Can't wait to test out these Mage changes!!!

90 Human Warrior
11920
I didn't look at them in a vacuum; I have a 90 warrior and actually play him. I disagree with you.
thanks me to and just cause you play it for 20 min a week does not convince me you have any room to speak of arms VS fury they dont feel the same nor are the rotations .
Reply Quote
1 Human Mage
0
06/19/2013 01:55 PMPosted by Lhivera
(in fact, it's exactly what we suggested when the first version of the talents were made public

Just to be clear and to provide a correction, there was no "we" at that time. I remember the beta clearly; the MVP was the only one advocating for these level 90s even back then. Pretending that there were more people is, yet again, one of his straight up falsehoods, unfortunately. It seems we cannot go even a few days without having to deal with these constant falsehoods :(

(this MVP has the undesirable propensity to take whatever his opinion on a topic is, and project it onto all of magekind, making it seems like all the mages support his point of view and/or that he is speaking for all mages, when he is in fact alone. As you can see, mages do not support his views, but he still persists in this behavior *shrugs*).

I'll agree that it's unfortunate that people couldn't get used to them before hitting 90.

I find it quite a leap of logic.

How is someone supposed to 'get used to' the level 90 talents before they are level 90? By definition, they only get the talents at level 90, meaning you cannot really use them before hand.

But alas, logical problems with his points never did get him to change his mind. I'm really not sure what he does around these parts to be honest.
Reply Quote
100 Human Mage
15015
06/19/2013 01:55 PMPosted by Lhivera
Huh. Really? I've been using it exclusively since I hit 90, and questing is the last place I would expect someone to find it unpleasant. To each his/her own, though


Not really unpleasant, but useless. Laying down a RoP on almost every mob pull when questing adds more time than the added damage would save. When quest mobs die in 5 seconds, why add an additional ~1.2 to it?
Reply Quote
100 Troll Mage
17595
06/19/2013 01:55 PMPosted by Lhivera
To be fair, I was actually looking forward to Rune of Power when the trees were first announced. I thought I was going to like it a lot, and then I learned it and tried to do some dailies with it and :|.


Huh. Really? I've been using it exclusively since I hit 90, and questing is the last place I would expect someone to find it unpleasant. To each his/her own, though.


It comes back to mobility, unfortunately. Ever since I learned my first AoE spell (and watched some of Faxmonkey's old videos), I always try to pull big. Sure, I die a lot, but if I didn't then that means I didn't pull enough. :p Frost's fun niche for me was limiting enemy movement and clumping them together for a nice Blizzard, with the old Frostbite and crazy-strong snare you could get back then. Fire had a much more manic style of AoE-killing, where you would rotate between frost nova, blast wave (both the daze and knockback versions), cone of cold and dragon's breath cooldowns while dropping cheap Flamestrikes and watching enemies burn to death while I looped around them like a living lasso. The arcane tree was still somewhat of a mess back then so I didn't get to try it much.

My two favorite specs to toy with back in TBC were an arcane/frost split (Arcane Power instead of the elemental; the old Rawr program claimed it was only -slightly- behind deep frost back then) and a heavy fire, frost down to shatter for jumbo crits. Every couple of weekends, I would invite random guildmates down to powerlevel them through Scarlet Monastery where I'd proceed to pull damn near the entire instance at once, nova them all and then whip out a double AoE shatter combo of Flamestrike and Cone of Cold. My game client often didn't survive that, but I had heaps of fun doing it.

When MoP came out, a combination of higher HP mobs and (seemingly?) weaker AoE took a lot of wind out of my sails. Trying to use Rune of Power on top of that felt like applying a ball and chain to my location that penalized me whenever I needed to step away from it. That's where most of my distaste of the level 90 talent tier comes from, and even though my gear (and buffs to the bombs and AoE, of course) have brought back most of the old AoE punch I loved, RoP and Invo still seem like an ugly little wart whenever I try using them.

I know I've !@#$%ed about the talents a bunch but I don't think I really got into why I didn't like them before now. I'm not trying to convince you to dislike the talents but I hope you have a better idea into my "why" instead of it just being some nebulous difference in thematic tastes. Anyway this post is getting long and stupid enough so I'm cutting it off here; I already partially rewrote it to shorten it a bit. :x
Reply Quote
MVP
90 Human Mage
10015
Gotcha. I don't experience questing the way you two do. I hate AOE farming so I always single-pull, but I also position myself to make multiple single pulls from the same location before moving on (only need ~10 secs on the rune to make it worth the cast time). Just a difference in playstyles. Which, to my mind, is what the talent choices are meant to support.
Reply Quote
1 Human Mage
0
Just a difference in playstyles. Which, to my mind, is what the talent choices are meant to support.

And I believe the point pretty much all the rest in this thread are making, is that this is precisely the core issue with the talent.

They concede that you only do solo quests and even there only do those solo quests in the specific way you describe, but their point is that the talent fails in every other situation in the game.

If there is a set of 10 possible situations or scenarios in the game, and a talent only succeeds in 1 and fails in 9, that is a bad talent.

Please remember, the issue people have with the talents pertain to a part of the game that you are completely unfamiliar with.

WoW is a big game, with many parts. PvP, PvE, raids, BGs, rBGs, arenas, solo quests, group quests, scenarios, heroics, challenge modes and the list can go on.

If a talent only works in a special case of one of these parts and you deem it a 'good talent' solely due to the fact that you do nothing else in game, you cannot expect many to take your analysis at face value.

What I actually find more troubling, is how someone can comment on something before they have even tried it.
I do not see why it is so hard to just do 1 single raid or 1 arena match or 1 rBG to better your own understanding of a topic. At least that way you can at least say you tried it before telling everyone they are wrong or right or black or white.

I, for one, shudder at the thought of doing something like that. I would not be able to show my face if I so strongly opposed/supported something so publicly while simultaneously admitting to never having done it.

Its not even a matter of principle at that point, its just bad analysis, pure and simple.
Edited by Zomgdps on 6/19/2013 2:45 PM PDT
Reply Quote
90 Gnome Monk
7430
Numerically, mages are doing 'fine', but at the complete expense of gameplay, design, and mechanics.

Don't believe me? Play a mage.


Out of curiousity...

Would the mage community be ok with a major redesign that resulted in a 25% across the board damage drop? After all, you want gameplay changes not the numbers, right?

It's a pretty safe bet the answer is "No, we want gameplay changes but we also want to keep our above average damage"

Mages should be happy the patch notes aren't just a list of nerfs for them at this point since 2 specs are above average in pve and the third is extremely strong in pvp.
Reply Quote
1 Human Mage
0
Out of curiousity...

Would the mage community be ok with a major redesign that resulted in a 25% across the board damage drop? After all, you want gameplay changes not the numbers, right?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

The proof of that statement is, again, Warlocks (as well as almost all 'hybrid' classes)

There exists precedence in the game where a class can in fact achieve numerical parity as well as richness of design. In fact, in this regard I would surmise that there in fact exist more classes that contain this trait than classes that do not.

Mages, Hunters, and Rogues are the classes I truly feel do not contain this trait of numerical parity as well as design richness.
A lot of other classes have either already achieved the goal, or are much further along the path than the aforementioned three.

So yea, there is actually more data supporting the non-exclusivity of the concepts than there is data supporting exclusivity.

In short, mages (and rogues and hunters) should get both, numerical parity and design richness.

Saying you can only have one or the other is unfortunately a disingenuous position to take, given the state of other classes in the game.

It's a pretty safe bet the answer is "No..."

You are never safe when I'm around ;)
Edited by Zomgdps on 6/19/2013 2:52 PM PDT
Reply Quote
100 Human Mage
15060
Aaaand frost nerfed.
Reply Quote
I've always agreed that the L45 talents are problematic and should offer more thematic options; I think the devs felt it was more important to ensure that everyone had an additional spell to support Shatter and Deep Freeze, but I don't agree.


It is important because blizzard decided to base fire and arcane pvp viability around shoving deep freeze and shatter down our throats :(

Of course, I'd prefer to have more theme-flavor (and would even be happy with frostfire and arcaneice spell schools), but mechanically fire and arcane don't have freeze so they needed something extra.

I'm still waiting for mage pvp to be about casting*, though :(

*ok, arcane casts a lot and I haven't tested fireball in pvp in a while.
Edited by Swampdonkeys on 6/19/2013 4:18 PM PDT
Reply Quote
MVP
90 Human Mage
10015
Aaaand frost nerfed.


Temporal Shield gets a nice buff. Frostburn hit pretty hard, becomes largely irrelevant outside of single-target boss DPS. If this is purely for PvP purposes, I'd prefer to see them simply apply a PvP coefficient to Frostburn. If they actually feel that Frost is too strong in scenarios, heroics, quests, etc., then I suppose that's another story.
________________________________________________
Find answers to questions about Mage mechanics in
Lhivera’s Compendium • http://lhiveras-library.com/compendium
Reply Quote
And give me back blastwave. Seriously.
Reply Quote
100 Human Mage
15060
06/19/2013 04:19 PMPosted by Lhivera
Aaaand frost nerfed.


Temporal Shield gets a nice buff. Frostburn hit pretty hard, becomes largely irrelevant outside of single-target boss DPS. If this is purely for PvP purposes, I'd prefer to see them simply apply a PvP coefficient to Frostburn. If they actually feel that Frost is too strong in scenarios, heroics, quests, etc., then I suppose that's another story.
________________________________________________
Find answers to questions about Mage mechanics in
Lhivera’s Compendium • http://lhiveras-library.com/compendium


I'm pretty sure it drops the DPE for frostbolt below icelance on frozen targets, too. Get ready to spam icelance into deep freezes again.

The buff to Temporal Shield is nice, but probably puts it over the top relative to the other two talents for raiding.
Edited by Mumrit on 6/19/2013 4:24 PM PDT
Reply Quote
MVP
90 Human Mage
10015
06/19/2013 04:23 PMPosted by Mumrit
I'm pretty sure it drops the DPE for frostbolt below icelance on frozen targets, too. Get ready to spam icelance into deep freezes again.


Should be no change, unless you have FOF up, in which case yes. Without FOF, both spells lose the same percentage of damage. With FOF, I believe Ice Lance was ahead already.
________________________________________________
Find answers to questions about Mage mechanics in
Lhivera’s Compendium • http://lhiveras-library.com/compendium
Reply Quote
100 Human Mage
15060
06/19/2013 04:30 PMPosted by Lhivera
I'm pretty sure it drops the DPE for frostbolt below icelance on frozen targets, too. Get ready to spam icelance into deep freezes again.


Should be no change, unless you have FOF up, in which case yes. Without FOF, both spells lose the same percentage of damage. With FOF, I believe Ice Lance was ahead already.
________________________________________________
Find answers to questions about Mage mechanics in
Lhivera’s Compendium • http://lhiveras-library.com/compendium

Ah, true. Misconception on my part.
Reply Quote
100 Human Mage
15015
I hope this means mastery will get a numbers buff.
Reply Quote
90 Troll Mage
9100
How about any changes for the positive at all for fire?
Reply Quote
90 Dwarf Warrior
14765
....err....

Trust me, you don't want changes. They won't be buffs.
Reply Quote
100 Blood Elf Mage
17825
I hope this means mastery will get a numbers buff.


This would possibly be the final step of one of the most misguided series of changes blizz could ever do. The end result would be relatively unchanging burst in deeps, uninterruptible damage in deeps, and higher proc based burst.

...
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)

Reported!

[Close]