A Tweet, A Thought

[Magemaer]

So why did you come into this thread? In one post you list off complaints you have about the class, and the next you belittle the efforts of those of us who are trying to get them fixed. You either don't understand the purpose of this thread, are trolling, or just want to be contradictory for the sake of being contradictory.

I just have a different opinion.

who are trying to get them fixed

Fix to make it worse? Dotless is a downgrade, both in terms of gameplay and in terms of versatility.

[Methusula]

I just have a different opinion.



Fix to make it worse? Dotless is a downgrade, both in terms of gameplay and in terms of versatility.

And he said your opinion matters. And like a spoiled pre-teen, you said "well I don't agree with this one thing, so I want nothing to do with it." Dot-less is a downgrade IN YOUR OPINION. I'm really not sure why you are focusing on this in the first place, as it isn't exactly a unanimous opinion by any stretch.

Again, if you don't agree, and don't wish to contribute to the efforts of those in this thread, there is no need for you to be posting in it.

[Magemaer]

Again, if you don't agree, and don't wish to contribute to the efforts of those in this thread, there is no need for you to be posting in it.

The effort is to advocate what we feel needs improvement in our class. Taking our bomb tier away wouldn't be an improvement imo, quite the opposite in fact.

just want to be contradictory for the sake of being contradictory

like a spoiled pre-teen

I'm just stating my opinion. Attacking the messenger doesn't make the message any more right or wrong. And saying such things is not worthy of a gentleman.

[GhostPanini]

1.Cortivva Uther US ilvl 522

2. Arcane

3. Frost

4. Frost

5&6 .I would love to see spec diversity, so I would be okay with the having gear all the same but with armor modifiers to fit the needs of each spec.

7. I would like to see the talents reworked so that they were more fun and not mandatory.

[Akraen]

The effort is to advocate what we feel needs improvement in our class. Taking our bomb tier away wouldn't be an improvement imo, quite the opposite in fact.

I'm just stating my opinion. Attacking the messenger doesn't make the message any more right or wrong. And saying such things is not worthy of a gentleman.

Thank you for the feedback so far - I need to hear from as many mages as possible. Others may feel as you do about the bombs, so I would like you to reply to the questionnaire so that you are included in the data set.

If you don't get included in the data set, the devs will see the collective of everyone you disagree with without seeing you. Is that what you want?

I would like all sides to remain neutral, calm, and cooperative in this effort to organize these thoughts and this feedback. All feedback is feedback, and there will be differences in opinion. Acknowledge that we have some minor differences and that we can't all have *exactly* what we want, but we can always offer our individual opinions to the devs.

Personally I want the bombs to go away, as shown in my line on the shoutbox. A compromise based off other opinions I've collected is changing the bombs thematically so their secondary effects change based off your spec-- a way to change bombs to make them more exciting and have additional use. By gathering differing opinions such as yours, and giving you your own line in the shoutbox, we can get even better, more refined feedback to hand to the devs.

Please keep further discussion in other threads, this is a survey for feedback.

[icyfresh]

1. Im Айсифреш / EU - Свежеватель душ Ilvl 547
2.I'd closed 5.2 content as Arcane in 6/05/2013.
And at first I was frost. Then I go Fire. And kill ra-den as Arcane.
3. Arcane
4. The only thing I wanna have it is deleting lvl90 talents from the game. Give passive +15% SP +65% mana regen. We would glad to play without lvl90 talents. They all suck. They not improve you character, they prison you in RoP, they wanna you casting every 50-60 Invokation and hoping you not get void zone under you, they wanna your pain as a pay for playing most op PvE class in this game.

[iinverse]

1) Рина - Азурегос (EU/RU) - 540
2) T14 H - Fire, except for Fen H, Elegon H and Will H (Frost).
3) T15 N and H - Fire.
4) I prefer Fire spec (burn things since BC, yay!)
5) "No" and "No". Unique specs ftw.
6) "Mostly yes" and "No". I like to play with stats and don't want to homogenize stats reqs for all specs - this may lead to gear with only one stat - "PVE Power +100500", while molten/frost/mage armors will provide all the caps.
7) Level 90 talents if overall; Fire - RNG, Frost - scaling, Arcane - mobility if for the specs.

[Danaos]

1) Danaos on Tirion[EU], Itemlevel 530
2) all T14n Fire
3) all T15n Fire
4) FIRE!

5) I would not, actually the amount of similarities and destincton right now is okay.

6) I never re-specct for a single fight anyway and I thinks its okay that every specc needs other stats, but the gap should be narrowed. I would support armor spells compensationg for that more.

7)-bombs spells or comperable dots tied to specc, giving a chance for more flavor to each
-replaced Level 90 talents, seriously (although I like the look of the Rune)
-I could see a combo mechanic for spells all speccs use, for instance casting AE on targets effected by flamestrike triggers small explosions
-give me my phoenix already!

[Dessan]

I don't play a mage as m main or anything, but I've seen some awesome stuff in this thread, I feel mages are just in a situation similar to rogues, hunters and warriors at the moment, and it simply boils down to, Blizzard don't know how to differentiate the specs for these classes, most other classes have at least 2 talent trees that play different not just rotation wise but in terms of what that spec means.

When it comes to the aforementioned classes however, there really isn't anything that makes them different apart from how the attacks work. There's no grand idea behind the spec, it's simply fire casts fire spells.

With the warlock overhaul we saw that they can take a class, whilst not identical to mages they were pretty similar overall, they just cast different spells dependent on spec. Now however there's a good ideology behind the specs Demo has not just demons but the chance to be one, Affli feels very different to Destro and it's all because they went and looked at the core of the class and decided what made each spec unique.

It's almost like making specs into sub classes, and there really is nothing that pulls apart within all the classes I mentioned above (the dps specs at least). Warriors are close, they know they want dual wielding 2h's to be viable for a spec and it gives it a flavor somewhat, but other classes really need to catch up on this way of being designed, not just around the name of the spec but around a concept that applies to it.

Sorry for the slight derail

[Dorrinal]

1) Taeus, US-Terenas, 531

2) Arcane, Frost

3) Arcane, Fire, Frost

4) Petless Frost or burn/conserve Arcane circa Ulduar

5) No and no.

6) Not sure I understand the question. But I will say that I prefer spec diversity and hate all armors. Notice how most classes have "stances" now.

7) Remove Water Elemental.

[Methusula]

I have a a question about about Top Trends. Where are you seeing Cata Frost and BC Arcane being popular? I'm not seeing any traction there. Personally, I did like Cata Frost but Deep Freeze damage isn't coming back. And personally, I preferred Cata Arcane, with Wrath Arcane behind that. I didn't get t5 2 piece in time to really give BC Arcane much of a shot but as I recall, the playstyle was decent...if you were being catered to. I just don't see that as being an option, and doubt that feeling could be replicated in the current state of the game.

[Deleted]

1) Niterage,Runetotem,EU,Horde,iLevel529

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

3) Frost and Fire

4) Frost

5) No and No

6) Yes

7) The specs need to be less minor stat oriented (i.e. crit for fire,haste for frost,mastery for arcane). So it's easier to swap specs on demand.

[Yhvh]

1) What's your mage's name, realm(US/EU/etc), and current ilvl?
Starlight, Moon Guard(US), ilvl around 470

2) What specs have you completed at least one fight in Tier 14 in?
None

3) Tier 15?
None

4) If numbers were not an issue, what spec would you play?
Well, I'm new with mage to level 90, so still experiencing things there. But I love Frost and pains me to see that eventually I won't be able to use it anymore while being on the best dps I can pull. :/

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?
What, of course not! I know we won't get it, but I dream of warlock treatment.

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?
Change specs for appropriate fights >>>>>>>> specs feeling the same (my main is a rogue I know how that feels)

7) If you could change only one thing about the mage class overall, what would it be?
I could say Lv 90 talents, but many people here is going for that, so... I'd insist on giving three specs more diversity in the WAY THEY FUNCTION... Atm, they all feel the same: 01) Apply lv 75 talent dot 02)Push cooldown button when its up (Icy Veins, Combustion, Arcane Power) 03) Spam filler spell until proc happens (AB, Frostbolt, Fireball) 04)use proc spell (FFB, AM, Pyro).. Well, only arcane has a slightly difference because you have to clear arcane charges, so that's 1 more spell on it. Can you see? They almost function the same way... The only "unique" part is mostly about the spec cooldowns and you trying to maximize their output.

[Species]

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

Species - US: Sargeras - 541

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

Didn't play a mage while Tier 14 was current.

3) Tier 15?

Frost and Fire

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

Fire and Arcane if they fixed the heavy movement penalty associated with Rune.

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. Spec diversity is important, each spec should play differently and have different strengths/weaknesses.

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 would be fine with this idea. The only thing keeping me from doing this now is gear for Fire doesnt really work for Frost/Arcane. I don't like having to regemming/reforging so I can be viable in CMs or Proving Grounds.

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

The level 90 talents need to be reworked, mainly Rune of Power. It's a dumb talent that rewards you for not moving out of s***. I would love to see a temporary fix that would make it less painful to use. Maybe make it a passive mana regen but while standing in your Rune you gain 15% spell damage.

I could say Lv 90 talents, but many people here is going for that, so... I'd insist on giving three specs more diversity in the WAY THEY FUNCTION... Atm, they all feel the same: 01) Apply lv 75 talent dot 02)Push cooldown button when its up (Icy Veins, Combustion, Arcane Power) 03) Spam filler spell until proc happens (AB, Frostbolt, Fireball) 04)use proc spell (FFB, AM, Pyro).. Well, only arcane has a slightly difference because you have to clear arcane charges, so that's 1 more spell on it. Can you see? They almost function the same way... The only "unique" part is mostly about the spec cooldowns and you trying to maximize their output.

I think you just described most classes in wow. All classes have maintenance buffs/debuff that they have to keep up. All classes have cooldowns that are used pretty much when they are available. Most classes have filler spells that they spam while waiting for something to happen. Most classes have some kind of proc they use to increase DPS.

Mage spec diversity is fine. Try playing a BM/Surv hunter. That's a class that has zero spec diversity. Apply Serpent sting>hit your 6 second CD ability>regain focus with cobra>dump focus with arcane shot. What spec did I just describe?

[Akraen]

I have a a question about about Top Trends. Where are you seeing Cata Frost and BC Arcane being popular? I'm not seeing any traction there. Personally, I did like Cata Frost but Deep Freeze damage isn't coming back. And personally, I preferred Cata Arcane, with Wrath Arcane behind that. I didn't get t5 2 piece in time to really give BC Arcane much of a shot but as I recall, the playstyle was decent...if you were being catered to. I just don't see that as being an option, and doubt that feeling could be replicated in the current state of the game.

That was a trend as of a while ago I'm going to replace that section with stats from the feedback since we've gathered a lot of data now.

[Shyzyhra]

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

Shyzyhra, Draka-US, 515

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

Arcane, Frost

3) Tier 15?

Arcane, Frost

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

I like all different aspects of all 3 of our specs. I just wish I felt like I was actually free to swap amongst them depending on my mood, rather than being shoehorned into frost (see #7).

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 wouldn't mind it as a temporary fix, but unfortunately, temporary fixes have the tendency to become long term, and I'd rather not touch that slippery slope.

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 like the idea of armors compensating for scaling, and being able to use the same gear for each spec. I wish I could play all specs, but gear and awkward mechanics currently preclude it.

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

I started playing in Vanilla. Thematically, frost is one of my favorite specs, but I hate that they made it a pet class. If I'd wanted a pet class, I would have rolled a hunter or a warlock. I wish they had a glyph or spell or something that made the pet optional by compensating for the lost dps if you don't have the pet summoned. I'm currently left in an awkward spot where frost has the pet, arcane is so clunky it's torture to play, and I can't quite manage the gear requirements for fire, yet, so I'm screwed.

[zomgDPS]

A worthy effort Akraen. Let us hope, for the mages' sake at least, that it is not ultimately futile.


I have been closely following this thread since it began and there are some excellent posts in here already (I am especially impressed with the astuteness of Nightfall in the earlier pages of the thread, but there is overall some very excellent feedback already. Good job mages!).


As a short break, however (and in an effort to add some wind to the cause of solving the mages' plight), I thought it would do no harm to take a step back and look at things from a different perspective.

I shall start, if you please, with Arcane.


Arcane

Issues:
One of the biggest issue (imho) with the Arcane spec right now, is that it has too much unrealized potential. This manifests itself in the spec being somewhat directionless in its current state.

What is the Arcane spec about? Is it about mana? Maybe its about 'time and space'? How about burst? Or perhaps some combination of all these things? It is interesting to note, even the 'talent selection' description of Arcane has changed much more drastically compared to the other two specs over the years. First it was 'the prismatic caster', then it became a 'master of time and space'. Then it was all about 'overwhelming power'. Then 'mana management' started being arcane's 'thing'.
And it hasn't even settled yet. Even today, when asked about what Arcane is supposed to be about, Blizz responds with very vague and "sort-of" like answers, as if they aren't too sure themselves.

Either way, one thing, I think, Arcane is lacking, is a true, well realized, core. A core gameplay or set of mechanics from which to draw upon to allow Arcane to be a significant addition to the already varied pool of caster mechanics and specs out there. After all, I need a reason to play my Arcane mage, given that there are quite a few other good caster mechanics I could be playing with on my other toons instead.


For the other specs, however, these 'identities' are quite congealed already and are somewhat simple to see. Frost is about slowing/freezing things, and it does that quite well. In fact, amongst the mage specs, Frost is unmatched in its power and variety of control over an enemy.

And that is Arcane's second problem. There is no single situation or effect in which Arcane can outperform either Fire or Frost.


Burst? Frost's burst is unmatched. In both PvE and PvP and both 'on demand' as well as reactionary/CDs. Fire is a close second, with Arcane coming in third.
AoE? Frost again, with fire a close second. Arcane third.
Cleave? Fire and Frost are almost neck and neck, Arcane however, third.
Control? Frost is well, tops. Fire doesn't do badly with DB stuns and Flamestrike's AoE slows. In return, Arcane gets Slow. The single most useless spell in the game right now. But what is worse, is that Slow is all it gets. Nothing else… /golfclap?
Choice in talents? Arcane is notorious for its 'pigenholed-ess' quality as far as talent selection is concerned, especially for the already notorious level 90s.
Mobility? Yea..
etc etc

It is not even a case where there exists something in which Arcane is second. It is just dead 'last' in all aspects and gameplay.

Now true, some can say "well someone always has to be last", and that is true. But not the same person has to be last ALL the time. Basically, the spec needs to be thrown a bone here, quite badly in fact.

The last top level issue I want to discuss about Arcane (there are more, but brevity calls), is, quite frankly, its shallow gameplay.

Compared to other caster specs (and as far as actual mechanics are concerned), Arcane is a very basic and simple spec. Both to understand and to play. You are basically just doing the same thing over and over again and your response to every situation is exactly the same (zomgdamage!). A good way I try to get even career Arcanists to see this, is to get them to spend a week or two exclusively playing a boomkin, or an ele shaman, or warlock. Straight. For say, two to three weeks. And play them in high end areas. Like challenge modes or rBGs.

Then immediately one day switch back to your Arcane mage. You will suddenly feel like you are playing half a game. There is just so much 'missing'. You do damage, have a rotation, but then… thats just about it. Imho, Arcane as a spec is incomplete and one dimensional, and that must be addressed if the spec is to every have a chance of standing on its own two feet.


Solution(s):
* Settle on a core identity and/or collection of gameplay mechanics for the spec. Thoroughly flesh out this identity.
* Make Arcane excel at something, anything. Just make it the 'best' at it. Since right now, Arcane sucks at everything when compared to both the other two specs.
* Deepen Arcane. Arcane is just straight up too shallow. There is very little existing gameplay in the spec (especially relative to other caster specs out there) which belies the specs hidden potential. It needs 'more' to do. Arcane should interact with a battlefield on more numerable dimensions than just damage. Given that Slow is the only thing Arcane gets, it wouldn't be a bad place to start



Before I pause however, I will answer one of your questions:

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

I would put an end to specism/class in-fighting. It has plagued the mage class for so long and has contributed so deeply to the extremely imbalance of the specs that I don't know how many times I need to keep saying it to you mages.
It doesn't help at all when "spec favoritism" is the key driving force and agenda behind your class' own selected representative, i.e. your MVP.


Coming up next, general Mage class issues. Fire Issues. Frost issues. We shall see...

- - - Updated - - -

Mages

Issues
There are many issues with Mages today (too many to talk about). However, many of them stem from mages being a 'pure' class, which, unfortunately, seems to have perhaps given Blizz the impression that Mages do not require the same amount of care or effort in making each of their specs work as some other classes.

One of the biggest issues with Mages today, one that is perfectly embodied in the premise of this thread, is the severe and unadulterated disconnect between the devs and the mages themselves. A disconnect which would evaporate in a moment if even one of the devs (or someone who can actually do something about it) truly just sits down and plays a mage. And I don't mean just play them for an hour here or a LFR there. I mean focused gameplay, hours on end, day after day, exclusively playing the mage class in all aspects of the game.

The devs have taken the "balance by the numbers" approach to mages (as well as other classes, sure, but mages feel the brunt of this design philosophy due to their inherent 'pure' nature). This philosophy de-emphasizes actual gameplay experience (i.e. how does it actually feel playing mages) and overemphasizes statistical correctness (what is the average DPS of 5000 mages?).

This concept is perfectly embodied in how the devs have enforced their mage bomb design.

On the top end, the Devs can argue that the mage bomb tier is a 'perfect' talent tier, since the statistical spread of their use over the course of an entire tier of raiding, is balanced. However, when we come down from our ivory towers and take a look at what is going on in the trenches, we realize that while over the course of an entire tier, mages might be using each bomb equally, that is only because the bombs themselves are designed to be 'respeced per fight'. So in fact, while over the course of say.. 12 fights, mages use frost bomb for 4, LB for 4, and NT for 4, the variety in bomb selection on for a specific fight, is almost nothing. Since each mage in the raid will respec to the same bomb (since bomb X is optimal for fight Y), hence, destroying diversity. Diversity being the very core reason the talents are meant to exist.

Blizzard does not agree with this outlook, since they seem to be much more interested in the average 'across the whole tier' numbers. However, as I have just demonstrated, that idea is fundamentally flawed, for the simple fact that things can seem balanced from 10,000 feet, but are completely devoid of real choice in actual practice.

Again, a simple solution to this is to just get someone who can do something about it to actually main a mage for a while.

The bombs are not the only example of this 'design by the numbers' idea. This issue is prevalent throughout the entirety of WoW, across many classes. I bring it up here just to stress that mages are not exempt from this issue. It can be seen in so many changes the devs make, where something is nerfed or buffed to achieve "numerical consensus", but at the expense of the actual gameplay experience. I feel Blizz wrongfully assumes that if the recount charts are balanced, everyone will be happy even if the actual process of playing a class is sub-par.

But lets move on. Let us move away from being critical of the devs design philosophies and look at some core mage issues.



Mages are meant to be the Masters of Magic. However, ironically, mages have access to the least interesting and smallest variety of magical effects! Take my warlock for example. I can debuff, I can nuke, I can knock back, I can stun, I can fear, I can banish, I can teleport, I can do all these magical things and more, simultaneously. For a "master of magic", as a mage, I am woefully ill equipped in the 'magical mechanics' department. In fact, I would say that mechanically, mages are perhaps the shallowest class in general. A idea that is reflected in the little known fact that mages have the smallest number of spells from almost all caster classes (thats if you don't count the 15 different polymorphs and teleports which do nothing but 'pad' the numbers).

This issue actually multiplies, compounds, and congeals in the general consensus that mages just don't feel cool anymore (a point that has been brought up many times before). The class is still, really, just in the basic form it has been in since vanilla. And while the game itself has evolved and moved on, mages have been left in the past. They really don't have any cool unique mechanic to call their own (mobility used to be a 'mage thing' but nowadays, everyone has mobility coming out of their ass), mages don't really have any way in which they stand out, and they don't really bring anything unique to the table. As the adage goes, if a mage isn't top dps, he is worthless.

This.. blandness to the class in general, is a serious concern.



The final point I would like to draw attention to (there are, of course, others) is an issue that is severely affecting mages specifically since the introduction of MoP and the wholesale forced homogenization of the specs.

The mage class is just spread too thin. I shall explain.

For almost all other classes (and subsequent specs of those classes), there is a depth to playing them. Specs have interesting, self contained mechanics, that all come together to give a complete sense of gameplay.

However, for mages, imho, Blizz decided to do something else. Instead of ensuring each mage spec is self contained in its mechanics and depth. what blizzard did was take the existing mechanics of the entire class, and just spread them out between the specs.

I can explain this numerically to elucidate.

Lets say each class in the game has 2-3 core mechanics. For those classes, each spec of that class would inherit these mechanics as well as add maybe 1 or 2 extra mechanics on top in order to 'deepen' the gameplay. In this way, those specs have, say, 4-5 "mechanics worth of depth".
For mages, however, what blizzard unfortunately did, was take the 2-3 class mechanics and spread them out between the specs with no additions. In this way, instead of adding depth to each spec, they in fact, just made each spec super shallow, with the excuse that "depth needs to be shared between specs since mages are a pure class". (n.b. this is the exact same issue hunters and rogues face)
So while any random spec of another class would end up with, say, 5 "mechanics worth of 'depth'" to play with, Mages got left with each of their specs with just 1 or 2 (since the rest needed to be given to the other specs). This is the root cause of the "it the mage specs feel the same when playing them - all we do is change the color of our bolts" statements that you hear mages make over and over again.

However, the way blizzard justified this 'spreading out' to themselves, is by saying "oh well mages can just respec if they want to play with the other mechanic", but what they did not realize is that a mage cannot play with Frost and Fire mechanics simultaneously. This is a similar argument to the ones made about hybrid classes. A druid cannot be a boomkin AND a feral tank simultaneously, so you cannot just half the depth of each spec and then wash your hands of the situation with the excuse that "you can just respec".

Fixing this issue is tough, since I honestly think Blizzard sees nothing wrong with mages right now (barring a few very simple things). What they are failing to realize that not only is their vision for mages inconsistent with their vision for other classes, but that they are subconsciously justifying this inconsistency with nothing more than 'hand-waving' the problems away.


As a master of magic, Mages should be rolling in the depth. The DND Wizard (the heritage which the mage class is supposed to draw inspiration from) was well known for having access to the single greatest variety of spells and mechanics in the entire DND franchise. The WoW mage is the complete opposite, having the shallowest gameplay available.

Unfortunately, this shallowness also makes mages very popular, since you can perform well, but with less 'thought' since the class is somewhat basic. A fact that just feeds into the entire problem in the first place, since blizzard will only even see it as a problem when the numbers drop (that 'design by statistics' again). An event that will just never happen.


Solutions:
Honestly, all it will take to see these issues (and subsequently fix them) is for someone who has some real pull to just sit down and main a mage for a while. Preferably someone who is already well versed in other casters specs (e.g. warlocks, els shamans, boomkins, etc).
In more bullet point form however:

* Evolve the mage class in general. Mages are desperately needing a breath of fresh air and a deepening of the experience of playing a mage. Solve mage blandness.
* Put the exact same amount of development time into the mage specs as you do in the specs of 'hybrid' classes. It is no coincidence that MoP, as an entire expansion, is considered to have so utterly failed the pure classes (barring warlocks). I think more design effort was put into a single druid spec than was put into all three specs of a suffering pure classes. This should not be the case. And no "just respec" is not an answer. My desire to play an Arcane mage or a Subtlety rogue should be taken just as seriously as your desire to play a Boomkin. Just like you don't just say to them "oh just respec to your viable spec" do not say it to me.
* Play the mage class. The class wide issues for mages are so easy to see if you just play the damn thing for a while.



Frost and Fire issues after a bit

[Deleted]

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

Nathyiel, sargeras EU. 537 ilevel

2) What specs have you completed at least one fight in Tier 14 in?
3) Tier 15?

Frost and some fight in arcane and fire (mostly LFR)

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?
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?

Yes and No.
Two question for 1 answers. It's not black and White. there's shade of grey in-between. I want both spec to be good in the majority of the case but they need some niche to feel different.
I don't think Armors will fit for this but why not after all.

I would like for spec to feel like these:

• Arcane -- controlled burst and target switching
  
• Fire -- aoe and multi-dotting
  
• Frost -- cleave and burst aoe

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

Armors; frost, mage & molten.
They aren't really problematic but they are emblematic of the actual situation.
They act like a talent (only rarely change). They are spec specific but class shared. they haven't any graphics.
Offensive bonus are balanced but it's not the case for the defensive.
They can be baked into there respective spec.
But I really think they can bake the offensive bonus into each spec, and make them as talent with only defensive bonus. In this case, Frost armor need to change to be appealing.

more tomorrow ...

[justastrudel]

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. Your post can be summarized as "needs more depth and more spells" but lacks any real specifics to show the disparity. What are the 5 moonkin mechanics? Solutions should be actionable and tangible. Yours are just rehashing your original problem statement. 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.

[Deleted]

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. Your post can be summarized as "needs more depth and more spells" but lacks any real specifics to show the disparity. What are the 5 moonkin mechanics? Solutions should be actionable and tangible. Yours are just rehashing your original problem statement. 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.

I wont really reply because this post is about mage and there spec. It's not for spec supremacy and comparison with other class. This is why I kee it to the question and keep it general but I'm pretty precise.

Boomkin is really a bad example. They're a hybrid-class, so they haven't any problem of spec identity. And they have a very unique gameplay: Eclipse with 2 dot to manage. (sorry for you, I have actually a boomkin even if I really stop playing him after Madness HM).

What I propose for Armor is really precise.
but I will never give a "ready to use" solution. I only give big line and tell why. Analysing and proposing don't need any number or proof/evidence.
but I will explain more tomorrow.

And finally, isn't all post here can be summarise to something shorter. But the interest reside in detail and why this post was made.
every things isn't black or white.
like I said in he last line: "more tomorrow".