Geobot - good post.
Geobot wrote:
saying that you are downplaying it a little is a bit of an understatement. there's more than a 50 damage difference, because the imbue is added to your magic damage, and then multiplied by the % of the nuke.
That has not been proven to be a fact, and in my experience, I don't believe it to be true. My main reason is this: I often switch over to book 1 fire imbue when fighting lower/equal level mobs, and really, just about anytime I feel the extra damage from a higher imbue is not beneficial (which happens to be a lot). I do this because it saves MP, and mainly because I noticed the difference in damage just isn't that big.
As one example, in the late 40s I would use book 1, Lv9 fire imbue in place of book 2, Lv9 fire imbue when grinding white spiders. Here are their respective damages:
Book 1, Lv9 - 166MP used - 50~83 damage
Book 2, Lv9 - 424MP used - 127~212 damage
I would kill white spiders by trigging imbue, then book 1 fire nuke, book 1 light nuke, and if not dead already, a lionshout. When switching between the two imbues I discovered that there was an effect when using the stronger imbue - but it was not enough to guarantee the white spider would be killed with just two nukes everytime. In other words, the effect was minimal (I was first surprised by this, but having tested it so much now I'm not anymore), and the stronger imbue usually ended up just being MP wasted. This makes sense as the nukes have such a big range of damage, how hard they hit is what determimed if the white spider went down with two nukes, not the extra imbue damage.
Now, lets consider what the result would be with the proposed theory - both book 1 nukes have 250%, and since I could fire off both nukes within either books imbue, one would figure than the imbue damage would be applied to both nukes. Lets calculate this using the proposed theory and compare with my theory (using max damage stats):
212 damage * 250% * 2 nukes = 1060 damage
83 damage * 250% * 2 nukes = 415 damage
212 damage * 2 nukes = 424 damage
83 damage * 2 nukes = 166 damage
These damage numbers are the damage just from the imbue when using two book 1 nukes - I consider the actual nuke damage to be constant in both cases so it can be ignored here. IME, the difference of 424-166 = 258 damage between using book 1 vs. 2 fire imbue still seems high, although its possible because the large range of nuke damage - that very big range can mask a 258 damage difference. But the proposed theory has a difference of 1060-415 = 645 damage.
I don't know what to say except that I'm just not seeing that when I play - the difference between the two imbues is just not that big. A difference of 645 damage is right around, if anything a little higher, than the lionshout I was using at the time - but it was obvious to me the lionshout made a much bigger impact in damage done than switching between the 2 imbues. I've been switching between the two imbues ever since I had book 2 imbue around level 3 or 4, and these results remain relatively the same.
I'll be the first to admit this is not a technical study - I did not record the actual damage done in both cases and compare. But what I did do was notice if the stronger imbue let me kill a mob with one less skill, and the vast majority of time, it does not. Furthermore, in the cases where that extra imbue damage really does help kill a mob with just 2 nukes - meaning 2 nukes w/ stronger imbue kills a mob when I would need 2 nukes & lionshout w/ weaker imbue - the extra damage needed is minimal, as is right in the line with my thoery, i.e. the stronger imbue only needs provide ~200-300 more damage to kill the mob with 2 nukes, and that is pretty much the amount it increases damage according to my theory.
As another point, I have to say your proposed theory for calculating damage is not detailed enough. Here's an interesting situation which sheds light on this: At L45 I had the unusual circumstance of acquiring two L45(+4) swords that had the same *exact* mag. damage - both had 445-509 (IIRC). What they did not have however, is the same mag. reinforce - one of them had a mag. reinforce of about 3% higher on the high end. The difference between them was 8 damage to my max attack. Interestingly, this was about the difference of another +1 on the sword at that level. Just a brief example that unless you account for all the factors that effect how much damage you do, comparing simplified damage numbers can be misleading.
(And ya know what . . . at the time I couldn't figure out the exact math behind it, but I just got another idea writing this as to what it could be. So honestly, thanks . . . your post indirectly made me come up with another idea.)
Geobot wrote:
but let's take a look at those peak numbers, shall we?
Yes, lets . . . using what I consider the more likely (parts of the enitre) equation. I think we all understand that since this leaves out a lot of factors, its not entirely correct, but lets do it anyway.
fire L46 nuke L45 imbue = (404*250% + 249) = 1259
light L46 nuke L45 imbue = (420*250% + 220) = 1270
fire L67 nuke L61 imbue = (854*300% + 446) = 3008
fire L65 nuke L61 imbue = (799*300% + 446) = 2843
light L66 nuke L61 imbue = (859*300% + 394) = 2971
In the L46 case, I used the correct imbue numbers - and light has the higher peak damage. In the L61 case, I had to use the L61 imbue numbers because of the apparent errors (in the data provided in the most common skill chart) in the last book of the light imbue. I also provided both fire cases at L65 and L67 since the light nuke is at L66. The light case is closer to the L67 fire data, than it is the fire L65 data - thus, in this case light has the higher peak damage again.
Furthermore, both of these are tailored towards fighting just one mob - when you consider light can hit three targets in a much broader area than book 2 fire nuke, it has another advantage. Oh, then theres the status effect as well . . .
Geobot wrote:
so as you can see, fire actually has the higher peak damage. however, as there's a multiplier in there somewhere(otherwise a nuke over 3900 would be impossible), it obvious that fire's already higher peak damage would then be muliplied again into a higher number.
If you assume your proposed theory is correct - both statements are true.
If you assume your proposed theory is incorrect - both statements are false.
Geobot wrote:
however, it's immediately clear to me that nuker would try to one-shot as much as possible. so, if you ARE fighting something or someone you can one shot, fire is the best option.
One shotting is def nice, but you're not always one shotting everything - thats just not realistic. Its get boring grinding on enemies far below your level. But I more or less do agree - mostly because fire has the more consistent damage.
Geobot wrote:
however, if you know you'll need more than one shot to kill it, the best tactic to me would be to nuke it with light, then fire as the killer. if your lightning goes off, you'll have reduced the enemy's parry so you can use fire, which has more consistent damage AND a higher peak. with reduced parry, it will translate to even more damage, when comapred to lightning.
Again, depends on how you think the damage equation is writen.
And usually I'll lead with fire nuke because its recharge time is quicker than light. A nuker can fire nuke, light nuke, then fire nuke again instantly because the fire will have recharged. But if the nuker tries light, fire, light, they will have to wait (albeit 1-2 sec) for that last light nuke because it will not have recharged yet.
Geobot wrote:
so what is this thread even about?
I see tons of threads with people asking for advice about a nuker build, but most of them don't really get into the details. Even is this thread, many people are like "so yeah yeah blah blah, do fire and light both - whats your point?".
Geez, I'm sorry for really getting into the details about fire vs. light nukes and fire vs. light imbues, and which is better and/or stronger. Evidently people don't care if they're just gonna use both. Evidently the "why" doesn't matter as long as they know the "what".
I'm sorry for actually using data and experience to back up my claims, and providing information that can actually help a person decide for themself how they want to build their character. I'm sorry for explaining the details and not just giving statements like "fire is stronger". You're right, it's obviously irrelevant.
I'm sorry for questioning a 150/110/20/20 build that is in a "stickyed guide", one that has been referenced to numerous people when they ask for advice about a nuker build. As long as they are spoonfed what they are supposed to do, I guess the reasoning behind it doesn't matter. I'm sorry for pointing out that it might actually be better to make use of all your 300 masteries on your way to the level cap, instead of having a ton of un-used sp and masteries, and how the use of skill reallocation can play a big role in that. I'm sorry for going one step further and even breaking down about how much it will roughly cost.
I'm sorry for pointing out that a Lv150 cap is not a fact, just a theory. That propsed damage equations are not facts, just theorys. That someone with light main / fire sub will quit the game once their character begins to die is not a fact, just a theory. I'm sorry for reminding people that what some say are facts, are actually not. I'm sorry for thinking about the people new to the game who don't know better and will accept other peoples theorys as facts.
I'm sorry for explaining some of the finer details of when to use spear vs. sword - for providing more insight to it to better help players decide for themselves if its something they should do.
But no, you're right . .. evidently this thread has no point.
Geobot wrote:
however, opening up a whole new topic bashing it just seems disrespectful to me, like you just walked up an slapped him in the face. especially considering that it seems(to me at least) that you want people to blindly follow YOUR word, instead of his.
Bashing? So, just because I don't agree with everything a person says that means I'm disrespecting them? What? Or is it just the new thread thing? What can I say, IME a lot of people never make it to the end of a 6 page sticky thread, and easily forget to check to see if anyone added to it because it's easy to miss. Yes, I wanted people to see this - isn't that kinda the point when you respond on a forum? I'll say this - there was no disrespect intended . . . if someone can't handle being disagreed with, then thats their problem, not mine.
And what word of mine would people follow? Especially blindly? Everything I've talked about has been in maximum detail, and I've made few, if any, definitive statements as to what as person should do with their build. I haven't presented a guide, I've presented arguments against and expanded upon an existing one. All I've tried to do is give people more knowledge so they can figure it out for themselves.
Geobot wrote:
your peak damage theory is already disproven, just because i wanted to dig deeper into it.
It hasn't been disproven. And actually, you admitted you don't even have/play a nuker build. I hate to say it, but that means you assumed someones damage equation was correct for imbue+nuke, and tried to use that to justify your point. In other words, you have absolutely no first hand experience with how much damage the imbue adds to a nuke, which means you are just blindly repeating information you don't even know to be true. Sorry.
Geobot wrote:
most people would'nt do that though, and would assume your numbers were right, just because there are numbers there to make it look good.
I agree - at least you took the time to try and figure it out for yourself. That is more than most people do . . . and I commend you for it. But my numbers aren't there to look good - they are the numbers straight from the guide. I didn't massage them at all. The only thing thats debatable is how you want to calculate the damage . . . and in my experience, imbue damage is not multiplied by the nuke %.
Geobot wrote:
if you wanted people to dig deeper and research before starting a build(which you claim is the motive behind it), then this seems to be the wrong way to go about it. maybe a more technical explanation of the math behind it, or something along those lines, would be better, instead of just bashing one particular guide.
I wanted people to think for themselves and not blindly follow the only stickied nuker guide in this forum. Does it make good points? Of course. Do I think it provides the best advice to a new player reading it? No. In case you didn't notice, I'm not trying to make a guide. I'm not trying to tell people what to do. What I am trying to do is open their eyes to flaws I see in another guide, so they can use that knowledge to make their character better. If you perceive that as "bashing", then I can't stop that. That's certainly not the way I perceive it.
About presenting technical information, I don't understand how you can start to say I haven't. I've expanded in detail about many of the finer points of a nuker, and even provided numerical anaylsis to back up my claims. I wish I could give the "official" formula for how damage is calcualted . . but I have yet to see one. People have presented theories on the subject which are helping get us closer, and they are very well thought out and detailed (SuicideGrl's comes to mind as one that is quite good), but I don't think they are quite there yet.
Geobot wrote:
i disagree with fly on a few things, like i said, but i still respect him for posting it in the first place, where most people wouldn't take the time OR the effort.
Agreed.
)
