Malo + Slow, is Malosini worth it?

[Erica]

In situations where you need malo, do you think it is best to try to sini as well if your only goal is to land slow asap? I see three options:

1: Malo, then slow until slow lands.
2: Malo, then sini until it lands, then slow till it lands.
3: Malo, then alternate between slow and 1 or 2 sini until slow lands.

Personally, I use option 1 and use turgurs rather than the longer cast, lower mana option of togors. My reasoning is, slow and sini should have exactly the same chance of landing. So if you get 3 resists then your first spell lands... if you were casting slow, it would be slowed. If you were doing sini, you'd still need to slow and your slow can still be resisted easily with the extra -20 sini gave over malo.

I typically only wil use sini if I will need to reslow later, or if additional spells need to hit the target and the fight will be a long-ish one. I could see an argument for method 3, but I think in the end you will be spending more mana than you would if you'd just keep using method 1, since slow is 250 mana and sini is 200.

So which method do you use when you need a debuff to help you slow? Do you do something else completely?

[icedwards]

Are we talking mobs that need to be slowed ASAP? Cliff golems, Lodizal, ToV dragons? Mem Turgur's in the first spell slot so it refreshes immediately, open with Malo, then spam slow until it sticks. Once slowed you can bust out your Tash stick and land a Malosini if soloing, if raiding you'll want to keep an eye on your slow timer and have a bard refresh OOS.

[Erica]

Yes when the goal is to slow ASAP like harder solo/duo/group targets, ToV, etc.

[EdTuBrutus]

If you can land Malosini, you can land Slow.

They have an identical resist check.

So Turgur should always be cast first.

However, Turgur has a refresh delay of 3.0 seconds and Malosini has a cast time of 3.0. So unless you are putting Turgur in Slot 1 (which, most of the time, should be Canni 4) then it is a decent idea to clickie switch between Turgur and Malosini casts.

[icedwards]

So unless you are putting Turgur in Slot 1 (which, most of the time, should be Canni 4) then it is a decent idea to clickie switch between Turgur and Malosini casts.

Dicking around in some PUG or soloing an easy camp? Sure. Anything that needs to be slowed immediately (like Lodizal or ToV dragons) you should always have Turgurs in your first spell slot. Be comfortable moving your spells around.

[Baler]

Malo -45 resist for all resists except poison and disease.
Malosini -60 resist for all resists except poison and disease.
(primarily we're looking at magic resist. -60 is 15 more points better than -45..)
Is it worth it? YES The lower the MR on the target the better for everyone in the party/etc

1. Cast Malo
2. Cast Malosini
3. Cast Slow
4. ???
5. Profit

Exception to this is if your mana is low and or you're having trouble keeping your mana up.
Canni dance harder, if you're at full life and not full mana you're not being an effective shaman.

Malosini 200 mana
Malo 350 mana

If you're smart or lucky your specialization is Alteration. So you'll be able to cast both for slightly less mana.

Turgur's Insects (lvl 51) 250 mana
Togor's Insects (lvl 39) 175 mana

Use turgurs on the big boy targets and torgors on trash stuff. And again alteration specialization applies to these.

So on a big boy target you're looking at less than ~800 mana dump (malo, malosini, slow)
21.052 canni 3's (if the wiki is correct) to refill that 800.
which doesn't take a long time if you have people filling roles. If it's you playing several roles for a group. that could be tricky or not possible.

-
It's a roll of the dice on some mobs. Sometimes you can land malosini first try, other times it takes 10+ tries to land it. Malo is nice because it's unresistible and lowers their MR by -45 making it easier to land the malosini. Unless the mob can't be malo'd.

Solo I encourage you to get a tash stick. But if you have a real enchanter. get them to slam the mob with their best tash before you attempt a malosini.

[EdTuBrutus]

Malo -45 resist for all resists except poison and disease.
Malosini -60 resist for all resists except poison and disease.
(primarily we're looking at magic resist. -60 is 15 more points better than -45..)
Is it worth it? YES The lower the MR on the target the better for everyone in the party/etc

1. Cast Malo
2. Cast Malosini
3. Cast Slow
4. ???
5. Profit

Exception to this is if your mana is low and or you're having trouble keeping your mana up.
Canni dance harder, if you're at full life and not full mana you're not being an effective shaman.

Malosini 200 mana
Malo 350 mana

If you're smart or lucky your specialization is Alteration. So you'll be able to cast both for slightly less mana.

Turgur's Insects (lvl 51) 250 mana
Togor's Insects (lvl 39) 175 mana

Use turgurs on the big boy targets and torgors on trash stuff. And again alteration specialization applies to these.

So on a big boy target you're looking at less than ~800 mana dump (malo, malosini, slow)
21.052 canni 3's (if the wiki is correct) to refill that 800.
which doesn't take a long time if you have people filling roles. If it's you playing several roles for a group. that could be tricky or not possible.

-
It's a roll of the dice on some mobs. Sometimes you can land malosini first try, other times it takes 10+ tries to land it. Malo is nice because it's unresistible and lowers their MR by -45 making it easier to land the malosini. Unless the mob can't be malo'd.

Solo I encourage you to get a tash stick. But if you have a real enchanter. get them to slam the mob with their best tash before you attempt a malosini.

Again, I'll repeat.

If you can land Malosini on a mob, you can land Slow.

They have identical resist checks. There is no reason to cast Malosini as the next spell after Malo on a Slowable mob. Ever.

[EdTuBrutus]

Dicking around in some PUG or soloing an easy camp? Sure. Anything that needs to be slowed immediately (like Lodizal or ToV dragons) you should always have Turgurs in your first spell slot. Be comfortable moving your spells around.

I said most of the time. There really are very few occasions and set ups where you need to slot 1 Turgur. EQ isn't a twitch game, the encounters are set up and the mechanics work in a way where there really isn't a need for that.

[icedwards]

I said most of the time. There really are very few occasions and set ups where you need to slot 1 Turgur. EQ isn't a twitch game, the encounters are set up and the mechanics work in a way where there really isn't a need for that.

I'd argue any encounter OP references (where Turgurs is prone to being resisted even after Malo) you should have Turgurs in slot 1.

You're 100% correct for malosini. It's a luxury for re-slowing, get that first one off before worrying about sticking the extra MR debuff.

[Troxx]

5% away from 60 so no Malo yet.

For mobs that need a slow early I usually have both turgurs and togors loaded as you can instaclick btw casts and chain slow a bit faster until it lands. At 60 I'd malo first then alternate the slows until one sticks.

Do any of you other higher end shams use togors regularly? Only 5% less slow and the shorter duration doesn't matter for most fights - 75 less mana a cast. I still sometimes break out Tagars for faster pulling groups if I'm at all lower on mana.

Cast time does suck though.

[Baler]

Again, I'll repeat.

If you can land Malosini on a mob, you can land Slow.

They have identical resist checks. There is no reason to cast Malosini as the next spell after Malo on a Slowable mob. Ever.


BS

Malo- Resist: Unresistable
Malosini- Resist: Magic(0)

Also I stated that it's possible to land malosini without malo. Idk if you read that though. Probably too busy spreading false information.

[Jimjam]

I think What ETB is trying to say is Malosini has the same resist check as slow, so if you land a malosini you could have landed a slow.

However, obviously there are reasons to land to try land malosini before slow; you may have other people in the group/raid trying to land important spells on that mob too (and your malosini will help them accomplish that).

[Troxx]

Yeah point is malosi and slow are equally likely to land after malo. If your biggest goal is to get it slowed, chain slow after malo.

[Baler]

On the same note...
-15 more MR on the target could be the different between 1 slow or many slows.
just sayin.

and against my point you may not land malosini after the malo and have to cast it again/multiple times.
Which those could have been slow attempts.

I'd say it's worth debating. but in the end if your goal is to slow. Yeah.. Should probably just slow. RNG is unpredictable.
Though -15 mr more does shift the rng odds in your favor slightly.

I've landed malosini on level 60 mobs first try and other mobs it never landed the entire fight. (they were not immune to it lol)

Why even malo,. just spam slow *giggles*
oh because malo lowers MR to increase your chances at landing the slow. Oh but malosini increases those chances even more. :eek:

TL: DR- I'm arguing with myself.

[Troxx]

Baler, it really isn't worth debating.

From the shaman perspective if you're looking to slow a mob - malo first.

Following malo, you are equally likely to land malosini and slow. If it will take you 3 casts to land either of those you are looking at the following

Your way:
-Malo
-malosini fail
-malosini fail
-malosini land
-5th cast being your FIRST chance to land the slow - and still not guaranteed.

The shaman way:
-malo
-slow fail
-slow fail
-slow LANDS
-now the mob is slowed and you have all the time you need to land a stronger debuff and 7.5 minutes to refresh slow.

For this type of discussion, the only important factor is getting it slowed. For 99.9% of eq content - it's trivial once the slow is on board.

[Baler]

You have a higher chance of landing malosini because it's a level 57 spell and by now you should know that just about everything in eq, on p99 atleast, has level affect the formula in some way.
This is why using turgurs(51) on level 60 mobs lands more often than togors(39).


I think you willingly ignored what I said though. With malosini your chance to land slow is better than if you didn't use it.

It IS worth debating.

Your examples are skewed towards your way of thinking btw.

---
Malo- "Your chance of landing slow and or malosini increases."
Malosini- "Your chance of landing slow increases even more."

Also Once a mob is slowed it still does matter if it has -45 or -60 MR
You may have to re-slow the mob at some point.
According to the wiki: Malo last 13 minutes and Malosini lasts ~18-19 minutes. Turgurs lasts ~5 minutes.

And I'm not sure why you feel so strongly against malosini. I already said it depends highly on your mana and situation.

[EdTuBrutus]

5% away from 60 so no Malo yet.

For mobs that need a slow early I usually have both turgurs and togors loaded as you can instaclick btw casts and chain slow a bit faster until it lands. At 60 I'd malo first then alternate the slows until one sticks.

Do any of you other higher end shams use togors regularly? Only 5% less slow and the shorter duration doesn't matter for most fights - 75 less mana a cast. I still sometimes break out Tagars for faster pulling groups if I'm at all lower on mana.

Cast time does suck though.

Pre-60 and when trying to max your levelling efficiency, then downranking your Slow is a very good choice.

Obviously it's not going to matter in a full group with no efficiency. But if you're trying to max your levelling speed, then dropping the slow to the max needed for your Monk to regen through the fight will always increase your XP rate. A decently equipped Monk should be happy with Walking Sleep or Tagar pretty much up to the mid 50s vs efficient XP blues. A lesser tank like a Warrior or Knight probably won't get away with WS but should get away Tagar just fine till the same range.

But do remember to always keep Togor/Turgur up for Nameds, overpulls, CC and trains.

[EdTuBrutus]

You have a higher chance of landing malosini because it's a level 57 spell and by now you should know that just about everything in eq, on p99 atleast, has level affect the formula in some way.
This is why using turgurs(51) on level 60 mobs lands more often than togors(39).


This smells like bollocks, tbh.

Do you have *ANY* evidence for your claim?

Hint - "I think" and "I feel" aren't evidence. That's the same nonsense that leads to muppets running about with 200 Agi and 800AC. Because they "think" or "feel" Agi does something. They're wrong. I suspect you are too.

[Danth]

If something needs to be slowed ASAP then the wife will malo then spam slow as fast as possible...sometimes even alternating between the 51 and 39 slow. Malosini doesn't see much use in such situations; if it does it's typically only after the target's already slowed and things have settled down. I can think of no situation we've encountered in the past 4+ years at level 60 where malosini after malo but before slow would've been the preferred way of doing things. I agree with Brutus and Troxx fully in this case.

EDIT: As a Shadow Knight I use low-level spells quite often and I've never noticed any difference in resist rate between level 9 spells and level 55+ spells. Siphon Strength lands just as often as Cascading Darkness or Shroud of Pain. If there's a difference it can't be much. The only spells where I notice a difference in success rates are those with known resist modifiers (lifetaps, heat blood, etc).

Second edit: My own private testing suggests that agility does actually have some small effect, just not enough to be worth gearing for. I consistently need slightly less average healing per minute with Avatar on than without it. Someone who gears for agility in favor of raw AC is flat-out wrong, though, as are all those people who keep repeating outdated notions of broken AC here.

Danth

[Troxx]

You have a higher chance of landing malosini because it's a level 57 spell and by now you should know that just about everything in eq, on p99 atleast, has level affect the formula in some way.
This is why using turgurs(51) on level 60 mobs lands more often than togors(39).


I think you willingly ignored what I said though. With malosini your chance to land slow is better than if you didn't use it.

It IS worth debating.

Your examples are skewed towards your way of thinking btw.

---
Malo- "Your chance of landing slow and or malosini increases."
Malosini- "Your chance of landing slow increases even more."

Also Once a mob is slowed it still does matter if it has -45 or -60 MR
You may have to re-slow the mob at some point.
According to the wiki: Malo last 13 minutes and Malosini lasts ~18-19 minutes. Turgurs lasts ~5 minutes.

And I'm not sure why you feel so strongly against malosini. I already said it depends highly on your mana and situation.

Uh, no.

That's not how eq has ever worked.

It's the level of the caster vs the level of the mob ... not the level of the spell.

Lol

Togors lasts 3 minutes and slows 70%

http://wiki.project1999.com/Togor%27s_Insects

Turgurs lasts 6 minutes and slows 75%

http://wiki.project1999.com/Turgur%27s_Insects

The only reason to use Turgurs over Togors is when the 5% really matters, the cast time really matters, or when the extra 2 minutes really matters or some combination of the above makes it worth it. Togors and Turgurs are EQUALLY likely to land.

3 mobs hit camp and they take longer than a minute to drop each? I'll Togors the first target and then Turgurs the 2 being CC'd as it makes sure each slow lasts the duration of the fight and crowd control time. If mana is a non issue (or after I get torpor) - I'll laze around with just Turgurs.

You played a mage right? Please don't try to tell shamans how to most quickly land a slow. More debuff is always better, but if the actual goal is getting the mob slowed asap you're best off not trying to land the better but resistance debuff until the mob is slowed. Once the mob yawns, the fight is under control.

PS: I admit being wrong on the 7.5 minute duration. I was remembering the debuff time on more recent live servers with focus item durations. Turgurs lasts twice the duration of Togors - making it more efficient if you need the mob slowed longer than ~4 mins.

[Erica]

Again for me, I believe any malosini attempts at all before slow lands is only worth it if you don't need to help heal or anything else, and you know the next slow is most likely going to get you aggro and die and you have the mana to try out a malosini which is pretty low aggro.

But since malosini and slow have the same chance of landing, in most situations it just seems like a waste. Some targets I duo with an SK, and since our dps is low I always Malo -> Slow till slowed, Malosini, then dots/jbb and epic click, and a reslow eventually.

It seems like people here more or less agree besides Baler. I don't think malosini is useless, and I don't think others do as well... just more situational and low priority compared to slow.

[Baler]

Uh, no.

That's not how eq has ever worked.

It's the level of the caster vs the level of the mob ... not the level of the spell.


proof? Do you have p99 code. I'd love to take a look at it.
If not i'm sticking with my theory that spell level has an influence on the formula for said spell to land.


Lol
Togors lasts 3 minutes and slows 70%
Turgurs lasts 6 minutes and slows 75%

Don't know why you're telling me the slow percentages. Never even brought them into the mix in anything I posted in this thread.

3 mobs hit camp and they take longer than a minute to drop each?

OH so now you're trying to make me sound wrong by creating scenarios that were never discussed previously. cool, not.



You played a mage right?

I have 2 60s now, and 2 characters in the high 50s. Never TOLD YOU how to play shaman. But I know my head from my arse around the class. As i'm sure you think you do too. You don't see me going into rogue threads and telling them about the rogue class because I have nothing to go on for it.

And the reason I dont tell people what my characters are is because my posting style may not be agreeable to everyone and I don't want asshats ruining my in game experiance.
Forum Quest and Everquest are two totally different things.


However the problem between us is that you've continuously failed to read my posts.

This is from my first post in this thread.
which doesn't take a long time if you have people filling roles. If it's you playing several roles for a group. that could be tricky or not possible.

My point is still valid. If malo+malosini allows you to land slow faster then it's better. If you have the mana for it.
But I'm sure you wont make it to this point in my post.

[Baler]

This smells like bollocks, tbh.

Do you have *ANY* evidence for your claim?

the evidence is in the gameplay. Why the fuck do you people think players use level 51 slow on raid targets and not the level 39 slow.

There is also the fact that everything combat related on p99 blatantly has level in the formula. It's really not that far fetched to notice that spell level could be influencing that formula in some way as well.

You then go on to ask for proof. I don't have access to p99 code so we all speculate based on feel. So don't try to say I'm instantly wrong for that. And on top of that we know that not every single thing on p99 is perfectly era accurate. And that the staff are prone to leaning towards making the game more difficult rather than easier.

[Danth]

Why the fuck do you people think players use level 51 slow on raid targets and not the level 39 slow.

You use the top slow against things like that because you don't have to heal damage that isn't taken. As far as the Clerics care, it's not 70% versus 75%, it's 25% versus 30% damage intake, meaning the top-rank slow is about a fifth again as good as the downranked slow. That's a pretty big difference in damage intake per minute if you're talking about things that hit for four digits' worth of damage in a single round. The difference in mana cost isn't so relevant; it isn't the Shaman's job to heal so it doesn't matter if they run themselves out of mana trying to slow. The Shamans don't spam both because if they do they pull aggro off the main tank and die. In so many words, the Shaman uses the top slow in that scenario because it's better and there's no reason not to use it.

Also, as noted earlier, I've never noticed any difference at all in resist rates between level 9 spells versus level 50+ or 55+ spells. I main a class (my Shadow Knight) which actually casts a mixture of low- through high-level spells quite regularly, so if anyone ought to notice such a difference, it's me. If such a difference exists, it must be tiny.

Danth

[Baler]

Going to take a knee on the subject of spell level and resists. I did later state it was a theory not a fact. Even if I presented it as such originally.

It certainly does not discredit all of the information I posted previously. Despite Troxx seeming to think I have no idea about shaman.

[gortimer]

Didn't read all the responses but my way on tough long solo fights is to Malo pet slow and malosini and slow till both stick. Especially important when you need to reslow. But in the end on repeated fights I experiment until I find the most MANA efffecient method. I never malosini before attempting slow even on resistant mobs because a lucky slow will save you tons in MANA. But like I said. Go for effeciency. It Trump's all.

[Troxx]

Baler, the appropriate response to being corrected (losing the argument) isn't to throw a toddler tantrum.

Flipping out is not helping your case.

It's ok. Just get over it.

My point is still valid. If malo+malosini allows you to land slow faster then it's better. If you have the mana for it.
But I'm sure you wont make it to this point in my post.

��*♂️

It doesn't help you land the initial slow faster. This has been pointed out over and over dude.

Nobody ever said malosini was a worthless spell. It's just wrong to think that landing the initial slow is faster with malo + malosini (no more likely to land than slow) + slow. By the time you land malosini, you could have landed he first slow.

Your "theory" about spell level is wrong. Sorry.

[EdTuBrutus]

Second edit: My own private testing suggests that agility does actually have some small effect, just not enough to be worth gearing for. I consistently need slightly less average healing per minute with Avatar on than without it. Someone who gears for agility in favor of raw AC is flat-out wrong, though, as are all those people who keep repeating outdated notions of broken AC here.


Sadly, the Steel Warriors data is all gone, several hundred million data points.

But we can be absolutely certain that Agi does nothing outwith a penalty for being below 75. With Avatar you will be killing mobs faster, so your healing per minute will be lower as no matter how efficient you are, the time between mobs is greater as a proportion of your active play time.

[Danth]

But we can be absolutely certain that Agi does nothing outwith a penalty for being below 75.

I am certain of no such thing, but neither am I certain you're incorrect, either. I did my own trials roughly four years ago on my Shadow Knight and accounted for the concerns you mention. The effect, even in my own testing, was always small enough that you wouldn't notice the difference except via combat logs. I never tested it at all on other classes. Also, combat's been tweaked a couple times since then and it's entirely possible that agility was altered or broken in one of those revisions.

At any rate, we fully concur that anyone who gears for agility is doing it wrong, and that's the important thing.

Danth

[skipdog]

My point is still valid. If malo+malosini allows you to land slow faster then it's better. If you have the mana for it. But I'm sure you wont make it to this point in my post.

Do you still not comprehend the fact that using Malosini at all before you slow something only slows down the time it takes for the mob to gets slowed? If Malosini landed, that means your slow would have landed(they both have the same chances of landing on a mob that is malo'd).

I don't even know how else to explain it to you. People have already posted some incredibly basic examples that show this to be true.

[EdTuBrutus]

I am certain of no such thing, but neither am I certain you're incorrect, either. I did my own trials roughly four years ago on my Shadow Knight and accounted for the concerns you mention. The effect, even in my own testing, was always small enough that you wouldn't notice the difference except via combat logs. I never tested it at all on other classes. Also, combat's been tweaked a couple times since then and it's entirely possible that agility was altered or broken in one of those revisions.

At any rate, we fully concur that anyone who gears for agility is doing it wrong, and that's the important thing.

Danth

as I said in my first post, Steel Warriors did several hundred million data points in order to evaluate stats in EQ. Ago does nothing, Dex does very little for procs and nothing else,. Str is very weak for everyone. For an idea, SW logged +150 Str being worth 5% to the DPS of a Rogue, 3%for a Monk, and meaningless for everyone else.

Now, obviously that was on live and there is always a possibility that P99 has a Non Classic mechanic. If you want to show that, then lets get your data points AND lets get millions of other data points and log it.