> *Ponders* A way to fix mages in pvp :)

[Affx]

Originally Posted by Celestior

And again, you're failing to recognize that comp>class when we talk about competitive arena. What does class individually matter when there's no 1v1 bracket. What's important is that each class shares enough synergy with another to be viable in arena. And the fact is that mages do.

Because I know from first hand experience that's not how Blizzard approaches the problem. You fix individual classes, you get them performing well on their own (don't mistake this for 'performs well 1v1'), and then you make class-neutral synergy changes to account for 'power comps'.

The problem with balancing solely based on comps is that you can potentially design a class that is horribly broken on it's own, but does fine when paired with other classes that can utilize one piece of utility that class has. If I can demonstrate using hyperbole: Imagine if Druids could do nothing but cast Cyclone and Hots, but Cyclone had no DR and could be used on multiple targets. The class would be terribly designed, would be boring, painfully incomplete, and an absolute nightmare to play.

Would it succeed? Honestly, yes, probably. It might be a part of a comp that takes it to exactly 10% representation across the board in all 3 brackets. Would the class be balanced? No, not really. Even if you could consider the comps balanced, the class is broken.

Honestly that's a terrible example, but you get the idea I hope.

45 of the top 100 priests in 3v3 are running rmp. 64 of the top 100 rogues in 3v3 are running rmp. 52 of the top 100 mages in 3v3 are running rmp. Based on that, it seems the vast majority of all three of these classes are running rmp. If you're using the fact that most mages are running rmp as a statistic indicating that mages do not perform well with other classes, then that evidence can be used in the same manner to prove that priests and rogues cannot perform competitively without a mage holding their hand.

I think that's probably not accurate based on representation trending. At the beginning of every season I can remember, RMP representation skyrockets at the beginning, as it produces fast games and high ratings really quickly. As the season progresses, RMP representation drops. But interestingly, Rogue and Priest representation tends to stay pretty high, but Mage representation does not - it drops. This suggests that non-RMP Rogue or Priest comps remain competitive late in the season, whereas non-RMP Mage comps start slipping.

More importantly, more rogues in the top 100 play rmp then do mages. Perhaps its mages peeling that are allowing rogues to get their damage off. Perhaps its mage peels allowing priests to survive in arena. Or perhaps, arena is about synergy and not individual class balance, as the bracket sizes imply. If you're arguing about mages individually, argue it on the wow mage forums and not on arenajunkies.

Speaking about Mages individually needing buffs in arena is very specific to arena, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that Mage buffs, for the purpose of arena, are not relevant to AJ

Okay, so rmp doesn't need a buff. But more rogues and almost as many priests are running rmp as are mages.

True only on the SK-100 3v3, but this trend breaks down outside of the top ~0.001%. This suggests that RMP is the best comp for not only Mages but also Rogues and Priests, but that both Rogues and Priests have better non-RMP alternatives than Mages do. If RMP is nerfed, we're left with Rogues and Priests having viable fallbacks, and Mages falling very far. This is why your idea of balancing based on comps instead of classes fails: It is incredibly fragile and potentially volatile.

Perhaps rogues and priests are having trouble running comps outside of rmp. Guess they need buffs too. So we need to buff all three classes while making rmp weaker. Hm... Kk guess we'll put all their ccs on dr and make frostbolts do 50% less damage on poisoned targets. :<

They're not, though. The weakness of SK-100 3v3 is that it shows what comps are the best in the most capable hands, but gives almost no insight in to non-ideal (I use that word literally) alternatives.

Unless they implement a 1v1 bracket your arguments have no merit. Comps and synergy are more important than individual class balance. You keep saying, "the comps where mages do well are fine, but mages aren't." I find that to be a rather weak argument, because the fact that such comps exist means that mages have the means to be competitive. And rankings prove that.

You're arguing against a point I'm not making, which is that the best-of-the-best Mage comps need buffing. That's obviously an incredibly easy straw man to debate against, which is why I'm not making that point

[Affx]

Really we've come to a philosophical impasse: You seem think that if a class has a composition in which it can achieve #1, it is balanced (correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't want to put words in your mouth). I think that a class should be balanced based on factors that are significantly less volatile than the current best compositions.

It'd be beneficial to the welfare of the forums if you'd recognize that both points of view have merit, and that substantiating your claims past anecdotal evidence is necessary when talking about something like this.

[Globaled]

Speaking about Mages individually needing buffs in arena is very specific to arena, I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that Mage buffs, for the purpose of arena, are not relevant to AJ

I'm saying that individual buffs have less bearing on arena than synergy does. Thought that was clear.

I think that's probably not accurate based on representation trending. At the beginning of every season I can remember, RMP representation skyrockets at the beginning, as it produces fast games and high ratings really quickly. As the season progresses, RMP representation drops. But interestingly, Rogue and Priest representation tends to stay pretty high, but Mage representation does not - it drops. This suggests that non-RMP Rogue or Priest comps remain competitive late in the season, whereas non-RMP Mage comps start slipping.

It's not early in the season, and all of this is speculative.

True only on the SK-100 3v3, but this trend breaks down outside of the top 0.001%. This suggests that RMP is the best comp for not only Mages but also Rogues and Priests, but that both Rogues and Priests have better non-RMP alternatives than Mages do. If RMP is nerfed, we're left with Rogues and Priests having viable fallbacks, and Mages falling very far. This is why your idea of balancing based on comps instead of classes fails: It is incredibly fragile and potentially volatile.

Except on arenajunkies we are talking about the upper percentile of arena players. You're also tactfully ignoring the fact that only 50% of mages in the top 100 are running RMP. Those "top" mages don't seem to care about your assertion that mages are weak outside of RMP. Arguably, that would remain relatively consistent unless you're arguing that after the top 100 99% of mages are running rmp.

They're not, though. The weakness of SK-100 3v3 is that it shows what comps are the best in the most capable hands, but gives almost no insight in to non-ideal (I use that word literally) alternatives.

But seeing as how rmp only represents 50% of top 100 mage players in 3s, it gives plenty of insight into the fact that there are alternatives that are viable at the highest level.

You're arguing against a point I'm not making, which is that the best-of-the-best Mage comps need buffing. That's obviously an incredibly easy straw man to debate against, which is why I'm not making that point

And you're not understanding my point. I'm not saying that you want the best of the best mage comps to be buffed. My point is that the best of the best mage comps are the best of the best comps overall. That is why I am saying they don't need buffs.

That's your fallacy. You claim that mages need to be looked at individually and that they have to be individually buffed. There is no way to buff mages individually without buffing our power comps. You claim that Blizzard will not look at synergy and will only buff individual classes to put them up to par. In that case, your argument that mages need to be buffed individually and mage power comps being buffed are inherently the same.

[Garii]

Originally Posted by affix

significantly less volatile than the current best compositions.

Both arguments are valid, and i will go as far as to say that for the sake of the non 3v3 and 5v5 balance, balancing classes on their own should take priority. However, the "goodness" of RMP has been anything but volatile.

Anyway, i have read the last few pages of this thread and found no suggestions Affix about how to buff mage's viability in other comps and at the same time not improve (and maybe even nerf) the dominance of RMP. Would you care to give me a few examples?

[Garii]

Originally Posted by Celestior

You claim that mages need to be looked at individually and that they have to be individually buffed. There is no way to buff mages individually without buffing our power comps.

But Affix asserts he can buff them individually without buffing the best comp. I am really curious about how, would love to see his suggestions.

[Globaled]

But Affix asserts he can buff them individually without buffing the best comp. I am really curious about how, would love to see his suggestions.

It's pretty clear that this makes no sense, it's not possible. A buff for mages is a buff for RMP. Period. Unless you look at it in terms of synergy. Affix, you're also incorrect in your assertion that Blizzard does not look at balance in terms of synergy. One simple example, Fear and Blind being put on shared DRs. Was not an individual nerf, was a huge nerf to players playing a specific comp.

[Affx]

Originally Posted by Gari

But Affix asserts he can buff them individually without buffing the best comp. I am really curious about how, would love to see his suggestions.

A past example might have been: Penance sucked, didn't heal for enough (or it was too much mana? I forget which), so they buffed Priests, even though their representation in 2v2/3v3 as Priest/Rogue and RMP was quite high. Priest/Rogue became too good, so they moved Blind to Fear DR. Priests buffed, Rogue/Priest and RMP remain relatively unchanged (or, changed, but not buffed).

Personally I think Frostbolt needs a 15-20% damage buff, and Tricks should be changed to a haste buff that does not stack with PI. It'll nerf Warlock burst in RLS, it'll slightly nerf the amount of damage a Mage can do with Tricks up, and it'll result in a net buff to Mages outside of comps where they play with Rogues.

[Garii]

Originally Posted by affix

Tricks should be changed to a haste buff

Not going to happen, two reasons:

- PvE whise this would be a noticable change, PvE comes first

- Rogues would QQ a lot, a LOT

Also, this would buff mages in 1v1, which doesnt matter, but where they thend to dominate.

I was thinking more of a change that didn't involve buffing mages and nerfing rogues or priests. Just changing frost mages mechanics to work more with PvP gear and less with PvE.

[Globaled]

Personally I think Frostbolt needs a 15-20% damage buff, and Tricks should be changed to a haste buff that does not stack with PI. It'll nerf Warlock burst in RLS, it'll slightly nerf the amount of damage a Mage can do with Tricks up, and it'll result in a net buff to Mages outside of comps where they play with Rogues.

Which is also a huge net buff to mages playing mage/priest, a comp you already admitted to being a dominant comp in 2s. Which already fails the "buff mages individually without buffing mage power comps" test.

[Toughone]

Originally Posted by Celestior

Which is also a huge net buff to mages playing mage/priest, a comp you already admitted to being a dominant comp in 2s. Which already fails the "buff mages individually without buffing mage power comps" test.

Blizzard officially stopped balancing around 2s so it wouldn't matter at all. (Actually they never balanced around 2s but at least they included it when considering changes prior to this season)