Class Q&A: Mage
by Eliah Hecht 
Jun 19th 2009 at 7:00AM
Second up in the class Q&A (Shamans were first) are Mages, those lovable glass cannons. Or are they? The Q&A opens with Ghostcrawler discussing public perception of the class, with a prompt of "a lot has changed since the days when the 'glass cannon' description was applied."
General
GC describes the mage as "the iconic caster:" deals magic damage from range. They should be versatile enough to do single-target damage, AoE damage, and crowd control, and every group should want one. (I'm noticing a trend here -- GC also described Shamans as a class every group should want. I guess every group should want all classes.)
They like the different feel between the three trees is in a good place, with Frostfire possibly providing a fourth aesthetic. They have decided that "king of AoE" is no longer a good niche to put any class in, so now they're trying to give both AoE and single-target to all DPS specs (with "extra effort" to make sure mages do good AoE).
Why has Mage seen fewer changes than other classes during Wrath? "By and large, the class works." Not that it's perfect, but it's in pretty good shape.
This is something that's never occurred to me before. GC says one thing that makes Mages unique is that each spec is centered on one spell (like Fireball). Procs and cooldowns keep this from getting boring.
Mages are still a glass cannon (compared to the other cloth classes), and they're meant to be - escape abilities should be your main way to keep alive.
Itemization
People are concerned that itemization supports Fire over Frost. GC responds that the design isn't to have Frost use vastly different items than Fire; they feel that some work is required here. They're making "a big pass" on talents and stats to try to help this for all classes.
Will mages get robes or the option of robes over tunics going forward? Answer: "this is not a huge priority for us at this time" (translation: we don't care).
Mana efficiency
Broadly speaking, the philosophy is that healers might run OOM if they're undergeared or misplayed, but DPS players should not run OOM. To support this, they are "likely" to lower the mana costs of the major mage nukes.
Is mage AoE too expensive? Well, they don't want casting Blizzard on one or two mobs to be attractive; efficiency is still good on many mobs. Some other mage spells could use boosts to make them as efficient as Blizzard.
This doesn't really fit into mana efficiency, but: they're considering making Spell Steal only steal spells that are beneficial to the mage.
Talent trees
Arcane is "a little bloated." The Warrior Prot tree and the Paladin Ret tree are good examples of talent trees they like - fewer required talents, more points to spend on "fun play-style choices."
They are not concerned that Torment the Weak is considered a mandatory talent for all mages; they don't think it's needed for Frostfire, and they don't think it's a problem for Frost or Fire to sub-spec into Arcane. Oh, mandatory Arcane points, will you never leave us?
There are plans to improve Fire in PvP, though the think it's "more important" to fix classes that have "no viable specs" for Arena. They do want to improve Dragon's Breath for PvP.
Fire's threat does concern the devs; they want to fix it through Invisibility (which they are changing to be uninterruptable in patch 3.2).
As ever, they want to make Frost PvE viable, but without over-buffing it in PvP. Ice Lance is a target for a buff, though they're not sure how to do that yet.
The Q&A wraps up with a question about Blink, and its many failings. GC recognizes that one of the places it seems to fail the most is in the WSG tunnels; they're working on it. They say if you have a Blink bug, the most helpful thing is to report it on the Bug Report forum with specifically where it was that the failure occurred, so they can hopefully fix the maps.
That's the end of the mage Q&A. Not a whole ton of substance here, but this fits with GC's assertion that Mages are mostly alright. Next up? Mages' arch-rivals, Warlocks.
Patch 3.2 will bring about a new 5, 10, and 25 man instance to WoW, and usher in a new 40-man battleground called the Isle of Conquest. WoW.com will have you covered every step of the way, from extensive PTR coverage through the official live release. Check out WoW.com's Guide to Patch 3.2 for all the latest!Filed under: Mage
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
lexywexy09 Jun 19th 2009 7:04AM
Pretty disappointing. We didn't get anything we didn't know before, and they've not actually said what they're planning for us.
ORLY Jun 19th 2009 7:39AM
As GC said, they think we're almost perfect. Don't fix something that ain't broken. Everytime a patch goes by and there are no changes to mages I sacrifice a warlock to the Mage Gods, cause that means one patch we didn't get nerfed.
Our future plans. Well, I'm sure they're working on making frost pve viable, but that's harder than you think. What would you do? I've heard a lot of people say "make a permanent water elemental", but wouldn't that play out a lot like warlocks then?
Besides, we all remember patch 3.1 when they said what they had in mind for the patch for mages, but a lot of that stuff never happened and we got major QQ even though they never promised anything. If I was in the dev team, I wouldn't display the future plans either.
Kylenne Jun 19th 2009 9:46AM
@ ORLY: I'm pretty sure the reason they're not telling us the future plans for mages is because they have no future plans for mages. QQ when changes don't materialize is not really an excuse, considering all of the info we've been getting regarding changes to other classes.
Dev approach to mage concerns these days seems to be "be thankful you don't get a nerf bat you whiny bitches, who cares if one of your three viable specs is a gimmick we didn't design for and another is reliant on an outdated mechanic that doesn't cut it anymore in modern times". And as much as I'm a bitter Frost mage they have a point, we could be the piñata that is priests nowadays.
kabshiel Jun 19th 2009 4:54PM
Mage's are pretty much fine as is. The devs don't change things just for the sake of changing them.
placebo Jun 19th 2009 7:53AM
"They say if you have a Blink bug, the most helpful thing is to report it on the Bug Report forum with specifically where it was that the failure occurred, so they can hopefully fix the maps."
The maps do not need to be fixed. Blink needs to be fixed.
Ceradene Jun 19th 2009 8:00AM
That has to be the most ignorant statement I've seen in a while.
The whole reason Blink bugs IS the terrain. Explain to me - in programming terms - how would you fix Blink and how is this NOT a terrain issue?
TobiasX Jun 19th 2009 8:47AM
"Explain to me - in programming terms - how would you fix Blink and how is this NOT a terrain issue?"
50/50. The issue is that, when the Blink spell is used, it's miscalculating where the Mage should end up.
Solution: Fix that calculation. The fault is with the spell, not the world it's being used in.
off the top of my head the easiest way to do this would be something like:
If (BlinkTo_Location = IntersectingGround)
{
While (BlinkTo_Location = IntersectingGround)
Do { BlinkTo_Location.YCoord = BlinkTo_Location.YCoord + 0.01 }
}
That okay?
Odiee Jun 19th 2009 9:50AM
@TobiasX
Surely devs at Blizz are idiots who can't see this solution you just presented. I mean common, my 15 year old brother can think of that. Ok tell me this.
What if there's a wall in front? Tree? big rock? Ship? ANYTHING?
Don't tell me you would code in checking of each dooadad with "if" keyword?
No? You would implement collision detection. Guess what? They already did it.
And that is a reason blink fails.
Only thing they can do is weed out the places blink fails, test them and remove imperfection in the terain.
placebo Jun 19th 2009 11:02AM
@Ceradene: "That has to be the most ignorant statement I've seen in a while."
Incorrect.
Yes, the problem exists with terrain and I've said it many times before. What you failed to do was read what I posted and what was said with the blue posts from the Q&A.
All I read is that they want to fix the Arena and BG maps, not terrain in all of Warcraft which is why I specifically slanted my comment how I did. My comment is spot on and accurate.
IANAP. So it's all theory here. Could it be programmed to make the Mage move +0.00001 in the Y Axis then +20 in the X Axis then -0.00001 in the YAxis? Essentially instead of following the terrain you would float just above it? Again - I AM NOT A PROGRAMMER.
pantear Jun 19th 2009 11:43AM
It figures.
You are assuming that the problem is Blink, and that Blizz programmers are idiots. What the dev team is saying makes sense. The problem is not Blink per se, but in the data it uses (i.e.: the terrain).
OTOH, fixing terrain issues into spells is awkward, and dangerous because you aren't cleaning the data. Other spells, either now or in the future, might benefit from cleaner data. None would benefit from baking the solution into Blink.
It's dangerous to put the solution into Blink because: 1) old data doesn't get cleaned, 2) it will introduce new bugs, 3) any similar spell will need the same treatment, increasing development, debugging and testing time.
tmenssen Jun 19th 2009 2:33PM
People say that the problem lies in terrain instead of blink. Why then does the warrior charge work just fine, if it's just another 'movement spell?' If Blink really falls into the same category, which GC claims, then it should already work despite the terrain because all of the other movement spells do. But it doesn't, so Blink must be bugged. It's not difficult logic to follow
Heilig Jun 19th 2009 3:54PM
Because charge has a defined end-point based on where the target is. Blink always goes straight forward, and if the end point is somewhere the player can't go, the blink comes up short. Any other smart-ass, easily answered questions?
Andy Jun 19th 2009 4:01PM
@ tmenssen
The warriors charge works because it's going to a targets coordinates. Blink is not targeted.
tmenssen Jun 19th 2009 4:13PM
Ding ding ding! Which goes to show that the way they are calculating Blink is bugged. You just told me that Charge works because it's programmed a certain way and blink is programmed a different way, proving my point that Blink is bugged. So they need to find a way for Blink to use targeted coordinates based on where you are and which direction you are facing and then making you reappear where those coordinates calculate. Then combine it with actual wall collision detection and not just change in elevation detection. They obviously have a way of telling the difference or you wouldn't be able to walk up the ramps.
And thank you Andy for just stating your reasoning rather than name calling, which really accomplishes nothing.
henderson-94 Jun 19th 2009 5:25PM
@tmenssen
[...] So they need to find a way for Blink to use targeted coordinates [...]
Charge uses its TARGET'S coordinates though, it moves the player to the character it's targeting, and moves the player there unless something is line of sighting you, blink moves you forward regardless, so in order for it to do that it has to have a different way of moving than charge. If it WAS to be a target coordinated movement, every bit of ground would have to be able to be targeted because the character can be anywhere, and target any 15 yards ahead. If they did this is would cause so much 'leaks' in info that you'd get crazy lag after just a few uses.
pantear Jun 19th 2009 10:41PM
@kompressah: Because he doesn't know what actual programming is. He's acting just like these late 20's and early 30's MBAs that supervise programmers. They have no idea what really happens underneath, what's possible and what constrains exists.
@tmenssen: Different spells are different.
Note that Charge do have terrain problems, but it can "solve" them because the ending point is not only known, but it can safely assume that it is on a firm spot in the terrain. Blink doesn't have that kind of luxury because it doesn't know if the player will land in a firm spot or even a valid one. So, I'm guessing, what it does is that any barely visible obstacle will cause Blink to stop there, preventing you from infringing Wile E. Coyote's trademark move.
placebo Jun 20th 2009 8:11AM
@pantear:
I know what programming is. (I hate coding)
I wasn't "acting" like anything. (I made a simple statement that Ceradene did not read.)
All I said is that they seemed to be focusing on the WSG tunnel when the issue exists everywhere where there is a terrain change. (That means tile floors to stairs as in the Horde Inn in Dalaran near the daily quest giver. It also means dirt to grass in other places.) It also ties in to why Mages blink backwards. Due to latency when the blink executes and you cross one of the terrain thresholds the game still thinks you are blinking from point A. While you've run to point C already and blink back to point B.
I have more than a clear idea on what happens underneath. There are always unintended consequences when you make changes. Look at any patch day to see it. (I deal with system releases, code changes, etc. on a daily basis)
Wither Jun 19th 2009 7:57AM
I'm not sure about spell steal "only" stealing spells beneficial to the mage - this seems a step backwards. Spell steal prioritising "beneficial" spells would be much better, I can only hope this what was actually meant.
Wither Jun 19th 2009 8:05AM
Having done my homework now and read the actual Q&A on Spell Steal:
"We think the core of the problem is that a spell that was designed to let you steal cool buffs from an enemy has sort of fallen into the niche of a general dispel. Rather than make it cheaper, we’d be more likely to let it actually only steal spells that would benefit the mage. This would be a buff in some cases and a nerf in others though, so it’s not a quick and dirty change. We have considered a glyph to let Spell Steal take two buffs at a time. "
GAH!
A glyph would be pretty useless too, as no-one would spec it as there are better alternatives. It might be OP but I would love it if the tooltip read:
*Spell Steal*
While active, any benefical effects or spells directed at the target will be redirected at the mage.
Last 6 seconds.
Hehe, just an idea.
Anyway, I know the class is generally fine, but I would like them to fix this spell.
Todd Jun 19th 2009 9:33AM
I agree with you. Changing Steal Spell would hurt in PvP, when stealing the opponent's buffs is aimed at further crippling them... not to just be helpful for the mage.