Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ...
4
5
6
7
8
LastLast
  1. #101
    I believe he was referring to my wall of text Nath :P

    Quote Originally Posted by justastrudel View Post
    Not really clear on how you feel a boomkin, for example, has more depth than an arcane mage. Give some examples of boomkin mechanics that you feel add depth to their gameplay over a mage.
    Certainly! Before we dive in though, I do want to add that the question is not about looking at one mechanic and comparing it to another mechanic in a vacuum bubble, but instead, comparing the entire package as a whole.
    So, I actually wont be dwelling too much on points such as how the core boomkin proc (shooting stars) has orders of magnitude more gameplay attached to it than the core Arcane proc (AM) for the simple fact that there exist optimal situations where "use the proc" is actually the suboptimal thing to do when playing a boomkin (primarily since shooting stars serves not just as a high impact spell, but as a way to throttle the speed at which you rush from a non eclipsed to eclipsed state). In short, even though on a 'side by side' comparison, boomkin mechanics are just flat out more interesting from a decision theory strandpoint (since the decision to use them isn't relegated to purely binary "OOH is proc up? USE IT!" which is the case with Arcane), that alone doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.


    No, in fact the real picture comes to light when you look at the entire booms package. They can DPS well (naturally), the can burst (far more effortlessly than mages), and from that point the two specs diverge. When in an rBG as a boomkin, I have access to (remember.. full package) a wide array of battlefield control tools. Add to that my ability to offheal (which is quite potent, even for a boomy), and couple that with the inherent versatility of druids, I just have "more stuff" I can do in a fight other than, just damage.

    Now, I am not saying that we should give Arcane mages healing spells. What I am saying is that for booms and ele shamans and warlocks (all specs) they can do the 'basic requirements' which is, DPS and burst, and then on TOP of that, they have these "other" things they can do. Booms can offheal/mass control. Warlocks can basically, well, do a whole lot more than just DPS. Whereas, Arcane mages can really not do anything OTHER than damage. This was what I meant when I used the phrase:
    and your response to every situation is exactly the same (zomgdamage!).
    As an Arcane mage, whatever is going on, your optimal response is "ZOMG MOAR DAMAGE" and thats it, which is a far cry from the potential of the spec, which is, as we can all agree, all about the "supposed" master of arcane magic (perhaps the most versatile magic in the game's lore). Whereas, as a boomkin, I can do terrific damage, sure, but I can do so much more! Its almost as if the Arcane spec is created for people who like to tunnel. Basically, my assertion is, almost all other casters follow the "can do damage PLUS do X" where as for Arcane, there is no X.

    There is only damage. (albeit a very boring and cyclical form of it)


    As far as mechanics are concerned, contrary to popular belief, there is absolutely no mechanical depth to the Arcane spec of today. "Mana management" doesn't exist! You use your rotation, you use your CDs and you use your procs, just like everyone else, but... that is it. So if you ask to compare mechanics directly, there is absolutely no comparison. Arcane just does its ABx4 AM(2) ABr rotation, and its a gg. I really have played every single caster spec under the sun (and am very well versed in all). Arcane mages are the singularly least complex. What they do have however, is the illusion of complexity. An illusion that is dispelled the minute you actually learn your static rotation.




    Given how many staff they have playing this game, I'm sure some play mages. I think its an unreasonable assumption to say otherwise without real evidence.
    This is precisely why I added the qualifier "someone who can do something about it". From the looks of it, Blizz seems to be a very pyramid structure type of place. Sure.. they have someone in there who plays a mage, but the key is, have someone who is near the top of the pyramid play a mage. I do not want to get into the politics of working at Blizzard, but lets just say, there are the movers and shakers (the decision makers) and there is everyone else (and then there is us, the players).

    Someone high enough on the totem pole needs to be brought in. But they are all too busy playing the "statistical numbers" game, instead of playing the actual game.




    That aside, as far as 'lacking specifics', that is by design. I didn't want my post to turn into a big expose (honestly, I don't really care for having to fix the issues all by my lonesome when there are people out there who get paid to :P), but I just wanted to add a top level view as food for thought.


    It is good that you got the "mages need more depth" concept. That alone is what needs to be solved. And not by "leeching depth from other classes", no, blizz needs to brainstorm something new for mages. That is the point. We don't just want to homogenize everyone. If the other casters are deep, fine, don't just copy them to solve mages' problems. Remember, one of the biggest issues I stated was that mages need a LOT more dev time than they are getting.

    Blizz just needs to sit down and have a heart to heart with the class instead of either 1) avoiding the issue all together, then 2) Scrambling to fix stuff with hotfixes and bandaids.


    After all, the rollercoaster of mage design failures is so very evident in MoP. Just look at the state of the PTRs as well as the crazy mage hotfixes.
    Last edited by zomgDPS; 2013-07-27 at 11:03 PM.
    "Zom is like that ace in the hole you keep for when shit hits the fan and you need a clutch. Unleash him when the need is most dire and watch how in just a few globals all your problems fade away. Mostly because they all just got melted."
    - High Warlord Daemon, PvP Officer, rBG Lead

  2. #102
    Warchief Akraen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    SC, USA
    Posts
    2,126
    I want to include your opinions Zomgdps, but you don't play a mage. Do you have a mage at level 90?

    I have to have consistency otherwise I can only take the distilled wisdom from your opinions rather than hand-delivering your exact word.

    Someone high enough on the totem pole needs to be brought in. But they are all too busy playing the "statistical numbers" game, instead of playing the actual game.
    Leave that to me, don't worry about it-- I have it covered.

  3. #103
    1) What's your mage's name, realm(US/EU/etc), and current ilvl?

    Hasufer, Kazzak-EU, Ilvl 545.

    2) What specs have you completed at least one fight in Tier 14 in?

    Started as fire untill the 5.1 nerf. Been frost ever since.

    3) Tier 15?

    Frost all the way, and fairly exited about it yet, cept from the "bad-scaling" secondary stats.
    Can't wait to get to try the changes in 5.4, tho it seems to be a nerf (but hey, u never know till devs are done and it goes live - I tend to max w/e to make it compete with w/e regardless of it being 10% behind another spec and class or so; iv'e said it many times before: movement and targets shift optimisation wins u a lot, just as foreseeing encounters and in other ways, optimise w/e u can, will bring u way above avarage - adding to this, mastering trinket/item procs etc, and fitting these into your dots and instants/fillers will also matter a lot!)

    4) If numbers were not an issue, what spec would you play?

    As of now, frost no doubt! Been very hooked on both fire and arcane for raiding, in prev tiers/expansions. However, I've not been very fond of em since. Arc is just a bit too boring for me now, as I played it most of cata, and fire is just.... dull. combust = win, rest of the fight is boring as fuck. (Not saying I woudn't play it if needed or granted it's the only option, and I know perfectly well how to play it. But with the current gearing etc, it's not really an option - more about this later )
    Blizzard however, always seem to "destroy" the specs, and the way u have come to love them.(like the way I liked arcane in tbc, till it got utterly shattered and boring in wotlk)
    Which is also why I'm not fond of anything but frost atm, since it's fairly new in raiding envoirement, compared to arc/fire, and brings a larger portion of versatility and possibilities overall + faster gameplay and more important dot optimization due to the large amounts of haste and lower castime on fb.

    5) If you could sacrifice spec diversity to have the same scaling across all 3 specs to allow for true choice in thematics, would you be okay with that? If not, would you be okay with it as a temporary solution?

    I would love for all 3 specs to be viable for raiding and compete, even in endgame gear. I really don't understand or like the fact, the frost is somehow clued to pvp, even tho it imho, offers the greatest versatilility and overall challenges and possibilities = fun, in pve. On the other hand, I dont want arc/fire to suffer, they should just be able to compete across the board, while having their own unique gameplay and possibilities. (something which is lagging more and more sadly)

    6) If you were against the idea presented in #5 (or if you were for it, give any opinion): Would you rather true spec diversity, but the requirement that you change specs for appropriate fights? Would this be more appealing if all gear worked for all specs, but your mage/frost/molten armor compensated for the scaling?

    Yer, one thing I really dislike, is the lacking possibility of switching specs between fights. Maybe im a "frost-fan" but I'm not ready to ditch fire and arc, those specs only add ekstra aspects and greater posibilities and fun to playing a mage. The main reason for hardly playing them, is the huge gap between gearing for mainly frost and fire (arc is better to switch into, on a fight like Ra-den or the like, when need be, due to mastery/haste being great, but still it's mast > hast, where as frost is the opposite, which will reflect in ya gearing and make it less optimal to switch)
    Take e.g. a warlock. (hybrids are pretty much set, as they go for 1 piece of gear, as they cant choose from several dps specs) They can basicly change like they want, whenever they want. Might need a little gemming/forging, but the gearpieces remain the same, thus opening up the possibility to actually change between 2 fights. A thing I would have loved to be able to in 5.3 - basicly I would have been like a 50/50 between frost and fire to max out raidteam. Due to the immence need for crit as fire, and huge need to dispose of it, as frost. That posibility was kinda left behind.

    7) If you could change only one thing about the mage class overall, what would it be?

    Think I gave some pointers to what I would like already, but a concrete matter, would be to remove/redesign or renew the lvl 90 talents. Give mages something usefull and exiting to toy with. hitting a button once pr min, aint really hard, and not fun at all. It adds to an already, incresingly boring playstyle/gameplay.
    When u play a game on year 7-8, it has to be FUN and encourage you to keep playing through this. The way blizzard mess with of the things that were supposed to be cool about playing a mage, just makes med sad troll and really does not encourage towards keeping on playing the game that I (we?) have come to, and love.
    It fustrates me, that it's only the playerbase that sees these things, not the persons developing the game (or maybe they do, but the changes aint reflecting it at least). Now that players have learned from blizzard not to tunnel-vision when learning and gaining new knowledge of playing and overcoming opstackles as well, perhaps they should try it as well, and make the class as fun as some of the others classes in the game, once again!
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    P.S:

    Zomgdps has some nice pointers in his wall of text, which I would also like to be referred to, or somehow included in ya tell to the devs Akraen, cause that's basicly some of what's happening to the mage class as of now!

    Thx for the huge amount of time and effort that u put into this, and if u need assistance with anything, u can always pm - we all want the best for our class, and future raiding in wow U, along with some others, made me enjoy frost even more, with ya continued work with optimising aspect like the hastecaps etc (I'm not all that good with numbers myself, I'm a "practical player" so to say. Having guys around who can fill the gaps is just fantastic, and makes it possible for me (others) to focus on the ingame part, tho never letting out, the important maths, responsible for pulling the numbers I/we do - huge props! <3 )
    Last edited by Hasufer; 2013-07-28 at 10:00 AM.

  4. #104
    Bloodsail Admiral Nathyiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,168
    Here's the first part of my long analysis.

    Generality of mage.
    I won't go with all actual problem: scaling, spec disparity, etc.
    But I will start with 2 things being said by Blizzard: the remove of the "reset" ability and a rework around rotation to reduce button number.
    In short, the end of reset ability mean the disappearing of Alter Time and Cold Snap for mage. It's not really a surprise as they always have been doubtful about this sort of spell. There still be a possibility that they keep them, more or less.

    A simplification of the rotation is a good thing. Less spell means that only the essential will be kept, leading to a better identity of each spec. Actually, mage is already in a good spot but with less shared spell like bomb it can only be better. It's what I through.


    Talent

    Mage's talent are good example of both good and bad design.
    They're designed like a cross-word game: utility horizontally and spec school vertically. So for RP purpose, it's possible to nearly only choose fire or arcane talent.
    We have: movement, damage's reduction, area control, survivability, multi-dot/aoe and game-play.
    The 4th row are good, they're balanced with the exception of PoM. But it's a fire problem witch is too mush dependent of Pyro's damage and Ignite.

    The bombs problem.
    From a good design idea, they came out with more detrimental effect than good. There's balanced around target number and not player choice or game-play. This lead to reinforce the feeling of homogeneity as that take more and more space. And the rotation have ended resolving around them, like level 90. Frost bomb isn't playable as Fire. Nether tempest is a must have as Frost.
    They also have the purpose to smooth damage output but it can be done otherwise.
    The level 90.
    For me, part of the problem come from the fact that they change the base game play. It result in having not 3 spec, but 27 with bomb choice.
    I also think part of the problem is that it increase damage. Why not baking this 15% into spell damage directly ?

    Proposition.


    • Level 75 and 90 should be wiped off.
    • Level 45 and 60 should move to 60 and 75 respectively. This 2 row are more end-game game-play than progression.
    • At level 45, AOE talent could be added: Arcane Explosion, a Fire spell and Blizzard. They will be filler spell for AOE situation.
    • At level 90, it could be Armor talent's for high-end number balance.
    AOE talents.
    My idea resolve around the fact that we already have 2 AOE talent that are equivalent in DPS but different for there use: Blizzard and Arcane Explosion. It only need a fire spell with a cast time to make it an in-between the instant and the 8s channel, like a cast bomb that explode immediately on all target around (like frost bomb but in fire).
    But they need some spec interaction: Arcane charge generation, haste buff for Fire and mastery buff for Frost.
    Armors talents.
    I have explained it in my previous post. I will detail it here.
    The actual offensive bonus need to be include in each spec. It's already the case because each spec use his specific armor.
    The defensive bonus need to be more balanced and adding some old but good secondary effect.

    • frost armor -- reduce aoe damage and slow enemy
    • mage armor -- reduce the duration of harmful magic effect and have a chance to knock-back enemy.
    • molten armor -- reduce physical damage and have inflict small damage to enemy
    more later with Glyph then spec ...
    The answers is 42
    -------------------------
    Nathyiel, TempteÐ (sargeras-EU) - @Nathyiel

  5. #105
    Level 75 and 90 should be wiped off.
    Agree on 90 talents and theres some okay thought in there But why on earth would u ever remove the bombs? that's beyond my understanding.
    They, if anything, adds an ekstra aspect to our playstyle and class - and as long as we got 1 dot, it's not like u would confuse us with an sp or affli lock, for being a "dot-class". (ofc we are a dot class, in the sense that we have 1 dot, but still, our dmg is not primarily exsisting because of dots, so tehres a huge difference) The sheer dmg on the dots, might have to be adjusted tho, but not removed.
    Agree we shoudn't have more dots, but having this one dot, which also interfers with our spells (ffb proc/+dmg to fire etc) really is helpful, not just to use insta, filler, filler, insta, filler, filler, cause that's ALL there is to it, apart from the cd's on a 1.½-3min cd timer. Man that would be a setback in my book, but we all are different ofc.
    It can only raise the skillcap, having an ekstra thing to maximize and monitor, and with all the spells and talents narrowed down, the last thing I would like, is to remove yet another thing to keep track of, and distinguish bad/avarage and good players from one another (not saying a dot is capable of that, but it sure adds something more, for ppl to master). Monitoring dots/procs etc would be less needed without bombs, and would u really enjoy using pyro, fb and scorch for fire, only? Askin outta curiosity, u might have ya reasons, they are just hard for me to grasp as it's completely off my mindset
    They are one of the new things, that's at least positive, while the lvl 90 talents are well, meh.
    Last edited by Hasufer; 2013-07-28 at 01:10 PM.

  6. #106
    Bloodsail Admiral Nathyiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,168
    I'm really in contradiction with you here.
    This proposition is the logical following of my analysis. If you want more distinctive design for each spec (see my first replay), you can't simply add a DOT to all and still thinking the problem is resolved for multi-dot fight.
    Actually, this 3 talents are :
    • a dot that cleave
    • a dot with a small AOE
    • a delayed bomb with a big aoe.

    A first question could be: why all 3 mage need a dot ?
    Arcane -- why not. they are really bad at it.
    Fire -- not really they already have living bomb
    Frost -- if you remove the debuff, it's cleave and proc could suffice.

    Another question: why all class need a DoT for multi-doting?
    it's homogenizing the game-play.
    Another things, bomb as talent can't be balanced because of how they work. it's the case from the start of mop but they're dps was negligible. When they was buffed for being useful in multi-dot fight, this disparity began to show and problem appear.

    I don't want any talent like this 2 row that do too much. Actually, they multi-dot, aoe/cleave, proc instant/put a debuff, and aoe snare. (if I have forget nothing). They are like the level 90's talent they do too much and don't fit the design model of the Mop talents: choice not optimisation.

    My idea is : remove them as talent, bake them as spec spell when they can be interesting for rotation.
    This is why I propose Frost bomb as an AOE talent. I return Living bomb to Fire and I will propose a small dot like for arcane but tied to it's game-play.

    edit: and if I began my post with the more than probable simplification for 6.0, it's not for nothing.
    The answers is 42
    -------------------------
    Nathyiel, TempteÐ (sargeras-EU) - @Nathyiel

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by Akraen View Post
    I want to include your opinions Zomgdps, but you don't play a mage. Do you have a mage at level 90?
    I most certainly do. A 550+ heroic raider mage at that. I also play my warlock (my main), boomkin, ele shaman, spriest, and hunter; and regularly switch as needed by my guild for our progression. Rest assured, my feedback is coming from eons of familiarity with not only the mage class but caster mechanics in general, and not only in raiding, but rBGs, challenge modes, arenas, and almost all other 'high end' aspects of the game I can get my hands on.

    Furthermore, I also play with those who I consider to be some of the best players I have ever met in WoW (and I have played since vanilla release), and a lot of my feedback is born from long conversations with those players.


    It is good you have some inside track to the devs Akraen. You mages will need it. If for nothing else, but since your existing 'inside track' (in the form of your MVP) is so woefully broken, corrupted, and quite frankly, wh0lesale consumed with personal agendas at this point. Which is all precisely what the mages don't need right now.


    End specism/class in-fighting. Mages have had a long and colored history of this, tracing its roots all the way back to the formation of the Mage Union all those years ago.
    But I still believe the mage community can pull through. They have never ceased to surprise, even after all these years.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by zomgDPS View Post
    since your existing 'inside track' (in the form of your MVP) is so woefully broken, corrupted, and quite frankly, wh0lesale consumed with personal agendas at this point. Which is all precisely what the mages don't need right now.
    I have been asked to provide some hard evidence to this (seemingly combustable) statement in an effort to not seem like a 'troll'.

    There are so many examples of this behavior by your MVP (one that pushes a 'specism' agenda), so I will just pick the latest one occurring on the forums right as we speak.

    This thread on the official forums is discussing the non-viability and/or improvements to Arcane during the current 5.4 PTR cycle. The MVP, who for some reason or another, is notorious for his senseless agenda of "ensuring Arcane does not improve", has this to add to the discussion:
    I strongly suspect that we have here is a situation where the conventional wisdom decided "Arcane only works with ROP!" and nobody then bothered to actually check and see if that was true.
    Source
    He asserts that no 'work' has been put in to discern the viability of 'alternate' arcane styles, and that the only reason arcane underperforms, is because 'no one bothered' to figure out how to play it. He goes on further to suggest that this is why devs should not put in time into the Arcane spec. To this, he also adds (once cornered) that he himself has not done any work into this topic, but feels he is 'correct' enough to lambast the rest of the mage community.

    However, contrary to popular belief, a metric ton of work was put in to really figure out how the different 'styles' of Arcane play out, and it was only after this extensive, community wide, testing, did people agree that RoP Mastery Arcane is in fact, the theoretical superior of all Arcane styles.

    Proof?

    http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...ting-Come-Help!

    A vast collection of mages from all walks of live contributed to this ^ study held on these here very forums. The data was conclusive. RoP Mastery Arcane was found wh0lesale dominant over all styles (even experimental ones concocted by yours truly ). Along with this, is the mass amount of raid parse data as well as simulation craft tests that confirm it.


    However, all this 'work' is somehow inadmissible to the MVP, who still holds true that Arcane should not have work done on it since the problem lies with the community of mages, not with the spec.


    However, he is obviously called out en-masse in that thread. In an effort to defend himself, he commits an act that he is so well known for now, that being, "making up numbers". Observe:

    Pretend that with Rune, your average Mastery Multiplier is 1.4 and your average Charges multiplier is 1.5. With Invocation, your average Charges multiplier is 1.75 and your average Mastery multiplier is 1.2. These aren't real values, they're just demonstrating how lowering one and raising the other affects things.

    Rune: Mastery (1.4) * Charges (1.5) = 2.1
    Invocation: Mastery (1.2) * Charges (1.75) = 2.1

    It's as simple as that -- it doesn't matter if your Mastery goes down as long as your average charges multiplier goes up enough to compensate.
    Source.
    Emphasis mine.

    Here the MVP is trying to show, using 'math', that RoP Arcane is equal to Invocation Arcane.
    However, he openly states that he is using made up numbers (numbers that are made up for the express fact of proving his hypothesis).


    He then uses these made up numbers to re-assert the premise. For anyone who has done a modicum of math will know, you cannot just "make up" numbers to prove a hypothesis.

    I will explain the MVPs error using a basic example to illustrate how "using made up numbers can confirm any hypothesis" (also known as a 'begging the question' fallacy) This can be seen in the following scenario:

    Hypothesis/Assertion: Frost and Fire do equal damage.

    Data:
    * Let us assume Frost does 1.4 damage.
    * Let us assume Fire does 1.4 damage.

    Proof:
    Using the aforementioned data we see:

    Frost damage = 1.4
    Fire damage = 1.4

    hence, Frost damage = Fire damage.


    The point being made is, that if you 'make up the numbers' you can use them to prove anything you wish. All he has done is add a few more "made up numbers" to the list to make the calculation (i.e. the "proof" part) seem more genuine, when in actual fact, the entire thing is nothing more than a sham.

    If you control the input, you can control the output, and you can make that output say whatever you want it to say.
    And naturally, since the MVPs text is green, the vast majority of the mages out there will take his word to be unquestioningly true. A great error.



    It is behaviors like this that describe the extent as to which specism and class-in fighting has become a major issue for mages in general. When your own MVP (who admits to not having done any Arcane testing) is so vehemently speaking against any conversation or attempt to improving one of your own specs, to the extent that he has to use faulty math and flat out wrong statements (no one did any Arcane testing? no one checked which Arcane style was top dps? please) to 'prove' his point, then we see how deep this issue lies.



    End specism. End class in-fighting. Take a page from the warlock book guys. Warlocks rarely, if ever, lobby so hard to keep one of their own specs nerfed. To be fair, we warlocks don't have an MVP who is actively pushing a specist agenda.


    With that said, I just wanted to add this post here for reflection, and to get people to stop pming me about 'proof' for my statement. As I mentioned at the start, the proof is everywhere (just check the MVPs posting history), you just have to be colorblind (i.e. not effected by the green) in order to see it.


    Hope this clears some stuff up for you guys. Now.. back to your regular programming.
    "Zom is like that ace in the hole you keep for when shit hits the fan and you need a clutch. Unleash him when the need is most dire and watch how in just a few globals all your problems fade away. Mostly because they all just got melted."
    - High Warlord Daemon, PvP Officer, rBG Lead

  8. #108
    Ah I knew I should've been more exact with why the mage rotations are all very similar to not leave the easy response of "well everything works that way" as being a possible response.

    Lets see if I can explain this exactly while half asleep...

    Okay there are certain pillars of the mage spec that don't change no matter what type of mage you are in no particular order they are

    1. Bomb spells are always expected to maintain a high degree of uptime often times devolving into the same exact spell, not a spec specific dot, for all specs depending on encounter.

    2. Your level 90 talents must be kept up

    3. Now at this point you hit your sole filler nuke, many classes have these but that isn't the point this is to explain how few differences there are. The only one that starts to be different is Arcane Blast but really in most instances you should just assume its being cast 4 times not very exciting is it. Scorch is a second filler for fire and is a little different +1 fire

    4. CDs. The one you have per spec. Do you ever not pop it with AT and/or the spec procs if applicable? Yeah you pay more attention to ignite, with addons because it isn't part of your Blizz ui, theres no denying that but that super AT macro with everything you can get rolled into it nicely is a part of every mage spec too.

    5. You have your procs this is where things start to get more interesting although the amount of procs remains pretty consistent across specs so they play with a very similar number of buttons and I feel like this is also another thing that makes them feel as if they're all the same formula with differing variations which might be by design since we're all mages before fire/frost/arcane.

    So the actual differences in the specs seems to occur mostly around the procs with the maintenance and filler portions of your rotation being nearly identical between the specs because all of our bombs and maintenance spells are talents and not spec specific skills. They can be proven to be mathematically superior to the other options. This often times also being a class wide occurrence and not spec specific. This lowers the number of places the specs can diverge from each other because it lowers the number of spec unique mechanics. Leading to them all playing similarly at least on some levels. This isn't to say no differences exist but there is an underlying theme to mage you'd have to be drunk or not playing the class to deny.

    Too bad this doesn't fit on twitter probably.
    Last edited by Turkey One; 2013-07-28 at 11:24 PM.

  9. #109
    Mechagnome Zatetic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Launceston, Australia
    Posts
    600
    1) What's your mage's name, realm(US/EU/etc), and current ilvl? Zatetic, Frostmourne - US, 527

    2) What specs have you completed at least one fight in Tier 14 in? Fire, Arcane, Frost

    3) Tier 15? Fire, Arcane, Frost

    4) If numbers were not an issue, what spec would you play? Frost

    5) If you could sacrifice spec diversity to have the same scaling across all 3 specs to allow for true choice in thematics, would you be okay with that? If not, would you be okay with it as a temporary solution? No. I'd like the specs to remain drastically different.

    6) If you were against the idea presented in #5 (or if you were for it, give any opinion): Would you rather true spec diversity, but the requirement that you change specs for appropriate fights? Would this be more appealing if all gear worked for all specs, but your mage/frost/molten armor compensated for the scaling? I dont mind swapping specs for different fights, I would love true spec diversity. I dont want all gear working for all specs though. I like having a fire set and a frost/arcane set.

    7) If you could change only one thing about the mage class overall, what would it be?
    I'd like frost to scale better and not be hard against stat caps.

  10. #110
    I don't have much to add to this thread other than: I wish I could go back to the cataclysm playstyle. That was the only time I ever had fun playing a mage. I loved playing arcane in firelands, the burn/conserve rotation was something I enjoyed. Fire was fun when even though it was RNG, not fussing with inferno blasts to proc hotstreaks made the system more streamlined. Sure you could get shitty rng, but high crit alleviated that. I much preferred having fireblast used for stunning and dot spreading. The only thing I ever wanted changed in fire was to make fireblast always spread dots, not just on proc. Also putting the target cap on combustion was a huge, huge turnoff for me.

  11. #111
    Warchief Akraen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    SC, USA
    Posts
    2,126
    Sorry guys I have another update coming, been on a bit of work travel.

    Also zomgdps, I skimmed but will be giving a more in-depth read today and incorporate your points into the OP. What's the name of your mage, though so I can include it?

    Thanks again for the feedback everyone, this is going somewhere.

  12. #112
    1. They really need to make the Bloodlust debuff go away if it's used in AT.
    2. Give us some kind of raid utility. We're outshined by warlocks right now mostly due to them having more utility and survivability with roughly the same damage
    3. Fix our level 90 talents already. We were promised they would be fixed months ago and yet still they are more or less the same. The fact that Arcane is so dependent on Rune of Power makes me not want to play the spec. Rune of Power is a cool idea in theory, but it's a pain in the ass to play with.
    4. Make Ice Floes appealing.


    That's really all I can think of at the moment. I'll edit this if I think of anything else.

  13. #113
    Even though I've already filled out the survey, I want to echo that they need to fix the Bloodlust debuff. It is not fair that we get screwed out of it completely if someone in the raid is an idiot and pops it at the wrong time.

  14. #114
    Dreadlord
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Germany/BW
    Posts
    901
    If you have 2 trinket procs during alter time, or someone is pulling BL during AT then just hit a macro with "/cancelaura Alter Time". Don´t like AT either, liked the old coldsnap gazillion times more (but not the cooldown).

  15. #115
    Bloodsail Admiral Nathyiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    1,168
    Quote Originally Posted by citizenpete View Post
    If you have 2 trinket procs during alter time, or someone is pulling BL during AT then just hit a macro with "/cancelaura Alter Time". Don´t like AT either, liked the old coldsnap gazillion times more (but not the cooldown).
    Like always with Blizzard, they have made it a 2 purpose spell : DPS cooldown with buff/debuff reset and Survival cooldown with heal/mana/position reset.

    The second is good. The first is just a good idea but don't work as intended (like talent 75 & 90).
    The answers is 42
    -------------------------
    Nathyiel, TempteÐ (sargeras-EU) - @Nathyiel

  16. #116
    Dreadlord
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Germany/BW
    Posts
    901
    Yes, like the second purpose, too. As a DPS Cooldown it´s a pretty weird spell with all the RPPM, random boss abilties etc.

  17. #117
    Its probably only mages, warriors with current vigilance and, to some extent, monk tanks, who have "survival" cooldowns that can easily kill yourself or whole raid in unfortunate sequence of events.. GC et al. can say what they want, but having to wait for the orbs on jin-rokh or lei-shen before the fix was detrimental to say the least.

  18. #118
    I don't play my alt mage too much; I want to like mages, really, but sadly I find that doing DPS is the worst part of being a mage. =p

    1) Fyrae, US-Suramar, ilvl 493

    2 & 3) None in normal or heroic; just Fire and Frost in LFR

    4) Fire. Though honestly I can't say I liked the elemental distinction in the first place.

    5) I'd prefer to have spec diversity. Whether the three specs are currently diverse enough is a different story.

    6) I wouldn't mind switching specs if gear was usable between specs and each spec was fun. I often played both 2h Frost and Unholy on my DK, after all, where I generally preferred Frost, but sometimes enjoyed abusing Unholy in AoE-heavy fights...

    7) While there are a number of things I'd like to see changed (including the lv 75 and 90 talents, and Fire/Combustion scaling), I'd have to go with "making the class' primary resource something other than RNG." Mages' primary resource isn't mana. Mana is not what determines when you can or should cast spell X over spell Y. Mages don't have many attack spells gated by cooldowns either.

    For other classes, random procs grant a bonus; they may turn an ability from good to great, or allow more uses of good abilities. For Mages, they're not a bonus, but instead a requirement to make the class work; a Mage proc doesn't turn an ability from good to great, it turns one from awful to good.

    Even worse are Alter Time and Combustion, which rely on having good luck in order to use them, and then duplicate that luck. Waiting for 3 class procs to use a 3 minute DPS cooldown isn't a satisfying burst DPS cooldown at all.

    I really don't like having to rely on RNG so I can push a button other than Fireball/Frostbolt. Sure, average luck may be more common than bad luck, but in my experience, I think people tend to remember bad luck streaks more, and personally it makes me find Mage more frustrating to play than other classes. A bad luck streak as a mage not only means I don't do much DPS, but also it's boring, it's out of my control, and it's compounded by that I don't get to use cooldowns when I want to. Good luck streaks may happen too, but I don't find them satisfying enough to counter the bad ones. Though to be fair, I haven't played a heroic raid-geared Fire mage. (Though having an ilvl requirement in order for a class/spec to be fun is another problem.)

    Icicles is a start, I guess, even though it's kinda like a combo point system with a potentially disappointing 'Eviscerate' if you don't have FoF...

  19. #119
    Warchief Akraen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    SC, USA
    Posts
    2,126
    A summary from zomgDPS as I've interpreted (I'd love more spec-specific fire/frost feedback and clarify any of these distilled points):

    Overall:
    • "Balance by numbers" might make mages viable in raids, but it doesn't make the class engaging to play. This is exemplified most greatly by the bomb design (and that large buff it received). Spec diversity is crushed by each mage changing over to the same bomb and it is not well-received by the feedback from players yet Blizzard outlook is that this is the direction in which they want this pure class to go.
    • Mages have the least amount of spells in their spellbook of all caster classes (discounting 15 types of polymorph) -- can someone fact check this one for me please? I want to see if we have less spells now than we did in vanilla as many were taken away.
    • Depth of a spec is defined by unique core mechanics used in gameplay, 1-2 abilities should exist on top of any other core styles of play (i.e. nuke, proc, fire). Currently arcane, frost, and fire do play this way: use a nuke to gain a proc, fire said proc. Arcane deviates slightly, frost and fire play pretty much the same.


    Arcane:
    • The potential of the spec is unrealized due to no true thematic other than "not frost or fire" - this can be helped with some direction and possibly more time-and-space themes.
    • Shallow gameplay, doesn't need more buttons as much as more dynamic play outside of the damage-dealing abilities that is arcane-specific.


    --

    Some of my thoughts up to this point:
    For the first time in 8 years I'm truly concerned that what I want from the game overall, the mage class aside, is in a completely different direction than what the development team is doing. I've always had my little niggles but this time it's different.

    I've noticed in American culture, businesses, project development, TV shows, music, social media, MMOs/other games, and people themselves this turn towards bite-sized rewards. Everything must be quick, small, bread-crumbed, and obtainable. There is no scope too wide or breadth too deep for any goal because goals are formatted by the creators of said goals to establish a continuity of perceived progress.

    I might seem a little "out there" (especially to EU players who might not know American culture), but I think it plays a role in making further development decisions for the mage class and WoW as a whole. Now that I've shared that observation I'll hammer down some of my over-arching ideas for further discussion.

    I truly don't care what direction in which the mage class changes as long as it does, and I do think it is wise for not everything players suggest to be part of what guides developers. We often assign ourselves too much responsibility (as the passionate player base) to take the issues of game balance and flavor upon our shoulders. Many of us secretly wish we were the ones sitting at the dev meetings or typing away furiously at the code because we love the idea of being involved in the decision making process of something that matters to us. Further, I think it is good for us to get things we don't like because in MMO psychology if everything was so perfect the drive to continue to play would evaporate. There must be some adversity and injustice to serve as a motivating factor, but that does not mean we should continue to have a lack of direction, particularly with arcane.

    As zomgDPS has suggested, I think the thematics vs. diversity is a bad debate to be having in the first place. Thematics can exist alongside diversity and the developers need to know that via suggestions that have already been on the OP (many suggested by Hanodar, thanks!). If developers want us to be using a bomb tier to keep our numbers easily balanced across each spec, then why can't the bomb adjust itself based off the spec you play? If developers are suggesting this is a bad idea to have spec-based adaptations, then why do hybrid classes (see Druid) get an exception? What's the reason to go against this idea other than "we don't like it?"

    There are many concepts and ideas that give the mage class depth as a whole and per spec, and they aren't too hard to cook up. Developers can do anything in the OP that has been suggested or come up with their own ideas and surprises, but the point is I caution developers and all of you when you make these suggestions to not push for the continuation of quick rewards, over-complicated design, and the ADD format of gameplay that we already see in encounter design, currency systems like valor, dailies, and so forth in this expansion.

    So I think now we're at a point where we can re-review what we have, continue to add to it, but also refine it. I want to communicate these points well. So grab a bullet point or two from the OP and analyze it and its consequences. I'll write, re-write, and re-write again until this is something the developers can digest and at the very least, inspire them for further refinement of the mage class.

    Thank you all again for your continued efforts.

  20. #120
    I really hope blizzard doesn't listen to this. So many outrageous propositions. Mages are in a good place right now, don't try to drag our class to the pit.

Posting Permissions

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