Fire Cataclysm Discussion: OP Updated for Release - Page 10

Zaldinar · 09/22/10, 6:36 AM

Originally Posted by Roywyn

...stuff about numbers...

And just to make sure I got that right: Combustion causes not Ignite itself? And Combustion on a clear target does nothing besides its single crit?

The spreadsheet with those values is at home, I'll double check it when I get back tonight.

Combustion on a target with no DoTs errors saying you can't do it right now. Combustion critting does produce its own ignite that is explainable with normal ignite mechanics. Its possible it's interacting with existing ignites amping up the damage though.

As far as Kalgans comment about FFB. Its possible with enough mastery to make that 10% DoT be not insignificant... But it'll be sketchy. I think the intent is that Fire mages have a split like they do now, where FIRE mages glyph fireball and emphasize Spell Power / Crit / Haste and FROSTFIRE mages emphasize Mastery / Crit (maybe?). Couple that with the potential for FFB->SC*5 as a potential base rotation and we could have a super=mana efficient brand of fire to go along with normal fire.

Lileith · 09/22/10, 6:51 AM

Regarding Mastery gearing, I think reforging will allow more customization than enchanting/gemming ever did making heavy mastery gear possible.

I also expect mastery to be on most, if not every high end items, because by design it's a stat that is supposed to be good for everyone. This will reduce the number of items unwanted by x or y class because they scale bad with z.

If they had to do multiple mage sets they are more likely to make one haste/mastery and one crit/mastery. I actually hope it will be the case, at least for pvp sets.

Bashram · 09/22/10, 10:59 AM

Playing with the equation that Zaldinar gave me a few pages back, I have found a few numbers. I tried to get the most recent coefficients and base damage values for the spells, but I may have slipped up slightly.

At 4000 spellpower, a 135% bonus to DoT damage is required for Frostfire Bolt to be worth casting over Fireball once every nine seconds. That's just if we're maintaining the DoT. For Frostfire Bolt to replace Fireball as main nuke, one would need a DoT damage bonus of over 600%. Yikes.

If mages who emphasize mastery are supposed to start using glyphed Frostfire Bolt, the numbers for Frostfire Bolt are going to have to change. Right now, a mage at level eighty-five would need 8247 mastery on his gear for glyphed Frostfire Bolt to be worth casting every nine seconds. I don't even expect intellect to reach that high, much less mastery. The amount of mastery required for Frostfire Bolt to replace Fireball as the main nuke is simply ludicrous--41235.

While I do expect these numbers to change, the ridiculously high value required for Frostfire Bolt to replace Fireball as the main nuke leads me to believe that Kalgan was merely talking about inserting the spell into our rotations.

Bashram · 09/22/10, 2:19 PM

Kalgan speaks again!

No, I actually did mean we intend players that glyph ffb to replace fireball with ffb in their rotation entirely (we're trying to avoid over-complicating the rotation). The current tuning for ffb, glyph, and mastery obviously don't get it there, but those can change (along with other stuff, like making the ffb dot stack).

Obviously, it's still complex to resolve scaling, etc.

So, yeah. Frostfire Bolt as a nuke.

Logix · 09/22/10, 2:22 PM

Originally Posted by Bashram

While I do expect these numbers to change, the ridiculously high value required for Frostfire Bolt to replace Fireball as the main nuke leads me to believe that Kalgan was merely talking about inserting the spell into our rotations.

Not really. Quoting him from here.

Quoting Kalgan...
No, I actually did mean we intend players that glyph ffb to replace fireball with ffb in their rotation entirely (we're trying to avoid over-complicating the rotation). The current tuning for ffb, glyph, and mastery obviously don't get it there, but those can change (along with other stuff, like making the ffb dot stack).

Obviously, it's still complex to resolve scaling, etc.

In a sense, they want FFB to replace FB. They will adjust the numbers accordingly.

It is key thing to note, is that the important point is what their goal is, not whether the current beta build achieves this goal. The goal itself is interesting, and, imho, warrants whatever kind of number/mechanic tweaking necessary for it to be realized. E.g. FFB dot stacking easily solves the "we will only want to cast it once every 9 seconds issue" in a rather straightforward way.

Tyrian · 09/22/10, 2:39 PM

Has everyone noticed how interested Kalgan is in mages during the beta process? Blue Tracker - World of Raids . Anyway, I really don't think would've seen this FFB change coming. Opinions will be pretty divided, and it's quite ironic that Arcane was the tree that had the "But why should I have to cast cross-school spells?" sentiment. Now we're going to see a bit of that from Fire, "Why should I have to cast multi-school spells?". Personally I think it's a great idea, FFB is a great spell and it's great to see it being given a strong use like this.

Good to note that to-be-implemented FFB DOT stacking mechanics will alleviate any "But the dot will never tick if you chain cast FFB" concerns.

It's hard not to be in love with Cataclysm Fire now. Fire boasts:

- Excellent, fun ways to AOE (Arguably best of all classes?)
- Strong, fun single target rotation
- Strong array of compelling and effective utility talents (Cauterize, Blazing Speed etc)
- Excellent mobility
- Excellent theme, talent synergy and interaction (Arguably best of all classes?)
- Great potential for use in both PvP and PvE
- FFB added to the spec (Currently a work in Progress by Blizzard)

Where do you fault it? The only gripes left are pretty minor:

- Improved Fire Blast bringing FB range from 30 to 40 yard is a bit silly, unless you really want to cast everything all from 30 yards if you wish to use Impact. Why isn't it just 40 yards by default.
- Some people still argue the merits of having Burning Soul exist at all, and imply that mages should get this as baseline
- A few people complain that Flame Orb is "Meh" and would be more compelling as an actual AOE spell
- PVPers are commenting that Shatter is too good for pvp builds, and might serve to overly limit subspec choice

Any other major current concerns I missed? There's nothing overly consequential of note which could detract from what really is a damn good looking spec.

Kyth · 09/22/10, 2:43 PM

I don't have any clever math for this post, just something that's been on my mind the last two days:

I've been eying this negative crit scaling with tiers and thinking about its interaction with fire's mana regen.

Haste won't scale negatively like crit and hit will, so your MPS will be increasing via haste but you won't be gaining (much? as much? any?) MPS back via increased crit as your gear gets better.

Obviously scorch can be mana-free, but we don't yet know what the impact on our DPS will be (since scorch isn't actually mana regen, it's not something you can really balance the dps around.)

(edit) Maybe I'm overthinking this and it won't be an issue though.

Skallewag · 09/22/10, 3:03 PM

I have no problems with using FFB as my main nuke, if I had to chose either of the two it would definetley be FFB. This comment however does baffle me somewhat. Didn´t blizzard make a very clear statement recently that they don´t want glyphs to change your rotation? Replacing your main nuke for another spell sounds a lot like changing your rotation to me.

Bashram · 09/22/10, 3:03 PM

Originally Posted by Tyrian

Opinions will be pretty divided, and it's quite ironic that Arcane was the tree that had the "But why should I have to cast cross-school spells?" sentiment. Now we're going to see a bit of that from Fire, "Why should I have to cast multi-school spells?". Personally I think it's a great idea, FFB is a great spell and it's great to see it being given a strong use like this.

The impression that I got was that Fire mages won't have to cast Frostfire Bolt. Kalgan said that "mages who emphasize the mastery stat" will want to glyph Frostfire Bolt. In the second post, he said that "we intend players that glyph ffb to replace fireball with ffb in their rotation entirely." He did not, however, say that Frostfire Bolt will replace Fireball for all Fire mages. Clearly, we don't know exactly what they are going to do.

Kalgan mentioned that they are going to change the interactions between the spell, the glyph, and mastery. Depending on how they go about this, Glyph of Frostfire could end up being a simple toggle from one spec to the other. In terms of balancing, different stat values could keep one from outscaling the other. My suspicion is that Frostfire will require a large--but reachable--mastery bonus in order to be competitive with Fireball. If Fire values crit and haste more than mastery, the two specs can scale such that Frostfire is better in one gear set, while Fire is better in another--but, when in their optimal gear, the two specs perform at roughly the same level.

Tyrian · 09/22/10, 3:13 PM

Originally Posted by Skallewag

Replacing your main nuke for another spell sounds a lot like changing your rotation to me.

Might be semantics, but I wouldn't really consider it changing rotation. Really it's effectively changing the colour/sound of one spell you cast. (Yes the FFB variant has a little more interaction with Dot + Glyph + Mastery - but you're still just spamming that spell instead of Fireball, and the interaction between those 3 is handled passively). It will be interesting to see the final numbers on how competitive Fire (Fireball) and Fire (Frostfire Bolt) are. Especially if they'd require considerable regemming, reforging or regearing to swap between.

elluminea · 09/22/10, 3:33 PM

Well looking ahead, unless the DOT stacks indefinitely there will be time where your fireball should be weaved in while the FFB DOT stack ticks at its full potency. Nothing currently scales the DD portion of FFB higher than Fireball, so for about 6 seconds before the DOT needs refreshing there is a rotation change. All this from one glyph - it isn't entirely complex, but it is more so than any other glyph.

Zeldyrr · 09/22/10, 3:46 PM

Didn´t blizzard make a very clear statement recently that they don´t want glyphs to change your rotation?

I actually think this is a case of Kalgan not being clear in communication. The way I read it, stacking mastery vs. crit/haste is the trigger that replaces fireball with FFB in your rotation. Of course you change the glyph when you switch to FFB--what mage spec doesn't glyph their main nuke?

I will be very interested if they can make this work. Basically end-game gear has to provide the right choices between mastery and crit/haste to make this a player choice. If say Tier 12 level content for example has too much mastery and no crit/haste choices, then all fire mages will be forced to go FFB. If in Tier 13 it is the other way around, then the FFB spec is dead. Balancing two different rotations in one tree seems really risky. Fun if they can pull it off, but risky.

gaerthe · 09/22/10, 4:52 PM

Originally Posted by Tyrian

Any other major current concerns I missed? There's nothing overly consequential of note which could detract from what really is a damn good looking spec.

I completely agree that fire is looking good. Almost looking too good at this point. As you said, it seems to offer the best of everything for a mage. I just can't see Blizzard being happy if 95%+ of mages are fire for yet another expansion. Especially with all the effort they've made on frost and arcane as viable raiding specs.

And with fire looking strong for PvP as well, where does that leave the other trees? Other than a limited number of mages who want to play other specs for thematic reasons, the majority rule will be "go fire or don't raid (or pvp)".

Kyth · 09/22/10, 4:57 PM

Originally Posted by gaerthe

I completely agree that fire is looking good. Almost looking too good at this point. As you said, it seems to offer the best of everything for a mage. I just can't see Blizzard being happy if 95%+ of mages are fire for yet another expansion. Especially with all the effort they've made on frost and arcane as viable raiding specs.

And with fire looking strong for PvP as well, where does that leave the other trees? Other than a limited number of mages who want to play other specs for thematic reasons, the majority rule will be "go fire or don't raid (or pvp)".

There are zero final dps numbers at this point so you can't even come close to making statements like this.

It will be "go X or don't raid", where X is whatever is the highest dps. Like it's always been. Those who play for flavor will choose a spec based on flavor -- they just won't be as penalized as they were in past times.

Who knows, you may raid as frost all of Cata because it's the top DPS spec, doesn't run OOM, and has the best threat reduction (15% dps from pet means you have 85% effective threat whereas fire and arcane have ~99.x%, with 0-1% from mirror images doing dps.)

gaerthe · 09/22/10, 5:45 PM

Originally Posted by Kyth

There are zero final dps numbers at this point so you can't even come close to making statements like this.

It will be "go X or don't raid", where X is whatever is the highest dps. Like it's always been. Those who play for flavor will choose a spec based on flavor -- they just won't be as penalized as they were in past times.

Who knows, you may raid as frost all of Cata because it's the top DPS spec, doesn't run OOM, and has the best threat reduction (15% dps from pet means you have 85% effective threat whereas fire and arcane have ~99.x%, with 0-1% from mirror images doing dps.)

Certainly, Blizzard can do what ever they want with the numbers to make each spec competitive. They've done it in the past to encourage players to try out different specs, and I'm sure they'll do it again in the future.

But I wasn't talking about the numbers at all. I was talking directly to Tyrian's post about completeness of fire spec. This is pure an opinion, but fire looks the most "interesting and done" of the 3 specs. Arcane still has a lot of questions to be answered, I'm sure you've been following them in the Arcane thread. Frost looks nicely done, but doesn't seem to offer as complete a toolset (again opinion) as fire does. Plus it has the added burden (or benefit) of pet management.

From GC's derision of cookie cutter specs and player's focus on 1% damage talents, I can't see him being happy or considering it a success if mages continue to be a "go X or go home" class. Given tuning where all 3 specs are within 1% (not really possible, but lets assume they can do it), it sounds like they want 33%/33%/33% of the players in each spec. If that were the case now, would players equally spread out across the 3 specs? Or would there be a perception that one of the specs is better?