Class Hotfixes – 3/12

(Locked)

Technically frostbomb was nerfed by 20% prior to today, (only did 80% damage to players). With hotfix today, it now does 60% damage to players, but with increased damage, you'll effectively see it hit 5% harder than yesterday.

Considering frostbolt got buffed and that when freezing someone you can still spam icelance and hit for obscene high numbers... it's the nerf to frost bomb a big deal?.
90 Pandaren Rogue
5245
That's simple really, have different spell coefficients for PVP, scale all spells the same way this would effectively take care of PVP balance and allow tweaking where required without destroying single target or multi target dps in PVE.


They have already said they're not going to do separate versions of spells for PvP vs PvE. While there are some modifiers added on after the fact, there won't be the separate versions your solution would require.

For example, as I just updated DrDamage for mages regarding this:

self.Calculation["Frost Bomb"] = function ( calculation )
if calculation.haste > 0 then
calculation.cooldown = calculation.cooldown * ( 1 - (calculation.haste - 1))
end
-- This does 60% damage on a player per Rygarius (down from 80%) vs another player.
if UnitIsPlayer("target") and not UnitIsFriend("target","player") then
calculation.dmgM = calculation.dmgM * 0.6
end
end

That's roughly what the devs are doing now with regards to the spell. What you're proposing would create multiple spell tables for nearly every player ability in the game. That would add massive bloat to the client and be an untenable solution.
90 Troll Warlock
8115
Hi, I can fully understand warlocks were doing too much damage in a Multi Dot environment but why is the no single target compensation for us? GC stated specifically that multi dotting was a problem and nothing about our single target DPS. I speak for both Shadowpriests as well as Warlocks wondering if we could see potential buffs to Malefic Grasp/Mind Flay to compensate?

To expand on Warlocks these nerfs hit Demonology twice as hard. I don't think Multi Dotting Doom was a huge issue as it costs demonic fury to do so. I fully understand that at this time buffing Malefic Grasp is problematic because GoSac would become the best again without question.

Was the DoT classes single target DPS too high or should we be expecting some form of compensation?
90 Blood Elf Mage
7910
Frost bomb isn't frost spec specific. Any mage of any spec can have it. Mechanically, the spells of relevance would probably be frost bolt, frostfire bolt, and ice lance.


This is true, however Ghostcrawler (Via Twitter) wanted to make a change with the hotfix that would effect all specs. This change effected Frostbomb, Nether Tempest, and Living Bomb, however obviously Frost-Bomb needed the extra PVP tweaking due to the Deep Freeze/Shatter combo that causes it to crit for larger damage than they're comfortable with.
90 Undead Warlock
10140
Warlock: Corruption damage -25%.
Warlock: Doom damage -25%.


Thanks a bunch!

-.-
90 Blood Elf Mage
7910
Considering frostbolt got buffed and that when freezing someone you can still spam icelance and hit for obscene high numbers... it's the nerf to frost bomb a big deal?.


Not in regards to PVP. For PVE, yes, the numbers were quite low in multi-target fights. I wasn't complaining about the "nerf", just summarizing the changes.
90 Pandaren Rogue
5245
This is true, however Ghostcrawler (Via Twitter) wanted to make a change with the hotfix that would effect all specs. This change effected Frostbomb, Nether Tempest, and Living Bomb, however obviously Frost-Bomb needed the extra PVP tweaking due to the Deep Freeze/Shatter combo that causes it to crit for larger damage than they're comfortable with.


Context is key. They were clear that the hotfix was relevant to PvE damage and (in said Twitter feed) said that PvP specific adjustments would be made clearer later (this appears to be one of them).
90 Worgen Warlock
9860
03/12/2013 04:59 PMPosted by Angosia
That's simple really, have different spell coefficients for PVP, scale all spells the same way this would effectively take care of PVP balance and allow tweaking where required without destroying single target or multi target dps in PVE.


They have already said they're not going to do separate versions of spells for PvP vs PvE. While there are some modifiers added on after the fact, there won't be the separate versions your solution would require.

For example, as I just updated DrDamage for mages regarding this:

self.Calculation["Frost Bomb"] = function ( calculation )
if calculation.haste > 0 then
calculation.cooldown = calculation.cooldown * ( 1 - (calculation.haste - 1))
end
-- This does 60% damage on a player per Rygarius (down from 80%) vs another player.
if UnitIsPlayer("target") and not UnitIsFriend("target","player") then
calculation.dmgM = calculation.dmgM * 0.6
end
end

That's roughly what the devs are doing now with regards to the spell. What you're proposing would create multiple spell tables for nearly every player ability in the game. That would add massive bloat to the client and be an untenable solution.


Create multiple spell tables sure, but set a flag that would only activate one type at a time and load the updated spell tables on reload similar to what we have loading into instances. Doesn't necessarily have to stay in memory as long as data has some sort of smart caching somewhere, possibly on the client side itself.

Performance isn't the concern here its very likely DEV time.
Edited by Urgfelstorm on 3/12/2013 5:14 PM PDT
90 Gnome Warlock
6815
It's hard to make sense of these changes.

My current theory is that Gimpcrawler plays a mage and plays it very poorly.

And it's entirely possible he got smashed by a Demonology Warlock last week.
This is true, however Ghostcrawler (Via Twitter) wanted to make a change with the hotfix that would effect all specs. This change effected Frostbomb, Nether Tempest, and Living Bomb, however obviously Frost-Bomb needed the extra PVP tweaking due to the Deep Freeze/Shatter combo that causes it to crit for larger damage than they're comfortable with.

As I said a few posts ago, in that case nether tempest also needs tweaking. Before the buff even "fire" mages would go for either nether tempest or frost bomb, NT for the high dmg and FB for the slow. LB it's the weakest of the bombs atm and that's why I asked if this pvp nerf will apply to every bomb and not only frost bomb.

And even if I'm not a PvE'r I can see this buff will do nothing for LB seeing how fire mages can't spread dots other than ignite when casting inferno blast.
90 Pandaren Rogue
5245
03/12/2013 05:03 PMPosted by Urgfelstorm
Create multiple spell tables sure, but set a flag that would only activate one type at a time and load the updated spell tables on reload similar to what we have loading into instances. Doesn't necessarily have to stay in memory as long as data has some sort of smart caching somewhere, possibly on the client side itself.


Wrong and ever so wrong. You don't realize that every buff, debuff, and ability you see in game (passive/active/whatever) is a spell in the database. Everything. Even NPCs have spells for their abilities (including raid encounters). It is a massive database with thousands of spells (hundreds of thousands - including tier set bonuses).

You're proposing to increase this amount by a non-trivial amount. Tell me why that would be worth the effort of work and a much larger client (with larger downloads for updates, patches, etc) for the relative little gain on investment? That's rhetorical, of course.

Performance isn't the concern here its very likely DEV time.


Unfortunately you're wrong again. Game performance is a key issue - as they have to maintain that for the highest and lowest ends of their supported customer / server hardware. You're proposing a solution that sounds good only on paper to someone that doesn't understand the logistics involved. Anyone else with behind the scenes knowledge would look at it say (quite justifiably): That will never work.
90 Troll Warlock
8940
Thanks for nerfing warlocks. Corruption is probably the most applied dot, especially considering seed of corruption for aoe fights. And 25% is a LOT.
90 Gnome Mage
3450

And even if I'm not a PvE'r I can see this buff will do nothing for LB seeing how fire mages can't spread dots other than ignite when casting inferno blast.


I would have far rather seen that change, than just getting a 40% buff to LB.
90 Worgen Warlock
9860
03/12/2013 05:08 PMPosted by Angosia
Create multiple spell tables sure, but set a flag that would only activate one type at a time and load the updated spell tables on reload similar to what we have loading into instances. Doesn't necessarily have to stay in memory as long as data has some sort of smart caching somewhere, possibly on the client side itself.


Wrong and ever so wrong. You don't realize that every buff, debuff, and ability you see in game (passive/active/whatever) is a spell in the database. Everything. Even NPCs have spells for their abilities (including raid encounters). It is a massive database with thousands of spells (hundreds of thousands - including tier set bonuses).

You're proposing to increase this amount by a non-trivial amount. Tell me why that would be worth the effort of work and a much larger client (with larger downloads for updates, patches, etc) for the relative little gain on investment? That's rhetorical, of course.

Performance isn't the concern here its very likely DEV time.


Unfortunately you're wrong again. Game performance is a key issue - as they have to maintain that for the highest and lowest ends of their supported customer / server hardware. You're proposing a solution that sounds good only on paper to someone that doesn't understand the logistics involved. Anyone else with behind the scenes knowledge would look at it say (quite justifiably): That will never work.


I never said I would re-architect the entire thing for them I only said it was possible. Also have you heard of client side caching? Can be done to disk on the client side with almost no pitfalls.

There are many many solutions possible if actually thought about. Once again the entire cost has and always will be DEV time any solution requires time effort and money to architect, something like this cant be done short term I agree but doesn't mean there are no implementations possible.

Never say never dude.
This topic is locked.

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]