Encrypted Text: Blade Flurry is broken

Whenever I think of the current state of combat, I recall rogue blogger Aldriana's insightful post from when the Blade Flurry change was first announced. Blade Flurry has always been the spec's signature ability, but now it's transcended into its only ability. Combat rogues currently fluctuate between "just ahead of subtlety" and "best in the game" based on whether or not Blade Flurry works on a particular encounter. Blade Flurry makes or breaks combat rogues, making it incredibly unbalanced.
Combat rogues are lucky that Magmaw and Halfus are relatively easy heroic encounters, because doing six-digit DPS on Sinestra would've certainly drawn the developer's attention. At one point in time, Blade Flurry was simply an extra perk of the combat tree. You could pick up some extra damage if there was something nearby to cleave, but it rarely decided your outcome. Even on ideal Blade Flurry fights like the Twin Val'kyr, combat rogues weren't that overpowering. The new BF design is impossible to balance against.
Blade Flurry is broken
There are a few possible balance options for Blade Flurry, but none of them are perfect. Consider the first scenario, where combat rogues do good DPS without Blade Flurry active. Once they turn it on, they'll be doing good damage to two targets, putting them way too far ahead of everyone else. In the second case, their single-target DPS is awful, but they're viable with BF activated. That's where combat rogues are today, but we're so reliant on having multiple targets to attack.
Blizzard can't design every encounter to have a convenient cleave target for us, and it hasn't. Except against Halfus and Magmaw, combat is inferior to assassination in every way, and that's not balance.
Applying penalties to Blade Flurry
The third scenario is where combat rogues have good single-target DPS, but where Blade Flurry cuts down our damage by a more significant amount than today's 15% energy penalty. If the penalty is applied to our Blade Flurry damage, such as cutting it to a percentage of our primary target damage, then the net effect is that BF is less important than it is today.
The issue with this design is that we typically want the majority of our damage on our new target (such as an important add) rather than the old target. In order to put more damage on the add, we're switching targets, which means losing Bandit's Guile and our Deadly Poison stack, which murders our DPS. One of Blade Flurry's biggest benefits is that we don't have to switch targets in order to hit the second target, preserving the advantage of the buffs/debuffs on the primary target.
The fourth scenario is where a larger penalty is applied to our damage against the primary target, with the end effect of splitting our DPS evenly between our two targets. I think this is probably the least awful choice, as it allows us to stick on our primary target while still dealing respectable damage against the secondary target.
The problem with the design is that PVE fights are so varied in their design. Some bosses and adds are designed to be killed slowly or simultaneously, making an even-split Blade Flurry ideal. Other mobs, typically adds, need to be killed swiftly, which again means a target swap. Doing 50% of our DPS against an elemental on heroic Cho'gall simply isn't enough, so we're forced to take the target swap and deal less damage against both due to the lack of debuffs and Bandit's Guile on the add.
There's a fifth scenario possible, where our primary target damage is cut to say 20% while the remaining 80% is transferred to our secondary target. We get to stay focused on our primary target, gaining the extra damage from the already-present buffs and debuffs, but we still get to do serious damage against the new add. In all honesty, 80% of our primary target damage is probably 100% of our damage if we were to switch targets and be forced to reset Bandit's Guile and wait for debuff applications that may never come. Combat rogues now have the ability to "swap targets" with little downtime. The design isn't perfect, especially since doing most of your damage to something other than your primary target isn't exactly intuitive.
Blade Flurry needs a nerf
In all of the scenarios I outlined above, Blade Flurry loses some of its potency from today. The fact is that it needs a nerf; otherwise, combat rogues are going to remain one-trick ponies. Combat rogues deal the majority of the damage as physical damage, and so today, Blade Flurry is boosting our DPS by around 60-80% while active. A DPS swing that drastic can't be allowed to stay in the game. If combat rogues were only 10% behind assassination rogues on single-target encounters and Blade Flurry only increased their damage by 20%, I think that ratio would be relatively balanced.
As it stands today, there's only one viable spec for 10 out of the 13 bosses in tier 11, and that's unacceptable. I think we've accepted as a class that subtlety is going to suck in PVE, but seeing combat down there with frost mages and beast mastery hunters isn't helping anyone. The design goal of "bring the player, not the class" is in direct contradiction with combat's current bipolar potential.
We can either wait for combat rogues to break some heroic encounter so badly that the developers are forced to nerf them, or we can hope that the Blade Flurry redesign is done proactively to ensure that the spell isn't simply nerfed into the ground.
Filed under: Rogue, (Rogue) Encrypted Text






Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Oriflame Jun 29th 2011 2:28PM
First: I agree on the general premise that an ability that strong on some encounters is essentially un-balanceable.
But - there are a few points I disagree with:
1) I'm not sure it is good for the game's design for any class to be able to swap targets without penalty, and almost all classes take a penalty for swapping (run time, build up, etc). The few that don't should probably be brought in line with the others. We've seen affliction and shadow toned down in this space, and I imagine other specs that seem too easy to target swap on likely will be (or should be) as well. My own marks hunter comes to mind. This is different from me saying that rogues are or are not paying too high of a penalty for swapping targets, but there seems to be an argument in the article that they should be able to swap for free. This is what I am contesting.
2) Beast mastery is no longer a dead tree, just an unpopular one. Look at the articles by wow insider's own authors on the topic - it’s within 10% on most fights for a hunter with the same gear and skill. Its long time position at the bottom and the fact that it’s still not ahead of the other specs on most fights keeps it from showing well on the big DPS log aggregators because the most skilled players are used to other specs and don't have another reason to change over to BM.
ghola Jun 29th 2011 2:41PM
Agreed BM isn't bad at all these days. Getting tired of hearing about how bad they are in game and out when it simply isn't true. Pile on retribution though all you want - that spec does ok damage but is really not fun to play.
Chase Christian Jun 29th 2011 2:49PM
10% behind is not competitive. If everyone in your raid is 10% behind where they could be, it's like 9-manning content (or 23-manning). That might work for normal modes, but a class needs to be able to scale from dungeons to heroic raids.
Dale Jun 29th 2011 2:57PM
BM now has better burst aoe than most aoe classes. Spirit worm + bestial wrath + burrow attack = 250000 dps for the duration of the burrow. Our top hunter can nearly solo kill the aberrations on normal maloriak.
The point is: is there really a problem with having certain specs fill niche roles? That's why we have dual specs, right?
Oriflame Jun 29th 2011 3:20PM
Within 10% isn't balanced? Isn't that an almost impossibly high bar to set for game balance? I mean, +/- 2-3k theoritical possible max dps is less than the difference between playing a spec well and playing it great. Its only like 9 manning if everyone in your raid are hitting the simulator DPS of their spec/gear. Almost no one is within 10% of those numbers.
I don't think its reasonable to push the devs to balance wow classes better than they have ever been balanced and better than any video game aspects of similar complexity have ever been balanced.
Even in a heroics, I have to imagine people do better DPS in specs that they like rather than ones that sim a little higher. Otherwise, you'd better re-roll marks or affliction instead of making your team carry you because you sim low as a rogue right now right? :) Or... you probably beat out players of lots of classes that sim higher than you because you're more skilled than they are! Skill matters more than a 10% theoretical dps difference.
Hail Jun 29th 2011 3:26PM
"Almost no one is within 10% of those numbers."
I regularly beat my simulated dps as sub...but that's probably because Shadowcraft isn't great at measuring sub. That or i'm just uber leet.
Chase Christian Jun 29th 2011 3:27PM
A 10% DPS differential is fine for what I do, which isn't heroic raiding (on my rogue). However, if with just 50g spent and a bit of time at the reforging vendor I can make my rogue do 10% more damage, I can guarantee you that I would do it in a heartbeat.
Sidfish Jun 29th 2011 3:35PM
@Oriflame
I don't think you're taking into account how crippled hunters are in PVP. If Marks had a target switching penalty in addition to how many globals they need to use just to stay at range, they would be even worse off.
Personally I think having a target switching penalty isn't very good game design. It's awkward and leaves the player feeling powerless. Rogues are the poster child for this with DP having to stack to five and the craptastic talent known as bandits guile. I think it's a huge part of why the rogue population has dwindled.
Go check out Aldriana's post about ramp up, pretty much explains everything wrong with the class:
http://elitistjerks.com/blogs/10672-aldriana/536-rogue_dps_ramp_up_time_burst/
Khirsah Jun 29th 2011 3:38PM
I agree with Dale, though I know we are the minority. I have long been against class homogenization and the "bring the player, not the class" theory. We are still bringing the class instead of the player, but instead of basing the decision on what buffs he can bring, we are basing it on what is the "flavor of the month" class/spec as far as dps.
Classes should do comparable dps, but still provide unique buffs/benefits to the group. Then, maybe we'd see something like "combat doesn't quite measure up to assassination, or arcane mage, but we'll bring him anyway because x buff for the group makes up for it."
Of course, there is a breaking point, where the buff does not equal the dps loss (see 5% crit from HoT), and vice-versa, but using buffs to give a sub-par dps spec that extra oomph for balancing purposes seems a lot better than giving all classes the same utility, and trying to balance dps around class and fight mechanics.
Khirsah Jun 29th 2011 3:45PM
Sorry, the end of my post should read "countless combinations of different class and fight mechanics".
I just got distracted and forgot to complete my sentence.
Foxfyr Jun 29th 2011 4:23PM
"Chase Christian Jun 29th 2011 3:27PM
A 10% DPS differential is fine for what I do, which isn't heroic raiding (on my rogue). However, if with just 50g spent and a bit of time at the reforging vendor I can make my rogue do 10% more damage, I can guarantee you that I would do it in a heartbeat."
I like being one of the only combat rogues on my server. I like being in a casual raiding guild and getting laughed at in PUG raids by hardcore rogues. But I love beating them on meters. I love combat... and 10% more isn't enough for me to switch.
Xayíde Jun 29th 2011 4:27PM
@Oriflame
"Almost no one is within 10% of those numbers."
You are comparing people's DPS with simulator DPS, which is not the point at all. You should compare Player 1's DPS with spec A vs Player 1's DPS as spec B.
If the player chooses a spec that simply does less damage than he could be doing as another spec, he's probably holding his raid back, which was what Chase meant.
On the other hand, you are right when you say that that does not mean that the top simmed spec will be the spec with which the player can unleash his best potential. I am such an example, Affliction sims better than Destruction, but I simply play Destruction better and do more DPS with it. That kind of sucks because I love Affliction, but I simply cannot reach the same numbers I do with Destruction... The thing is, I like Destruction, too, so I'm not really giving up fun for that either...
Snuzzle Jun 29th 2011 6:32PM
@Xayide
The problem with what you're saying is you're assuming thata player will be as skilled with spec B as he is with spec A. I could respec my frost mage to, let's say, arcane; and maybe I'd see a 10% boost in dps. I'm just using those specs as an example, and pulling the percentage out of my butt so let's just pretend for a moment that that's true.
The problem is I can't play arcane to save my life, but I have been frost since I rolled my mage and can do it in my sleep. I love the playstyle, I enjoy the character more with my spec, so I'm more motivated to practice and improve.
I know I could pump more dps on my druid if I respecced and regeared as boomkin over kitty because so many fights favor ranged but again, I don't enjoy boomkin and I cannot play it worth a damn.
I say a player who is playing the spec he enjoys will usually perform better than one playing another he doesn't, even if that other is a theoretical dps increase.
MrDrew Jun 29th 2011 6:47PM
10% more damage is totally worth it if it just cost reforging. I'm still not understanding why people aren't kicking out huge numbers and topping meters even in fights with switching. Everyone HAS to switch so in theory everyone should be dropping slightly in damage.
Basil Berntsen Jun 29th 2011 10:54PM
It's not 10% behind, it's actually ahead on some fights, especially now that the marks nerf is active.
Oriflame Jun 29th 2011 2:29PM
ok, also, just to be clear, the wording of my post's intro was concidental. >.< WTB edit button or someone to post ahead of me so we can look at the content of my post, not its positioning.
Khirsah Jun 29th 2011 8:13PM
I hate it when people post "first", but I didn't even notice it in yours because it was clear you were talking about the first thing on a list of items you planned to mention. Also, even if you did mean it like the idiots that post that they are first, which you clearly did not, it would be forgivable because you followed it up with relevant, well thought out insight on the corresponding article.
TL;DR- no need to explain yourself. You're good.
mikewin2222 Jun 29th 2011 2:34PM
Very insightful. I personally never liked any version of BF and have strayed from combat. I would love to see a sustained DPS on a second target that is NOT a bleed and can be toggled on/off. Something like a spirit fighter that is only activated based on certain contingencies (such as if a fight goes longer than 4 min.). But, of course, I would like this baseline because I'm a greedy rogue. =)
erndawg Jun 29th 2011 2:58PM
You tried to sneak it passed me, but I caught it.
"I think we've accepted as a class that subtlety is going to suck in PVE..."
At least you didn't say it wasn't viable. I'm living proof that it is.
Hail Jun 29th 2011 3:05PM
Pretty sure if something sucks it isn't viable by definition.