Legion: Elemental Specific

[Jotaux]

I've said this like 5 times on this forum. I'll continue saying it: If you are not raiding Top100, you should not care about balance. Class balance and your raidsetup barely affect your raid, your raidspot, or your ranking. You don't raid top100 and dont care about balance? What the fuck are you doing in a discussion about balance for top 100 progression?

I disagree completely with this. Why should you have to be twice as good as the people you raid with in order to keep up?

[Prankish]

It's like saying it's unbalanced that Invincible didn't drop on my ICC25H kill last night because it did for 0.5% of the player base.

I skimmed through your post originally and missed this part so I didn't assume you were a troll. This is hilarious though. Comparing RNG to a bell curve player skill distribution because why? probably because they both have % so you think they can be compared. You are a spectacular troll.

I've said this like 5 times on this forum. I'll continue saying it: If you are not raiding Top100, you should not care about balance. Class balance and your raidsetup barely affect your raid, your raidspot, or your ranking. You don't raid top100 and dont care about balance? What the fuck are you doing in a discussion about balance for top 100 progression?

Can't agree with this too much either. I'm in a top 200 world guild and it's already competitive enough that I was almost rejected just because I was an Elemental. They pulled my in to an interview and told be they think Ele is a joke but my logs were all Orange so they'd give me a shot. During my trail I was getting all 99% parses but not even showing up on the meters for most fights. They accepted me in hopes that Elemental will be in a better spot in legion and that I'll still be just as good at it.

[Pandalishus]

Do you mean top 100 guild or top 100 Elemental Shamans? Because if it's top 100 Elemental Shamans then there's plenty of them on the forums. I don't know about top 100 guild but I know a lot are in top 200 guilds here.

Ucandoshit and Social are top 10 Elemental Shamans in the world on warcraft logs on occasion. There are plenty of good Shamans here......

I was even ranked top 10 for 2 weeks after my guilded down M archi too. Don't underestimate some people on here. There are some fantastic Shamans here that don't make it blatantly obvious who they are.

I'm not discounting the possibility of good shamans posting here, nor even the possibility that top shamans can post here. What I am questioning is whether honorifics like "Top 10" or "Top 100" are actually clear cut (or even factual). If we're talking about "for a short period of time, I parsed in the Top 10/100," OK, I can see that. But that's not "Top 10." It's quite impressive, no doubt, but we'd have to count how many shaman met that same criteria, so maybe there are thousands, so they're really just "Top 1000" shaman (and maybe they're at the low end of that because they only crack Top 10 1% of the time and others are there 50% of the time). Of course, this speaks to how we throw around terms as ways to legitimize ourselves or those we happen to like. A "Top 10" shaman (for me) would be someone who's consistently in that area, raids with a guild team that's consistent in, say, Top 100, and so on. Just cracking the Top 10 on DPS parses (where all sorts of variables are at play) 4 months after a world first just isn't sufficient grounds (to me).

I'm not arguing the "skilled shaman" point. I'm arguing the use of a particular parse on a particular week as proof that someone should be listened to. I don't mean to say that MMO-Champion can't attract good talent. You're obviously here, so they can. What I do mean, however, is that those who are quick to toss around "Top 10" and "Top 100" probably need to clarify what they mean. I don't consider "I parsed Top 10 once," devoid of any sort of analysis, to qualify. In fact, I'd say how one's guild performs is a far better indicator of "Top 10" than just how one parsed in any given week. Look at any sports team and you can see this dynamic playing out. Leading in sacks in Week 8 doesn't make you a "Top 10" defensive end. And this is where I get my "VERY unlikely they're Top 10 shamans" comment from. And I stand by it until we have their mains and we can really break it down and see how often and how well they perform (as well as their guilds). But in the interests of an olive branch, maybe just refer to them as "skilled shaman?" That seems to be more in line with what we can actually show to be true.

Yeah, and in which case do we see a spec which performs great during progression and in turn perferms terrible for the other 99%? Yeah, right - in NO case.

Agreed. And that's why I said no such thing. Interesting.

People just want to play their favourite class in whatever play style they've chosen.

Yet another spot where we agree. It's almost like you missed the point.

Lucrecree on a second account? Just like Prankish is saying, every Shaman who posts activily on Shaman boards knows who those two are.

Knowing who someone is and them being "top 10" or "Top 100" are not the same. See my reply to Prankish.

[Algoma0]

Let me rephrase what I've said. Elemental was the worst ranged spec in WoD. That said, it wasn't too far behind, and I would take a good elemental over a bad mage any day of the week. If you're playing top 20, chances are, most people are equally skilled, have equal amount of preparation and knowledge of the bosses, so your class matters alot when choosing raid-setups.

There is a spectrum of ranks, the lower you go, the less balance matters. "Balance matters" as in, you might lose your raidspot on any specific boss because of it. "Top100", or "Top50" is really just me trying to say "upper end of that spectrum". If you're raiding top 200, your class and spec still matter, they just matter less than for someone raiding top 10.

Also, the DPS in the "lower end" of the spectrum, mostly comes from player skill and not class unbalance. You should not compare two bad players and make assumptions about class balance, because one class might just be more difficult. This is where one could argue that "difficulty imbalance" is an issue, but I don't really care for that and I dont see anyone making this point here.

My main point is this:

Is Ele balanced for the Top 1% of players? No. But if Elemental's fine for basically 99% of the playerbase, then we must not make balance at Top 100 during progression the focus.

The focus of balance should be at the top. The top is where people min-max, it's where people know how to play the class, it's where balance matters the most. If you don't care about balance at the top, you don't care about balance at all.

Specs can be unplayable at the top, but playable at lower ranks. This is not because the imbalance doesn't exist there. It's because it doesn't matter as much.

EDIT:
To the post above me: I don't even think ranks matter when talking about the top of the spectrum. Many good players don't even go for top ranks, don't log publicly, or don't get to play with X amount of OP class at any given moment.

The only way to know if someone is good, is to play with them or to analyze their logs, not just count how many #1s this player has.

[Pandalishus]

I skimmed through your post originally and missed this part so I didn't assume you were a troll. This is hilarious though. Comparing RNG to a bell curve player skill distribution because why? probably because they both have % so you think they can be compared. You are a spectacular troll.

Not trolling at all. You apparently missed the point where I argued that you don't balanced based on what happens at the far ends of any statistical sample. Plenty of people claim that RNG is unbalanced because their friend got Invincible on the first kill while they did not. That's a misunderstanding of RNG. And so also is claiming that a class should be balanced based on "Top 100 during progression." This is a misunderstanding of balance. if you think that's trolling, then I may have been wrong to take you seriously here. Understanding the parallel between two cases of claiming imbalance based on the experience of 1% of the population should be middle school stuff.

[Prankish]

I'm not discounting the possibility of good shamans posting here, nor even the possibility that top shamans can post here. What I am questioning is whether honorifics like "Top 10" or "Top 100" are actually clear cut (or even factual). If we're talking about "for a short period of time, I parsed in the Top 10/100," OK, I can see that. But that's not "Top 10." It's quite impressive, no doubt, but we'd have to count how many shaman met that same criteria, so maybe there are thousands, so they're really just "Top 1000" shaman (and maybe they're at the low end of that because they only crack Top 10 1% of the time and others are there 50% of the time). Of course, this speaks to how we throw around terms as ways to legitimize ourselves or those we happen to like. A "Top 10" shaman (for me) would be someone who's consistently in that area, raids with a guild team that's consistent in, say, Top 100, and so on. Just cracking the Top 10 on DPS parses (where all sorts of variables are at play) 4 months after a world first just isn't sufficient grounds (to me).

I'm not arguing the "skilled shaman" point. I'm arguing the use of a particular parse on a particular week as proof that someone should be listened to. I don't mean to say that MMO-Champion can't attract good talent. You're obviously here, so they can. What I do mean, however, is that those who are quick to toss around "Top 10" and "Top 100" probably need to clarify what they mean. I don't consider "I parsed Top 10 once," devoid of any sort of analysis, to qualify. In fact, I'd say how one's guild performs is a far better indicator of "Top 10" than just how one parsed in any given week. Look at any sports team and you can see this dynamic playing out. Leading in sacks in Week 8 doesn't make you a "Top 10" defensive end. And this is where I get my "VERY unlikely they're Top 10 shamans" comment from. And I stand by it until we have their mains and we can really break it down and see how often and how well they perform (as well as their guilds). But in the interests of an olive branch, maybe just refer to them as "skilled shaman?" That seems to be more in line with what we can actually show to be true.

I don't think you understand how Warcraft logs work. I got top 10 Elemental and stopped raiding. 8 months later, when WoD logs froze, I'm still top 100. At that level you don't just dip because it takes a lot of work and consistency to get that high in the first place.

In UcandoShit's case, I know he was top 20 all expansion. But top 10 is all that shows up on the front page unless you expand it so It's got a special place for me. I sad he pops in and out because its competitive as fuck. You won't keep top 10 for long unless you do every boss every week and work hard to out do yourself from the previous week.

A "Top 10" shaman (for me) would be someone who's consistently in that area, raids with a guild team that's consistent in, say, Top 100

There aren't many Ele's in the Top 100 guilds, sorry. You shouldn't use that as a metric.

I don't consider "I parsed Top 10 once," devoid of any sort of analysis, to qualify

Again you simply don't understand how Warcraftlogs ranking system works and thats on you. When I say top 10 Shaman I mean their ranking system. Look it up instead of saying all this stuff. Getting on top 10 log does not get you to their rankings. Top 10 ranked player will have top 20 parses on every single boss.

[Pandalishus]

Yes. I actually think that's my argument? If class A is strictly better than class B, that's the definition if "imbalance". That's bad. That's what the dev's should be trying to avoid.

OK, fair enough. The question is whether they can. Like I said, the numbers of variables that come into play at that level make balance extremely difficult. As such, you don't look to the experiences of a thousandth of a percent of the player base to balance. If a sense, your argument somewhat undermines itself. If you're really concerned about "strictly better," then "top 100" is NOT the focus. The focus should be, say, Top 10000 (or even "Mid 100"). Because if, across 10,000 players, A is consistently better, then there is an imbalance. If it's just "Top 100," we have no idea (because of things like player skill, gear imbalances, etc, etc, etc. Those things add variables that are difficult to control for at the top tier of gaming and introduce imbalances that may have nothing to do with the class). This is why this discussion should NOT be "Top 100 only." It should be across all levels.

That said, I somewhat misunderstood your point, so I do think we agree. I simply think you are wrong to state that balance efforts should focus on Top 100 at progression. they should not. They should look across the entire spectrum. If an ele shaman can never beat a fire mage, there is an imbalance.

What? No. The dropchance of Invincibly is not balanced - on purpose. Are you saying that classes aren't balances on purpose? What kind of analogy is this? Anyway, it's very stupid and doesn't support your claim at all.

See my reply to Prankish on this point. It has to do with people complaining about what happens at the far end of a particular spectrum as though the far end is the focus should be. If you focus on Invincible drops across the entire spectrum, you see it's fair. If you look at ele balance across the entire spectrum, you see what? Balance? Imbalance? Hance why the discussion is not about what happens at one end.

I've said this like 5 times on this forum. I'll continue saying it: If you are not raiding Top100, you should not care about balance. Class balance and your raidsetup barely affect your raid, your raidspot, or your ranking. You don't raid top100 and dont care about balance? What the fuck are you doing in a discussion about balance for top 100 progression?

I think I've spelled out why this is wrong above. If you don't agree, that's fine. Like i said, I understand where you're coming from better now, so disagree less.

[Algoma0]

If you're really concerned about "strictly better," then "top 100" is NOT the focus. The focus should be, say, Top 10000 (or even "Mid 100"). Because if, across 10,000 players, A is consistently better, then there is an imbalance. If it's just "Top 100," we have no idea (because of things like player skill, gear imbalances, etc, etc, etc. Those things add variables that are difficult to control for at the top tier of gaming and introduce imbalances that may have nothing to do with the class). This is why this discussion should NOT be "Top 100 only." It should be across all levels.

I strongly disagree with this. We are evaluating specs, assuming that there are no other variables. Assuming they have the same gear, the same skill (playing the class perfectly), the same amount of knowledge. That's the whole point. People at lower levels, DO have variables, especially player skill. That's why we should not compare two specs through the lens of players raiding top 1500, but top 5.

[Kazgrel]

I'm one of the many who wouldn't qualify as being top 10 or even 100, but I take care in what class I choose in any game, because no one wants to be a one legged man in an ass kicking contest, when by simply choosing another class, they have both legs available.

[Mcbenchpress]

Looking forward to playing my Shaman again in Legion! Mage was pretty terrible to play in WoD.

[Pandalishus]

IIn UcandoShit's case, I know he was top 20 all expansion. But top 10 is all that shows up on the front page unless you expand it so It's got a special place for me. I sad he pops in and out because its competitive as fuck. You won't keep top 10 for long unless you do every boss every week and work hard to out do yourself from the previous week.

I understand how the rankings work, but I guess I'm at the disadvantage of not knowing his shammy name as you do. Without a name to track down (I still can't find yours, but that appears to be a result of letting my Premium membership lapse for a few months). But if his ranking was consistently Top 20 on each progression boss in HFC rankings among ele shamans, then I agree, "Top 10" or "Top 20" applies. Nevertheless, this still gets to the motivation behind my original comment. "Top 10" can mean a lot of things. We've had quite a bit of a back and forth before being able to nail that down, and even then, I can't verify it. Maybe I'm overly suspicious of internet forums, but many things are said and few things are verified, so I assume bluster is just that until shown otherwise. But that's enough of that. You've made a fair case. I was in the wrong. So be it.

There aren't many Ele's in the Top 100 guilds, sorry. You shouldn't use that as a metric.

You're absolutely right. My fault there. I didn't main shammy this expack, so I didn't have that worry.

- - - Updated - - -

I strongly disagree with this. We are evaluating specs, assuming that there are no other variables. Assuming they have the same gear, the same skill (playing the class perfectly), the same amount of knowledge. That's the whole point. People at lower levels, DO have variables, especially player skill. That's why we should not compare two specs through the lens of players raiding top 1500, but top 5.

OK, I understand your argument much better now. I think that there are too many assumptions about what can actually be accomplished in a given period of time, what is best for everyone (and how that is tested), and how we control for variables. On the other hand, your argument has some strong points, so I'm fine to just end on the disagreement. not all debates can be settled in a day. My apologies if I stirred up any drama (though from what i can tell, that had been stirred thoroughly before I logged in this AM).

[Bugg]

not sure why the shaman forums attract so much pathetic drama.
maybe it's because of the type of players that chose shaman?

[Lucrece]

not sure why the shaman forums attract so much pathetic drama.
maybe it's because of the type of players that chose shaman?

By this point the head of the hydra has been cut with UcanDoSht and a few more sprouted, so it's probably for the best that a mod lock this thread up. It's been nothing but ranting and petty sniping anyways.

[Deleted]

Agreed. And that's why I said no such thing. Interesting.


Yet another spot where we agree. It's almost like you missed the point.


Knowing who someone is and them being "top 10" or "Top 100" are not the same. See my reply to Prankish.

Maybe it's you who should actually re read what you've wrote and I've replied to. You suggest us to just accept that Elemental won't be suitable for top 100 progression, because balance at this level wracks balance at all lower levels. Except it doesn't for any other spec.

Of course people have multiple specs at this level, but this doesn't change the fact what they'd actually like to play. Which is the point of this discussion. Hence people batter others who don't raid at this level.

[Kazgrel]

not sure why the shaman forums attract so much pathetic drama.
maybe it's because of the type of players that chose shaman?

You're in an elemental-specific thread, a spec that most players who've played it over the years have been absolutely flustered at how lackluster it has been compared to other casters over the course of the game's life. That's why there's so much aggravation among many of the posters here.

[Deleted]

By this point the head of the hydra has been cut with UcanDoSht and a few more sprouted, so it's probably for the best that a mod lock this thread up. It's been nothing but ranting and petty sniping anyways.

But maybe this is a sign that you should finally flee this discussion, like all the other times you where proven wrong at laughed at like the little brad you are in reality.

People are discussing different stuff, except for you. You disrupt the peace of this thread.

[Excessu]

I fail to understand the point of this thread. Ban my boi ucndosht and all we got left is shitty arguments about nothing. Do I need some special form of mental illness to take anything constructive and informative out of this cancerfest?

[DesFolk]

Ele numbers not a problem. Ele talents and artifact synergy is problem.

[Deleted]

UcanDoSht sat on a wall,
UcanDoSht had a great fall,
All the SJW’s horses and all the SJW’s men,
Couldn’t put UcanDoSht together again.

[Prankish]

By this point the head of the hydra has been cut with UcanDoSht and a few more sprouted, so it's probably for the best that a mod lock this thread up. It's been nothing but ranting and petty sniping anyways.

If you're slowly trying to become the most respectable Shaman on this forum, I feel like you're going about it wrong. You'll be the last person here if that's ever the case.