resist tables are handled. Maybe in level based resist tables there is a weighted value for full resists.

I'm personally of the oppion that level based resistance can be left out of the discussion. If we see a larger amount of data supporting a lower hit cap for frost, and find that lower band than we can look into level based resist tables a bit further. To be looking at it now seems to be counter-productive at this point.

Muphrid · 10/27/07, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by chase

The semantics of the english language and non-native speakers is hitting us hard here.

A boss has 24 (26?) resist from level difference.

For non-binary spells that means 5% of your damage will be mitigated by partials. (A full resist IS a partial resist. Resist and miss are different beasts, hence the semantics.)

What is up for debate is what exactly that 24 resist is doing with binary spells.

Group A) It is totally circumvented by binary spells and therefore can be ommited.
- The partial resists in 25%, 50%, 75% catagory can not happen, because frost is...well binary.
- The partial resist in the form of 100% resist can not happen because 24 resist doesn't allow for full resists in the weighted average table.

Group B) It is totally circumvented by binary spells and therefore can be ommited.
- The partial resists in 25%, 50%, 75% catagory can not happen, because frost is...well binary.
- The partial resist in the form of 100% resist can happen because 24 resist does allow a full resist in the weighted average table.

Therefore the difference in oppion is what is happening in the weighted average table.

Some are using PvP tables. Some are using melee PvE tables. Some are saying we have no clue on how level based resist tables are handled. Maybe in level based resist tables there is a weighted value for full resists.

I'm personally of the oppion that level based resistance can be left out of the discussion. If we see a larger amount of data supporting a lower hit cap for frost, and find that lower band than we can look into level based resist tables a bit further. To be looking at it now seems to be counter-productive at this point.

In my mind, it seems clear we are not dealing with uniform resistance to all schools. Either we're dealing with different resistance to schools (something I consider unlikely, but certainly provable with Ice Lance), or we're dealing with something that is simply not really resistance as we know it, unless resistance works in ways not (to my knowledge) predicted by any theory of the stat, as it's supposed to (on paper) have uniform effects on long-run output regardless of binary or non-binary nature of the spell affected.

In short, unless it was already known that magic resistance has non-uniform effects on long-run output (and I'm just slow in hearing about it), I would say this effect is either evidence of that or evidence that it's not really boss "resistance" at all.

Gandalf · 10/28/07, 8:48 AM

I put my stats into: 2.3 Theorycraft

The values used (not inluding crit from talents, not including dmg from MM etc):

Int:550
Spi:250
Haste:0
Hit:Capped
Crit:18%
Damage:1100
Armor:Mage Armor
Dedeuff:COE,COS,Misery
Set Bonus:2xT5

The results (with AP, WE etc averaged):

Spec	Rotation	DPS	DPM
40/0/21	ABx3, Frostx3	1305	10.41
10/48/3	FBx8, Scorch	1294	14.06
33/28/0	ABx3, Scorchx4	1262	9.95
50/11/0	ABx3,AM,Scorch	1254	8.32
10/0/51 Frost		1202	14.30

I'm currently arcane and struggle a bit with mana due to lack of SP. If the above is true then I guess it's back to full fire for me in 2.3 - it seems the best DPS/DPM combo for long boss fights.

I'm a bit disappointed that arc is so low even with 2xT5. It should be higher DPS as a trade off for the horrible mana efficiency. Also ABx3, Frostx3 is highest DPS? Maybe there's a bug in the TC script?

Roywyn · 10/28/07, 9:28 AM

Originally Posted by Gandalf

Spec	Rotation	DPS	DPM
40/0/21	ABx3, Frostx3	1305	10.41
10/48/3	FBx8, Scorch	1294	14.06
33/28/0	ABx3, Scorchx4	1262	9.95
50/11/0	ABx3,AM,Scorch	1254	8.32
10/0/51 Frost		1202	14.30

I'm a bit disappointed that arc is so low even with 2xT5. It should be higher DPS as a trade off for the horrible mana efficiency. Also ABx3, Frostx3 is highest DPS? Maybe there's a bug in the TC script?

There are two issues.

- First, a 40/18/3 spec (with Master of Elements, leeching Imp. Scorch from another mage) is missing.
This spec with balanced gear and a 3*AB/2*Fiba will usually net you the highest damage from a 3*AB/X rotation. It is also more mana-efficient than 3*AB/AM/Sc, giving you more mana to dump via AB spam.

33/28/0 is an APPoMPyro spec mostly, going for 40 points in arcane (and losing some in fire) will weaken your fire spells a bit, but your AB damage will rise significantly, netting you more damage from rotations and AB spam.
40/18/3 would be better for AB/Fire rotations.

- Second, you have balanced gear. You said you're hitcapped. Great! Now drop 10% of it or regem to get more damage/crit/intellect, drop your weaker trinket for a TLC and then look at 3*AB/AM/Sc again.

This cycle is all about synergy effects. Most damage is arcane, so you can kick most of your +hit for other stats. You use 4 fast spells and 1 AM volley, this just screams for TLC.
Try to toy around with your stats and see if you can get more out of 50/11/0

On a totally different note:
Arcane scaling past T5 level gear blows. There are too few damage talents for it.

Gandalf · 10/28/07, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Roywyn

There are two issues.

- First, a 40/18/3 spec (with Master of Elements, leeching Imp. Scorch from another mage) is missing.
This spec with balanced gear and a 3*AB/2*Fiba will usually net you the highest damage from a 3*AB/X rotation. It is also more mana-efficient than 3*AB/AM/Sc, giving you more mana to dump via AB spam.

Thanks, I'll try that.

Originally Posted by Roywyn

- Second, you have balanced gear. You said you're hitcapped. Great! Now drop 10% of it or regem to get more damage/crit/intellect, drop your weaker trinket for a TLC and then look at 3*AB/AM/Sc again.

This cycle is all about synergy effects. Most damage is arcane, so you can kick most of your +hit for other stats. You use 4 fast spells and 1 AM volley, this just screams for TLC.
Try to toy around with your stats and see if you can get more out of 50/11/0

I dont need gems or trinkets to meet the hit cap due to +hit item budget. My best gear for each slot, such as Tirisfal Legs, Belt of Blasting, Boots of Blasting, Merciless Spellblade just happens to have a lot of +hit. I already use TLC and MSD in my current 50/11/0 spec.

Originally Posted by Roywyn

On a totally different note:
Arcane scaling past T5 level gear blows. There are too few damage talents for it.

Agree, I dont expect to use arcane beyond T5.

Rouncer · 10/28/07, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by Roywyn

There are two issues.

- First, a 40/18/3 spec (with Master of Elements, leeching Imp. Scorch from another mage) is missing.
This spec with balanced gear and a 3*AB/2*Fiba will usually net you the highest damage from a 3*AB/X rotation. It is also more mana-efficient than 3*AB/AM/Sc, giving you more mana to dump via AB spam.

.

One little issue with 40/18/3 specs in 2.3, if the latency fix actually ends up working then this spec won't work anymore as an option since 2xFB=6seconds and then with the Fully Debuffed AB casting in 1.5 you are too fast to lose the debuff before that AB completes.

40/0/21 seems to be the only spec in 2.3 that has a rotation that will work well with AB and that will allow some breathing room for even a tiny bit of haste gear.

Personally, I'm debating between a 10/0/51 or a 40/0/21 spec when the patch goes live and it will all depend on whether I get my 4T6 together in time or not (may even go 2/0/59 if mana turns out to not be much of an issue considering I get to use the new Mad Alch Pots).

Frostie · 10/28/07, 10:49 AM

Deep frost always seems quite attractive to me in 2.3 and I seriously consider it. Then I remember pushback and forget about it. I really go through that process at least twice a day. :p I refuse to wear 2 pieces of t4 on pushback fights and there's far too many of them, in my opinion, to really consider frost for a good all-purpose raiding build.

If frost magically got some pushback talents that didn't include ice barrier, I'd be all over that. But that's not happening.

2.2 arcane was as close to an all-encompassing spec as we've found. 2.3 fire won't be as versatile as 2.2 arcane but I believe it will better fit the role than 2.3 frost for BT at the very least. We'll have to see what Sunwell has in store for us.

zepi · 10/28/07, 10:51 AM

Is there a reason why 40/21/0 couldn't use Nx AB + 2x Fireball + Fireblast / Scorch as a cycle?

Gandalf · 10/28/07, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Rounced

One little issue with 40/18/3 specs in 2.3, if the latency fix actually ends up working then this spec won't work anymore as an option since 2xFB=6seconds and then with the Fully Debuffed AB casting in 1.5 you are too fast to lose the debuff before that AB completes.

If FB is only to be used inbetween ABs then I could spec impact instead of Imp Fireball since the faster casting time provides no benefit as you say.

Originally Posted by Rounced

40/0/21 seems to be the only spec in 2.3 that has a rotation that will work well with AB and that will allow some breathing room for even a tiny bit of haste gear.

The numbers posted agree with you. Also 40/0/21 has piercing ice (6% dmg) and ice shards but in 40/18/3 only ignite improves the dmg of fireball.

Frostx · 10/28/07, 3:21 PM

If you want to compare, here's my values using Lhivera's.

Stats used (used my arcane gear for all specs, not optimal for non-arcane but i wanted to keep things consistent):

Intellect: 513
Spirit: 281
Haste: 39
Hit: 70
Crit: 21%
Arcane Damage: 1113
Fire Damage: 1063
Frost Damage: 1063
Armor: Mage Armor
Debuffs: COE, COS, Misery
Set Bonus: 2pc T5

WE/AP etc all averaged

Spec		Rotation				DPS		DPM
43/0/0+18	Arc Blast x3 / Arc Missiles + 2 Sc	1,223.70	8.54
33/28/0		Arc Blast x3 / Scorch x4		1,190.45	9.49
40/0/19+2	Arc Blast x3 / Frostbolt x3 		1,245.39	9.81
10/47/3+1	Fireball x8 / Scorch x1			1,227.20	13.30
10/0/48+3	Frostbolt + Waterbolt			1,145.19	13.41
0/0/48+13	Frostbolt + Waterbolt			1,145.19	11.86

I guess arcane kinda let me down here, even with arcane gear, the traditional Fire build and surprisingly, 40/0/21 build outdps'd and outdpm'd my current deep arcane. Considering that i can still vastly improve my gear in terms of Fire and Frost specs, this is really disappointing. I would go back to fire in 2.3 even with my crappy amount of +hit if not for Illidan p2. Fire looks set to be -the- spec again come Sunwell though, barring a(nother) "well" designed encounter with Fire immune mobs.