Malo + Slow, is Malosini worth it?

[EdTuBrutus]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

[Baler]

Originally Posted by EdTuBrutus [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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

[Troxx]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

[Baler]

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

[skipdog]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.

[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]

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.

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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.