Jump to content


Photo

Fire Cataclysm Discussion: OP Updated for Release


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
710 replies to this topic

#41 Maje

Maje

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 487 posts

Posted 10 September 2010 - 02:29 PM

A short test I've done courtesy of free scorch indicates a ~42.5% chance for Hot Streak without the Improved talent, namely 174 scorch crits were cast and 74 Hot Streak procs recorded. I basically stood in one place and spam casted scorch, without using any other spell including Pyroblast (improved talent wasn't taken).

I'll do some more tests with the Improved Hot Streak, also Ignite is still bugged even in such simple conditions when there is no flight time to consider, by bugged I mean sometimes the damage isn't calculated properly i.e. it gets swallowed somehow related to when it's going to tick and when the crit happens.

#42 Zaldinar

Zaldinar

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 336 posts

Posted 10 September 2010 - 03:36 PM

A short test I've done courtesy of free scorch indicates a ~42.5% chance for Hot Streak without the Improved talent, namely 174 scorch crits were cast and 74 Hot Streak procs recorded. I basically stood in one place and spam casted scorch, without using any other spell including Pyroblast (improved talent wasn't taken).


Out of curiosity, how did you record the number of procs? Did this method of testing either cancel the buff or count refresh events as well as proc events?
To truly model the game, we first must research it.
http://zaldinar.wordpress.com/
Proven TheoryCrafting Stuff, chain casting in a PTR near you soon.

#43 Guest_Aleema_*

Guest_Aleema_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 September 2010 - 03:49 PM

Why not make glyphed FFB a part of the fire rotation?


They did mention not wanting glyphs to change rotations. Other than that, it could be a decent solution to make FFB more useful again. If it had a Mind Blast-like cooldown it would also not mess up frost too much because the chance of getting two Brain Freeze procs in, say, 6 seconds is quite low (don't really have time do to the math, but it's not relevant anyway).

#44 Maje

Maje

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 487 posts

Posted 10 September 2010 - 03:54 PM

Out of curiosity, how did you record the number of procs? Did this method of testing either cancel the buff or count refresh events as well as proc events?

Yes, counting SPELL_AURA_APPLIED and SPELL_AURA_REFRESH. I'm using LogParser to parse the combat logs, making it extremely easy to do.

#45 Karolus

Karolus

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 10 September 2010 - 04:44 PM

Well, today's build settled my fears about Hot Streak. This is a much more graceful change than the one that I had proposed.

I would still like to see an additional active element in the Fire rotation, however.


I agree with you, it did in fact settle the fears about the hotstreak talent which we all enjoy. But you are right about the fire rotations. I still fear it is still the same rotation on a single as WOTLK with the addition of the fire orb. I currently enjoy the build for massive aoe damage, but fear for the uses of many of the talents on a single target.

#46 Tyrian

Tyrian

    Bald Bull

  • Members
  • 2,376 posts

Posted 10 September 2010 - 05:15 PM

One change that hasn't been mentioned yet is the "Impact" proc now has a Graphical Aura Overlay, much like Hot Streak and Fingers of Frost. This should reduce the annoyance of sifting through numerous buffs to check for the proc (or relying on Power Auras) - for what is shaping up to be a key mechanic for fire AOE. Video is here, YouTube - Cataclysm - Mage Spell Effect Changes [12942]

#47 Bashram

Bashram

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 32 posts

Posted 10 September 2010 - 06:38 PM

I have no problem with Frostfire Bolt as a spell. The problem with adding glyphed Frostfire Bolt to Fire's rotation is that it doesn't really change much. With a nine-second duration on the DoT, combined with the global cooldown from Living Bomb and Frostfire Bolt's 2.5 second cast time, we find ourselves in a situation in which we want to refresh the DoT one second after Living Bomb explodes--or, in other words, .5 seconds before we can start casting Frostfire Bolt. In effect, it would just mean that we press two buttons instead of one, then go back to spamming Fireball.

Additionally, we would not be able to cast Frostfire Bolt for maximum efficiency--to do so, we would have to start casting it 1.5 seconds before Living Bomb explodes, which would force us to refresh Living Bomb a second late. Napkin math tells me that one second of the Living Bomb DoT is worth more than three seconds of the Frostfire Bolt DoT, so, we probably do not want to make this choice.

Besides, glyphing in a DoT just seems to be a really clunky way to alter Fire's rotation. I would not object to the Frostfire Bolt glyph at all if we had some other reason to be casting the spell. Or if we gained some additional benefit from having DoTs on the target, like the previous form of Critical Mass. In the first case, the Frostfire glyph is a way to get more damage on a spell that you already want to cast. In the second case, the Frostfire glyph is a way to maximize the potential of one of your talents. In both cases, we are gaining a benefit to something that we already have, not just adding damage to a spell that we would not otherwise cast.

#48 Skallewag

Skallewag

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 152 posts

Posted 10 September 2010 - 06:59 PM

I´s say the simplest way to make FFB a spell used by both fire and frost is to simply add a fire talent that boosts it somehow. For example manipulate the dot so FFB deals more damage than fireball but only if you let the full dot run its course. That way FFB would remain the same for frost (Im under the impression that its in a pretty good spot atm right?) and firemages would want to weave it into our single target rotation. Also it would fit right into the fire theme of dot management.

Edit: Regarding FFB just being one more button to press if it was in our interest to cast it, well... we can´t have it both ways. If we want more than just FB spam we need to be casting something else, and that spell is generally not going to be Scorch, that leaves either hoping for a brand new fire nuke or making an existing one interesting. Well I guess some kind of proc to watch would be a possible solution too, but personally I´d prefer a simple solution like a powerfull dot on FFB. Its not an unreasonable change to hope for till launch and it adresses one of our remaining problems.

Regarding iffy timing between chosing if you want to renew living bomb or FFB I really dont see a problem. Renewing one of them will generally be better and that will be easy to keep in mind. Also remember that this theory will only be relevant on perfectly executed static fights where we stand in one spot nuking our guts out, and that just isn´t the reality of wow very often. Add a bit of movement where you opted to cast a Scorch instead and that seccond of dottime running out is simply gonna happen. Only thing to do is make an on the fly decision what to reapply first and that sounds like a fun method for being a good mage to me.
Plopp plopp kaboom! This is an intelligent signature.

#49 Maje

Maje

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 487 posts

Posted 10 September 2010 - 11:41 PM

I'm all up for more involving rotation however one thing you're all ignoring is that dots are not always a good thing. In a way the more dots your dps is combined from the worse you'll be doing on short fights / adds.

Even at the moment fire isn't very good on adds due to ignite being back-loaded and living bomb/pyro dots; adding yet another spell we use for it's dot would not help. Considering our mastery affects our dots I can see how glad fire mages will be to switch to short lived adds, something like LDW just without the AoE spam.

#50 Skallewag

Skallewag

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 152 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 05:31 AM

That issue is however harder to adress without giving firemages a new spell which at this point isn´t very likely, or a talent to make FFB instant cast but add a cooldown would help us burst on adds. But I doubt blizzard would want to give us something so similar to Arcane Barrage.

Don´t get me wrong, I agree that handling extra ads would be worth looking at. However the main rotation on single target DPS greatly overshadows that problem since using our rotation is something we will be doing all the time while adds is something that happens sometimes. Also its only for when there is just one add that dies somewhat quickly we lack tools.
For when there are two or more ads we have an available talent to help us with.
Plopp plopp kaboom! This is an intelligent signature.

#51 spliff

spliff

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 01:35 PM

- Living Bomb can only be applied to 3 targets


I think this interpretation is wrong; the (actual) spelltext says "The target becomes a Living Bomb, taking 612 Fire damage over 12 sec. After 12 sec or if the spell is reapplied, the target explodes dealing 306 Fire damage to up to 3 enemies within 10 yards.", so i think you can still apply Living Bomb to more than 3 targets. Only the explosion will hit not more than 3 targets.

#52 Zaldinar

Zaldinar

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 336 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 02:21 PM

Spliff, it has been observed on Beta to only be able to exist on three targets at once, and only explodes hitting three targets at once, confirmations are posted on page two of this thread. Tooltips don't matter nearly as much as actual observations do.
To truly model the game, we first must research it.
http://zaldinar.wordpress.com/
Proven TheoryCrafting Stuff, chain casting in a PTR near you soon.

#53 Leguaran

Leguaran

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 195 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 05:43 PM

Not to mention the fact that the tooltip now also reads "The target becomes a Living Bomb, taking 612 Fire damage over 12 sec. After 12 sec or if the spell is reapplied, the target explodes dealing 306 Fire damage to up to 3 enemies within 10 yards. Limited to 3 targets". Emphasis mine, but blizzard completely erased any doubt on what the intended functionality of the spell was. There's no doubt that the target limit being 3 as well as the explosion being 3 is not unintended or a bug. It's just the way it is, it's probably our "cleave" spell now.

#54 Elimbras

Elimbras

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 477 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 07:04 PM

In fact, dot specs have a real difficult time on shorts adds / fights (as LBW or DBS adds). However, multi-dotting is more powerful on fights with several "long" targets of same importance (such as Anub'Arak adds). Or fights with lots of movement / silence (dots keep ticking).

#55 Skallewag

Skallewag

    Piston Honda

  • Members
  • 152 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 07:26 PM

Isn´t this a bit of "grass greener on the other side" kind of thinking? Yes, dot specs struggle with burst damage. But isn´t the general consensus regarding fire that we kinda like the theme and how everything synergizes? I mean sure it would be nice to be awesome at everything, but I can´t help thinking whats the point of being a pure class with several viable raid specs if they don´t have any strengths or weaknesses compared to eachother? Frost has plenty of bursty tools to whip out and adapting to the encounter has never been easier.

Not that I´d complain if we suddenly got a nice new on demand burst tool, it just doesn´t feel like a major problem and I´d be very sad to start trading away any of the current tools that are just so awesome in exchange for something we as a class allready have acess too in the next tree.
Plopp plopp kaboom! This is an intelligent signature.

#56 Bashram

Bashram

    Von Kaiser

  • Members
  • 32 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 09:19 PM

Well, with Combustion being an auto-crit in an upcoming build, it could theoretically be used to force a Hot Streak for semi-burst. If you lined that up with Flame Orb, it would be vaguely burst-y, but probably not true burst. But, as Skallewag said, I'm not sure that Fire necessarily needs to have a big button o' doom. On boss burn phases, we have Molten Fury to give us a nice damage boost. In PvP, burst is supposedly going to be less important than it is now. And, while we may be slightly weaker than others on add phases, we may also be stronger than other on movement phases.

I'm really rather happy with the way that the Fire tree is headed at the moment as a whole. I have a few concerns with the actual rotation and the manner by which Frostfire Bolt looks to be included, but the tree's construction seems very, very solid. My only other worry is that Pyromaniac might mess up our balancing on single-target fights.

#57 arch

arch

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 491 posts

Posted 11 September 2010 - 10:19 PM

Well, with Combustion being an auto-crit in an upcoming build, it could theoretically be used to force a Hot Streak for semi-burst. If you lined that up with Flame Orb, it would be vaguely burst-y, but probably not true burst. But, as Skallewag said, I'm not sure that Fire necessarily needs to have a big button o' doom. On boss burn phases, we have Molten Fury to give us a nice damage boost. In PvP, burst is supposedly going to be less important than it is now. And, while we may be slightly weaker than others on add phases, we may also be stronger than other on movement phases.


Yeah, I concur, I think many people (myself included) forget the fact that both PvP and PvE will be "slower", thus the value of burst will plummet somewhat. It might not be a big deal if fire doesn't have a huge burst as long as it can deliver sustained damage to a degree, which it will be better at with mobile scorch and whatnot.

I'm really rather happy with the way that the Fire tree is headed at the moment as a whole. I have a few concerns with the actual rotation and the manner by which Frostfire Bolt looks to be included, but the tree's construction seems very, very solid. My only other worry is that Pyromaniac might mess up our balancing on single-target fights.


I think the 3 target cap adresses the single-target issue somewhat. Now we can have our single-target damage balanced like all other trees with the addition of cleaving a few more targets. Instead of maybe lowering the single-target damage around the notion of unlimited LB spam (assuming there are fights permitting this).

God, that was a weird way of saying it. Just read: "3 target LB _might_ deal with the single-target dps concern".

EDIT: On a completely unrelated note (I say that alot, I know), can anyone confirm that you can see mobs and players while invisible now?
Guardian of Fire PvP since 2005!

#58 RedMosquito

RedMosquito

    Glass Joe

  • Members
  • 4 posts

Posted 12 September 2010 - 05:04 AM

On a completely unrelated note (I say that alot, I know), can anyone confirm that you can see mobs and players while invisible now?


Yes, confirmed, just tested it.

#59 Zaldinar

Zaldinar

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 336 posts

Posted 12 September 2010 - 01:36 PM

A short test I've done courtesy of free scorch indicates a ~42.5% chance for Hot Streak without the Improved talent, namely 174 scorch crits were cast and 74 Hot Streak procs recorded. I basically stood in one place and spam casted scorch, without using any other spell including Pyroblast (improved talent wasn't taken).


Maje, I just did a similar test to yours to confirm your finding and I'm seeing much closer to a 25% proc rate. I'm showing 114 APPLIED or REFRESH events vs 441 scorch crit events. Do you happen to still have that combat log sitting around?
To truly model the game, we first must research it.
http://zaldinar.wordpress.com/
Proven TheoryCrafting Stuff, chain casting in a PTR near you soon.

#60 Maje

Maje

    Don Flamenco

  • Members
  • 487 posts

Posted 12 September 2010 - 04:01 PM

Yes, I do, I'll re-check it once I get home. Or I could upload it someplace if you want to.

EDIT:
Hot Streak:
type               COUNT(ALL *)
------------------ ------------
SPELL_AURA_APPLIED 19
SPELL_AURA_REFRESH 55
SPELL_AURA_REMOVED 19

Scorch:
iscrit COUNT(ALL *)
------ ------------
1      174
nil    395





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users