What should be done for L65 Mage?

[Dinadass]

"For every 100 casts, a rain has 300 waves. THAT's why you need the penalty. There are 200 more oportunities to crit than a wizard at an equal number of casts. So, Bridger, while your math is correct, you're working the wrong problem.

Scott "

You'll have 3 times the number of actual crits, but each crit only affects 1/3 of the spell. So if a wizard has a 10% chance to crit on his nukes, and a mage has a 10% chance to crit on his rains, they will each do 10% more overall damage than if they had 0% crit. The mage will see 3 times as much "You land a critical hit" messages, but each of the crits only double that wave (IE 1/3 of the spell's total damage).

Adding a second target to the mix doesn't change anything, at least in regards to benefits from crits. The only thing that changes is you're doing twice as much damage. A wave crit still increases your DPS by the same percentage, and having 10% chance to crit will still mean you're doing 10% more total damage than if you had 0% crit.

Whether rains have a penalty to crit or not is kind of irrelevant. I assumed they had the penalty because they would be doing too much damage compared to other classes if they crit normally. If they're doing as much damage as is deemed balanced, you could remove the crit penalty and just lower base damage to compensate so that crit on gear benefits mages as much as other casters.

 

[Animand]

If they're doing as much damage as is deemed balanced, you could remove the crit penalty and just lower base damage to compensate so that crit on gear benefits mages as much as other casters.

This is the only reason I'm posting about this. While mages can be balanced around this, it does mess with the effect of crits, generally making it harder to balance among AA and gear levels. My goal is making this stuff easier to balance for devs (like Cyzaine) so they can spend their time on other things.

WTB Tarhansar aug quests.

 

[Bridger]

Let me try one more time.
Let us suppose for the moment that the spell is not a rain but a normal nuke doing 3d damage per cast. Now in 100 casts this would do 100 x 3d without crit and 100 x 3d x 1.03 damage with crit. ie 300d and 309d respectively.

Now let us split these up into waves. I hope we can agree that having the damage done in 3 chunks spread over time instead of a single chunk will not alter the total damage done. So in the case of no crit we have 300 waves of damage d doing total damage 300d ias expected. In the crit case (as currently implemented)
each wave would have a 1% chance of crit giving a total damage of 300 x d x1.01 giving a toyal damage of 303d.

What should be happening is each WAVE should have a crit chance of 3% giving a total damage of 300 (waves) x d (damage per wave) x 1.03 (crit chance). This would give damage 309d as (I) expected.

Anology in case it helps. If you have 2 cakes A and B with B being 3% bigger than A and if you then cut each cake into 3 slices then the slices of cake B will each be 3% (not 1%) bigger than slices of A.

 

[darksabbath]

Bridger, your problem is that you are comparing a rain on a single target to the single target nuke. Why would you do that. If you are going to go with optimals, then you have to assume 2 targets for the rain. hence, doubling your damage for your equations.. and making the total damage on par with where they want the classes to line up. And meanwhile, your pet(s) will be doing damage also.
To use your cake analogy, if you can have 2 slices of cake, why are you settling for just one?

 

[Volkier]

Butting into the discussion, but I honestly don't feel that a whole's class point / balance - ESPECIALLY at high end, ought to revolve around a chance to crit a spell. It's like trying to choose a main healer based on how much they crit heal for. It's a bonus when it happens, but you simply can't play relying for it to happen in order to succeed. In other words it shouldn't be the big issue / deal as it is. If all spell damage lands have equal % to crit - it's balance - regardless of whether one land does 3000 damage, or 1000 damage (x 3 for the cast).

For anything more / less you can argue anything pretty much. For instance, the person who said that "rains hit two targets at the same time" - one can argue that you can cast 3+ single target nukes in the same time it takes for the rain to cycle - or that in this case the concept would have to be applied to all PBAE's / column type spells.

 

[Dinadass]

Rain crit rate is irrelevant regarding the question of "Do mages do enough damage". What matters is how much damage mages do in comparison to other classes in various situations. Currently, they are balanced around rains critting 1/3 as often as regular spells. If mages are deemed to be fine as far as DPS goes (Which the parses earlier in the thread seem to indicate) then the only reason to change rain crit rate would be so that it scales with crit gear/AA/tomes as well as other spells.

If mage DPS is fine as it is, a change to make rains suddenly crit as often as other spells would have to happen at the same time as rain base damage is lowered so that overall DPS remains about the same. The only way to argue that rains should crit more and still do the same base damage (for an overall increase in damage) would be to show that mages/rains aren't doing enough damage compared to other classes or spells. And I haven't seen anyone back that claim up.

 

[Bridger]

I am claiming that Mages are balanced at lower levels but fall behind as they move to higher level. I am pointing to crits as ONE reason why they do not scale up the same as other classes. It is obvious to me that the decision not to scale rains is just dodgy maths - not a reasoned decision.

Some people are under a delusion that a mage's ability to hit 2 targets is somehow relevant here so let me do the analysis covering this case.

Consider a mage with and without a 3% crit raining 100 times on 2 mobs doing uncrit damage 3d on each target.
Non crit mage does damage 100 x 6d ie 600d

Crit mage does 300 (waves) x 2d (damage) x 1.01 (crit chance) ie 606d

SURPRISE crit mage is doing ONE PERCENT more damage than non crit mage.

NOTE this analysis assumes that in a 2 target situation a wave causes 4d damage whenever it crits ie a crit does double damage against BOTH mobs whenever it goes off. (297 waves at 2d plus 3 waves at 4d giving 606d) I pretty confident that this does not happen. So far from gaining in 2 target situation mages fail to get even a 1% crit gain from crit 3 in a 2 target situation.

 

[Animand]

Yes, it has been successfully explained why the crit chance being divided by number of waves or mobs makes no sense with the way it's coded.

Yes, it has been successfully explained that the current way means mages get the short end of the stick on how worn/buff/AA crit chance boosts would give less benefit to a mage's rains.

This much seems to have been done, but any fixes or changes aren't going to be immediate. Working on how best to implement any needed changes should then be the focus IMO.

 

[Cyzaine]

I am claiming that Mages are balanced at lower levels but fall behind as they move to higher level. I am pointing to crits as ONE reason why they do not scale up the same as other classes. It is obvious to me that the decision not to scale rains is just dodgy maths - not a reasoned decision.

Some people are under a delusion that a mage's ability to hit 2 targets is somehow relevant here so let me do the analysis covering this case.

Consider a mage with and without a 3% crit raining 100 times on 2 mobs doing uncrit damage 3d on each target.
Non crit mage does damage 100 x 6d ie 600d

Crit mage does 300 (waves) x 2d (damage) x 1.01 (crit chance) ie 606d

SURPRISE crit mage is doing ONE PERCENT more damage than non crit mage.

NOTE this analysis assumes that in a 2 target situation a wave causes 4d damage whenever it crits ie a crit does double damage against BOTH mobs whenever it goes off. (297 waves at 2d plus 3 waves at 4d giving 606d) I pretty confident that this does not happen. So far from gaining in 2 target situation mages fail to get even a 1% crit gain from crit 3 in a 2 target situation.

Very well, lets give you this point for the moment.

You still haven't given any supporting evidence that this is actually a problem, other than being inconsistent. Seems to me the solution right now to your gripe would be to get rid of the /3 (great for the code anyway), and lower all rains across the board by 3%. Because there is still exactly 0 numbers to show that a magician, with his pet out, is doing significantly less damage then his peers. Got something to show otherwise?

 

[Latten]

Mage pets are in trouble when
(e) Mobs autoriposte
(f) Mobs enrage

Solution attack the pets from behind.

 

[Dinadass]

Very well, lets give you this point for the moment.

You still haven't given any supporting evidence that this is actually a problem, other than being inconsistent. Seems to me the solution right now to your gripe would be to get rid of the /3 (great for the code anyway), and lower all rains across the board by 3%. Because there is still exactly 0 numbers to show that a magician, with his pet out, is doing significantly less damage then his peers. Got something to show otherwise?

This.

To whatever anonymous Mage neg repped my last post because "Being better off overall with another dps class in almost every situation begs to differ" I'd like to see some numbers to back that up. Every parse posted so far shows mages that are doing just fine. Maybe you not being wanted in groups/raids is for a reason other than the class you play?

 

[DookeyKing]

You'll have 3 times the number of actual crits, but each crit only affects 1/3 of the spell. So if a wizard has a 10% chance to crit on his nukes, and a mage has a 10% chance to crit on his rains, they will each do 10% more overall damage than if they had 0% crit. The mage will see 3 times as much "You land a critical hit" messages, but each of the crits only double that wave (IE 1/3 of the spell's total damage).

Critting 9 times for 1/3 damage is exactly the same as 3 times at full damage. The reason I posted that is because Bridger was using 100 WAVES as his example which is wrong.

Scott

 

[Bridger]

Well my thanks to Cyzaine for his patient consideration of my rants.

While this suggestion is obviously more sensible than current arrangements, (a) it is not quite the outcome I was hoping for (surprising you not at all I guess) and (b) I am not sure how well it would be received by mages lower down the crit ladder. At least I would be better off and that is all that matters. (joke)

I would also like to make another suggestion regarding rains.
Would it be possible to include a switch whereby rains could be limited to a single target and would terminate if that target died.
This would mean that they could be used in many situations that they currently cannot, mezzed targets, close encounters etc.

With regards to your request for numbers unfortunately I have none. I suspect that anything meaningful will be very hard to come by as Mage damage is very situational and would only be worth anything if the other toons in the comparison were of virtually equal tier. Even then we would probably have different views as to where mage should rank in comparison. :tinfoil:

Thanks again

 

[Animand]

Seems to me the solution right now to your gripe would be to get rid of the /3 (great for the code anyway), and lower all rains across the board by 3%.

I'm with you up with everyone but when you said 3%. Since the damage added from critical hits scaled different with rains, then the getting rid of the /3 is a great idea. Lowering the rain damage by some amount is perfectly reasonable as well. However, lowering rain damage by 3% would balance it only for people with ~4.7% crit chance under ideal conditions. Anyone with lower chance to crit will now do less damage on average, and people with higher crit chance will now do more damage on average. This means any mage with Spell Casting Fury 3 will get a damage boost.

I'm mentioning this all because I can do the calculations for what to lower rain damage by, but I'm missing the data on where mages should be at the low and high end compared to where they are now. If you want to see what I'm working from, ask.

 

[Dinadass]

With regards to your request for numbers unfortunately I have none. I suspect that anything meaningful will be very hard to come by as Mage damage is very situational and would only be worth anything if the other toons in the comparison were of virtually equal tier. Even then we would probably have different views as to where mage should rank in comparison. :tinfoil:
Thanks again

Guild raids are usually comprised of different classes with similar levels of gear. We have several different parses in this very thread where Mage DPS stacks up favorably against other classes (Even the parses from TU raids where the mage was lesser geared/tomed). It really is not hard to have a parsing program running when you raid and see just how your damage compares with the other people present.

As far as different views as to where mages should rank, my opinion is this:

On single targets, wizards and rogues should be on top. The other DPS classes should be similar with one another, but behind wizards and rogues. So mage, necro, ranger, monk, beastlord should all be pretty even. Bards, tanks, healers, and enchanters would be lower (If the enchanter is just nuking/dotting/etc, charming and DPS contributions from GoG/Curses/etc are a different ballgame).

On multiple targets, mages would be higher in the pecking order. Wizards are competitive, necros can do well, while the melee DPS classes are lower unless they have a burst AE stance or something.

How does your opinion differ from this? I know you mentioned earlier that mages should do at least 50% more DPS than rogues/monks, and if that was a serious claim then I really don't think you'll ever be happy with your class or this server.

 

[Bridger]

I can only offer anecdotal evidence but since I have been asked here goes.

(1) When I joined my current guild I was greeted with "A mage - there is a novelty - we have not had a mage on any of our raids for at least 12 months"

(2) It is common within our guild for people to "borrow" others toons to bot into raids or groups. I have NEVER been asked for my toon to be used for that purpose.

(3) The top 5 Mages all gave up playing their toons (though Sintasia does now seem to be back)

(4) No other guild/player has thought it worthwhile playing these toons in their owner's absence

(5) Aisling who has forgotten more about Mage than I will ever know advises play any toon - but do NOT play Mage

(6) My view is that damage you do should scale inversely with AC (survivability) hence casters > melee > tanks

(7) My view of "balance" is that characters of equal tier should be equally attractive as a member of your group or raid. At current damage levels Mage (IMO) comprehensively fails this test. At this point people usually spout "utility" but hey I have just had a "brilliant idea". Let's give all these shitty ball aching vending jobs to a rogue re-label him "utility" take a big chunk of damage off him and give it to Mage. What a win/win outcome for Mage that would be.

Convinced?

No I thought not. But you tell me why you would ever take a Mage ahead of a Rogue on any group.

Do I think tinkering with Pet survivability will convert Mage into a "desirable" character? - Uhmm - No

 

[Tesselajnen]

Please, do get Gamparse and parse raids/groups you do. Mage DPS is NOT in the bottom of thoose lists, not on raids nor in groups.

And YES if the pet gets better suvivability the mage class will be even stronger (~40% of the total DPS is a big thing and if pet gets stronger and can suvivie more OMG that would be perfect for mages.)

I am amazed that you dont know how much DPS your own class really is...

http://gambosoft.com/ <-- Download program, start parsing and be ready to see the DPS you do! (Combine several fights so you will see the average, not just short/long fights but both, that will give you a even more correct picture of your DPS.)

 

[Thade]

I can only offer anecdotal evidence but since I have been asked here goes.

(1) When I joined my current guild I was greeted with "A mage - there is a novelty - we have not had a mage on any of our raids for at least 12 months"

(2) It is common within our guild for people to "borrow" others toons to bot into raids or groups. I have NEVER been asked for my toon to be used for that purpose.

(3) The top 5 Mages all gave up playing their toons (though Sintasia does now seem to be back)

(4) No other guild/player has thought it worthwhile playing these toons in their owner's absence

(5) Aisling who has forgotten more about Mage than I will ever know advises play any toon - but do NOT play Mage

(6) My view is that damage you do should scale inversely with AC (survivability) hence casters > melee > tanks

(7) My view of "balance" is that characters of equal tier should be equally attractive as a member of your group or raid. At current damage levels Mage (IMO) comprehensively fails this test. At this point people usually spout "utility" but hey I have just had a "brilliant idea". Let's give all these shitty ball aching vending jobs to a rogue re-label him "utility" take a big chunk of damage off him and give it to Mage. What a win/win outcome for Mage that would be.

Convinced?

No I thought not. But you tell me why you would ever take a Mage ahead of a Rogue on any group.

Do I think tinkering with Pet survivability will convert Mage into a "desirable" character? - Uhmm - No

The problem is you're assuming the problem with the maeg is damage, which in reality, it is not--it's utility. Beastlords face a lot of the same problem. Even if you do the same amount of damage as say a monk, a ranger or anything else (Which you do, if not more by a small margin ) you have nothing else to offer that matters. You have an FR Buff, which can be easily made up with a few gear swaps. You have mod rods which are about 8 ft over cap which even in a ten minute fight is nice, but no where near required.

I think really, the solution, lies in the elemental forms. Some sort of utility that is strong enough to say "we'd take a mage over a 2nd monk, or ranger, or second any other class" rather than "we'll take mage if nothing else with more survivability" is here.

My thought is a spell/ability I'm calling bestow elements. Basically, share something of your current elemental form with one person. Takes a buff slot.

Earth: Ravenward 2.0. 100/200/300 hp, 3/6/10 point ds, 5/15/25 ac. obviously doesn't stack with raven ward. but, unlike raven ward has a 100% uptime.

Air: weapon proc. 33/66/100 point proc, -200 mr adjust High high proc rate. Doesn't stack with and over writes rbow.

Water: Out of ideas and It's 5 am! i'll finish this tomorrow.

Fire: Grants a proc on spells. Not really sure what the base should be but maybe like 2k total damage? proc rate based on the mana cost of the spell per standard bracer proc rules. doesn't stack with rbow also!

 

[Bridger]

You may well be right Thade that I have been concentrating exclusively on damage dealing.

But step (1) is to get people to recognize that as it stands Mage is a deeply non valued (rightly or wrongly) character that Groups/Raid are more than happy to do without.

Step (2) is to decide what to do about it.

From a personal standpoint I have a deep loathing of the "utility" tag. You seem to get a load of shitty jobs to do in exchange for which you get less dps - lose/lose. Please Please Please take them off me and give me more dps.

I do not believe simply giving a more survivable pet will change anything.

 

[Rorne]

Please Please Please take them off me and give me more dps.

I do not believe simply giving a more survivable pet will change anything.

Pet changes (tomes especially) will only increase your dps. I don't want to sound sarcastic but basically you don't give a crap about your pet (which allows you to deal part of your dps in physical damage), want minimal utility, and a focus on DPS. I think what you are looking for is a wizard.

Pointing to the top 5 really means nothing. I will tell you what top 5 players have in common: They play a ton and they are prone to burn out.

(4) No other guild/player has thought it worthwhile playing these toons in their owner's absence

That's because you're not a keystone class. If you're argument is that a raid can go on without a mage but not without a cleric well duh. Does this mean you class isn't valuable? No. It just means your job of DPS is interchangeable with other classes.

(6) My view is that damage you do should scale inversely with AC (survivability) hence casters > melee > tanks

I think the acronym you were searching for a HP, at least I really hope so.



And lastly

(5) Aisling who has forgotten more about Mage than I will ever know advises play any toon - but do NOT play Mage

*Summons cross and gets up on it*