Screwy Enhancement Shaman Setup

[Deleted]

And THAT is assuming your simulator is right anyway, which I've heard from a number of sources say it's not.

Oooh and your spreadsheet is 100% accurate? WONDERFUL now show us meer mortals where we have gone wrong with the sim that is tested by some of the best Enhancement shaman in the game, and has PROVED bugs in game.

The whole point about the DEVELOPMENT of a simulator is that we look at the results and TEST it vs in game. Where we see inconsistencies we TEST in game we find odd things happening and work out if its an error in the sim or an error in the game.

"Depends on the version of EnhSim, the latest (2.0.14) has mastery not adding to FT damage, so actual in-game parses are the best way of measuring double FT damage for now. I know they were working on further testing but they were having problems accurately modeling the impact of mastery on FT last I heard."

Indeed we are modelling what is actually happening in game, rigerous tests this last week have shown that FT damage is NOT affected by 20% boost to fire damage from mastery we have shown that there is a BUG with mastery and FT IN GAME. Therefore the sim was updated to reflect this new TESTING.

If your wonderful spreadsheet simply takes what the tooltips says and tries to calculate based on that you are MILES OUT. And what is this crap about "changing stats on the fly" its a piece of piss to change the config file and re-run the sim takes seconds.

Lastly you say "Blizzard won't accept a simulator's data". Well let me tell you Mr.Troll they HAVE accepted the data in the past as it is backed up by IN GAME logs and rigerous testing.

So as a Forum Super Moderator I tell you this provide PROOF of your data, show us the in-game testing, prove your theories or stop trolling and posting ill thought out rubbish. I have NO problem with people proving the sim wrong. I do have a problem with the clueless posting "OMG my mate's spreadsheet, says I'm doing it wrong" when we have no evidence to back it up.

So in conclusion PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

[Lylz]

<3 Levva.

Any Enh Shaman with half a brain realises the absolute usefulness of the sim. Personally, I would have just banned this blatant troll. Talk about playing on the fears of the current Enh community in order to try and shoe-horn some retarded, non-viable setup into people's minds...

/facedesk

[Swiftend]

I'm curious why you would assume that the sim, which has been rigorously tested by quite a few people for some time now, would be less legitimate than a spreadsheet made by a couple of bros in a guild. Just glancing at Sariel's gear I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt they they are "doing it wrong." They're in near-full bis gear pre-H LK/Halion and still only pulling 14.5k on saurfang. Using the sim I was able to min/max my way to 16.2k on this week's saurfang kill and I have far inferior gear as compared to your guildmate (most notably in the OH weapon department). Ironically enough your desire to test your theories (which have already been tested) can be actualized with the sim without having to wait a week to kill Saurfang again....

The problem I was initially facing the first week of raiding was the rotation mentality. It isn't something that requires a lot of brain power but I was doing a few things wrong. It's a little hard to get used to the concept that Lava Lash which used to be one of our worst abilities is now our best. And that Stormstrike which granted wasn't the best spell in the world before the patch is now utterly worthless as a source of damage.

The reason that I take so much offense to the attitude of the shaman community regarding this theory is the utter close mindedness of us all. I've been raiding for 4 years as an enhancement shaman and trust me, we've been through some rough shit. Why are there so many people willing to trust a sim which the admin admittedly acknowledges as inaccurate? Mastery not being included on FT is actually a big deal, FT on live does more damage than WF.

Our dps compared to the rest of the raid is crap, its been said a million times here and all over the official shaman forums, something is wrong. So, if our dps is crap, why not try something out on actual boss fights? The sim cant have all of the answers, for one because of the lack of mastery on FT you cannot actually test FT/FT and see if its viable or not.

Another possible issue about my low dps that first week after the patch was that I still had a tiny abom trinket which translates into low dps compared to other trinkets. I am hit capped and expertise capped, when I dropped tiny abom for heroic DBW I gemmed accordingly.

Do yall honestly think that I WANT to be right about this? I hate the rotation and the play style, I hate the fact that I do more damage with spells than I do with melee attacks. We've walked this thin line since the beginning of Wrath and to be perfectly honest I thought that with the class overhaul that we would never get back to this point.

Whatever happened to Blizzard's idea about making weapon imbues usable on only one weapon at a time and then removing the internal cool down on WF and buffing the proc accordingly? I know that they want to get away from procs causing a lot of damage but even if they buffed it to double of what it is right now it still wouldn't outweigh the direct damage that we do.

[rdaccord]

tinkered around with this on sunday, I was not able to pull more dps on a dummy but was able to keep in the ball park of dmg. Though i could never run this setup in a raid enviroment with a spell caster dagger mh, i could see starting out enhance shammies using this as an alternitive till they get other gear.

[Oneleg]

It could be dps increase and stuff!

BUT its not the way it should be, they just need to give us a buff that can make us the way we are intended to be. Not going caster daggers and stuff to up my dps...

is this at lvl 80? If so it means absolutely nothing. If this is at 85 in raid gear you may have something to stand on, at which time blizzard will make the imbues unique and then change some stuff around so we do NOT use caster gear as enhancement, was done once already.

So yeah it might be interesting but it will be short lived again.

[Tore]

No testing method is perfect given that even Blizzard doesn't know about its own bugs half the time.

That said, mathing out information based on what you see in game and assuming its all correct is absolutely terrible. A class like enhance is RNG-central. Nothing we do can be predicted with 100% certainty, and so nothing can be mathed out with 100% accuracy. Not without a method to account for that RNG.

That is why we have the Simulator, which does its best to replicate our RNG combat scenarios with the information we are given. By crossing Sim testing and Live testing, the enhSim community has found countless bugs in-game that were later either fixed or clarified. Despite not being perfect, the Simulator has proven accurate time and time again.

No, the Sim isn't perfect. But spouting hand-mathing over Simming as though its infinitely superior is just obnoxiously ignorant. We can't accurately account for a tenth of what the Simulator calculates with random number generation. The enh community as a whole trusts the Simulator because the enhSim community trusts the Simulator programmers. Levva, Rouncer, and countless others at elitistjerks have consecutively proven themselves to be right and quickly made fixes on the instances where they were wrong. Further the Simulator is built upon the combined knowledge of dozens of players donating logs (yes, actual empirical evidence) and testing to the programmers.

A spread sheet is no more, if not less, accurate than the simulator.

[rdaccord]

The enh community as a whole trusts the Simulator because the enhSim community trusts the Simulator programmers. Levva, Rouncer, and countless others at elitistjerks have consecutively proven themselves to be right and quickly made fixes on the instances where they were wrong. Further the Simulator is built upon the combined knowledge of dozens of players donating logs (yes, actual empirical evidence) and testing to the programmers.

This couldnt be more true, thank you guys for the time and effort

[Deleted]

The reason that I take so much offense to the attitude of the shaman community regarding this theory is the utter close mindedness of us all. I've been raiding for 4 years as an enhancement shaman and trust me, we've been through some rough shit. Why are there so many people willing to trust a sim which the admin admittedly acknowledges as inaccurate?

NO! NO! NO! NO! NO!

Sigh. The admin DOES NOT ADMIT ITS INACCURATE.

This is where the cluelessness creeps in. What I and others are saying is that the whole basis of the sim is to refine and improve at every stage. When something changes we test it we find errors, in game AND in the sim. This does not in any way shape or form mean that the sim is inaccurate. It just means it is undergoing constant development in an effort to make it more and more accurate.

If you cannot understand that the sim is extremely accurate and we strive to improve it at every stage. We openly welcome with a totally OPEN mind people critising the sim and showing with actual hard data where there is a difference between the sim and the game. We do not just close our mind to changes.

What we DO is specifically DEMAND proof. We DON'T tolerate - "my spreadsheet says you are wrong" posts if you aren't willing to demonstrate WHY we are wrong. This is miles away from being closed minded. It is following a rigerous structure.

We test
We find issues
We change the sim/report bug to Blizzard
We test
We find issues
We change the sim/report bug to Blizzard
We test
etc etc etc.

What we don't want is people posting conjecture and wild theories based on hunches and zero evidence. If you have a theory on what is happening PLEASE we actively want you to tell us just be prepared to back up the theory with some data.

I completely agree that going for spell based damage is bad and counter to where Blizzard want us to be. If you can prove in game with hard data that this is happening we'll listen and campaign for fixes. The sim should also be robust enough to precisely mimic what you are seeing in game and what we do is to use repeated sim results to work out WHY you are seeing what you are seeing in game.

It is this testing of ideas that is the core of the Enhancement Shaman theorycrafting community. TESTING!! TESTING!! TESTING!! We are totally open to ideas. Just back them up with actual data.

---------- Post added 2010-11-01 at 03:59 PM ----------

Mastery not being included on FT is actually a big deal, FT on live does more damage than WF.

Our dps compared to the rest of the raid is crap, its been said a million times here and all over the official shaman forums, something is wrong. So, if our dps is crap, why not try something out on actual boss fights? The sim cant have all of the answers, for one because of the lack of mastery on FT you cannot actually test FT/FT and see if its viable or not.

The change to mastery on FT in the sim was done only a couple of days ago until then FT/FT was shown to be doing wildly more damage than WF/FT and at odds with what was TESTED in game. It was then INVESTIGATED and TESTED with logs from some of the top Enhancement Shaman on fights like heroic Saurfang. It was seen that something was very very odd IN GAME with FT in that it was NOT being affected correctly by mastery.

THERE IS A BUG IN GAME WITH MASTERY ON FT.

We TESTED this we found differences between in game and the sim. We changed the sim to match in game for now until Blizzard fixes the bug in game. So all your crying about how the sim doesn't include the full mastery for FT is because IN GAME doesn't include full mastery for FT. If your spreadsheet is counting the full mastery YOU ARE WRONG.

We tested it, we changed the sim TO MATCH IN GAME RESULTS. We DO NOT rely on tooltips, to get our data. WE TEST.

[Nynax]

ok, seriously guys. Stop all this fighting over "sim or no sim." Stop calling him a troll, because he is honestly not a simple troll.

Honestly, if he wants to do his own math, let him. Why's that so wrong? if you yourself are interested in his theory at all then use your sim and try it out yourself. Both of you are doing work, hell you can upload your sim data, he should upload his spreadsheet.

If you absolutely refuse to sim it yourself...well then id say the topic isnt that important to you or your just SoL. but dont take his mistrust of your program so personally. it happens.

From what ive seen in this thread, it goes both ways, yes he should be testing and posting results to support his idea. but at the same time if you really want results to the validity of his statement you should be testing it too, especially considering the experience you have with your own program.

The only thing ive seen from them is "i dont trust your progam so i do my own thing" and then you go and say "your a troll, the program is fine." and honestly i expected more maturity from Levva

[Fornaw]

As the guild math grad student I would absolutely abhor attempting to build a spreadsheet to model Enhancement DPS. It would take weeks and understanding of stochastic processes equivalent to experts in that field in order to get something remotely accurate, assuming you already know all the mechanics which are not actually contained in the tooltips. Back in BC there was an attempt at a spreadsheet, it failed to be reasonably predictive of how things work in game. That's why they built a simulator which has shown wonderful results and is well accepted by the community.

Levva's got a lot of respect here, that he's earned by authoring/coauthoring/testing incredibly helpful tools and guides for the community, telling him the sim isn't as accurate as the spreadsheet you've been working with for a couple weeks at best will get you ridiculed off these boards. Show some WoL parses, heck at least link your spreadsheet so we can look to see if you knew what you were attempting to do.

[Pendraeg]

You misunderstand the intent. I don't NEED to model DPS. The ebb and flow of combat is going to make any spreadsheet or simulator, no matter how good, totally artificial for a class that's based on so much random chance. What I'm looking at is the damage each ability is going to give, and a spreadsheet is far more useful in that than a simulator. It's simply faster and more flexible. Ref'ing back to this parse: http://worldoflogs.com/reports/8c525...?s=2544&e=2707
I have a general idea of where DPS percentages are going to fall per ability. I don't need a simulator to tell me that. It's fairly consistent from shaman to shaman within an acceptable variability. What I need now, is to figure what I'm going to gain and lose by changing this stat and that. This is why I keep saying "maybe" and "probably" on increasing haste, because, without live data on that, I can't guarantee it because it plays so much into the RNG part of the equation. As for physical vs spell, I'm pretty confident. Let me explain.

Phase 1.)
First, we need to make two assumptions.
Assumption 1. Assume we need to hit identical totals in damage to make this change viable.
Assumption 2. Assume we're using generally the same rotation.
Melee (autoattack) damage = 21.2% 2/3's of that is MH, 1/3 of that is OH. OH damage isn't going to change much, if at all. Changing from a slow melee MH that does 250.6 DPS / 2.6 sec, to a 125.3 DPS /1.8 sec weapon is going to reduce your MH damage, however, it WON'T half it because you're actually getting more than half, closer to 2/3's of your MH damage as AP, not weapon damage, and weapon speed isn't a factor for autoattacks, so you're losing about 1/2 of 1/3 of 2/3 of 21.2%, or about 4.7% loss, so we're at -4.7% so far. You lose windfury, which is about 9.2%, so now we're at -13.9%, you also lose about 42.6% of your MH portion of your Stormstrike, which is 4.4% of total, so losing 1.87, round to 1.9%, so 15.8% loss by going to a caster main hand to physical damage. Assume, for a moment, you're ONLY getting the same FT damage bonus that you're getting from your OH, which, it actually should be a bit more due to increased spellpower, but I want to just touch on the double FT first in and of itself. It's 7.7% of total damage, so 15.8-7.7, 8.1%. Magic DPS for an Enhancement Shaman is roughly 60-65% of their total. 8.1%/60% (conservatively), means that you have to increase the damage of your magic abilities by 13.5%. You're picking up around 1047 SP straight from the weapon, plus the extra SP from the second FT, so, around 1250, call it, and given you're barely breaking 5k SP as is (10k AP), I'd say it's a pretty good bet, even without finishing this spreadsheet you're gaining 13.5% magic damage from an increase in spell power by nearly 25%, wouldn't you? This is just the weapon/weapon imbue change and making the assumption you're not changing rotations.

Phase 2.)
Remove Assumption 2.
That doesn't include the Lava Burst hard casting, which I can't take credit for, Swift pirated that off of some of the top end guilds' shamans. That will push things MORE towards magic and less towards physical, as well as a guaranteed Elemental Devastation proc and a much higher crit chance for Lava Lash, which hits like a truck, or de-prioritizing Stormstrike to only when it's the only thing to use/needed to keep the debuff up, since you're losing so much on it's damage, OR because of the aforementioned increase in crit due to basically permanent Elemental Devastation, it devalues crit, and the increased number of spells in the rotation, and even more so, the addition of Lava Burst into the rotation (which is a guaranteed crit) being hard casted, makes haste that much more valuable.

I haven't touched Phase 2 yet. I'm still on Phase 1, trying to prove it out. That is what the spreadsheet is for. If I CAN, and that's still an IF, I'll move on to Phase 2 and see if it bears out. Perhaps once I get phase 1 worked out, your simulator could help with Phase 2, but as of right now, it's not the tool I need to use.

I'm not trying to troll you guys, and I'm not trying to tell you how to play your class. These are the numbers staring me in the face, and I think I can exploit this loophole in Blizzard's theorycrafting to force them into re-examining your spec so you can go back to being a melee DPS, not a caster who stands in melee because that's what I keep hearing you WANT to be. I'm asking for help from the people that play this spec. A simulator isn't what I'm needing, I need back-stops. "No this won't work because of this, this this and this." Swift hammered me with one earlier today. I'd forgotten the 4pcT10 set bonus and I was looking at a 3-4 MSW stack instead of a 5 stack as a possible addition to Phase 2. It won't work because they won't make up for the 20% AP loss from the proc. Once you lose the set bonus, that might change, but you can see what I'm seeing, right? If you, as a community on this forum don't want to talk about it anymore, fine, I'll go somewhere else.

[Swiftend]

As the guild math grad student I would absolutely abhor attempting to build a spreadsheet to model Enhancement DPS. It would take weeks and understanding of stochastic processes equivalent to experts in that field in order to get something remotely accurate, assuming you already know all the mechanics which are not actually contained in the tooltips. Back in BC there was an attempt at a spreadsheet, it failed to be reasonably predictive of how things work in game. That's why they built a simulator which has shown wonderful results and is well accepted by the community.

Levva's got a lot of respect here, that he's earned by authoring/coauthoring/testing incredibly helpful tools and guides for the community, telling him the sim isn't as accurate as the spreadsheet you've been working with for a couple weeks at best will get you ridiculed off these boards. Show some WoL parses, heck at least link your spreadsheet so we can look to see if you knew what you were attempting to do.

I just have to ask, how exactly is building a simulator less challenging than building a spreadsheet? The general consensus is that they act exactly the same, otherwise every single class would have a sim built for them.

As for posting his spreadsheet I think you scared him off, I mean he posted a THEORY and you jumped down his throat and accused him of being a troll. He wasn't trying to cause a panic or to demand that blizzard fixes this problem. Considering that no one here obviously wants anything to do with anything other than the enhancement simulator why should he waste his time at all by posting it here?

You all want a finished product, I can be accused of the exact same thing. We told you from the get go that we needed to do some testing in ICC before we can post accurate parses, so demanding parses before the raid reset is wasting everyone's time.

I honestly do not know why I continue to post in this thread, a man convinced against his will retains his opinion still.

[Pendraeg]

Obviously we weren't discussing this as we were each typing up our respective replies. >.<

[Deleted]

then you go and say "your a troll, the program is fine." and honestly i expected more maturity from Levva

Sorry I did NOT say the program is fine I said that we are ALWAYS open to people PROVING there is an issue with the program that is how we learn and improve the sim.

Where I take issue is people saying the program is wrong with ZERO proof. That is tantamount to trolling given the forum rules (and not reading the rules is worse).

---------- Post added 2010-11-02 at 10:58 AM ----------

You misunderstand the intent. I don't NEED to model DPS. The ebb and flow of combat is going to make any spreadsheet or simulator, no matter how good, totally artificial for a class that's based on so much random chance. What I'm looking at is the damage each ability is going to give, and a spreadsheet is far more useful in that than a simulator. It's simply faster and more flexible.

No sorry this is where you utterly fail to understand what the simulator is doing. It runs an actual combat sequence using a random number generator it SIMULATES every single weapon swing, every proc, every spell cast etc etc. It then runs that simulation over thousands of hours of combat and takes a few seconds to do this. The result is an extremely accurate output of what you could have expected to see in actual combat. It does not guess at anything, and running it over thousands of hours of combat almost completely eliminates the RNG factor.

A deterministic spreadsheet cannot hope to do this. What you do in a spreadsheet is to average out everything take the percentage chance of a proc, you take an average of things like you expect melee percentage white damage to be about X% etc. However that is essentially guesswork, it is a million miles away from a reliable calculation.

A simulator does thousands and thousands of hours of calculation, in any one sim parse it is calculating the actual damage of well over a million white damage swings and the procs from that. It is because the sim actually does blow by blow combat that we can see where subtle effects come into play.

Your lengthy explanations fail utterly at the very first hurdle. I mean come on "Melee (autoattack) damage = 21.2%" You just simply CANNOT PROVE anything by making such a sweeping generalisation. As you then immediately say "Changing from a slow melee MH that does 250.6 DPS / 2.6 sec, to a 125.3 DPS /1.8 sec weapon" but COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IGNORE the massive effect that is going to have on the percentage melee (autoattack) damage and the rate of procs of things. You simply CANNOT assume that the percentage melee damage is going to remain constant.

The percentage of your TOTAL damage that is white attacks will change if you change the speed of your weapon. The number of procs of enchants like berserking will change, the haste effects will change. Your formulae is utter nonsense. You simply CANNOT take percentage of total damage and do calculations like that and get any meaningful results. the fundamental laws of mathematics don't work that way let alone the complex interactions of Enhancement Shaman abilities.

You sir have utterly failed at proving anything. Your maths is just so very very wrong.

---------- Post added 2010-11-02 at 11:10 AM ----------

I just have to ask, how exactly is building a simulator less challenging than building a spreadsheet? The general consensus is that they act exactly the same, otherwise every single class would have a sim built for them.

As for posting his spreadsheet I think you scared him off, I mean he posted a THEORY and you jumped down his throat and accused him of being a troll. He wasn't trying to cause a panic or to demand that blizzard fixes this problem. Considering that no one here obviously wants anything to do with anything other than the enhancement simulator why should he waste his time at all by posting it here?

You all want a finished product, I can be accused of the exact same thing. We told you from the get go that we needed to do some testing in ICC before we can post accurate parses, so demanding parses before the raid reset is wasting everyone's time.

I honestly do not know why I continue to post in this thread, a man convinced against his will retains his opinion still.

Sadly we can see from his post that he is basing his spreadsheet off of using average percentage of total damage for each ability. Thus completely ignoring the very complex interactions that happen when you change things that dramatically change the total damage percentages.

If he was genuinely trying to model with a closed form model how Enhancement Shaman work I'd be pleased, and I'd welcome his input, in fact I'd urge him to contribute his work to the Rawr.Enhance project as I no longer have time for that. Rawr.Enhance for those that don't know is a fully closed form model that works out the damage of each ability based on the average total ap/sp etc you have for each ability. The presenting the sum of the individual components as the total dps.

What people don't seem to get is we WANT challenges to the sim, but we want PROOF not idle conjecture based on flawed maths.


For an example of how his maths is bad...
If you change a WF enchant for a FT enchant all your spells are going to do more damage, thus the percentage contribution to the total damage that spells do is going to rise and the percentage contribution that physical damage does is going to fall (because the total MUST add up to 100% total damage). However he assumes no change to physical damage percentage. That is a fundamental mistake.

He cannot work on total dps percentages as if they were fixed and have any credibility. Come back with a robust spreadsheet based on proper maths and we will listen, run your theory through the sim and show us that even the sim supports your theory and we will listen.

HELL PROVIDE ANY PROOF AT ALL, and we will listen.

[Embermoon]

I consider myself to be one of the most even-minded and objective folks that you could find on forums (not that that's saying much, really). What I see here is the equivalent of two guys (Pendraeg and Swiftend) coming into someone else's house, knocking over the chips and dip table, and complaining about the beer tasting like piss, after pulling their dick out of the can.

That being said, I like these guys. What I'd like to point out to you two, is that you can't make an accusation of the community here being closed-minded, when you haven't made any effort yourselves (seemingly, from reading your posts) to actually test out enhsim. Is that not closed-minded on your parts?

As for the common goal of getting Blizz to recognize enhancement's flaws, a spreadsheet isn't going to do it. Even several hundred griping enhancement players on a forum won't do it. EnhSim data alone won't even do it (although it'd get closer). The worst data to present to Blizz would be modeling based on inaccurate assumptions (such as the averages you'd put into a spreadsheet).

That being said, I don't have a solution to offer, in terms of presenting data to Blizz. Personally, I'm not the least bit worried about it. I expect things will improve in cata.

As for you two guys, I'd like to see you join in on this community. You're both fighting for the same cause, and give two craps about the spec, but we just need to cool the tempers on both sides. Levva has poured a tremendous amount of time and energy into this community, EnhSim, Shock and Awe, and Rawr. To be neophytes to this community, and not give him his dues, is tantamount to taking a dump in the chip bowl and then trying to change the channel during the Super Bowl.

Just consider that you aren't ahead of the curve on theorycrafting this stuff. Once you do that, consider yourselves welcome with open arms, and we can get down to the brass tacks of making a more unified approach to Blizz.

P.S. You insult my beer, and I'm making you drink wine coolers for the rest of the game.

[Foxhoundn]

I love Levva's shift typing <3

Anyway has the bug (ft doesnt scale with mastery) been shown to blizz / offic forums already?

[destero1]

Now what I see here is an attitude problem. Instead of jealously arguing about correctness of simulation software, community should support the research done and point out the problems in the proof if such things exists. That's what
Levva did. However I'd personally like to see answers w/o immature bashing: using CAPS, calling names etc. is not really constructive way to express your point.

As levva pointed out: the model of Pendraeg is overly simplified and therefore does not give reliable results. There's actually nothing wrong with having generalizations, but you actually need to calculate the approximal impact of removing some degrees of freedom.

[Deleted]

I love Levva's shift typing <3

Anyway has the bug (ft doesnt scale with mastery) been shown to blizz / offic forums already?

Sadly with no access to the US live forums I'm unable to inform them of the testing and I've not ventured over there to check if someone else has. There is precious little point in posting such info on the EU forums as no-one reads them.

If someone in US can check pls and point out the evidence in the EJ forum threads that have the test data.

Two big issues...

1) FT is not scaling with mastery it certainly doesn't gain 20% fire damage from base 8 mastery as it should. As you add mastery it is scaling but not at the rate of 2.5% per point of mastery.

2) Searing Flames is criting at what seems to be base 5% crit rate instead of the Shaman's spell crit rate. ie: the base damage from Searing totem uses Shaman's spell crit rate, the damage from Searing flames however is only critting at around 5% or less.

[Gray_Matter]

Just an idea, would it make sense to only cast LvB during hero?

[lycian]

Sadly with no access to the US live forums I'm unable to inform them of the testing and I've not ventured over there to check if someone else has. There is precious little point in posting such info on the EU forums as no-one reads them.

If someone in US can check pls and point out the evidence in the EJ forum threads that have the test data.

Two big issues...

1) FT is not scaling with mastery it certainly doesn't gain 20% fire damage from base 8 mastery as it should. As you add mastery it is scaling but not at the rate of 2.5% per point of mastery.

2) Searing Flames is criting at what seems to be base 5% crit rate instead of the Shaman's spell crit rate. ie: the base damage from Searing totem uses Shaman's spell crit rate, the damage from Searing flames however is only critting at around 5% or less.

The Flametongue scaling issue has just been posted. I don't know if there are others, but this is the only thread I've seen on the matter so far. Here's the link for anyone interested: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/th...08584601&sid=1