[OFFICIAL] MoP Beta Build Changes Discussion Thread

[muxx]

Nope Healing Stream is a 30 second cooldown now.

oh, hmm thats kinda dumb... guess there is no reason for totems anymore other than searing.

[Protoman]

Your suggestion removes choice. Removing the GCD from imbues does not. Simply put.

You are completely wrong. I explained why removing gcd would actually make it so you don't even need to choose imbues anymore, you just macro them in for max benefits:
-Either have FT on all the time, and macro FB with unleash for the slow
-or have FB on all the time, and macro FT with LL for max damage

You don't even have to think about it, thats clearly worse then what we have now or my suggestion. I would only suggest moving imbues to a seperate gcd group just for imbues.....but you could probably still pull off the same macro's I listed above.

It is only YOU who feels stuck on FT OH. Whenever I use FT on my OH in PVP, it is because it is the best choice AT THAT SPECIFIC TIME. If I use FB, again, it's because it's the best choice (fwiw I tend to switch WF->FB rather than FT but my point is that I'm making the decision rather than being "stuck" on a specific setup).

Yea, most shaman switch WF for FB instead of FT. That to me means there is clearly something wrong with the design goal of imbues. Do you remember frozen power, giving 10% spell damage to replace the lost SP from FT? That was put in because Blizz themselves wanted you to switch FT for FB in PVP, not WF.

Your goal seems to be to remove those decisions by making one imbue for PVE and one for PVP without question.

Also you're saying you feel stuck on FT OH but you want to be stuck on FB OH. Where's the sense in that?

This is not my goal. What I'm saying is we are currently stuck with FT on OH because the LL bonus is too good to switch for anything else, just like how you keep it on your OH and switch MH imbues. I am not forcing anyone to stick with one imbue, simply saying that FB should be the DEFAULT imbue for PVP like FT is for PVE. FT in my suggestions STILL provides the same DPS that the 40% LL damage used to, but instead of buffing active damage, its buffing passive damage. Your LL damage is independent of either imbue, so your burst is not affected.

You can still switch to FT if you want more DPS and feel like you or your partners have enough control....this has not changed. You are not "stuck" with FB on the OH as you claim, and saying that I claim that is false.

However, if we went with you're suggestion earlier of buffing FB so it gave SP and did more damage all your effectively getting is a PvP buff. You lose very little damage (2% SP and more damage on FlS, and little more melee auto hit DPS) in exchange for a slow on melee hits and another ranged slow in UE. All your asking for is a flat PvP buff really. I can see increasing the damage of FB a bit, or increasing its PPM, as a viable path to go down but theres no need to remove LL from FT, and theres no need to buff FB hugely. The whole point is your meant to swap.

A little more DPS from it wouldn't be too bad, lower the gap slightly, but not to the extent that your asking for. All it does it shift the "Must use FT" to "Must use FB", and gain a buff along the way.

Whats the difference between me lowering the gap by removing LL from the equation, and you buffing FB to match FT?

I am not really "lowering the gap" that much either, I still want FT to provide noticeably more DPS, just not thru LL. When you say "flat PVP buff", if you are talking about having the same burst thru LL regardless of FB or FT, then yes that is what I am trying to do. I don't know why you say things like "buff FB hugely" since I have not done anything like that. Ignore the bonus SP on FB, it was an optional suggestion and clearly has you confused. My main point is about LL, which is our most crucial burst ability in PVP and any buffs to it can't be ignored......as you see players trade WF for FB, not FT.

What I suggested:
-Remove LL buff from FT, bake into ability baseline
-Whatever dps you gained from the LL buff, redistribute damage to FT's melee proc, unleash effect/buff, and the new passive that boosts flame shock dot

Notice there is no change to FB, only thing is LL's max damage is now independent of either imbue. You would still have the same DPS increase using FT compared to FB as you did before, but the bonus damage would be from passive sources, not an active one. That is what I am trying to achieve here.

If you want loads of damage and you're able to stick on the target without FB, take FT. I see no problem with that. If you need FB to stick on your target take FB.

And again, this scenario is no different with my suggestion. You all make it seem like I am forcing you to pick and stay with FB for PVP, this is not the case. I have not given any buff to FB that would make you feel forced to use it only. I am simply saying you have more freedom now to pick FB without losing damage from your most effective and vital PVP ability, LL. You still trade similar damage, but its from passive sources. And you can very easily switch FB to FT for MORE DPS if you feel like you don't need extra control. That has not changed either.

[Endus]

You are completely wrong. I explained why removing gcd would actually make it so you don't even need to choose imbues anymore, you just macro them in for max benefits:

I'm not sure what you mean by "choice" any more, since your explanation here boils down to "removing the GCD would remove choice by allowing choice", and your own suggestion is for Frostbrand Weapon to be good enough that using it exclusively in PvP has no noticeable consequences.

You're arguing against the entire concept of choice, in favor of "I get everything I could ever want and never have to make a tradeoff for anything ever".

This is not my goal. What I'm saying is we are currently stuck with FT on OH because the LL bonus is too good to switch for anything else, just like how you keep it on your OH and switch MH imbues. I am not forcing anyone to stick with one imbue, simply saying that FB should be the DEFAULT imbue for PVP like FT is for PVE.

And this is a bad design goal. It's antithetical to the concept of choice and consequences. That's what we're saying.

If you want damage, you use the damage imbues. If you want control, there's Frostbrand. Defense, Rockbiter. Healing, Earthliving. There are no "default" imbues. For the most part, if you're playing in PvE, you'll use the imbue suited to the role you're playing, but that's the nature of PvE optimization, and even so, there's cases where swapping to Rockbiter even currently is helpful, and especially so in MoP with the new Unleashed Fury effect for it.

Your complaint is that you don't WANT to choose. You want the damage of Flametongue Weapon, and also the control of Frostbrand Weapon. That's the nature of choice. If you didn't have to trade one thing for another, it wouldn't BE a choice, and that's what you're arguing for.

It is bad design.

[Deleted]

You are completely wrong. I explained why removing gcd would actually make it so you don't even need to choose imbues anymore, you just macro them in for max benefits:
-Either have FT on all the time, and macro FB with unleash for the slow
-or have FB on all the time, and macro FT with LL for max damage

You don't even have to think about it, thats clearly worse then what we have now or my suggestion. I would only suggest moving imbues to a seperate gcd group just for imbues.....but you could probably still pull off the same macro's I listed above.



Yea, most shaman switch WF for FB instead of FT. That to me means there is clearly something wrong with the design goal of imbues. Do you remember frozen power, giving 10% spell damage to replace the lost SP from FT? That was put in because Blizz themselves wanted you to switch FT for FB in PVP, not WF.


This is not my goal. What I'm saying is we are currently stuck with FT on OH because the LL bonus is too good to switch for anything else, just like how you keep it on your OH and switch MH imbues. I am not forcing anyone to stick with one imbue, simply saying that FB should be the DEFAULT imbue for PVP like FT is for PVE. FT in my suggestions STILL provides the same DPS that the 40% LL damage used to, but instead of buffing active damage, its buffing passive damage. Your LL damage is independent of either imbue, so your burst is not affected.

You can still switch to FT if you want more DPS and feel like you or your partners have enough control....this has not changed. You are not "stuck" with FB on the OH as you claim, and saying that I claim that is false.



Whats the difference between me lowering the gap by removing LL from the equation, and you buffing FB to match FT?

I am not really "lowering the gap" that much either, I still want FT to provide noticeably more DPS, just not thru LL. When you say "flat PVP buff", if you are talking about having the same burst thru LL regardless of FB or FT, then yes that is what I am trying to do. I don't know why you say things like "buff FB hugely" since I have not done anything like that. Ignore the bonus SP on FB, it was an optional suggestion and clearly has you confused. My main point is about LL, which is our most crucial burst ability in PVP and any buffs to it can't be ignored......as you see players trade WF for FB, not FT.

What I suggested:
-Remove LL buff from FT, bake into ability baseline
-Whatever dps you gained from the LL buff, redistribute damage to FT's melee proc, unleash effect/buff, and the new passive that boosts flame shock dot

Notice there is no change to FB, only thing is LL's max damage is now independent of either imbue. You would still have the same DPS increase using FT compared to FB as you did before, but the bonus damage would be from passive sources, not an active one. That is what I am trying to achieve here.


And again, this scenario is no different with my suggestion. You all make it seem like I am forcing you to pick and stay with FB for PVP, this is not the case. I have not given any buff to FB that would make you feel forced to use it only. I am simply saying you have more freedom now to pick FB without losing damage from your most effective and vital PVP ability, LL. You still trade similar damage, but its from passive sources. And you can very easily switch FB to FT for MORE DPS if you feel like you don't need extra control. That has not changed either.

By removing LL from FT, you give it to FB. You're asking for FB to not only slow but also increase the damage of LL. LL doesn't have that damage as standard, you gain it from FT. So by making the LL damage standard you effectively gain it from FB too. Thats a huge buff to FB and a huge nerf to FT. Overall it becomes a buff to PvP because everything else about FT is outweighed by FB's Unleash and by its own snare. Give LL to FB and all you doing is getting an overall PvP buff because you get your burst DPS but you also get all this extra slow for free. Giving FB a slightly higher PPM or a slightly higher damage component is nothing compared to giving it 40% more on LL. Thats what you want and that is way overkill.

In you're suggestion no-one would ever take FT because the relatively small amount of DPS gained from it is not worth the slow FB gives. The little bit of extra power from FB that would make it a better choice and not a no brainer (no brainer choose FT) like it is now is being supplied - imo - by the t6 talents. If you take UF and dont take FB you're either in a hugely CC based comp or you're in a hugely burst based comp. Thats fine, if you don't need FB then dont take it. Transfering "Must take FT" to "Must take FB" is not good design and benefits nothing.

[Protoman]

I'm not sure what you mean by "choice" any more, since your explanation here boils down to "removing the GCD would remove choice by allowing choice", and your own suggestion is for Frostbrand Weapon to be good enough that using it exclusively in PvP has no noticeable consequences.

Removing the gcd does not allow choices, it removes any decision making at all. Like I said, you could macro FT with LL and FB with unleash so you will always have both max LL damage, and unleash effect that slows/sprints. You don't even have to think about it, and you suffer zero consequence for doing it. That is an actual example of a "bad design".

You're arguing against the entire concept of choice, in favor of "I get everything I could ever want and never have to make a tradeoff for anything ever".

Your complaint is that you don't WANT to choose. You want the damage of Flametongue Weapon, and also the control of Frostbrand Weapon. That's the nature of choice. If you didn't have to trade one thing for another, it wouldn't BE a choice, and that's what you're arguing for.

There is a tradeoff, you still trade damage for control.....but now its trading passive damage, and not your main source of active damage. What I want is LL to be independent and not reliant on either imbue, since it's important to our success in PVP. I do not want the damage of FT weapon, I have already shown how you can take the relative DPS that 40% LL damage gave you and redistribute into FT damage, unleash, and passive buffs to provide a similar DPS increase.

FT will still do more DPS then FB. And if you feel like you don't need extra control from FB, you still have full freedom to switch to FT for more DPS. You will get more damage from melee procs, from your unleash effect, and from the flame shock dot......all of which adds up to more damage.

To make my suggestion seem bad, you continue to try to make it seem as if I am either:
-Trying to make FT and FB do the same DPS
-or make it seem like you have to use FB in the OH for PVP
-or make it seem like FT gives no extra benefit, so no point to ever use it outside of PVE

All three of these assumptions of yours are false. FT still does more DPS then FB. You can still use either FB or FT depending on the situation, instead of currently where FT takes up a permanent spot on your OH. And FT still gives dps benefits that you can take advantage of if you have a partner to provide extra control, just with emphasis on passive damage and LL not being a factor for either imbue.

---------- Post added 2012-03-31 at 04:18 PM ----------

In you're suggestion no-one would ever take FT because the relatively small amount of DPS gained from it is not worth the slow FB gives. The little bit of extra power from FB that would make it a better choice and not a no brainer (no brainer choose FT) like it is now is being supplied - imo - by the t6 talents. If you take UF and dont take FB you're either in a hugely CC based comp or you're in a hugely burst based comp. Thats fine, if you don't need FB then dont take it. Transfering "Must take FT" to "Must take FB" is not good design and benefits nothing.

It's not a "small amount of DPS". You take the relative DPS gain that you had with 40% LL, and redistribute to the melee proc, unleash effect, and the passive for flame shock dot. It will still provide a similar dps boost, but from passive damage (except the instant damage of unleash).

Why would you stay with FB if you have superior control in your group, like a rogue or something? You wouldn't, you would use FT for more DPS. So your point is null and void. Currently, regardless of if your group has control or not, you always stick with FT in the OH.....and that is a problem, and a failure to meet a design goal of having FB be used in PVP. If you have a lack of control, you might switch WF for FB.....or just try and get by with frost shock. With my suggestion, you can switch FT for FB and have more freedom to use all of your shocks, as well as keep WF on your MH. And still just as easily switch to FT from FB if you don't need the control. There is no "must take FB".

[Omanley]

People here keep talking about choices, but:
does resto have a choice in pve? NO. does it have one in pvp? NO.
does ele have a choice in pve? NO. does it have one in pvp? NO.
Even enh is pigeon holed into wf/ft in pve and ft OH in pvp, either sacrificing our signature ability and msw charges which are needed for everything, or two frequent snares

Saying choices are good and reducing the impact of choices or the choice itself is bad is like saying that resto/ele design is bad.
I haven't seen much complaints about ele/resto imbues though (though fb holds potential for them).

Protoman's and mine suggestion of lessening the impact between the two imbues would result in some elemental shamans actually taking frostbrand in pvp, creating a choice.

FT currently is mandatory for ele and enh. Not much choice there, really. Reducing that trade-off would actually create the ability to choose. If you make those +magical effects not stack, you will also get rid of FB/FT. WF is among enhance's signature abilities and shouldn't be traded for utility imo.

Also choices are not always good.
Take warriors for example, which had (up to MoP) to make the choice wether to stance dance for interrupt/spell reflect/gap closing/shield wall, losing most of their rage in the process, or simply going full blast, sacrificing most of their utility.
Not that much different form the shaman imbue issue. Stance dance has a heavier impact I guess you could say, but shamans also have to make that sacrifical decision when it comes to shocks (esp. ele), elemental shields (resto) and msw (enh).
If a choice is to much, it becomes a restriction. Restrictions mess with a fun gameplay and get removed (like stance restrictions).

It is not fun having to imbue-dance for LL/UE. THAT is what i'd call bad design.

And Unleash Fury just enforces this bad design, as it makes the decision even harder. FT ultimately is primarily designed for ele, hence the unleash elements/fury effects benefit them a whole lot more than us.

And I dont wanna even start on rockbiter. The tanking aspect and blizzard's previous announcement that they'd finally get rid of it aside, having to imbue-dance for a dmg reduction every 15 seconds, bad design.


And I dont see where a removal of imbues from the gcd would make that design any better. You would macro it just as you would w/o it, only that you'd save a little time.
I dont think rogues will have to poison-switch in MoP either, if they take the talent for a third poison, or simply because they have enough of snaring/stunning capability even without it.

If an enh goes for full damage like a warrior, he sacrifices one snare/root, two snares, a sprint, selfheal and his CCs being instant.

A warrior has instant CC baseline, hamstrings w/o cooldown (and w/ glpyh/talent no rage cost after the 1st one), can now pummel, spellreflect, gap close in all stances (no rage cost any of them I think). All the while he can go full damage.

An enh sacrifices half his utility for full dps, a warriors simply does both at full capacity. Now tell me which seems to be more fun.
If you want to keep sacrifices like these around, you have to
1) provide a lot of non-sacrifical utility (like rogues have it) to make up for it. A rogue w/o pvp poisons still has shitloeads of utility. For the shaman, a considerable amount of utility is locked into those ability clusters
2) lesser or remove those restrictions (like they do now with warriors)

Oh and if choices are good, certainly you wouldn't say we should keep buff totems, as they forced a choice on us also.

[Endus]

Removing the gcd does not allow choices, it removes any decision making at all. Like I said, you could macro FT with LL and FB with unleash so you will always have both max LL damage, and unleash effect that slows/sprints. You don't even have to think about it, and you suffer zero consequence for doing it. That is an actual example of a "bad design".

So by actively macroing things to streamline my choice-making, this is somehow "not making choices", but buffing Frostbrand Weapon so you don't ever really want to use FTW, that's "awesome choices"?

You aren't making any sense whatsoever. Me using macros to make active choices moment-by-moment is precisely what is meant by "choice" and "flexibility".

There is a tradeoff, you still trade damage for control.....but now its trading passive damage, and not your main source of active damage. What I want is LL to be independent and not reliant on either imbue, since it's important to our success in PVP. I do not want the damage of FT weapon, I have already shown how you can take the relative DPS that 40% LL damage gave you and redistribute into FT damage, unleash, and passive buffs to provide a similar DPS increase.

If FTW is still providing the same comparable DPS increase, just via passive DPS rather than active, then you haven't changed anything; the reason people prefer FTW to FBW is that they prefer damage to control. If FTW still has the much-increased damage, it will remain the go-to choice for exactly the same reasons it already is.

So now I'm completely confused, because not only does your suggestion remove choice, it cannot possibly hope to actually change anything, either, since's it's based on perpetuating the exact issue that's led to the current state of the game.

---------- Post added 2012-03-31 at 05:25 PM ----------

People here keep talking about choices, but:
does resto have a choice in pve? NO. does it have one in pvp? NO.
does ele have a choice in pve? NO. does it have one in pvp? NO.
Even enh is pigeon holed into wf/ft in pve and ft OH in pvp, either sacrificing our signature ability and msw charges which are needed for everything, or two frequent snares

This is just entirely untrue. I use Rockbiter in PvE as Ele/Resto, and absolutely definitely will in MoP if I take the Unleashed Fury talent for the boosted effect.

If a choice is to much, it becomes a restriction. Restrictions mess with a fun gameplay and get removed (like stance restrictions).

This is also 100% false. Every single rule in every game ever is a restriction. Restrictions are the essence of games. Figuring out how to play within those restrictions is what makes a game fun.

Restrictions are not, in and of themselves, negatives. Why does a Knight in chess move two spaces out and one over? Because that's the restriction on that piece. You can't just up and do the same move with a Bishop, nor can you move diagonally as a Bishop can, with the Knight. Because restrictions are gameplay. They are what every single piece of gameplay and theorycraft and strategy boils down to.

If an enh goes for full damage like a warrior, he sacrifices one snare/root, two snares, a sprint, selfheal and his CCs being instant.

A warrior has instant CC baseline, hamstrings w/o cooldown (and w/ glpyh/talent no rage cost after the 1st one), can now pummel, spellreflect, gap close in all stances (no rage cost any of them I think). All the while he can go full damage.

This is where you go back into your misleading one-to-one comparisons that are based on grossly incorrect presumptions on how game balance works.

No, the Warrior in your comparison did not go full damage while doing all that, and that fact is outright obvious. Nor was an Enhancement going full damage somehow prevented from swapping to any of the utility you mentioned. It's a false dilemma, and it's the kind of misinformation we do not allow on these boards.

[Deleted]

It's not a "small amount of DPS". You take the relative DPS gain that you had with 40% LL, and redistribute to the melee proc, unleash effect, and the passive for flame shock dot. It will still provide a similar dps boost, but from passive damage (except the instant damage of unleash).

Why would you stay with FB if you have superior control in your group, like a rogue or something? You wouldn't, you would use FT for more DPS. So your point is null and void. Currently, regardless of if your group has control or not, you always stick with FT in the OH.....and that is a problem, and a failure to meet a design goal of having FB be used in PVP. If you have a lack of control, you might switch WF for FB.....or just try and get by with frost shock. With my suggestion, you can switch FT for FB and have more freedom to use all of your shocks, as well as keep WF on your MH. And still just as easily switch to FT from FB if you don't need the control. There is no "must take FB".

If you give 5% SP to Frostbrand, it really is only a small portion of your DPS in PvP. And if you redistribute 40% of LL damage to FT, thats a huge buff to FT because now it has the 40% LL damage PLUS X extra. Again, all your asking for is a buff. Plus if FT had that amount of extra damage built in people would still only take FT or complain about how much DPS they lose.

People here keep talking about choices, but:
does resto have a choice in pve? NO. does it have one in pvp? NO.
does ele have a choice in pve? NO. does it have one in pvp? NO.
Even enh is pigeon holed into wf/ft in pve and ft OH in pvp, either sacrificing our signature ability and msw charges which are needed for everything, or two frequent snares

I'd happily see Frostbrand effect proc from spells. If you were asking for that I'd be all for it. I think that should be in, though make it a far lower PPM from spells than from auto attacks because otherwise Elemental would have too much control against a melee DPS.

Saying choices are good and reducing the impact of choices or the choice itself is bad is like saying that resto/ele design is bad.
I haven't seen much complaints about ele/resto imbues though (though fb holds potential for them).

Protoman's and mine suggestion of lessening the impact between the two imbues would result in some elemental shamans actually taking frostbrand in pvp, creating a choice.

Why would Elemental take it in PvP? It still only procs off melee hits....

FT currently is mandatory for ele and enh. Not much choice there, really. Reducing that trade-off would actually create the ability to choose. If you make those +magical effects not stack, you will also get rid of FB/FT. WF is among enhance's signature abilities and shouldn't be traded for utility imo.

I'm all for giving Frostbrand a little more power, but the extent you guys are suggesting just throws it in the opposite direction and you would just always take Frostbrand. If your in a CC heavy comp you would still take Frostbrand because you lose minimal DPS but have 2 ranged slows (and a sprint if you take UF) instead of 1.

Also choices are not always good.
Take warriors for example, which had (up to MoP) to make the choice wether to stance dance for interrupt/spell reflect/gap closing/shield wall, losing most of their rage in the process, or simply going full blast, sacrificing most of their utility.
Not that much different form the shaman imbue issue. Stance dance has a heavier impact I guess you could say, but shamans also have to make that sacrifical decision when it comes to shocks (esp. ele), elemental shields (resto) and msw (enh).
If a choice is to much, it becomes a restriction. Restrictions mess with a fun gameplay and get removed (like stance restrictions).

It is not fun having to imbue-dance for LL/UE. THAT is what i'd call bad design.

And Unleash Fury just enforces this bad design, as it makes the decision even harder. FT ultimately is primarily designed for ele, hence the unleash elements/fury effects benefit them a whole lot more than us.

Warrior stances were bad because you changed stance to gain access to something and lost access to half of your abilities (wether that be because they were now stance locked or you didn't have the rage to use them). Thats why that was changed. Shocks are designed entirely around that mechanic, but you only lose access to 2 abilties not 4 or 5, and one of the 3 shocks is up for 24 seconds anyway once used so you just choose between damage and a slow, which plenty of clases have to choose from.

As for stance dancing with imbues, I dont see why this would be a problem. I feel it should keep its GCD so there is some down side to it, but if you need to close a gap/keep a target on you then you use Frostbrand, if you want higher damage you take FT. I can agree the damage loss from FT to FB is too much, especially as Frostbrand is a proc. I'd be all for increasing FBs PPM and its melee damage a bit (as I have said many times) but FT is meant to be a significant DPS increase. Thats the whole point of it.

And I dont wanna even start on rockbiter. The tanking aspect and blizzard's previous announcement that they'd finally get rid of it aside, having to imbue-dance for a dmg reduction every 15 seconds, bad design.


And I dont see where a removal of imbues from the gcd would make that design any better. You would macro it just as you would w/o it, only that you'd save a little time.
I dont think rogues will have to poison-switch in MoP either, if they take the talent for a third poison, or simply because they have enough of snaring/stunning capability even without it.

If an enh goes for full damage like a warrior, he sacrifices one snare/root, two snares, a sprint, selfheal and his CCs being instant.

A warrior has instant CC baseline, hamstrings w/o cooldown (and w/ glpyh/talent no rage cost after the 1st one), can now pummel, spellreflect, gap close in all stances (no rage cost any of them I think). All the while he can go full damage.

An enh sacrifices half his utility for full dps, a warriors simply does both at full capacity. Now tell me which seems to be more fun.
If you want to keep sacrifices like these around, you have to
1) provide a lot of non-sacrifical utility (like rogues have it) to make up for it. A rogue w/o pvp poisons still has shitloeads of utility. For the shaman, a considerable amount of utility is locked into those ability clusters
2) lesser or remove those restrictions (like they do now with warriors)

Oh and if choices are good, certainly you wouldn't say we should keep buff totems, as they forced a choice on us also.

A warrior has no ranged 8 second CC, a warrior has no heals to use on others, a warrior has not got their own freedom ect ect. Warriors lose a significant portion of their DPS when they go on the defensive because of having to go into defensive stance and put on a shield. You only look at the negatives on us and the positives of the other class. Warriors also can't do DPS from range anywhere near the capability that an Enhance Shaman can so they rely far, far more on being up close and personal with you all the time.

As for rogues, a rogue loses a horrendous amount of CC from not having poisens, and they have to use combo points for Kidney Shot, which could have been used for a hard hitting finisher. Poisons supply a stacking slow/casting debuff. Frostbrand Weapon supplies a slow. The same thing.

[-Orion-]

Why would Elemental take it in PvP? It still only procs off melee hits....

When you unleash FB you gain a good snare, which helps fighting against melee classes, not to mention if you choose tier 6 Unleashed Fury, you could gain a sprint with every unleash, combine that with elemental casting LB's while running

[Protoman]

So by actively macroing things to streamline my choice-making, this is somehow "not making choices", but buffing Frostbrand Weapon so you don't ever really want to use FTW, that's "awesome choices"?

You aren't making any sense whatsoever. Me using macros to make active choices moment-by-moment is precisely what is meant by "choice" and "flexibility".

You really are not thinking it thru with the "no gcd on imbues" thing. Using macro's would not mean you make active choices, it would mean you DON'T have to make active choices. You simply macro FT w/ LL, and FB w/ unleash......so when you press either button, it automatically switches to the imbue (with no penalty or thought required) and you get a full LL, or a snared unleash.....and you can go right back to the other imbue you were using, again with no penalty. You would not even realize you are switching imbues, it would devalue the whole idea of making a choice, or making a sacrifice to use a certain imbue. You would basically have the benefits of both imbues, without sacrificing anything.

You could keep FB on all the time, have a consta snare, yet still have full LL damage via FT macroed into LL, and the unleash would also slow/sprint. This is actually similar to what I am trying to achieve by having full LL damage even with FB, except that FT would still provide a noticeable DPS increase especially if you already have greater control and still worth switching to. Removing the gcd would mean you don't even have to think about what imbue you are using, and suffer no penalty for switching or have to decide if you want more damage or control cause you can get both.

If FTW is still providing the same comparable DPS increase, just via passive DPS rather than active, then you haven't changed anything; the reason people prefer FTW to FBW is that they prefer damage to control. If FTW still has the much-increased damage, it will remain the go-to choice for exactly the same reasons it already is.

So now I'm completely confused, because not only does your suggestion remove choice, it cannot possibly hope to actually change anything, either, since's it's based on perpetuating the exact issue that's led to the current state of the game.

No, its not the exact same and that's the point you are not getting. The DPS loss would be similar, but not the necessity to keep FT on OH. Sacrificing the active damage from LL holds alot more weight then sacrificing mostly passive damage from FT melee proc and flame shock damage, with some active damage from the unleash effect and extra shock damage from spell dmg buff. Because of LL we feel stuck with FT on the OH, and that is exactly what I am trying to correct. My suggestion would give you more freedom/flexibility to switch, as well as make FB's use more prevalent then it currently is.

FT is the "go to choice" for PVP right now because no amount of extra control can make up for the loss of extra LL damage. That is key to controlled burst, which is important for everything in PVP from general effectiveness to getting the KB.

FT would NOT be the "go to choice" with my suggestions. It would only be the obvious choice when you already have greater control (via partners or whatever). More control means you have greater uptime, and the benefits that FT brings will be even more apparent cause you can take advantage of the inc damage from melee procs, as well as use something other then frost shock, like flame shock which also has boosted damage. Plus you still get benefits to active damage regardless of uptime, like unleash effect or more shock damage from the spell damage buff.

FB would NOT be the "go to choice" for PVP either, but it would be the obvious choice if you have a lack of control (which is what happens when you solo, which is why I keep saying it's the "default" choice). Lack of control means you will need FB to get more uptime on enemies. You may lose some passive/active damage by switching from FT, but make up for it with more uptime. And more importantly, your general effectiveness to put out controlled burst and get kills (LL) is not affected.



You are confused because you just hear "FT will still give the same DPS increase as before" and think it's the exact same problem as now. But you are not paying attention to where that DPS is coming from, and how it relates to PVP. Active sources are more important then passive. LL is the core of the problem with why FT has a permanent spot on our OH.

---------- Post added 2012-03-31 at 06:59 PM ----------

If you give 5% SP to Frostbrand, it really is only a small portion of your DPS in PvP. And if you redistribute 40% of LL damage to FT, thats a huge buff to FT because now it has the 40% LL damage PLUS X extra. Again, all your asking for is a buff. Plus if FT had that amount of extra damage built in people would still only take FT or complain about how much DPS they lose.

Ignore the 5% SP to FB. That was to allow Ele to switch to FB without taking such a big loss, but it's not important. Minor issue.

If you redistribute the 40%LL DPS bonus back into FT, it would not be a huge buff for FT, simply similar amount of DPS that FT provided over FB originally but from both passive and active sources, instead of your main active source of controlled burst. Remember, both FB and FT would get 40%LL damage so thats not a factor in the equation anymore. It's just the extra damage on FT's melee proc, ULE dmg, and buff to flame shock dot.... the redistributed DPS only.

They would not ONLY take FT, atleast not if they lack control. With a lack of control (less uptime), half of FT's extra benefits would be lost....specifically the dps gained from the melee proc and flame shock dot. You would not be on target as long, and you would be using more shocks for Frost shock to keep them close. That is why you would be using FB just to stay on target as long as possible. But if you have extra control (via partners or whatever), then you would switch to FT because not only do you get more active damage from stuff like shocks and ULE, you will benefit more from the passive buffs like ft proc/flame shock cause you can stay on target even longer and free up shocks for stuff like flame shock.

Compare that to NOW, where regardless of how much control you have, you always have FT on OH cause you need that extra LL damage to be effective, to do comparable burst as other classes, and to get a KB. It may seem like a similar situation, but it will not play out the same in PVP, and FB will have a more prevalent use.....replacing FT this time and not WF.

I'm all for giving Frostbrand a little more power, but the extent you guys are suggesting just throws it in the opposite direction and you would just always take Frostbrand. If your in a CC heavy comp you would still take Frostbrand because you lose minimal DPS but have 2 ranged slows (and a sprint if you take UF) instead of 1.

Again, you keep assuming that FB and FT are supposed to be similar DPS. My suggestion does not claim that, FT still provides similar DPS increase as the 40%LL used to, and FB damage is unaffected except that it will also have the same LL damage as FT. In a CC heavy comp, if they have plenty of control which is most likely if you got a rogue or mage, then you would use FT. You would get more DPS, and could stay on the target longer. If you used FB, your burst w/ LL might be similar to using FT, but you would still do less damage cause of other sources......and they do all add up to being significant.

I'd happily see Frostbrand effect proc from spells. If you were asking for that I'd be all for it. I think that should be in, though make it a far lower PPM from spells than from auto attacks because otherwise Elemental would have too much control against a melee DPS.

I'm not a big fan of rng snares, but it would be a cool change to make FB more enticing for Ele. Maybe a 25% chance to proc, cause Ele doesn't exactly get to free cast as often in PVP. And "too much control against melee DPS", I don't think we could have too much lol. We are gaining frost shock root, but egrab will have double cd. Dunno, might be too much w/ FB effects also, but would be cool to see how it plays out.

[Endus]

You really are not thinking it thru with the "no gcd on imbues" thing. Using macro's would not mean you make active choices, it would mean you DON'T have to make active choices. You simply macro FT w/ LL, and FB w/ unleash......so when you press either button, it automatically switches to the imbue (with no penalty or thought required) and you get a full LL, or a snared unleash.....and you can go right back to the other imbue you were using, again with no penalty. You would not even realize you are switching imbues, it would devalue the whole idea of making a choice, or making a sacrifice to use a certain imbue. You would basically have the benefits of both imbues, without sacrificing anything.

Automation of a choice does not mean the choice is not there. I make heavy use of macros. That does not mean there are not choices inherent to those macros, it just means I've found an easier way to execute those choices.

No, its not the exact same and that's the point you are not getting. The DPS loss would be similar, but not the necessity to keep FT on OH. Sacrificing the active damage from LL holds alot more weight then sacrificing mostly passive damage from FT melee proc and flame shock damage, with some active damage from the unleash effect and extra shock damage from spell dmg buff. Because of LL we feel stuck with FT on the OH, and that is exactly what I am trying to correct.

It has nothing to do with where the damage is applied, it has to do with the simple math that FTW provides much more damage than FBW. Moving it from LL damage to passive wouldn't change much of anything; you'd be taking the same damage hit, just spread out across everything you do rather than on one ability.

You are confused because you just hear "FT will still give the same DPS increase as before" and think it's the exact same problem as now. But you are not paying attention to where that DPS is coming from, and how it relates to PVP. Active sources are more important then passive. LL is the core of the problem with why FT has a permanent spot on our OH.

Slightly, but not even close to enough to make up the difference. You're creating a situation where FB would be the default PvP imbue, because it focuses more on active than passive damage and also has greater control. This removes choice, and forces players into a specific imbue more than even the current system does. When your entire premise was that being forced into FTW was "bad" because of the forcing. Your "solution" exacerbates the problem you proposed that it would solve. Shifting the forced choice from FTW (due to the LL boost and passive DPS buff) to FBW (for better active damage and control to boot) doesn't remove the forced choice, just changes it.

That isn't a "fix" to anything.

[Deleted]

Ignore the 5% SP to FB. That was to allow Ele to switch to FB without taking such a big loss, but it's not important. Minor issue.

If you redistribute the 40%LL DPS bonus back into FT, it would not be a huge buff for FT, simply similar amount of DPS that FT provided over FB originally but from both passive and active sources, instead of your main active source of controlled burst. Remember, both FB and FT would get 40%LL damage so thats not a factor in the equation anymore. It's just the extra damage on FT's melee proc, ULE dmg, and buff to flame shock dot.... the redistributed DPS only.

They would not ONLY take FT, atleast not if they lack control. With a lack of control (less uptime), half of FT's extra benefits would be lost....specifically the dps gained from the melee proc and flame shock dot. You would not be on target as long, and you would be using more shocks for Frost shock to keep them close. That is why you would be using FB just to stay on target as long as possible. But if you have extra control (via partners or whatever), then you would switch to FT because not only do you get more active damage from stuff like shocks and ULE, you will benefit more from the passive buffs like ft proc/flame shock cause you can stay on target even longer and free up shocks for stuff like flame shock.

Compare that to NOW, where regardless of how much control you have, you always have FT on OH cause you need that extra LL damage to be effective, to do comparable burst as other classes, and to get a KB. It may seem like a similar situation, but it will not play out the same in PVP, and FB will have a more prevalent use.....replacing FT this time and not WF.



Again, you keep assuming that FB and FT are supposed to be similar DPS. My suggestion does not claim that, FT still provides similar DPS increase as the 40%LL used to, and FB damage is unaffected except that it will also have the same LL damage as FT. In a CC heavy comp, if they have plenty of control which is most likely if you got a rogue or mage, then you would use FT. You would get more DPS, and could stay on the target longer. If you used FB, your burst w/ LL might be similar to using FT, but you would still do less damage cause of other sources......and they do all add up to being significant.


I'm not a big fan of rng snares, but it would be a cool change to make FB more enticing for Ele. Maybe a 25% chance to proc, cause Ele doesn't exactly get to free cast as often in PVP. And "too much control against melee DPS", I don't think we could have too much lol. We are gaining frost shock root, but egrab will have double cd. Dunno, might be too much w/ FB effects also, but would be cool to see how it plays out.

If you redistribute the LL damage to everything else, but still keep the LL damage too, your just getting a flat buff. You would still take FT because its such a big DPS increase. That solves nothing and all it does is give us a DPS increase which we don't need - or atleast it cant be said that we need at this point in the beta. The problem is the DPS difference between FB and FT, not where the DPS comes from. It makes the problem more obvious when the DPS difference comes from burst rather than sustained damage, but at the end of the day thats what it breaks down too. If LL was taken off but FT got buffed that much people would still take FT, still cry that they are forced to take FT, and all that would have happened is they got a DPS buff.

As for Elemental getting a 25% chance to slow on spells, thats way to overpowered. We can cast whilst moving, our biggest hitting spell is instant and our second biggest has a chance to be instant, we get a root and we have a freedom. All that then on top everything you do has a chance to slow the target? It would have to be like a 5% chance or a 50% reduced duration from spells or something. It would be cool but overpowered. It would be like making Frostbolt castable whilst moving.

[Taalyn]

The only way to make your changes truly work as intended Protoman, is to remove the damage from FB entirely. Then you are truly making a choice between damage or control.

[Cakala]

...saving someone with Rockbiter an actually viable move, since currently it's 2 gcds to get it.

This is pretty much the scenario that first came to mind when ( I believe it was Endus ) first suggested removing imbues from the GCD.

[Protoman]

Automation of a choice does not mean the choice is not there. I make heavy use of macros. That does not mean there are not choices inherent to those macros, it just means I've found an easier way to execute those choices.

If you have a separate macro, like to switch FT to FB on your OH.....or switch to a shield for spell reflect, THAT is a choice. If you can macro something right into the ability, so you can just use it like normal and it triggers automatically with no gcd penalty.....then that is not a choice. On one side you talk about making choices and having consequences, but then you keep supporting the idea of "no gcd imbues"....which would remove both choices and consequences.

For example....

1. Warriors have to equip a shield to spell reflect, which they have a macro for. If they removed the gcd to switch to shield, then they could basically spell reflect in one move. At that point, you have to ask why even bother requiring a shield for spell reflect if there is no effort put into it.

2. My suggestion is trying to get Enhance to have their max LL damage regardless of imbue, while still differentiating FT from FB by having FT do more DPS and FB more control. There would still be consequences to switch between them, both from the gcd and loss of potential damage. If imbues no longer had a GCD, you could PVP with FB and macro FT into LL so whenever you use LL it first switches to FT and you get the bonus LL damage.....then switch right back to FB at no cost. What this would do is basically give you 40% more LL damage with FB as well as FT.

I would be all for it, but it would be too easy to exploit.....
-I could macro RB into unleash and get 40% dmg red every 15 sec, while still having some other imbue for everything except that 1 gcd
-I could macro earthliving into my heals, so whenever I use a heal it will always have a buff and hot, without wasting any gcd.

Do you see what I am trying to say? Removing the gcd achieves basically the same thing I want, except you don't have any consequence, and choosing which imbue to use is no longer a decision you really need to make anymore.

It has nothing to do with where the damage is applied, it has to do with the simple math that FTW provides much more damage than FBW. Moving it from LL damage to passive wouldn't change much of anything; you'd be taking the same damage hit, just spread out across everything you do rather than on one ability.

It has EVERYTHING to do with where the damage is applied. You are still thinking with a PVE mindset, not PVP. Damage that is spread out thru a few different abilities is not the same as focused on one attack......spread out is not as effective, takes time to accumulate to the same damage and is easier to heal with hots and stuff. PVP is all about burst, which Enhance does not have much of. We don't have an execute either. We rely alot on LL for our effective burst damage and its critical for getting kills.

You would be taking the same damage hit yes, but with your controlled burst intact you can still be just as competitive with FT or FB. Compare that to now where you would also take the same damage hit, but also lose controlled burst.....which we have in limited supply. That loss of controlled burst, even 40%, is crucial and the main reason why FT stays on the OH in PVP all the time, even if we do need some extra snares.

Just look at "Vial of Shadows" for example. It was nerfed because it's proc was too high and bursty for PVP, so it's damage was reduced and proc rate increased (spreading out the damage). Both versions do the same DPS, but if you had to pick one version for PVP the bursty one would be better. And I'm sure before it had a permanent place in melee's trinket spot, but now it can be replaced with other trinkets cause it doesn't feel so required for burst. That is exactly what I'm trying to achieve with FT by taking the DPS increase you would get from LL buff and spreading it to other parts of FT, while making the bonus LL damage baseline.

You're creating a situation where FB would be the default PvP imbue, because it focuses more on active than passive damage and also has greater control. This removes choice, and forces players into a specific imbue more than even the current system does. When your entire premise was that being forced into FTW was "bad" because of the forcing. Your "solution" exacerbates the problem you proposed that it would solve. Shifting the forced choice from FTW (due to the LL boost and passive DPS buff) to FBW (for better active damage and control to boot) doesn't remove the forced choice, just changes it.

FB does not focus on active damage, and FT still provides MORE active damage + passive damage. FB will naturally get more LL damage because it's not exclusive to FT anymore, but that is not one of FB's benefits. FT has the same LL buff, plus extra damage increase (sustained instead of burst), and something you would still take advantage of in a situation where there are enough snares/cc.

No one is forcing you to use FB only for PVP. Again, you keep trying to claim that to make my suggestion look bad, but I myself have never said such a thing. The only thing we are forced to use is FT right now, which is a problem that many have commented on. FB is the "default imbue" only when you solo because you have less control as I explained earlier, so naturally you would want to use FB. If you are in a group with partners who have high control like frost mage or rogue, then you would still want to switch to FT for max DPS.

When you have partners who will make it easier for you to have higher uptime on target, why would you still use FB? FT provides a similar, noticeable DPS increase remember? Things like higher damage from melee proc, ULE effect, shock damage, and flame dot (via passives). You are free to ignore the potential DPS benefits of using FT if you still want to have your own snare/sprint.....but it would be a bad decision because you could prob have gotten the kill faster with FT.

If you redistribute the LL damage to everything else, but still keep the LL damage too, your just getting a flat buff. You would still take FT because its such a big DPS increase. That solves nothing and all it does is give us a DPS increase which we don't need - or atleast it cant be said that we need at this point in the beta. The problem is the DPS difference between FB and FT, not where the DPS comes from. It makes the problem more obvious when the DPS difference comes from burst rather than sustained damage, but at the end of the day thats what it breaks down too. If LL was taken off but FT got buffed that much people would still take FT, still cry that they are forced to take FT, and all that would have happened is they got a DPS buff.

The problem IS about where the DPS comes from. The DPS increase by switching from FB to FT is supposed to be the same, which is whatever DPS 40%LL would give you....a significant amount. That's what makes the distinction between FT for damage, and FB for control. If you reduced that gap, then it really wouldn't matter what imbue you used (or FB would just be permanent OH cause it does similar DPS to FT but also snares). But by making that difference be a loss in sustained damage over burst, you will not feel so reliant on FT.

You claim that my suggestion would not make a difference, and that we would still use FT for everything cause it does more damage. Endus is trying to claim that my suggestion would "force us to use FB" like we are forced to use FT now. Which is it? The design goal of FT/FB was that they should be interchangeable for either more damage or more control. Currently, that does not happen. If my suggestion increases the prevalence of FB in PVP, then it is a better design model then what we have now. But if we also didn't want to use FT under any conditions, then it would be a failure.....but that's not true since if you have plenty of snares/cc then FT will be the more optimal choice. Endus saying we would be forced to use FB is false, cause he's not acknowledging that FT still gives the same DPS increase it did before, just sustained over burst.

[Endus]

If you have a separate macro, like to switch FT to FB on your OH.....or switch to a shield for spell reflect, THAT is a choice. If you can macro something right into the ability, so you can just use it like normal and it triggers automatically with no gcd penalty.....then that is not a choice.

This is false.

The entire purpose of macro settings like castsequence and reset commands are to automate choices.

This does not make them not-choices. It means you're using the in-game tools to automate some things. It's no different than fitting an Unleash Elements into a macro for Heroic Will on Ultraxxion; the optimized gameplay is to use Unleash Elements just prior to Heroic Will if no other instants are available. Macroing it just makes it easier to execute, it does not mean you're not choosing to use UE. That argument is senseless and ridiculous. By writing the macro, you're making that choice. You're coding it into the button press that you will be keybinding to that macro. Automation does not negate choice.

You claim that my suggestion would not make a difference, and that we would still use FT for everything cause it does more damage. Endus is trying to claim that my suggestion would "force us to use FB" like we are forced to use FT now. Which is it?

Don't be disingenuous.

You were explicitly trying to buff FB to make it the "default" choice for PvP. That was where you were trying to force people to use FB by buffing the ability, so that it was more appealing in PvP than FTW under most circumstances.

You then, suggested giving FTW the same DPS boost as it currently gets, just relegated mostly to passive damage, and boosted considerably to boot to make up for the loss of the 40% boost to Lava Lash. Which, I ALSO pointed out, would completely negate the above intent to make FB the "default" PvP imbue, because you're getting a bunch more damage through FTW and the only reason FTW wins right now is because it has a damage advantage.

Undefetter isn't contradicting me. He and I are both pointing out that your own argument is self-contradictory.


If you think FB isn't used because it doesn't provide enough damage, then you would be arguing that it has to gain damage relative to FTW, in which case you're arguing that there shouldn't be much to choose from between the two imbues; that you don't lose much of anything with regards to DPS for choosing to imbue FB for control. This makes FB the go-to choice in PvP, because you buffed it and nerfed FTW, and it's not good design.

If you want to spread the 40% boost to LL to LL itself, and buff FTW accordingly to make up for that loss, PvP Enhancement will continue to use FTW for the damage boost, even if it's mostly passive, because the damage boost is ALREADY why they pick that over FB, because damage is more necessary in the current paradigm than additional control for the most part.

And both arguments contradict the other. Neither works on its own, and neither CAN work with the other. That's why we keep pointing this out.

[Deleted]

But Endus, there is a problem when if when, taking the Warrior example, a duel wielder (wielding two weapons) can spell-reflect without having a shield equipped, as if they had a shield equipped - isn't that the issue he's highlighting if there was no gcd on the imbue/spell-reflect scenario. That's the way I understand the point.

---------- Post added 2012-04-01 at 05:04 AM ----------

I suppose simply reducing the gcd on the imbues would offer more ease of utility and would also prevent the macroing yr talking about Prot. Even a 1/2 second would make a 3 x button mash for a switch and return, 5x for both weapons.

Is there an imbalance in the value of UL Fury equal across specs because of Enh DW ? (i only play Enh) shields allowed W.imbue might be nice for all?

You guys think it would be tricky to handle ULW cd being individuated on MH/OH? ^^ I like the idea as a choice, or firing both, but I wonder would it be messy.

Has there been any intent on making Totemic Projection a class skill? Seems like it should be.

[Protoman]

This is false.

The entire purpose of macro settings like castsequence and reset commands are to automate choices.

This does not make them not-choices. It means you're using the in-game tools to automate some things. It's no different than fitting an Unleash Elements into a macro for Heroic Will on Ultraxxion; the optimized gameplay is to use Unleash Elements just prior to Heroic Will if no other instants are available. Macroing it just makes it easier to execute, it does not mean you're not choosing to use UE. That argument is senseless and ridiculous. By writing the macro, you're making that choice. You're coding it into the button press that you will be keybinding to that macro. Automation does not negate choice.

By removing the gcd from imbues, you are removing the consequences of picking one imbue over another, and also making it so you don't have to choose one over another......essentially you can get the best of both worlds. You may make choices when creating the macro, but once you add them to abilities you don't ever have to think about it again. I'm not sure why you are still trying to support this idea when I showed you some easy ways to exploit it....

-Keep FB on all the time, macro FT w/ LL. You don't have to give up control to get more damage.
-Keep FT on all the time, macro FB w/ ULE. You don't have to give up damage to get more control.
-Keep either FT/FB on, and macro ELW to heals. You don't have to give up dmg/control for stronger heals.
-Keep either FT/FB on, and macro RB to ULE. You don't have to give up dmg/control for more defense.

The only thing "senseless and ridiculous" is you continuing to support this idea when its clear how many flaws and ways to exploit it there are. You can get both benefits, without giving up anything, and without thinking or choosing, simply doing what you normally do.

If you think FB isn't used because it doesn't provide enough damage, then you would be arguing that it has to gain damage relative to FTW, in which case you're arguing that there shouldn't be much to choose from between the two imbues; that you don't lose much of anything with regards to DPS for choosing to imbue FB for control. This makes FB the go-to choice in PvP, because you buffed it and nerfed FTW, and it's not good design.

If you want to spread the 40% boost to LL to LL itself, and buff FTW accordingly to make up for that loss, PvP Enhancement will continue to use FTW for the damage boost, even if it's mostly passive, because the damage boost is ALREADY why they pick that over FB, because damage is more necessary in the current paradigm than additional control for the most part.

As I have said before, the reason I think FB gets underutilized is because the burst damage from LL is too important in PVP. Originally, I just removed and baked LL into ability baseline. FT would probably still have been more DPS then FB (via melee procs, unleash effect/buff, and passive spell buff).....it just wouldn't have been as significant.

You all said that this made the gap too close, and you could essentially use FB all the time without much of a loss. While this is true, I personally didn't see a big problem with it because it would mean FB was used more in PVP, you still get the same burst, and you could still switch to FT for more DPS, although not as much as the 40%LL used to give, mainly just extra passive stuff from the melee proc or flame shock. I then went and reworked the idea, so that FT gave the same noticeable DPS increase that 40%LL used to give, but thru passive, sustained DPS.....such as extra damage from melee proc, a new passive just for flame shock dot (and fire totems I suppose), and some active damage like stronger ULE FT.

You claim that even with my suggestions, Enhance would still use FT over FB in the OH just as much as they currently do now (which is all the time), but I do not think that is true. FB would still be preferred when you are soloing (which is why I say "default", that isn't supposed to mean that's all you should use) or if you are grouped with someone who doesn't have strong cc/snares/control.....like ret pally, boomkin, or a healer. But if you do have enough control, you would use FT. You would NOT use FT in all situations though, like you do now.

Again, FT was preferred not based just on damage alone, but the controlled BURST damage you gained. If the damage you gained came from primarily passive, sustained sources......it would not feel quite as mandatory in PVP, making the loss in damage not so critical, and switching imbues easier and more flexible. Plus, you would not even be able to take full advantage of FT unless you already had high control to maintain high uptime.

No contradiction from me. You are under the assumption that if FT does more damage, we will always pick it no matter what. I am saying that's not true, if we can still have our controlled burst without relying on FT, regardless of if FT puts out more DPS, we will find ourselves switching imbues more often then we currently do.

[Endus]

But Endus, there is a problem when if when, taking the Warrior example, a duel wielder (wielding two weapons) can spell-reflect without having a shield equipped, as if they had a shield equipped - isn't that the issue he's highlighting if there was no gcd on the imbue/spell-reflect scenario. That's the way I understand the point.

I understand the point, but it's a non-point. Abilities all have opportunity costs, and you can't take a single ability, like a spell-reflect, out of the context of the rest of the class abilities as compared to every other class' abilities. It only makes any kind of comparable sense if you retain the context of "every other class and every ability they bring to bear".

Trying to break down Spell Reflect particularly doesn't serve any purpose.

I also don't see how it's relevant. If you think Spell Reflect should retain the "opportunity cost" of swapping in a shield, that's directly comparable to how we currently swap imbues. If you don't, then removing the GCD off shield swapping (or, more likely, removing the shield requirement itself) isn't anything like overhauling the FB/FTW abilities, it's like removing the GCD on imbues, making it easier to make use of the ability. What Protoman's proposing is more like including the shield armor and block bonus into all Warriors regardless of using a shield, so that choosing to dual wield doesn't "sacrifice" as much defense and allows you to keep using Spell Reflect. It's an unnecessary tweak that doesn't really accomplish the goal it supposedly set out to achieve.

[Protoman]

I understand the point, but it's a non-point. Abilities all have opportunity costs, and you can't take a single ability, like a spell-reflect, out of the context of the rest of the class abilities as compared to every other class' abilities. It only makes any kind of comparable sense if you retain the context of "every other class and every ability they bring to bear".

Trying to break down Spell Reflect particularly doesn't serve any purpose.

I also don't see how it's relevant. If you think Spell Reflect should retain the "opportunity cost" of swapping in a shield, that's directly comparable to how we currently swap imbues. If you don't, then removing the GCD off shield swapping (or, more likely, removing the shield requirement itself) isn't anything like overhauling the FB/FTW abilities, it's like removing the GCD on imbues, making it easier to make use of the ability.

Don't confuse the two arguments. You are trying to say that removing the gcd on imbues will be a good thing, and still require choices, which means making a decision and taking into account the benefits vs the consequences....the 'opportunity cost".

I am saying that removing the gcd means you don't have to decide things, make choices, or consider the benefits vs the consequences because you won't have any cons. It devalues whatever it is you removed the gcd on. You can get all the benefits, without any of the consequences.

I used the spell reflect example on the previous page. If you removed the gcd to swap to shield, a warrior could spell reflect within one gcd w/ a macro......at that point they will think "Well why even require a shield if I can do this in one gcd", and ask for shields to be removed as a requirement. They no longer have to choose to switch to shield, spell reflect does it automatically, and with no consequence the whole process seems tedious and unnecessary.

Now take my Shaman specific examples:

-Keep FB on all the time, macro FT w/ LL. You don't have to give up control to get more damage.
-Keep FT on all the time, macro FB w/ ULE. You don't have to give up damage to get more control.
-Keep either FT/FB on, and macro ELW to heals. You don't have to give up dmg/control for stronger heals.
-Keep either FT/FB on, and macro RB to ULE. You don't have to give up dmg/control for more defense.

-If I can get 40% bonus to LL damage all the time regardless of norm imbue, why not just make it stronger baseline.
-If I can get a snare on ule all the time regardless of my norm imbue, why not make it snare baseline
-If I can get bonus heals/hot whenever I cast a heal, why not just add the bonuses baseline
-If I can get 40%dmg reduction when I ule, why not just add damage reduction baseline

Do you see what I mean by "best of both worlds"? You can have a perma snare, and still have max LL damage, without losing out on any control. Or use FT and still have your ranged slow w/ ule, again not giving up any dps. Have FT equipped throughout the fight for max dps but still get max heals w/ elw when you click heal.

What Protoman's proposing is more like including the shield armor and block bonus into all Warriors regardless of using a shield, so that choosing to dual wield doesn't "sacrifice" as much defense and allows you to keep using Spell Reflect. It's an unnecessary tweak that doesn't really accomplish the goal it supposedly set out to achieve.

Let's just stick to Shaman. You can generalize removing gcds with any class, but not what I am trying to achieve with FT and FB.


You are under the impression that passive/sustained damage has the same value as active/burst damage in PVP. That is not true at all. FT giving us burst via LL buff is what makes it so highly valued, if it gave similar damage boost but thru passive sources, it would not hold the same value. My suggestion is trying to accomplish just that. With similar burst damage regardless of imbue, FT would not feel as required and FB would be used more often. FT would still yield more DPS/damage, but because its not burst it doesn't hold as much weight....least not to the point where you would always use it like we do currently.

Both imbues would have their uses in PVP, depending on certain factors....
FT- When you already have control/cc/snares, or against melee
FB- When you need control/cc/snares, solo, partnered with players who lack control like healers, or vs casters esp kiters like mage hunter

You are only looking at it from a PVE pov, where more damage is always the best choice. This is not always true in PVP. PVP holds more value to things like control, and burst....or "controlled burst" lol. If I can still get burst w/ FB, I would not be so pressed to stick with FT all the time unless I absolutely don't need extra control and know I will have higher uptime, so I use FT to squeeze out max DPS.