Please stop with the using of "viable" instead of "optimal".

Every spec in the game is viable. When it isn't, it's blizzard's place to fix it.

People who claim viable=optimal are the worst subculture of player, as these people just want everyone else to be closer to OP so they can slack more.

Either that or they're just not playing with friends and therefore "that's what that guy enjoys" means nothing to them, and these lonely people I feel sorry for.

I agree with you on the feel...I love arcane, just because it feels more like magic. As an avid RPer it just feels a thousand times more right for my egomaniacal "I'm smarter than you" elf. As well, I enjoy the recklessness of arcane AoE (which, although maybe not as nuketacular as fire when you drop a combustion on the whelps when fighting Halfus, still pulls some pretty numbers). I've been praised by healers in my guild for staying alive. I guess five years of dying as a mage has finally taught me how to keep an out out for danger like a spooked gazelle. A couple times I've respecced my fire to arcane since Cata dropped and tried it out, but I just end up missing the freedom fire gives me. I just wish mobility, somehow, could increase. I move around a LOT in fights where I can, a habit I got from druid healing in wrath, that I can finally maintain with fire and, to an appreciable degree, frost too. I wouldn't mind the boring arcane rotation if I could dance around with it, too. And nothing is more disheartening than an interrupted evocation. Accidents happen and not every fight gives you a clear chance. Maybe more practice is needed to avoid those situations, but I won't have the patience for arcane until I see some bigger changes to mobility. It's just too risky.

If anyone out there has any tricks up their sleeves that I haven't read on how to keep moving and keep DPs at least decent, I'd love to hear it.

In response to Omedon666:

I must respectfully decline your request. I use the word viable specifically because I mean so. Viable may not apply to everyone, but it does apply to my situation. That being a person who is raiding with a guild and expected to bring the dps and min/max to my best ability. Something is no longer viable when it doesn't bring out the best (to an appropriate range) compared to one thing or another.

So... no. Not every spec in the game is viable for my situation. Frost is not viable for raids in my opinion because it's damage does not compare to Fire.

I offer no other comment on your other statements.

In response to Donald Raeside:

I think being able to be more mobile with ArcBlas would definitely make the spec a tad more interesting. Dare I say, we get a glyph/talent that allows us to fire ArcBlas on the move in addition to barrage? Then we ask, where does barrage fit into our rotation beyond a AB-debuff clear? Though maybe that is enough.

For those who say this might be too much, I'd point out Steady Shot, and auto shot for hunters is now an on-the-move option. Granted the dps is in favor of the mage here (I think) but still. Just a thought.

vi·a·ble /ˈvī ə bəl/ Adjective
"Capable of working successfully"

op·ti·mal /ˈɒp tə məl/ Adjective
"Most favorable or desirable"

What you're describing, comradecool, is not whether a spec is viable or not, no matter what you're intended meaning is. If you don't like saying whether a spec is optimal or not, you can use whether it is acceptable to you or not, because your opinion on a spec does not affect whether its capable of doing its job. The day arcane (or any other spec and class) causes a raid to wipe simply *because* it is present in the raid comp, or because it doesn't put out enough damage (rather than not as much damage as another spec), then it will not be viable.

Andrew gets it.

Comrade, I get what you are saying. You are talking optimum, as raiders tend to, so, go you.

Optimal and viable are two different things, and their interchanging in WoW parlance is the disease plaguing player inclusion and enjoyment.

Pure DPS classes (and classes with more than one DPS option) choose a flavour of damage, by personal preference. They are all viable. No misuse of words will change that, it is the promise that THE SAME PEOPLE WHO WRITE THE ENCOUNTERS are responsible for upholding, and they have.

The interchanging of these terms is not your fault, but you are perpetuating a disease in WoW that is easily maintained by raiders that could have one less bead of sweat on their brow because someone on EJ said "fire, and let it be known", when that bead of sweat is potentially bought by someone having less fun in the fight, in the game they want to enjoy.

Everyone being viable means no one is overworked, one spec being optimal is a treat, not a social expectation. At least not in healthy social environments. Quote the raider's doctrine of "don't waste other people's time" all you want, everyone is viable, and in the equation of "your comfort>their fun", you are being selfish. That isn't just aimed at you, that is aimed at everyone that doesn't play with friends, real friends, that will sweat that extra bead for each other.

omedon666.livejournal.com

@Andrew

Viable has multiple meanings and you're only quoting one of them. Another I found states: "capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately."

So if there's a spec that's light-years behind the others in terms of DPS output then it's probably safe say that spec is not functioning adequately, or in other words, it's not viable. So saying "viable" isn't wrong at all. Try reading the entire definition next time.

Lemons.

Adequate is viable. Adequate is "1/10th of the duty in a 10 man raid". Optimal *might* be 11/110ths of your duty in a raid. The raider's responsibility is 1/10, no more, no less. All the specs, as of cataclysm, do that, must do that, or they are hotfixed.

that should read 11/100th's

This is now fully off the topic and I am won't be going any further. If you'd like to return to the main point, that of making Arcane a competitive dps spec (compared to the other two mage specs), I would be happy to discuss it further.

Also see the previous response regarding semiotics, denotation and connotation.

@Lemons
I *did* acknowledge before that if a spec is coming in last in damage on a particular fight and the raid isn't killing a boss, then that spec might not be viable and needs the developers to improve it. However, if a spec is coming in last and the raid is still killing the boss, then how is that spec not viable? If the damage that spec is doing is still capable of contributing to the fight in a meaningful way, then how is it not viable.

Though I hate to use anecdotal evidence...my guild was stuck on normal Cho'gall for the longest time; and I had been asked to respec to fire from arcane at the beginning of our raiding push this expansion because that's what all the websites and blogs were saying was THE BEST SPEC EVAR! All these weeks were were banging our heads against the wall I was coming in last in the dps slots, even sometimes coming in behind the tanks. One week I decide to respec to arcane, because if I might get kicked out of this raid slot I'll do it having fun. That week we killed Cho'gall, and I was either second or third in dps every fight in the instance (with no other changes in our raid comp or changes in actual players and characters participating). So yeah, as far as optimization goes, YMMV.

Viable has a completely different definition than the one posted by Andrew when you are in a raid setting, if the spec is not the best for the situation IT IS NOT "capable of working successfully" and if by the grace of GOD you manage to suceed it's because your raid carried your fail spec.