1.8 38/28 Guide Discussion Thread

[Houndie]

I am not sure if anyone already said this, but if the duration of a dot is lowered and the damage amount stays the same, it is a buff and not a nerf. So searing vitality was buffed in 1.8. And I think even before 1.8, searing vitality did more dps than dark touch.

I am new to this, however part of the description for SV is that it's DPS is affected by how many points are spent in the soul. So if there are 0 points in the soul is it still better than Dark Touch?

[Zan]

I am new to this, however part of the description for SV is that it's DPS is affected by how many points are spent in the soul. So if there are 0 points in the soul is it still better than Dark Touch?

I do not know for sure what you are talking about, the dps being affected by the amount of points in the soul.

But I can tell you how to solve questions like this. Go in to the role you will use, so in this case 38/28, go to the dummy, cast SV and check the dps. Check your combat log and you will see it ticks once every ~1 second for some amount of damage. Then after that cast DT and you will see it ticks once every ~2 seconds, and check the damage. Compare the damage (ofcourse compare either both critted or both non-critted), and you know for sure which does more dps.

Second thing you can do is just read how much damage the skill does on mouseover. The damage is always updated with buffs etc. Keep in mind that Searing Vitality does fire damage and is buffed by fire armor. You will see something around 1500 damage over 8s for searing vitality = (187.5 dps) and around 1600 damage over 16s for dark touch (= 100 dps). It is not really rocket science.

[Rexer]

Zan- you sure they increased the tick damage? When I tested it on the PTS way back when, it ticked for the same amount. Either way, I just tried both spells and DT is doing a tiny bit more than SV. Anyone see the opposite?

[Zan]

Zan- you sure they increased the tick damage? When I tested it on the PTS way back when, it ticked for the same amount. Either way, I just tried both spells and DT is doing a tiny bit more than SV. Anyone see the opposite?

Try actually looking at the combat log during SV and than during DT and you will notice SV ticks like twice as fast.

Also, no I am not sure cause I dont remember the damage I did before 1.8. But its just a matter of doing the maths. 1500 dmg over 10s or 1500 over 8s. Ofcourse 8s is better, it does more dps. So unless Trion fucked up their change or skill descriptions etc, it got buffed.

Btw an explanation for you seeing the same damage is because the change is in the tick speed and not the damage each tick does.

My guess is SV ticks 8 times in 8 seconds, so one tick per second. And in 1.7 it ticked 8 times in 10 seconds so 1 tick every 1.25 seconds. And DT always ticked once every 2 seconds.

[Rexer]

Zan- they both tick 9 times, SV is over 8 seconds and DT is over 16 seconds. Although SV does "more dps", they both do almost the same damage per global cooldown (the 1 second it takes you to cast it). Think about it this way: Would you rather cast a bunch of spells that do 4k dmg total and last 16 seconds, or a bunch that do 3k dmg total and last 8 seconds? It's all about the return on investment, where the investment is 1 second of global cooldown.

[Zan]

Zan- they both tick 9 times, SV is over 8 seconds and DT is over 16 seconds. Although SV does "more dps", they both do almost the same damage per global cooldown (the 1 second it takes you to cast it). Think about it this way: Would you rather cast a bunch of spells that do 4k dmg total and last 16 seconds, or a bunch that do 3k dmg total and last 8 seconds? It's all about the return on investment, where the investment is 1 second of global cooldown.

I look at the damage the spell does while it's up and not at the total damage, or rather what I miss when it's not up. If I follow your theory I should use a dot that does 10k damage over 1 year time. But you will not even notice 1 dps increase by using this.

[Calmethar]

I look at the damage the spell does while it's up and not at the total damage, or rather what I miss when it's not up. If I follow your theory I should use a dot that does 10k damage over 1 year time. But you will not even notice 1 dps increase by using this.

Unless the mob is about to die and with the max. DoT duration being 16s it really all comes down to how much damage (and not DPS) the spell does compared to its cast time, so Rexer is right.

[Rexer]

Calmethar- You have a very good point- if the boss is about to die then you have to stop casting the long dots (maybe just spam fireballs).

Zan- If I had dots that did 10k damage over 1 year, then I would use them. I would have 30 million dots on the target by the end of the year, and I would be doing a fuckton of dps. Hopefully your starting to understand my logic.

[Fridge-RaideR]

I look at the damage the spell does while it's up and not at the total damage, or rather what I miss when it's not up. If I follow your theory I should use a dot that does 10k damage over 1 year time. But you will not even notice 1 dps increase by using this.

Hehe ehm zan, according to you i should only spam fireball in any spec, because thats the highest dps spell :P You see where you go wrong? and dont compare stuff with dots that dont excist, thats a bit immature. Keep it serious man.

[Rexer]

Nothing was wrong with him talking about a dot that lasts a year. Where he went wrong was saying it would do 1 dps. He forgot about the fact he could sit there for a year adding dot after dot (assuming you have an infinite amount of dots that last a year) and have crazy high dps.

You would be surprised how many mages come up with a priority list by looking at the overall damage breakdown. I'm talkin about some really good mages. I think the reason why they still do amazing parses is because the difference between my priority and their priority is almost negligible compared to missing a LL refresh, or loosing combust stacks for a few second, or AMOP RNG.