Shifting Perspectives: Total Eclipse, part 2, page 2

As I have talked about a lot, Eclipse is based on spellcasts; its uptime and damage contribution is balanced around this expected average. In numerous single-target situations, this turns out to be a fairly balanced system. We get no more out of Eclipse than any other spec gets out of its mastery in most cases. Issues arise, however, where encounter mechanics force balance druids to find ways to "extend" the duration of Eclipse procs.
Taking a quick glance as WoL, and the trends are rather obvious. On single-target encounters, there are a few really good balance druids who hold some of the top rankings, usually without using gimmicks. This is expected -- even not having any of the top rankings would be expected. Single-target DPS should be equalized across all specs within an acceptable range that can slightly favor pure classes. In such a system, you would expect to see mostly pure classes holding top rankings, with a few hybrids who are highly skilled and geared picking up a few as well.
We see very obvious shifts during numerous encounters, however. In a single-target encounter, there is no incentive to game Eclipse save for the possibility of Bloodlust or trinket cooldowns, which are minor factors. In dual-target and AoE encounters, balance druids are forced to work Eclipse toward their favor in a way that the spec was clearly not designed to support.
The balance of Eclipse
The balance of Eclipse hinges upon two very basic principles. First, it will have an average uptime during an encounter that allows the damage contribution to equalize close to that of other masteries. This we hold as true, as evidenced earlier. Second, those abilities that benefit from Eclipse yet do not adjust the Eclipse bar are low enough in DPS that they aren't worth using for extended periods of time, meaning that spamming Sunfire would result in lower DPS than using Wrath to drop a Solar Eclipse and move to a Lunar Eclipse. In single-target situations, this is true; in all other situations, this is false.
Previously I have said that haste has no impact on Eclipse uptime because Eclipse operates on the number of spells cast, not the frequent of their casting. This is true in only the strictest of senses. DoTs continue to benefit from Eclipse even after the buff is lost; therefore, haste has a direct correlation between the uptime of Eclipsed DoTs. The faster that you can switch between Eclipse procs, the higher uptime that you have on Eclipsed DoTs. This is because each DoT would have to be refreshed less frequently, which would usually only be done twice per cycle -- once in Eclipse, once outside of it.
In a single-target situation, this synergy doesn't hold too large of an impact; it takes a large number of sequences for haste to hold a significant impact on Eclipsed DoT uptime. The more targets that exist, however, the larger the impact haste has on Eclipsed DoT uptime, and the longer Eclipse lasts in general.
While there is evidence of this in math, it simply isn't needed, as it has been clearly shown within the game world as well. Parses from Twilight Ascendant Council, Maloriak, V&T, and several other encounters show how much of an impact this holds on our DPS, where we see a clear over-representation of balance DPS.
The arguments of high DPS are largely theoretical. Certain encounters will favor certain spec mechanics in different ways which can lead to over representation of that spec. This is an unavoidable consequence of game design. The primary issue with this is the cumbersome nature of the system itself.
Is gaming the system fun?
Toying with Eclipse procs to either delay or retain a proc for a specific encounter mechanic is excessively annoying, and I know that I cannot be alone in this. While I can agree with sentiments that it makes balance fun, challenging, and dynamic, by the same token, it also discourages a large sector of the playerbase.
Not being able to properly game Eclipse isn't a matter of minute DPS differences, as should be the case for skillful play, but rather it creates gaps well into the thousands. Having skill account for 10% of a player's overall DPS -- which would fall in the range of 1,500-2,000 in current content -- is acceptable. The DPS disparity between being able to game Eclipse for AoE or dual-target encounters can easily account for a difference of 5,000-6,000 DPS or more.
This is far too great, and it is further evidence that shows how broken Eclipse really is. Balance druids hold way too much control over Eclipse in the sense that we are capable of gaming the system in this nature to create extreme damage differences. It isn't a terrible thing, but it is rather telling that for one of the first times ever, we're seeing many of the top guilds run with two balance druids in their core raiding groups.
Two/too much fun?
Two? How absurd! I know, but consider that even in Wrath, it often wasn't considered to be beneficial to even have the one balance druid in the raid. Yes, our damage in the last expansion was more than fine. Yes, we didn't have to struggle claw and antler for every single raid spot that we got, but those druids who did raid as balance often did so because they earned that slot. There were few to no encounter mechanics that favored our DPS or for which our level of DPS so outstripped other players that guilds would go out specifically hunting for a moonkin. If your raid had one, great; if they didn't, they didn't.
To an extent, this is still true, but we're still seeing trends in the top guilds that prove how absurd Eclipse gaming can be. Sinestra was the prime example in this raiding tier. The world-first kill included two balance druids, both ranking in the top three in DPS. A vast majority of the following Sinesta kills by other guilds also included two, sometimes more, balance druids. In fact, multiple guilds have used two balance druids to handle all of the AoE on Sinestra and nothing else.
This speaks volumes to how far balance can -- and will -- go to abuse Eclipse. When a balance druid has over a 90% Eclipse uptime and DoTs/Wild Mushroom account for over 80% of their damage done on an encounter, something is likely wrong. And when you have this situation and no other AoE from any other player on the encounter other than the tank? Something is very clearly not working as intended.






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Kurash Apr 22nd 2011 7:23PM
I definitely prefer the current version of Eclipse to the Wrath version—at least now we can't be completely hosed by suddenly needing to move and wasting an entire Eclipse proc. But you're definitely right in your assessment in your final paragraph, Tyler: if it can be used in such a fashion and result in the numbers you mentioned than it is definitely not working the way the developers meant it to.
Steffan Apr 22nd 2011 9:58PM
Alright, I just started a new druid, chose balance at level 10, and proceeded to kill Quillboars. But, I have a question. Sometimes, my lunar/solar eclipse buff will drop off before Wrath/Starfire brings me to the next eclipse. Is this supposed to happen? Am I doing something wrong? Am I just a complete idiot?
Boom Apr 23rd 2011 12:19AM
Eclipse wears off at the 1/2 way mark on the eclipse bar. So if you are moving from solar to lunar, you will lose your eclipse buff 1/2 of the way through the process (and vice versa). It's operating the way Blizzard intended.
wil.contreras Apr 23rd 2011 4:43PM
I agree that something must be done about Eclipse in general, but I'm wary of the direction you're going because I think there are a few other things that should be taken into account:
First, as you said in a 'lock article, everything must have a purpose, and without purpose, there's no point in having it in the game. So, it's important to consider how balance discussions impact the purporse of a spec, as well as what makes it desirable (both to a group and to a player). Along these lines, every class derives some "satisfaction" from the uniqueness of what it brings to the (raid) table. Druids in general used to be unique with brez, and, as Ranged DPS (correct me if I'm wrong), one of the biggest (if not the biggest, and possibly 'only') asset Moonkins bring to raids and heroics is their huge mobile AoE dps. Single target, there's very little druids do that isn't comparable or bettered by other classes. So, to take away what MKs do best (and what they bring to the group) would again worsen their standing in raid-spot desirability.
Further, it's a bit strange to say that, on the one hand, it's true that very few raids go out looking for Moonkins (if not for Solar AoE dmg), and on the other, that the change in this trend in top guilds *proves* that Eclipse is absurd. I'd argue the complete opposite: the fact that Eclipse is at least making Moonkins more relevant in top guilds proves that something is going well (i.e., I still agree that Eclipse needs fixing, but a bigger problem that needs fixing is precisely that Moonkins get the short end of the stick when it comes to raid spots. Too big a nerf on Solar Eclipse would make this problem worse, the greater of two evils).
Second, any spec balance discussion is only meaningful in relation to other specs. In 4.1, most specs got damage buffs, and a lot of those were important AoE damage buffs, including (not exhaustive): Mages' 70% damage buff to Blizzard, and 30% increase to Arcane Explosion, which I'm sure you love; Hunters' 250% Multi-shot damage boost, etc. Moonkins got Starsurge nerfed, and that's it. So, before hailing the nerfbat, I think it's important to look at how Solar AoE damage compares with 4.1 AoE damage of other classes (still keeping in mind that it's what Moonkins are bringing to the table right now: extending the Mages and Hunters examples, both have desirable CC, and more constant, non-burst damage. I don't remember ever hearing "LF Moonkin with good CC." :P).
Third, let's not forget about Lunar Eclipse: any issues (and solutions) relating to Solar/Mastery have to consider what's happening in Lunar. At the moment, the main thing going on is that being in Lunar is not very desirable (relatively speaking), since Solar affects more spells, has more mobility, and is much better at putting out AoE damage (even with Starfall, which is Balaneces' "ultimate", you're better off staying in Solar during adds/mobs, and then using it up in the boss). It would be good to see Lunar and Solar play different roles in Moonkin rotation: have Lunar be optimized for single target dps, while Solar for aoe (with a slight nerf to Solar AoE). I think this would be a positive change because it makes each Eclipse more interesting and meaningful, not just a straight damage boost to differently named spells. This might not be the ideal solution, but the main point is that if Lunar is relatively more desirable (ie. again, by having a *purpose* in the rotation), then there will be a good incentive to leave Solar (which is the crux of your argument: player's don't want to leave Solar cause it's so damn good at killing more than two things.)
Finally, I have to disagree with this statement:
"Balance druids hold way too much control over Eclipse in the sense that we are capable of gaming the system in this nature to create extreme damage differences."
"woy too much control" is a bit of an overstatement, and also not the meat of the matter: it's a good thing that we have control over our class mechanic, and to not use that to boost DPS is inefficient. It would be like saying "Frost Mages have too much control over when they use up Fingers of Frost to Deep Freeze/Ice Lance/Coldsnap --> Deep Freeze/Ice Lance."
The real issue is not how much control we have, which should not be taken away, but how little damage we do outside Eclipse, and how much we do while in Eclipse (which you mention in your article). In other words, the extreme damage differences aren't "created" by our control over Eclipse, but rather how Mastery damage is distributed. It's a fine point, but I think it's worth mentioning, since the argument as written now would make it seem like the problem, and therefore, solution, has to do with player control over Eclipse, when in fact what should be looked at is the damage (leave the control as is: it's not "way too much."). This is even more relevant in PvP, since death --> Eclipse goes to 0. Since Moonkins are big, fat, easy targets, you'll find yourself doing sub-par damage in PvP most of the time, and expect to be ganked very quickly as soon as you hit either Eclipse.
Hopefully I didn't come across as rude at any moment, rather, I'm trying to add to the discussion on something we both have thought about, and hope to see adressed soon :)!
P.S. On a more 'holistic' note, I'm a bit intrigued by the relationship between this article, and your Balance Druid AoE rotation article (http://wow.joystiq.com/2011/03/25/shifting-perspectives-the-balance-druid-aoe-rotation/). Aren't these somewhat contradictory?
K Apr 23rd 2011 5:19PM
Quick test.
K Apr 23rd 2011 5:28PM
EDIT: Corrected typos, fixed alias.
I agree that something must be done about Eclipse in general, but I'm wary of the direction you're going because I think there are a few other things that should be taken into account:
First, as you said in a 'lock article, everything must have a purpose, and without purpose, there's no point in having it in the game. So, it's important to consider how balance discussions impact the purpose of a spec, as well as what makes it desirable (both to a group and to a player). Along these lines, every class derives some "satisfaction" from the uniqueness of what it brings to the (raid) table. Druids in general used to be unique with brez, and, as Ranged DPS (correct me if I'm wrong), one of the biggest (if not the biggest, and possibly 'only') asset Moonkins bring to raids and heroics is their huge mobile AoE dps. Single target, there's very little druids do that isn't comparable or bettered by other classes. So, to take away what MKs do best (and what they bring to the group) would again worsen their standing in raid-spot desirability.
Further, it's a bit strange for you to say that, on the one hand, it's true that very few raids go out looking for Moonkins (if not for Solar AoE dmg), and on the other, that the change in this trend in top guilds *proves* that Eclipse is absurd. I'd argue the complete opposite: the fact that Eclipse is at least making Moonkins more relevant in top guilds proves that something is going well (i.e., I still agree that Eclipse needs fixing, but a bigger problem that needs fixing is precisely that Moonkins get the short end of the stick when it comes to raid spots. Too big a nerf on Solar Eclipse would make this problem worse, the greater of two evils). These two problems are related via Mastery, and how damage outside Eclipse is bad, while in Eclipse, it's really good (when you consider "controlled Eclipses" and Solar AoE rotation).
Second, any spec balance discussion is only meaningful in relation to other specs. In 4.1, most specs got damage buffs, and a lot of those were important AoE damage buffs, including (not exhaustive): Mages' 70% damage buff to Blizzard, and 30% increase to Arcane Explosion, which I'm sure you love; Hunters' 250% Multi-shot damage boost, etc. Moonkins got Starsurge nerfed, and that's it. So, before hailing the nerfbat, I think it's important to look at how Solar AoE damage compares with 4.1 AoE damage of other classes (still keeping in mind that it's what Moonkins are bringing to the table right now: extending the Mages and Hunters examples, both have desirable CC, and more constant, non-burst damage. I don't remember ever hearing "LF Moonkin with good CC." :P).
Third, let's not forget about Lunar Eclipse: any issues (and solutions) relating to Solar/Mastery have to consider what's happening in Lunar. At the moment, the main thing going on is that being in Lunar is not very desirable (relatively speaking), since Solar affects more spells, has more mobility, and is much better at putting out AoE damage (even with Starfall, which is Balance's "ultimate", you're better off staying in Solar during adds/mobs, and then using it up in the boss). It would be good to see Lunar and Solar play different roles in Moonkin rotation: have Lunar be optimized for single target dps, while Solar for aoe (with a slight nerf to Solar AoE). I think this would be a positive change because it makes each Eclipse more interesting and meaningful, not just a straight damage boost to differently named spells. This might not be the ideal solution, but the main point is that if Lunar is relatively more desirable (ie. again, by having a *purpose* in the rotation), then there will be a good incentive to leave Solar (which is the crux of your argument: player's don't want to leave Solar cause it's so damn good.)
Finally, I have to disagree with this statement:
"Balance druids hold way too much control over Eclipse in the sense that we are capable of gaming the system in this nature to create extreme damage differences."
"woy too much control" is a bit of an overstatement, and also not the meat of the matter: it's a good thing that we have control over our class mechanic, and to not use that to boost DPS is inefficient. It would be like saying "Frost Mages have too much control over when they use up Fingers of Frost to Deep Freeze/Ice Lance/Coldsnap --> Deep Freeze/Ice Lance."
The real issue is not how much control we have, which should not be taken away, but how little damage we do outside Eclipse, and how much we do while in Eclipse (which you mention in your article). In other words, the extreme damage differences aren't "created" by our control over Eclipse, but rather how Mastery damage is distributed. It's a fine point, but I think it's worth mentioning, since the argument as written now would make it seem like the problem, and therefore, solution, has to do with player control over Eclipse, when in fact what should be looked at is the damage (leave the control as is: it's not "way too much." Boost non-eclipse damage and nerf Eclipse). This is even more relevant in PvP, since death --> Eclipse goes to 0. Moonkins are big, fat, easy targets, you'll find yourself doing "sub-par" damage in PvP most of the time, and expect to be ganked very quickly as soon as you have the Eclipse buff.
Hopefully I didn't come across as rude at any moment, rather, I'm trying to add to the discussion on something we both have thought about, and hope to see adressed soon :)!
P.S. On a more 'holistic' note, I'm a bit intrigued by the relationship between this article, and your Balance Druid AoE rotation article (http://wow.joystiq.com/2011/03/25/shifting-perspectives-the-balance-druid-aoe-rotation/). Aren't these somewhat contradictory?
Twill Apr 24th 2011 7:24PM
Balance Druids are doing great. We're getting important raid spots. We're doing well in terms of numbers on important parts of boss fights. We found a suitable niche in PvP that can make up for a lot of our weaknesses.
Why are you complaining? If they take away our mastery's power, we're left with nothing. We'll be the ret paladin in the Cata release.
arixian Apr 25th 2011 4:34PM
I've only recently started playing a Druid and I'm having trouble figuring out what some of the lovely proc indicators actually represent since when they flash on my screen there's no button on my key bar that lights up to correspond to it. I'm sure back when Blizzard first added these visual aids to the game there was an article explaining these for Druids the same as their were for other classes but I can't seem to find it. Would someone kindly link it for me?
K Apr 26th 2011 11:46AM
http://www.wowhead.com/spell=16864/omen-of-clarity
http://www.wowhead.com/spell=93399/shooting-stars
http://www.wowhead.com/spell=16880/natures-grace
and the Eclipses (can't include link b/c of 3 URL limit, but search wowhead for Lunar/Solar Eclipse)
Note that both Eclipses enhance spells that don't use up energy:
Lunar: Moonfire, Starfall
Solar: Sunfire, Insect Swarm, Wild Mushrooms
Starsurge always benefits from either.