Saturday, April 12, 2008

A Vision of Fire-Lock Raiding

SK Gaming, known for their ground-breaking encounters and incredibly drawn-out video introductions, has taken down the Eredar Twins in fiery fashion. Fiery Warlock fashion, that is.

In this video of their Sunwell encounter, the raid is comprised of 3 Warlocks, all of which are specced for Fire DPS. It's a little surprising and out of the ordinary to have zero Shadow Warlocks in a raid, but as you will see via the performance of the Fire 'locks, it actually works out very well!

What it must come down to is raid composition in this case. I see a few Mages on the field, but I don't believe there are any Shadow Priests (no Shadow Weaving?). Such a composition would definitely tilt the scale into Fire 'locking's favor, and boy does it ever.

But still, I wonder how Shadow Warlocks could perform in a situation such as this... but that's a topic for a different time.

Here's more fuel for the Fire vs. Shadow debate. Enjoy. ;)


Fuhsnuh said...

Hmmm, the numbers aren't as eye-popping as the Shadow variant (no 10k+ shadow bolts T_T) But I suppose the haste makes up for it?

I still think the overall utility from a better functioning SPriest outweighs the 50-100DPS difference, but in a fight where timing is paramount, I can see Fire coming out on top in the end - might help you get your haste capped out earlier, too (is there such a thing as a haste cap for warlocks? I think the mages have one).

P.S. No, I haven't had much time to play either toon, actually =\ Finals are coming up and all, and I got a preliminary acceptance in Calgary for med so...not much WoW until things settle down, lol.

Best of luck with the baby!
Le Fuzz

Anonymous said...

You're right about raid composition Jagoex, but if a fire mage is in the group all warlocks should spec fire whether a shadow priest is there or not.

Jagoex said...

@Le Fuzz: Congrats on your acceptance! That's a big deal bud. /toast

With regards to the Fire vs. Shadow debate, the numbers seem to lean in Fire's favor, but there's an entirely different, less-defined angle that may help us figure this thing out. I'll explain later tonight.

@anon: I think it's a little more complicated than that. Damage isn't the only variable, after all (hint, hint!).