Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by zomgDPS View Post
    The PvP outcry about this nerf is actually an interesting topic in itself.

    The real issue people seem to be having surrounds 'the healer's dispel' problem. People assert one or two things will happen:

    1) The opponent healer will just 'sit' on his dispel, since it shares a cd approx to that of frost bomb. He will save it for when the mage needs to burst. However, since mage's in pvp (especially concerning their usefulness) are so closely tied to their burst, this strategy effectively neutralizes mages in pvp.

    2) The only effective way to pvp as a mage given 1) will be to try to kill the healer. Healers, in general, are very powerful right now. A point which hurts the mage's twofold; first, since it is only through killing healers do mages even be relevant in pvp, and secondly, since healing in pvp is so powerful as it is, anything a mage does outside burst is meaningless, which, as it so happens, is exactly what is causing point 1) to exist.

    This way, its a problem that feeds into itself, exacerbating the issue further.


    Really though, the net effect of this nerf will be positive, if nothing else, but for the fact that it removes the over-reliance of mage pvp on a glyph. 'No glyph should be mandatory' is, iirc, a design goal of blizz. If we are lucky, this change might also end up shining a light on the real issues mages have in pvp, namely, how useless they are outside of their cds/burst, especially the Arcane spec.

    Either way, its a win.
    I wouldn't call it a win, though I do agree with your point, but I would call it a step in addressing the actual problem the spec had instead of just gutting coefficients and numbers. Yes, this frees up a glyph slot and changes playstyle, but that's not a bad thing...or it shouldn't be. How this actually plays out in the competitive circle will be interesting. With this direction Blizz took, I'm really more interested in the sweeping changes that a raid patch like 5.2 will bring to balance.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Swizzle View Post
    I'm really more interested in the sweeping changes that a raid patch like 5.2 will bring to balance.
    I am terrified of what 5.2 will bring.

    Given blizzs current thinking and actions surrounding mages and the complete display of how clueless the seem to really be, I shudder at the carnage that will be 5.2.


    It will be a win if we come out of 5.2 alive at all.
    "Lord Zom cannot really be stopped, just maybe slowed or distracted. Rest assured, if he's looking at you... you will be melted, very shortly."
    - Frost Mistress Shinzarah "the Banshee"

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Darcyn View Post
    Let me ask you a question. Do you think monks and rogues are fine and other classe should be balanced around them? If yes your logic is totally right. If not its terribly wrong.
    How balanced is achieved has nothing to do with the fact that imbalance is currently happening.

    In the example of A, B, and C:
    B and C can both be buffed to match A's power (C being buffed more than B).
    A can be nerfed and C can be buffed to match B's power.
    A and B can both be nerfed to match C's power (A being nerfed more than B).
    A, B, and C can all be buffed/nerfed to some other level of power.

    Either of these options would bring representation back to 33.3%.
    Last edited by Aquamonkey; 2012-12-13 at 11:07 PM.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    I'm determined to someday make Med'an awesome. (MickyNeilson)

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquamonkey View Post
    How balanced is achieved has nothing to do with the fact that imbalance is currently happening.

    In the example of A, B, and C:
    B and C can both be buffed to match A's power (C being buffed more than B).
    A can be nerfed and C can be buffed to match B's power.
    A and B can both be nerfed to match C's power (A being nerfed more than B).
    A, B, and C can all be buffed/nerfed to some other level of power.

    Either of these options would bring representation back to 33.3%.
    Yes it does. You have options to how to balance things but that doesnt change the fact you are still taking A as most overpowered, C as most underpowered and B somewhere between them (you can call it overpowered, underpowered or balanced).

    In your previous post you said mages are overpowered not me.

    A is a over reprensented class (warrior), B is mage and C is under represented class (rogue).

    "A, B, and C can all be buffed/nerfed to some other level of power." In this case what's done is theoretically the same, practically different. I mean think about balancing between A,B,C not the numbers. Double the numbers all buffed, you have situation 1-3 again or half the number all nerfed, you have 1-3 again. English is not my native language as you can see so I'm struggling to explain, hope you can understand what i mean.

    Third situation is the only one that makes B (mage) overpowered and C is balanced class which is rogue,monk. It's fine by me if you think rogues and monks are fine and other classes should be toned down. Then again its weird to call 9 classes overpowered when you can call 2 underpowered.
    Last edited by Darcyn; 2012-12-14 at 12:28 AM.

  5. #85
    Anyone else is seeing a ~4 sec timer on frostbomb now? That would pretty much make frostbomb perfect imo.

  6. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by verdamte View Post
    Anyone else is seeing a ~4 sec timer on frostbomb now? That would pretty much make frostbomb perfect imo.
    I can confirm that they have indeed 'hotfixed' frostbomb again.
    http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/7415601502

    This cannot be real.
    Quote Originally Posted by Asdfasdfad
    It's doing ~30% less damage than before without fireblast glyph, still 50% less when exploded with fireblast. The duration of the debuff was reduced to 4 seconds.
    Apparently, they have nerfed its damage and clamped the trigger time at 5 secs.


    They are just making fools of themselves now. Hotfixing massive balance changes on a daily basis. There is no conceivable way they could have gathered enough data from the previous hotfix in order to attain a valuable analysis about the change. So before even seeing what effect the previous hotfix had, they just hotfixed it again.


    QED

    /facepalm
    "Lord Zom cannot really be stopped, just maybe slowed or distracted. Rest assured, if he's looking at you... you will be melted, very shortly."
    - Frost Mistress Shinzarah "the Banshee"

  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Darcyn View Post
    Yes it does. You have options to how to balance things but that doesnt change the fact you are still taking A as most overpowered, C as most underpowered and B somewhere between them (you can call it overpowered, underpowered or balanced).

    In your previous post you said mages are overpowered not me.

    A is a over reprensented class (warrior), B is mage and C is under represented class (rogue).

    "A, B, and C can all be buffed/nerfed to some other level of power." In this case what's done is theoretically the same, practically different. I mean think about balancing between A,B,C not the numbers. Double the numbers all buffed, you have situation 1-3 again or half the number all nerfed, you have 1-3 again. English is not my native language as you can see so I'm struggling to explain, hope you can understand what i mean.

    Third situation is the only one that makes B (mage) overpowered and C is balanced class which is rogue,monk. It's fine by me if you think rogues and monks are fine and other classes should be toned down. Then again its weird to call 9 classes overpowered when you can call 2 underpowered.
    You are using the term overpowered on an absolute scale. I am using the term overpowered on a relative scale. From the absolute scale of a design goal standpoint, the target power level for everything could be higher than even A. That would make all of them underpowered (with A being overpowered relative to B being overpowered relative to C).
    Last edited by Aquamonkey; 2012-12-14 at 01:08 AM.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    I'm determined to someday make Med'an awesome. (MickyNeilson)

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquamonkey View Post
    You are using the term overpowered on an absolute scale. I am using the term overpowered on a relative scale. From the absolute scale of a design goal standpoint, the target power level for everything could be higher than even A. That would make all of them underpowered (with A being overpowered relative to B being overpowered relative to C).
    No, I was trying to explain being overpowered is relative to other clases at third paragraph, appearently my english sucks. All of them being underpowered or overpowered wont change anything they will still stay overpowered/underpowered relative to each other. When you buff/nerf a class you are not just changing numbers, I mean numbers doesnt matter you buff/nerf them related to other classes. Anyway its quite clear that talking about theoretical cases wont make us understand each other and its going offtopic.
    Last edited by Darcyn; 2012-12-14 at 01:39 AM.

  9. #89
    - "You can put that fix in if you want to, but as soon as you go home, I'm putting my fix in instead! ", said developer A to developer B.

    I'm pretty confused right now

  10. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Darcyn View Post
    No, I was trying to explain being overpowered is relative to other clases at third paragraph, appearently my english sucks. All of them being underpowered or overpowered wont change anything they will still stay overpowered/underpowered relative to each other. When you buff/nerf a class you are not just changing numbers, I mean numbers doesnt matter you buff/nerf them related to other classes. Anyway its quite clear that talking about theoretical cases wont make us understand each other and its going offtopic.
    "A, B, and C can all be buffed/nerfed to some other level of power." I just meant that each of them could be scaled differently to match some level of power that wasn't A, B, or C. So if that point were between A and B, A would be nerfed, B buffed, and C buffed a lot.
    Originally Posted by Blizzard Entertainment
    I'm determined to someday make Med'an awesome. (MickyNeilson)

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Aquamonkey View Post
    "A, B, and C can all be buffed/nerfed to some other level of power." I just meant that each of them could be scaled differently to match some level of power that wasn't A, B, or C. So if that point were between A and B, A would be nerfed, B buffed, and C buffed a lot.
    You and Darcyn need to take your discussion about A B C balance in a theoretical environment to a separate thread and/or messages. It is woefully irrelevant to the thread which, may I remind you, is about the Dec 11 hotfix to frost bomb.

    Please stay on topic.


    That being said, the topic of this thread is somewhat irrelevant, since a new hotfix to frost bomb just went live today, Dec 13.
    "Lord Zom cannot really be stopped, just maybe slowed or distracted. Rest assured, if he's looking at you... you will be melted, very shortly."
    - Frost Mistress Shinzarah "the Banshee"

  12. #92
    Logging in to confirm then locking thread if a new hotfix has been implemented.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-14 at 02:08 AM ----------

    Tooltip not updated, explosion capped at 4 seconds, damage has indeed been reduced (at most by 30%, the number seems to be a little less if my memory serves). Locking thread, if you wish to discuss the new change, please form a new thread.

Posting Permissions

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