XiDiabolismiX wrote: »Sororia and Mother’s Sorrow. Siroria because it’s op as all hell and MS for the extra crit. Makes for fat bow procs and fat executes.
TheNightflame wrote: »@Masel92 Is that tested difference or just tooltip? I'm wondering how constant criticism bones vs constant spell damage bonus will affect things.
Cybercore_Death wrote: »By now most of us have seen the nuke videos where a group of MagBlades absolutely destroy Rakat beyond recognition in under 3 minutes.
XiDiabolismiX wrote: »Sororia and Mother’s Sorrow. Siroria because it’s op as all hell and MS for the extra crit. Makes for fat bow procs and fat executes.
Sorrow+Apprentice is basically exactly similar to thief and julianos.
Thief gives 10.5% critical and julianos 300 spell damage, and sorrow gives 8.78% critical and apprentice gives 365 spell damage.
So don't pay 500k for sorrow staves if you can craft julianos, use thief and be done with it.
The difference between their average damage from my skills is 0.006%, which is a difference of 24 if you did 40k dps. Not 24k, 24.
XiDiabolismiX wrote: »Sororia and Mother’s Sorrow. Siroria because it’s op as all hell and MS for the extra crit. Makes for fat bow procs and fat executes.
Sorrow+Apprentice is basically exactly similar to thief and julianos.
Thief gives 10.5% critical and julianos 300 spell damage, and sorrow gives 8.78% critical and apprentice gives 365 spell damage.
So don't pay 500k for sorrow staves if you can craft julianos, use thief and be done with it.
The difference between their average damage from my skills is 0.006%, which is a difference of 24 if you did 40k dps. Not 24k, 24.
They're running Thief + Mother's Sorrow though. This scales better in trials with Major Force available and a high crit chance put on top of Siroria's massive spell damage boost is better than Apprentice.
Not to mention that all magicka toons now (should) run minor force in some form which makes extra crit chance more valuable as well.
XiDiabolismiX wrote: »Sororia and Mother’s Sorrow. Siroria because it’s op as all hell and MS for the extra crit. Makes for fat bow procs and fat executes.
Sorrow+Apprentice is basically exactly similar to thief and julianos.
Thief gives 10.5% critical and julianos 300 spell damage, and sorrow gives 8.78% critical and apprentice gives 365 spell damage.
So don't pay 500k for sorrow staves if you can craft julianos, use thief and be done with it.
The difference between their average damage from my skills is 0.006%, which is a difference of 24 if you did 40k dps. Not 24k, 24.
They're running Thief + Mother's Sorrow though. This scales better in trials with Major Force available and a high crit chance put on top of Siroria's massive spell damage boost is better than Apprentice.
Not to mention that all magicka toons now (should) run minor force in some form which makes extra crit chance more valuable as well.
hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »XiDiabolismiX wrote: »Sororia and Mother’s Sorrow. Siroria because it’s op as all hell and MS for the extra crit. Makes for fat bow procs and fat executes.
Sorrow+Apprentice is basically exactly similar to thief and julianos.
Thief gives 10.5% critical and julianos 300 spell damage, and sorrow gives 8.78% critical and apprentice gives 365 spell damage.
So don't pay 500k for sorrow staves if you can craft julianos, use thief and be done with it.
The difference between their average damage from my skills is 0.006%, which is a difference of 24 if you did 40k dps. Not 24k, 24.
They're running Thief + Mother's Sorrow though. This scales better in trials with Major Force available and a high crit chance put on top of Siroria's massive spell damage boost is better than Apprentice.
Not to mention that all magicka toons now (should) run minor force in some form which makes extra crit chance more valuable as well.
You are 100% right. No one in endgame uses juli/apprentice, thief and sorrow smash all the dps records...our magblades wouldn't be hitting 60k+ st if they wore apprentice/juli...I love when people do all these detailed math work ups and yet when good players test this stuff in trials there is a clear difference...
Yeah, it's this. MS+thief generally is the best option for the best players, but the difference is pretty small. That being said, there are definitely people playing the game that 500k isn't a lot of money and they want to have the absolute best, even if it's 0.5% better. For those people, yeah sure it's worth it. For everyone else, nah not so much.I didn't even question that Ms+thief is the best option, you're just overstating the difference again, just as in the other thread on stam builds.
hedna123b14_ESO wrote: »XiDiabolismiX wrote: »Sororia and Mother’s Sorrow. Siroria because it’s op as all hell and MS for the extra crit. Makes for fat bow procs and fat executes.
Sorrow+Apprentice is basically exactly similar to thief and julianos.
Thief gives 10.5% critical and julianos 300 spell damage, and sorrow gives 8.78% critical and apprentice gives 365 spell damage.
So don't pay 500k for sorrow staves if you can craft julianos, use thief and be done with it.
The difference between their average damage from my skills is 0.006%, which is a difference of 24 if you did 40k dps. Not 24k, 24.
They're running Thief + Mother's Sorrow though. This scales better in trials with Major Force available and a high crit chance put on top of Siroria's massive spell damage boost is better than Apprentice.
Not to mention that all magicka toons now (should) run minor force in some form which makes extra crit chance more valuable as well.
You are 100% right. No one in endgame uses juli/apprentice, thief and sorrow smash all the dps records...our magblades wouldn't be hitting 60k+ st if they wore apprentice/juli...I love when people do all these detailed math work ups and yet when good players test this stuff in trials there is a clear difference...
Oh so you think I am not a good player? Thanks for the well hidden insult over there. And then people wonder why theorycrafting dies off. The endgame community is full of stubborn people.
I think you should be glad that there's players out there who don't blindly follow what streamers tell them. But okay, do whatever you want, wear whatever you wear, I won't bother anymore because it's not worth the effort.
I didn't even question that Ms+thief is the best option, you're just overstating the difference again, just as in the other thread on stam builds.
Oreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »...yielding noticeable and better results. End of the day, I am going to run what I see those at the top of leaderboards running because there is objective evidence that it works (doesn’t mean I don’t want to see the math).
John_Falstaff wrote: »Oreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »...yielding noticeable and better results. End of the day, I am going to run what I see those at the top of leaderboards running because there is objective evidence that it works (doesn’t mean I don’t want to see the math).
Is there an objective evidence that Thief+Julianos doesn't? I mean, a trend isn't always a sound proof that there are no alternatives. Sure, people try things and find combinations that work, but belief that other combinations don't may be just a form of behavioral confirmation. People just stick with empirically discovered choices and leave it at that. So, is there an evidence that results are better, or they just didn't try? I just wonder if there are comparisons around from those people.
I would also say it's a little bit strong wording, regarding lack of rotation. For one, there sure will be a rotation for magblade - it's just optimal rotation will have longer period (because too many skills have different durations, so repetition period of the whole pattern will be longer). For another, people successfully use static rotations on magblade (one is given on Alcast's site for his 'Azure' build, and he, by own admittance, uses it in newer trials, "...because you actually have to focus on other things"). Apparently it's not a decisive DPS loss if they're doing score runs with that. Yes, OP is asking about perfect case, but I assume that he's not asking it just to do dummy parses, and it's a stretch to say that magblade doesn't have static rotation.
John_Falstaff wrote: »Oreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »...yielding noticeable and better results. End of the day, I am going to run what I see those at the top of leaderboards running because there is objective evidence that it works (doesn’t mean I don’t want to see the math).
Is there an objective evidence that Thief+Julianos doesn't? I mean, a trend isn't always a sound proof that there are no alternatives. Sure, people try things and find combinations that work, but belief that other combinations don't may be just a form of behavioral confirmation. People just stick with empirically discovered choices and leave it at that. So, is there an evidence that results are better, or they just didn't try? I just wonder if there are comparisons around from those people.
I would also say it's a little bit strong wording, regarding lack of rotation. For one, there sure will be a rotation for magblade - it's just optimal rotation will have longer period (because too many skills have different durations, so repetition period of the whole pattern will be longer). For another, people successfully use static rotations on magblade (one is given on Alcast's site for his 'Azure' build, and he, by own admittance, uses it in newer trials, "...because you actually have to focus on other things"). Apparently it's not a decisive DPS loss if they're doing score runs with that. Yes, OP is asking about perfect case, but I assume that he's not asking it just to do dummy parses, and it's a stretch to say that magblade doesn't have static rotation.
John_Falstaff wrote: »Oreyn_Bearclaw wrote: »...yielding noticeable and better results. End of the day, I am going to run what I see those at the top of leaderboards running because there is objective evidence that it works (doesn’t mean I don’t want to see the math).
Is there an objective evidence that Thief+Julianos doesn't? I mean, a trend isn't always a sound proof that there are no alternatives. Sure, people try things and find combinations that work, but belief that other combinations don't may be just a form of behavioral confirmation. People just stick with empirically discovered choices and leave it at that. So, is there an evidence that results are better, or they just didn't try? I just wonder if there are comparisons around from those people.
I would also say it's a little bit strong wording, regarding lack of rotation. For one, there sure will be a rotation for magblade - it's just optimal rotation will have longer period (because too many skills have different durations, so repetition period of the whole pattern will be longer). For another, people successfully use static rotations on magblade (one is given on Alcast's site for his 'Azure' build, and he, by own admittance, uses it in newer trials, "...because you actually have to focus on other things"). Apparently it's not a decisive DPS loss if they're doing score runs with that. Yes, OP is asking about perfect case, but I assume that he's not asking it just to do dummy parses, and it's a stretch to say that magblade doesn't have static rotation.
Thing is, if you want a static rotation then you're better off with a different class because they can pull off those more easily. Petsorcs for example lose very little dps doing a static 8s rotation.
All classes should run dynamic rotations because no class has all dots which are all the same length and refreshing dots early is a dps loss. You could be using a spammable instead.
Certain people write guides that are to be mass consumed so the best 'rotation' isn't always the one advertised to use.
John_Falstaff wrote: »@Runefang , I can understand all of the above. My point was, they are actually using the simpler static rotation on magblade in latest trials, and it's (according to gm of Hodor, since we're appealing to authority in this thread) apparently isn't big enough DPS loss to care about. It does come without saying that optimal rotation for any class neither leaves downtime nor refreshes skills too early, but the optimal isn't always the most practical. I was merely addressing the point that there's no rotation for magblades; well, there apparently is.
@hedna123b14_ESO , the "most likely" tells me that you didn't test? I mean, those are pure beliefs. On occasion, meta is meta precisely because someone decided it is. And I haven't seen actual testing, that's why I asked @Oreyn_Bearclaw about it - I'd be very curious to see the comparison.
John_Falstaff wrote: »@hedna123b14_ESO - thing is, it again boils down to a matter of trust. You're asking me to trust and take it on faith that LIko and LZH, for example, have tested Thief+Julianos against Thief+MS to show the latter's advantage. I don't have anything against those people, but I don't know them and don't know how thorough they are. You sure they have tested thoroughly, or it's just a probability? Or someone in your guild have tested it and told you results?
As for Alcast, note that I did mention his own statement (from video) that he's personally using that simpler static rotation in latest trials. They seem to be a successful bunch. It doesn't give me numeric value of how much DPS loss is that, but apparently what remains is enough to run for leaderboards. That's why I'm saying that 'no rotation' is a stretch.
John_Falstaff wrote: »I am sorry, I have very little respect for authority figures, I suppose that makes me less competitive. I have to live with it. But it's irrelevant. Just to remind, I had one point, and one question. Point goes as this: gm of obviously successful guild personally uses static rotation on magblade in latest trials, which makes statement of magblades not having a static rotation a stretch. I made that point. The question was: did anyone you know explicitly mentioned that they tested and compared those sets, or did you test them yourself? A simple "no" will do for an answer, in which case I have no more questions, thank you.