Shifting Perspectives: Can Wrath remain a 1.5-second cast, page 2

One of the other solutions is to just increase the cast time of Wrath. PvP ramifications of this change aside, let's take a look at how this would function. In order to make such a change, it must not upset the current balance that we see between Wrath and Starfire's DPS. Although one will always deal more damage than the other (and in this case, Wrath will most certainly be the higher DPS spell), so long as there is a note of parity between the two spells, we are fine. Conceptually easy, making a change of this scope isn't all that trivial. Changing a spell's cast time impacts scaling in so many different ways, mostly from haste and spellpower; however, proc effects are also impacted.
First things being first, the base damage of the spell has to be readjusted to ensure that it remains close to the same value. Wrath currently has an average base damage of 592, for a base DPS value of 395. In order to get 395 DPS, the average damage of Wrath needs to be increased to 790. Wrath currently has a damage range of 70 between the high end and the low end. Having a damage range of 770 low end and 840 high end would yield an average damage of 795, which is workable.
Next comes spellpower scaling. Currently Wrath, once talented with Wrath of Cenarius, gains 44.76% spellpower per second. By increasing the cast time by .5 seconds, the base coefficient is increased to 71.42%, which would be increased to 81.42% by WoC. This would yield 40.71% spellpower per second. There probably don't have to be any adjustments made to the spellpower coefficient at this point. Although Wrath would lose some spellpower scaling, it would still have higher scaling than Starfire, which gains 40% spellpower per second. If the spellpower scaling is too low, then increasing Wrath of Cenarius to 15% for Wrath would yield 43.21% spellpower per second. There isn't a factor of 5, which would set it to 44.76%, and Blizzard seems to like those factors, so this is probably the closest you could get.
Next comes the theoretical testing to ensure that the paltry difference in damage that we want still exists. To do this, you need to use at least two different testing points: a low-end gearing point and a high-end gearing point. For the high end, we'll use this gear set-up and adjust the spellpower by 1,500 and the crit by 5% to account for raid buffs. Although it isn't really the low end, which would technically be Naxx level gearing, we'll use this gear set-up but not adjust any of the stats to try and get it closer to the level we want. For the sake of clutter, I won't list the actual calculations, just the results. The 2-second Wrath will use the 81.42% coefficient to start with.
High-end gearing
1.5 Wrath -- 7,842 DPS
2 Wrath -- 8,040 DPS
Starfire -- 7,650 DPS
Lower-end gearing
1.5 Wrath -- 4,298 DPS
2 Wrath -- 4,088 DPS
Starfire -- 3,889 DPS
This data shows a sketch, but not the whole picture. All of these calculations were done using the current Nature's Grace mechanics, which do not favor the 1.5-second Wrath at all, and it is the sole reason why you see the gap between the 1.5-second Wrath and Starfire close as gear increases. It is also the reason why you see the 2-second Wrath scale up far beyond both of them. If you remove Nature's Grace from the equation, changing Wrath to a 2-second cast time is actually a nerf to the damage of Wrath, with the 1.5 cast time yielding 7,439 DPS and the 2-second cast yielding 6,884 (Starfire also takes a major scaling hit dropping down to 6,668 DPS). That is to be expected, though. Remember that the coefficient for Wrath is actually decreased by adjusting the cast time higher. The superior scaling from Nature's Grace masks this flaw by allowing the 2-second Wrath to actually outscale the 1.5 second version. However, without Nature's Grace impacting scaling, the 2-second Wrath and Starfire are fairly close to each other in terms of DPS, which is what we want.
Nature's Grace as it currently stands is terrible for Wrath's damage, yet it is actually a necessary evil in some respects. Without Nature's Grace there to act as a cap to Wrath, then Wrath is able to far out-scale the damage capacity of Starfire; this is mostly due to the superior spellpower scaling of Wrath. As much as we want Nature's Grace to be removed, the data suggests that it actually has to stay in the game in order for the damage parity between our spells to function properly. In order to remove Nature's Grace, Wrath needs to either have its cast time increased or a talent has to be introduced with the specific intent of boosting Starfire's damage. It's a form of catch 22. Without removing Nature's Grace, increasing Wrath's cast time to 2 seconds causes the spell to outscale Starfire, yet removing just Nature's Grace still causes Wrath to outscale Starfire.
When Ghostcrawler said, "messing with a talent like Nature's Grace for 3.3 would be very risky in terms of nerfing Balance or causing other unpredictable side-effects," this is what he was referring to. The damage capacity of Nature's Grace is fairly trivial to account for, but the impact it has on scaling, particularly Wrath's scaling, is a different issue. We simply cannot remove Nature's Grace and call it a day; parity must exist with Wrath and Starfire's damage in order for the rotation that Blizzard wants us to use to work. Given that, even without Nature's Grace Wrath can still have GCD clipping issues in certain situations, it would probably be for the best to make both changes in tandem with each other; remove Nature's Grace and increase Wrath's cast time by .5 seconds.
Attempting to balance out a 1.5-second spell and a 3-second spell when there is such a vast scaling disparity between to two is becoming very problematic. What works for one generally doesn't work the same way for the other. Nature's Grace shows this; so too does Wrath of Cenarius and Starlight Wrath. Changes need to be made to the core of the balance druid's spells, and this is one change that I really would like to see make it into the game. I would miss machine gun Wraths just like everyone else, but game balance has to take precedence over that.
Every week, Shifting Perspectives treks across Azeroth in pursuit of truth, beauty and insight concerning the druid class. Sometimes it finds the latter, or something good enough for government work. Whether you're a bear, cat, moonkin, tree or stuck in caster form, we've got the skinny on druid changes in patch 3.3, a look at the disappearance of the bear tank, and thoughts on why you should be playing the class (or why not).





Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Lissanna May 7th 2010 9:13AM
but wouldn't thinks like changing the cast time also cause problems with making our nuke spells too similar & taking away some of the point of wanting to rotate between them?
Zaros Jul 11th 2010 10:09PM
In cata they are trying to make Wrath 2.5 sec cast ( starlight wrath 2 sec).
I say this is a BAD IDEA
It kills PvP for obvious reasons.
A more elegant solution would be to remove natures grace and decrease the GCD cap to 0.5 sec as well as increasing the Starfire damage co-efficient. This way wrath would be about half of Starfire in every way, making each nuke unique in its own way but still balanced around the same mechanics.
redrum May 7th 2010 9:24AM
"so long as there is a note of paltry between the two spells"
You use "paltry" in a strange way several time. Do you mean parity?
Nice article otherwise.
Rakah May 7th 2010 9:37AM
Do you realise it's difficult to proof read your own work? Bloody grammar nazis.
Rylka May 7th 2010 9:38AM
I believe the author did mean to type parity instead of paltry. It bugged me too. The connotations in each sentence where it was used seem to point to "parity" as being what the author was trying to say. Paltry has no definitions that fit.
At least the author was consistent. :)
saxamaphone May 7th 2010 10:26AM
It is a boomkin article, he probably meant poultry :P
Eberron May 7th 2010 12:38PM
"Do you realise it's difficult to proof read your own work? Bloody grammar nazis."
Two tricks: Read it backwards, or put it in to a text-reader that'll actually talk it out to you.
I find that helps. ^_^
Firadesunna May 7th 2010 9:24AM
Naxxramas* :) its an A instead of a U in the paragraph about gear scaling being an issue ^_^
Nice artical! haste is a stat which confuses me for some reason
Ishammel May 7th 2010 10:21AM
article*
Boobah May 7th 2010 9:26AM
Sadly, it's a grammar comment: Tyler, you keep spelling "parity" as "paltry," unless I misunderstood you. Two things have parity when they are equal or nearly so, while something is paltry when it's minor or insignificant, and you seem to want Wrath and Starfire to be (mostly) equal to each other.
PictoKong May 7th 2010 9:29AM
Also: "Wrath currently has an average base cast time of 592"
Is it me or it should be average damage?
Tyler Caraway May 7th 2010 9:45AM
Indeed, it was a failure of editing on my part. The sentences, I think there were two, were originally structured to use paltry - ie "needing a paltry damage difference" - and in switching things around I forgot to change the word as well. It has been fixed. There were lots of cuts and changes to shorten the article, and I guess I'm not perfect and ended up missing that. Ahh well. :)
Zhiva May 7th 2010 9:31AM
You have a typo. Naxxramas, not "Naxxaramus".
devans87 May 7th 2010 9:35AM
What if instead there was a glyph that increased the damage and the cast time of wrath so you could choose to have it if you wanted.
Szass May 7th 2010 9:38AM
Tyler,
I was unintentionally mean and cruel last week. After rereading my comments I came off as much harsher and trollish than I really intended.
99% of that was not really meant directly at you as a person or your article.
I should know better than to post a comment when I'm mad about someone and something else.
Please accept my sincere apology.
Szass
Tyler Caraway May 7th 2010 6:38PM
Heh, nothing in this was intended to be directly related towards you in particular. I understand how people can get about certain things at time, I too have been upset about something or someone and acted out of turn, so I wouldn't expect everyone else to be perfect.
Apology accepted and glad you continue to read.
Dotixi May 7th 2010 9:40AM
I have to wonder...have you tried a build not using Starlight Wrath? You only mentioned it at the end and didn't even talk about not selecting in talents builds.
I have yet to meet a druid with 35% haste so I'm not sure how often clipping the GCD is really an issue. Maybe with extremely high end gear...
Lissanna May 7th 2010 10:37AM
You need startlight wrath because it's a huge DPS increase, and the only other talent you can take at that tier is not really something moonkin should invest points in.
The cast time reduction of starfire is necessary.
Dotixi May 7th 2010 11:06AM
@Lissanna
One of Tyler's main points was that Wrath needed it's cast time increased by .5 sec so I was wondering if he had tested a build without Starlight to how it played...trust me, I know it's a useful talent.
Lissanna May 7th 2010 1:21PM
You can't skip it because you need the cast time decrease for starfire, because otherwise you have a 3.5 second starfire, and you lose too much DPS for that spell. With the curent talents, it doesn't work for you to skip it.