---

Q u o t e:


Buff Frost & Blood in consequence, it's still retarded that you can stack 140 poppables & procs and have those apply for an entire fight on something that is quite a sizeable part of your damage (especially with 4t9)

---

which is why the 4pct9 is being broken in 3.3. threads like this are stupid.

From Mothric

---

Q u o t e:

WAAAAAAAAAH!!!


Do you honestly think that if blizz intended to stick with encounters that have 3-5 mobs they wouldn't make some changes, honestly? Do you pay attention at all? Have you noticed that 66% of the fights seen so far don't even have adds? Do you realize that if they made sweeping changes to a class they wouldn't come till new content arrives and therefor has no bearing on current content?

---

I think you are pretty foolish if you think Blizzard is purposly designing ecounters that dont have 3-5 adds because Warriors would be out of balance.

Much better to nerf Warrior Multi-target/AOE like they are DK's and then design the best content they can.

Although by your statement you at least seem to finally admit that warriors are not in balance with all the encounters with adds- and would require nerfs/changes - after 40 some posts claiming the opposite.

this is a reply to the blues coment i personally have seen you say not those #`s far too often and request that you come up with somthing to test baseline #`s so that yes indeed we do have somthing to check spec changes against and call you on nerfs and the like im tired of seeing you play peek a boo over the fence about the dps saying oh thats wrong because we dont know how you set it up and if you guys put out the addon/spreadsheet then everyone is working off the same page and we wont have you wasting you time on telling us we GUESSED wrong on which spreadsheet/damage meter we were OBVIOUSLY supposed to use/set up correctly , also as far as your posted efforts fo all to join in on the forums make it somthing simple enuf for all the people you want to join you at the forums to use, i`ld like mine spedometer flavoured pls thnx.,

The reasons arcane mages are on the list is because Incanter's Absorption is bugged. During the twins encounter, it counts all the damage absorbed by the twin's buff as damage toward this buff (thus giving them the 5% of their health maximum). Which roughly increases their spell power by about 1k or so.

Also they use priest shields (in addition to their own) in other encounters to keep this buff up most of the time.

Personally I don't think Blizzard intended for this ability to be used in this manner, I had thought originally it was to be used for the mages own personal absorptions (mana shield, etc). I think this would rebalance it.

DKs... ah dks... hard one to fix considering blizzard added so many encounters with adds that DKs can simple pestilence with the press of a button. I think there's a fundamental flaw in that the DKs dots do too much damage (i.e. the AP coe is too high). I think that the dots themselves should be brought down (by scaling back the AP they gain in SP) and then adjust the damage they do to their primary target by having diseases up (if they are found too low after the change). Mind you these are my personal thoughts, but being a hybrid class and working the meters on any fight that has more than 1 mob up just seems flawed.

---

Q u o t e:
I try to say "posting with numbers makes your argument stronger," and that's true. Some players then just pop out a link to Simulationcraft or Wowmeteronline or whatever. *Nothing* is wrong with *either* of those tools when used correctly. The problem is too many players use them as the true and accurate measurement of what someone's dps really is. What someone's max dps really is is essentially unknowable. It varies a lot depending on the encounter, gear, raid synergy, the person behind the keyboard, latency, whether someone was trying to inflate the numbers, and a host of other factors. It is almost certainly *not* what *your* dps is. If you are not topping the charts, it is rarely because of the factors measured by tools such as these.

---

The way I look at these tools is this:

First, they can be useful in assembling data for specs on which we simply can't practically gather a lot of real-world data. If you want to know how a Smite build would compare in raids, these tools are helpful, because you're not going to find any real-world Smite Priests raiding competitively.

Second, they provide a useful baseline from which you can then expand your analysis. Use the tool to generate an analysis of performance on a particular kind of fight. Then comes the thinking part. How representative is this kind of fight? Which specs are going to gain or lose the most when you deviate from this kind of fight? Sometimes the tool can be useful in estimating these gains and losses, sometimes not.

Using the example I'm most familiar with, take Arcane, Fire and Frost. Say the tool shows us that they perform at (respectively) 1.0, 0.96 and 0.8. Now say we tell the tool to insert 10% movement, and the tool now shows us that they perform at 0.9, 0.89, and 0.65. (These are not accurate numbers, I'm just illustrating the concept.)

So this tells us that the tool thinks that introducing movement will improve Fire's performance relative to Arcane's, and decrease Frost's performance relative to Arcane's and Fire's. First we ask ourselves: does this seem reasonable? Well, Fire has a hard-hitting Fire Blast and Living Bomb, and Arcane has Arcane Barrage, both of which can be fired on the move. Frost has Ice Lance and maybe a Brain Freeze Fireball, but those depend on procs that may not be available for some or most movement phases. So yes, it does seem fairly reasonable.

So we check the detailed info on the output, and we see that, indeed, as movement is introduced into the fight, a larger percentage of Fire's damage is coming from Fire Blast and Living Bomb, and a percentage of Arcane's is coming from Arcane Barrage, while Frost's damage from Ice Lance and Fireball is not increasing by very much. So the simulator agrees with our thought process. If they disagreed, we'd want to try to figure out which was right, but agreement is a good sign.

Now we ask, is the degree of change reasonable? This is harder to quantify; it's very mathy, and this is one of those places where even if you do work out a reasonable calculated solution to the problem, it may not be realistic to expect that a real-life player is going to perform in the manner you expect. For example, one significant issue raises its head in our movement question: is the Fire Mage close enough to the target to use his Fire Blasts? The simulator assumes he is, but that puts constraints on his movement that could have an adverse effect on the encounter.

So what it comes down to is:

A sim can give you a pretty solid estimate of performance in a specific situation. The more likely it is that a player can actually perform as predicted in that situation -- meaning mainly, the simpler the encounter -- the more accurate the sim is likely to be.

But it's only a starting point. From there, you need to mess with what the sim can do to simulate variant scenarios, and check that against your own reasoning, and accept that these estimates are going to drift further from reality as the encounters get more complex.

If a simulator shows that Spec A is 30% behind Spec B in a simple encounter, Spec A probably really does have a problem (particularly if multiple simulators agree that it's pretty close to 30%). If a simulator shows that Spec A is 10% behind Spec B in a simple encounter, that's a much more difficult thing. If Spec A gains on Spec B as you introduce movement or burst phases or something like that, then maybe it's actually in a pretty decent place. If Spec B gains on Spec A in cases like that, then Spec A probably still has problems. But figuring that part out requires a lot of discussion (and hopefully testing) to hash things out, and the sims can only go so far to help you with that aspect of the analysis.

---

Q u o t e:


Aw. :(

---

GC made a funny

tehe

---

Q u o t e:

You mean we should look at damage to boss (http://www.wowmeteronline.com/rank/clazz/dtb/all/8/0/3 ) and see that aside from FC hybrids are pretty much nonexistant? NO, there is only meter padding!
BOOHOO!

---

Count em up pal, more hybrids than rogues.

Throwing out the DK sheer dominance on Faction Champs:

Hybrids: 29 Spots scattered throughout, Rogues 8 Spots (all on one fight).

---

Q u o t e:

So on the one hand, it feels unfair for us to say "post numbers" and then reply "no, not those numbers" when players try it. But we do ask that you consider what impact your post is going to have. There are several widely available tools, spreadsheet, simulators and websites of raid logs. Most likely the other players you are talking to, and particularly Blizzard, are familiar with them all. Ask yourself if you are really sharing new information when your post consists of a very brief "See? We are low. Here is my quote or link." At the very least try and provide some analysis if you can.

Not everyone is going to be an expert theorycrafter or mathematics expert, and we're not expecting you to be one in order to participate in these forum discussions. But also be honest about the fact that linking to someone else's work doesn't necessarily turn you into one either.

---

Now I know GC made a post regarding the "sticky wicket" of posting numbers and interpreting them, However, provided there is nothing inherently wrong with the data collection mechanism for WoW meters online, AND knowing that the sample size is fairly small (onloy top 20, whereas an average of the top 500 would be better) for these classes, I think there are some interesting trends appearing that, if I were a dev, would warrant some further investigation.

I'm eyeballing the top 50 on WOW meters (normal mode only - let's assume hard mode requires more unique approaches that don't fall under the approach of 'bring the player' or the 5% rule of thumb), and I can see some trends.

#1) There appears to be a trend that warriors and death knights are doing more damage than they "should" be (i.e. above "pure" classes on the whole). This may be because the classes are overpowered, or something else like armor pen is just too good, or their short dps rotations are optimal...don't know.

#2) There appears to be a trend that warlocks really aren't holding up well in ToC normal and fall below most classes overall, consistently falling roughly somewhere between 5-20% below the #2 DPS slot. Maybe they need buffs or their gear itemization is not optimal...don't know.

#3) Priests are in a similar boat, where they seem to consistently fall near the bottom in terms of dps.

#4) Druids initially appear to be a little low, but when compared to "pure" classes, they seem to be about right, relatively speaking. So I guess this last one isn't anything unusual.

#5) Mages seem to be in really good shape overall, except in a couple of fights where they appear to be mind-crushingly powerful. Perhaps that has to do with the encounter and isn't a big deal...dunno.

#6) There is a truly anomalous number here - Death Knights in the Champions fight are way out of whack. There's something odd going on in that encounter which is giving DK's a huge advantage. dunno why - and maybe it's a truly unique thing that has to do with the nature of the pvp encounter..


Edit: In conclusion, I guess I agree with GC on the whole. While I would not treat something like WoW meters as gospel, I would view it for what it is and see if there is anything worthwhile I can take away from it. Not knowing the fidelity of the tool, I would say this data is better suited for identifying potential trends and relative dps of the different class/specs.

In the future I would encourage the original poster to extract a larger sample size if he/she could.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(referenced site)
http://www.wowmeteronline.com/rank/classrank/8#

well moonkins are getting their asses handed to them.

---

Q u o t e:


Yes, it's absolutely a useful tool and I'm sure it will just get better over time as it gets further refined. The way I would use it would be to ask "What happens if I swap out this talent or piece of gear or used this spell?" or "With the 3.3 changes to Shadow priests, what happens to my dps?" The way I would not use it would be to say "Simulationcraft shows Demo warlocks at 11,000 dps and Desto at 9000 dps. Please buff me."

---

you are up early. well, early for me that is.

---

Q u o t e:
they need to cap pestilence to a max of 5 targets and make death and decay an aoe spell instead of a debuff on the mobs

dks are majorly op and easy to play compared to other classes hell half of the time they dont even need to target the mobs they are aoeing they can just transfer diseases and dnd and stay on the boss

dks beating pures on almost every fight in the game makes me unhappy a couple of fixes alot of the problems should be fixed

---

Because every class needs to target the mobs they are AoEing, because AoE is hard? infact DK's are the only class that need setup time to do full dmg on AoE.

Your solutions are short sighted and sound like idiotic nerfs for Unholy tanking. Death and decay is not a debuff, by your stupid logic flamestrike is a debuff.

A single set bonus is causing the problem, 50% of that set bonus is being removed.

---

Q u o t e:


Because every class needs to target the mobs they are AoEing, because AoE is hard? infact DK's are the only class that need setup time to do full dmg on AoE.

Your solutions are short sighted and sound like idiotic nerfs for Unholy tanking. Death and decay is not a debuff, by your stupid logic flamestrike is a debuff.

A single set bonus is causing the problem, 50% of that set bonus is being removed.

---

are you always this angry and raged?

---

Q u o t e:


Yes, it's absolutely a useful tool and I'm sure it will just get better over time as it gets further refined. The way I would use it would be to ask "What happens if I swap out this talent or piece of gear or used this spell?" or "With the 3.3 changes to Shadow priests, what happens to my dps?" The way I would not use it would be to say "Simulationcraft shows Demo warlocks at 11,000 dps and Desto at 9000 dps. Please buff me."

---

Exactly. With the Shadow Priest module in particular I added extra constants that can be tweaked to experiment with stuff and to enable or disable parts of the 3.3 changes etc. And my own personal use of it (when not coding it) is indeed along the lines of seeing what happens when I use different pieces of gear etc.

There's still a long way to go before I myself am 100% happy with it, but that's okay, it's a fun coding exercise. :)

---

Q u o t e:
"Please buff," doesn't give us much to work with.

---

Going back to what I said earlier:

---

Q u o t e:
If a simulator shows that Spec A is 30% behind Spec B in a simple encounter...(and) Spec B gains on Spec A (when you deviate from a simple encounter), then Spec A probably still has problems.

---

So in a hypothetical case like this, do you just give Spec A more raw power? Or do you give it tools to better handle movement/burst phases/aoe other common fight elements that it has difficulty dealing with? It helps a lot more to say, "Spec A seems to lag behind Spec B, and we think it's because it's just not very good at dealing with X, and X seems to be important in a lot of encounters."

---

Q u o t e:


This is going to sound harsh, but given the tone of your post I'm going to assume you're comfortable with harsh. This basically reads to me as "Because you didn't make the changes I wanted, this forum is a farce."

---

when is ICC coming out :)