Now wait a second... I've become a bit confused now.
TC up to now has been showing non-TTW-fireball to be slightly below FFB-builds, from what I gather? There have been various statements in this thread pointing into this direction. But I'm uncertain wether some of them already included TTW working or not.
The trouble really is: If the two speccs were close before, and now one gains a pretty much guaranteed 12% gain in DMG, we have the whole "only-one-viable-specc" issue again. If fireball still is slightly below FFB, there is no reason whatsoever to switch speccs.
But then again, if fireball was ahead only slightly, say 3-5%, it again would be debatable wether it was really worth it. FFB still provides superior mana (add in-combat regeneration and you will never ever look at your blue bar again...) and superior aoe with Blizzard. Also, amateurish math here, with its higher crit-modifier it should really scale better with increasing crit on future gear, whereas for the other stats the gain would be even, right?
Now, I think its somewhat a dilemma (at least until dual-speccs are out..). Depending on the difference in dmg, why does FFB have these privileges in terms of mana and aoe, whereas fireball doesn't, and what would be the gain in fireball dps relative to frostfire necessary to not make the choice a no-brainer, but still a viable one considering the (in my opinion quite severe) disadvantages of fire...
Remember that it's not a flat 12% though. Living Bomb, Scorch, and Pyroblast all do not benefit from TTW but are still used in the rotation. From what I compared in Rawr with current gear in game (assuming no Razorice or ghost hit), Fireball would be 5883 dps to Frostfire's 5680 dps. I've looked over the character files three times now, and I can't really figure out why these numbers are coming out so much closer than what everyone else has been predicting.
Also, amateurish math here, with its higher crit-modifier it should really scale better with increasing crit on future gear, whereas for the other stats the gain would be even, right?
Fireball should scale better with Spell Power due to the higher bast cast time. Base fireball scaling is 100%. Base FFB scaling is 3.0/3.5 = 85/86% if I recall correctly. The crit modifer goes a long way to making the different not all that much, but one could run a Rawr with comparative gear levels and see how the scaling works out.
I would guess that they come out fairly close in terms of overall gear scaling.
Fireball should scale better with Spell Power due to the higher bast cast time. Base fireball scaling is 100%. Base FFB scaling is 3.0/3.5 = 85/86% if I recall correctly. The crit modifer goes a long way to making the different not all that much, but one could run a Rawr with comparative gear levels and see how the scaling works out.
Having a higher coefficient doesn't necessarily mean that a spell will scale better, you have to include all multipliers also, and FFB has a bunch of multipliers that Fireball doesn't. According to simcraft's most recent scaling chart: SampleOutput - simulationcraft - Google Code it seems that Fireball does scale very very slightly better with spell power, but the more significant difference is that FFB scales better with crit, and Fireball better with haste. Just based on that, it seems that which spec scales better depends on whether Blizzard itemizes more haste or crit on gear. It seems fairly unlikely that you'll just be able to choose gear per spec optimally, as regardless of scaling, the best gear is still gear that mixes 3 dps stats(crit, haste, hit - pick 2, and spellpower) and those pieces are rare enough to almost always end up being best in slot simply because they have 3 stats vs pieces with just spell power and one of the three secondary stats.
That said, I would never take any one simulator(and I just used the sample output they published, should probably work out several gear profiles to get better information) as definitive, so I'd like to see scaling information from Magegraf and Rawr at least as well.
<Vontre> I removed the cooldown on evo
<sancus> and what happened?
<Vontre> DPS went down rofl
There seems to be 4 sets of cloth in each tier (200 and 213) not counting the actual tier items. The sets are roughly
Stam, Int, Spell Power, and two additional stats, either
spirit+hit/crit/haste
spirit+haste/crit
mp5+haste/crit
crit/hit/haste
Just like t4->t5 and t5->t6, Ulduar, Mystery Meat Instance and Icecrown will introduce items with a good mix of stats. Also probably more pure dps items, bypassing spirit. Consider all the dps heavy items in Sunwell that made them so amazing compared to BT-without ramping up spell damage by an insane amount.
I just wish holy paladins did not want the exact same trinkets/weapons/rings/neck's as mages.
How does Master of Elements scale with multiple Arcane Missles crit tick?
MoE does not scale, it is a static mana return on a spell crit.
For arcane missiles, I believe that if any one of the 5 missiles crit, you should get back a little over 300 mana. If more than one missile crits, you should still only get back a little over 300 mana. It does not return mana based off of how many missiles crit.
MoE does not scale, it is a static mana return on a spell crit.
For arcane missiles, I believe that if any one of the 5 missiles crit, you should get back a little over 300 mana. If more than one missile crits, you should still only get back a little over 300 mana. It does not return mana based off of how many missiles crit.
EDIT: Nm I see you were talking about scaling, not the static percentage.
I'm no theory-crafter, as is about to be evident, but I ran some numbers on arcane based on my current spellpower (1636) but nothing else. No crit/haste/mana etc. No missile barrage procs. So this is obviously not a guide to what dps mages should be be doing in these specs. It's just a reference to compare numbers as a lot of people have been asking if it will be worth casting more than one Arcane Blast even after this change or whether we should go straight back to Barrage.
I have no doubt made mistakes (despite the simplicity). The gap between casting ABx1 and ABx2 however is 100dps, but between ABx2 and ABx3 it is only 27 dps. Whether the gaps are narrower or wider with higher spellpower and crit/haste taken into account I don't know (and would like someone who can actually TC properly to throw some numbers in here) but as it stands casting ABx3 IS the highest dps rotation, but isn't too far ahead from ABx2 rotations so the mana penalty may not justify it at all.
I was getting slightly restless so I decided to run some quick numbers to ascertain
Whether or not the arcane changes will in fact change the existing arcane rotation?
as well as Does the new ability of the arcane mage to buff MBAM and ABr have any real benefit to his rotations?
Unfortunately, from my preliminary number crunch, the outlook does not seem good.
You can plug the numbers in for 8 different rotations
Rotation
Time
Damage
Cost(MP)
Dps
Dpm
MPS
AB ABr
3.73
5890
476
1578
12.36
128
ABx2 ABr
5.96
9228
1038
1547
8.89
174
ABx3 ABr
8.20
13103
2122
1599
6.18
259
AB MBAM
4.46
8938
828
2002
10.79
185
ABx2 MBAM
6.70
12538
1389
1872
9.03
207
ABx3 MBAM
8.93
16807
2473
1882
6.80
277
ABx4 ABr
10.43
16976
3728
1628
4.55
358
ABx4 MBAM
11.16
20680
4080
1853
5.07
366
Now..if my calculations were right (they probably aren't since I am heavily medicated right now and cannot think straight as it is) then we glean some interesting analysis
Analysis:
1. {ABx2 ABr} - should never be used. Lower DPS and DPM than {AB ABr}
2. {ABx2 MBAM} - should never be used. Lower DPS and DPM than {AB MBAM}
2. You should NOT ramp up ABs at an MBAM proc. cast MBAM immediately (preferably immediately after an ABr). NB The DPS of {AB MBAM} is LESS than the DPS of MBAM 0
3. The trade off at the Assumed Stats between {ABx3 ABr} and the existing {AB ABr} rotation is that of a 21 DPS gain for half the DPM. Imho, it is not worth it, the DPM loss is far too harsh.
4. Similar to Fire/Frostfire, Arcane sees a large increase (~500 dps) from its proc (MBAM), however, unlike Fire/Frostfire, Arcane has no way (through gear/raid buffs) to better the chances of its proc. (NB. At ~45% final crit, proc rates for MBAM and Hot Streak equate).
5. The ABx4 rotations (AB0 > AB1 > AB2 > AB3 > ABr/MBAM) are interesting, but burn way too much mana per second (MPS). Furthermore {ABx4 MBAM} may not be possible unless you are get the proc while stacking AB and/or get enough haste (~26%).
Conclusions
Perhaps it is too early to conclude anything right now, since as stated, I'm not even sure that the numbers are right. If they are however, then I do not see Arcane being as raid friendly as Fire/Frostfire.
Furthermore, from what I can see, there is no real new incentive to deviate from Arcane's standard
AB ABr alternating w/ MBAM procs rotation (boring!). This means that the new changes will not make any discernible difference in Arcane's playstyle.
Which is unfortunate really. I remember back in beta when I did a similar analysis on arcane I was consistently pushing for effort to better the arcane playstyle. From the looks of it, while the new options given to the arcane mage are interesting, they unfortunately do not shine bright enough to be really useful.
Those stats seem very low as buffed and talented. People are having 2k SP unbuffed as non-arcane.
Might push that to 2.6k as fully geared and buffed arcane mage minimum.
That aside, your numbers don't make any sense.
Damage done by those spells should be linear with the number of AB stacks, but it isn't.
It's some extremely superlinear scaling in your table, or am I missing something?
That aside, your numbers don't make any sense.
Damage done by those spells should be linear with the number of AB stacks, but it isn't.
It's some extremely superlinear scaling in your table, or am I missing something?
I can easily run it again at 2.6k SP, but then again, as I stated in the intro to my post, I wasn't really trying to ascertain maximum potential theoretical DPS of *new* arcane, but moreso trying to figure out if there will be any real change in Arcane's playstyle/rotation given that Arcane has access to this "new" mechanic (buffing spells by using a particular spell).
The number are quite straightforward, not being on the PTR I cannot test exactly how blizzard has applied their 15%/30%/45% damage stack, but if it is anything like the AB of beta (which is what I assumed it to be) then the calculation is relatively simple.
E.g
Base: (no SP)
Arcane Blast
912 - 1058 Dmg
The damage increase is in fact always calculated based off the base damage, hence at stack one, the damage will increase by:
(912 x 0.15) to (1058 x 0.15) = 136.8 to 159 damage, or an average of ~148 damage
Hence AB1 becomes
1060 - 1206 damage
for the next stack
(912 x 0.3) to (1058 x 0.15) = 273.6 to 317 damage
AB2 becomes
1355 - 1501
etc
I.e the stack damage increase is always x% of the damage of AB0
Once you get the ABx value (where x=1,2,3 for the different stacks) , you then apply the +dmg and all other modifiers to it to get the damage of AB with all SP, essentially treating the different stacks as separate spells.
Once you get the ABx value (where x=1,2,3 for the different stacks) , you then apply the +dmg and all other modifiers to it to get the damage of AB with all SP, essentially treating the different stacks as separate spells.
That is not how AB stacking works. Multiplier is applied after +damage, not just on base.
That is not how AB stacking works. Multiplier is applied after +damage, not just on base.
This is not accurate.
The current AB inherent 15% increase works as I describe, it is a static increase based off of the base damage. You can see the increase in the tooltip.
On live
AB0: 912 to 1058
AB1: 1048 to 1217
AB2: 1185 to 1376
AB3: 1322 to 1535
It is written right into the tooltip of the spell which changes at each stack.
The difference between AB on live and the AB in my analysis is the fact that the increase itself isn't constant, it changes from 15% on the first stack to 30% on the second to 45% on the third.
As I stated, I assumed that while the % values themselves have changed, the actual mechanic of basing the % increase per stack on the base, is the same.
At this time, though, having not done any of the math myself for a couple months, I'm not sure he's right that the spam nerf would be necessary...with the TTW change, I'm not sure how 18/0/53 is going to compare to the other specs. It's possible it could use a straight-up buff from improved combos in order to be competitive in PvE.
It is written right into the tooltip of the spell which changes at each stack.
The difference between AB on live and the AB in my analysis is the fact that the increase itself isn't constant, it changes from 15% on the first stack to 30% on the second to 45% on the third.
As I stated, I assumed that while the % values themselves have changed, the actual mechanic of basing the % increase per stack on the base, is the same.
Have you actually bothered casting the spell and looking at combat log? Tooltips never included spell power modifications.
Have you actually bothered casting the spell and looking at combat log? Tooltips never included spell power modifications.
I'm sorry, I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not talking about spell power modifications (where did this come from?), I am talking about the mechanics of Arcane Blast and how the inherent x% increase is actually applied.
Blasts the target with energy, dealing 912 to 1058 Arcane damage. Each time you cast Arcane Blast, the damage is increased by 15% and mana cost is increased by 200%. Effect stacks up to 3 times and lasts 3 sec.
The bolded and underlined is what I am talking about. It was a direct response to Roywn's post commenting on how strange the increase in damage at subsequent stacks look (he believed it should have "look" linear, I was showing how I reached my numbers).
As far as the tooltip is concerned, the inherent % increase in AB (at different stack levels) is actually reflected on the tooltip. I would advise you to log into the game and see for yourself.
don't know if this is a stupid question, but:
I've been wondering about the change to LB, does/could it mean that the single ticks will also count for the hot streak counter?
That isn't bad, although it should ideally be equal to Frostfire and 4-5% behind Fire, probably, since it's giving up most of its Frosty goodness to get those 18 points into Arcane. Still, it's effectively spitting distance, and I expect it would need a bit of a nerf combined with improved Shatter Combos.
Is Magegraf still calculating a 0/20/51 build, or is that mislabeled?
At Veridian Dynamics, we can even make radishes so spicy, people can't eat them. But we're not, because people can't eat them.
DoT's can't crit, and it's safe to assume that the spirit of the talent, i.e. triggering off of the named spells' crits, will be preserved. Anything can happen, but it's unlikely due to pvp concerns and general over-poweredness.
DoT's can't crit, and it's safe to assume that the spirit of the talent, i.e. triggering off of the named spells' crits, will be preserved. Anything can happen, but it's unlikely due to pvp concerns and general over-poweredness.
That isn't bad, although it should ideally be equal to Frostfire and 4-5% behind Fire, probably, since it's giving up most of its Frosty goodness to get those 18 points into Arcane. Still, it's effectively spitting distance, and I expect it would need a bit of a nerf combined with improved Shatter Combos.
Is Magegraf still calculating a 0/20/51 build, or is that mislabeled?
Not sure where you're getting information, Frost does not give up ANY DPS talents from the Frost tree to dip 18 into Arcane.
PROOF from the only talent calc I can access from work [shame on me, I guess]. It's true that to get Ice Barrier you have to lose a point somewhere, but losing a point from Ice Floes is minimal for the survival boost. No uber blizzard for trash, but against a raid boss target everything's here.
12/12/08, 8:28 AM
Similar Threads
