This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Lvl 80 Ele shammy
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
178827
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
66520
Is 10k different than infinity spellpower? Yes no maybe. Depends on if you as a realist or a pramatist or a practicalist. Makes me thing of jokes along the lines of engineer vs physicist vs mathematician.
Read the last part of my post. Is or is not 2k unachievable levels of spell power?
Post by
Gnub
Righto, after getting some sleep (admitted, I was really not completely awake last night - around 4 am or something when I wrote my last post), I tried to reread the whole thread.
... My head hurts again. I'll keep the claim of there being horribly much wrong math here, but I won't waste the time tossing out tons of calculations. And
zolikk
, you're up to something, but you havn't taken lightning overloads and things like the Tier 8 4-set bonus into consideration.
Post by
321678
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gnub
LO works for both CL and LB. th 4pc t8 bonus should be taken into consideration as well as Glyph of LB.
But LO gives more benefit to LB than CL, as it's only the base damage which is halved - the scaling stays the same. The Glyph was taken into the calculations.
Post by
178827
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
lucius
Read the last part of my post. Is or is not 2k unachievable levels of spell power?
So you think LB outperforms CL at 2k? I'm sorry, but that's just not true.
But LO gives more benefit to LB than CL, as it's only the base damage which is halved - the scaling stays the same. The Glyph was taken into the calculations.
Also not true, LO halves the spell entirely. (Base damage + spellpower component)/2 . So it really affects them both by the same percentage. I've been saying nonstop that cast time matters. My math is fine, I know you say you are going to correct me, but I don't think anyone has taken issue with any of my numbers directly.
Post by
66520
So you think LB outperforms CL at 2k? I'm sorry, but that's just not true.
LB deals more damage than CL at 2k.
Unglyphed, untalented.
That's just simple fact.
Post by
lucius
Are you new to the mechanics of spellcasting? Because the cast time is an important factor in your damage output.
Post by
Gnub
But LO gives more benefit to LB than CL, as it's only the base damage which is halved - the scaling stays the same. The Glyph was taken into the calculations.
Also not true, LO halves the spell entirely. (Base damage + spellpower component)/2 . So it really affects them both by the same percentage. I've been saying nonstop that cast time matters. My math is fine, I know you say you are going to correct me, but I don't think anyone has taken issue with any of my numbers directly.
Hm, seems my memory is either faltering, or it was changed somehow since last I looked... or I've gotten false information, or something silly. A flat 50% * 33% bonus sure does make it an equal increase at least. At least, I'm sure we can agree that Lightning Bolt scales the best - no questions asked. :)
Also, the math comment is not specifically at you, but most people in this thread - including myself now obviously. Or maybe it was fine, but something seemed to be lacking. No, I don't want to point everything out. :P
Post by
Haxzor
Are you new to the mechanics of spellcasting? Because the cast time is an important factor in your damage output.
Maybe if CL didnt have a CD we'd spam it. But it's CD makes it crap .3 of a difference in cast time is not enough reason for my to waste ~1k dmg
Post by
lucius
It's pretty easy to prove to yourself, about Overload. If it only halved the base damage, you would see the normal bolt and overload bolt pretty much hitting for the same amount (at higher gear levels), because much of their damage comes from your +damage.
Infact,
LB
,
Overload
. Since they have different spell ID's you could parse them separately.
Maybe if CL didnt have a CD we'd spam it. But it's CD makes it crap .3 of a difference in cast time is not enough reason for my to waste ~1k dmg
CD is irrelevant. Lava blast has a cooldown and you don't skip that.
Post by
Haxzor
Maybe if CL didnt have a CD we'd spam it. But it's CD makes it crap .3 of a difference in cast time is not enough reason for my to waste ~1k dmg
CD is irrelevant. Lava blast has a cooldown and you don't skip that.
LvB is a garanteed 10k+ crit. CL is a pizzly 2k
Big difference.
And I have tried LB spam on bosses like XT and gotten ~5k dps
Post by
66520
Are you new to the mechanics of spellcasting? Because the cast time is an important factor in your damage output.
In regard to a spell's damage cast time is only a factor for scaling. Which is precisely why Lightning Bolt deals more damage.
Otherwise cast time is only relevant when discussing dps.
Post by
lucius
LvB is a garanteed 10k+ crit. CL is a pizzly 2k
Big difference.
And I have tried LB spam on bosses like XT and gotten ~5k dps
I guess i'm confused as to why you make the comment that you might spam CL if it had no cooldown, and blame the cooldown for making it crap. If it's better you cast it every time the cooldown comes up, as an example : Lava Burst
That's all i was trying to say.
In regard to a spell's damage cast time is only a factor for scaling. Which is precisely why Lightning Bolt deals more damage.
Otherwise cast time is only relevant when discussing dps.
I'm sorry that in a thread about spell dps that it was unclear that we are talking about spell dps. You can't really talk about damage output without including spells' dps. Damage == dps * time.
Post by
66520
I'm sorry that in a thread about spell dps that it was unclear that we are talking about spell dps. You can't really talk about damage output without including spells' dps. Damage == dps * time.
Yes you can.
Say what you mean in the first place.
Use the correct terms for what you intend.
Post by
lucius
Spell casting mechanics are hard. It's why so many argue incorrectly about when CL outperforms LB. Argue all you want about dps not mattering, won't make you right. You assume damage == damage per hit, even though that's not what I say.
Really, if you can't argue the idea and choose to argue against the syntax.
Post by
66520
I don't assume that, that's what it is.
That's why we have a contraction "damage per second" to reflect that you're talking about damage that
isn't
per-cast.
By the way, your last sentence is a conditional with no condition.
Post by
Haxzor
If you use CL in your rotation, you will lose DPS, any good Ele Shaman (Naxx 25+) knows this
Post by
lucius
I don't assume that, that's what it is.
That's why we have a contraction "damage per second" to reflect that you're talking about damage that
isn't
per-cast.
By the way, your last sentence is a conditional with no condition.
Oh, I'm very much aware, but I was just hoping you'd proving the exact point of the statement. And you did, thanks. (lol U CANT START SENTANCES WITH AND)
When someone says 'above 1900 spellpower you should remove CL from your rotation,' and I respond saying "you'll do more damage if you use CL," you take that to mean damage per cast. I'm sorry if that's not entirely obvious to you that you are wrong.
Hang on to your semantics all you want.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.