[OFFICIAL] MoP Beta Build Changes Discussion Thread

[Orrion]

They're related, but it's possible to change stat value without changing how it affects active abilities/rotation, meaning that they are not hopelessly entangled as you think, meaning they are separate issues that must be considered separately.

The fact that allowing Haste to improve ability usage would also increase Haste's stat value is useful but it does not mean both issues are the same issue. They are not, and conflating them is misleading.

They are connected because that's how Haste works for everyone else. To put it another way, Blizzard conflated those issues. There might be other ways to improve the stat value, but adhering to the common practice isn't necessarily wrong. Also, the only other way Blizzard has shown to improve the stat aside from ability usage is basically to pile on more of it (this is what the Flurry change is doing).

Personally, I want a system where they convert Crit and Haste to Mastery's system and can adjust the percentages and values accordingly when it's necessary, but they don't seem to want to go that direction.

Because it IS true, I already addressed this ~30 pages ago in this post. If you're going to tell me that I'm misremembering 80% of the community disagreeing with me that Haste affecting rotation was the "big issue" rather than stat value, I'm going to insist that you prove it, because the VAST majority of posts that show up back then were concerning stat value.

It doesn't matter if they were "authorities" or not. We aren't discussing what the issue ACTUALLY was. We're discussing what the widespread complaint in the community was. If you think people have mostly been complaining about Haste's ability to affect Enhancement's rotation for most of Cataclysm, you're wrong. Prior to 4.3, they were mostly focused on the scaling value exclusively. As any scan of the posts of that era would show you.

I still think that's because the reasoning is: "Haste's value is low. If Haste affected our abilities, Haste's value would increase."

I'll concede you know the MMO forum community better than me. I'm basing this on the WoW forums, and on those forums people have mostly been complaining about Haste's ability to affect Enhancement's rotation. The reasoning used was very much what I just quoted there. I could go find you any number of posts that advocated improving Haste's value by letting it affect the rotation. I could also find you any number of posts arguing that Windfury's ICD should be lowered/removed to accomplish the same goal (which it wouldn't do, but it was a very common suggestion).

To the last part, yes, increasing passive contributions also boosts Maelstrom and thus Lightning Bolt damage. I'd argue, though, that the gains auto attacks and imbues would be more significant than the gain on the Lightning Bolts, but you're free to prove me wrong.

[Endus]

They are connected because that's how Haste works for everyone else. To put it another way, Blizzard conflated those issues. There might be other ways to improve the stat value, but adhering to the common practice isn't necessarily wrong. Also, the only other way Blizzard has shown to improve the stat aside from ability usage is basically to pile on more of it (this is what the Flurry change is doing).

I wasn't disputing that they're connected; they are. I was pointing out that you CAN change the stat value WITHOUT affecting rotation; Haste's effect on rotation affects stat value, but stat value does NOT (necessarily, at least) affect rotation. Nor am I saying that boosting stat value is the "right" or "best" way to go; I'm just saying they're not the same issue, though related, and it's possible to address stat value without addressing rotation.

I still think that's because the reasoning is: "Haste's value is low. If Haste affected our abilities, Haste's value would increase."

I'll concede you know the MMO forum community better than me. I'm basing this on the WoW forums, and on those forums people have mostly been complaining about Haste's ability to affect Enhancement's rotation. The reasoning used was very much what I just quoted there. I could go find you any number of posts that advocated improving Haste's value by letting it affect the rotation. I could also find you any number of posts arguing that Windfury's ICD should be lowered/removed to accomplish the same goal (which it wouldn't do, but it was a very common suggestion).

Over what time frame, though?

For the past 6 months, sure, in 4.3 the discussion has definitely been more focused on rotation. Which is a good thing; I've been talking about rotation since the Cata beta. I wasn't popular for taking that stance in 4.1. I caught a lot of flak, both here AND on the official forums (where I wasn't participating, mind), for what I was saying with regards to scaling values. A lot of the threads have been deleted, but they still show up if you run a search for my name over there.

So a year ago, the conversation among both communities was primarily about scaling values, not rotation.

For instance, from one thread about a year ago, I said this;

The limiter on Enhancement is CDs, which aren't affected by Haste, where for many classes it's their resource generation or GCDs, both of which ARE improved by haste.

That was about 2 months after 4.2 launched. I don't want to call people out for what they said on the official forums, and like I said, the community thread in question (one of the Sentry Totem community threads) has been deleted, but there was a LOT of negative commentary from people both there and here for my comments.

That's why I take issue with people claiming "everyone" thought it was the rotation that was the big deal. Because I took a ton of flak in BOTH communities for daring to suggest that rotation was an issue and scaling itself less so.

To the last part, yes, increasing passive contributions also boosts Maelstrom and thus Lightning Bolt damage. I'd argue, though, that the gains auto attacks and imbues would be more significant than the gain on the Lightning Bolts, but you're free to prove me wrong.

Sure. My point there is that people should be saying "Haste doesn't provide much change to rotation" rather than "Haste provides no change to rotation". Not that Haste is awesome and changes the rotation plenty. It's not a major effect, but it's not zero effect, either.

[Protoman]

Because it IS true, I already addressed this ~30 pages ago in this post. If you're going to tell me that I'm misremembering 80% of the community disagreeing with me that Haste affecting rotation was the "big issue" rather than stat value, I'm going to insist that you prove it, because the VAST majority of posts that show up back then were concerning stat value.

It doesn't matter if they were "authorities" or not. We aren't discussing what the issue ACTUALLY was. We're discussing what the widespread complaint in the community was. If you think people have mostly been complaining about Haste's ability to affect Enhancement's rotation for most of Cataclysm, you're wrong. Prior to 4.3, they were mostly focused on the scaling value exclusively. As any scan of the posts of that era would show you.
...
For the past 6 months, sure, in 4.3 the discussion has definitely been more focused on rotation. Which is a good thing; I've been talking about rotation since the Cata beta. I wasn't popular for taking that stance in 4.1. I caught a lot of flak, both here AND on the official forums (where I wasn't participating, mind), for what I was saying with regards to scaling values.That's why I take issue with people claiming "everyone" thought it was the rotation that was the big deal.

We SHOULD be discussing what the issue actually was, and how best to go about fixing it. But I did look thru that link you posted and the thread is really more about general complaints about "what is wrong with Enhance" and doesn't really go into details, especially not about Haste. Even I would have made similar statements like "our crit and haste value are low, we rely on raid buffs and SP too much, our aoe is crap, ect"..... and not really bother going into details of WHY each of these problems occurs or how to fix it like "crit should be 200% cause our LB, shocks, LS, FT all do low dps" or "haste only buffs passive damage" or "aoe too complicated and long ramp up" ect....since most of those reasons are self explanatory and few objected as to WHY things were poor.

And just to be clear, I don't think anyone was criticizing or disagreeing with you for explaining the reason behind why Haste was so low (we are limited by cds, and for other melee their haste gives them more resources and shorter cd/gcds). People were criticizing you because you kept saying that our scaling was fine and wasn't a problem.....and by scaling they were talking about several aspects like weapon damage, too much reliance on raid buffs, SP, haste and crit. You kept insisting this wasn't really a big deal, that it was normal to have a low secondary stat like haste and it was fine cause we made up for it with mastery and other stuff like doing decent DPS despite these flaws....

<SNIP>

Let's not drag year old arguments into this debate.

They're related, but it's possible to change stat value without changing how it affects active abilities/rotation, meaning that they are not hopelessly entangled as you think, meaning they are separate issues that must be considered separately.

The fact that allowing Haste to improve ability usage would also increase Haste's stat value is useful but it does not mean both issues are the same issue. They are not, and conflating them is misleading.

I am not saying that the ONLY way to solve the haste scaling/value problem is thru active abilities/rotation....but that haste not effecting active abilities/rotation has a direct influence on why the value/scaling of haste is so low. If you fix that, the scaling will fix itself and be at acceptable levels just like it has for all other melee. Sure, they can directly buff haste rating like they did thru flurry, but this only buffs passive damage and there is still an obvious issue that is unresolved.....no effect on active abilities, something we all have acknowledged is a problem, even GC.

It's like seeing low DPS for Shaman and trying to fix it by simply buffing damage.....when the problem might actually be due to poor mobile DPS, or aoe mechanics. Technically you have fixed the problem since your DPS seems competitive now......but you still suffer during mobile or aoe phases, you just make up for it with stronger single target damage. This is hardly the best solution, even if it looks fine based on the numbers alone. Same idea behind Enhance and Haste....just think of the raid zone haste buffs like Sinestra's 100% and Nozu's 20% that you can try and fix with Ascendance or Stormlash since those are "band-aids" for EM and BLust.....we will suffer again there with only some extra passive damage and it will expose the problems with our haste mechanics again. We need a better, more effective, and long lasting solution which is let haste effect active abilities/rotation.

It doesn't "repeat the same problems we had in WotLK". Any change to MWx5 that boosts damage through a secondary effect will not make it "less passive" than boosting it's damage. If that secondary effect increases autoattack damage in any way, in fact, it would do the opposite of what you claim.

Increasing the active damage of LB boosts the active damage of the spec. It isn't a passive damage effect, at all.

And yes, you lose a lot of DPS if you're away from the target. You're melee. Most melee lose a lot of DPS when they're away from the target. That's one of the "things" about being melee.

Yes it does, "passive damage" and "damage from passive sources" are two different things, and MW5 is part of "damage from passive sources". Two things they tried to prevent in transition from wotlk to cata was less emphasis/reliance on damage from passive sources for our overall damage, plus our active melee abilities doing more damage then our spells......LB being nerfed was because of both of those reasons, along with imbues, LS, and passive damage in general. I am fine with MW5 keeping its current priority, but if its going to go up I would much rather prefer "secondary effects" then a direct buff to LB damage.

Increasing LB damage means it hits hard on EVERY LB, which will result in more overall damage and our LB (a spell based off a melee proc that goes off about every 6 sec) will do more then our core melee ability as Enhance, LL (that has a 10 sec cd and setup w/ 5 stack SF). This devalues our melee strikes and puts too much emphasis back on spells, as well as damage from passive sources (which also includes our FT/WF imbues and LS-static shock from melee via ULF talent, both of which are from passive sources and doing too much IMO). This would mean we need high uptime which is why I say it is a flashback of the problems we had in wotlk.

[Endus]

And just to be clear, I don't think anyone was criticizing or disagreeing with you for explaining the reason behind why Haste was so low (we are limited by cds, and for other melee their haste gives them more resources and shorter cd/gcds). People were criticizing you because you kept saying that our scaling was fine and wasn't a problem.....and by scaling they were talking about several aspects like weapon damage, too much reliance on raid buffs, SP, haste and crit. You kept insisting this wasn't really a big deal, that it was normal to have a low secondary stat like haste and it was fine cause we made up for it with mastery and other stuff like doing decent DPS despite these flaws....

The point of linking that wasn't to dredge up year-old debates, it was to point out that everyone was focused on scaling values rather than rotation a year ago. Don't dredge up ancient history and start debating it again.

Increasing LB damage means it hits hard on EVERY LB, which will result in more overall damage and our LB (a spell based off a melee proc that goes off about every 6 sec) will do more then our core melee ability as Enhance, LL (that has a 10 sec cd and setup w/ 5 stack SF). This devalues our melee strikes and puts too much emphasis back on spells, as well as damage from passive sources

And none of that is an issue, it's all subjective preference stuff. There's nothing about Enhancement that says there shouldn't be an emphasis on spells, when half their basic rotation is spellcasting.

[Protoman]

The point of linking that wasn't to dredge up year-old debates, it was to point out that everyone was focused on scaling values rather than rotation a year ago. Don't dredge up ancient history and start debating it again.

Well...you brought it up, not me. And you said people criticized or disagreed with you for saying haste's problem had to do with us not being restricted by a resource, but CD's, and so haste doesn't improve our resources or reduce cds/gcds....but what you said was correct and I don't think anyone disputed that statement, rather the criticism was for an unrelated debate on what issues Enhance needed to improve on and the differences in opinion.

But like I said, haste's low scaling/value was deemed a problem then but just cause no one went into specifics about WHY it was low or HOW to improve it does not mean that Enhancers back then were only concerned with the number value and not the mechanics to improve haste's effect on active abilities/rotation. We were all aware of how Haste had been changed to work for other melee, most of us had other alts and noticed how haste effected them regarding more abilities and faster rotation. Increasing Haste's scaling/value without changing mechanics would only buff our passive damage and obviously that wasn't the preferable solution compared to one that would let haste buff our active damage along with passive.

I pointed out how the poster Drake replied to your comments about Haste and added that not just Haste rating was poor, but Haste itself cause it didn't do anything for us, and how Elam (popular poster on official forums) explained the problems with Haste in detail..... that blog post is here: http://wow.joystiq.com/2011/06/25/to...t-hates-haste/

That was posted a little over a year ago when Cata was still very fresh and represents alot of the general feelings about Enhance and Haste at the time......you will see he basically repeats alot of what I have said in the past. So as you can see, everyone was NOT focused purely on scaling values but rather Haste mechanics in general...low scaling/value was a concern but so was haste not effecting active damage or rotation.

And none of that is an issue, it's all subjective preference stuff. There's nothing about Enhancement that says there shouldn't be an emphasis on spells, when half their basic rotation is spellcasting.

I showed you a quote by GC before where they said they wanted Enhance's emphasis to be their melee abilities and not just spells during the Cata beta:

"Spells like Lava Burst and shocks will always be a big part of Enhancement’s damage, but yes, we’d like weapon attacks like Stormstrike and Lava Lash to be a larger part of Enhancement shamans’ damage in Cataclysm."

Obviously this was during the beta cause LvB hasn't been removed yet but you get the idea. And Blizz followed thru with this ideal as our top 3 active damage abilities were LL, SS and LB. Our LB is typically second overall damage after LL, even though it does the same amount of damage as SS it has an increased rate of use with ~6sec per LB vs 8sec per SS..... and SS and LB are usually pretty similar in overall damage, LB maybe a little higher and LL alot higher then LB.

The idea that our melee strikes should do more damage or take up more overall damage then our spells isn't entirely subjective. Spells are important and we do use them alot, but we are also a melee class and it's important that our two strikes SS and LL (and I would love if ULE got some love too) keep up with our spell damage like LB, and especially LL should do a significant portion of our overall damage because of the long CD and setup required to use it, as our core ability I would find it odd if LB was consistently doing more damage then LL now in MoP after LL consistently doing 4-5% more then LB all throughout Cata.

We have 5 main abilities: SS, LL, LB, ULE, and Shocks......and really I think Enhance would be more well rounded if they shifted all that high damage coming from passive sources like LB, LS, and WF/FT imbues and shift it over to our ULE and shocks (the stronger damage at range would be even more useful in PVP) and also buff SS and esp LL damage to keep them doing top damage contribution. High LB damage from EoE and ULF is great and all but if it ends up taking 12-17% of our overall damage, outpacing LL, that will result in some major problems for PVP which we had in the past during wotlk and almost exact same issues with too much damage contribution coming from imbues, LB, and LS.

[Cakala]

"Spells like Lava Burst and shocks will always be a big part of Enhancement’s damage, but yes, we’d like weapon attacks like Stormstrike and Lava Lash to be a larger part of Enhancement shamans’ damage in Cataclysm."

He was saying Stormstrike and Lava Lash were to be a bigger part of enhancement's damage in Cataclysm. Which I believed happened and was emphasized when the spell power change ( 4.2.x? ) went live for the enhance spec. Stormstrike and Lava Lash were bigger parts of our damage in Cataclysm than shocks and Lava Burst. I am not sure if you are agreeing with this or not in your post.

I would find it odd if LB was consistently doing more damage then LL now in MoP after LL consistently doing 4-5% more then LB all throughout Cata.

That would be odd indeed. Is the numbers pass done?


Totally unrelated..... It would be awesome if EoE worked with Hex, since MW works with it already. Allow EoE to reset the CD or at least shorten the cooldown?

[Endus]

Well...you brought it up, not me. And you said people criticized or disagreed with you for saying haste's problem had to do with us not being restricted by a resource, but CD's, and so haste doesn't improve our resources or reduce cds/gcds....but what you said was correct and I don't think anyone disputed that statement, rather the criticism was for an unrelated debate on what issues Enhance needed to improve on and the differences in opinion.

Feel free to go back and read those old threads. I was saying Enhancement needed Haste to affect rotation, and that was more of an issue than scaling. I was very much in the minority. Citing a few other theorycrafters who agreed with me then isn't relevant; the point wasn't that SOME people may have held the same views, it was that the majority of the discussion was based on the scaling value, and only the scaling value.

You're free to pull up year-old threads where everyone's agreeing that the scaling value is just a secondary effect and the "real issue" is rotation. Go nuts. You haven't given ANY evidence of the sort.

I showed you a quote by GC before where they said they wanted Enhance's emphasis to be their melee abilities and not just spells during the Cata beta:

"Spells like Lava Burst and shocks will always be a big part of Enhancement’s damage, but yes, we’d like weapon attacks like Stormstrike and Lava Lash to be a larger part of Enhancement shamans’ damage in Cataclysm."

That, again, does NOT say what you think it says. You really need to stop twisting blue posts to fit your views.

The question, which you conveniently excluded, was about Elemental Fury becoming an Elemental passive instead of a low-tier Elemental talent that was achievable by Enhancement. Since this was how Enhancement got +100% crit damage on spells, the question was whether the intent was to focus Enhancement more towards physical damage in WotLK.

GC's response does NOT, as you're claiming, say that they wanted physical damage to be a larger proportion than spell damage. At all. Context makes it absolutely clear that he's saying they intend weapon attacks like Stormstrike and Lava Lash to be a larger part, not the largest part.

Full text is here if anyone wants to double check. It's down in the third page, and be aware that this was Cata-beta-era stuff, from two years ago, so none of it's current anyway.

Obviously this was during the beta cause LvB hasn't been removed yet but you get the idea. And Blizz followed thru with this ideal as our top 3 active damage abilities were LL, SS and LB. Our LB is typically second overall damage after LL, even though it does the same amount of damage as SS it has an increased rate of use with ~6sec per LB vs 8sec per SS..... and SS and LB are usually pretty similar in overall damage, LB maybe a little higher and LL alot higher then LB.

Which analysis would you prefer, a log or a sim?

Taking a top-20 log on Ultraxxion (because it's got no special effects or adjustments for DPS, really), I get ~21.9% of the damage he dealt by LL/SS combined. Spells (including LB, at almost DOUBLE the damage contribution of SS) is at about 24.4%, counting LB, ES, FS, and UE.

Taking the sims, we get 23.1% from melee and 24.2% from spells.

So either way, spells are providing more damage than melee strike abilities. Meaning Blizz DIDN'T follow through on what they actually didn't promise because the quote still doesn't say what you claim.

It's definitely a bigger proportion than it was in WotLK, though, which IS what the quote said was the intent.

[Nitwit]

More numbers for people to play with (including all talent combinations):

http://dread-gaming.com/simc/enh_463_r13050.html
http://dread-gaming.com/simc/enh_509_r13050.html
http://dread-gaming.com/simc/enh_t14_r13050.html

[Protoman]

Feel free to go back and read those old threads. I was saying Enhancement needed Haste to affect rotation, and that was more of an issue than scaling. I was very much in the minority. Citing a few other theorycrafters who agreed with me then isn't relevant; the point wasn't that SOME people may have held the same views, it was that the majority of the discussion was based on the scaling value, and only the scaling value.

You really aren't making much sense, you said back then you claimed that haste effecting our rotation/active abilities was an issue, but the actual value/scaling was not....so why are you trying to claim the exact opposite now by saying our rotation/active abilities are not important and haste is fine since they improved the scaling value?

Also, you do realize that by suggesting that haste effect our abilities/rotation you are ALSO making a suggestion to improve it's scaling? This is why I keep saying they are directly related....the "ultimate goal" of letting haste influence abilities/rotation is to improve the value/scaling of haste, that is the whole point. You are contradicting yourself if you claimed that haste should effect rotation but our actual scaling wasn't important since they are related.

The reason you were in "the minority" had NOTHING to do with your statement regarding haste effecting our rotation...it was your continued insistence that Enhance did not have scaling issues (the thread deals with general scaling which included everything from melee weapons, reliance on raid buffs and SP along with AP, to stats like haste and crit) and that those complaints were exaggerated and only problem you saw was our aoe. You kept trying to justify our poor scaling of crit/haste as acceptable because mastery and agility were so good. Obviously that kind of logic is just wrong and while aoe was the bigger concern, after that was fixed they did eventually address the problems with crit and haste (not till mop though unfortunately, and haste still not finished imo).

You're free to pull up year-old threads where everyone's agreeing that the scaling value is just a secondary effect and the "real issue" is rotation. Go nuts. You haven't given ANY evidence of the sort.

Not sure why you keep ignoring the blog post by Elam about Enhance and Haste which was posted a few months before that thread was even created and goes much more into detail about the issues regarding haste/abilities/rotation.....if you have any doubts about what the majority of Enhancers felt about haste that article sums it up. Even in the thread you linked, on the first page someone posts this:

""The biggest problem for enhancement is the fact, that every secondary stat, which is not cap-able, sux hard. Haste is next to useless, cause all spells are CD-capped. Crit is slightly less worse, but it is still bad for spells (only 150% bonus), which is a big part of the damage.""

This poster lists the poor scaling of crit and haste but also explains why....and thru that explanation you can figure out how to improve their scaling from mechanics like for haste reduce CD cap limitations, and for crit buff it back to 200%. This is what I mean when I say that people who say "haste scaling sucks" aren't necessarily implying they want only a direct buff to scaling. Anyone with some understanding and experience of their classes mechanics can go into detail of WHY its poor and HOW to improve it thru mechanics which will also improve the scaling.

I really don't know why you have been insisting that these people who complained about haste had no interest in CDs/rotations/active abilities....just cause they don't explain it every time doesn't mean they don't have those expectations for a proper fix. But honestly I don't know why you are so fixated on what people thought of in the past, and if they were the minority or the majority....all of that is irrelevant compared to what the feedback is for haste in the present beta and many still want to see GC deliver on his "ultimate goal" since flurry alone has not totally solved the issues with haste.

That, again, does NOT say what you think it says. You really need to stop twisting blue posts to fit your views.

The question, which you conveniently excluded, was about Elemental Fury becoming an Elemental passive instead of a low-tier Elemental talent that was achievable by Enhancement. Since this was how Enhancement got +100% crit damage on spells, the question was whether the intent was to focus Enhancement more towards physical damage in WotLK.

GC's response does NOT, as you're claiming, say that they wanted physical damage to be a larger proportion than spell damage. At all. Context makes it absolutely clear that he's saying they intend weapon attacks like Stormstrike and Lava Lash to be a larger part, not the largest part.

Full text is here if anyone wants to double check. It's down in the third page, and be aware that this was Cata-beta-era stuff, from two years ago, so none of it's current anyway.

He wasn't talking about physical damage, it's our melee abilities like SS and LL. I didn't claim they should be the largest, I also meant larger and more significant part of our damage compared to wotlk where LB was top damage. In Cata, our LL was top damage (both in contribution and how much it hits for), followed usually by LB and then SS......but both LB and SS did similar instant damage.

We still have spells that do a good chunk of our damage like LB, but no longer our biggest instant attack....that is now LL and while SS does similar damage to LB it also has extra dps procs. As a melee class it makes sense that our melee strikes should hit for significant damage that does as much, if not more, then our spells. LB will be hitting harder and more often thanks to EoE and ULF, which will prob lead to more damage contribution. My point earlier was that we are going backwards somewhat from cata to wotlk.....our LB and LS are crawling back up and we seem to have alot more damage from passive sources which were previously nerfed in favor of more active damage......something like LL was always higher then LB and now it seems like LB could outpace LL. FT too but I think that will prob be nerfed. These are just some observations I have made and I'm curious if they will do anything to try and keep their previous philosophy of stronger melee strikes.....like nerf LB and buff LL, SS, and ULE (I hope they do).

[Endus]

You really aren't making much sense, you said back then you claimed that haste effecting our rotation/active abilities was an issue, but the actual value/scaling was not....so why are you trying to claim the exact opposite now by saying our rotation/active abilities are not important and haste is fine since they improved the scaling value?

I'm not. Read my posts, stop quoting me (and others) out of context, and you'll see that my position hasn't changed. What I'm arguing now is that Haste's scaling value appears to have been fixed, and that the scaling value was the widespread community complaint for much of Cata, and that performance-wise, the scaling value is the more critical issue in any case.

I have always said the best way to address it was by addressing haste's effect on Enh's rotation, but that doesn't mean I think that was the only way to address the issue.

I've said this multiple times, and I haven't changed my argument.

And seriously; final warning. Stop dredging up arguments from that year-old thread. It's a year out of date. The ONLY reason it was linked was to show what the community was talking about a year ago.

Not sure why you keep ignoring the blog post by Elam about Enhance and Haste

Because it's irrelevant. When the argument is "most of the community was concerned about X", trying to counter that with "but this one did was concerned about Y" doesn't work at all.

I never said I was the ONLY person talking about rotation. Just that the community in general wasn't, the majority of the regular posters, the folks who don't participate in theorycraft and such.

He wasn't talking about physical damage, it's our melee abilities like SS and LL.

This is what I mean. What you have just said here is a deliberate twisting of the quote, since he was addressing a question that was asking about physical damage.

You're trying to cut that quote out of its context so you can apply it where you'd prefer. He WAS talking about physical damage. Read the thread.

If I ask "What flavor of popsicle is your favorite", and you respond "Orange", that doesn't mean I can claim you said your favorite fruit is oranges, or that your favorite color is orange, just because you didn't clarify in your response which type of orange you meant. Because you didn't need to, because the question was relevant context.

I didn't claim they should be the largest, I also meant larger and more significant part of our damage compared to wotlk where LB was top damage.

Since LB was the top, and you wanted those to be the top, yes, you were claiming they should be the largest. And again, that's not what the quote said they would try to do.

[Misirlou]

You dug up the thread but since its not going the way u want it, its out of date.

Haste RATING might have been fixed, but unless ppl save up heroism for our FET I can still see it as being a "meh" buff for enh. Same goes to haste raid wide buffs like sinestra. Will do wonders with FET up, will do nothing without it. 'Raw' Haste value remains unchanged.

[Endus]

You dug up the thread but since its not going the way u want it, its out of date.

I dug up the thread as an example of what people were talking about a year ago, not to resurrect year-dead debates that are wildly off topic.

Seriously, last warning. Stop attempting to derail the thread with arguments you're necroing from a year-dead thread.

[Madcap]

Hahahaha, as usual Endus gets called out for some nonsense, then the meltdown.

How you continue to be allowed to be a moderator is beyond me.

User was Infracted for this post - If you have a problem with the way moderators act, take it up with Admin like Sunshine, don't post about it.

[Protoman]

What I'm arguing now is that Haste's scaling value appears to have been fixed, and that the scaling value was the widespread community complaint for much of Cata, and that performance-wise, the scaling value is the more critical issue in any case.

I have always said the best way to address it was by addressing haste's effect on Enh's rotation, but that doesn't mean I think that was the only way to address the issue.

You seem to be suggesting that the majority of the community wanted a direct buff to haste scaling, which is a big assumption and one I feel is wrong. It's true that haste scaling was a popular complaint, but I don't think Enhancers wanted a simple and direct buff to haste scaling, because we all knew that would only buff our passive damage. Instead we wanted a more indepth fix thru our mechanics....our active abilities/rotation/cd's....because that was exactly what Blizz did for other melee to make Haste more effective.

For example, crit scaling was another issue brought up for Enhance. I don't think anyone was asking for a direct buff to scaling/value which would have made it so say 3k rating = 2% crit and not 1% crit. Instead, people blamed it on us having 150% spell crits and not 200% so obviously to fix it buff us to 200% crit, which is what they did for MoP. Similarly, haste scaling was even worse then crit and the explanations that the community came up with was that it was due to factors such as haste only working on passive damage which is not as much of our overall damage as it was in the past, or that we lacked any real resource and were CD restricted instead which isn't effected by haste.

Just because people made general statements like "our haste rating does crap for us" or "haste should scale better" does not necessarily mean they were only concerned with improving the number value.

Because it's irrelevant. When the argument is "most of the community was concerned about X", trying to counter that with "but this one did was concerned about Y" doesn't work at all.

I never said I was the ONLY person talking about rotation. Just that the community in general wasn't, the majority of the regular posters, the folks who don't participate in theorycraft and such.

What seems more irrelevant to me is what you or I think the community wanted regarding improving Haste scaling a year ago, when we have plenty of feedback for Enhance and Haste in the current beta.....and most of the Enhancers in the Shaman community aren't content with Flurry (cause its only passive damage, no effect on abilities/rotation, and relies on a crit based proc) and still wondering when GC plans to let haste "do more" as he stated a few weeks ago in a Blue post.

We know the community saw a problem with haste scaling and wanted to improve it, but we don't know HOW they wanted to go about doing that. I linked to you a quote from a poster on the first page of the thread who did mention our CD restriction before your post mentioning it, I also linked Drake's post which said the same thing about haste basically not doing anything for our abilities, and I linked Elam's blog post which discussed Haste and Enhance in detail, the problems and possible solutions, and that blog is read by alot of Shaman and helps form their opinions on what issues Enhance currently has.

I don't know why you are suddenly giving so much weight to what the regular shaman community thinks either. I'm sure alot of the resto community wants a baseline buff to chain heal jump radius, or Enhance for a simpler AoE and baseline imp GW glyph or some other gap closer....usually if I try and use those opinions to justify some suggestion to improve a mechanic you say it's subjective and it doesn't really matter how many people feel that way, want and need are different and we should just look at data/sims and stuff like that. But anyways, its safe to assume that haste was a concern for majority of the community but I don't think you can claim that they weren't concerned with rotation as well in regard to improving haste.

This is what I mean. What you have just said here is a deliberate twisting of the quote, since he was addressing a question that was asking about physical damage.

You're trying to cut that quote out of its context so you can apply it where you'd prefer. He WAS talking about physical damage. Read the thread.

If I ask "What flavor of popsicle is your favorite", and you respond "Orange", that doesn't mean I can claim you said your favorite fruit is oranges, or that your favorite color is orange, just because you didn't clarify in your response which type of orange you meant. Because you didn't need to, because the question was relevant context.

No, I think you should probably re-read the quote. You are twisting his words by saying "physical damage" when he doesn't use those words at all, only SS and LL which is exactly what I said. He wanted weapon abilities to be a larger part of Enhance's damage in Cata.....so our melee strikes SS and LL. That is in comparison to our spells like shocks and LB, esp LB which was our highest damaging ability for direct amount and overall contribution. If he wanted physical damage in general to be a larger contribution then they would never have removed our "Weapon Mastery" passive which buffed wep damage and so all physical damage, including stuff like auto attack and WF which are passive and what they wanted to avoid.

Since LB was the top, and you wanted those to be the top, yes, you were claiming they should be the largest. And again, that's not what the quote said they would try to do.

I think I know what I meant, and it was that SS and LL should keep the same larger contribution to overall damage that they have had throughout Cata. I already mentioned how LB is usually our second highest ability for overall damage and does about the same actual damage as SS (not counting extra DPS procs from SS). I do think that LL should be our top damaging ability, both damage and contribution by a fair margin like it has been in cata with usually 3-4% more then next highest (typically thats LB). In MoP, cause of EoE and ULF the increased damage and rate of LB cause it to have more contribution, but even picking subpar talents like AS and PE our LL and LB are still fairly close in overall contribution, only like 1-2% difference.....so yes I do think LL should be doing more damage esp when using talent setup like AS+PE.

For other changes, our SS should prob get buffed some too so it's similar to LB or little below for contribution, but instant damage should be close like it has been in Cata.....and I definitely want to see ULE get a buff to damage cause it seems low with barely any increase in damage since lvl 85 in Cata and as a 15sec CD I think it deserves to hit harder. A melee class should have strong and effective melee abilities. Our FT and WF imbue damage needs some nerfs and scaling adjustments too as they seem too high, atleast FT does.

[Endus]

You seem to be suggesting that the majority of the community wanted a direct buff to haste scaling, which is a big assumption and one I feel is wrong. It's true that haste scaling was a popular complaint, but I don't think Enhancers wanted a simple and direct buff to haste scaling, because we all knew that would only buff our passive damage.

See, I'm not psychic, so I don't claim to read people's minds, I have to go by what they actually said. What was actually being said was "haste needs to give more DPS, it scales badly".

You're free to provide a link to a thread from that era where the majority of the contributers are talking in terms of rotation rather than scaling value. I've already linked a few sources for the other way around. And lacking psychic powers, that means it's pretty clear what conclusions to draw based on the evidence there is.

Regardless, we're distracting from the thread by discussing the community from years past, so let's drop it.

No, I think you should probably re-read the quote. You are twisting his words by saying "physical damage" when he doesn't use those words at all, only SS and LL which is exactly what I said.

Except the guy he was responding to DID say "physical damage", and that's the context his response is within.

You are deliberately quoting him out of context.

He wanted weapon abilities to be a larger part of Enhance's damage in Cata.....so our melee strikes SS and LL. That is in comparison to our spells like shocks and LB, esp LB which was our highest damaging ability for direct amount and overall contribution.

When you say "in comparison to our spells", you're now making up something Ghostcrawler did NOT say in that quote, or imply. So we're back to psychic powers again, you're reading Ghostcrawler's mind to figure out what he MEANT to say but didn't ACTUALLY say.

If you've got psychic powers, you should take the Randi Foundation up on their offer and win the million bucks.

[Protoman]

Except the guy he was responding to DID say "physical damage", and that's the context his response is within.

You are deliberately quoting him out of context.

No, you are quoting out of context....I didn't say anything GC didn't, I talked about SS and LL, our melee abilities, in specific and them taking up a larger part of our damage. The person asking the question might have asked about physical damage, but GC's reply did not say they wanted physical damage in general to do more....he talked specifically about our melee abilities SS and LL. They intentionally nerfed certain parts of our physical damage like auto attack and WF when they removed our wep mastery passive....they didn't want passive damage too high, but they did want our melee abilities to do more damage.

When you say "in comparison to our spells", you're now making up something Ghostcrawler did NOT say in that quote, or imply. So we're back to psychic powers again, you're reading Ghostcrawler's mind to figure out what he MEANT to say but didn't ACTUALLY say.

It's very obvious he wanted our melee abilities to take up a larger part of our damage for Cata in the same way our spells did in wotlk. This is why GC mentions LvB (MW5, so LB basically). Our LB was our top damaging spell as well as took up big chunk of overall damage.....in Cata they removed elem fury from Enhance so gave us only 150% spell crits, as well as buffing the damage of our SS and greatly buffing LL, with the intention that our melee abilities would do as much if not more then our spells, LB. Our spells still did good damage, but they weren't the only main sources of our damage......our melee abilities were buffed to be just as potent.

LL has been the hardest hitting, and top contributor in damage for all of Cata. Our SS did more damage in Cata then it did in wotlk, and similar instant damage to LB although a slower rate. Blizz's goal was to make our melee abilities and active damage more emphasized in Cata then passive damage or spells only (which is what took up most of our damage in wotlk).....thats the point they were trying to get across in the quote and Blizz achieved this goal as is evident by our damage and its distribution.

This is general knowledge....you tried to argue and deny this point in the past as well with no real success....think it was when you said LB should do double damage to boost its priority. It's fine for spells to do good damage, our LB already does that, but our melee abilities should also be doing relatively as good because we are melee and our SS and LL are active damage, not from passive sources like LB, so will be relied on more for a constant source of damage. Emphasizing the damage on our melee abilities is important esp in PVP for situations like when you have only a small window of opportunity in which to dps a target before they escape and you want your abilities to have some effect on their HP bar.

[Cakala]

No, you are quoting out of context....I didn't say anything GC didn't, I talked about SS and LL, our melee abilities, in specific and them taking up a larger part of our damage.

Keep in mind that this quote was in reference to SS and LL taking up larger parts of our damage THAN THEY WERE. Not larger parts of our damage than spells. This is a very easy conclusion to draw reading the quote Protoman has been using since he first quoted it. Its an easier conclusion to draw reading the thread where the quote was originally used.

I am not sure how anyone can get read this any other way.

[Endus]

Keep in mind that this quote was in reference to SS and LL taking up larger parts of our damage THAN THEY WERE. Not larger parts of our damage than spells. This is a very easy conclusion to draw reading the quote Protoman has been using since he first quoted it. Its an easier conclusion to draw reading the thread where the quote was originally used.

I am not sure how anyone can get read this any other way.

Exactly.

He was asked about whether the intent was to swing more towards physical damage, and he responded that yes, they were going to make LL and SS a bigger portion of Enhancement damage. Not "the biggest", not "physical damage must be more than spell damage", not any of those other things.

Just more than they had been in WotLK.

If you're reading ANYTHING else in that quote, you're projecting what you WISH it said rather than reading what it ACTUALLY says.

[Protoman]

Exactly.

He was asked about whether the intent was to swing more towards physical damage, and he responded that yes, they were going to make LL and SS a bigger portion of Enhancement damage. Not "the biggest", not "physical damage must be more than spell damage", not any of those other things.

Just more than they had been in WotLK.

If you're reading ANYTHING else in that quote, you're projecting what you WISH it said rather than reading what it ACTUALLY says.

You have been using the words "largest", "biggest" and "physical must be more then spells".....not me. I have been saying that SS and LL should do more damage, be more significant, and our melee abilities given more emphasis in cata. When I compare it to spells, its not to put spells down but to show how our spells did most of our damage in wotlk and instant abilities like SS/LL didn't do much compared to instant damage of LB....and this has been changed so our melee abilities do as much or more then LB. I have said multiple times that LB is usually our 2nd highest ability which obviously means I don't think it should be doing less then SS or be low damage cause its a spell, or SS be top cause its melee or whatever exaggerated claim you are trying to make.

I do think LL should be our hardest hitter for this and other reasons as well, and I do think it doesn't hit hard enough right now...or rather take up as much overall dmg as it should(along with stuff like imbues esp FT doing too much).

It remains to be seen if our SS and LB are balanced, I'm not sure bout that yet....but LL, ULE and imbues do need some tweaks cause they all have performance issues IMO....buffs to LL and ULE, nerfs to imbues esp FT.

[Andyclan]

So i just got in to beta and had a chance to try out the shaman class. i know im only lvl 85 right now but i can tell you, QOL in mop for shamans has gone way up.

I tried resto since its my MS and ele as my OS. shields, much better improvement. buff totems being gone = 10942392305 times better. talent choices are pretty cool as well.

Overall, even though im only 85, i think shaman feel a lot better in MOP, although they dont feel different. like with resto i feel almost the same on live as i do in beta (probably because im not 90 yet lol). Ele is kind of boring TBH =/.

All the weird, stupid, clunky, whatever u want to call it about shaman isnt there. its smooth fluid gameplay with nice flexibility with talents. i will say they can be quite underwhelming sometimes but overall its pretty fun and the changes were needed, and really make the class feel a lot better.

i do have some suggestions though. astral shift and NG are much better choice than SbT. it needs a buff and more health. i heard if the totem gets killed u lose the shields.
second tier is great.
totemic restoration needs to be changed, its quite useless and the other two talents are much better.
fourth tier is great as well, although echo might be a tad underused by resto, seeing as how the proc rate is what 4% or something? i guess its not gamebreaking because the other 2 talents are a great pick anyway.
fifth tier ive only done AG. its underwhelming as ele unless you pop every cooldown and that. great for resto and im excited to try the other two, they look amazing, esp conductivity for pve, and RBG =)
And i cant say much about the last tier until im 90! =). they look cool, not sure how resto will fit in to anything but the UF. but i guess ill have to see!

Anyway thats my first impression feedback on the beta!