1. #781
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    21,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Protoman View Post
    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.

  2. #782
    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.
    Last edited by enodra; 2012-04-01 at 04:03 AM.

  3. #783
    Warchief Protoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Maryland, US
    Posts
    2,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    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.

  4. #784
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    21,371
    Quote Originally Posted by enodra View Post
    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.


  5. #785
    Warchief Protoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Maryland, US
    Posts
    2,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    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.

  6. #786
    High Overlord fearchanges's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    the Netherlands
    Posts
    160
    I'v got a question about some glyphs.

    First of all, resto is my sec spec and I usually don't play it a lot, but what use does the earth shield glyph give me? No stacks and last for 45 sec with a 45 sec cd? I find this kinda strange.

    Next to thatis the FE glyph usefull? I did some raw maths in my head and the uptime of FE with the glyph is kinda limited compared to not using the glyph, it's a short window after the 3min30 mark untill 5 min. Or is this glyph only usefull if you want to use the FE in arena? I think I'm missing something here

  7. #787
    Quote Originally Posted by fearchanges View Post
    I'v got a question about some glyphs.

    First of all, resto is my sec spec and I usually don't play it a lot, but what use does the earth shield glyph give me? No stacks and last for 45 sec with a 45 sec cd? I find this kinda strange.

    Next to thatis the FE glyph usefull? I did some raw maths in my head and the uptime of FE with the glyph is kinda limited compared to not using the glyph, it's a short window after the 3min30 mark untill 5 min. Or is this glyph only usefull if you want to use the FE in arena? I think I'm missing something here
    diden't some1 say that in "patch" they changed glyph in somthing like 40% cd reduction and 40% more uptime? or i read worng some page ago?

  8. #788
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    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.
    Comments like that always make me chuckle. Sure in those super rare, 1% of the game moments you'd use that unleash, but that's about it. It is so situational and not needed that blizz planned to remove it. Even now I think they should put in a different UE effect than a taunt, unless they really want us to tank.
    Also it has nothing really to do with a choice either. You macro switch it for UE and after that it is uninteresting again. The imbue itself is completely worthless. NO choice at all.
    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.
    I chose the word "restriction" to differentiate it from choice. Choice sounds positive, restriction does not. If you have that much of a problem with the word, let's call it a bother then. It is a bother being forced to either sacrifice your most basic pvp utility frs/fb for a good chunk of damage which you are balanced around as you use it in pve.
    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.
    How are these comparisons misleading? An enhance is at the end of the day a melee, just like a warrior. Just like a warrior he deals damage and uses utility. A warrior in MoP is able to sacrifice hardly anything besides gcds for utility, while a shaman has to make more-or-less permanent choices between imbues, or restrictions while he plays, like ele having to give up frs for their burst, or enh giving up UE:FT or SS synergy.

    Caster get kiting tools, melees get gap closers, that's balance
    Yet ele/enh shamans have to heavily sacrifice their dmg for that stuff others dont have to sacrifice for. If balance requires each class being 100% independent of what others have, then how come almost everyone has a stun now, almost every melee having a instant gap closer, almost everyone (every melee) having an interrupt and so on? Isn't it because balance ultimately happens after comparing classes to each other, figuring out what a class may lack in order to fit into the greater picture?

    No, the Warrior in your comparison did not go full damage while doing all that, and that fact is outright obvious.
    Okay, I never mained a warrior and I'm not 100% fluent with the current intended changes, but what besides gcds does a warrior in MoP sacrifice for gap closing/spell-reflecting/snaring/stunning and popping his survivability abilities?
    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.
    An enh going full damage wont continue to do so as soon as he wants to use utility. He'll have to switch shocks, imbues and has to use MSW for different things. A warrior doesn't change his dps flow all that much. He witholds a dmg ability for one gcd and that's it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angoth
    I'm sorry that Blizzard won't just gift wrap awesome in a cup and let you drink your fill.

  9. #789
    @ Protoman

    I just wanted to say that after going through half this thread I started to skip you're posts ( no offense ) and some of Endus's too because you keep repeating yourself way too much to the point it gets really really annoying as well as Endus but in his case I can at least understand since hes a Mod here and he keeps repeating his answer to you in hopes you will get it even after he tried rewording his post many many times but to no avail. Please less walls of text and try to summarize your posts more because it would be nice to read some really thought out ideas and suggestions, and btw I do switch weapon imbues whenever the situation calls for it and I really hope they dont implement what you are suggesting.

    @ Endus

    First off thanks for you're patience and continued support to the shaman community. I think what you are suggesting to remove Imbue GCDs is the perfect plan to make us more active in switching imbues and making "FASTER CHOICES" in certain situations.

    2-3 mobs caught up to me and I need a damage reduction CD to survive for a bit ? NP Super Unleash Rockbiter Macro to the resuce !!

    1 Mob loose and its running really fast after me ? NP Super Unleash Frostbrand Weapon Macro to the rescue !!

    I really really hope they do remove the GCD it will make for alot more FUN and FASTER "decision making"

  10. #790
    Quote Originally Posted by Undefetter View Post
    If you give 5% SP ...how much DPS they lose.
    Just to let you know: you used my name to quote something Protoman said.
    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 doubt it would be good enough to make ele use fb though. Unleash elements/fury FT holds MUCH more use for ele than it does for enh. Ele would lose even more dmg than enh does. ALso it would get less out of UE:FB, since FRS is hardly used in ele pvp to create that 70% snare.
    Why would Elemental take it in PvP? It still only procs off melee hits....
    Orion answered that for me. UE:FB

    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.
    The reason shamans would always take FB if it were more potent is rather obvious. We dont have as much base-utility a rogue, mage or hunter (using extremes here to make my point). A rogue isn't forced to have crippling poison on any of his weapons or to have the talent to have it even w/o having it (deadly brew).
    Because we have less baseline, we rely on it much more than others do. Every little thing is important. If ele had FrS separated from the shock cd (dmg removed maybe) for example, ele wouldn't have to worry about the imbue issue, while an enh with a talent similiar to deadly brew wouldn't have to worry about shocks.
    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.
    It was as much a dps/utility choice as imbues/shocks are. It is just more severe. Also they were the probably most notable class mechanic. Imbues/shocks aren't, so why do they have to stay as they are? Wether you have to imbue dance just so you can snare, or having to stance dance, just so you can interrupt, the basic thought is the same.

    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.
    So stance-dance = bad, but imbue-dance = good? That's some serious logic right there. Maybe bringing back totem-twisting while we're at it? You dont see an issue with having to imbue dance to snare, but when it comes to interrupts, they crossed the line or what? Why do we need a downside on snaring? Who else has them really? Most have their snares either passively proccing from autohits/specials or in the form of hamstring which isn't much of a sacrifice.

    I guess everyone will have his/her own opinion, but saying another's change to something is okay while ours is not is simply silly. If you'd said: Yes, they changed that to warriors, and I think it's dumb they did (stance dance = base mechanic), at least there'd be cohessiveness in your arguments. It's like you're making excuses for blizzard's warrior change.

    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.
    -A warrior has an instant gap closer to make up for a ranged interrupt. Why would you need to kick on range, when you could just as well gap close from range, and then interrupt? I admit there is focus target kicking, which, yes, is a benefit. BUT: I would trade our increased runspeed/ranged interrupt for an instant gap closer/melee interrupt combo in a heartbeat.
    -A warrior cannot heal others or has freedom, no. But that is neither baseline stuff, nor is it the basic reperteure of a melee. These are cases in which you can only say "different classes have different focuses". When mentioning an instant gap closer, interrupt or stun, you may at the very first thought think of a warrior, rogue, and paladin but then there'll be all the others. And monks will have their own version of all the three mentioned i asume (haven't paid much attention to their design)

    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.
    Yes, but a rogue also has like a dozen of cooldowns, gouge, a talent block almost entirely focused on mainly-interesting-for-pvp utility designed for a class with three melee specs (where enh is forced to decide between three caster talents at some point), stealth, kick and feint (probably also some very potent glpyhs but to lazy to check right now.
    The point is: They have such a huge shitload of utility, it makes sacrifices more important than on a shaman, who isn't really famous for being a pvp monster.
    Also combo points are rather fast to stack, especially when you take an opponent out for 6 seconds and he cant resist.

    A wotlk/cata rogue going for full damage has more utility than an enh going for full utility. That's why.
    Last edited by Omanley; 2012-04-01 at 12:38 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angoth
    I'm sorry that Blizzard won't just gift wrap awesome in a cup and let you drink your fill.

  11. #791
    Quote Originally Posted by Omanley View Post
    Comments like that always make me chuckle. Sure in those super rare, 1% of the game moments you'd use that unleash, but that's about it. It is so situational and not needed that blizz planned to remove it. Even now I think they should put in a different UE effect than a taunt, unless they really want us to tank.
    Also it has nothing really to do with a choice either. You macro switch it for UE and after that it is uninteresting again. The imbue itself is completely worthless. NO choice at all.
    You have made the choice not to use the on hit affects of the ability your macroing, and you have made the choice not to use the Unleash of the Imbue your replacing. How is that not a choice? Just because you made a macro that carries out the choice for you doesn't mean you haven't made a choice to begin with. Abilities that are no brainers that can be macrod and ignored are not fun, but you have to make the choice to press the unleash macro that has the slow in it, or the unleash macro that has the taunt in it. You also make the choice to not use the on hit. There is choice in there, you would have 3 or even 4 macros in this situation and then make the choice of which to pick (unleash with Earth Living, unleash with Frostbrand, unleash with Rockbiter - especially in Mists - and another to turn FT back on).

    Quote Originally Posted by Omanley View Post
    I chose the word "restriction" to differentiate it from choice. Choice sounds positive, restriction does not. If you have that much of a problem with the word, let's call it a bother then. It is a bother being forced to either sacrifice your most basic pvp utility frs/fb for a good chunk of damage which you are balanced around as you use it in pve.

    How are these comparisons misleading? An enhance is at the end of the day a melee, just like a warrior. Just like a warrior he deals damage and uses utility. A warrior in MoP is able to sacrifice hardly anything besides gcds for utility, while a shaman has to make more-or-less permanent choices between imbues, or restrictions while he plays, like ele having to give up frs for their burst, or enh giving up UE:FT or SS synergy.

    Caster get kiting tools, melees get gap closers, that's balance
    Yet ele/enh shamans have to heavily sacrifice their dmg for that stuff others dont have to sacrifice for. If balance requires each class being 100% independent of what others have, then how come almost everyone has a stun now, almost every melee having a instant gap closer, almost everyone (every melee) having an interrupt and so on? Isn't it because balance ultimately happens after comparing classes to each other, figuring out what a class may lack in order to fit into the greater picture?
    You ignore the abilities we have that they don't have. Enhance has kiting tools and far more ranged abilities than other melee. Enhance has heals they can use on others and far more ranged CC. And to say balance is 100% independant of what others have is not true at all. By definition its 100% DEPENDANT on what others have, but not in a 1 to 1 level. Its not class A has ability X, class B has ability Y, ability Y is better than ability X so class B is best. Thats not how it works at all.

    Using stuns as an example, we now have a ranged 5 second stun (if talents to make it ranged) or a melee range stun if not talented. We have not got an instant gap closer but we have lots of gap closing abilities (especially if you take UF). We have the best interrupt in the game even after the nerf due to it being ranged and on a short cooldown, ect ect. None of this means we are better/worse than other classes because we have so much more than these 3 aspects and so do they.

    Quote Originally Posted by Omanley View Post
    Okay, I never mained a warrior and I'm not 100% fluent with the current intended changes, but what besides gcds does a warrior in MoP sacrifice for gap closing/spell-reflecting/snaring/stunning and popping his survivability abilities?

    An enh going full damage wont continue to do so as soon as he wants to use utility. He'll have to switch shocks, imbues and has to use MSW for different things. A warrior doesn't change his dps flow all that much. He witholds a dmg ability for one gcd and that's it.
    Survival Abilities - Defensive Stand and a Shield. Massive DPS loss

    Snaring/Stunning - Except for charge he needs to actually be in melee range to do these, we dont

    Gap Closing - Heroic Leap has a long cooldown, Charge has a 20 (12 if talented) second cooldown but if slowed you can easily get away from them again, they rely heavily on dispels currently and all dispels are getting cooldowns in Mists, whilst we have a no cooldown instant cast perma-freedom.

    ---------- Post added 2012-04-01 at 01:50 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Omanley View Post
    Just to let you know: you used my name to quote something Protoman said.

    I doubt it would be good enough to make ele use fb though. Unleash elements/fury FT holds MUCH more use for ele than it does for enh. Ele would lose even more dmg than enh does. ALso it would get less out of UE:FB, since FRS is hardly used in ele pvp to create that 70% snare.

    Orion answered that for me. UE:FB


    The reason shamans would always take FB if it were more potent is rather obvious. We dont have as much base-utility a rogue, mage or hunter (using extremes here to make my point). A rogue isn't forced to have crippling poison on any of his weapons or to have the talent to have it even w/o having it (deadly brew).
    Because we have less baseline, we rely on it much more than others do. Every little thing is important. If ele had FrS separated from the shock cd (dmg removed maybe) for example, ele wouldn't have to worry about the imbue issue, while an enh with a talent similiar to deadly brew wouldn't have to worry about shocks.
    If the rogue has crippling poison he can't have Mind Numbing poison. Theres a trade off right there, he also can't have Deadly Poison on his weapon for extra DPS (though this is a non-issue in Mists because they are only allowed 1 DPS poison from now on).

    We have a ranged slow, a ranged root in Mists (and Enhance has it now), a ranged CC (instant if Enhance wants too), a freedom and a (long cooldown) sprint. In Mists you get a 15second cooldown sprint if you use FB, as well as the Imbue affect it has currently (not included in the list of what we already have). We also have far more healing, a ranged interrupt, Tremor and Grounding Totem, as well as Hex. Rogues have more CC than us, but not necessarily more Utility, especially in Mists. Rogues get very little extra in Mists, and in fact lose a lot, whilst we are getting a plethora of new things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Omanley View Post

    It was as much a dps/utility choice as imbues/shocks are. It is just more severe. Also they were the probably most notable class mechanic. Imbues/shocks aren't, so why do they have to stay as they are? Wether you have to imbue dance just so you can snare, or having to stance dance, just so you can interrupt, the basic thought is the same.


    So stance-dance = bad, but imbue-dance = good? That's some serious logic right there. Maybe bringing back totem-twisting while we're at it? You dont see an issue with having to imbue dance to snare, but when it comes to interrupts, they crossed the line or what? Why do we need a downside on snaring? Who else has them really? Most have their snares either passively proccing from autohits/specials or in the form of hamstring which isn't much of a sacrifice.

    I guess everyone will have his own opinion, but saying other's change to something is okay while ours is not is simply silly. If you'd said: Yes, they changed that to warriors, and I think it's dumb they did, at list there'd be cohessiveness in your arguments.
    I was, you even acknowledged my reasoning. It was far more severe for a Warrior than it is for us. Thats the reason it was changed. Ours is not a problem on anywhere near the scale it was for warriors.

    Quote Originally Posted by Omanley View Post


    -A warrior has an instant gap closer to make up for a ranged interrupt. Why would you need to kick on range, when you could just as well gap close from range, and then interrupt. I admit there is focus target kicking, which, yes, is a benefit. BUT: I would trade our increased runspeed/ranged interrupt for an instant gap closer/melee interrupt in a heartbeat
    -A warrior cannot heal others or has freedom, no. But that is neither baseline stuff, nor is it the basic reperteure of a melee. These are cases in which you can simply say "different classes have different benefits". When mentioning an instant gap closer, interrupt or stun, you may at the very first thought think of a warrior, rogue, and paladin but then there'll be all the others. And monks will have their own version of all the three mentioned i presume (haven't paid much attention to their design)
    1 - Charge has a 20 second cooldown, Pummel has (in Mists) a 15 second cooldown (10 second on live). Wind shear has a 12 second cooldown (in Mists - 6/5 second on live). Wind shear can be used whilst hitting one target to interrupt another. To Pummel a healer whilst DPSing a DPS class you have to stop all DPS on that target and charge away from them. Again, your only looking at the positives of one class and the negatives of others.

    2 - Heals are baseline, as is Ghostwolf. Also why does whether or not its baseline even matter? And "thats not what a melee is" is not even an argument. You have made up in your head what you think a melee DPS should be and because Enhance doesn't fit into that made up rule its somehow bad? I don't even understand the second half of your argument. Why does the class you think of when someone mentions an ability affect balance? And we may not have instant gap closers but we will have a 15 second sprint that combines with a 70% slow to be basically an instant gap closer. We have the best interrupt in the game and we are getting a stun. Whats your point?

    Quote Originally Posted by Omanley View Post
    Yes, but a rogue also has like a dozen of cooldowns, gouge, a talent block almost entirely focused on mainly-interesting-for-pvp utility designed for a class with three melee specs (where enh is forced to decide between three caster talents at some point), stealth, kick and feint (probably also some very potent glpyhs but to lazy to check right now.
    The point is: They have such a huge shitload of utility, it makes sacrifices more important than on a shaman, who isn't really famous for being a pvp monster.
    Also combo points are rather fast to stack, especially when you take an opponent out for 6 seconds and he cant resist.

    A wotlk/cata rogue going for full damage has more utility than an enh going for full utility. That's why.
    1 - We have lots of cooldowns too, and we also have lots of party wide defenses that a rogue doesn't. You could include their level 87 ability as a party wide defense, but then you have to include Ascendance which is easily the best offensive melee DPS cooldown in the game.

    2 - A rogue going for full DPS and never using anything for utility has no more or less utility than an Enhance. You still have to use globals to CC people, that is a ridiculous argument. Rogues are also very cooldown based, if they blow a cooldown to CC you they will then be unable to CC you for a certain amount of time, and CC is their whole utility, they have no party defenses beyond single target peels. Also, combo points are far more important to a rogue because its what their entire rotation is built around. Its the equivalent of you having to use up a LL to cast Hex. Your definition of utility only seems to be CC, in which case yes we may well be inferior to a rogue, but we have far more outside of CC that they do not have. They even have to talent into their instant gap closer now so they dont even have that 'baseline'.


  12. #792
    Quote Originally Posted by Undefetter View Post
    You have made the choice not to use the on hit affects of the ability your macroing
    Except RB has no on hit effect at all. Also when you only use it in very rare occassional moments, it is not a choice to use it or not. If an ability is not rewarding to use, you're forced to do w/o it. There is no reward in generating extra threat, is there? That's what I meant. NO choice. RB is 99.99% of the time not used, and in the 0.01% it is, it is only the unleash and even that we can live without. No choice.
    Enhance has kiting tools and far more ranged abilities than other melee.
    A melee shouldn't have much need for kiting abilities though.
    Enhance has heals they can use on others and far more ranged CC.
    Heals on others is a class-issue as I explained, not a spec issue. And with base mana and through having to stack msw/having to sacrifice dmg, blizz made sure it is not as great an asset as you make it out to be. Most of the time, we need that heal ourselves, and warriors/rogues have that as well.
    -As for "far more ranged CC": Warrior is just as good if not better than shaman CC. And shaman CC isn't ~thaaat~ ranged. We have FrS and hex, that's it. Warriors aren't really losing in that regard.
    And to say balance is 100% independant of what others have is not true at all. By definition its 100% DEPENDANT on what others have, but not in a 1 to 1 level. Its not class A has ability X, class B has ability Y, ability Y is better than ability X so class B is best. Thats not how it works at all.
    That is exactly my train of thought. Endus said that my arguments would be misleading because I keep comparing us with others, which sounds to me like "dont complain, shamans are shamans, we dont need stuff others have because we're different". Homogenisation was always present since the beginning of tbc. Ability clusters and restrictions have continously seen changes. Our totems finally benefit from that. Our shocks/imbues dont. That's the issue here.

    We have the best interrupt in the game even after the nerf due to it being ranged and on a short cooldown, ect ect.
    From what I've seen, Wind Shear will have a 12 sec cd, versus other's 15 second. While ours has a 3 sec lockout though, others have a 5 second lockout. So the overall lockout percentage of others is not only bigger, in 5 seconds, a lot more can happen in pvp than in 3 seconds. So I wouldn't say Wind Shear is the best interrupt in the game. It is very good for resto still, yes. Also good for ele. But for enh the range issue is merely to make up for the lack of a charge-esque ability, with the cd being countered by bad lockout percentage.

    None of this means we are better/worse than other classes because we have so much more than these 3 aspects and so do they.
    Our abilities, while we have plenty (though we continously some), are traditionally linked to each other and therefor restrictive. Such is the case of shocks, imbues, elemental shields, totem elemental brackets (finally loosened in MoP), UE effects, Feral Spirit abilities (gets taken care of) and SR (was an issue in wotlk, wasn't one in cata, if the apparent mana issues in beta make it into life will be an isue again in the future).

    None other class is as restricted as heavily as we are. Rogues would be 2nd place, but they have much more freeroom in that regard as they have much more utility. They also generally deal more damage, so they dont suffer as much from giving up a little of it.
    Survival Abilities - Defensive Stand and a Shield. Massive DPS loss
    Rockbiter imbue and a Shield. Yes, you could derp around using it, and you would deserve the damage loss. There are/have been enhancers using shields for survivability in the past, I never was part of that.
    Looking at warriors, the only ocasion in pvp I can see them using a shield would be with
    Shield Barrier: New. Requires Shields. Raise your shield, reducing magical damage taken by 25% for 6 sec. 60 Rage, 1.5 sec cooldown, Instant cast.
    Yeah, they'll macro that probably. Maybe it is even changed to not require a shield, or maybe you can switch back to your weapon you activate it, dunno. But I dont see any other reason pvp dps warriors would use shields in MoP (maybe I missed something?)
    Snaring/Stunning - Except for charge he needs to actually be in melee range to do these, we dont
    Warriors can get a cone stun with 10y range in tier 4, a 30y 3sec stun in tier 6 and in tier 1, you can talent charge to be a 3sec aoe stun (with charge having a 30y range). Oh an there is dragon roar, though I dont know how a knockdown is rated (does it count as a stun, since you cannot do anything while it? i think it does).

    Gap Closing - Heroic Leap has a long cooldown, Charge has a 20 (12 if talented) second cooldown but if slowed you can easily get away from them again, they rely heavily on dispels currently and all dispels are getting cooldowns in Mists, whilst we have a no cooldown instant cast perma-freedom.
    Okay I do admit I haven't thought about dispells in corelation with gap closing that much yet. Maybe GW will come out as a more desirable means of gap closing in MoP. It is no perma-freedom though. We only have it while in GWF and in there we cannot do anything but drop totems. Plus we only have the snare-suppression (not the immunity you are talking about) only through a glyph.

    If the rogue has crippling poison he can't have Mind Numbing poison. Theres a trade off right there, he also can't have Deadly Poison on his weapon for extra DPS (though this is a non-issue in Mists because they are only allowed 1 DPS poison from now on).
    I didn't know about the dps poison restriction (what is the point of that in pve?), but instant poison wasn't used in rogue pvp anyway. With the talent deadly brew, a rogue simply puts deadly poison on one weapon, wound poison or mind numbing on the other, and crippling through the talent. Yes, they have to pass on one of poisons. If you'd put it in enh shaman terms, they'd have wf, ft and fb, but would have to pass on rb/eb (which is more than I asked for)
    I was, you even acknowledged my reasoning. It was far more severe for a Warrior than it is for us. Thats the reason it was changed. Ours is not a problem on anywhere near the scale it was for warriors.
    Ours isn't as restrictive as warriors, but still restrictive. They could've just removed the rage loss when stance dancing, and it would've been pretty much the same, keeping stance-dance in there to boot, keeping stances an important mechanic. Just because ours isn't as bad, doesn't mean it is not bad enough to change it.
    As said, having to switch for hamstring or frostbrand, it is essentially the same.
    Again, your only looking at the positives of one class and the negatives of others.
    Actually, I had it included if you read my quote carefully. I just said that I would trade it anyways. I guess on this one, opinions may diverge, but an instant gap closer also makes dpsing in pve much more comfortable in running out/in situations. Cant tell me you'd save the UE cd for a fb switch to run out/in at that point.

    2 - Heals are baseline, as is Ghostwolf. Also why does whether or not its baseline even matter? And "thats not what a melee is" is not even an argument.
    Heals are baseline. Being able to make them work is not. If you dont have MSW charges, you can forget about 90% healing. The rest 10% are talents and healing stream. GW plus ranged on FrS and Wind Shear is kinda supposed to make up for the lack of an instant. Three abilities for one!
    I think general understanding is that a melee is supposed to be in melee range and do his stuff there. Enh at many points is either using his stuff to chase others, or to run away from being chased. The only really good change I've seen against that is Frozen Power now working in melee, as it actively prevents them to a point from gaining a distance which you'd have to gain with just increased movement speed (gw/uf:fb/spirit walk).

    You have made up in your head what you think a melee DPS should be and because Enhance doesn't fit into that made up rule its somehow bad?
    Except enh and ret, everyone fits into that. And enh and ret usually aren't that high up there arena-ranking-wise.
    I don't even understand the second half of your argument. Why does the class you think of when someone mentions an ability affect balance? And we may not have instant gap closers but we will have a 15 second sprint that combines with a 70% slow to be basically an instant gap closer. We have the best interrupt in the game and we are getting a stun. Whats your point?
    My point was kinda this: Rogues and Paladins originally were the stun-classes. Now almost everyone has one (us included).
    Rogues were the class you'd think of when somebody mentions an interrupt (hell, many use the word "kick" instead of "interrupt"). Now it was generally distributed to every melee.
    Charge was originally a warrior-unique ability. Now ferals, rogues and dks also have that.

    Doesn't this show that these are abilities you'd expect from a melee? They serve the purpose of staying on target, which is what a melee is about. Speed increasements are the compromis a hybrid melee has currently to swallow for having non-melee specs to benefit from them. If speed increasers were enough, why dont we see them on the non-hybrid melees as well?
    1 - We have lots of cooldowns too, and we also have lots of party wide defenses that a rogue doesn't. You could include their level 87 ability as a party wide defense, but then you have to include Ascendance which is easily the best offensive melee DPS cooldown in the game.
    Dont mean anything bad by it, but what party-wide defenses are you talking about? And were does a melee dps cooldown fit in with the previous part? If it's about the range increase of auto attacks/stromstrike, that is just another very unorthodox way to go about our lack of an instant gap closer.

    2 - A rogue going for full DPS and never using anything for utility has no more or less utility than an Enhance. You still have to use globals to CC people, that is a ridiculous argument. Rogues are also very cooldown based, if they blow a cooldown to CC you they will then be unable to CC you for a certain amount of time, and CC is their whole utility, they have no party defenses beyond single target peels. Also, combo points are far more important to a rogue because its what their entire rotation is built around.
    They have Evasion, Blind, Cloak of Shadows, Sprint, Smoke Bomb, Vanish, Stealth/openers and dismantle. The highest sacrifice is 25 energy.
    I guess rogues do lose some base utility though, having to get some of that back through talents. So maybe that's just me taking the last 7 years as the meassuring stone, not expecting much to change unless we get that insta gap closer. Still wouldn't mind trading the UF:FB with an insta gap closer with 20 sec cd.
    Its the equivalent of you having to use up a LL to cast Hex.
    The equivalent of that is blind, which is instant baseline, ranged just like hex, has a comparable cc (or even the same?) and doesn't require combo points. 15 enery cost I believe (neglectable almost).

    Your definition of utility only seems to be CC, in which case yes we may well be inferior to a rogue, but we have far more outside of CC that they do not have. They even have to talent into their instant gap closer now so they dont even have that 'baseline'.
    Well, usually utility in my mind includes interrupts/stuns/snares/roots/disorient/movementspeed modifiers/gap closers/silences/dmg reducers(bubbles/absorbs)/spell reflects (or similar(grounding)),CC breaker, poly/fear/cyclone and the like/self-heal...and others which dont come to mind imo.

    I guess in the end I still do think that we need an insta-gap closer, but admit that while I have a decent understanding of the overall situation pvp cata-wise and before, MoP changes-wise I cant foresee how it'll play out all things considered (I guess the ones coming closest to answering that would be beta testers, but even there we'd need another few months to have remotely balanced dps/healing numbers to simulate pvp situations).

    [User was infracted for this post]

    Again, misleading out-of-context comparisons with the intent to fallaciously demean Shaman through a deliberately biased view is trolling, and not allowed.
    Last edited by Endus; 2012-04-01 at 03:15 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Angoth
    I'm sorry that Blizzard won't just gift wrap awesome in a cup and let you drink your fill.

  13. #793
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    21,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Protoman View Post
    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.
    Making a macro to automate a choice does not mean the choice is not being made, it means you've streamlined the execution of that choice to take less keypresses, which is normal gameplay optimization.

    And there ARE cons. You're trading the benefit of one imbue for another, even if just for the one GCD of the ability you're swapping it for (as opposed to the two GCDs, as it would be currently; it takes three GCDs to make the switch, but the imbue swaps occur at the start of the first and third, 2 GCDs apart).


    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.
    It's nothing I've ever said.

    I said the reason for PvPers choosing to use FTW most of the time in PvP was because extra damage was considered more valuable than extra control. The damage is partially active currently, but a lot of it is passive via the 7% damage boost.

    Shifting it off the active damage somewhat to some more passive sources does not remove the fundamental principle, that in PvP, more damage is currently seen as more desirable than more control. That "passive" damage still adds to your burst, it just adds it throughout the burst, rather than to one ability. It absolutely is still a factor, and you can't just pretend that a passive boost to damage doesn't matter in PvP, as you claim.

    Passive damage DOES increase burst. Not the specific burst abilities, necessarily, but all the autoattacks and such that are going off immediately around them. Enhancement can't effectively burst unless they're in melee, and if they're in melee, they're getting autoattacks and the like off. If you want to boost burst throughput, you'd still be imbuing FTW, if you've moved the 40% to LL buff to other passive damage sources.

    If the 40% to LL meant you could take someone down in that one GCD, your argument would be stronger, but that's not the case.

  14. #794
    As a minor aside, Protoman, the Vial of Shadows comment is entirely wrong and it's the same thought Blizzard had when making the wrong nerf. Vial of Shadows itself was not the problem. It was Subtlety rogues who could keep Find Weakness (70% armor penetration) up 100% of the time so that when the trinket proc'd, it ignore 70% of the targets armor. Nerfing the trinket directly was not the best solution, it was just a solution.

  15. #795
    Hey, someone on beta, with Totemic Projection, can you drop SLT anywhere you want?

  16. #796
    Cookie Monster Radux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Indiana, USA
    Posts
    12,559
    Quote Originally Posted by Aviators View Post
    Hey, someone on beta, with Totemic Projection, can you drop SLT anywhere you want?
    Well.

    You have to drop the totem, then project it.

    So kinda. you have to drop it at your feet, then project it where you want it.

  17. #797
    Warchief Protoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Maryland, US
    Posts
    2,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Making a macro to automate a choice does not mean the choice is not being made, it means you've streamlined the execution of that choice to take less keypresses, which is normal gameplay optimization.

    And there ARE cons. You're trading the benefit of one imbue for another, even if just for the one GCD of the ability you're swapping it for (as opposed to the two GCDs, as it would be currently; it takes three GCDs to make the switch, but the imbue swaps occur at the start of the first and third, 2 GCDs apart).
    Do you really think Blizz would consider removing the gcd of imbues? Even for totems, they reduced gcd to 1 sec, not remove completely. That would be a better suggestion for imbues then totally remove the gcd. You have made the automation point a few times, and while that may be true for macros that typically involve using a gcd or linking a few different abilities together, it doesn't really work for no gcd stuff.

    -When I macro an "on use" trinket to SS, I am basically "automating" it and so it just procs on cd and I no longer have to choose when to use it.
    -When I macro a shield swap to spell reflect, its still "automated" but now I do make a choice, I know it will use a gcd and I have to plan ahead to make sure I have the shield up in time to get my spell reflected properly. I have to make decisions, debate the "opportunity cost" of using a gcd to avoid some damage, and choose when it's worth using the macro
    -By macro'ing FT w/ LL, I can get bonus LL damage EVERYTIME, regardless of what I normally use. You may lose the effect of your normal imbue for that 1 gcd, but that is not really a consequence since you spend that gcd on the ability anyways. Losing 2 extra gcds to switch is.

    It's nothing I've ever said.

    I said the reason for PvPers choosing to use FTW most of the time in PvP was because extra damage was considered more valuable than extra control. The damage is partially active currently, but a lot of it is passive via the 7% damage boost.

    Shifting it off the active damage somewhat to some more passive sources does not remove the fundamental principle, that in PvP, more damage is currently seen as more desirable than more control. That "passive" damage still adds to your burst, it just adds it throughout the burst, rather than to one ability. It absolutely is still a factor, and you can't just pretend that a passive boost to damage doesn't matter in PvP, as you claim.

    Passive damage DOES increase burst. Not the specific burst abilities, necessarily, but all the autoattacks and such that are going off immediately around them. Enhancement can't effectively burst unless they're in melee, and if they're in melee, they're getting autoattacks and the like off. If you want to boost burst throughput, you'd still be imbuing FTW, if you've moved the 40% to LL buff to other passive damage sources.

    If the 40% to LL meant you could take someone down in that one GCD, your argument would be stronger, but that's not the case.
    Well, you basically have said the same thing......that more damage in PVP is always better, regardless of active or passive. So FT, if it does more damage, will still be preferred always. FT currently offers more active damage boost then passive btw, compared to FB (melee procs not as significant a factor). Even the 7% spell damage buffs your shocks, ule damage, and double dips into LL. The DPS difference between FB and FT's melee proc, plus flame shock dot and LS orbs (the passive stuff) is not as much as the active sources.

    I have never said passive/sustained damage doesn't matter in PVP, simply that its not as valued as active/burst damage. Passive damage helps your overall damage, and sometimes burst....but not really stuff like FT or flame shock dot, WF and prob FB provide more "passive burst" in a short window of opportunity.

    Lets say you are fighting a hunter, a good kiting class. You have a small "window of opportunity" when you close the gap to get some attacks in, basically 2-3 gcds before he disengages. This is where strong active/burst abilities play a bigger role, like LL. You will also have less uptime on a hunter in general, so it makes sense to use FB to try and max uptime. But once you do close the gap, your LL hits weaker then with FT and so more uptime is canceled out by weaker burst (keep in mind you spam shocks/ule alot more vs this class as well). You could use FT, and while you may have less uptime, for those 2-3 gcds you can put out more damage and it evens out (plus ule/shocks doing more).

    What I am trying to do is give Enhance the same burst they could get with FT in that window as with FB. Now if this is a 2v2 match instead, and you have a frost mage partner who has good control, he will ensure you get more uptime on the hunter. With more uptime, you won't need FB and could use FT which also provides more passive/sustained damage that you can now take advantage of since you can stay on the hunter longer. People stick with FT because they know that even facing a situation with low uptime which will mean you only get a few hits in, FT will still provide more overall benefit cause of more burst, in melee or at range. So FB's ability to add extra control is not as important with instant escapes, plus less burst during that small window. With my suggestion, you would atleast put out similar burst in the small window making you much more effective in general when you also need extra control. People WOULD still use FB over FT because in a situation where they need control, or won't get proper uptime.....FT's passive/sustained dps benefit will be less effective and FB seems like the more obvious choice.




    Quote Originally Posted by Devious009 View Post
    @ Protoman

    I just wanted to say that after going through half this thread I started to skip you're posts ( no offense ) and some of Endus's too because you keep repeating yourself way too much to the point it gets really really annoying as well as Endus but in his case I can at least understand since hes a Mod here and he keeps repeating his answer to you in hopes you will get it even after he tried rewording his post many many times but to no avail. Please less walls of text and try to summarize your posts more because it would be nice to read some really thought out ideas and suggestions, and btw I do switch weapon imbues whenever the situation calls for it and I really hope they dont implement what you are suggesting.

    @ Endus

    First off thanks for you're patience and continued support to the shaman community. I think what you are suggesting to remove Imbue GCDs is the perfect plan to make us more active in switching imbues and making "FASTER CHOICES" in certain situations.

    2-3 mobs caught up to me and I need a damage reduction CD to survive for a bit ? NP Super Unleash Rockbiter Macro to the resuce !!

    1 Mob loose and its running really fast after me ? NP Super Unleash Frostbrand Weapon Macro to the rescue !!

    I really really hope they do remove the GCD it will make for alot more FUN and FASTER "decision making"
    Thank you for your criticism. You should take time to read what I write, there are some good points made in there. I find that most people who think FT/FB is fine or doesn't need change either don't play Enhance, or don't PVP. Do you really switch imbues in PVP, and if so do you use FB in the MH or the OH? Endus is a mod and does have good insight, but that doesn't mean if he thinks change is not needed that he is always right. I don't complain about every little thing, and I think this is an issue that should be worked on for MoP since I find FT having a perma spot on OH to be a failure in design goal for FB/FT being analogs with a tradeoff.

    I get your point with the "wall of text". I myself just skipped over the little debate here between Omanley and Undefetter lol, responding to every point does get annoying to read thru. There is not much else to argue because both of us are making assumptions on whether or not my suggestion would actually improve anything.

    Also, your support of "removing the gcd on imbues" shows me that you have not really considered the balance implications of such a change. Please refer to my example here:

    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.
    As you can see, you can get the best qualities of any imbue, without any of the "opportunity cost". I would be all for the change, it would basically achieve what I want with being able to use FT or FB all the time, but max LL damage (w/ FT macro), and also get a snare with unleash (w/ FB macro). But if you bothered to actually think about it, you would realize that it's OP and something Blizz would not consider.

    As a minor aside, Protoman, the Vial of Shadows comment is entirely wrong and it's the same thought Blizzard had when making the wrong nerf. Vial of Shadows itself was not the problem. It was Subtlety rogues who could keep Find Weakness (70% armor penetration) up 100% of the time so that when the trinket proc'd, it ignore 70% of the targets armor. Nerfing the trinket directly was not the best solution, it was just a solution.
    How does that make me wrong? It doesn't matter who could exploit it or not, the damage was too bursty and so they reduced it and inc proc, basically spreading out the damage so it was easier to heal/manage. Both versions put out the same DPS, but its not as effective in PVP anymore. Before it might have been a required trinket for rogues in PVP, but now its not nearly as vital and switching it out isn't as big a deal to overall effectiveness. That's my same point with the bonus damage to FT being either bursty w/ LL, or more spread out via passive, sustained damage.

  18. #798
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    21,371
    Quote Originally Posted by Protoman View Post
    Do you really think Blizz would consider removing the gcd of imbues? Even for totems, they reduced gcd to 1 sec, not remove completely. That would be a better suggestion for imbues then totally remove the gcd.
    Maybe not, it was just a rough idea I tossed off, not something I'd invested a ton of time into thinking about. The point was that that rough idea better achieved your stated goals than your own proposal, which couldn't.

    You have made the automation point a few times, and while that may be true for macros that typically involve using a gcd or linking a few different abilities together, it doesn't really work for no gcd stuff.

    1-When I macro an "on use" trinket to SS, I am basically "automating" it and so it just procs on cd and I no longer have to choose when to use it.
    2-When I macro a shield swap to spell reflect, its still "automated" but now I do make a choice, I know it will use a gcd and I have to plan ahead to make sure I have the shield up in time to get my spell reflected properly. I have to make decisions, debate the "opportunity cost" of using a gcd to avoid some damage, and choose when it's worth using the macro
    3-By macro'ing FT w/ LL, I can get bonus LL damage EVERYTIME, regardless of what I normally use. You may lose the effect of your normal imbue for that 1 gcd, but that is not really a consequence since you spend that gcd on the ability anyways. Losing 2 extra gcds to switch is.
    I added numbers to the above, to make it easier to respond to each point separately without using multiple quotes.

    1> We still have "on-use" trinkets and proc trinkets. The distinction exists for a reason, and because the ability to choose, even via a macro, is still a relevant and useful thing.

    2> This is no different than what I was talking about; you're creating a false distinction. The difference between the two has nothing to do with macros, which was your talking point, and everything to do with making a conscious choice to use an ability given the cost of using it, which would apply just as much to macroing GCD-free imbues to things. You're making my own argument for me, by pointing out that automation does not remove choice, but for some reason you think it supports YOUR argument instead.

    3> This is just not true. You're making that choice by creating the macro in the first place. Losing the imbue for that one GCD absolutely IS a consequence. It's precisely half the consequence of using 2 GCDs, which you agree is consequential. Half of X is not "zero" just because it's less than X. A lower consequence is not a nonexistent consequence, and since the entire POINT of your argument was that Frostbrand carried too large a consequence for using it, arguing that my option reduces the consequence doesn't really show that it's a bad idea. You're just admitting it solves what you identified as a problem.

  19. #799
    Quote Originally Posted by Protoman View Post
    How does that make me wrong? It doesn't matter who could exploit it or not, the damage was too bursty and so they reduced it and inc proc, basically spreading out the damage so it was easier to heal/manage. Both versions put out the same DPS, but its not as effective in PVP anymore. Before it might have been a required trinket for rogues in PVP, but now its not nearly as vital and switching it out isn't as big a deal to overall effectiveness. That's my same point with the bonus damage to FT being either bursty w/ LL, or more spread out via passive, sustained damage.
    You're missing the point just like Blizzard did. Only the rogue class could do so much burst with Vial of Shadows that it made the trinket overpowered. Find Weakness was the issue, not the trinket itself. Yes, Vial of Shadows did burst damage, but that burst damage itself was not overpowered. It was in combination with Find Weakness. It isn't fair to compare that with Lava Lash as Lava Lash is the sole source of the burst damage. If you could put a 70% armor penetration debuff on a target after hitting Earth Shock, would Lava Lash become overpowered or would Earth Shock be overpowered?

  20. #800
    Warchief Protoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Maryland, US
    Posts
    2,173
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Maybe not, it was just a rough idea I tossed off, not something I'd invested a ton of time into thinking about. The point was that that rough idea better achieved your stated goals than your own proposal, which couldn't.
    Even I have thought about removing the gcd, and I would not mind the change....but it's OP, easy to exploit, and would never even be considered as a possible change. So no, its not better then my suggestion. Atleast my suggestion you would have to see how it plays out in game and how PVP'ers respond to it to see if it actually works. I can find several flaws with "no gcd on imbues" that are guaranteed without even testing it in the game. My suggestion has a tradeoff still, while yours has none.

    You have already decided that my idea won't work, simply because you think if FT does more damage it will always be chosen over FB, regardless of situation or the type of damage it gives. I am saying that because FT gives passive buff to damage and not active, it's not nearly as vital as before, and you would infact see more people use FB instead of FT. My hunter example was a good one to show where FB would make more sense then FT, I dunno if you bothered to read it.

    What you are basically saying is that the FT/FB situation is hopeless and cannot be improved, because FT has to do more damage then FB to make the distinction between more damage vs more control, so FT will always get picked. At that point, all you can do is reduce the gcd to 1 sec (not remove it). I don't think it's that hopeless, and either reducing the damage gap or changing the type of damage bonus that FT provides would help alleviate the issue.

    And if it truly doesn't matter what type of damage increase FT gives, wouldn't we still be better off if it gave the passive/sustained boost and FB got to keep max damage LL? On the off chance that we do use FB, atleast it would give us more burst then it currently does. My suggestion still leaves us in a better place then the current status of FT/FB.


    1> We still have "on-use" trinkets and proc trinkets. The distinction exists for a reason, and because the ability to choose, even via a macro, is still a relevant and useful thing.

    2> This is no different than what I was talking about; you're creating a false distinction. The difference between the two has nothing to do with macros, which was your talking point, and everything to do with making a conscious choice to use an ability given the cost of using it, which would apply just as much to macroing GCD-free imbues to things. You're making my own argument for me, by pointing out that automation does not remove choice, but for some reason you think it supports YOUR argument instead.

    3> This is just not true. You're making that choice by creating the macro in the first place. Losing the imbue for that one GCD absolutely IS a consequence. It's precisely half the consequence of using 2 GCDs, which you agree is consequential. Half of X is not "zero" just because it's less than X. A lower consequence is not a nonexistent consequence, and since the entire POINT of your argument was that Frostbrand carried too large a consequence for using it, arguing that my option reduces the consequence doesn't really show that it's a bad idea. You're just admitting it solves what you identified as a problem.
    1. If you actively click your "on-use" trinket when an enemy is at low health and you need extra burst, that is making a choice. If you just stick it with your ability and it goes off on cd, you aren't choosing when to use it anymore.

    2. Because one actually requires you to think and plan (shield swap), and the other you just do your normal rotation and things active for you automatically (FT/LL macro), at no "opportunity cost"/penalty/consequence. The sequence for shield macro may be automated, but it still requires you to make choices, give up gcds, and plan ahead to use it at the proper time. A macro for FT/LL does not require you to think ahead or make any conscious choice, you simply use it an it will give you max LL damage at no cost to you.

    3. It's insignificant. You do not lose anything with a FT/LL macro, you do not give up extra gcds, or disrupt your gameplay, or cost you any extra damage that you could have gotten like you would if you had to use 2 gcds to make the switch. There will never be a situation where you think "It's not worth it for me to use this macro yet"...... you cannot seriously think that "no gcd" is actually balanced.


    You are trying to convince me that losing your FB imbue for 1 gcd while you use your FT/LL macro is a significant consequence.....yet if I removed the LL buff from FT, even though FT would still do more DPS then FB, just a much smaller difference, that it is somehow not enough of a consequence, not enough damage to give up for control. You have argued for keeping linked shock cds, calling it a skill barrier and that it requires you to make choices/sacrifices and plan ahead......yet removing gcd from imbues also removes any need to choose, or sacrifice anything, or plan ahead if you want a specific buff for your abilities. You could use the exact same rotation in PVP that you use now, but with those macro's you would always have 40%LL damage and snare for unleash. You get significant buffs but don't give up anything.

    Do you see your own contradiction? You are just grasping at straws here to try and make your suggestion look good, when it is obviously not and would never even be considered. If "no gcd" was a valid solution, then we would already have had our imbues and totems on no gcd, same with rogue poisons. But it's not, it's easy to exploit and you would suffer no penalty for making switches......so its not a valid suggestion.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •