Movement Penalty Philosophy Change (@Lhivera)

Mage
Post Limit:
In PVE we have to be balanced around encounter design, just as encounter design is balanced around us. They're trying to be innovative and raising the bar to challenge us more and more every tier so raiding doesn't get stale.

Encounter design has evolved and so do we as a result. We need the proper tools and utility, and one of those tools is the ability to dps on the move, even if it's for a short time like Spiritwalker's Grace.

Like they said, standing still is dated, just as Patchwerk fights are dated. If they can make all ranged relatively mobile then they can raise the bar further with encounter design.

Personally, I'd rather they force us to move and keep rotations relatively simple (like Fire), instead of giving us a bloat of abilities to use when we're standing still. They want to keep raiding interesting somehow and I'd rather they do it via the former. The ability bloat added with every expansion is another issue altogether though. I couldn't imagine playing WoW without a Naga these days.
Standing still for entire encounters is outdated, I agree. Nobody should be balanced around motionless encounters.

Spending 100% of your time moving is absurd. That's not interesting encounter design, it's just obnoxious, and it precludes an interesting spec design. When specs and encounters are designed around the assumption that you spend some of your time moving, you can give specs different levels of power while moving and while stationary and allow the resulting mix to produces strengths and weaknesses in different encounters.

E.g., one spec that does 50% damage while moving and 150% damage while stationary, and another that does 80% damage while moving and 120% damage while stationary. Both are equal if you spend half your time moving. Spend 40% of your time moving, and the first spec is stronger; spend 60% of your time moving, and the second spec is stronger. Design encounters to stay between, say, 30% and 70% movement time, and both specs are going to be fine, and both playstyles are preserved.

This is far preferable to forcing every spec into the "runs around like a crazed goofball" model (casters in GW2 are constantly running around, which is why I don't play it much, and stopped playing casters entirely).

In short, to reiterate: if encounter design precludes specs that are strongest when stationary, then encounter design is broken and they need to shift their mechanical emphasis. Otherwise, both encounter design and spec design will descend into lowest-common-denominator monotony.
Mobility isn't that much of an issue for my mage in Throne of Thunder.

Jin'rok - Turrent, just blink out of Thunderstorm to safe area.
Horridon - Turrent, just blink to the next door...not hard.
Council - Turrent, just don't stand in the sand.

Tortos - Probably the worst fight, but isn't really that bad.
Megera - Turrent, minus moving for embers, just Blink to the next worm.
Ji-Kun - Turrent, minus the Down Draft or moving out of green crap.

Durumu - Turrent, minus the maze.
Primordius - Turrent
Dark Animus - Turrent the whole fight minus the fire chasing you.

Qon - Probably the second worst encounter. Having to move out of stuff can be annoying or having to reposition on phase 2.
Twins - Turrent the whole fight minus the knockback or standing in fire.
Lei Shien - Turrent pretty much the whole fight, just blink to the next pylon. The wind in phase three can be irritating.
89192092712:
Standing still for entire encounters is outdated, I agree. Nobody should be balanced around motionless encounters.

Spending 100% of your time moving is absurd. That's not interesting encounter design, it's just obnoxious, and it precludes an interesting spec design. When specs and encounters are designed around the assumption that you spend some of your time moving, you can give specs different levels of power while moving and while stationary and allow the resulting mix to produces strengths and weaknesses in different encounters.

E.g., one spec that does 50% damage while moving and 150% damage while stationary, and another that does 80% damage while moving and 120% damage while stationary. Both are equal if you spend half your time moving. Spend 40% of your time moving, and the first spec is stronger; spend 60% of your time moving, and the second spec is stronger. Design encounters to stay between, say, 30% and 70% movement time, and both specs are going to be fine, and both playstyles are preserved.

This is far preferable to forcing every spec into the "runs around like a crazed goofball" model (casters in GW2 are constantly running around, which is why I don't play it much, and stopped playing casters entirely).

In short, to reiterate: if encounter design precludes specs that are strongest when stationary, then encounter design is broken and they need to shift their mechanical emphasis. Otherwise, both encounter design and spec design will descend into lowest-common-denominator monotony.


I think being able to cast weak spells while mobile is a good mechanic. Powerful spells I feel should be rooted with a cast time (as is in GW2).
I suspect also that people are looking at this discussion in too binary a fashion.

I'm not asking for zero mobile damage. I like things like POM, Scorch, Ice Floes (in theory, needs work), and ways to reduce movement time (Blink, Blazing Speed). As Digerati said, abilities that allow for occasional damage while moving are fine.

Similarly, I doubt most people are asking for 100% damage on the move, all the time.

The issue is finding the right balance, and giving each spec different strengths so they aren't all equally good at handling every mechanic (including movement). There's a whole lot of ground between the two extremes.
89191892818:
I recognize that some people find it fun to run around like crazed toddlers while casting, and sure, they should have some spec options. But there should also be room for the dignified, calculating, artillery caster design, and if encounter design doesn't allow for that, it's the encounter designs, not the spec designs, that are broken.

Gonna disagree that encounter design is a problem. Lei Shen and Durumu, two of the heavier movement fights this tier, are fantastically well designed, and enjoyable. Removing a lot of the movement would take a lot away from these otherwise very enjoyable encounters.

That said, I think people are over exaggerating the amount of movement needed in ToT, at least to some degree. Outside of Tortos, you can find a fair amount of time to spend standing still in each encounter. Still, it's enough that people feel specs that don't handle movement well(Such as Arcane) are both difficult to play competitively, and difficult to enjoy.
89192292712:
89191892818:
I recognize that some people find it fun to run around like crazed toddlers while casting, and sure, they should have some spec options. But there should also be room for the dignified, calculating, artillery caster design, and if encounter design doesn't allow for that, it's the encounter designs, not the spec designs, that are broken.

Gonna disagree that encounter design is a problem. Lei Shen and Durumu, two of the heavier movement fights this tier, are fantastically well designed, and enjoyable. Removing a lot of the movement would take a lot away from these otherwise very enjoyable encounters.

That said, I think people are over exaggerating the amount of movement needed in ToT, at least to some degree. Outside of Tortos, you can find a fair amount of time to spend standing still in each encounter. Still, it's enough that people feel specs that don't handle movement well(Such as Arcane) are both difficult to play competitively, and difficult to enjoy.


As I said:

if encounter design doesn't allow for that


Many people here take that as a given. Some disagree.

Thus, I feel there should be a mix of specs that deal near-intended damage while moving, and others that deal below-intended damage while moving and above-intended damage while stationary, so that those who do enjoy dealing with movement as a challenge have the latter as an option.
88907700643:
Part of the problem is that the mingling of PvE and PvP makes the "over-the-top" part unacceptable. If Mages could deal 150% of the damage everybody else deals when we're standing still, Mage players would be a lot more willing to accept doing 60-70% the damage of everybody else while moving. But they can't let that happen for PvP reasons, apparently. It's very irritating.


89191893042:
Thus, I feel there should be a mix of specs that deal near-intended damage while moving, and others that deal below-intended damage while moving and above-intended damage while stationary, so that those who do enjoy dealing with movement as a challenge have the latter as an option.


At some point, you are going to need to accept that it is MUCH easier to simply allow all classes to do similar damage while moving and while stationary. Rather than changing both the structure of PVP, or affecting how all furture raid encounters are designed, it seems far simpler and more practical to just let mages do similar damage while moving already. Or failing that, give us a movement filler like scorch for all specs, or let our filler spells (frostbolt, fireball, arcane blast) be castable while moving.

I also heard them discuss your idea regarding PvP and giving different coefficients for spells in pve and pvp. Their answer was something alone the lines of "people think just making the spells do different damage in pve and pvp is the grand solution, but it's not. There is no silver bullet to fix all problems in PvP"

Also, do seriously think about what you are saying here. You are asking raid encounter designers to make fights be a certain way to be accommodating for various specs that might have difficulty in all movement fights. I strongly suspect the encounter designers would much rather simply design encounters in various ways, and just have the classes use whatever works for that situation. Locks have this in spades: all specs have a rotation for single-target, and another one for aoe, so they are ready for either situation. Where is the mage equivalent? Throw in a lock's ability to do maintain great damage while moving, and it's no shock they are doing so well in the charts and are extremely popular.

The solution, however, it not to change how we design raids for the sake of the poor mage who does poor damage while moving (is that really what you are arguing?). The solution is to ensure each spec has a particular rotation for single-target and AOE, and something that allows their movement and stationary DPS be the same. In other words, the fault should fall on the class designers to ensure all specs have the tools needed for any situation that arises.

You also need to recognize that many raid encounters have phases. Phase 1 could be very stationary, while the second and final phase could be non-stop movement. Your raid team doesn't care if you are top in phase 1, but then are last on the charts in phase 2 because you have 'movement issues." The first reaction is instead: "ok, we'll get a class that doesn't have movement issues and get through phase 2 that way."
I'm not particularly interested in what's easier for them. I'm interested in what makes for a good game. Having every spec deal equal damage in the context of every raid mechanic does not make for a good game.

You also need to recognize that many raid encounters have phases.


Yes, believe it or not, these things called "phases" also existed back in the day when we had to walk twenty miles uphill both ways through chest-deep snow to get to the raid portal.

Ideally, the spec that does well on Phase 2 would do poorly on Phase 1, thus requiring a balanced raid. No one spec should be good at all mechanics. As they said a couple of weeks ago:

Remember, it’s not a goal that every spec do exactly equally well in every possible encounter, and in fact we think that would be boring. We just don’t want things to get so extreme that certain specs feel like they aren’t meaningfully contributing to the group’s efforts.


(This design philosophy has been reiterated countless times.)

Every spec should have mechanics it struggles with, and every spec should have mechanics on which it shines. Movement should be one of these mechanics -- it just shouldn't be overused to the point where a spec that struggles with movement is considered a liability.
________________________________________________
Find answers to questions about Mage mechanics in
Lhivera’s Compendium • http://lhiveras-library.com/compendium
I think you may be on to something , OP. The game feels alot different now with all the casting/shooting on the move. Not sure its balance.

The first problem was giving classes so many abilities. Look at all the interrupts, CCs, and other abilities compared to in Vanilla or BC. When they add to something , they balance by adding to somethign else, until you have a bloated problem.
89192193155:
I'm not particularly interested in what's easier for them. I'm interested in what makes for a good game.


I also want a good game. Our opinion regarding what makes a good game, however, appear to be different.

89192193155:
Having every spec deal equal damage in the context of every raid mechanic does not make for a good game.


Don't take things to the extreme. I'm fine with certain classes/specs being better at single-target, and other specs being better at AOE, but the difference should be similar to choosing between Nether Tempest and Living bomb. It should be, as you and the developers often say, where the choosing the 'wrong choice' isn't penalized. Right now, the damage some classes can do while moving compared to other classes is too large. You had previously suggested, and maintain the opinion, that the solution was further removing movement from ranged classes, whereas I prefer the current push towards more similarity between classes per damage, although form can be different (see aff aoe vs. demo aoe).

89192193155:
You also need to recognize that many raid encounters have phases.

Yes, believe it or not, these things called "phases" also existed back in the day when we had to walk twenty miles uphill both ways through chest-deep snow to get to the raid portal.

Ideally, the spec that does well on Phase 2 would do poorly on Phase 1, thus requiring a balanced raid.


Back in your day, raid sizes were also much larger and classes has 'jobs'. Different classes got assigned different tasks because that's what their class could do.

That basically no longer exists outside the very top guilds who can choose precisely what classes they want for a particular fight. For the vast majority of raid teams, here's raid team balance: 2 tanks, 2-3 healers, rest dps, try not to have 2 of one class. That's it. And when the raid leader says 'burn', he expects all of his classes to 'burn', he doesn't care if your class lacks burst for some philosophical reason. and when the whole team is running and going for the kill, if some class seems to be holding them back - out! Cause if you already have a shaman with hero, what do you gain by bringing in a mage over another lock? Nothing, so they bring a lock. Also, if the lock can do all that is needed, what's to stop the mage from rolling a lock instead? I will use myself as an example.

I also know you are a fan of numbers, so I hope you appreciate these numbers: the number of subscribers is decreasing, and the number of mages is also decreasing. We've gone from "full on mages" to "LF hero class" because more and more players are choosing not to play a mage. The developers recognize this, and that's why they have started going back on original decisions, including damage while movement. They are starting to recognize that certain things ARE outdated.

Also, I'm sorry you don't enjoy GW2, I do, and I think the game developers do too. Things like tag-grouping, heroic scenarios, similar gear in pvp, giving different classes similar abilities albeit different forms, all suggest to me that they are increasingly going towards a game where any combo of players/friends can just go do content together. Personally, I don't think that's a bad thing. It doesn't remove uniqueness either.

89192193155:
Every spec should have mechanics it struggles with, and every spec should have mechanics on which it shines. Movement should be one of these mechanics -- it just shouldn't be overused to the point where a spec that struggles with movement is considered a liability.


Except, that IS where we are. It IS a liability.

Instead of having all classes have different strengths and weakness, give them no different weaknesses, and make the difference be their strengths. People love locks for their cookies and portals. Mages still get called for their time warp. You can make classes distinct in terms of strengths. It doesn't need to involve weaknesses. Players themselves do that enough . . . trust me.
89191892818:
Frankly, that's not a class design problem, it's an encounter design problem. Rather than breaking the turret caster as a viable design, they should stop overusing movement as an encounter mechanic.

I recognize that some people find it fun to run around like crazed toddlers while casting, and sure, they should have some spec options. But there should also be room for the dignified, calculating, artillery caster design, and if encounter design doesn't allow for that, it's the encounter designs, not the spec designs, that are broken.


THIS 100%

All this talk of evolving casters. The wizard concept that I have to think a Mage is based on has not "evolved" for ?centuries. It has only "evolved" based on current ideals of video games...NOT because wizards of the 21st century have evolved into magical pixies on crack.
Couple things --

1) The mobility argument for PVP:

You can't present this argument with one-sided information. Yes, most range classes are much more mobile than they have ever been.

BUT --

Most melee classes are also dealing an eff-ton of dmg at Range. You can't say Caster mobility is too high, when in a lot of cases, it doesn't matter (at least in terms on dmg output).

This response is more for GC's "We think caster mobility is too high."

2) PVE mobility. Caster vs Melee.

It does boil down a lot to encounter design. But don't forget that being range has its advantages as well. Think Mageara -- if a melee gets a Cinder he has to run much farther, meaning less uptime on the boss for him than a caster does.

Every time a melee has to run to a new target its a DPS loss. Horridon for example. There's a choice for melee -- put more pressure into Horridon, making the fight shorter? or go kill adds? Or wait for another add to come to maximize your AoE DPS.

As a caster its easy to pick and choose your targets for optimal DPS. Melee don't have that luxury. They need to be where the mobs are.

The only real problem with having to move as a caster is more a problem of perception. As long as the movement necessary doesn't overly hamper DPS then it is fine.

Mages are one of the weakest range movement classes, but quite frankly their DPS is high enough that it compensates.

NOTE: The one real outlier are Locks. People are using them as the bar, when really they are the exception. Both their mobility and DPS are extremely high (as well as raid utility).
89191892970:
Mobility isn't that much of an issue for my mage in Throne of Thunder.

Jin'rok - Turrent, just blink out of Thunderstorm to safe area.
Horridon - Turrent, just blink to the next door...not hard.
Council - Turrent, just don't stand in the sand.

Tortos - Probably the worst fight, but isn't really that bad.
Megera - Turrent, minus moving for embers, just Blink to the next worm.
Ji-Kun - Turrent, minus the Down Draft or moving out of green crap.

Durumu - Turrent, minus the maze.
Primordius - Turrent
Dark Animus - Turrent the whole fight minus the fire chasing you.

Qon - Probably the second worst encounter. Having to move out of stuff can be annoying or having to reposition on phase 2.
Twins - Turrent the whole fight minus the knockback or standing in fire.
Lei Shien - Turrent pretty much the whole fight, just blink to the next pylon. The wind in phase three can be irritating.


Thanks for your post, here's my perspective in terms of when I have to use mobile DPS in heroic (some normal) raiding

Jin - Lightning Storm phase entails dodging lightning balls - moderate movement phase
Horridon - Fire has no pet so I have to kite the spirit around the entire fight, we also have to stack on the tank and move with him on door 3 to get the random aggro mobs in. Blink will get you in for a Charge but you spend a few seconds getting back out
Council - I do some moving around in terms of getting to healing/Twisted Fate adds to Nova/CoC, have to stack on Kaz for later discharges
Tortos - Can stand still here aside from rockfall dodging, a couple of times during the fight I need to spend time moving to get in range of Whirl Turtles
Megarea - Relatively standstill until green swirlies come out at the end, but I'm on the boss here mostly. If I'm kiting a blue beam I'm out of the range of the boss anyway
Ji-Kun - Just downdraft, mostly just repositioning yourself on the main platform
Durumu - Movement heavy - The maze phase, lingering gaze, and light spectrum
Primordius - Moving a great deal here because of boss kiting from Viscous Horrors and chasing down oozes, the middle is reserved for healers
Normal Animus - Crimson Wake kiting and repositioning on Matter Swaps
Iron Qon - Lots of dodging ground effects here - Dead Zone, Wind Storm, Frost Spikes on Heroic
Consorts - Not much here
Normal Lei Shen - Moving in and out for Ball Lightning and away from Thunderstruck but not a huge deal
Haven't done Ra-Den but it's an Arcane turret fight

In terms of encounter design this tier they really make us go movement heavy on Jin, Horridon, Durumu, Primordius, and Qon. Those are the fights I'm particularly glad I have Scorch on. 5 out of 13 fights is a lot to be honest.

I think Blizzard's really happy with how innovative the Durumu fight is, at least based on their interviews and what not. Unfortunately it so happens that's one of the worst fights ever if you lack mobile DPS. If we get a couple Durumus in future tiers everyone should have strong mobility. Blizzards shooting for around 12 bosses next tier too so there probably will be.
Megeara and Consorts are the only fights I can play turret-style and comfortably use Rune of Power. Primordius also works for most of the fight but not all of it.

But I'm forced to use Invocation on most fights because the movement gets too intense. Otherwise, I'd use Rune on everything.
Didn't expect that, lol. In 5.4 they're giving Spiritwalker's Grace to locks to replace KJC, which is a nerf as Blizz thought KJC was too strong with its unlimited duration. Seems they like reusing cooldown-based movement casting for other classes too, like I originally was suggesting for Arcane/Frost. Makes me think that the chances of Frost/Arcane getting another Spiritwalker's Grace ability just went down because they wouldn't copy and paste the same ability across 3 different classes...or would they? Who knows.
There is significant value in preserving what some call the "artillery caster" design within the game.

This is not to say ALL casters must be 'stand and nuke' casters, but it also means that not ALL casters must be mobile.
The reason it is a good idea in the first place, is that it allows for variety in an RPG system. If all casters played exactly the same way, it will be bad. After all, homogenization is a problem we are all dealing with.

It is primarily due to this logic that I actually am in favor of not just wholesale giving mages a "here now go and cast while moving KJC type ability". I believe it is a worthwhile investment to actually dig deeper into "turret casting design" in order to see how we can evolve the idea into the modern age.

And that is the trick, evolving the idea, but, as mentioned, it actually needs blizzard to put in some effort in order to 'dig deeper' and evolve the design. This is, I feel, where the real issue is. In Blizz's lazy design.
They just, straight up, haven't put in the effort to really evolve 'artillery caster' design. They just did not put in effort into the mage class in MoP beta (at least not as much as some other classes and most definitely not as much as was needed).

On the flip-side, they have gone waaaay too far with the KJC nerf (the MF nerf doesn't even make sense). It is perfectly fine having Locks be more mobile than mages. If nothing else, it will help distinguish the classes even more (for they are quite similar now). I see no reason having 'ability to do damage while moving' being one of the (many) dimensions which are used to separate mages and locks.

With all that said, you can ask the question:

"Zom, you want mages to remain 'turret' casters, but how would that actually work??"

That would be a good question, and I would urge we all brainstorm on how we can evolve the artillery caster design. That should be the focus of our efforts and discussions.

Since there is absolutely nothing that is written or that explicitly says that "artillery casters" are a wholesale immiscible design in todays RPG paradigm.
Instead, I would say the issue is that no one has actually given making it work a fair shot yet.

Not the players in their musings, and most certainly not Blizz (who, I think, really need to start playing the mage class - not that they don't play it at all - but they need to start playing it as their mains).

Frankly, that's not a class design problem, it's an encounter design problem. Rather than breaking the turret caster as a viable design, they should stop overusing movement as an encounter mechanic.

This does not work.
As stated numerous times by Blizz, they do not enforce rules, regulations, provisos, and limitations on the encounter design team, for the express purpose of not doing what you elude to here, that being, have encounter design team be at anyones mercy.

The philosophy is that the classes themselves need to bring a complete package. If there is some aspect of the game a class is weak/failing, it is the job of the class design team to fix/remedy that, not the encounter design team to accomodate the 'weak' class/spec.

Their logic behind this stance is actually sound, since if you start enforcing regulations on encounter design, then where do you stop? Does every encounter need X amount of undead mobs so that Paladins can do more damage? Does every encounter need a few of each beast, elemental, undead, etc mobs so that X class can use its CC?

No. Encounter design must remain independent of class design if you are to have any semblance of purity of design.

Designing classes for specific encounters, or vice versa, is an extremely bad idea. And I agree.

The failings of a class and/or gaps in its 'package' should not be fixed by making encounters that hide those weaknesses, but by giving classes tools to either fix the problem, or work around it.

So no, I vehemently disagree with your outlook here. It does not hold to reason, and it does not make a better game.
I also want a good game. Our opinion regarding what makes a good game, however, appear to be different.

The biggest issue with the 'mage MvP' is his unwavering, unjustified, and unrelenting belief in his own correctness.

Irrespective of whether you use facts, logic, numbers, reason, opinion or any combination of them to display to him, in broad daylight, why what he is presuming is not correct or inaccurate, he will just outright ignore everything you have said and pretend like it was never said at all. (as can be seen so clearly with his behavior in this thread).

What he is adept at, is the ability to pick and choose what works for his agenda and what doesn't. In this regard, I have yet to see someone with this ability being more refined.
Data will be interpreted to support his hypothesis, if it doesn't, it is deemed "bad data". Arguments will be convoluted to support his position, if you try and correct these convulsions, you will be ignored.
This ability to selectively pick and choose what the mvp deems "relevant" is, to my knowledge at least, second to none on these forums.

I have personally spoken to some extremely seasoned (old time) MVPs about this precise issue, and they agree, that it is not good or constructive behavior at all.
I (as well as the veteran MVPs) hope and pray that he learns and realizes that 1) he is not fooling anyone, and that 2) his behavior is not helping anyone at all and just alienating him further from the rest of the class.

Unfortunately, there is no precedence of someone being stripped of MVP status, but at least we know, his behavior is not because he is an mvp, it is just how he rolls, unfortunately.

As a side point, I do believe he is not a good influence on the future of your class. Not at all. He is the elephant in the room that you mages will have to deal with before you can get any real meaningful changes made to your class.

But this is all off-topic...
Coming from a 4/13 heoric tot mage i want to point out that blazing speed is a incredible addition to heavy movement fight and has drasticaly improved my dps in heavy movement fights *and the ability to cast procs of ffb and ice lance while moving is often overlooked in movement fights

imparticuler using blink and blazing speed in conjuntion are amazing tools in TOT

Join the Conversation