Talk:Mage talents

Layout for this page was based on the Rogue Talents page.

I have the updated talent descriptions ready to go. I will put them up when patch 1.11 goes live. Cornprone 01:53, 20 June 2006 (EDT)

I will be updating this page for 2.0.1; there don't seem to be many significant differences in talents between what's live and what's going in with BC. Duodecimal 10:39, 27 December 2006 (EST)

Editing completed. Duodecimal

Magi begin spending talent points at level nine, not ten.
Explain to me why we have 61 talent points and not 60?


 * Because the calculation is not 70-61 = 9. If you started getting talent points at level 70, you'd have 1 talent point at level 70, not 0 (70-70 = 0). If you started at 69, you'd have 2 talent points at 70. If you started at 10, you'd get 61 talent points at 70. Get the picture? -- Starlightblunder 15:58, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
 * AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 16:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)


 * 1-10 = 10, 0-10 = 11, 10-70 = 61 -- 16:02, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Oh, silly me :) Teabingh 10:25, 7 May 2007 (EDT) /blush

Tis the problem of inclusive versus exclusive thar... To explain it another way, you start at level 1 with no talents. At level 9, you've gained 8 levelups and have been 9 different levels. There are a further 61 levels between you and 70, starting with the 10th level. At 10, you get your first talent point. At that point you've been 10 levels, and have 60 more to pass through. You could define it in sets of ten, each with the same initial digit. IE: 10 to 19, 20 to 29, 30 to 39, 40 to 49, 50 to 59, 60 to 69, leaving 70 as a solo leftover(the original BG level brackets, with AV still uses)...you could also reverse that and have it be 10, 11-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, 61-70(the new BG brackets, used in AB, WSG, and EotS). Basically your brain automatically tries to categorize it so that 10-20 is a set of 10 numbers when it's actually a set of 11, because it includes both 10 AND 20, as well as all 9 of the numbers inbetween them. Graptor (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate Commentary?
It seems like the opinions of one person about the various talents (currently a block of text following the fire talents) is inappropriate to this page (indeed, if everyone weighed in, you'd have trouble finding the actual content! I don't want to be an ass and just delete it, though, without getting other comments first...

Elfchief 15:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to weigh in in the pro collumn. It is a bit sloppy, but Wowwiki is about the 411 and this is 411. It could use a clean up though imho. Smitty the smith 02:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Tree overviews
Added a small paragraph as description/introduction for each tree to make the article look less overall like a big list. Adesworth (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

3/3 Arcane Meditation + 3/3 Pyromaniac + glyphed Mage Armor = 110% of mana regeneration while casting?
Are abilities which allow a percentage of your mana regeneration to continue while casting capped at 100%, or can they stack to allow you to regenerate mana more quickly while casting than while not casting? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * In-combat mana regen has an effective cap of 100%, meaning there's 10% wasted in there. Not that it's really possible/optimal for any reasonable build to use all those, anyway. Adesworth   talk to me IconSmall Mage.gif 02:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I suspected, but I wasn't sure due to Innervate and the old version of Evocation. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Innervate actually works by quadruplicating your actual mana regeneration and setting it to 100%. Adesworth   talk to me IconSmall Mage.gif 00:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Ajax
I was about to start working on this page to update it for Cataclysm, when I suddenly thought: "why not use Ajax?" I always found this page rather long with all three lists, but by using Ajax the lists can be loaded on-demand only. What do you guys think? (and should this be done to the other class talent pages, maybe?) Ddcorkum (talk) 02:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Or not? Since an admin just undid it all, I'm going to just drop the issue -- but would it hurt to mention on the talk page why the deletion?   Oh well, at least the work I did on the fire tree portion of the lists didn't get killed in the rather quick deletion.  Ddcorkum (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly? Ajax just shouldn't be used anywhere, imo. We can present the information without it, we're a wiki, and the ToC serves the purpose of pointing people to a given section. And yes, I made sure to perform the edit the safe way, knowing you had done work on it. :) --Sky (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And it looks ugly. :| --Sky (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well, you look ugly. -- 04:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And it requires secondary pages (subpages seemingly favored, which should also not be used, for separate reasons) which we don't need to have. The information is well presented here on this page without need for secondary pages. --Sky (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (Sky just hates anything not used on Wikipedia) -- 04:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * (Something like that. Q.Q) --Sky (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * lol. After I made that comment above, I realized "oops... the edit was only made... 30 seconds ago?".  I guess I ought to have waited 5 minutes so you'd actually have a chance to type on the talk page.  And yes, thank you for not dropping those fire changes.  That would've been a waste of an hour, rofl.  (PS.  I think EVERY page should use Ajax.  just kidding) Ddcorkum (talk) 04:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, don't worry about asking for the why of things (I wouldn't have explained why otherwise!). That's part of the wiki deal. --Sky (talk) 04:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)