Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Either you use a higher mana slow to cover those cases in the example, or you assume that you are casting at least 2x 30 mana roots per fight. Just remember that casting another spell in combat incurs another meditation tick penalty, which is 26 mana on an Iksar. That is 30 + 30 + 26 = 86 mana. A root break also come with potential damage. If you took even 1 hit, you've basically spent the same mana as Paralyzing Earth.
|
What do you mean by higher mana slow? Aren't we already using Turgur's? And certainly - there will be some fights where lil doggo can't keep aggro. But if in most fights a single 30m root is sufficient, while maybe one in ten requires a second cast - you'll still be far more efficient than going with paralyzing earth.
But, to be clear - I'm not saying it's bad faith to dispute the assumption that root is sufficient. I'm saying that proceeding to calculating numbers while implicitly disputing assumptions is in bad faith - numbers are meaningless without an agreed-upon set of assumptions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The fight lasts 85 seconds. A Shaman can easily get some DEX gear and buff themselves. At 170 Dex you get 1.5 PPM. An 85 second fight would have have 2 procs on average, which gets halved by JBB. So yes, you would get 1 proc per fight on average.
|
I know you don't like it when I use the big fancy math words, but unfortunately this is a case where they are necessary. You need to account for the fact procs are memoryless - the likelihood of a proc on any given swing is independent of whether or not any prior swings had a proc. This is a binomial distribution - a series of weighted coin flips. Some fights will have no procs at all, and some fights will have back-to-back procs. Since the proc is a dot, back to back procs are in essence mostly wasted.
I can calculate the expected damage due to procs, but given your past hostility to calculations of expected values, I'm only willing to do so if you're genuinely interested. Off the top of my head, I expect it to end up somewhere between one half and three quarters of the naive calculation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Finally, Troxx always approaches discussions like this in bad faith, and that is clear from his trolling. You have trolled this thread too. You are not in a position to be judging others.
|
"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
I would never judge another person, nor presume to know what is in their heart. It is the act that I label, and not the person. I am not here to defend Troxx - it is not I to whom he shall have to answer. I try to learn from anyone who has something to teach me, regardless of whatever personal failings they may have. I've learned a ton from you! I bought a PWC and SCHW on your advice, and that served me very well indeed.
If you think I've trolled you, that saddens me, and I can only offer a heartfelt apology, whether or not it is accepted. I feel bad about last night. I made an honest mistake - I thought you said you hadn't deleted and reposted. That made me excited that perhaps I found a bug in the bulletin board software; I'm aware that that may be hard to understand and easy to mock, but to put it in familiar terms I guess it's like stumbling across Quillmane back before the whole idea of placeholders was well understood.