Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Seonid

Cataclysm Arcane Mage Compendium

434 posts in this topic

The mana reduction of Arcane Blast is on live for a long time now, it's only a tooltip fix with the new patch. So sorry to disappoint you a little, it's 5% base mana already not 7% :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The mana reduction of Arcane Blast is on live for a long time now, it's only a tooltip fix with the new patch. So sorry to disappoint you a little, it's 5% base mana already not 7% :S

Ahh, I see. I had thought that the Arcane Blast mana reduction hotfix came before 4.06, so that the live tooltip was already correct. I guess they must have done more than one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something that got changed a while back and needs updating on the OP.

Nether Vortex 2/2 will now apply Slow to any target that is hit with AB. So even if the target is beyond the range of unglyphed Slow they will be Slowed if hit by AB with 2/2 Nether Vortex. With 1/2 Nether Vortex any target hit with AB will have a chance to have Slow applied to them. This can happen even if the target is beyond the unglyphed range of Slow.

However there is still a problem with Nether Vortex. Even though the first cast can apply Slow to the target there can be and usually is a slight delay between when the target appears to be hit and Slow is applied. This delay does seem to be affected by latency though I can't say that with 100% certainty, hopefully further testing will confirm it.

The problems with Mirror Images that I detailed in the original thread have been addressed but are not entirely fixed. The images will target the mob that the mage is hitting as they are conjured. The mob the images are hitting will always agro on the images and not the mage. The deferment of threat from the additional mobs that images are not not hitting can fail.

1. If you are closer to the additional mobs than your mirror images they can agro on you. They may start switching between hitting you and the image closest to them.

2. If you move away from the images while mobs are closer to you than some of the images they can agro on you.

3. If you hit one of the mobs the mirrors are not hitting it will agro on you once you exceed the images threat.

I'm currently using groups of mobs (3-4 leper Gnomes) in the Cursed Veil in Uldum to test and using omen/direct observation which is taking the threat info directly from the api. The above circumstances usually result in the deferment failing but sometimes it holds and I can't determine why.

Sorry for posting inconclusive results but after a fair bit of testing I'm hoping someone else might be able to figure out a conclusive set of circumstances under which the deferment fails.

Edit:

I checked with a couple of GM's recently having reported these issues a while back. They were aware of the above but had believed these issues had been addressed so I've added them into the bug thread.

Additionally I also asked again for confirmation of the intended behaviour of Invocation stating that it or the tooltip were bugged. I informed them that Invocation was only granting a bonus if the interruption was caused with Counterspell and no other interrupt effect such as the high powered bolt gun was causing the bonus to be gained. In addition that many effects cause the targets' cast bar to say interrupted and none of these worked either. I got the same reply as I have previously that they were unaware of the problem but that he would pass it on to the developers. I've added that also to the bug report thread.

Given that Rude Interruption grants a similar bonus that lasts longer and it's tooltip states it only works with Pummel and Shield Bash I hope it might very well be intended to grant us a bonus when we stop the target from casting through bombs, dazes and stuns. Has anyone been able to confirm that it is working as intended? If it is I hope they get around to changing the tooltip so that is worded in a similar manner to Rude Interruption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been looking for some solid info on how much of a DPS gain IA is.

I did some real terrible napkin math with seeing how much of a DPS gain a mageward proc is for AB1.

I did: Non-IA DPS*10 vs IA DPS*8.5 and IA comes out about 6% ahead (with maximum uptime this would come out to 2% total damage increase which I feel is marginal considering the talent points and the additional rotation complexity) .

I'm assuming that with better modeling than basing it off of AB1 DPS the DPS gain would hopefully be larger? I know as of the last time I asked this question SimC was not able to model it so maybe the best way is to model it under different conditions (burn phase vs conserve phase) to get an idea of the effect of IA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You pay for IA with a GCD and the mana cost. Since most discussions of IA dismiss this at first, and you didn't mention it, I thought I would bring it up. While Arcane doesn't have that many instants that can be used during movement, putting up a shield might qualify if the timing was appropriate.

Actually, IA benefit goes down as the base damage goes up. So IA would have substantially less contribution for AB4 than for AB1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You pay for IA with a GCD and the mana cost. Since most discussions of IA dismiss this at first, and you didn't mention it, I thought I would bring it up. While Arcane doesn't have that many instants that can be used during movement, putting up a shield might qualify if the timing was appropriate.

Actually, IA benefit goes down as the base damage goes up. So IA would have substantially less contribution for AB4 than for AB1.

I didn't specifically mention the GCD but if you look at my calculations I used 8.5 instead of 10 of non-ia time since you lose the 1.5 to GCD. Though now that I rethink it 11.5 vs 10 would be a better calculation time frame. By changing the time frame accordingly my layman attempt at calculating increase DPS goes from 6% to 8.5% during that 10s time frame.

I see what you are saying about the base damage sounds logically though was wondering if anyone can confirm. I am unsure of all the properties of AB, does the coefficient change as you stack it? Additional what is the correct way to calculate AB damage, I was using DrDamage to calculate DPS and I see the spell coefficient but something doesn't add up for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rawr supports mage ward modeling, although I haven't done any testing in game to verify spell coefficients on the absorb. The result I'm getting is that using Mage Ward is not a dps increase if it takes a gcd away from normal casting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rawr supports mage ward modeling, although I haven't done any testing in game to verify spell coefficients on the absorb. The result I'm getting is that using Mage Ward is not a dps increase if it takes a gcd away from normal casting.

In reference to what another poster said earlier is it true that IA Mage Ward has less benefit for higher stacked AB or will it give the same % increase for any AB?

Reason I ask is would it make a difference if we chose to only Mage Ward before a burn phase instead of during conserve phase?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damage of AB will be of the form k * (base + coeff * spellpower) * (1 + 0.13 * stack), so the higher stack AB will have higher absolute increase, but same % increase (because all multipliers will cancel out since they're the same with or without IA).

Also Rawr considers using Mage Ward as part of its casting state in combination with cooldown stacking so it wouldn't be optimal regardless of where you use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I did a little experiment. In my base gear my Mage Ward absorbs about 8840 damage for 2786 mana. To make it optimal to use Mage Ward the damage absorbed has to be increased to about 9400 damage or mana cost lowered to about 1900 mana or some combination of the two. In that case it starts being optimal to use the ward on the most stacked burn phases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After looking at the latest US PTR notes it would seem we may have to rethink the priority of stats. This is obviously under the assumption that they dont change again in the next couple of weeks before it goes live of course.

The last heard from a stat priority was that Haste > Mastery > Crit. However, given that AB will be reduced to 2.0 secs, it would seem with the current haste rating soft cap (20%? ish) and having any race talents, raid buffs, etc could push the casting past the GCD.

With this in mind it would lower the haste soft cap substantially to the effect that once the soft cap has been reached the stat priority would then emphasis more towards more mastery, then crit. I suppose the real question then is what the new haste soft cap will be. Has anyone from the PTR played about with the haste changes and found the new magical (excuse the pun) number?

Looking forward to the changes in the next patch with AM and ABarr having a 13% increase buff. This should increase the DPS quite a bit during the conservation phase.

On a separate topic once the AB stack has been reached then should be able to keep casting AE without recasting AB as the stack is not to be consumed by AE. Can anyone confirm this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a separate topic once the AB stack has been reached then should be able to keep casting AE without recasting AB as the stack is not to be consumed by AE. Can anyone confirm this?

Indeed the stack is not consumed, but it is not refreshed either, so for extended AOE, it is likely better to fall into a 3-4xAE,AB rotation to keep the buff stacked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So with a little napkin math, with 4pc t11 it takes just 10.77% haste for ABlast to get down to 1 sec cast with blood lust (23.08% without 4pc). I am not actually sure if this is a cap to respect as far as reforging or not, however, because outside of lust, haste is so much stronger than crit. It seems obvious to reforge haste to mastery when you can, but what do people think about reforging haste to crit on pieces with mastery to avoid gcd capping during lust?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll almost always reforge either to hit or to mastery. It's still hard to get to hit cap so the option of reforging haste to crit doesn't really show much often. What will show up is in the choice of what to reforge from. In some cases it'll now be more benefitial to reforge haste to hit on a crit/haste piece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The balance of haste vs mastery is a tough one. Haste is much better during burn phases (assuming of course you have a cast time of over 1 second), Mastery tends to be much better during the sustained damage phase. If you have haste items that you use during burn phases that makes it that much harder. For example as a troll I use berserking during burn phases only. I suspect I need to drop most of my haste for mastery this patch, but I am going to wait for a rawr update and see what rawr says about it. Above like 1300 haste rawr had me reforge to mastery instead which makes sence because I could hit 1.0 ab cast last patch with cooldowns. Considering all arcane mages effectively got close to 15% free haste this patch I bet haste isn't worth nearly as much as it was before. I doubt it will be worthless, but I'm sure it will be closer to the value of crit.

Ertzak@Aggramar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The balance of haste vs mastery is a tough one. Haste is much better during burn phases (assuming of course you have a cast time of over 1 second), Mastery tends to be much better during the sustained damage phase. If you have haste items that you use during burn phases that makes it that much harder. For example as a troll I use berserking during burn phases only. I suspect I need to drop most of my haste for mastery this patch, but I am going to wait for a rawr update and see what rawr says about it. Above like 1300 haste rawr had me reforge to mastery instead which makes sence because I could hit 1.0 ab cast last patch with cooldowns. Considering all arcane mages effectively got close to 15% free haste this patch I bet haste isn't worth nearly as much as it was before. I doubt it will be worthless, but I'm sure it will be closer to the value of crit.

Ertzak@Aggramar

With the change to the AB cast time, we actually have a haste soft-cap now, to drop 4-stacked AB to 1s cast during heroism/bloodlust. From brief testing with simcraft, haste is our best stat before this, and right below mastery after. Assuming 4pc and full raid buffs, only 9%/1153 haste rating is needed for this soft-cap; however, keep in mind that depending on fight mechanics we won't always burn during heroism, and will likely not cast more than a few times with a 4-stack.

All-in-all, mastery seems to be the safest choice of stats, especially as it doesn't increase our mana consumption.

About AE, I had pretty strong success using 4AE 1AB during Maloriak's dark phase to sustain strong dps. The biggest benefit is that the rotation is almost mana neutral with the changes, so all the damage is getting almost 100% benefit from mastery, while allowing you to go straight into a burn when the AOE is done. It really wasn't too bad to keep up the buff during AOE, I did save PoM in case I was slow or had to move. The whole night's log is here if anyone wants to look over it. I'm not sure if it would have been more DPS to simply maintain a single target rotation on the adds, and I'm not entirely sure how to calculate that (or simulate it).

On a side note, does anyone know what raid debuffs count for Torment the Weak? I intermittently used Cone of Cold to try to see if there was a difference in damage, but 6% is within the range of RNG, and procs made it hard to eyeball. If no one else provides a slow for the 6% damage bonus, I'd be interested to see if using CoC on cooldown would be a DPS loss or increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting thing about AE.

I've uploaded my character in Rawr, made some changes and saw some interesting results.

* Master of Elements points to Shatter 2/2 => due to its mechanics concerning AB, it doesn't really affect mana consumption

* 2 points from arcane usually used for comfort to Improved Cone of Cold

* Glyph of Arcane Missile switched to Glyph of Cone of Cold => only 154.31 DPS loss on AM

And here are the results against 9 targets:

* Arcane Missile unglyphed: 11072.84 DPS

* Cone of Cold: 34255.43 DPS

* Flamestrike: 40084.16 DPS

* AB4AE without TtW: 32027.48 DPS

* AB4AE with TtW: 34071.70 DPS

If you can hit every target with Cone of Cold, that could be interesting to use it into the cycle. But I'm wondering if we have to do it with flamestrike too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do I calculate the AB cast time with a 4 stack AB and 4pc/T11?

AB cast time = (2 – 0.1n) x 0.9 where n is the number of AB stacks or

AB cast time = (2 - 0.4) x 0.9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side note, does anyone know what raid debuffs count for Torment the Weak

Thunderclap, frost fever, infected wounds, judgement of the just. Basically all the tank attack speed slowing debuffs.

On non boss mobs, anything that generates a slowing effect, either attack speed or movement speed, counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if it's a best fit here, but I was noticing that on H Chim I was getting immune resists to Incanter's Absorption. I have no idea what was causing this. I was using Mana Shield for the absorb.

Here's a link to the logs for all of the H Chim attempts and kill that night: World of Logs - Real Time Raid Analysis

Maybe it's an existing SP buff from a shielded absorb... but I thought it was only absorbs by yourself and your own casts that counted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Immune notification should have been caused by the Knockback portion of the IA talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand the haste cap for lust, but what about the benefits of having the shorter cast for movement fights? Which one out weights the other?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone have a working Mana Gem Power Aura? I am trying to make it pop up on my screen when it's off cooldown. I have it working for Deep Freeze and Freeze when I am frost, but I just cannot get the Mana Gem one to work. It's just nice to have for timing my next burn phases without looking at my bars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The balance of haste vs mastery is a tough one. Haste is much better during burn phases (assuming of course you have a cast time of over 1 second), Mastery tends to be much better during the sustained damage phase. If you have haste items that you use during burn phases that makes it that much harder. For example as a troll I use berserking during burn phases only. I suspect I need to drop most of my haste for mastery this patch, but I am going to wait for a rawr update and see what rawr says about it. Above like 1300 haste rawr had me reforge to mastery instead which makes sence because I could hit 1.0 ab cast last patch with cooldowns. Considering all arcane mages effectively got close to 15% free haste this patch I bet haste isn't worth nearly as much as it was before. I doubt it will be worthless, but I'm sure it will be closer to the value of crit.

Ertzak@Aggramar

I reforged all extra haste to mastery, and when I have lust or troll racial I sit at 1.01 second AB cast time. Obviously stat weightings always fluctuate with gear levels, but I doubt any Arcane Mage is going to want to actively focus on haste under any circumstances. Crit likely edges it it out too, I'd bet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.