[OFFICIAL] MoP Beta Build Changes Discussion Thread

[Deleted]

Well then I can't really take his word for it lol, but I do hope to hear from GC about the AP buff for Enh instead of SP. I would be happy if it's just a personal 10% AP buff for Enhance with the SP buff up, even if we can't share it with the raid. We lost 2 chunks of AP with both UR and Str of Earth removed.

TBH I think it doesn't really matter if it is only personal buff since Blizz will try to balance dps with or without it. Does it matter if you make 20k dps with your personal buff if you do 20k without it? And if other classes do competitive dps without your buff they will do more dps when they get it so you'll probably be in a worse spot compared to them in a raid. (If we don't count buff that they bring that affect you)

[Tharkash]

Healing: I've been healing the one open 5 man on my shaman on beta (I'm heals OS on live) and I have to say, Conductivity has so much synergy with the TC Glyph, being able to nuke/regen and still get a heal off it, albeit a small one, is amazing. I was finding myself healing the whole place with ES on the tank, rolling a RT and keeping Healing Rain down while regening/healing with LB. This works really well when people can be stacked, or atleast in the seemingly huge Healing Rain. I want to try the RT glyph but I don't want my shaman to feel any more like my druid, personally.

I think the only thing we're missing is a tank CD. Maybe bring back Stoneskin as a targeted spell version of Stone Bulwark totem, absorbs a big chunk of damage and then smaller chunks for a duration.

[Golden Carp]

How about elemental dps good or bad?

[Protoman]

TBH I think it doesn't really matter if it is only personal buff since Blizz will try to balance dps with or without it. Does it matter if you make 20k dps with your personal buff if you do 20k without it? And if other classes do competitive dps without your buff they will do more dps when they get it so you'll probably be in a worse spot compared to them in a raid. (If we don't count buff that they bring that affect you)

I know they will balance all dps to be similar level. But so far we only bring 2 buffs, 10% SP and Mastery, and Enhance only benefits from 1/2 of them. With such a limited amount of buffs, I think we should be able to benefit from both of them. Doesn't make much sense to give a buff that you yourself can't gain anything from. It's like giving a rogue spell haste, or a warrior the curse of elements debuff.

[Deleted]

As anyone tested Healing Tide Totem in a group ? It doesn't seem to heal anyone but me...

How far away were the other targets? I seemed to notice that HST at least didn't have anywhere close to 30 yards range, more like 15 yards around the totem.

[Protoman]

Few things posted on the beta forums:

"Healing Stream Totem - Affected by mastery, except on the first tick. Does not work with haste or crit.

Healing Tide Totem - Affected by crit but does not work with haste or mastery."


And also the EoE proc rate has been increased for Enhance, it procs about 4times as often......Ele/Resto have like a 7% proc, and Enh is like 28-30%. Still doesn't proc from FT or LS, prob too strong if it proc'd from FT but I think LS would be cool. And also the icd from FT, the .7s one, has been removed.

EoE for AOE/CL is as follows "CL with 30% proc chance should activate about 65.7% of the time on 3 targets. My testing was slightly higher but obviously not a big enough sample size." So it procs pretty often with cleave/aoe.


EB is also confirmed to work with MW5.


Edit:

Also, for some reason LvB has not been made exclusive to Elemental, lot of Enhance bitching about that cause it does more damage and they end up using it. The new dot duration on flame shock makes ULE>FLS a little clunky. And EB blast might work with ULE so that could replace FLS if you plan to use it.

---------- Post added 2012-04-09 at 02:03 PM ----------

Hmm... well I figured out a way to make Flame shock work w/ ule. Damn I wish I could post on the beta forums!!

ULE, wait till 6 sec, FLS......ULE, FLS right away....ULE wait 6 sec, FLS.

Basically for one ule you wait to use FLS till ULE almost falls off (lasts 8 sec), and the 2nd one you refresh FLS right away.

If your using EB instead, AND you want to use ULE w/ it....you would have to use ULE with every EB and just refresh FLS independent of it, so like 3 ES and 1 FLS in your shock rotation.

[Manu9]

Few things posted on the beta forums:

"Healing Stream Totem - Affected by mastery, except on the first tick. Does not work with haste or crit.

Healing Tide Totem - Affected by crit but does not work with haste or mastery."


And also the EoE proc rate has been increased for Enhance, it procs about 4times as often......Ele/Resto have like a 7% proc, and Enh is like 28-30%. Still doesn't proc from FT or LS, prob too strong if it proc'd from FT but I think LS would be cool. And also the icd from FT, the .7s one, has been removed.

EoE for AOE/CL is as follows "CL with 30% proc chance should activate about 65.7% of the time on 3 targets. My testing was slightly higher but obviously not a big enough sample size." So it procs pretty often with cleave/aoe.


EB is also confirmed to work with MW5.


Edit:

Also, for some reason LvB has not been made exclusive to Elemental, lot of Enhance bitching about that cause it does more damage and they end up using it. The new dot duration on flame shock makes ULE>FLS a little clunky. And EB blast might work with ULE so that could replace FLS if you plan to use it.

---------- Post added 2012-04-09 at 02:03 PM ----------

Hmm... well I figured out a way to make Flame shock work w/ ule. Damn I wish I could post on the beta forums!!

ULE, wait till 6 sec, FLS......ULE, FLS right away....ULE wait 6 sec, FLS.

Basically for one ule you wait to use FLS till ULE almost falls off (lasts 8 sec), and the 2nd one you refresh FLS right away.

If your using EB instead, AND you want to use ULE w/ it....you would have to use ULE with every EB and just refresh FLS independent of it, so like 3 ES and 1 FLS in your shock rotation.

Could you provide a link to the thread that stated the EoE chance and the EB with UE?

[Protoman]

Could you provide a link to the thread that stated the EoE chance and the EB with UE?

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/to...4516173?page=9

EoE is about 30% for single target spell, and with CL about 65.7% chance to proc on atleast one of the CL targets.

For EB, while you would stack MW5, if you checked your talents the cast time of EB would also decrease, and at 5 stacks it was instant. They can't know for sure if EB works for ULE, but everyone there is assuming if it counts as a nature spell for MW5, then the "fire spell" buff for ULE will also work, since usually for multi school spells it does the damage of whichever school will put out the most damage factoring in any other buffs. Like if you get 110 damage as a Fire spell vs 90 as Nature or Frost, it will use the 110 value.

[Recom]

How far away were the other targets? I seemed to notice that HST at least didn't have anywhere close to 30 yards range, more like 15 yards around the totem.

Pretty far, something like 30 yards I believe. It sucks if it has a 15 yards range...

EoE seems to be 6%, not 7%.

[Thalais]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxvPf...h_e_se&list=SL
Around 4:22 of this clip you see the spell book and he is all up and going for the new 87 spell, but I saw something there that I didn't remember seeing before?
What is our level 90 spell?
It clearly shows another spell after Acendent.

[Alhoon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxvPf...h_e_se&list=SL
Around 4:22 of this clip you see the spell book and he is all up and going for the new 87 spell, but I saw something there that I didn't remember seeing before?
What is our level 90 spell?
It clearly shows another spell after Acendent.

That's the ability that grants flying rights to Pandaria, no idea why it's in active part of the spellbook.

[Recom]

Some passives still show in the active panel but my guess is that it's there on purpose so people would see it (it would easily be missed in the passive tab).

[Endus]

http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/to...4516173?page=9

EoE is about 30% for single target spell, and with CL about 65.7% chance to proc on atleast one of the CL targets.

Before we start throwing numbers around too much, he did what appears to be a 100-CL test. That's way insufficient for anything conclusive. We need at least a couple thousand casts, and preferably closer to 10k, before we can start to state proc chances with any real accuracy.

That said, about 4x what Elemental/Resto get is probably close to right, and is the kind of accuracy that's acceptable given that number of spellcasts. We just can't boil it down to "26%" or something yet.

I know you didn't make the claim, but I'm still making sure everyone keeps statistical needs in mind when considering this stuff.

[Thalais]

I'm not a huge fan of specs determine the % of casts.
IMO, after all tests are done, EoE should proc equal % for all specs.
By preventing spells from being reduced, it basically is going towards this cookie cutter talents that blizzard is trying to get away from.

EoE appears to be the best choice for Enhancement, but Elemental and Restoration Shamans have all 3 at their liking.
Look at Elemental Shamans, they take a glyph to cast LB on the run and take a 5% reduce cast speed, then they take the talent to basically counter it and allows them to cast instant cast from something like maybe an EQ on the run for that AoE spell needed while you move out of the fire?

EoE sadly is the only thing for Enhancement in that tier. If it has lower procs, that is crazy since we will be cookie cutter into a talent that is vastly weaker than other specs and that is our DPS tier which will be upsetting.

I would love haste to be useful like it is for rogues, dks, ect. so other talents in this tier would be attractive for us. I would love to have 30% haste suddenly boost my damage overall, but as it is, it doesn't.

[JJaguar]

I think elemental mastery should provide 30% mastery, and ancestral swiftness should give 5% passive mastery! Then maybe enhancement would pick something other than EoE

[Protoman]

Before we start throwing numbers around too much, he did what appears to be a 100-CL test. That's way insufficient for anything conclusive. We need at least a couple thousand casts, and preferably closer to 10k, before we can start to state proc chances with any real accuracy.

That said, about 4x what Elemental/Resto get is probably close to right, and is the kind of accuracy that's acceptable given that number of spellcasts. We just can't boil it down to "26%" or something yet.

I know you didn't make the claim, but I'm still making sure everyone keeps statistical needs in mind when considering this stuff.

True, just wanted to give people an idea of the new proc rate....let's call it a "ball park figure". Should get 10 Enhancer's to do 100 lb's and pool the results lol.

I'm not a huge fan of specs determine the % of casts.
IMO, after all tests are done, EoE should proc equal % for all specs.
By preventing spells from being reduced, it basically is going towards this cookie cutter talents that blizzard is trying to get away from.

EoE appears to be the best choice for Enhancement, but Elemental and Restoration Shamans have all 3 at their liking.
Look at Elemental Shamans, they take a glyph to cast LB on the run and take a 5% reduce cast speed, then they take the talent to basically counter it and allows them to cast instant cast from something like maybe an EQ on the run for that AoE spell needed while you move out of the fire?

EoE sadly is the only thing for Enhancement in that tier. If it has lower procs, that is crazy since we will be cookie cutter into a talent that is vastly weaker than other specs and that is our DPS tier which will be upsetting.

I would love haste to be useful like it is for rogues, dks, ect. so other talents in this tier would be attractive for us. I would love to have 30% haste suddenly boost my damage overall, but as it is, it doesn't.

It wouldn't make sense for it to proc the same rate for all 3 specs, Ele/Resto have higher sp/damage and more rate of spells cast then Enhance, so obviously Enh should have higher proc to equal out the potency of EoE. Equal proc rate isn't important, equal benefit is tho.

It is true that EM and AS are both undesirable for Enhance, that's more a problem with how our spec scales with Haste compared to casters then the talents themselves. Ideally, they should make Haste a little more effective for the spec cause of Blust and other haste we will run into like Raid zone buffs, or trinket procs. But I'd be happy if they just had 2 different versions of each cd...

EM: A version with Haste, or Mastery.
AS: Maybe 5% mastery.....and instead of an instant spell, you can use any ability regardless of CD, so when activated you can use 2 LL back to back.....that would simulate the "burst potential" of the talent for us since we already get instant spells and they wouldn't do much if instant anyways.

[Endus]

True, just wanted to give people an idea of the new proc rate....let's call it a "ball park figure". Should get 10 Enhancer's to do 100 lb's and pool the results lol.

You laugh, but Binkenstein's got a Google Docs public spreadsheet set up to handle just that. He's aiming his info more at Elemental.

And yeah; I'm just trying to emphasize that the numbers are "ball park", not accurate. Look what happened when we got incomplete info from a reporter at the press event; we STILL have people asking about permanent Elementals and cone attacks. I'd rather head that kind of misconception off before it starts

I'm not a huge fan of specs determine the % of casts.
IMO, after all tests are done, EoE should proc equal % for all specs.
By preventing spells from being reduced, it basically is going towards this cookie cutter talents that blizzard is trying to get away from.

EoE appears to be the best choice for Enhancement, but Elemental and Restoration Shamans have all 3 at their liking.

That's completely backwards. Enhancement gets a lot of DPS from non-spells that don't proc EotE; for it to BE a balanced option for then, they NEED a higher proc rate.

I wouldn't say it's the best choice; it needs testing at this point, especially since we stll don't know how well Enhancement will scale with Haste at 90.

[Protoman]

You laugh, but Binkenstein's got a Google Docs public spreadsheet set up to handle just that. He's aiming his info more at Elemental.

I'd definitely contribute if I was in the beta club..... Might have to check that out, I'm guessing totemspot or elitist jerks has the link?

And yeah; I'm just trying to emphasize that the numbers are "ball park", not accurate. Look what happened when we got incomplete info from a reporter at the press event; we STILL have people asking about permanent Elementals and cone attacks. I'd rather head that kind of misconception off before it starts

Lol....yea that will haunt us for quite some time. Can already see some of the responses when they let release the level 90 talents "Shaman nerfed again!! wtf blizz, what happened to permanent pets!?".

I wonder if Joystiq realizes the mass confusion they caused with such a simple post.

[Eliot123]

My char was finally copied into beta. Well, some things seem very interesting, conductivity looks awesome as resto and even though I played for only like 15 minutes, looks to me as if ele will have some very insane burst damage. Me gusta.

[Endus]

I'd definitely contribute if I was in the beta club..... Might have to check that out, I'm guessing totemspot or elitist jerks has the link?

Yeah, it's in the forums at totemspot.com. I've got a link to it in the megapost sticky about MoP changes, too.

Lol....yea that will haunt us for quite some time. Can already see some of the responses when they let release the level 90 talents "Shaman nerfed again!! wtf blizz, what happened to permanent pets!?".

I wonder if Joystiq realizes the mass confusion they caused with such a simple post.

Wasn't Joystiq's fault, really. One of their reporters said "I didn't write it down, but I think it was something like A, B, and C", and instead, it was actually "A, b, and d". Wasn't far off, and the reporter knew he wasn't completely accurate.

But, people being people, they ran with it and made more of it than it was.