Mages, post-Fire nerf: show us your parses

Some snippets from GC's twitter page:

http://i.imgur.com/nkVPR.png

http://i.imgur.com/GIABD.png

http://i.imgur.com/94eFz.png

and my personal favorite: http://i.imgur.com/gDs4q.png

Just informing on ghostcrawler's stance on fire being bottom dps and arcanes sudden jump on charts.
Edited by Kawaiidesu on 12/7/2012 6:08 PM PST
Reply Quote
90 Gnome Mage
6870
maybe it is the gear. at a 495 ilvl i wasnt really having much of a problem this week... two ranks for fire in HoF, even with a tons of errors... i really could have done so much better. breaking 100k ignites far more often than expected... 145k peaks (no +dmg gimmicks)

http://worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-6t2jq1g7avverjwv/dashboard/?enc=kills


Gear always has the potential for a player to produce better numbers and it sure does for fire.
Your numbers are down from the previous week.
You listed just the results from boss kills which puts the sampling fairly low, plus the RNG of fire.
From all fights, your closer to the bottom (but not bottom).
You have some world rankings for your performance, which means your an exceptionally good player.
The sampling of one person's experience will only tell us about that person's experience.
If most others were seeing the same performance in their raids as you are, then there really would be no issues here.
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Mage
17125
Lhiv is half calling him out. "Blizzard has more complete data". We'll I guess whatever they're seeing is exactly the opposite of what we're seeing.


How do you figure that is "calling out"? The tweets I'm seeing are making excuses.

I'm sorry, but GC is just stupid if he believes a drop from the top to the very bottom (ok, ok, arms is the only one below us) can be caused by elite players switching to frost and arcane.

We are talking about a drop to the bottom in *normals*, and we are talking about the *median* here.

He has no idea what the word "median" means apparently.
Edited by Taymage on 12/7/2012 6:25 PM PST
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Mage
0
So apparently looking at the 10N raidbot aggregate, his response was to "change it to just show fire and frost". Not sure what that is intended to prove?
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Mage
17125
I can't possibly imagine what he thinks that would show.

We all understand that people switched from fire to arcane and frost.

But even assuming that the majority of those who switched were high level players (an amazingly dubious theory - not only would one expect a wide variety of people downing raid bosses to switch, the drop was also *very* steep for normal modes), it still is in no way, shape, or form enough to move the median damage from the top to the bottom.
Edited by Taymage on 12/7/2012 6:46 PM PST
Reply Quote
12/07/2012 06:42 PMPosted by Librily
My jaw is on the floor.


I just honestly don't know what to say or how to react anymore.

His tweet, stating arcane wasn't buffed . . .

I'm speechless . . .

Ghostcrawler is too cool to read patch notes, even when he is supposed to be the lead designer apparently.
Reply Quote
MVP - World of Warcraft
90 Human Mage
10015
I'm going to engage in some speculation here. I have two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Raidbots numbers differ from Blizzard's data due to differences in sampling.

I suspect that the number of people who are raiding is much, much higher than the number of people whose parses get posted to WoL. The typical player or group that posts to WoL may be much more interested in min/maxing than most players. Where Blizzard is likely looking at data covering every raid on every server for the past week, we're looking at a highly self-selected sample of people who are more likely than average to be testing Arcane and Frost to see if they now outperform Fire.

Fire's player numbers obviously haven't fallen through the floor -- there are twice as many parses for them than the parses for Arcane and Frost combined. But if the third of players who did switch are largely made up of the best, it could still cause a pretty massive swing in the results. People have wondered why GC is asking them to look just at the Frost and Fire lines on the graph -- I expect it's because they're doubting that a population swing like this could drop Fire's numbers so severely, but the similarly precipitous climb by Frost demonstrates that huge changes can happen as a result of population shifts.

So if this is correct, then Blizzard's numbers simply don't reflect the same kind of swing that we're seeing on Raidbots, and they're showing the specs putting out much more comparable numbers.

Hypothesis 2: Raidbots numbers are similar to Blizzard's data, but they expect the swing to be temporary due to many people trying out Frost or Arcane, and then some of them switching back.

If this is correct, then what we're seeing may in fact be reasonably accurate, but Blizzard doesn't expect the situation to last.

Either way, if GC is correct, then we should expect to see Fire's numbers tick back up again and land at a point reasonably on par with Frost and Arcane. If he's wrong -- and frankly, I have enough doubts about the quality of the self-selected sample that is WoL that I don't care to place odds on that -- then we're likely to see Fire stay low.

I think he's wrong about Arcane. I mean, he's technically correct that Arcane was changed in 5.1 and we didn't really see the big swing until after the Fire nerf, but the Fire nerf happened so soon after 5.1 that we wouldn't really have seen much change in Arcane before then anyway.

But he's right about Frost -- there's pretty indisputable evidence there that a population shift with no other changes can cause a massive change in the Raidbots numbers for a spec. And without knowing how different the Raidbots sample is from Blizzard's complete data, we can't really say that that isn't what happened to Fire's numbers. We have 2-3 strong Fire Mages posting excellent parses in this very thread -- they're in the minority, but that could be because people who were unhappy with their numbers were more likely to post in the thread, or it could be because of differences in gear (which would indicate that Fire still scales too steeply with gear).

Honestly, I'm at the point right now where I just want to watch the data for a couple of weeks. I know people hate having to wait and see...but the fact is that Blizzard's got their data, they (quite reasonably) trust it more than they trust Raidbots data, and the only thing that's going to change their minds is if that data actually shows Fire being (and staying) lower than they want it to be. Debate isn't going to change their minds; data outweighs argument.

It'd be cool if we could see their data, but I understand why they don't care to share it.
________________________________________________
Find answers to questions about Mage mechanics in
Lhivera’s Compendium • http://lhiveras-library.com/compendium
Edited by Lhivera on 12/7/2012 7:52 PM PST
Reply Quote
90 Human Warrior
11020
I'm going to engage in some speculation here. I have two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Raidbots numbers differ from Blizzard's data due to differences in sampling.

I suspect that the number of people who are raiding is much, much higher than the number of people whose parses get posted to WoL. The typical player or group that posts to WoL may be much more interested in min/maxing than most players. Where Blizzard is likely looking at data covering every raid on every server for the past week, we're looking at a highly self-selected sample of people who are more likely than average to be testing Arcane and Frost to see if they now outperform Fire.

Fire's player numbers obviously haven't fallen through the floor -- there are twice as many parses for them than the parses for Arcane and Frost combined. But if the third of players who did switch are largely made up of the best, it could still cause a pretty massive swing in the results. People have wondered why GC is asking them to look just at the Frost and Fire lines on the graph -- I expect it's because they're doubting that a population swing like this could drop Fire's numbers so severely, but the similarly precipitous climb by Frost demonstrates that huge changes can happen as a result of population shifts.

So if this is correct, then Blizzard's numbers simply don't reflect the same kind of swing that we're seeing on Raidbots, and they're showing the specs putting out much more comparable numbers.

Hypothesis 2: Raidbots numbers are similar to Blizzard's data, but they expect the swing to be temporary due to many people trying out Frost or Arcane, and then some of them switching back.

If this is correct, then what we're seeing may in fact be reasonably accurate, but Blizzard doesn't expect the situation to last.

Either way, if GC is correct, then we should expect to see Fire's numbers tick back up again and land at a point reasonably on par with Frost and Arcane. If he's wrong -- and frankly, I have enough doubts about the quality of the self-selected sample that is WoL that I don't care to place odds on that -- then we're likely to see Fire stay low.

I think he's wrong about Arcane. I mean, he's technically correct that Arcane was changed in 5.1 and we didn't really see the big swing until after the Fire nerf, but the Fire nerf happened so soon after 5.1 that we wouldn't really have seen much change in Arcane before then anyway.

But he's right about Frost -- there's pretty indisputable evidence there that a population shift with no other changes can cause a massive change in the Raidbots numbers for a spec. And without knowing how different the Raidbots sample is from Blizzard's complete data, we can't really say that that isn't what happened to Fire's numbers. We have 2-3 strong Fire Mages posting excellent parses in this very thread -- they're in the minority, but that could be because people who were unhappy with their numbers were more likely to post in the thread, or it could be because of differences in gear (which would indicate that Fire still scales too steeply with gear).

Honestly, I'm at the point right now where I just want to watch the data for a couple of weeks. I know people hate having to wait and see...but the fact is that Blizzard's got their data, they (quite reasonably) trust it more than they trust Raidbots data, and the only thing that's going to change their minds is if that data actually shows Fire being (and staying) lower than they want it to be. Debate isn't going to change their minds; data outweighs argument.

It'd be cool if we could see their data, but I understand why they don't care to share it.
________________________________________________
Find answers to questions about Mage mechanics in
Lhivera’s Compendium • http://lhiveras-library.com/compendium


What I find interesting is that the top 10% of fire mages still seem to be doing very well in 25 H although they took a slight drop.

http://raidbots.com/dpsbot/Overall_DPS/25H/all/7/30/p90/

This could also being corroborated by the 2-3 fire mages in the thread who posted strong numbers. These top mages probably have top levels of gear leading me to believe that fire will still perform well at high gear and skill levels because CM remains mechanically unchanged and still scales decently.
Reply Quote
90 Draenei Mage
16945
Arcane jumped because all the top mages swapped to it, that's right. Because we tried fire and it SUCKED. Even after the hotfixes I spent all of last week as fire trying to make it work, and also did hof as fire this week. After protectors I went arcane. I didn't just go arcane blindly because there was a nerf, I went arcane because -fire is not working-.
Edited by Kolzi on 12/7/2012 8:14 PM PST
Reply Quote
90 Draenei Mage
16945
12/07/2012 08:06 PMPosted by Faust
What I find interesting is that the top 10% of fire mages still seem to be doing very well in 25 H although they took a slight drop.


Look at individual fights instead of including cleave fights and you will see a very different story.

http://raidbots.com/dpsbot/Elegon/25H/all/7/30/p90/
http://raidbots.com/dpsbot/Feng_the_Accursed/25H/all/7/30/p90/
http://raidbots.com/dpsbot/Gara%27jal_the_Spiritbinder/25H/all/7/30/p90/
http://raidbots.com/dpsbot/Blade_Lord_Ta%27yak/25H/all/7/30/p90/
http://raidbots.com/dpsbot/Imperial_Vizier_Zor%27lok/25H/all/7/30/p90/
http://raidbots.com/dpsbot/The_Spirit_Kings/25H/all/7/30/p90/
Reply Quote
90 Draenei Mage
16945
I just honestly don't know what to say or how to react anymore.

His tweet, stating arcane wasn't buffed . . .

I'm speechless . . .


He would have been referring to the fact that it was buffed with the patch, not at the time that arcane parse numbers swung up ~4 days later.
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Mage
0
I just honestly don't know what to say or how to react anymore.

His tweet, stating arcane wasn't buffed . . .

I'm speechless . . .


He would have been referring to the fact that it was buffed with the patch, not at the time that arcane parse numbers swung up ~4 days later.


He's technically correct. However, it's not really accounting for the fact that no one was playing Arcane before the nerf to Fire. Practically, the playerbase started experiencing that buff soon after the Fire nerf. Pretending the upswing in Arcane was just a response to better geared and skilled players switching over and had nothing to do with the Arcane buff is disingenuous.
Edited by Wexler on 12/7/2012 8:25 PM PST
Reply Quote
90 Gnome Mage
12045
12/07/2012 07:49 PMPosted by Lhivera
Hypothesis 1: Raidbots numbers differ from Blizzard's data due to differences in sampling.


Hypothesis 2: Raidbots numbers are similar to Blizzard's data, but they expect the swing to be temporary due to many people trying out Frost or Arcane, and then some of them switching back.


I think we might want to add a third one where GC's data is close to raidbots data but GC is fine with mages 3rd, 4th or even 5th on the dps charts for any specific raid. This is a concept alien to us mages but I think GC is showing signs of being happy with it if it solves pvp issues he is working on. He is focused on killing burst in pvp and it seems that warriors and mages are the primary targets.

I'm starting to really hate pvp mages. I vote we kick their butts out of the union :P

(meanhwile keep leveling and gearing your warlocks and frost DKs. They seem to be in the love zone and if you can't beat 'em, join 'em....loyalty be damned....arrg that one hurts)
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Mage
11000
I just honestly don't know what to say or how to react anymore.

His tweet, stating arcane wasn't buffed . . .

I'm speechless . . .


He would have been referring to the fact that it was buffed with the patch, not at the time that arcane parse numbers swung up ~4 days later.


As I posted as soon as the statement went public:

I can already see that statement being walked back with "Well, Arcane wasn't hotfix buffed at the same time as Fire's nerf" as if 3 whole days of the newly buffed Arcane not competing well with a tremendously overpowered Fire meant that Arcane was secretly this awesome all along, and that the buffs meant nothing for its playability.


The buffs represent a ~15% improvement in Arcane within 72 hours of an equal or greater drop in Fire numbers. But clearly the playerbase was just bad for not choosing Arcane prior to this, since it wasn't buffed at all and look at the numbers.
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Mage
17125
or a 4th: He has almost no idea what he is talking about at all, and is tossing out half-baked answers.
Reply Quote
90 Gnome Monk
7430
Well, I just browsed through all 5 30/7 settings on raidbots for spec scores (all parses).

My conclusions:

Affliction, (also probably assassination, fury, frost dk, and unholy dk), are due for some tender loving care from the nerf-bat (not the full hammer though).

Discipline is certainly in that position as well (hammer may be called for here)

and Brewmasters probably deserve some adjustments too

There are some bottom feeders that could use a little love but in many of those situations there is insufficient data due to other options within the class being noticeably better.

As for the topic of fire mages, yes they are mostly bouncing around in the lower half of the list but in all cases, unlike some other specs, they are within 5% of the median specs. Also, I would say Lhiv has a small, but valid, point about the best players probably being among the ones immediately jumping out of fire now that sims say arcane or frost is better, leaving the less aware or more casual (and on average, less skilled) providing the bulk of the fire data.
Reply Quote
90 Draenei Mage
7445


He would have been referring to the fact that it was buffed with the patch, not at the time that arcane parse numbers swung up ~4 days later.


He's technically correct. However, it's not really accounting for the fact that no one was playing Arcane before the nerf to Fire. Practically, the playerbase started experiencing that buff soon after the Fire nerf. Pretending the upswing in Arcane was just a response to better geared and skilled players switching over and had nothing to do with the Arcane buff is disingenuous.


Pretending the upswing in Arcane was just a response to better geared and skilled players switching over and had nothing to do with the Fire nerf is disingenuous.

Fixed that for ya.
Edited by Shannae on 12/7/2012 8:51 PM PST
Reply Quote
90 Gnome Mage
6870
12/07/2012 08:17 PMPosted by Kolzi
Look at individual fights instead of including cleave fights and you will see a very different story.


I did. Each one of them. Not only are they near or at bottom on most of those fights, but they are also on most of the fights till trending down.
Fire right now is pigeon holed in to cleave fights with adds grouped up and live for awhile.

Now if it stays where it is that might be one thing, but when looking at most graphs that have a line heading down at a step angle, not a good sign.
Reply Quote
90 Human Mage
13835
This whole thing just feels silly. Like for every point there's a cop out.

Person A: We're now last!
Person B: Let's wait a week and see

Person A: Ok, it's a week later, and we're still last
Person B: I'm going to need to see some parses

Person A: Here's a link to all of the parses.
Person B: Well what you're seeing is not many people playing that spec.

Person A: But that spec has the most parses out of the three.
Person B: Well all of the good players are playing another spec.

Person A: But that's crazy.
Person B: Just look at arcane! It received no buffs yet it's spiking!

Person A: But it did receive buffs.
Person B: In 5.1

Person A: But that was only 3 days before you nerfed the spec.
Person B: We're just not seeing fire's numbers as low.

Honestly it's just been frustrating to play a mage this expansion. The deafening silence on our level 90 talents, our (now) best spec being mechanically broken, and the constant head-scratching statements about our class on twitter.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]