Feb 23rd 2012 1:38PM This is all I see:
Jan 30th 2012 7:28AM The last time someone tried to do that, well, the community nearly choked on it's own rage-vomit as it shrieked in horror at the awful, terrible numbers and theory-crafting that was to be had. "This isn't EJ" was the consensus. I sighed.
The sad truth is that no matter the venue, no matter the content, no matter the quality, readers of free content on the internet will never be happy. Ever.
The problem is entitlement. Many - especially those who read articles here - expect every piece to be written with them and their undisclosed needs in mind. But some articles are just not written for you. And when they aren't, move along. Don't try to initiate a childish head-hunt. Go find the information you want, and check back next week to see if there is something here you like. If not, rinse and repeat.
Maybe then, you'll be a happier, more fulfilled reader, and commenters won't have to wade through waves of QQ in order to find a worthwhile response.
Jun 21st 2011 10:45PM Fox hit the nail on the head. The itemization, corresponding performance deduction, and ilvl just don't match up.
Also, this staff undercuts Blizzard's own 60-40 model, apparently for the luxury of having an on-use equip effect. To clarify, consider these stats:
ilvl359 - Chelley's Staff of Dark Mending: 512 Stam:341 Intel -- 60:40 (combined: 853)
ilvl353 - Legacy of Arlokk: 484 Stam:323 Intel -- 60:40 (combined: 807)
ilvl353 - Frostscythe of Lord Ahune: 700 Stam
If the staff abided by the rules established using other staves as a baseline, it should have 807 Stamina, not 700. But apparently the "luxury" tax of the item's on-use effect is a hefty 107 points deducted from a primary stat. Ouch. Also, the staff is down 16 pts in secondary stats. Double ouch.
Keeping the tax in mind, if the staff WAS itemized to include Intellect, it would likely be 280 Int and not the 323 Int that we see on similar-ilvl staves. With how Intellect-dependent DPS casters are in this tier - how important 43 Intellect actually is - I don't understand why this wasn't considered enough of a sacrifice for the on-use effect or to differentiate it from the Zandalari staves.
Taxing a primary stat and THEN dumping the rest of it into a non-important stat just seems overboard and even a little bit lazy.
May 29th 2011 6:16AM -_-
"passed -> past"
May 29th 2011 6:07AM Clarifications and edits:
- "*one's* perception," not "ones."
- "However, if you had a 99% chance to hit and *99* of 100 spells lands for 10,174," not "each."
- "see a more profound effect *than that* stated in this paragraph," not "than the that."
It's totally passed my bedtime. >.
May 29th 2011 5:59AM " ... any loss from misses is more than made up for by the DPS increase from [the extra amount of] Int."
This, one hundred times over.
Yes, it is true that missed attacks are essentially wasted in every way possible, and bad luck w/ the RNG can amplify ones perception of said losses. But when considering misses, one must also take into account the potency of each hit. Giving up some Hit, below the cap, for some Intellect is not a bad idea when the resulting and overall extra amount of damage added to each successful attack outweighs the overall damage lost to unsuccessful attacks.
Another way of stating this concept would be to say that stacking Hit to the cap can lower DPS (DUN DUN DUNNNNN!!!!). This is because while every spell is finding the target, each is not hitting as hard as it would be with less Hit and more Intellect.
Think about it: if you had a 100% chance to hit and each of 100 spells lands for 10,000, you would accumulate 1,000,000 points of damage done. However, if you had a 99% chance to hit and each of 100 spells lands for 10,174 (replacing 1% or 174.2 points of Hit with Intellect), you would accumulate 1,007,226 points of damage. Less Hit, more Intellect, and more overall damage, and that's assuming they scale linearly, which they don't. Intellect scales faster/better/stronger/whatever, so you'd actually see a more profound effect than the that stated in this paragraph.
The lesson to take away from all of this is simple: if you really do care about your character's performance and want an answer to the Hit vs Intellect conundrum, then you need to know your stat weights and apply gear choices, gemming, and enchanting decisions accordingly. Numbers don't lie, after all. ;)
May 1st 2011 1:31PM Was just about to chime in and say that CombustionHelper is working better than it ever has before. The "projected" Ignite value is often accurate even as a BETA addition to the add-on. Thanks for the great work you do and wonderful help that you offer. Mages need it. ;)
Jan 18th 2011 12:09AM Steve Jobs just took a leave of absence from Apple earlier today. He is a professional. How dare he... hmm?
Life happens. The professionals behind the scenes at WoW Insider know this, and they act accordingly. Their hiring process, while casual, is also professional and behind-the-scenes. And if there is ever an unprofessional act behind the scenes, it is handled in a swift and professional manner (also, behind the scenes). See the common thread here? "Behind the scenes."
The reasons you won't see much attention given to comments like wow's (or to your trolling rants about Dom's successor, Tiarnach) are three-fold: 1) The employees at WoW Insider are professionals and present themselves as such 2) matters are often of a personal nature and 3) quite frankly, they are none of our business.
That said, it is easy to be a critic -- we read this site's content for free and risk very little as commenters, after all. But there is much irony in writing about professionalism in an unprofessional manner. If you really want to get the attention of the staff, drop the latter and you'll be on the right track.
Jan 15th 2011 3:43PM @drtongue
I don't have an average ilvl above 350 (rocking only 3 epics atm), and am pulling just shy of 20k when raid-buffed. Top-geared warlocks are pulling somewhere in the neighborhood of 22-24k DPS. If a warlock is in full Heroic gear, itemized properly, and not getting remotely close to that number or breaking 14-15k DPS, something is wrong.
If the warlock is geared and played well, this change will result in a fairly decent buff. Also, since our damage will likely be increasing faster than our stamina, the new health regen model for Fel Armor will scale better over time, resulting in an even greater buff. Of course, that is based on an assumption (a pretty safe one, though), so we'll just have to wait and see.
And why are you worrying about health AFTER combat? We have Soul Harvest, which is one of the best ways to regen health in the game right now and is on a very short cooldown. If it's unavailable, there's always food or a healer to help you out, too. There has never been a good reason to wait for your health to regen via Fel Armor, ever, and it's a little ridiculous to cite that as a reason to be upset over this change.
Jan 15th 2011 3:34AM Health restored every 5 seconds via the "old" Fel Armor = 4,000 health at 100k HP (w/ full Demonic Aegis).
Health restored via the "new" Fel Armor = 20,000 DPS x 6% (w/ full Demonic Aegis) x 5 seconds = 6,000 health.
Looking at it strictly from a DPS-focused standpoint, this change is a buff. However, considering the fact that the health regen will be completely dependent upon damage done, there will be far more variability in the amount of health actually restored as Destruction and even Demonology 'locks. Affliction 'locks will see less variability than the other two, but a LOT more survivability in group PvP settings with this change.