Mages, post-Fire nerf: show us your parses

90 Orc Mage
12455
I don't know if I'll be any help, but here is mine from Spirit Kings and Elegon 10m normal.

http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-co6ur3dik3rpx3t8/details/2/?s=5158&e=5575

http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-co6ur3dik3rpx3t8/details/2/?s=10407&e=11105

I was Frost for the first two but I just do not like the spec at all.
Reply Quote
90 Gnome Mage
17060
Log from HoF Wind Lord.

http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/68jnxaskaewwdnlg/details/0/?s=9185&e=9667

Essentially last. no more needs to be said here.
Reply Quote
90 Human Mage
10850
Admittedly, after being just destroyed on our Sunday Cleanup raid I've been trying Arcane out again. Was Arcane until tonight when we did some work on Heroic Garalon and Work on Heroic Windlord. I was embarrassed in raid pretty badly so I talked with some other mages and ventured in other specs. But I had to try fire to see how the changes were.

Log from Normal Mode HoF Full Clear - The raid that forced me Arcane
http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-fga652lo3974ghl0/sum/damageDone/

Tonights work: Log from Heroic Garalon
http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-j6q1wrv4btnqjuqh/sum/damageDone/?s=4136&e=4536

2% wipe on Heroic Windlord, should have a parse later this week.

Granted, I do not have 2pc or 4pc, but we just have the most horrible luck with Vanq token drops. They literally haven't dropped for us. I assume once I get 2pc and 4pc this will change but I out gear nearly every DPS in my raid except maybe the rogue. Really was a kick in the boys this week.

I am in a 10 man, 5/6 Heroic MoV , 2/6 Heroic HoF, and Normal cleared Terrace if you're looking to gauge experience. Been playing since Vanilla though I do get called to tank every so often on my pally so my experience is spread out in previous expacs. I always return to my mage though. Not a FoTM player.
Reply Quote
100 Undead Mage
9315
Terrace LFR from last night, went Fire:

http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/bkvt2jlmohp3uhw5/sum/damageDone/

Friday, postnerf:

http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/yz6apzy0xy1qjdt9/sum/damageDone/?enc=kills
Edited by Sethmann on 12/6/2012 5:08 AM PST
Reply Quote
90 Gnome Mage
6870
12/05/2012 07:56 AMPosted by Lhivera
Ghostcrawler has asked repeatedly on Twitter for people to provide parses (not sims) showing how Fire is performing. Collect them here.


12/04/2012 05:27 PMPosted by Lhivera
Quite simply, I know that Blizzard has a hell of a lot more data than we do, and I know they don't make changes just to entertain themselves, so I trust that when they say their data showed Fire was doing too much damage, they're right.


This is a troubling combination of postings from different threads.
One indicates that Blizzard has 'a hell of a lot more data than we do', and then another saying they need our posts and data.

Lhivera, I greatly appreciate your work including getting the developers aware of the changes. I'm just concerned that they may have a lot of data but no idea what it is our how they use it our how they make calculations and adjustments.
Lacking these types of specifics leaves the customers with little in the way of information, and hence they can't respond to that data, which only leaves the option to complain about how it seems to be working.
I think there are a chunk of people would would much rather talk facts and numbers, versus reacting to posts from Blizzard that say something to the effect "we feel that. . .".
In those cases it is not surprise that the majority of replies and posts back from the customers are what they feel.
It reminds me in a way of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where people were told the answer to the meaning of life was 42.
Reply Quote
MVP - World of Warcraft
90 Human Mage
10015
There's a difference between them needing our data, and asking that player claims be backed by data. When people tell GC that Fire is now "at the bottom," his quite reasonable response is: can you provide evidence to support that claim?

This thread isn't about providing the devs with data they can't collect themselves. It's about us as players actually looking at and discussing data to determine whether the claims we have been making on the forums are supported by evidence — a type of discussion that the devs tend to find much more useful than threads full of unsubstantiated claims.
Reply Quote
90 Gnome Mage
6870
12/06/2012 07:45 AMPosted by Lhivera
This thread isn't about providing the devs with data they can't collect themselves. It's about us as players actually looking at and discussing data to determine whether the claims we have been making on the forums are supported by evidence — a type of discussion that the devs tend to find much more useful than threads full of unsubstantiated claims.

But nearly everyone has said, a few samplings and individual experience are not statistically good indicators and may be bad indicators. Even if response is good on this and we get 100 parse links from 100 people that is a hugely small number of posts. In addition what can happen is people may cherry pick the parses to try and put forth what they are saying. Just not seeing how from a statistical/planning point of view the developers would want to make considerations and possible adjustments in the game based on these methods.

I understand the idea if someone is making claims to back up their personal experience with a log. And if that is the main purpose to weed out posters making subjective statements to stem the flow of knee jerk postings (and there have been plenty of those) that's fine.

I would also understand if the developers had so much data that they have no human way to sort though it all, at different gear levels, player skill levels, the list of variables goes on, and so they are looking for help with that. But pot shot survey's typically are not the best way to do that. Instead gathering data samplings from a wide source in a non-subjective way would make more statistical sense. Say start a project to sample 10 percent of the guild parses on each server showing how fire did last week and this week on the same fight.

edit: True data analysis is hard work. Blizzard has a hard job in many ways, and this one is not easy and with keeping new changes to talents each expansion to keep things different, I honestly don't know how they do it, my hats off to their hard work. All that said, I'm just not seeing this approach as being statistically sound.
Edited by Nert on 12/6/2012 8:09 AM PST
Reply Quote
MVP - World of Warcraft
90 Human Mage
10015
It's not intended to be statistically sound. The devs can handle gathering and parsing data. It's intended to center discussion around examples of actual performance post-nerf, rather than around speculation about what might happen to performance post-nerf.

Yeah, it may well be that if someone posts a high or low parse, it's a statistical outlier — but because the commentary is linked to a parse, other people can look at it and say, "OK, yeah, that's high/low, but your crit rate was also way out of line with what's expected, and you seem to have screwed up in your use of ability X," etc.

Or, on the other hand, someone may post a low parse, and people may look at it and say, "yeah, your numbers are low, and your crit rate is pretty much on target, and you didn't make any mistakes — the spec performs badly on that encounter and there's nothing you can do about it, and that is/is not OK for the following reasons."

In short, I think that introducing some data to the discussion can greatly improve and cool down the discussion without needing to be a means of collecting a statistically valid sample.
Reply Quote
90 Worgen Warrior
10455
12/06/2012 07:39 AMPosted by Nert
Ghostcrawler has asked repeatedly on Twitter for people to provide parses (not sims) showing how Fire is performing. Collect them here.


Quite simply, I know that Blizzard has a hell of a lot more data than we do, and I know they don't make changes just to entertain themselves, so I trust that when they say their data showed Fire was doing too much damage, they're right.


This is a troubling combination of postings from different threads.
One indicates that Blizzard has 'a hell of a lot more data than we do', and then another saying they need our posts and data.

Lhivera, I greatly appreciate your work including getting the developers aware of the changes. I'm just concerned that they may have a lot of data but no idea what it is our how they use it our how they make calculations and adjustments.
Lacking these types of specifics leaves the customers with little in the way of information, and hence they can't respond to that data, which only leaves the option to complain about how it seems to be working.
I think there are a chunk of people would would much rather talk facts and numbers, versus reacting to posts from Blizzard that say something to the effect "we feel that. . .".
In those cases it is not surprise that the majority of replies and posts back from the customers are what they feel.
It reminds me in a way of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy where people were told the answer to the meaning of life was 42.


I think it is a polite way to call out people who make false claims as to how bad the nerf was. I dont and YOU dont think Blizzard NEEDS your parses to figure out how fire mages are performing at all. They are merely saying "put up or shut up" to all those who claim the spec is dead atm.
Reply Quote
100 Troll Mage
12840
Heroic Feng last night
http://worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-tzzd9jw76cvluu9i/sum/damageDone/?s=2044&e=2497
Reply Quote
90 Worgen Warrior
10455
Don't have any parses, and I wont by the looks of it.

Raid leader decided he's only taking 1 mage from now on, and he's forcing him to switch to arcane.

Pretty sure he's replacing them with 1 Aff Lock and a hunter.

Pretty disappointed to be honest ;(

Keep posting logs please.


Yeah and I have some swamp land for sale in Florida. I might have believed you until you said he repped a mage with a hunter. Either you are flat out lying or your raidleader is a fool.
Reply Quote
12/06/2012 09:05 AMPosted by Oaklander
Yeah and I have some swamp land for sale in Florida. I might have believed you until you said he repped a mage with a hunter. Either you are flat out lying or your raidleader is a fool.


hunters are actually doing good dps, as are aff locks.
Reply Quote
90 Worgen Mage
0
Heroic Blade Lord last night:

http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-9jhxvlseiog3iwqz/sum/damageDone/?s=13520&e=13985

Heroic Elegon:

http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/qzxfzt9wxr4myii1/sum/damageDone/?s=6071&e=6569

i have been sick so i didnt raid much nor did the regular fights i only showed up for the required heroic progression so might not be very valid logs but ya there they are
Reply Quote
90 Blood Elf Mage
11360
Ok so here is the parse from last nights HM Feng.

http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-6behc3qsl5wjwe5r/sum/damageDone/?s=122&e=643

and here is what I was doing last week same fight.

http://www.worldoflogs.com/reports/rt-teswhujqne2qa9fs/sum/damageDone/?s=8211&e=8762

I don't know what everyone else is seeing but what i see is a HUGE DPS decrease and failure to balance a class. I mean yea nerf was expected but really if they didn't know that a 100% ignite for Combustions wasn't going to lead to a stupid powerful buff then what are they looking at?

And even the CM nerf really?? I actually went for almost 20 casts before I got a single crit....makes playing fire just a FB spam and total RNG class.
Edited by Envyadams on 12/6/2012 9:55 AM PST
Reply Quote
90 Worgen Mage
0
also id like to point out lhiv that they have acess to all the parses from inside their database.

GC coming to you and saying oh have the mages post their logs here bla bla bla is all marketing bullcrap to attempt and make players feel like they are helping in some way to show how much of a nerf it was etc.

THEY DO NOT NEED ANYONE POSTING LOGS ANYWHERE.

THEY CAN ACESS EVERY SINGLE FIGHT DATA FROM EVERY SINGLE GUILD IN THE WORLD EASILY FROM THEIR DATA CENTER.
Reply Quote
90 Gnome Mage
6870
12/06/2012 08:24 AMPosted by Lhivera
In short, I think that introducing some data to the discussion can greatly improve and cool down the discussion without needing to be a means of collecting a statistically valid sample.


12/06/2012 08:56 AMPosted by Oaklander
I think it is a polite way to call out people who make false claims as to how bad the nerf was. I dont and YOU dont think Blizzard NEEDS your parses to figure out how fire mages are performing at all. They are merely saying "put up or shut up" to all those who claim the spec is dead atm.


Fair enough.
And I don't think this process is a total waste of time, and certainly including real reviewable data in to the conversations helps to keep the communication practical. So people will realize that this is not a prove your opinion and Blizzard will act based on that, but a back up your opinion with data so we have a realistic conversation and not just speculation so that the developers can potential weed on out whiners versus those with opinions based on real experience, then all good.

Again TY for making the effort. Sorry if this derailed at all. Should be interested to see how the info comes out.
Reply Quote
100 Blood Elf Mage
18065
12/06/2012 08:24 AMPosted by Lhivera
It's not intended to be statistically sound. The devs can handle gathering and parsing data. It's intended to center discussion around examples of actual performance post-nerf, rather than around speculation about what might happen to performance post-nerf.


So the purpose of this post is not to give feedback to blizzard, it is to control the nature of the discussions of this nerf on the forums?
Reply Quote
MVP - World of Warcraft
90 Human Mage
10015
also id like to point out lhiv that they have acess to all the parses from inside their database.

GC coming to you and saying oh have the mages post their logs here bla bla bla is all marketing bullcrap to attempt and make players feel like they are helping in some way to show how much of a nerf it was etc.


Of course they can. GC did not come to me. What happens is:

1) People post @ghostcrawler on Twitter, saying, "Fire Mages are dead last/terrible/lost 20% DPS" and the like.
2) GC responds saying something like, "We're not seeing that, do you have a parse?"

In short, they are not saying "we need your data," they are saying "don't make claims that you can't back up with data."

This thread is a place for people to make claims that they can back up with data — and for other people to discuss those claims and whether or not the data actually supports them.
Reply Quote
100 Blood Elf Mage
18065
Whatever.

GC's response is stupid. So instead of actually responding to the issue (blizzard over-nerfed fire mages), he focuses lazer-like on the nature of the adjective used to describe the nerf.

His tweet, and your post, make it sound like they are actually interested in seeing logs. Yet another lie.
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]