Everywhere I look at the spell data of Scorpion Venom states that it is a 7 tick duration. In actuality this is 8 ticks. I have tested this over an over this weekend and it is indeed 8 ticks. Therefore 110dd and 159/tick adds up to 1382 damage for 360 mana (no mana focus) instead of 1223 damage.
That makes the damage per mana 3.84 dpm.
In comparison, Frost Spear in-game description says a range of 450 to 675 for 250 mana. Lets take the best case scenario and assume you hit for 675 and we will even add in 20% from an ID4 item for a max hit of 810 damage for 250 mana.
Damage per mana 3.24 and that is with Improved Damage. (In actuality the range would be 2.16dpm to 3.24 dpm)
And since nothing is very resistant to cold.............(Sarcasm btw :) )
If I could find a Burning Affliction 4 item.......
That works when said victim lasts longer than 7 ticks.
Quote from: MeowsaThat works when said victim lasts longer than 7 ticks.
Well soloing for AA stuff lasts about 1 minute and 15 sec. Both Scorpion Venom and Venom of the snake wear off with the mob at about 20% life.
I've always been a guy who wants to use dots but never seems to stick with them when I do. I think a major issue for me is in my normal group I'm also the slower. If I dot, even though I group with a heck of a warrior, I get agro much more than if I just dd.
I might change this if I get the two GoD spells (dd, dot) and use them both.
Frost spear will always land for 675 unless it is partially resisted. The in-game description is wrong. That assumes no focus of course.
Dots have a few probles: high and continuous aggro, good ratio only if they run the whole duration, high mana cost, delayed damage, mez breaking, the cost of the critical DoT AA. If you are soloing, yes they are better than nukes most of the time, but even then nukes can be better if yer using them as poor man's snare (ie. nuking down a running mob).
In groups, I preferred to add the amount of damage/aggro I wanted at the time I wanted to - I had almost always two of our 30 sec recast nukes up. If I wanted to slap the mob gently, I used the lower one, if I wanted to bonk it harder the higher one, and if I really wanted to or was overflowing with mana, I chained both as much as I could.
Both nukes and dots are valuable tools and part of the art of playing beastlord is to know when to use which one. -_-
Yup I've run scorp venom at times and had talks about its efficency with it being 8 ticks with a few bst. There are a lot of different factors to consider, but overall nukes work for me. Also remember that frost spear is LESS mana efficent than ice shard and of the other nukes in the line. Every other nuke starts off at 3 to 1 mana ratio. Casting ice shard is still more dps than my melee, so if I'm actually being remotely efficent and not just mindlessly solo'n crap well chatting I'll throw shard instead of spear just for the slightly better mana ratio. Plague can be a nice spell too if mobs last full duration and you have the mana for it. I actually wish I could dot more than I do, but on a raid or in a group (unless I'm tanking) poison dots are just too much aggro. I have heard a few bst claim that they have WA5 an ED main and use scorp and ture dots with a warrior tanking, but I just can't get close to that. *shrugs* go figure another "it depends on your situation" thing. 8P
Heh, I had a big discussion about this with a Ranger friend. My thoughts:
The mana efficiency of a nuke is commonly defined as the damage delivered divided by the mana used. This is accurate for a pure caster, who does zero damage between nukes. For a Hybrid, the benefit of nuking is damage over and above melee damage, and that should be the true damage/mana ratio, as in:
effectve damage per mana = (spell_damage - (cast_time * melee_dps))/mana
I do 50 dps with weapons. Assuming 2 second cast times, my efficiencies are:
Scorp Venom: (1382 - (2 * 50))/360 = 3.56 dam/mana (8 ticks + 110 DD)
Frost Spear: (675 - (2 * 50))/250 = 2.3 dam/mana
Ice Shard : (450 - (2 * 50))/150 = 2.33 dam/mana
Frost Shard: (300 - (2 * 50))/100 = 2.00 dam/mana
When (if) I get 100 dps weapons, my efficiencies will be:
Scorp Venom: (1382 - (2 * 100))/360 = 3.28 dam/mana
Frost Spear: (675 - (2 * 100))/250 = 1.9 dam/mana
Ice Shard : (450 - (2 * 100))/150 = 1.66 dam/mana
Frost Shard: (300 - (2 * 100))/100 = 1.0 dam/mana
With 150 dps weapons, my efficiencies would be:
Scorp Venom: (1382 - (2 * 150))/360 = 3.00 dam/mana
Frost Spear: (675 - (2 * 150))/250 = 1.5 dam/mana
Ice Shard : (450 - (2 * 150))/150 = 1.0 dam/mana
Frost Shard: (300 - (2 * 150))/100 = 0.0 dam/mana
The trend continues as your melee dps increases. At some point, you would LOSE damage by casting a low level nuke. With really good weapons, the mana efficiency is based more on the total damage than the mana spent.
To bring it back to the original topic, Scorp Venom becomes relatively better than Frost Spear as your weapons improve.
With 50 dps melee:
Target efficiency = 2.3 dam/mana, or 828 damage. Add 100 to offset melee and you get 928 damage needed. This is equivalent to SV running for 5.1 tics (6 to win)
With 100 dps melee:
Target efficiency = 1.9 dam/mana, or 684 damage. Add 200 to offset melee and you get 884 damage needed. This is equivalent to SV running for 4.86 tics (5 to win)
With 150 dps melee (for S&G):
Target efficiency = 1.5 dam/mana, or 540 damage. Add 300 to offset melee and you get 840 damage needed. This is equivalent to SV running for 4.59 tics (5 to win).
Having said all that, with a sufficiently high delay 2HB (50-60+ delay), you could time your casts between swings, and ignore the loss of melee damage. That's not going to happen with 90% haste and two 25 delay HtH weapons.
When I solo, I keep both Frost Spear and Scorpion Venom up.
I would like to get Turepta Blood and Trushar's Frost so I can really unload on a mob but haven't had much luck getting spell drops :/
Quoteeffectve damage per mana = (spell_damage - (cast_time * melee_dps))/mana
As you mention yourself with a slow 2HB its relatively easy to time your casts in between swings so you loose 0 melee damage (i say relatively easy because the registration of hits in the UI is affected by lag). But even when you're dw'ing 2 fast 1H'ers at max haste your loss of melee damage isnt equal to cast_time*melee_dps, but only ~75% of that.
Anyways, its not just about dmg to mana ratios, use of SV vs FS vs IS is situational. If you're killing mobs in 30s then there's no point in DoTting. When you're dealing with Gating mobs then size matters ( :wink: ) and FS would be preferable to IS even if it had a 1:1 dmg to mana ratio.
/hugs
Quote
But even when you're dw'ing 2 fast 1H'ers at max haste your loss of melee damage isnt equal to cast_time*melee_dps, but only ~75% of that.
Hmm...you got me here, Cop. Why only ~75%?
BTW, when I said SV becomes
better than FS, I should have said
more efficient. FS is my choice for short fights, gaters and runners. However, SV doesn't necessarily have to run 7 tics to be more efficient.
Putting aside efficiency and moving to damage, another thing to consider with dots is that unlike our best nukes, they have no recast except for the standard 2.25 seconds for all spells. If a mob has moderate cold resists (or is plain lucky) it can completely resist a couple of nukes and you have to wait 30 seconds before you can do any more damage that way. I have yet to see any partial resist from a dot (besides the initial DD component if a mob has that spell mitigation buff that ikaavs have).
Again this has nothing to do with mana efficiency, which I know is the holy grail for some people.
Just another piece of the puzzle, is all.
Yeah there's a lot to consider. For me though if I'm in a situation where a spell get's resisted I basically have to go "shucks". If I bounce a frost spear I have to wait for refresh and I might not have the mana for another anyways, or the mob already gated or ran or whatever. However, I do always have atlesat two nukes up so *shrugs*. With scorp venom if I'm solo'n I usually don't have the mana to retry resisted ones. In some spots I literally have just enough mana to cast 1 scorp venom on each mob I fight and have it run its duration. However, on a raid or something I can't fathom trying another scorp venom lol. I'd say about 50-60% of the times I cast scorp venom I have this dear in headlights look on my face as I watch HoTT window hoping to not see my name show up hehe.
QuoteHmm...you got me here, Cop. Why only ~75%?
Well when casting time > hasted delay the next combat round will fire immediately after you're done casting. As a result of this you don't loose (casting_time/hasted_delay) number of combat rounds, but less.
Let's say you're using 20 delay weapons and are at max haste, so hasted delay is 1.0 s. Assume the same 2s casting as you did before, and that the casting is done without paying any attention to swings, that is the start of casting will fall in between combat rounds completely at random.
Worst case scenario: casting starts just a fraction of a second before the next combat was due. The next combat round will then take place 3s after the last one and you'll have lost 2 entire combat rounds. This is the scenario your formula is assuming, the whole of the casting time is wasted.
Best case scenario: casting starts a fraction of a second after the last combat round. The next combat round takes place just 2s after the last one and you loose just one combat round.
On average, casting wil start halfway between combat rounds. You effectively loose 1.5 combat rounds instead of 2, hence the 75%.
Another example: you're using at 34 delay 2HB at max haste so hasted_delay is 1.7 s. Worst case scenario you loose 1+0.3/1.7 combat rounds, best case scenario you loose just 0.3/1.7 combat rounds. On average you'll loose 57.5% of your melee damage. If you'd pay attention to your swings and start casting immediately after a combat round (assuming super-reflexes and no lag) you're always in the best case scenario and melee damage loss is only 15% (realistically tho i dont think you'd get it below 30% or so)
Example #3, 20 delay weapons again, max haste, but now casting time is 4s. Best case, loose 3 rounds, worst case, loose 4 rounds. Effective average 3.5 rounds = 3.5/4 = 87.5% of your melee damage.
General formula for this fraction when casting occurs at random is
1 - 0.5/(casting_time/hasted_delay)
/hugs
Wow this turned into quite the discussion.
All I wanted to point out was that Scorp was 8 ticks not 7 making it pretty damn effeicent. hehehehe
number crunchers.....................
:D
Fun isn't it, to see an innocent little remark evolve into a heavy theoretical discussion?
/hugs
Quote
All I wanted to point out was that Scorp was 8 ticks not 7 making it pretty damn effeicent. hehehehe
rofl
Your first mistake was using a decimal point. Decimal points are to geeks what Mad Dog is to alchoholics. When you typed "3.8", I saw "3(OMG PLEASE ANALYZE ME)8".
Coprolith,
I gotcha, good catch. My general equation should be:
effective damage per mana = (spell_damage - (lost_melee_damage))/manaplugging in your formula:
lost_melee_damage = (casting_time*melee_dps)*(1 - 0.5/(casting_time/hasted_delay))
or
lost_melee_damage = melee_dps*(casting_time - 0.5*hasted_delay)
so, to plagiarize you:
effective damage per mana = (spell_damage - (melee_dps*(casting_time - 0.5*hasted_delay)))/manafor a given mana cost, spells are
more efficient as they do more damage (duh)
more efficient the faster they cast
less efficient as as your melee damage increases
less efficient as your weapons get faster (surprising)
Which would cover the whole spectrum of slow 2hs to fast 1hs. I think =).
Do people back out to cast? I just stay in melee range and channel it. I get alot of procs imediatly after a spell lands.
I only back out when there's multiple unslowed hammering on me. I let the pet take that damage while i slow the mobs. Once slowed, i step back in. I never back out just to nuke or dot, the loss of melee damage that would cause defeats the whole purpose of nuking.
More procs directly after casting i believe are a figment of your imagination.
Quote from: BrycWhich would cover the whole spectrum of slow 2hs to fast 1hs. I think =).
Krek, as long as casting_time > hasted_delay. I did this whole analysis when i was making my dps calculator, to see if i could incorporate combat casting into it. In the end I decided against it because it was too much work to implement for too little gain, and it would have meant 2 more user inputs which would only cause confusion. Nice to see my theoretical murmurings still coming in handy at a later time tho :D
/hugs
Quote from: Coprolith
More procs directly after casting i believe are a figment of your imagination.
Definitly not my imagination. I think it is because I am engaged in combat and of course I don't turn off the attack to cast. The "proc timer" (not sure what else you could call it) decides that i need to proc but since I am casting, it waits until I swing after my spell lands.
I cast 2 dots on every mob and i would say on 5% of my casts I get a proc as soon as the spell lands.
While your proc rate is constant over time, the 'proc timer' is still tied to your combat rounds, not time. There's no clock ticking that says 'time's up, i must proc now' or ''i've just procced, tick tock tick tock'. You just get a chance to proc per combat, which itself is calculated in such a way that the average number of procs over time is independent of delay. If you lower your number of combat rounds per minute by chain casting you lower your proc rate. There's just no way to implement a code that calculates your chance to proc in combat round on a timed basis.
Trust me, in game perceptions are about as reliable as a politician's promises during election year. The random number generator is playing tricks on your brains. If you believe its not your imagination then i say parse it out and prove me wrong. If what you say is true you could make a macro that chain casts a spell with long casting time (IoS for example) and force almost every swing in between casts to proc. This should be easy to parse out against the Katta banker.
/hugs
Too funny, chain casting IoS is exactly how I tested this awhile back. I even went so far as to simply cast sha's + nuke + nuke every one minute and then totaled procs verse total procs well simply melee'n.
Quote from: TastianToo funny, chain casting IoS is exactly how I tested this awhile back. I even went so far as to simply cast sha's + nuke + nuke every one minute and then totaled procs verse total procs well simply melee'n.
And what was your outcome?
Hrmmm Corp....all you say sounds good. hehehe. To test this though I think I need to chain cast a clicky item cause mana would never hold out for a good parse. But I also need a second of delay for a swing inbetween casts?
I am curious about the average over time still though. If I was to aug that 45dmg 150dly hammer from da giants in burning woods and used no haste items or haste spells, this thing would have to proc every second swing on average?
I think I will burn 40 adventure points on that 20dd fire aug to test it out. heheh seems like fun.
QuoteTastian wrote:
Too funny, chain casting IoS is exactly how I tested this awhile back. I even went so far as to simply cast sha's + nuke + nuke every one minute and then totaled procs verse total procs well simply melee'n.
And what was your outcome?
Yes, inquiring minds would like to know :D
QuoteHrmmm Corp....all you say sounds good. hehehe. To test this though I think I need to chain cast a clicky item cause mana would never hold out for a good parse. But I also need a second of delay for a swing inbetween casts?
Well statistics on proc rate are sucky, no doubt about it, but the effect of chaining IoS should be so profound it wouldnt take long to see its effects. I think you can chain it for 4-5 minute in a row, med back to full for another few minute, rinse and repeat. All in all i dont think it should take longer then 30 mins before the effects become clear. There's no real need to parse the baseline (= proc rate without casting), that's pretty much a given.
QuoteI am curious about the average over time still though. If I was to aug that 45dmg 150dly hammer from da giants in burning woods and used no haste items or haste spells, this thing would have to proc every second swing on average?
Wasn't that a 2HS? Seems like ages since ive killed giants in FM. Regardless, you're correct. With a really slow 2HB, augmented, no haste (better yet slow yourself) you'll pretty much get a proc in almost every combat round.
/hugs
QuoteWith a really slow 2HB, augmented, no haste (better yet slow yourself) you'll pretty much get a proc in almost every combat round.
That's the trick the Warriors who were AEing in Fire used with Earthshaker (70 delay 2HS that procs Earthquake) - they had themselves slowed ahead of time in duels with Shaman, then pulled everything in the first field and hit Rampage (Warrior AA that attacks all targets in range) and had procs on nearly all hits.
Of course, they died immediately afterward to the few mobs left alive, but it made for some really amusing logs.
When calculating dps of a spell shouldn't you use:
From the start of casting of the spell until the landing of the spell on the mob from the second cast.
For instance.
1. Your casting SV on a mob. You start to cast (clock starts). Without affliction haste item, casting time is 4.1 sec. Spell duration is from initial hit and 8 tics. Then recast spell again for another 4.1 sec, spell lands (clock stops).
2. Your casting FS on a mob. You start to cast (clock starts). Without affliction haste item, casting time is 3.2 sec. Spell is instant duration. Then wait 30 seconds before spell can be recasted. Then recast spell again for another 3.2 seconds, spell lands (clock stops).
From the time you start to cast your first spell until the landing of your second spell, the total damage that you do from that spell is during this (window) is your total damage from the spell. You might be doing 1278 dmg (110 initial and 146 per tic for 8 tics) for SV without dmg bonus focus item. Calculate 4.1 sec cast time, initial land spell for 110, 8 tics at 146 per tic, each tic is 6 seconds apart, from the initial hit to the last tic is 54 seconds, recast spell takes another 4.1 seconds.
So your doing 1278 damage using Scorpion Venom in 62.2 seconds or 1 min 2.2 seconds.
For Frost Spear, 675 damage, 3.2 sec casting time, landing instant, 30 second recast time, 3.2 seconds to recast spell. Is 36.4 seconds. Putting the 2 in comparison this way they both are doing roughly the same amout of damage in the same amount of time.
This is just my thoughts on the subject anyways. I could be totally off base in my assumptions.
While I was on a mind break, I started thinking too. Yeah watch out, its flying now...
Calculating melee dps. Shouldn't you calculate the total number of swings taken during a given period of time. With your misses, dodge, block, riposites, hits included. Not every time are you going to perform the exact same way on each mob.
Someone mentioned something about hybrids. We are hybrids, in the fact that we can not melee and cast a spell at the same time. If your casting a spell, or a proc goes off, your not meleeing at all. You might get a hit between, but its probably off a riposite and not an actual swing.
It's late here and I think I burnt my brain up. someone enlighten me here.
Going back thru some of the posts again. Missed some things from previous posts.
You must have some form of improved damage on your spells. I get 146 per tic on SV withouth any thing added.
There can be so many variables when calculating dps for these spells. Not every person will be the same.
Say for example. I'm wearing a mutititude of focus affects that enhance every aspect of my damage spells. Such as Affliction Haste, Affliction Efficiency, Burning affliction just to name a few. I now have got shorter casting time, spells last longer, spells doing more damage per tic.
Ok let's see...
- No bst has a cast time of 3.2 on nukes or 4.1 on any dot other than like plague. We get hybrid spell haste. At 65 nukes are 1.9(ish) casting time. Scorp is around 2.1 (ish again I just woke up and I'm already late lol).
- You don't factor in hits/missing/etc because in any given 1 round anything can happen. Rather you look at the average dps and average results over time. Sure in one cast you might get a resist, might get a crit for 1485+. You also might have quad'd for max every hit and crit every hit. Look at the average damage over time and work around those numbers.
- Hybrids can't melee well casting, however, hybrids were "tweaked" awhile back so that spell casting wouldn't recent the melee timer. Originally if you cast a spell when it finished you restarted your melee round. Now when you finish casting you attack right after in most cases (depending on weapon delay and spell being cast).
- Casting spells lowers proc rate
- I get "some" procs right after a spell finishes, but I also get some spells that "restart" casting because I get a proc just as my spell is about to start casting. Basically I click the button to cast the nuke, the spell gems flicker like it was a fizzle, the proc fires, then instantly after that the casting bar appears and the spell starts going.
- If you had a MH weapon with innate proc and gave it another aug'd proc, as well as an off-hand weapon with a proc and aug'd it with a proc and had WA5 then you would expect (in most cases) ~9 procs a minute or one proc every 6-7 seconds. If you start melee'n something and simply cast Spiritual vigor (5sec casting time) you simply won't proc after EVERY cast finishes. Take a few minutes of casting SV and watch that you don't proc after every swing. Also if having attack on kept the timer going then people could kite mobs with attack on then dart by and weapon would proc right away because you'd been in "attack mode" but had not had a chance to proc yet.
- I'm late, talk to ya's sunday. lol
Quote from: DakatIt's late here and I think I burnt my brain up. someone enlighten me here.
Let me first give you short version of this reply because i fear the long version could cause permanent brain damage :D
The short of it is that spell dps or efficiency of a spell is very situational and the method of calculation should be tailored to that situation.
The long version:
QuoteWhen calculating dps of a spell shouldn't you use:
From the start of casting of the spell until the landing of the spell on the mob from the second cast.
Yes thats one way of defining it. The dps of a spell is a tricky one. First of all there's more then one way to define dps. Secondly you have to differentiate between DoTs and DDs since they deliver their damage in different ways. E.g.:
1. max potential spell dps, or burst dps, is equal to spell_damage/(casting_time+recast_time) for DDs and total_spell_damage/(casting_time+DoT_duration) for DoTs.
2. max sustainable spell dps is equal to spell_damage * mana_regeneration_rate/mana_cost (provided mana_cost/mana_regeneration_rate > cast_time+recast_time or > cast_time+DoT_duration)
3. actual sustained spell dps is taken over a long period of time by summing up all the damage done by that particular spell divided by the total time. This is the closest to the definition you're giving since its averages out to spell_damage/average_time_inbetween_casts.
4. "real" spell dps is the total damage done by that spell divided by the time it took to kill that specific mob from the moment it was first engaged. You could then average out this dps over many fights.
#2 and #3 are very similar btw. For max sustainable dps you can read mana_cost/mana_regeneration_rate as the shortest possible average_time_inbetween casts. #4 differs from #2 and #3 in that the latter 2 assume there's no downtime whatsoever. #4 is the 'real' spell dps, that is it applies to normal gameplay and its sort of a mix between burst and sustained spell dps. Its very situational tho which is why its so hard to compare spell efficiencies in the first place.
#1 and #2 are easy to calculate and are therefore better suited for a general comparison (#3 and #4 you have to measure, not calculate). Unfortunately in the case of spell dps, or spell efficiency, the general comparison doesnt have as much bearing on real gameplay as is the case with melee dps because spell damage isnt nearly as 'smooth' as melee damage.
QuoteCalculating melee dps. Shouldn't you calculate the total number of swings taken during a given period of time. With your misses, dodge, block, riposites, hits included. Not every time are you going to perform the exact same way on each mob.
Again it depends on how you define dps. You can (theoretically) average out your melee dps over many different mobs. A sort of 'lifetime' average provided you never upgrade again or get dps boosting AAs. Every time you do upgrade, you reset the average and the clock for the 'lifetime' average starts ticking again. Or you could look at sustained melee dps for a partiular situation.
In the discussion we had before in this thread on how you should correct spell efficiency for loss of melee dps you can use either, tho generally you won't know your 'lifetime' average. However there's little harm in using your sustained dps measured for a particular situation and apply that to a different situation. Its only a correction after all, and a small error in the correction factor can be considered a second order effect.
For the purpose of a general weapon comparison you'd want to look at the lifetime average dps of that weapon. Then the next step would be to look a little deeper and compare weapons for a particular situation, in which case you should use the sustained dps for that situation.
I don't know if this cleared things up for you or if i just permanently put your lights out :wink:
/hugs