Encrypted Text: Why patch 3.1 won't transform Rogues

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

3-18-2009 @ 2:08PM

Matt said...

Ya know, it's not so much that I disagree with what Chase says...it's that he's wrong.

"ensure that the tree remains at the top of the meters..."

Um, gear and skill being relatively equal, Combat is never at the top of the meters in WOTLK so far...it goes bugged-HAT, well-stacked-HAT, HfB, then Combat.

"new bonus to DP proc frequency has also been buffed to ensure that the "poisonless" Mutilate spec of Instant/Instant/Eviscerate will never see the light of day."

Um, IIV is right now the highest non-HAT spec/rotation in the game. It has seen the light of day (I've been using it personally for over a month), and with BiS, is ahead of IDN (and, of course, gimpy combat). The Envenom glyph was removed because it gave a bit of an armor-ignoring boost to HAT (which was already needing to come back to earth), and it made IDN* rupture-free Mutilate cycles possible, defeating the entire purpose of attaching HfB to a bleed.

Could we maybe get someone from EJ, like Aldriana, to write this column, someone who actually knows what's going on with rogues?

3-18-2009 @ 2:51PM

Chase Christian said...

Sorry, I guess all of the data collected by Ippon is incorrect:

http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=15661687745&sid=1

You'll see that Combat beats Mutilate on many fights, and even trumps HAT in certain environments. It's a top-tier spec, and arguing otherwise is arguing against the data.

By light of day, I should've said that it won't survive come 3.1, which is sort of the "daylight / rebirth" of Rogue PvE DPS. Right now we're trying anything, Bugged HaT, Combat Shiv, IIV, etc.

On the topic of the Envenom Glyph... you said exactly what I did:

"was pulled out to prevent HaT Rogues from binding their sole key to Envenom instead of Eviscerate."

Having a Rupture-less Mutilate cycle isn't as big of a concern to GC, as the bleed requirement is to keep it out of PvP instead of limiting our rotations. This has been explicitly stated by the lead Blizzard developer.

I read every post on Elitist Jerks, every Blue post, and most worthwhile threads on the Rogue, Damage Dealing, and PvE forums. Speculating about why something was removed is just that: speculating. And arguing against WWS parses is not a battle that anyone can win.

Why bother rewriting what you can find on EJ? EJ has a collection of brilliant minds working together to give you the best theorycrafting information around. I'm not trying to duplicate that, as many minds are greater than my single brain. What I'm trying to do is inform people about the results of their research, and my own personal opinions on the direction the class is being taken.

3-19-2009 @ 5:56PM

Edondia said...

Matt
He is not wrong he is very right I too check EJ's forums almost daily and everything he has written here supports the data they are posting. You are talking about the current version of WOW not post 3.1. Did you not get the fact that this ENTIRE post is in regards to the state of Rogues post 3.1

Add your comments

Your comments:

Remember me

E-Mail me when someone replies to this comment

Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.

When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.

To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.