New Destruction Math

[BannedForViews]

I think the thing to take out of the post is not the numbers presented but the mechanics changes. Those numbers can always be adjusted but it's how the class plays that needs to be the focus of PTR.

If they wanted to keep it at 2 shards per CB to avoid you banking 5 they could just double all those figures, so yes, you are right. The mechanics is what is important here. It sounds like it will be nearly impossible to overcap shards and a lot easier to bank a ton of burst for priority moments. On the flip side, you'll be casting a lot more incinerates, which some people don't like.

[Baconeggcheese]

Very true. I thought of that as I was posting, obviously you'd be casting more filler spells. This would make up for that lost damage, but this further amplifies my point... those who were pushing for these changes could have screwed us.

How?

The entire point is that the spec lacks the on demand burst it used to have and CB was competing with filler for # of casts. The spec plays terribly in practical situations and lacks the strengths that were the reason it was played for 2 xpacs.

These changes push the spec mechanically in a direction to address that, numbers are completely irrelevant right now vs intention as tuning has yet to happen.

I personally LOVE machine gunning CBs that hit for 1.2mil...

Fair enough, there's someone who'll like any version of any spec.

Personally I miss the spec I had for 2 xpacs where chaosbolt actually did damage instead of competing for globals with incinerate. To each their own though.

[Uzkin]

These were (some of) the high points of destruction in the last two expacs (MoP, WoD) :

(1) gaming the CBs - pooling the embers for trinket procs / pots / dark soul / havoc for massive damage
(2) aoe - spam FnB immolates, conflagrates, incinerates, (CBs) and burn the enemies to ashes
(3) shadowburn shenanigans - snipe the dying adds while pre-havocing, then havocing the main target
(4) petlessness - sac pet for an utility spell plus a boost to the big hitters (spec-appropriate and fun)
(5) theme - fiery aura, fiery secondary resource, fiery-trail waterwalking class mount, ...
(6) handy baseline stuff - demonic circle, mana regen (Tap-free), lower GCD, Soul Shatter, ...
(7) predictable resource generation, interactive fillers/toolkit
(8) appealing and spec-appropriate mastery - no RNG, great, visible impact on big hitters
(9) etc. etc.

Come Legion, Blizzard ruined ALL of the above. All of it. EVERYTHING that was fun and appealing about destruction in the previous 2 expacs was decimated in Legion alpha/beta. And now Blizzard apparently spends the entire expansion reverting and undoing these design errors one at a time. Why impose an expansion-long beta upon destruction warlocks? Why didn't they just heed the massive negative feedback immediately in alpha/beta and say "Sorry guys, we don't know WTF we were thinking. Old game-play restored."?

[Deleted]

Yeah, it seems that some people would rather cast one chaos bolt dealing 1,4 mil damage than cast three chaos bolts dealing 1 mil each during the same time window.

People rather spam incinerate than chaos bolt? Wow...

[Livnthedream]

Personally I miss the spec I had for 2 xpacs

This sums up much of the complaining though. I skipped the last 2 (may as well say 3 since I quit with Firelands) so don't really give 2 shits about what you had/miss. If that was an argument then it holds just as much weight as wanting say 0/21/40 back from BC. Which is ludicrous on it's surface.

Instead of pining away for what you had focus more on fixing the issues/making viable what the spec currently is. As in it is okish at 2 target fights, but those fights are few and far between and the spec tends to be more of a burden than a boon when they are not present.

[Baconeggcheese]

Instead of pining away for what you had focus more on fixing the issues/making viable what the spec currently is.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Destruction received the least changes out of all our specs going into legion, but what did change had a dramatic affect on how the spec plays and its viability in certain scenarios. I don't believe blizzards goal was to move away from the core of what the spec was, hence the feedback.

[Uzkin]

Yeah, it seems that some people would rather cast one chaos bolt dealing 1,4 mil damage than cast three chaos bolts dealing 1 mil each during the same time window.

People rather spam incinerate than chaos bolt? Wow...

Hyperbole aside, yes, it is better to have a big-hitting spender which you can pool resources for and use strategically than to have two separate, unimpressive, spammable fillers. The latter design offers no versatility nor depth, and it also lacks "high points" or "moments of awesomeness".

[Avikur]

The fact is Blizzard are never going to make Destruction the same as it was in MoP , believe me I wish they would, that style of play is the most fun I've ever had playing this game, I couldn't care less if it was top or bottom for damage, I just enjoyed how it played. I do however believe there is a happy medium between what we have now and what we had in MoP, I just hope they nail it in 7.2.5.

7.1.5 brought about a fair few class changes, some like shadow priests were good, others like MM hunters were not so good, I hope Destruction is one they get right!

I'm hoping the devs post more about their plans like they have with Brewmasters, I'd also expect 7.2.5 to go on the PTR either this week or next week

[Livnthedream]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Of course it isn't. However it will be much more likely to be taken seriously if you don't come off as "Gimme back what I had in MoP!" which it really kind of does. As a developer, that is an automatic shut off, no matter how concise/reasonable the feedback.

Destruction received the least changes out of all our specs going into legion, but what did change had a dramatic affect on how the spec plays and its viability in certain scenarios. I don't believe blizzards goal was to move away from the core of what the spec was, hence the feedback.

I bolded the issue. Your belief just so happens to line up with your angst over not having what you used to have. If Blizzard wanted that, then they would have kept that rather than making the changes that they have.

[Lucrece]

What would you know what is an automatic shutoff for a Blizzard developer? You just slammed him for using a belief to make a point when you have just done the same.

Let's not speak as if we had a direct line to a Blizzard developer.

[Amonthar]

How do these proposed changes (I know numbers will change) affect the artifact path after trait 42? Should I just fill it in as I see fit?

Since I was fortunate thought to get the belt, should I go for chaos bolt damage increase over immolate crit and incinerate damage? (I am not in front of a computer to see the actual names of the traits.)

[Avikur]

How do these proposed changes (I know numbers will change) affect the artifact path after trait 42? Should I just fill it in as I see fit?

Since I was fortunate thought to get the belt, should I go for chaos bolt damage increase over immolate crit and incinerate damage? (I am not in front of a computer to see the actual names of the traits.)

Realistically these changes won't hit live for around 2 months at the earliest so by then you'll have most of the traits anyway I would imagine so just stick to the current suggested path would be my advice

[Mezmaron]

Of course it isn't. However it will be much more likely to be taken seriously if you don't come off as "Gimme back what I had in MoP!" which it really kind of does. As a developer, that is an automatic shut off, no matter how concise/reasonable the feedback.

I don't see how you claim this when the very change we're discussing is a return to something we had in MOP.

[Livnthedream]

I don't see how you claim this when the very change we're discussing is a return to something we had in MOP.

The number of people pointing out how it isn't should throw up massive red flags as to the truth of this statement.

[Mezmaron]

The number of people pointing out how it isn't should throw up massive red flags as to the truth of this statement.

From Blizzard's own post: Mechanically, this will be similar to the Mists of Pandaria resource system of Burning Embers, except we want to go with a consistent Soul Shard visual, updated Soul Shard UI (work in progress), and name for the resource across all 3 Warlock specs.


They then go on to describe the changes in more detail which are similar to how burning embers worked in Mists. Even if you don't believe Blizzard's own words for how it will function, they themselves think of it as something more like Mists, which was my point--wanting things from MoP is not a non starter with them.

[Livnthedream]

wanting things from MoP is not a non starter with them.

The PR speak is real.

[Baconeggcheese]

Of course it isn't. However it will be much more likely to be taken seriously if you don't come off as "Gimme back what I had in MoP!" which it really kind of does. As a developer, that is an automatic shut off, no matter how concise/reasonable the feedback.

Hence why I give the feedback I give on the official forums, which differs in tone vs what I discuss here.

I bolded the issue. Your belief just so happens to line up with your angst over not having what you used to have. If Blizzard wanted that, then they would have kept that rather than making the changes that they have.

The changes they've already proposed on the official forums disagree with you.