The “Easy Sorc” build

Gulnagel

Grianasteri wrote: »

Grianasteri wrote: »

I have been running a variation of the "Easy Sorc" for several years. I rarely copy a build/rotation completely, I adapt it to suit my play style and preference.......

Just thought I would drop past to advise that with a little tweaking, my version of this build is now pulling in excess of 10k more dps than I was at the time of writing my original contribution.

Still running IA and Netch. Still with significant room for improvement as I do not have a maelstrom destro staff or gold gear.

The build works. Its so funny seeing so many rile against what is a build that clearly and unequivocally works.

Even on the PTS server?

humpalicous

Regardless of the results or what people prefer, most of it will change when Scalebreaker goes live. Consider this:

- Lightning Splash gets nerfed by 37 %, almost to the point of not even using it due to the new and improved Soul Trap.
- Twilight gets nerfed into the ground, leaving only Scamp as a viable Pet setup.
- Wall of Elements gets a hard nerf, forcing a switch to Unstable morph.
- Clench, Soul Trap and Entorpy all get massive buffs which means that they need to be implemented into the build.

They way I see it, Easy Sorc relies on buffing heavy attacks and causing AOE mayhem through the splash damage. This will still be viable, so the core of the build will live on.

I personally think its fun to theorycraft and create off-meta builds but I generally don't like the slow-paced style of heavy attacking and will stick to my tried and tested frags/pet/dot build.

xynode

I won't be sharing any information on testing until the patch goes live and the build update is completed (there will be a video).

The reason is, I do not want people to start looking for/farming/buying stuff gear/skills wise from my "tests" if eventually it changes back to normal OR something drastic happens and you need something completely different upon release.

My content is timed and kept close to my chest for a reason. I know how easy it is for people to anticipate the update of something, spend all their gold and then BLAM! Patch changes at last minute means you spent out for no reason, I'm not going to be "that guy" and make people do that.
So patience is a Virtue and you as players eventually are the ones who benefit from that, no one wants to waste time and money in game. Frustrating as it is, and i can appreciate that, the patch is "Not Out Yet!" .

NONE of us, even creators, have a crystal ball, so ANYTHING could change in a heart beat before Scalebreaker is released.

But rest assured even with the broken tri focus passive at the moment (hopefully fixed today) on PTS right now, so far, so good.

I do this for hours and hours every day, with actual testing for the potential updates of my own content rather than just flat assumptions and theory, so don't worry. I am most definitely on it!

BUT you will have to be patient. Keep your eyes open (IF you are interested in the build) for the release of Scalebreaker, you will see THEN

pod88kk

https://youtu.be/X2k5vOQMWWU

Emma_Overload

I don't have a dog in this fight, but the video above didn't convince me of anything. All the time monkeying with spreadsheets would have been better spent just aquiring all the relevant gear and running a couple of DPS tests on dummies. Not the goofy iron atros, but realistic 3m or 6m dummies. That's all it would take to prove the point, one way or the other.

Joxer61

Emma_Overload wrote: »

I don't have a dog in this right, but the video above didn't convince me of anything. All the time monkeying with spreadsheets would have been better spent just aquiring all the relevant gear and running a couple of DPS tests on dummies. Not the goofy iron atros, but realistic 3m or 6m dummies. That's all it would take to prove the point, one way or the other.

but why "prove a point" at all? If you like the build use it, simple. If not, STFU, simple again.
But see, its not about the build is it.....

starkerealm

Fights go on long enough that our Crit stats become 'true'...

Yeah... if you're having a lot of twenty to thirty minute pulls, I can see why you're the perfect person to discuss high end DPS.

EDIT: Though, come to think of it, it still never really happens in ESO, because RNG is streaky as ****.

Grianasteri

Gulnagel wrote: »

Grianasteri wrote: »

Grianasteri wrote: »

I have been running a variation of the "Easy Sorc" for several years. I rarely copy a build/rotation completely, I adapt it to suit my play style and preference.......

Just thought I would drop past to advise that with a little tweaking, my version of this build is now pulling in excess of 10k more dps than I was at the time of writing my original contribution.

Still running IA and Netch. Still with significant room for improvement as I do not have a maelstrom destro staff or gold gear.

The build works. Its so funny seeing so many rile against what is a build that clearly and unequivocally works.

Even on the PTS server?

I do not play on PTS and am unlikely to either as I am a console player. At the time of writing the build worked great. Fast forward to now, the build STILL works great and its still funny that folk seem to get so angry about a build that unequivocally works.

starkerealm

Grianasteri wrote: »

Gulnagel wrote: »

Grianasteri wrote: »

Grianasteri wrote: »

I have been running a variation of the "Easy Sorc" for several years. I rarely copy a build/rotation completely, I adapt it to suit my play style and preference.......

Just thought I would drop past to advise that with a little tweaking, my version of this build is now pulling in excess of 10k more dps than I was at the time of writing my original contribution.

Still running IA and Netch. Still with significant room for improvement as I do not have a maelstrom destro staff or gold gear.

The build works. Its so funny seeing so many rile against what is a build that clearly and unequivocally works.

Even on the PTS server?

I do not play on PTS and am unlikely to either as I am a console player. At the time of writing the build worked great. Fast forward to now, the build STILL works great and its still funny that folk seem to get so angry about a build that unequivocally works.

Getting this second hand, but my understanding is that the build's damage ceiling actually increased with Dragonhold.

Mariusghost84

Is this build still viable?

starkerealm

Mariusghost84 wrote: »

Is this build still viable?

Yeah.

kylewwefan

Xynode’s easy Sorc build is on the elder scrolls online dot com main page.

What have you got?

“My spreadsheets and yuck-o math confirm using mother sorrow and Julianos gives more damage”

*insert the Spider-Man Hand Web Spray

if you know how to play pretty good. Maybe. With a heavy attack rotation, probably not. Or if you constantly mess up your rotation due to game mechanics and wat not. Definitely not.

This build uses sets that proc a pretty nice flat damage to a simple rotation. It supports a lower level of “skill” play.

If pressing 5 buttons in some Defined order is indeed skill?

starkerealm

kylewwefan wrote: »

Xynode’s easy Sorc build is on the elder scrolls online dot com main page.

What have you got?

“My spreadsheets and yuck-o math confirm using mother sorrow and Julianos gives more damage”

Fun trivia: Xy does extensive testing on his builds. He's not sitting there with a spreadsheet going, "this should be the best," he actually gets out there and checks to see what works. I haven't asked, but I'd be shocked if he never tested with Juli and MS.

Ramber

starkerealm wrote: »

T3hasiangod wrote: »

Runefang wrote: »

I may just be a sheepie toxic elitist meta lover but I guarantee almost any combination of Acuity/MS + BSW/Julianos/Crafty Alfiq/Spell Strat will beat that build with the same rotation.

I can (mathematically) confirm that running something like Juli + MS + Slimecraw will be better than UI.

Is this like the time you "proved" that Alkosh can't be used on DPS mathematically... By not taking any synergies?

So some basic info for you, T3, for Ui to work, you need to heavy attack. If you're not doing that, you're not using the set.

Also, as someone who doesn't DPS, you might not know this, but Slimecraw is a dead set most of the time if your healer is on the ball. I get how +8% accross the board looks good, but if your healer is on the ball, you already have the buff.

Now, if you're alone, that's different, but builds like this don't really need help for overland content.

Its too bad all the parses are used on the unrealistic trials dummies... we only use the 3/6mill dummies to prove dps for my trails. Then after perfecting and proving you can actually do DPS against a target with resistance we say yeah go ahead and play on the trials dummy.

IDK how youtubers and streamers expect people to learn now to dps any more using their "guides". the math is great it proves meta but i often do more damage just by workingon my own rotation and sets... like others are saying here that proves little compared to actual use in dnngs and trials. the "suggested" gear you all parse with it crap in most situations and ONLY good on vet end game runs and that's if you keep synergies up ALL the time... Why don't you try and help the 95 percent a little more then the top1 percent like you all use to? and dont say you do, just 1 look at your parses shows you use perfected gear with Lokk's set which is useless on a 3/6mill dummy...Show some real parses and explain how you got there instead of masking things like penetration etc... on the stupid trials dummies??

Ramber

I's like to see all the posted trials dummy parses DPS reflected in actual trials and dngns. If you cant then your not helping anyone.

starkerealm

Ramber wrote: »

Its too bad all the parses are used on the unrealistic trials dummies...

Wow, this is a blast from the past. Yeah, the entire thing I was referencing was that T3 used the raid dummy to "demonstrate" how much damage Alkosh could do. Thing is, the dummy's stingy with it's synergies, while an actual DPS can do some hilariously brutal things with that set in a live environment.

Ramber wrote: »

...we only use the 3/6mill dummies to prove dps for my trails. Then after perfecting and proving you can actually do DPS against a target with resistance we say yeah go ahead and play on the trials dummy.

I know I've said this recently, but the purpose for the trial dummy is being able to assess a given build's damage ceiling. So, on the build side of things, they're useful. But, a lot of people do look at the dummies, think, "that's the test," and then build for it. They then walk away with garbage that doesn't work.

Ramber wrote: »

the math is great it proves meta but i often do more damage just by workingon my own rotation and sets...

That's the thing, the math doesn't prove ****. Math can be useful for making quick assessments, or spot checking things. Hell, I pulled out a calculator before posting that comment about 20m pulls earlier. The problem is, there are members of the community who don't test their work. They look at the math and say, "it must be this." If any of us had a complete understanding of the game's idiosyncrasies, that'd be great, but, ESO is extremely complex under the hood. Then, after they've made their choices, they test that final build. They don't go back and check other things. As evidenced by anyone saying Juli + MS outperforms IA + UI.

Bobby_V_Rockit

Probably a dumb question, but has anyone tested IA + FGD? I’m veeeeery curious, I have them currently equipped, 54% crit chance, 2400 spell damage. Looking at it from the angle of fgd being a sustain set and ia being damage set, particularly if heavy attacks are going to be more frequent

El_Borracho

Bobby_V_Rockit wrote: »

Probably a dumb question, but has anyone tested IA + FGD? I’m veeeeery curious, I have them currently equipped, 54% crit chance, 2400 spell damage. Looking at it from the angle of fgd being a sustain set and ia being damage set, particularly if heavy attacks are going to be more frequent

Haven't seen that combo myself. Good crit numbers there.

A couple of drawbacks I see: (1) Sustain shouldn't be an issue with a heavy attack build. (2) I was always under the impression that you got more DPS from stacking the Minor Vulnerability and increase in weapon damage of IA with the increase in weapon damage from UI (or Elegance). I don't know if that's true, but I know it works very well.

I do seem to recall a vMA sorc build that utilized FGD, but I don't think it was paired with IA. I think it was paired with Sprell Strat. Supposedly that was a beast of a combo for single target, but that was also before the last patch

Bobby_V_Rockit

El_Borracho wrote: »

Bobby_V_Rockit wrote: »

Probably a dumb question, but has anyone tested IA + FGD? I’m veeeeery curious, I have them currently equipped, 54% crit chance, 2400 spell damage. Looking at it from the angle of fgd being a sustain set and ia being damage set, particularly if heavy attacks are going to be more frequent

Haven't seen that combo myself. Good crit numbers there.

A couple of drawbacks I see: (1) Sustain shouldn't be an issue with a heavy attack build. (2) I was always under the impression that you got more DPS from stacking the Minor Vulnerability and increase in weapon damage of IA with the increase in weapon damage from UI (or Elegance). I don't know if that's true, but I know it works very well.

I do seem to recall a vMA sorc build that utilized FGD, but I don't think it was paired with IA. I think it was paired with Sprell Strat. Supposedly that was a beast of a combo for single target, but that was also before the last patch

On a pure heavy attack parse (rubber band on trigger) IA outdid MS by about 800-1000 dps. Consequently, thats more or less the “add xxx to heavy attacks”. So I’d have to assume using any other ability would cause MS to win out since the attack is no longer getting that bonus.

DaNnYtHePcFrEaK

Your first problem? Using a Xynode build 😂😂

Joxer61

DaNnYtHePcFrEaK wrote: »

Your first problem? Using a Xynode build 😂😂

wow that was original. you don't like...you don't use, simple. but don't be a *** and try and tear someone down. Better yet, what do you have? yea, thought so...…
enough already.

starkerealm

El_Borracho wrote: »

Bobby_V_Rockit wrote: »

Probably a dumb question, but has anyone tested IA + FGD? I’m veeeeery curious, I have them currently equipped, 54% crit chance, 2400 spell damage. Looking at it from the angle of fgd being a sustain set and ia being damage set, particularly if heavy attacks are going to be more frequent

Haven't seen that combo myself. Good crit numbers there.

A couple of drawbacks I see: (1) Sustain shouldn't be an issue with a heavy attack build. (2) I was always under the impression that you got more DPS from stacking the Minor Vulnerability and increase in weapon damage of IA with the increase in weapon damage from UI (or Elegance). I don't know if that's true, but I know it works very well.

I do seem to recall a vMA sorc build that utilized FGD, but I don't think it was paired with IA. I think it was paired with Sprell Strat. Supposedly that was a beast of a combo for single target, but that was also before the last patch

FGD and VO perform very well in vMA because you're going through enemies like popcorn. They break the entire sustain system in there, outside of boss fights.

But, yeah, given that Easy Sorc is a heavy attack build, you're not going to be suffering for resources, so you lose half the utility of False Gods.

kylewwefan

I’d imagine false god and ia would probably be ok, but doesn’t really make sense together. Heavy attack build doesn’t really need a sustain set, but false god is a decent damage set also

I do wonder why this medium armor Dungeon set with a flat 1000 extra damage per tick/ hit that cannot Crit; outperforms queens elegance that does %20 extra damage for light and heavy attacks?

Intuitively it would make sense elegance/ ia should go together better. But like many things it doesn’t work out that way.

I dont know? I’m not busting out a calculator to figure it out either.


Will say I’m a big fan of false god and it pairs well with many of magic DPS sets. But you’re gonna have to get a little sweaty to make good use of it so it’s not for everyone.

Heelie

starkerealm wrote: »

Fights go on long enough that our Crit stats become 'true'...

Yeah... if you're having a lot of twenty to thirty minute pulls, I can see why you're the perfect person to discuss high end DPS.

EDIT: Though, come to think of it, it still never really happens in ESO, because RNG is streaky as ****.

actually most of the time it only takes a couple of mins of fighting, also throughout an entire trial or dungeon, by the end it will be near true.

T3hasiangod

Heelie wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Fights go on long enough that our Crit stats become 'true'...

Yeah... if you're having a lot of twenty to thirty minute pulls, I can see why you're the perfect person to discuss high end DPS.

EDIT: Though, come to think of it, it still never really happens in ESO, because RNG is streaky as ****.

actually most of the time it only takes a couple of mins of fighting, also throughout an entire trial or dungeon, by the end it will be near true.

I mean, it's easy enough to model in any statistical software package...

Using total hits (from sources that can crit) from this short Yolnahkriin fight, we get a total of 1760 critable hits.

Recreating the build in the UESP Build Editor and applying both Major and Minor Savagery gives us a max crit chance of 58.1 percent when not in execute, and a max crit chance of 88.1 in execute.

Playing the fight, we can see that execute started at around 3:52 fight time, giving us a total of ~12 percent uptime on the 88.1 percent crit and 88 percent uptime on the 58.1 percent crit. We can take these values to get an average of 61.7 percent crit chance.

We can then model this distribution as a binomial distribution and plot the probability as we continue forward with total number of hits.

Using a binomial distribution with properties n=1 and p=.617 with 1760 total trials (see here to learn what these values represent), we can then model the overall probability.

We end up with a plot that looks something like this:

Notice that in this instance, we start to level off at around 750 hits. In other words, at this point, we've started to approach our true probability of crit chance. And this is a fairly short fight of only 4:24.

We can even go one step further and do a Monte Carlo simulation, but ain't nobody got time for that.

El_Borracho

kylewwefan wrote: »

I do wonder why this medium armor Dungeon set with a flat 1000 extra damage per tick/ hit that cannot Crit; outperforms queens elegance that does %20 extra damage for light and heavy attacks?

Intuitively it would make sense elegance/ ia should go together better. But like many things it doesn’t work out that way.

I dont know? I’m not busting out a calculator to figure it out either.


Will say I’m a big fan of false god and it pairs well with many of magic DPS sets. But you’re gonna have to get a little sweaty to make good use of it so it’s not for everyone.

With you on these. I run Elegance over UI only because I was tired of framing Arx for the staves. I know its not BiS, but Elegance still works well with IA. And I'm also not going to try the math here.

FGD is solid for the LA weaving builds with MS. I wouldn't use anything else for a non-pet, non-heavy attack build. Its so reminiscent of the old days of running VO + TFS

Heelie

T3hasiangod wrote: »

Heelie wrote: »

starkerealm wrote: »

Fights go on long enough that our Crit stats become 'true'...

Yeah... if you're having a lot of twenty to thirty minute pulls, I can see why you're the perfect person to discuss high end DPS.

EDIT: Though, come to think of it, it still never really happens in ESO, because RNG is streaky as ****.

actually most of the time it only takes a couple of mins of fighting, also throughout an entire trial or dungeon, by the end it will be near true.

I mean, it's easy enough to model in any statistical software package...

Using total hits (from sources that can crit) from this short Yolnahkriin fight, we get a total of 1760 critable hits.

Recreating the build in the UESP Build Editor and applying both Major and Minor Savagery gives us a max crit chance of 58.1 percent when not in execute, and a max crit chance of 88.1 in execute.

Playing the fight, we can see that execute started at around 3:52 fight time, giving us a total of ~12 percent uptime on the 88.1 percent crit and 88 percent uptime on the 58.1 percent crit. We can take these values to get an average of 61.7 percent crit chance.

We can then model this distribution as a binomial distribution and plot the probability as we continue forward with total number of hits.

Using a binomial distribution with properties n=1 and p=.617 with 1760 total trials (see here to learn what these values represent), we can then model the overall probability.

We end up with a plot that looks something like this:

Notice that in this instance, we start to level off at around 750 hits. In other words, at this point, we've started to approach our true probability of crit chance. And this is a fairly short fight of only 4:24.

We can even go one step further and do a Monte Carlo simulation, but ain't nobody got time for that.

Well you have much better software than me...

What I did was just open ESO logs from the last top 3 vAS runs

All of them were less than 4 mins.

Almost every dd had crit within 1-2% of their actual value.

Bobby_V_Rockit

Have you used New Moon Acolyte on your heavy attack builds? The 5% cost increase would be more or less redunant then, paired with IA could be superb

starkerealm

Heelie wrote: »

Well you have much better software than me...

The problem being, that software is not ESO. You can sit there and say, "well, it should behave this way," only to find that, no, really, it doesn't.

A simple example of this, that you can see, is jump points. You can model your data correctly, and still have that throw you off.

Another example is the ult cost discount system from before Elsweyr. Trying to figure out what an ult would cost on a given build was a nightmare. There's a lot of eccentricity in the way ESO crunches numbers that makes modeling it a pain.

In a lot of cases, it's a lot more efficient to actually just test it in game, rather than trying to model it statistically. Now, this does mean that sometimes you need an accomplice, so if you're particularly antisocial, that can be an issue, but, you're much better off actually testing this stuff.

It doesn't mean you can't model things, but it does mean that anything coming off of a model should be viewed with a lot of suspicion until you actually get into the trenches and try to take it apart, try to understand the behavior at work.

Heelie wrote: »

What I did was just open ESO logs from the last top 3 vAS runs

All of them were less than 4 mins.

Almost every dd had crit within 1-2% of their actual value.

So, the important thing to note is, your crit chance should be, "true," from the first hit. If all things were equal it would roll accurate, and you'd be sitting at that value within the first 10 damage ticks (that can crit.)

But, it's not. This is just a problem with the way ESO generates random seeds.

This isn't saying, "crit chance," is bad, but if you're giving up flat for crit, you've made a mistake.

T3hasiangod wrote: »

Notice that in this instance, we start to level off at around 750 hits. In other words, at this point, we've started to approach our true probability of crit chance. And this is a fairly short fight of only 4:24.

We can even go one step further and do a Monte Carlo simulation, but ain't nobody got time for that.

Problem with this, and you know it, is that the margin for error on 750 points of data is somewhere around six or seven percent. (I'm going off the top of my head, and don't really care enough to calculate the exact value.)

This is a problem with statistics, when you're trying to force a sample population to be 100% accurate, you need a lot of data. You're not getting that in four minutes. I'm willing to bet four minutes will put you at a 90% confidence interval, but that's not the same thing as, "your crit becomes true."

So, you can, potentially, have a "true crit" value out of the gate, but to force to happen will require way more than 750 points of data. You're modeling that part correctly, but you're aiming for an "acceptable margin for error" in a sample population (which should be slightly over 1k), while also saying, "this is true," which is not, because you're trying to force a specific value.

All of this also glazes over a fundamental problem about ESO. All the crit in the world doesn't matter if you don't have flat to back it up. And, we're back to, you should try this in game, and not worry about what you can do on graphing software.

Heelie

starkerealm wrote: »

Heelie wrote: »

Well you have much better software than me...

The problem being, that software is not ESO. You can sit there and say, "well, it should behave this way," only to find that, no, really, it doesn't.

A simple example of this, that you can see, is jump points. You can model your data correctly, and still have that throw you off.

Another example is the ult cost discount system from before Elsweyr. Trying to figure out what an ult would cost on a given build was a nightmare. There's a lot of eccentricity in the way ESO crunches numbers that makes modeling it a pain.

In a lot of cases, it's a lot more efficient to actually just test it in game, rather than trying to model it statistically. Now, this does mean that sometimes you need an accomplice, so if you're particularly antisocial, that can be an issue, but, you're much better off actually testing this stuff.

It doesn't mean you can't model things, but it does mean that anything coming off of a model should be viewed with a lot of suspicion until you actually get into the trenches and try to take it apart, try to understand the behavior at work.

Heelie wrote: »

What I did was just open ESO logs from the last top 3 vAS runs

All of them were less than 4 mins.

Almost every dd had crit within 1-2% of their actual value.

So, the important thing to note is, your crit chance should be, "true," from the first hit. If all things were equal it would roll accurate, and you'd be sitting at that value within the first 10 damage ticks (that can crit.)

But, it's not. This is just a problem with the way ESO generates random seeds.

This isn't saying, "crit chance," is bad, but if you're giving up flat for crit, you've made a mistake.

T3hasiangod wrote: »

Notice that in this instance, we start to level off at around 750 hits. In other words, at this point, we've started to approach our true probability of crit chance. And this is a fairly short fight of only 4:24.

We can even go one step further and do a Monte Carlo simulation, but ain't nobody got time for that.

Problem with this, and you know it, is that the margin for error on 750 points of data is somewhere around six or seven percent. (I'm going off the top of my head, and don't really care enough to calculate the exact value.)

This is a problem with statistics, when you're trying to force a sample population to be 100% accurate, you need a lot of data. You're not getting that in four minutes. I'm willing to bet four minutes will put you at a 90% confidence interval, but that's not the same thing as, "your crit becomes true."

So, you can, potentially, have a "true crit" value out of the gate, but to force to happen will require way more than 750 points of data. You're modeling that part correctly, but you're aiming for an "acceptable margin for error" in a sample population (which should be slightly over 1k), while also saying, "this is true," which is not, because you're trying to force a specific value.

All of this also glazes over a fundamental problem about ESO. All the crit in the world doesn't matter if you don't have flat to back it up. And, we're back to, you should try this in game, and not worry about what you can do on graphing software.

Do you have evidence of a fundamental issue with crit chance in ESO?

Because I have seen Mother's Sorrow being used by pretty much all magicka classes for over a year now? basically any top magicka parse is a person wearing Mother's Sorrow something else

Don't you think that someone would have figured it out by now if there was something fundamentally wrong with crit? You have to remember as your group dps goes up so does the fight time decrease. So end game players are dealing with less critical hits overall, and therefore lesser chance of a "true" crit chance. But they're still wearing crit chance sets.

You're also suggesting that people aren't stacking flat damage? So why are so many people wearing Siroria?

The "problem" with ESO end game is that the math and data behind the game is so easy to figure out that people just take new sets, compare them to Julianus or hundings rage. They have a very good idea of where there current set sits. And if the new set does not beat them by enough there is not point testing them. If it's close you bother testing it to make sure.

damage proc sets can pretty much always be thrown out the window because they will never beat out stat sets as soon as you're above 60k dps, this is different for monster sets ofc.

With stats proc sets you just figure out the actual stat it gives divided by the maximum uptime , if it's potentially close to your current setup you do a few test dummies to find out the actual uptime.

Ravager could potentially beat Advancing Yokeda, but extensive testing showed AY to beat it out because Ravanger was not consistent enough.

People tend to be upset when you tell them this because they always think the the smart players are missing out on something important when really what is going on is that the game has been "solved". Meaning we already know what is the best possible combination of classes and sets. There is some variation in classes between the top groups. But this has more to do with players feeling more comfortable in another class. giving up on some damage for that.