well the code is obviously easy enough to transplant to use it in a glyph as the glyph of corruption is basically nightfall also, so i have a hard time beliving that they can't use that code as a set bonus.

also the plagueheart set had a similar mechanic except it augmented crit rather than cast time and it seemed to work fine.
and the avatar regalia only that augments the spellpower of your next spell.

---

Q u o t e:
C'mon, Graylo. Defend them when they say something defensible.

The answer we were just given made no sense whatsoever. It came across as rushed, lazy and dishonest.

---

Don't get me wrong. I'm as pissed off by his comments as everyone else. I think his comment and the "fix" were increadably flip and lazy. If they really can't make the set bonus work, then come up with a set bonus that can work.

That said, I don't think any of us are really in a position to say dafinatively that this set bonus is possible technically. Yes, Nightfall and 4T8 are very similar. Yes, common sense would say that you could probably use the same programming for both mechanics. However, common sense would also say that unless you know the problem, you don't know how to fix it.

All I'm saying is that there are a lot of smart people at blizzard and I trust them when they say there is a techical issue, because none of us know the code.

Once again that is no excuse for slapping on "fix" that has little or no impact.

---

Q u o t e:
This makes me sick. There is no good reason they can't fix this. The buff to 15% was to make the set bonus a viable DPS upgrade, not to let us live with second-rate broken gear. Now they're using that buff as justification to ignore the issue, which makes me angry. I'm a developer as well and I would be flat out embarrassed to say I couldn't make this logic work when the mechanic already exists elsewhere in the code. I don't care how big a ball of spaghetti the code-base is... there is no reasonable excuse. They don't seem to have an issue using item set bonuses to alter class mechanics in other ways (i.e. dots critting etc) even though talents exist for similar effects elsewhere, why should this be different.

---

QFT.

Anybody who has ever spent time in software development has good reason to feel like thier intelligence has just been insulted, because frankly, it has.

---

Q u o t e:
They may interact in the code much differently. The triggers might be different or when the checks happen for the mechanic.

It isn't as simple that you can automatically assume they are checked the exact same way, especially when set bonuses for proc's are much more new then talent procs code wise.

---

Nothing that a global variable and goto statement can't fix. ;-)

---

Q u o t e:


Considering there are only about three horde raiding guilds on my server not really an option.....and the other guilds have the same rule anyway I already asked. The main problem is that if moonkin can roll on cloth, then wars can roll on leather and blah blah it creates a big mess and lots of complaining. Lots of guilds have the same rule as mine and that is probably not going to change any time soon.

---

Wait.


So not only can't you roll on BiS, but neither can warriors?

No idea where complaining would come in.

---

Q u o t e:
The reason we increased the proc chance from 5% to 15% is because of the issue where you can lose the proc on an existing Starfire. For a number of technical reasons, we can't apply the proc to a spell already being cast.

---

We DO NOT want the current starfire cast to become instantas this could possibly only knock off fractions of a second from the cast time and make the set bonus even more worthless. We want the next cast after the one in which elune's wrath procced to be instant.

Elune's Wrath reads "Your next Starfire will be an instant cast spell"

Lets look at a similar buff in the game, Shadow Trance, this buff is applied to warlocks through the nightfall talent and glyph of corruption. It Reads "Your next Shadow Bolt becomes an instant cast spell"

Is the difference between "will be" and "becomes" the difference between consumption of the proc at the end of the current cast and the initiation of the next? If Not, Then why do these buffs function differently?

(Some tips for the development crew)
Look at the coding for the Shadow Trance buff that a warlock gets after proccing the nightfall talent/glyph and explain why this buff isn't consumed if the warlock is already casting a shadow bolt when they receive the buff until they cast another shadow bolt within 10 seconds

---

Q u o t e:
Don't get me wrong. I'm as pissed off by his comments as everyone else. I think his comment and the "fix" were increadably flip and lazy. If they really can't make the set bonus work, then come up with a set bonus that can work.

That said, I don't think any of us are really in a position to say dafinatively that this set bonus is possible technically. Yes, Nightfall and 4T8 are very similar. Yes, common sense would say that you could probably use the same programming for both mechanics. However, common sense would also say that unless you know the problem, you don't know how to fix it.

All I'm saying is that there are a lot of smart people at blizzard and I trust them when they say there is a techical issue, because none of us know the code.

Once again that is no excuse for slapping on "fix" that has little or no impact.

---

It is absolutely technically possible. It might be that the code is a mess and thus hard to edit, but it is absolutely possible.

Object oriented code has event handlers which trigger the execution of oher code.

There is probably, somewhere in the source code, an event handler called something like on_spellcast-completion_STARFIRE() and something called something like on_spellcast_initiation_STARFIRE().

All we are asking is for them to move the object called something like trigger_balance_4T8() from being invoked by on_spellcast_completion_STARFIRE() to being invoked by on_spellcast_initiation_STARFIRE().

It really is, in general principle, that simple. That is a slightly oversimplified version of how video games are written, but it is most certainly generally how it is done.

On a purely technical level, there isn't any reason it can't be done. It might be difficult, and it may be not desired from a design perspective, but that is not at all what GC said.

I do know of what I speak, and this, frankly, doesn't make any sense to me. If he meant to say "we don't want to do that"... well... that would make sense. But, "we can't do that" is just pure bullpucky.

---

Q u o t e:


<snip>
(Some tips for the development crew)
Look at the coding for the Shadow Trance buff that a warlock gets after proccing the nightfall talent/glyph and explain why this buff isn't consumed if the warlock is already casting a shadow bolt when they receive the buff until they cast another shadow bolt within 10 seconds

---

it may not seem like it from our POV, but i'm sure they devs get paid because they know what they're doing :)

bump for the chickens, if they can't fix it they should just change it.

---

Q u o t e:



it may not seem like it from our POV, but i'm sure they devs get paid because they know what they're doing :)

---

because they could never ever ever make a mistake.....suuuuuuuuuuure

---

Q u o t e:


because they could never ever ever make a mistake.....suuuuuuuuuuure

---

oh they certainly could, but the bug has been reported multiple times and now the lead systems designer has confirmed that they are bound by technical limitations...

seems like you should just change the set bonus, blizzard.

---

Q u o t e:


The problem is that you can't modify a spell's cast time while the spell is already being cast. The tooltip is accurate... if frustrating.

We just talked about it and we might have a solution. It might not be hotfixable, but it shouldn't take until 3.2. We might lower the proc rate if we got it to work however. I'll try and update when we work it out.

---

Can you explain how 4T8 is different then Nightfall or the Glyph of Corruption? To us they sound like the same mechanic, so we don't understand why they are possible, but 4T8 has technical issues.

---

Q u o t e:


The problem is that you can't modify a spell's cast time while the spell is already being cast. The tooltip is accurate... if frustrating.

We just talked about it and we might have a solution. It might not be hotfixable, but it shouldn't take until 3.2. We might lower the proc rate if we got it to work however. I'll try and update when we work it out.

---

I love you! but I thought nightfall did exactly what you mention.

---

Q u o t e:


The problem is that you can't modify a spell's cast time while the spell is already being cast. The tooltip is accurate... if frustrating.

We just talked about it and we might have a solution. It might not be hotfixable, but it shouldn't take until 3.2. We might lower the proc rate if we got it to work however. I'll try and update when we work it out.

---

We're not asking for the proc to finish the Starfire cast, we're asking for it simply not remove the buff at the end of it. We want the buff for the starfire after the cast finishes.

---

Q u o t e:


The problem is that you can't modify a spell's cast time while the spell is already being cast. The tooltip is accurate... if frustrating.

We just talked about it and we might have a solution. It might not be hotfixable, but it shouldn't take until 3.2. We might lower the proc rate if we got it to work however. I'll try and update when we work it out.

---

Well a maybe is better then nothing. ^^

---

Q u o t e:
The problem is that you can't modify a spell's cast time while the spell is already being cast. The tooltip is accurate... if frustrating.

---

That does make sense, but if it is the next Starfire that will be instant-cast, then the cast time should not have yet been calculated?

EDIT: Referring above, maybe I'm misunderstanding what is meant by "next"? It appears that the tooltip means "next Starfire that lands within 10 sec instant"? Is that correct?

---

Q u o t e:


But that isn't your next Starfire. That's the one after the next one. The cast time is determined when the cast begins but the spell itself exists when the casting ends.

Like I said, we might have a solution. The Nightfall one is a little complicated, but that may be what we do.

---

that seems like a very silly set bonus...

I don't mean to be redundant, but without this set bonus functioning like we all expected it to, Moonkins WILL fall behind in DPS like we already are compared to other casters in Ulduar. Having a set bonus that we have to pray for amazing RNG timing for is not something I'd sacrifice other better-itemized non-set pieces for. Wearing tier 7 on hard modes because it's our best pieces means that soon were just going to be replaced for other caster DPS, even other hybrids, now that Moonkin buffs aren't unique.

It would be fantastic if you could maybe give us a preview of your solution that you think you have for it, I can understand the procrate being lowered slightly as it does seem to proc every 4 to 8 seconds for me with IS rolling on one target.

I'm sure you have your numbers and you're hearing this from many places at once, but Moonkins are going to need this bonus or some other buff to compete with casters in Ulduar with better-itemized t8 and bonuses that aren't situational.

Thanks for the responses BTW, it's nice to see <3