Forum:Replacing rank tables

The ranks of many abilities will be gone. And so will the rank tables. I want to replace them with level tables. I have made a start with Wrath, Healing Touch and Moonfire. It will be a lot of entries. If you think the tables will be too big or too detailed, you can/I am willing to undo the related edits.

--Hans Kamp (talk) 16:53, October 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I was watching you, and think it's a good start. I'd probably change it to "Cataclysm table" myself, however. --Sky (t · c) 17:31, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * For level 1 to 10 it is easy to do it. But later on the values will be affected by items with stats, talents and glyphs. Hans Kamp (talk) 17:46, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * However they will also scale with spell/attack power, so that's another problem... -- 19:05, October 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Once Cata is live, and the old ranks go away, I think the title "Cataclysm table" will make less sense. -- Harveydrone 12:59, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Therefore, I was thinking of a better name than "Cataclysm table". Maybe "Scaling". Hans Kamp (talk) 14:27, October 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * How about Scaling by Level, with a note to point out that 'only' level is considered, not buffs, gear, or other variable factors? --PaxArcana (talk) 14:09, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Level table may be it, because previously it was called Rank table. Hans Kamp (talk) 14:13, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Revitalising this discussion. Spells and abilities seem to always scale with level now. I've drafted various tables for, and could do with some feedback about which would be the most appropriate table to use while updating spell pages. I like the idea of doing the first level the ability is learned at, followed by the 10 level milestones til 80 - then when Cata hits, adding 85 to the end. The 10-level milestones are marked in the game with achievements, so it seems appropriate to use them as the new "ranks" for the tables. For the table header, "Spell scaling" seems OK to me. --Afpersing (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could have summary chart (Every 10 + 85) on the main, and a subpage for a full extended level chart? Rocode (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Would it not just be better to determine the current formula for the ability and display the formula on the page, providing a few examples? Base damage tables simply aren't very useful: most spells aren't merely base damage--they're base damage plus any number of (potentially complex) modifiers. These tables give a very incomplete view of the ability and may even mislead readers. I personally think such low value information does not deserve to be in the article, especially considering the amount of space it might take up. In my opinion we should simply display the formula and/or develop a widget (similar to Wowhead's) that lets users input values to calculate the damage. Shrivelup (talk) 06:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I considered this as an option. My plan is to talk with some people at Wowhead to see how they calculate spell scaling. I could unpick their Javscript, but I'm sure they wouldn't mind just explaining it. --Afpersing (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Hans's table is already beginning to deviate from Wowhead (which reports base damage). I think a few entries, with a link to Wowhead would be appropriate.  The problem with using formulas is deciding how much detail to include.  Most every spell does non-crit, untalented damage of (base + coef*SP), so max-level "base" and "coef" are worth putting in the article, along with the list of improvements.  If you put many numbers on the page they easily go "stale."  The first number under Wrath is 15%.  For several days after 4.0.1 came out it would have been 25%.  It could easily change again.  At least in the current context it is tied to the Balance specialization which gives Moonfury.  In a formula, it might just show up as "a fully talented Wrath does ...*(1.15)*... .  Unless there is a way (that editors know about and are willing to use) to "link-with-update" that number to an "authoritative" source (say somewhere on the Moonfury page) it has very little chance of being maintained.  Of course right now Moonfury is talking about the old talent, not the new specialization bonus.  I'd like to see calculators, and know how to link numbers to other pages.  Are we close to having either capability? --Erdluf (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I cannot seem to think of a scenario where having the base damage/cast time/mana cost for each level of the ability is actually useful. If you're looking it up for your own character, the game client does it better than we ever could -- it seems to factor in both your spell power and buffs in its tooltip calculations, and it's not like you have any option to choose. The only real exception I can think of is scaling theorycraft at max-level: "How much damage would I do if I had +9001 SP?" -- but to handle that, we'd only have to list the details at 85. Can you think of a scenario where per-level information is actually going to be useful? -- foxlit (talk) 19:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The question of usefulness was also brought up in IRC. The only useful thing I can think of is being able to see how abilities scale over time. --Afpersing (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)