Cornelium

Fire AOE is going towards an incredible burst of damage in 1 second, but horrid stable DPS.
Cast WiF, then start casting FS to time it with WiF explosion. When FS casting is over, cast BW. 3 aoe spells at the very same time.
Problem is, what to do at this point? You will be right in the middle of the enemy pack so DB is not a viable option. And the aggro generation (expecially considering the spiky nature of fire) will have too high a peak for tanks to mantain it.

Make love, not war!

 

Gediablo

People are going off topic here comparing current mage fire and arcane specs with current warlock specs for AoE. Let us assume that people reading this thread at least have some basic insight in AoE strengths and weaknesses. Arguing that AE got low threat and good sustainable damage as arcane, that fire is more treat and decent burst damage, and that warlock raid AoE damage got very high burst, but depends more on other classes CC and extra healing isn't exactly new information. If you want to debate this here, do it with the purpose of analyzing how the new talents and skills for both mages and other classes will change the play-style and/or balance, instead of just repeating stuff already concluded during the TBC beta.

What you should argue is whether the talent trees and new skills makes sense overall, so all specs will have some strengths and weaknesses ahead of others and whether it will be worth aiming for more than 1 mage pr raid for either synergies, utility or raw damage. What this debate needs most of all is a list from Blizzard of strengths and weaknesses from each talent tree for all classes both as a comparison between the mage talent trees but also compare to other classes. The goal should be to NEED to bring a minimum of 2 of all classes pr 25 raid and that bringing more than 3 of any class should be a gimp. For arena PvP it is fine that 1 spec is superior to the other 2, it is like that for most classes, but that spec ofc has to be weaker in other areas - having 90+% of the players of a class being the same spec is failed (like paladins pre-TBC).

 

Selun

And so at that point you'll use Frost Nova and have a Deathknight ready with his Howling Blast to retake aggro on them, if there are mobs still standing when you'll have 3 mages doing this. If that's the case then we're looking at AoE adds/trash with low HP that are to be disposed of really quick if you bring mages to your raid otherwise taking alot more time to do with the other classes various AoE spells they get and maybe hit an enrage timer or something without enough burst AoE.

What I see is that they're trying to shape a role for pure dps specs too, whereas so far pure dps classes don't have a good defined role other than single target dps and some various buffs/debuffs. I hope that this new classify of the mage specs with the various roles and performances during x, y and z encounters would be ok and we won't be seeing people respec for x fight then respec for y and again respec for z fight. And when I say that there's no other need to have a spec focused on AoE dmg, it's because there isn't such a fight that the best single target's spec AoE dmg is THAT low to make a difference throughout the fight.

 

Pintofbrew

While it may be common knowledge there's clear disparity in opinion, and the discussion can be expanded to include all relevant WotLK talents. The argument was not WotLK specific, nor was it BC specific.

There is very little difference between live and WotLK AoE currently, so appeals to focus on specific WotLK without tanking BC into account are as it were pointless.

Stating that "all specs will have some strengths and weaknesses" is like stating "today the sun will rise". It's self-evident purely based on "all specs are not identical". I'd assumed that by page 54 the discussions on "making sense" have resolved themselves, as anyone and their paralytic grandmother have voiced their opinion up to now, from great analyses to "gg blizz, i'm rerolling (random class)".

I fail to see how the AoE debate is not a valid point of discussion here, particularly when AoE is to be the fore-front of our class design, and we're arguing whether or not it, in fact, is. I'm sorry if you feel my thesis does not follow your exact guidelines of how a post should be formed, or conform to your opinion of what constitutes WotLK discussion or not, but whether or not we're "kings of AoE" as we've been promised is very much relevant to WotLK in my view and understanding the underlying mechanics which (with the exception of Living Flame) are already here are key to it.

 

Gediablo

Ok, let me clarify what I meant. I didn't mean "that all specs are not identical so it is WAI". I meant that no spec is, nor should it be, the best at everything AND that all specs should have an importent niche at which it is the best at what it is specialized in. If that means frost=PvP, arcane = 5-10 man content, fire = 25 man content it is fine. If it means frost = cc, arcane = burst and utility and fire = sustainable single target dps that is fine too. If mage Aoe is more damage than warlock Aoe, fine as long as warlocks are needed for something else. If warlock AoE is supposed to better higher AoE that is fine too as long as mages gets something else (maybe lay off blue comments like mages being King of AoE then ). Personally I think mage AoE is and will be better stand alone, but that warlock AoE is capable of taking over just fine in all situations - and I don't want to change that. If they nerf warlock AoE too much they cannot add heavy AoE encounters in 10 man PvE raids, where STRONG AoE is needed (for more than saving a minute here and there on trash). 10 man raids should be doable with 2 warlocks instead of 1 warlock and 1 mage, just as it should be doable with 2 mages - I'm not threatened by shadowpriest AoE and whatever new weak AoE is out there - fine that all classes can feel they help instead of getting some easy bio-break time.

As long as all specs have a valid role it is fine - if arcane's role is supposed to be "superior at conjuring food, water and portals faster" that isn't a valid role. If they are supposed to be able to deal out huge damage in short fights, but be weak in longer fights that is a valid role (as long as those encounters exists). What I lack from Blizzard is a long needed update on the class descriptions from the manual at the character creation screen. I would very much like a spell tree description for all classes - something like this for warriors (I use warriors since it is easier to make this description for them. This is how they could be for WotLK, not how they actually are today):

- Protection: Best all round PvE tank spec. Offer lots of possibilities to save you and your teammates, but with only limited aggressive abilities.
- Arms: Face to face combat tree. Ideal for combats where you are looking in the eyes of your opponent whether it is grinding or PvP. The extra burst damage potential comes at the cost of lack of tanking abilities compared to the other warrior talent trees.
- Fury: The favorite PvE damage spec when others are taking the damage, with solid off-tanking potential on adds. Offers strong group buffs for extra damage. Dps-tank hybrid good for PvE raiding and grinding, but not ideal for high-end maintanking or PvP.

Whenever someone see Blizzard adding a talent that is a boost to PvP or PvE for some tree people too often conclude that Blizzard aim to make all talent-trees equal for PvE and/or PvP. I hate that conclusion. When imp. Blink was announced many people were yelling that Arcane was going to be supreme in PvP. Same with Molten Shields. People are doing the same with Winter's Grasp and Living Bomb now. Maybe it will change the balance of the trees. Maybe not. The hardest question which so far can only be speculation is whether it SHOULD change the balance - we cannot answer that, only Blizzard can. And they most likely will not do that, since putting words on it makes someone feel angry and neglected (remember the secret "Cool Guy" description to warlock, and how many non-warlocks whined about that?) . But without the intended strengths and weaknesses defined by Blizzard it is hard to argue whether the new talents are underpowered, overpowered or balanced.

Until I see otherwise I'll assume that Blizzard generally is happy with the talent trees balance for all classes atm in TBC - and with that in mind I assume that overall the goal of the WotLK balance will be to keep the same balance. A "pure dps class" like mages, which cannot tank or heal no matter spec, is of cause going to have 3 dps specs, and will be able to deal acceptable damage anywhere where damage is needed - the trick is to find a way to make all these 3 talent trees have a significant way of dealing damage, so that they all will be the preferred spec in some situations.

That people in this thread so far hasn't been able to clearly proclaim 1 spec to be a clear winner regarding damage in most situations, I take as a very good sign. The worst part about what I have seen here so far, is the lack of "new toys", and instead just new colored bolts and talents boosting current spells.

 

Pintofbrew

Everything you say about AoE, I've discussed a few posts above, half of what you say about it is wrong. Warlock AoE can't "take over just fine", I just demonstrated that. I never was debating who should and who shouldn't AoE, I believe as many as possible should AoE, I was responding to false claims about warlocks being superior.

Your statement "If that means frost=PvP, arcane = 5-10 man content, fire = 25 man content it is fine." is wrong. Blizzard have clearly demonstrated the desire to diversify in every single possible context in the Alpha files. All trees which were considered "standard" for only PvP or PvE context gain what is arguably more PvE/P talents respectively; Fiery Payback is clearly PvP-oriented, Stay of Execution is clearly PvP oriented, Infected Wounds is equally PvP as it is PvE.

I don't get your point about "all specs having a valid role". What's your point? Stating the obvious, that no player, developer, or sentient being would want a spec that's "superior at conjuring food" is self-evident and not, in fact, discussion. It's a statement which is a general truth. Just like "everyone should have equal rights". Your description about warriors betrays your lack of knowledge on them. Arms is currently, and depending on how Trauma and Blood Frenzy affect the game, will be in WotLK a very valid indeed PvE spec. You insist about segmenting classes into "roles" when we know this is the exact opposite of what blizzard intends.

Nobody manages to "clearly proclaim 1 spec to be clear winner regarding damage in most situations". No shit, we're working on talents and certain spells up to lvl 75, in a raiding environment that (1) hasn't finished development yet (2) we haven't seen. I don't see how you can call that anything aside "obvious".

 

Gediablo

Who are you talking to? What I said about warlocks AoE damage discussion was that it didn't matter if mage or warlock dps is capable of doing most damage - the point was that every class should be needed in raids. To me personally it makes more sense that mages got the best AoE and warlocks the best debuffs, but that is really irrelevant. Your argument that warlocks only got SoC as AoE tool is wrong, just as your claim that it is impossible to replace mage AoE'ers with warlock AoE'ers. Tell me 1 fights where that isn't possible. Felmyst? Just wait a bit longer with AoE and it is fine.

I 100% agree that no spec is 100% one thing or another. All talent trees for all classes got some PvE and PvP touch in them, and naturally all the new talents in all trees are balanced the same way. But that doesn't change the fact the some trees are just better for stuff than other trees, and Blizzard doesn't intend to make all trees equally viable for everything, even when they put in these clearly PvP minded talents in talent trees mostly regarded as PvE talents. How I read you last post is that you honestly believe Blizzard intends to try and make all 3 mage talent trees equally viable in PvE and PvP (Correct me if I'm wrong). That simply isn't true.

Not long ago I read a comment that Blizzard was aware that retri-palas (and ofc prot-palas) wasn't well represented in high ranked arena teams. Blizzard clearly said that it was the overall class balance that mattered to them, and due to holy palas representation in 5 vs 5 they didn't consider it much of a problem. Yes, they want all specs to have some sort of PvP role, but the goal isn't to make the talent trees equally good for it - same for PvE. The seems to be closer to something like "be able to do anything in the game with at least moderate success without respeccing". All specs should be able to grind, all should be able to have some fun in PvP content and all should be able to perform a role in PvE. But that doesn't change the fact that holy priests suck at grinding compared to shadowpriests, that arms warriors are superior to prot warriors in most PvP situations, that resto shamans are superior in PvE compared to elemental shamans. If fireballs hitted for twice the damage, but all the other fire damage spells were removed fire would be strong in many PvE situations, but would be unplayable in PvP. Luckily that isn't the case. But that doesn't mean fire is nowhere near as strong as frost for PvP.

Do you honestly believe that all 3 talent trees are going to nearly equally strong in all PvE and PvP situations? Of cause they won't. And I'm fine with that as long as all 3 trees got an important niche in which they shine supreme to the other specs. If not they end up as dead specs and that is pure failure.

 

Lhivera

Blizzard is willing to accept that they cannot achieve perfect parity between all trees in PvE and PvP. This is very different from them not trying to approach parity as nearly as is reasonably possible given the difficulties involved and the limitations on programming time, which they are clearly doing. Nor, it appears to me, are they in any way balancing the different content types against each other -- they do not seem to be taking an approach that says, "Well, Fire is weaker in PvP, therefore we will make Frost be weaker in PvE." They simply have had more success in improving Frost for PvE without overpowering it in PvP than they have in improving Fire for PvP without overpowering it for PvE (and yes, I believe there's still room for improvement, and no reason to expect they don't intend to make further improvement).

And this is good. Because while, yes, each tree should have a niche within it shines, "PvE" and "PvP" are not niches. They are vast swaths of content.

 

Sorcerer

Reallity is somewhat different. It clearly showed warlocks are superior in many situations but i think we miss the point with aoe synergy, mages can aoe slow mobs, incacipate and root them allowing locks to actually do their job.
Myself never really bothered to do real aoe (ill put hyjal as example) beside when i was pvp speced with imp.blizzard + frostbite, without it my goal was to control the mobs, to keep mobs in place aswell as frostnova/CoC chains where warlocks could not worry about getting insta gibbed if someone didn't do aoe taunt.

 

◊ Vontre

I'm with Sancus here, and the forest for the trees in this whole debate comes down to, once again, the mana regeneration. Evocation should simply not have a cooldown, if we want to maintain any parity with warlocks. My simulations indicate that an arcane mage spamming blast and then stopping to evocate whenever he's oom still does less dps than a fire mage. It's somewhat nonsensical that we're the only pure dps class that will run completely dry if we have to fight too long or do too much aoe.

In regards to WLK, the new fire aoe talents are pretty idiotic. Unless they are making a huge shift to tiny adds that need to be aoe bursted down, which we've seen very little of, fire aoe is not viable in the slightest. It's mana efficient, sure, but the spike agro and melee range are a death sentence. Though come to think of it, burnout will rape our mana pool on basically every fire aoe cast, so the mana efficiency is somewhat lost as well.

I basically rolled a new mage because of the new ice talents and the promise of Deathknight synergy. If that ends up not working out, I'm switching to something else.

www.magegraf.com

Raiding is full of challenge. Sometimes there is fire. You have to not be in the fire.

"We agree with Communism." - Greg Street 2009

 

Deedre

Regarding mana efficiency, a lot of that is going to ultimately depend on itemization that we really have no idea about at present.

Also, mages of all specs (not just arcane) may have to get used to the idea that mage armor is going to be the default raiding option, unlike molten on live. If Blizzard piles on the spirit we are all of us simply going to be forced into taking advantage of it. And as Pint pointed out uptopic, clearcasting and arcane meditation are options here as well.

 

◊ Vontre

Hell I already use mage armor on most aoe encounters. This doesn't change the fact that we have a finite limit on the amount of overall damage, not dps, that we can output, and that limit can be reached easily on many current encounters. It's a poor balancing mechanic because it's way too situational.

Besides, if blizzard 'piles on the spirit', that's going to cost us damage stats that will again gimp our dps (or more likely convince us to take offspec loot, just like at level 60).

www.magegraf.com

Raiding is full of challenge. Sometimes there is fire. You have to not be in the fire.

"We agree with Communism." - Greg Street 2009

 

Deedre

Vontre, the thing to keep in mind here is that all clothies are going to be sharing drops with this new itemization. If it costs us damage stats, it's costing everyone else as well. And I really do think Blizz is dead set on pushing spirit.

It's hard to say what offspec loot really looks like or even what that means in this new system. I can see tailoring looking very attractive in this new system if it becomes the real source of specialized cloth gear, but then again, Blizzard probably doesn't want to repeat the whole spellfire/spellstrike fiasco.

 

◊ Vontre

Blizzard also isn't going to homogenize itemization to the point where damage gear isn't there. We'll just end up picking up blue items and doing more dps if we have to, that's how it works. You can't push a bad stat unless it's stacked on literally every piece of gear in the game, or matched to some ridiculously good set bonus. The alternative, of course, is to make the stat actually good, but we need a lot more than just 'mana regen'. The answer to low mana pools is to have everyone just spec ice. Efficiency always wins.

www.magegraf.com

Raiding is full of challenge. Sometimes there is fire. You have to not be in the fire.

"We agree with Communism." - Greg Street 2009

 

Deedre

Don't count out ridiculous set bonuses. Blizzard may indeed choose to make this the way to distinguish otherwise homogenous gear, and they haven't been afraid in the past of pushing players along with strong incentives in this fashion. (C.f., 2 pc t5.)

 

Lhivera

According to a post on dkinfo (reliability unknown), Frozen Rune Weapon stacks up to 10 times for +10% Frost Damage dealt to the target.

Assuming it is practical for a DK to keep that buff up (unknown, as we don't know proc rate or duration, but it seems silly to make it stack 10 times if it's a very low proc rate or very short duration):

Arcane: 1.03 (Instability) * 1.06 (Nature's Fury) * 1.13 (CoE) * 1.05 (Misery) = 1.2954207
Fire : 1.1 (Fire Power) * 1.03 (PWF) * 1.15 (Scorch) * 1.13 (CoE) * 1.05 (Misery) = 1.545950175
Frost: 1.06 (Piercing) * 1.05 (Winds) * 1.05 (CttB) * 1.1 (FRW) * 1.13 (CoE) * 1.05 (Misery) = 1.5252635475

 

Arazan

I wanted to make a post here regarding mana effiency, as that's been my big problem with the leaked talents so far. What I remember about raiding as a mage at the beginning of TBC raiding was that fire mages were absolutely mana starved, even spec'ed into arcane concentration. Raiding as arcane was wholly dependant on being grouped with a shadowpriest, even when I was tinkering with a 46/0/15 spec (note that this was before Icy Veins).

Anyway, point is that I look at the WoLK deep arcane and deep fire talents, and while I see nice dps increases, I see worse mana endurance in both. With arcane you have the netherwind proc which accelerates spellcasting, you have Arcane Barrage which is a definite mana hog, but arcane STILL lacks any way to regulate its mana usage without Frostbolt, so I feel that 51/0/20 or variants thereof will still heavily rely on frostbolt. With deep fire, you always had the balance between efficiency and dps, and MoE-based endurance let the mage value crit as an endurance stat. However with the new talent that increases critical damage bonus at the cost of mana leech, I worry that it will only serve to counteract crit-based endurance.

Basically, I fear that the deeper arcane and fire talents will only serve to further cripple mage mana endurance, making them even better in dungeons where short fights are king, but making mages even worse in raid settings where endurance is key.

Sorry if it's just speculation as there's little math that can be done to show what I'm seeing, but I think that it's a problem being completely overlooked... and when I brought this up elsewhere the general response was "oh Blizzard will properly itemize mages so it's not a problem", which isn't a very safe assumption in my eyes.



EDIT:

Another question I had regarding frostfire bolt is whether or not it's affected simultaneously by frost AND fire talents, or whether the calculations are done independently. Basically, let's say you have a spec like 0/41/30... does FFB gain all the dps and crit increasing talents from the fire tree (Fire Power, Critical Mass, Pyromaniac, etc) *AND* all the dps and crit increasing talents of the frost tree (Piercing Ice, Winter's Chill, etc)?

Since FFB has been shown that it creates 261% crits, it IS being treated as both frost and fire as it's being affected by both Ignite and Ice Shards, which should mean that all talents that affect frost spells or fire spells in general should affect FFB.

So, what's the math show in regards to a 0/41/30 build? Also, will FFB always benefit from a debuff like Winter's Chill, or is that factored into its "more vulnerable" clause? Since CoE and CoS have been merged, the only real difference will be Imp. Scorch versus Winter's Chill and Frost Rune (DK), but is the "vulnerability" only looking at pure damage increasing buffs like Imp Scorch versus Frost Rune, or will it consider Winter's Chill into the vulnerability clause? Basically, if you're in a raid attacking a mob such that the mob has more fire damage increasing debuffs, will FFB still be affected by Winter's Chill? The way it's worded yet affected simultaneously by Ignite and Ice Shards makes me think that they're programming it as both a frost spell and fire spell that just switches damage types...

 

Sancus

I'd just like to point out that this is flatly untrue. SoC detonates at 1044 damage, it also deals 1044 damage over 18 seconds and gets a 150% spell damage coefficient. That means that in decent gear it'll detonate itself in 9 seconds. Given it has a 2 second cast time, that means that seeds detonate themselves faster than you can tab-seed provided that you have at least 4 targets to seed. Add Consecrate from a Paladin to this, which is practically guaranteed these days, and it speeds it up substantially, plus of course seed explosions from other Warlocks cross-detonate your seeds.

It might have originally been intended that Seed require Mage support to detonate, but this is absolutely not the case.

<Vontre> I removed the cooldown on evo
<sancus> and what happened?
<Vontre> DPS went down rofl

 

◊ Vontre

Your speculation is pretty spot on, congratulations. Actually let me put this another way:

In a mana-limited scenario, DPM is the only consideration.
In a scenario that is not mana-limited, DPS is the only consideration.

So either one of the other is true: specs that cannot maximize their DPM will be useless (all mages spec ice), or mana stats like spirit and intellect will be useless.

Mana as a longevity stat for dps classes is a flawed concept. It does not work, it's never going to work, and it either needs to be ignored (preferable at this stage in the game) or completely redesigned into a more direct benefit system like energy and rage.

www.magegraf.com

Raiding is full of challenge. Sometimes there is fire. You have to not be in the fire.

"We agree with Communism." - Greg Street 2009

 

PSGarak

While only one of those is true at any particular point in time, which one is true can easily change between encounters, and with a bit of work it can change inside of encounters, which can give longevity tradeoffs some meaning.

Arcane Blast was actually a really good and inventive attempt to make mana meaningful, but it ended up falling a bit short of where it needed to be. Giving an insane-cost top-damage mana dump, in the presence of an otherwise-inifitely-sustainable DPS class, means that in all but the shortest situations longevity stats have some sort of DPS tradeoff, and there's some sort of skill involved in cutting your mana dump as close as you can to OOM without going over. Sadly, AB ended up being, at various points, either not top damage and therefore pointless, or magically sustainable ruining the point of having a tradeoff.

Mana longevity isn't an inherently flawed concept, it just needs to be more complex that hitting the wall and stopping your damage. Warlock sustainability, because lifetap comes at a time-investment cost, is actually interesting and a fundamental part of the class, and it will give solid DPS ratings to longevity stats without making them absolutely required, even in longer fights. Mages currently suffer from their resources system being both boring and limiting, the worst of both worlds.

http://sig.gamerdna.com/quizzes/INFL...erks/Garak.png

 

◊ Vontre

Warlocks aren't longevity based, they are regen based. Warlocks empty their mana pools in a frighteningly short amount of time.

www.magegraf.com

Raiding is full of challenge. Sometimes there is fire. You have to not be in the fire.

"We agree with Communism." - Greg Street 2009

 

◊ Vontre

So it looks like Burnout was bugged earlier or something, and now it's 25% to the bonus, which is like 1.625 or some-such. Just thought I'd let you guys know.

www.magegraf.com

Raiding is full of challenge. Sometimes there is fire. You have to not be in the fire.

"We agree with Communism." - Greg Street 2009

 

Deedre

This rather ignores encounter design, Vontre. To wit:

1. Very short boss fights, or;

2. Longer encounters with phases and built in pauses, and/or movement that allow for regen to be significant.

In the second case your mana stats are going to be very important. Nor are such encounters rare.

DPM cannot be taken in isolation of mana regen. Given enough of the later, you can compromise on the former within any given time frame. The entire question is really empirical: how long is the fight, how much mana is available, what are your sources of regeneration, etc. It's therefore a bit simplistic to simply paint this as a binary problem where you either have infinite mana or not.

 

Lhivera

Then it needs to be replaced, unfortunately. By my reckoning, this puts deep Fire DPS about 8% below deep Frost DPS at 1800 damage and 25% crit before talents.

 

Deedre

Looks like 33/38/0 is back in play, alas.