alcast HQ builds

preevious

Alcast helped me a lot rising from a pitifull to a halfway competent DPS. I can go into vet dungeons and pull my weight mostly thanks to him.

Now, you can tweak a little here and there, sure, but his builds helps newbe to understand lots of things.

Bucky Balls

Woeler wrote: »

MyPrist wrote: »

I do not see them as best PVE guild.

I do not see peoples play better than me becouse they have more friends than me, that plays good. If you have 12 good playing people it is easier make trial faster.

But it is far from good play.

Good play is doing it on your own. With less number of people.

With good group we do vBRP for 46 minutes, with bad group 2-3 hours. But we always make it. Becouse we can do it with only 2 of us in group.

It is no problem to one shot boss with over dps, if you have constant people, but it is only 1 game side. If you can not do anything else it is a bad play. You play really bad. You can only do it in some rare condition.

If you can do it solo, yes you play good. If it is impossible to make solo, not depend on others as much as possible is a good game for me.

Different game expirience.

I one shot bosses in another game, it take us to kill any top dunguan boss less than 10 seconds, and what ? Is it a top level gaming. All do so, it is trash gaming. All can do it, but those who can not shot it can not do dunguan.

We can do it by 2 of us, some groups of 10 players can not. Becouse we perfectly know what to do. This is the good gaming, not only 1 side of the game - "we just dps all, if we can not we die".

It is not good gaming it is trash playing.

It is not hard for brain tooneshot with dps. You need know nothing more than stuck all buffs and debuffs in same time. Get big burst - and boss die very fast.

Even if you have 12 potatos with low skill you can do it. Is it now named good pve gaming in this game community ? Very funny.

By the way, infiltrator is very good set.

All sets now get standartization.

As example: relequin - good on solo target, bad in aoe. Azurblight - bad in solo, perfect in solo target + some adds.

I easely do 50 k on dummy with self buffs in relequin + azurblight on self buffs. On NORD. And what ? My azurblight strikes every 7 seconds from adds by primary target, and gives me +dps. If boss is not a solo target i get up to 70 k dps with only self buffs to primary target with only that. + i will do dps to each if this adds.

But this do not work on solo target dummy. So some trash build have more dps on it. Okey. And what ?

I can do AA hm with just me and tank. I do not need any support of other people in group.

Some people try it and do it "right", they really think that they are top guilds, but they afraid that they can lose if they use HM: "oh so hard, oh my god-can we do it?"

810 *12 party ! It is a shame !

Becouse their brain is poisoned by like Alcats players. Thay lose ability to play and think with their own brains !!!

You say Alcats give some think to community? I say it gives brain poison to it. It stole peoples ability to think and play !

People who have brain do not need his builds, they are all the same. Peoples who do not have it get even harder degrodation and will newer start thinking with ownn brain !!!

Do you know how we do vAA for example ?

We take any 300+ cp players. We can not fail here, we even have no thoughts like it in brain. Becouse we can do it only with 2 of us ! We have brain. If any 1 in group have it it is pissible to make just by cooperation even if i go solo.

vMol is not as simple, becouse your party members can wipe you any time, but we give a big +chanse to groups like that.

vCR is a problem, to many mechaniks to make, have not got enough people to not depend on others. And to many bugs with senergy, disconects and etc.

But vHof, vAS, vSS, is simple. And it is not your bad play if ither player wipes you.

If you just always play same way with constant people - yes you win the dunguan this way. But you will newer learn to play.

Becouse ability to play is like understanding the reasong of life. It can only be obtain in different situations. Not always one - the same. And such deeper it will be, as harder it will go.

Goodness gracious, what in the name of Oblivion did I just read?

I think, maybe, it can be read in two ways:

• behold my spectacular and radiant ego, without equal in the multiverse
• individuality and personal experience beats guides even by experienced players

Either way, maybe it's time for that individual to share this knowledge/experience with some guides of his/her own?

Personally, I have found Alcast's guides to be just that: guides. They are well presented, succinct, easily accessible by novice players and are written rather than relying on trite videos that serve up 95% presenter ego and 5% content. I have and continue to find them a useful reference.

Brandathorbel

I think the rest of the stuff on his website is great. I just find some of the build lacking because they are built around dummy parses.

I also think, as stated, his magicka ones are just wrong. If you have no sustain issues, then false gods is a waste of a set. I would certainly use Dotzz builds or Alcasts.

MEBengalsFan2001

No matter the MMO you play, a guide is that a guide. It is designed based on that player experience playing the game and how things work for that player. Most of the builds on alcasthq are not his own build but from other players.

As a long time MMO player I always use guide to get an idea on what is end game gear, skill setup etc... What I have learned is that what works for me may at time match the build and other times don't match the build.

You need to figure out what works for you as a player. For instance if you are a tank and you find yourself low on stamina or magika regulary than you have to redistribute the attribute points, change glyph, or gear. Or bump up your recovery stats.

Overall what I have learned as long as you use the primary abilities as a healer, tank and DD you can do your role well. Usually there are 3-4 primary abilities and 1 ultimate. The rest is really a matter of your play style. As for gear, there is usually 1-2 must have sets and the rest of the gear is again build as you want to.

Kahnak

xbobx15 wrote: »

I think the rest of the stuff on his website is great. I just find some of the build lacking because they are built around dummy parses.

I also think, as stated, his magicka ones are just wrong. If you have no sustain issues, then false gods is a waste of a set. I would certainly use Dotzz builds or Alcasts.

xbobx15 wrote: »

I think the rest of the stuff on his website is great. I just find some of the build lacking because they are built around dummy parses.

I also think, as stated, his magicka ones are just wrong. If you have no sustain issues, then false gods is a waste of a set. I would certainly use Dotzz builds or Alcasts.

If his builds were meant for a dummy parse, why would he be using FG? Siroria IS the dummy set for Magicka. Considering that this patch has been defined by poor sustain, of course he's got FG for his builds.

People building for a parse don't use Channeled Acceleration, nor do they have Harness Magicka on their bar.

Brandathorbel

Kahnak wrote: »

xbobx15 wrote: »

I think the rest of the stuff on his website is great. I just find some of the build lacking because they are built around dummy parses.

I also think, as stated, his magicka ones are just wrong. If you have no sustain issues, then false gods is a waste of a set. I would certainly use Dotzz builds or Alcasts.

xbobx15 wrote: »

I think the rest of the stuff on his website is great. I just find some of the build lacking because they are built around dummy parses.

I also think, as stated, his magicka ones are just wrong. If you have no sustain issues, then false gods is a waste of a set. I would certainly use Dotzz builds or Alcasts.

If his builds were meant for a dummy parse, why would he be using FG? Siroria IS the dummy set for Magicka. Considering that this patch has been defined by poor sustain, of course he's got FG for his builds.

People building for a parse don't use Channeled Acceleration, nor do they have Harness Magicka on their bar.

look at his stamina builds. are you saying that is not setup for dummy parses?

you and others still missing the obvious question. Why the hell would you use FG if you don't have sustain issues. People don't want to comment on that because the answer is, you wouldn't but there it is, on every build, FG

Kahnak

xbobx15 wrote: »

Kahnak wrote: »

xbobx15 wrote: »

I think the rest of the stuff on his website is great. I just find some of the build lacking because they are built around dummy parses.

I also think, as stated, his magicka ones are just wrong. If you have no sustain issues, then false gods is a waste of a set. I would certainly use Dotzz builds or Alcasts.

xbobx15 wrote: »

I think the rest of the stuff on his website is great. I just find some of the build lacking because they are built around dummy parses.

I also think, as stated, his magicka ones are just wrong. If you have no sustain issues, then false gods is a waste of a set. I would certainly use Dotzz builds or Alcasts.

If his builds were meant for a dummy parse, why would he be using FG? Siroria IS the dummy set for Magicka. Considering that this patch has been defined by poor sustain, of course he's got FG for his builds.

People building for a parse don't use Channeled Acceleration, nor do they have Harness Magicka on their bar.

look at his stamina builds. are you saying that is not setup for dummy parses?

you and others still missing the obvious question. Why the hell would you use FG if you don't have sustain issues. People don't want to comment on that because the answer is, you wouldn't but there it is, on every build, FG

look at his stamina builds. are you saying that is not setup for dummy parses?

Uh, no. People parsing aren't going to be using Vigor. Relequen/Lokkestiz has been the trial meta setup since Elsewyr was released.

But you aren't talking about Stamina builds, you were talking about Magicka builds.

you and others still missing the obvious question. Why the hell would you use FG if you don't have sustain issues. People don't want to comment on that because the answer is, you wouldn't but there it is, on every build, FG

You realize that even non-perfected FG has an additional stat increase compared to other sets, right? Not only that, but Perfected FG adds an additional 1096 Max Magicka on top. For people who are unable to take full advantage of Siroria, which is most players that aren't playing at the high end, PFG is the next best thing. Additionally, as I said, this patch has been plagued with terrible sustain. It gives more or less the same stats as Julianos + Minor Slayer + 8% cost reduction. If none of this has occurred to you, it's probably because you don't participate in vet trials. People don't want to comment because it's obvious to everyone else why it's being used.

T3hasiangod

xbobx15 wrote: »

Kahnak wrote: »

xbobx15 wrote: »

I think the rest of the stuff on his website is great. I just find some of the build lacking because they are built around dummy parses.

I also think, as stated, his magicka ones are just wrong. If you have no sustain issues, then false gods is a waste of a set. I would certainly use Dotzz builds or Alcasts.

xbobx15 wrote: »

I think the rest of the stuff on his website is great. I just find some of the build lacking because they are built around dummy parses.

I also think, as stated, his magicka ones are just wrong. If you have no sustain issues, then false gods is a waste of a set. I would certainly use Dotzz builds or Alcasts.

If his builds were meant for a dummy parse, why would he be using FG? Siroria IS the dummy set for Magicka. Considering that this patch has been defined by poor sustain, of course he's got FG for his builds.

People building for a parse don't use Channeled Acceleration, nor do they have Harness Magicka on their bar.

look at his stamina builds. are you saying that is not setup for dummy parses?

you and others still missing the obvious question. Why the hell would you use FG if you don't have sustain issues. People don't want to comment on that because the answer is, you wouldn't but there it is, on every build, FG

Ok, I'll bite on the troll bait.

False God is a very stat heavy set. It provides the following

* 1666 Spell Critical (~7.6 percent)
* 129 Spell Damage
* 1096 Max Magicka
* Minor Slayer

This makes it very favorable compared to other sets, since it not only provides Minor Slayer, but has 4 armor bonuses where we would normally only have 2 or 3. This gives it a leg up compared to the other Minor Slayer sets, particularly for fights where maintaining Siroria stacks may be problematic or difficult.

It also pairs very well with New Moon Acolyte, a particularly strong set, by offsetting the cost increase of New Moon. This allows users to use New Moon Acolyte, which can compete with Mother's Sorrow as one of the top sets in the game, while not losing out on sustain and still getting Minor Slayer.

And many groups WILL have sustain issues. Only organized groups will not have those issues because they have planned their group composition to help support their magicka DPS. Those same groups also likely have high DPS, which shortens fight times which increases sustain as a result.

thissocalledflower

TL;DR: Def a good jumping off point if you are at al loss of how to begin. It gives you an idea of how to start until you learn the game

Full response below:

Having played the game for a while i can think of better gear options, esp for healers to start out with, esp for leveling up from level 1 to cp 160 than what he offers but that knowing comes with experience and my experience may differ from someone else's, so that they may come to different conclusions that suit them better. Which means any set recommendations i would give that are different than his would just serve as a new jumping off point for someone else.

I do generally like his cp recommendation. They are rather staid and solid.

He doesn't offer any magicka tank setups that i can think of off the top of my head but i feel reasonably confident to make my own anyway but even so i go look at his stamina tank recommendations when making magicka tank builds just for the same jumping off point to think about those choices and what i might need to do differently based on my skill set.

My healers tend to be healer/dps hybrids and my magicka tanks tend to be tank/healer hybrids because i tend to solo play a lot and thats what suits me. Not a big fan of trials though i have done some. I do bg's just for the skill line up to about level 6 then i lose interest.

Nomadic_Atmoran

Ive used his builds a few times and typically have to adjust them to my own needs but Id say theyre mostly solid builds. Theres been a few that I did not really like but it had less to do with the functionality of the build and more of my playstyle. I recently used one of his Sorc builds and it does top notch damage but its just not as entertaining for me as the old build I had (that was not efficient what so ever).

Anyone bashing Alcasts builds are either inexperienced and trying to come off as the opposite, jealous or down right never touched his builds.

New players can definitely use these builds as springboards into endgame and as a good place to start learning how the combat in this game works. If something in the build doesn't seem to feel right. Its like a puzzle, pull a piece out and try something else in its place. Eventually you'll find something that works for you.

Runefang

Alcast provides effective but still suboptimal builds in most cases. However it’s impossible to create optimal builds because it varies so much depending on content and group composition. So his stuff is a great starting point until you get a good grip on the game.

For those who are into the real endgame look at this https://youtu.be/3b0rtV-wvdE. There’s no way that’s helpful or relevant to 99.99% of the player base.

YandereGirlfriend

@T3hasiangod

Thank you very much for the thoughtful input.

I have a nagging question that likely you can answer, which is: What sort of equivalent terms (e.g. Spell Damage, Magicka, Spell Critical, etc.) might Minor Slayer be converted into when thinking about the bonus that it provides to your damage?

I understand that it's a percentage and will scale better as your DPS increases, but if we take, say, a player of 60k DPS, is there a means of quantifying that 5% in a way that can be used for comparison against other sets (outside of parse results, that is).

It would be interesting (at the very least to me) to be able to think "Hmm, Minor Slayer is worth ~350 Spell Damage" which, when added to PFG's 129, is quite close to Scathing Mage while competing favorably against Spell Strategist due to the latter's overall lack of Crit."

T3hasiangod

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

@T3hasiangod

Thank you very much for the thoughtful input.

I have a nagging question that likely you can answer, which is: What sort of equivalent terms (e.g. Spell Damage, Magicka, Spell Critical, etc.) might Minor Slayer be converted into when thinking about the bonus that it provides to your damage?

I understand that it's a percentage and will scale better as your DPS increases, but if we take, say, a player of 60k DPS, is there a means of quantifying that 5% in a way that can be used for comparison against other sets (outside of parse results, that is).

It would be interesting (at the very least to me) to be able to think "Hmm, Minor Slayer is worth ~350 Spell Damage" which, when added to PFG's 129, is quite close to Scathing Mage while competing favorably against Spell Strategist due to the latter's overall lack of Crit."

There is no one answer to this. You cannot place a definitive number on a percentage increase without the context of other variables.

Minor Slayer can be seen as an approximate 3.5 to 4 percent increase in damage dealt, but the actual percentage is going to vary based on buff uptimes on other Damage Done modifiers such as Minor Berserk. You can take your percentage and figure out how much of a Spell Damage or Max Magicka increase that is, but only based on your initial value. Someone who has an initial value of 3000 Spell Damage is going to see a different absolute increase than someone with an initial value of 2500 Spell Damage, even though they will both see identical relative increases.

Heelie

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

@T3hasiangod

Thank you very much for the thoughtful input.

I have a nagging question that likely you can answer, which is: What sort of equivalent terms (e.g. Spell Damage, Magicka, Spell Critical, etc.) might Minor Slayer be converted into when thinking about the bonus that it provides to your damage?

I understand that it's a percentage and will scale better as your DPS increases, but if we take, say, a player of 60k DPS, is there a means of quantifying that 5% in a way that can be used for comparison against other sets (outside of parse results, that is).

It would be interesting (at the very least to me) to be able to think "Hmm, Minor Slayer is worth ~350 Spell Damage" which, when added to PFG's 129, is quite close to Scathing Mage while competing favorably against Spell Strategist due to the latter's overall lack of Crit."

the real question is what is the break even point where minor slayer becomes much better than something like Mother's Sorrow, at 55k dps minor slayer alone is almost 3k dps. If you're above 70k dps there is really no sense in running a setup without minor slayer.

A thing that not a lot of people know is that Lokkestiiz front bar on mag is actually an option that is really close to FG.

FrancisCrawford

T3hasiangod wrote: »

YandereGirlfriend wrote: »

@T3hasiangod

Thank you very much for the thoughtful input.

I have a nagging question that likely you can answer, which is: What sort of equivalent terms (e.g. Spell Damage, Magicka, Spell Critical, etc.) might Minor Slayer be converted into when thinking about the bonus that it provides to your damage?

I understand that it's a percentage and will scale better as your DPS increases, but if we take, say, a player of 60k DPS, is there a means of quantifying that 5% in a way that can be used for comparison against other sets (outside of parse results, that is).

It would be interesting (at the very least to me) to be able to think "Hmm, Minor Slayer is worth ~350 Spell Damage" which, when added to PFG's 129, is quite close to Scathing Mage while competing favorably against Spell Strategist due to the latter's overall lack of Crit."

There is no one answer to this. You cannot place a definitive number on a percentage increase without the context of other variables.

Minor Slayer can be seen as an approximate 3.5 to 4 percent increase in damage dealt, but the actual percentage is going to vary based on buff uptimes on other Damage Done modifiers such as Minor Berserk. You can take your percentage and figure out how much of a Spell Damage or Max Magicka increase that is, but only based on your initial value. Someone who has an initial value of 3000 Spell Damage is going to see a different absolute increase than someone with an initial value of 2500 Spell Damage, even though they will both see identical relative increases.

I find it helpful to do it the other way around -- what will various stats contribute to overall damage?

To a first approximation, damage is usually proportional to

(Effective Max Stat) * (1 + the sum of all the "damage" increases) * (1 + (Crit Rate) * (Crit Damage Bonus)),

where Effective Max Magicka ~= Max Magicka + 10.5 * Spell Power, and similarly for stamina builds.

So the damage increase of increasing Max Stat or Spell/Weapon Power can be calculated by dividing the increase by the figure you had before increasing. The actual increase from Minor Slayer comes from dividing 5% by (1 + your other "damage" increases). The arithmetic for crit chance and damage is only a little more complicated than that.

And none of this matters much if you can't actually execute your rotations well, which is very much a problem I have.