Until you get to higher levels of OEing (faster with a blessed weapon I'd imagine) or NC releases some weapon grade higher than what currently exists, staff will always give you more m attack than one hander+sigil.
Higher grade will bring higher grade Retributer, which will still be better than Casters/Busters of the same grade.
Only Mage class I'd wear a 1H mage weapon on is a PvP healer (with Shield) and maybe a Reaper Summoner (Buster + Shield or Sigil depending on situation, cause of the higher base P.Crit Rate, though the P.Atk being higher on the Retrib coupled with increase 2HB Crit Rates makes that less justifiable). On a Feoh there's no reason to wear it. The MP Regen bonus is just too bad and isn't a decent substitute for the M.Atk you lose.
If it had a 3% Clarity, Reuse, or HMG Effect; it would have made it a lot more attractive to go 1H + Sigil...
Do not listen to these guys. Buster all the way. In easy PvE you can put any siegel and get some m.att, but all you need is a shield. Shield is much better pve and pvp wise. I hope you do not nuke mobs 1 by 1, but actually use what your class is good at - AoE.
M.att is irrelevant unless you can hit a cap of 20k, 50k, 80k. 200 dmg more per hit is absolutely nothing in comparison to bigger survivability. Soon people will start even to suggest putting Empower SA, instead of Mana Up SA as a second SA. Will you listen to this crap too?
Magic accuracy is much better than m.power on crit. Just like if you want to be a class based oly killer you will go for +15 wit, rather than +15 int. But in this set up you are not really much more useful in other areas, rather than class based oly.
Your ability to block dmg > your ability to hit for 200 dmg more. Not to mention that in a long term pve dps, siegel with buster gives even better dps than 2handed staff.
Hello.
I am Aeore and got a dualclass feoh almost 93, look i think all the opinions are right. It just depend how u configure your char.
Since Freya update or even before the wyzard begin to search for magic critical not matack (doesnt means matack is also good)
In my case i put 2 dyes int +5 and 1 +5wit and use recovery type set (+2wit), i use a wit pendant (+3 wit).
i keep Arcana power and is a bit enchanted
depending in your race and what u think is better anyways the criticals are everything, did any here kill for example a healer 1 time w/o critical only pure matack? NO. U need critical. 15km atack is enought.
I got 19,++k with a requiem xd and like 24k with retri one acumen another empower. Also try to use matac (10%) and casting (10%) talismans
and if u can a mtack pendant.
Since i remember a DD must be faster as posible (cast and critic, matack is secondary but also necesary try test everything).
Well the OP said 80% PvE then the staff might be much more useful. However if u think long term - R95 crystals are no available which means it will be a much better to invest the R95 wpn in to a top R weapon and hang on with it until level 99.
Surely somewhere after 95-97 you would start PvPing much more - be it just by more attendance at CoC and oly, the competitive game mechanics force you to pvp. In this case shield becomes handy and having the ability to change between siegel and shield during PvP and PvE mode is better than being stuck with a staff.
I have not tested, but I researched a bit and it is said that Feoh's still have approx 30% shield defense rate. Human Feoh's might have a little bit more now.
I have also read that shield defense rate is increased against archers, and that 20k crit might easilly be reduced with a shield.
Being said all that I think that the diversity the game has now makes the Feoh Wizard being able to be developed in a few ways. However I would ask you this... in a pvp back in the days if you were able to chose which class to take in a group - SwS or BD - which one would you chose? I personally would not leave without a SWS.
Retributer is always better. It doesn't matter if you PvE or PvP. The benefit of a shield to a mage with Magician's harmony is practically nil to the point that it isn't even worth considering. Sigils are useless cause the secondary effect (MP Regen) is useless with the reduced UB2M reuse - not that it has ever not been useless.
Healers can get away with 1H + Shield because oftentimes they PvE/P with Light/Heavy + Knight Harmony:
Increases the P. Atk.+12%, P. Def.+45%, Shield Defense Rate +30%, Shield P. Def.+50%, P. Critical Damage +35%, and P. Critical Rate +100% of a party member for 30 minutes.
Mages don't use that buff. Even a Summoner can get away with that setup. But a mage will almost never take Knight Harmony unless it's one of the most predictable situations (a known set archer/dagger/melee PvP group, some Olympiad matches perhaps, etc.).
The Shield Block Rate for a Mage is not 30% (in a mage setup).
In a setup similar to a Light/Heavy + Shield Healer it may be approaching 15% (nothing near 30 - get a same level iss with Chrono duals to attack you with a shield and full buffs and check for yourself - it's not hard) but your offensive capabilities will be so absolutely deplorable that you mind as well delete your toon.
20k M.attk is pretty low for a feoh with arcane power unless you're an elf and even then... My CP healers have around that much.
Anyway yeah a sigil is pretty crappy and a shield is even more crappy for a mage especially counting that it only blocks attacks and magic projectiles from the front which makes it even less effective in mass pvp. End all be all, even if you succeed a block you're mitigating so little damage it almost doesn't matter.
The biggest benefit to a 1-handed sword is the mana up SA which is great for long term nuking and a added boost to using arcane barrier and rebirth.
To a summoner, pretty useless as you really have to really try your best to run out of mp. And in Lindvior, retributer is no contest for summoners.
i have done damage test with 1 handed and 2 handed weapon, having the same matk on my char using both weapons.
2 handed weapons natually high harder even at +0 they have higher max damage but lower min damage vs a buster or caster. but overall i think they deal more dps.
Retributer is always better. It doesn't matter if you PvE or PvP. The benefit of a shield to a mage with Magician's harmony is practically nil to the point that it isn't even worth considering. Sigils are useless cause the secondary effect (MP Regen) is useless with the reduced UB2M reuse - not that it has ever not been useless.
Healers can get away with 1H + Shield because oftentimes they PvE/P with Light/Heavy + Knight Harmony:
Mages don't use that buff. Even a Summoner can get away with that setup. But a mage will almost never take Knight Harmony unless it's one of the most predictable situations (a known set archer/dagger/melee PvP group, some Olympiad matches perhaps, etc.).
The Shield Block Rate for a Mage is not 30% (in a mage setup).
In a setup similar to a Light/Heavy + Shield Healer it may be approaching 15% (nothing near 30 - get a same level iss with Chrono duals to attack you with a shield and full buffs and check for yourself - it's not hard) but your offensive capabilities will be so absolutely deplorable that you mind as well delete your toon.
I did a test myself concluding 18% shield defense rate against a double blunt weapon. I guess it will vary depending on the weapon. R95 shiled has approx 500 p.def. Yet again the biggest threat for taking dmg in a pvp is from archers, who hit really hard. Then this % will increase against them. I have not tested the shiled defence rate against archers, but I read somewhere that it is 3x the base shield rate which is 20%, so it makes 60% if that is true.
You can not claim that a buff like warrior harmony that increases shield defense rate by 30% and shield p.def by 50% that will work, but then claim that 500 p.def shield and 20% base rate will not work.
I just want to add a critique - healers fighting with warrior harmony are just bad, no matter if they have shield or whatever weapon else. This is not a trolling, just implying a simple information.
Now what is the difference between 1h staff, 2h staff and a magic sword. The basics are the min and the max dmg. This is why I am saying that in the long term, all the weapons will give almost equal dmg. Yes the first weapon has higher m.att, but in the long term dps it will give almost the same dmg as a magic sword with siegel.
After that you have +4 special abilities. I wont argue here, I would say that +2m.accuracy and +2m.crit. rate is more important for me than anything else, having in mind m.accuracy is the main factor when it comes to landing debuffs.
Next is the SA - I will not argue again, but the best SAs out there should be acumen and mana up. Now here comes the real deal - mana up + shield increases your survivability significantly, while empower and 2 hand staff does not increase your m.att so big that you will hit like a truck, while I will be hitting as a fly. At the other hand I will have huge survivability difference against you.
Just my thoughs though, I am happy we have a discussion.
I did a test myself concluding 18% shield defense rate against a double blunt weapon. I guess it will vary depending on the weapon. R95 shiled has approx 500 p.def. Yet again the biggest threat for taking dmg in a pvp is from archers, who hit really hard. Then this % will increase against them. I have not tested the shiled defence rate against archers, but I read somewhere that it is 3x the base shield rate which is 20%, so it makes 60% if that is true.
You can not claim that a buff like warrior harmony that increases shield defense rate by 30% and shield p.def by 50% that will work, but then claim that 500 p.def shield and 20% base rate will not work.
I just want to add a critique - healers fighting with warrior harmony are just bad, no matter if they have shield or whatever weapon else. This is not a trolling, just implying a simple information.
Now what is the difference between 1h staff, 2h staff and a magic sword. The basics are the min and the max dmg. This is why I am saying that in the long term, all the weapons will give almost equal dmg. Yes the first weapon has higher m.att, but in the long term dps it will give almost the same dmg as a magic sword with siegel.
After that you have +4 special abilities. I wont argue here, I would say that +2m.accuracy and +2m.crit. rate is more important for me than anything else, having in mind m.accuracy is the main factor when it comes to landing debuffs.
Next is the SA - I will not argue again, but the best SAs out there should be acumen and mana up. Now here comes the real deal - mana up + shield increases your survivability significantly, while empower and 2 hand staff does not increase your m.att so big that you will hit like a truck, while I will be hitting as a fly. At the other hand I will have huge survivability difference against you.
Just my thoughs though, I am happy we have a discussion.
well if a archer hits you from the side of behind or with a skill any side that sheild wont help and retri can hit 17% harder on crticals when 4+ or higher cause they get 388 to magic critical damage.also 2+ to mcrit makes almost no diff, mana up 30% more mana helps very little even in mage vs mage cause they can just cancel your barrier.
20k M.attk is pretty low for a feoh with arcane power unless you're an elf and even then... My CP healers have around that much.
Anyway yeah a sigil is pretty crappy and a shield is even more crappy for a mage especially counting that it only blocks attacks and magic projectiles from the front which makes it even less effective in mass pvp. End all be all, even if you succeed a block you're mitigating so little damage it almost doesn't matter.
The biggest benefit to a 1-handed sword is the mana up SA which is great for long term nuking and a added boost to using arcane barrier and rebirth.
To a summoner, pretty useless as you really have to really try your best to run out of mp. And in Lindvior, retributer is no contest for summoners.
i think is near 30 with talisman and solidarity lvl 3 didnt test yet im really not interested (this means my weapons are a piece of **** xd not even +3 xdd) in the dual class , i take it cos lvl fast in fairys till 95 and i need the dual class certificated :D Just try to give a light to the person who ask, from my view point the DD must kill the healer first and only way to made it its critical.
So you guys are saying that the m.att and the dmg difference is huge?
Can somebody prove that really with a simple test?
Put 2 with the same gear and lvl nukers - 1 with magic sword and 1 with staff and do 20 hits each to the same target, then post a screen with the dmg from the both nukers, so we can see the difference. In the end calculate the sum of the dmg of both nukers. I am sure the dmg difference will not be really noticable.
If anyone can do this? Or we should ask juji to do it, perhaps.
Ok I did a short test! Not very accurrate and complete but should be enough to make some simple conclusion!
LVL 2 ISS BUFFS and Wizard Harmony was used on both Feohs and the target
Both Feohs have used Wizard Spirit
Target LVL 86 ISS m.def 1935; wind resist 40
Nuker 1 lvl 90; 109 int, 76 wit; 24480 m.att (first cap reached)
Top R 2handed staff 300 wind element empower + acumen SA
10 hits with with elemental crash:
1 - 6394 - m.crit
2 - 3322
3 - 2694
4 - 6894 - m.crit
5 - 2704
6 - 2655
7 - 7167 - m.crit
8 - 3466
9 - 2818
10 - 3168
3 m.crits; 7 normal hits
Total dmg with m.crits - 20455, approximate dmg on m.crit hit - 6818
Total dmg on normal hit - 20927, approximate dmg on normal hit - 2990
Total dmg for 10 hits - 41382
Nuker 2 lvl 91; 96 int, 78 wit; 15361 m.attack (1st cap not reached)
Top R Magic Sword No Siegel (Shield) 300 Wind element acumen SA
10 hits with elemental crash:
1. 4400 - m.crit
2. 2322
3. 4655 - m.crit
4. 2236
5. 4276 - m.crit
6. 5080 - m.crit
7. 2372
8. 2462
9. 4659- m.crit
10. 2581
5m.crits; 5 normal hits
Total dmg with m.crits - 23070, approximate dmg on m.crit 4614
Total dmg with normal hits - 11883, apprixmate dmg on normal hit 2376
Total dmg - 34953
Conclusions:
- 3 m.crits vs 5 m.crits
- nuker 1 hits for 6818 dmg approximately on m.crit - nuker 2 for 4614, difference in dmg is 2218 per hit on m.crit
- nuler 1 hits for 2990 approximately on normal hit - nuker 2 for 2376,
difference dmg is 614 per hit on normal hit
My conclusions:
- The test is not perfect, mainly because the 1 level difference between the 2 nukers
- Nuker 1 has reached the first m.attack cap; while nuker 2 has not, thus the m.attack difference is significant
- There is a significant difference in int between the 2 nukers - 13 int for nuker 1, thus the dmg difference on m.crit is huge
- The dmg difference in normal hit is only 614, although the significant m.attack difference and having nuker 1 hitting the m.attack cap, while nuker 2 has not
- Nuker 2 does 2 more m.crits, but that is mainly because of the 2 more wit and being a level higher perhaps, however we should take into account the weapon +4 enchants
- The whole damage difference both on normal and m.crit hit will lower down once we start addiding m.def, elemental defence and levels to the target, however in the same time the m.crit rate will lower down too and we will not have such a difference in the number of m.crits. In the end we will have perhaps 200 dmg difference in normal hit and 300-400 dmg difference in m.crit hit, as we know that m.def stacks and caps easier and better than m.attack.
- The dmg on both nukers will increase as stacked as they get and maby (just maby) the nuker 1 will hit for 400 dmg more on normal hit, while doing 600-800 dmg more on m.crit hit
- According to me in open pvp anything under 1000 dmg is really insignificant
Ok I did a short test! Not very accurrate and complete but should be enough to make some simple conclusion!
LVL 2 ISS BUFFS and Wizard Harmony was used on both Feohs and the target
Both Feohs have used Wizard Spirit
Target LVL 86 ISS m.def 1935; wind resist 40
Nuker 1 lvl 90; 109 int, 76 wit; 24480 m.att (first cap reached)
Top R 2handed staff 300 wind element empower + acumen SA
10 hits with with elemental crash:
1 - 6394 - m.crit
2 - 3322
3 - 2694
4 - 6894 - m.crit
5 - 2704
6 - 2655
7 - 7167 - m.crit
8 - 3466
9 - 2818
10 - 3168
3 m.crits; 7 normal hits
Total dmg with m.crits - 20455, approximate dmg on m.crit hit - 6818
Total dmg on normal hit - 20927, approximate dmg on normal hit - 2990
Total dmg for 10 hits - 41382
Nuker 2 lvl 91; 96 int, 78 wit; 15361 m.attack (1st cap not reached)
Top R Magic Sword No Siegel (Shield) 300 Wind element acumen SA
10 hits with elemental crash:
1. 4400 - m.crit
2. 2322
3. 4655 - m.crit
4. 2236
5. 4276 - m.crit
6. 5080 - m.crit
7. 2372
8. 2462
9. 4659- m.crit
10. 2581
5m.crits; 5 normal hits
Total dmg with m.crits - 23070, approximate dmg on m.crit 4614
Total dmg with normal hits - 11883, apprixmate dmg on normal hit 2376
Total dmg - 34953
Conclusions:
- 3 m.crits vs 5 m.crits
- nuker 1 hits for 6818 dmg approximately on m.crit - nuker 2 for 4614, difference in dmg is 2218 per hit on m.crit
- nuler 1 hits for 2990 approximately on normal hit - nuker 2 for 2376,
difference dmg is 614 per hit on normal hit
My conclusions:
- The test is not perfect, mainly because the 1 level difference between the 2 nukers
- Nuker 1 has reached the first m.attack cap; while nuker 2 has not, thus the m.attack difference is significant
- There is a significant difference in int between the 2 nukers - 13 int for nuker 1, thus the dmg difference on m.crit is huge
- The dmg difference in normal hit is only 614, although the significant m.attack difference and having nuker 1 hitting the m.attack cap, while nuker 2 has not
- Nuker 2 does 2 more m.crits, but that is mainly because of the 2 more wit and being a level higher perhaps, however we should take into account the weapon +4 enchants
- The whole damage difference both on normal and m.crit hit will lower down once we start addiding m.def, elemental defence and levels to the target, however in the same time the m.crit rate will lower down too and we will not have such a difference in the number of m.crits. In the end we will have perhaps 200 dmg difference in normal hit and 300-400 dmg difference in m.crit hit, as we know that m.def stacks and caps easier and better than m.attack.
- The dmg on both nukers will increase as stacked as they get and maby (just maby) the nuker 1 will hit for 400 dmg more on normal hit, while doing 600-800 dmg more on m.crit hit
- According to me in open pvp anything under 1000 dmg is really insignificant
Comment and Discuss!
That test is actually terrible.
The only thing that matters is the average damage of crits and non-crits, which is significant from your text but not conclusive cause you simply didn't do enough. The Iss was level 86 so the level difference of the nukers has little impact on the damage output.
The crits are what matters in PvP, because normal hits from lower power mage nukes aren't all that factorable. The difference between the crits is almost as much as a whole other nuke from the second mage.
As for the person above: My Mage is untagged with bad gear and no tats. I'm pretty sure your CP healers have much better gear, and especially weapons than my Feoh. 20k M.Atk with Immortal gear and a Requiem Retributer (which is what I had when I dinged 85 - it has better now) is decent. A human Feoh with Arcane Power and Apoc Caster + Immortal Robes cannot get there unless they add in extra gear/tats/etc. I know cause my healer has one as a Dual Class.
Additionally your conclusions are way off base since you seem to think the dmg of one mage will decrease at a pace that is higher than the second mage, ending with a much lower damage differential against targets with better buffs/m.def/attribute resist. That is wrong. The damage does not scale backwards that way. At those defense levels the mage with the higher M.Atk will still easily outpace the other mage, if not just as much as on that target. That's especialy true when temps like BR are factored in, as well as debuffs like Devil's Curse.
The crits are what matters in PvP, because normal hits from lower power mage nukes aren't all that factorable. The difference between the crits is almost as much as a whole other nuke from the second mage.
You do realise that the 2nd nuker has not reached the m cap of 20k m.attack, so the difference of m.att is actually huge. If the 2nd nuker had 20k m.att and 1st nuker 29k m.att (still 9k m.att difference), the difference would not be so much. And then that 1st nuker has 13int more than the 2nd one, which makes it 26% more dmg on m.crit. 1 int = 2% power on m.crit.
Additionally your conclusions are way off base since you seem to think the dmg of one mage will decrease at a pace that is higher than the second mage, ending with a much lower damage differential against targets with better buffs/m.def/attribute resist. That is wrong. The damage does not scale backwards that way. At those defense levels the mage with the higher M.Atk will still easily outpace the other mage, if not just as much as on that target. That's especialy true when temps like BR are factored in, as well as debuffs like Devil's Curse.
Yes the dmg difference will decrease, because both nukers will start hitting for less dmg, which will make the dmg difference lower. Devil's curse is almost a useless debuff, it does land in pvp, but how many people actually use it? I ve seen only mass devil curse being used in mass pvp. In PvE the debuff is non existent. However Mark Of Lumi and other stuff should be concidered. I am not taking BR into account, it is a 30 second buff, very usefull for raiding, however in a group vs group fight a simple celestial ignores it, but yeah it makes a difference in every other case.
My point here is that if 2 equally geared mages have 2hand staff and magic sword, the difference in the damage will not be huge. About 200-500 dmg on normal attack and 500-1000 on m.crit in pvp. However the one with the magic sword will have better survivability due to mana up SA and ability to use shield. And we know that nukers are not actually the best DDs out there and they drop like flyes. You say it is better to improve the dmg than the survivability. I say it is better to improve survivability than dmg and concentrate on cancels, fears, crowd control, binds, poison and every now and then use double casting and deliver some dmg. I actually think that we are so bad atm, that double casting needs to become a passive in order Feohs to be ballanced.
Ok I did a short test! Not very accurrate and complete but should be enough to make some simple conclusion!
LVL 2 ISS BUFFS and Wizard Harmony was used on both Feohs and the target
Both Feohs have used Wizard Spirit
Target LVL 86 ISS m.def 1935; wind resist 40
Nuker 1 lvl 90; 109 int, 76 wit; 24480 m.att (first cap reached)
Top R 2handed staff 300 wind element empower + acumen SA
10 hits with with elemental crash:
1 - 6394 - m.crit
2 - 3322
3 - 2694
4 - 6894 - m.crit
5 - 2704
6 - 2655
7 - 7167 - m.crit
8 - 3466
9 - 2818
10 - 3168
3 m.crits; 7 normal hits
Total dmg with m.crits - 20455, approximate dmg on m.crit hit - 6818
Total dmg on normal hit - 20927, approximate dmg on normal hit - 2990
Total dmg for 10 hits - 41382
Nuker 2 lvl 91; 96 int, 78 wit; 15361 m.attack (1st cap not reached)
Top R Magic Sword No Siegel (Shield) 300 Wind element acumen SA
10 hits with elemental crash:
1. 4400 - m.crit
2. 2322
3. 4655 - m.crit
4. 2236
5. 4276 - m.crit
6. 5080 - m.crit
7. 2372
8. 2462
9. 4659- m.crit
10. 2581
5m.crits; 5 normal hits
Total dmg with m.crits - 23070, approximate dmg on m.crit 4614
Total dmg with normal hits - 11883, apprixmate dmg on normal hit 2376
Total dmg - 34953
Conclusions:
- 3 m.crits vs 5 m.crits
- nuker 1 hits for 6818 dmg approximately on m.crit - nuker 2 for 4614, difference in dmg is 2218 per hit on m.crit
- nuler 1 hits for 2990 approximately on normal hit - nuker 2 for 2376,
difference dmg is 614 per hit on normal hit
My conclusions:
- The test is not perfect, mainly because the 1 level difference between the 2 nukers
- Nuker 1 has reached the first m.attack cap; while nuker 2 has not, thus the m.attack difference is significant
- There is a significant difference in int between the 2 nukers - 13 int for nuker 1, thus the dmg difference on m.crit is huge
- The dmg difference in normal hit is only 614, although the significant m.attack difference and having nuker 1 hitting the m.attack cap, while nuker 2 has not
- Nuker 2 does 2 more m.crits, but that is mainly because of the 2 more wit and being a level higher perhaps, however we should take into account the weapon +4 enchants
- The whole damage difference both on normal and m.crit hit will lower down once we start addiding m.def, elemental defence and levels to the target, however in the same time the m.crit rate will lower down too and we will not have such a difference in the number of m.crits. In the end we will have perhaps 200 dmg difference in normal hit and 300-400 dmg difference in m.crit hit, as we know that m.def stacks and caps easier and better than m.attack.
- The dmg on both nukers will increase as stacked as they get and maby (just maby) the nuker 1 will hit for 400 dmg more on normal hit, while doing 600-800 dmg more on m.crit hit
- According to me in open pvp anything under 1000 dmg is really insignificant
You do realise that the 2nd nuker has not reached the m cap of 20k m.attack, so the difference of m.att is actually huge. If the 2nd nuker had 20k m.att and 1st nuker 29k m.att (still 9k m.att difference), the difference would not be so much. And then that 1st nuker has 13int more than the 2nd one, which makes it 26% more dmg on m.crit. 1 int = 2% power on m.crit.
Yes, and the same can be said for races, which have differing BASE INT values. One can be Elf and the other Dark Elf. Even with same gear there would be a factorable INT difference which would translate to a factorable M.Atk difference. My Feoh is Dark Elf, which is why I'm able to eclipse that M.Atk road block with such bad gear on it. A Human or Elf Feoh with the same gear would not be able to do that.
The difference with a 9 M.Atk difference would still be factorable. You're putting way too much weight on that M.Atk Cap. A 50% M.Atk advantage even with both over 20k would still give a factorable advantage to the higher M.Atk nuker, cause I know how the damage scales seeing as how I have two and the Dual Class can reach 20k thanks to CL11 skills/passives and other better gears on it (my other is untagged, it has like 27k M.Atk buffed with all those passives and full Level 1 Iss Buffs).
Yes the dmg difference will decrease, because both nukers will start hitting for less dmg, which will make the dmg difference lower. Devil's curse is almost a useless debuff, it does land in pvp, but how many people actually use it? I ve seen only mass devil curse being used in mass pvp. In PvE the debuff is non existent. However Mark Of Lumi and other stuff should be concidered. I am not taking BR into account, it is a 30 second buff, very usefull for raiding, however in a group vs group fight a simple celestial ignores it, but yeah it makes a difference in every other case.
Sorry, I'm confused. You still seem to think damage will scale down faster for the higher M.Atk nuker than the lower M.Atk nuker. Are you inventing some different type of math here? Damage formulas factor in M.Atk as a value. It doesn't make the high M.Atk nuker have 10k less M.Atk just because the target has 2k more M.Def. I'm not sure how you're arriving at that conclusion...
People with a clue use Devil's curse. People who have OP gear or only know how to faceroll the keyboard don't. Don't tailor your argument assuming bad gameplay. Mass Devil's Curse is terrible and doesn't land as much due to the BLR being much lower than the single target version. Debuff landrate formula was reworked in GoD. It's not just M.Atk based.
Additionally, I'm not the one who posted the bad test data. You did, now you're spending your time talking around the caveats...
My point here is that if 2 equally geared mages have 2hand staff and magic sword, the difference in the damage will not be huge. About 200-500 dmg on normal attack and 500-1000 on m.crit in pvp. However the one with the magic sword will have better survivability due to mana up SA and ability to use shield. And we know that nukers are not actually the best DDs out there and they drop like flyes. You say it is better to improve the dmg than the survivability. I say it is better to improve survivability than dmg and concentrate on cancels, fears, crowd control, binds, poison and every now and then use double casting and deliver some dmg. I actually think that we are so bad atm, that double casting needs to become a passive in order Feohs to be ballanced.
No one really cares if it's huge. It exists and it's enough.
What the OP wanted to know is what the best weapon was, and that weapon is a Retributer. It's simply superior to the 1H + Sigil or Shield because Shields on mages have gone through a ton of nerfs and we're at the point where you need specific buffs for it to be worth using. No mage is going to run with Knight's Harmony and even if you block with Mage Harmony the benefit of that block (unless exceptional) will be almost ignorable due to your terrible shield P.Def.
That's the issue: Which is better?
It's simple. Retributer: ALWAYS.
Feohs aren't that bad off. Double casting a passive to balance the class? Sorry, that would be met with swift nerfs to almost everything else.
Perhaps a better debuff landrate and less focus on nuke spamming and a bit more control actions integrated into the class would have been better, though. Right now it is the most faceroll class in the game, and that makes it boring to play and in many cases easy to counter because there is so little there that it becomes almost predictable to seasoned PvPers (not really any rabbits you can pull out of that hat). The class is too simple. It needs some diversity. Hopefully the update post-Lindvior brings that, since that update itself with the class diversification really won't do much to remedy that issue with the class.
It's why my Feoh is rotting right now. It's the most boring class I've ever played in an MMORPG... ever.
Yes, and the same can be said for races, which have differing BASE INT values. One can be Elf and the other Dark Elf. Even with same gear there would be a factorable INT difference which would translate to a factorable M.Atk difference. My Feoh is Dark Elf, which is why I'm able to eclipse that M.Atk road block with such bad gear on it. A Human or Elf Feoh with the same gear would not be able to do that.
We are talking about 13 Int difference, not for 2-3 Int. I am showing you that in order to have a factorable difference in m.crit dmg you need 2 different weapons, 9k m.att diffeence with a magic attack cap difference and 13INT. This is huge man. I don't know how you fail to see it.
The difference with a 9 M.Atk difference would still be factorable. You're putting way too much weight on that M.Atk Cap. A 50% M.Atk advantage even with both over 20k would still give a factorable advantage to the higher M.Atk nuker, cause I know how the damage scales seeing as how I have two and the Dual Class can reach 20k thanks to CL11 skills/passives and other better gears on it (my other is untagged, it has like 27k M.Atk buffed with all those passives and full Level 1 Iss Buffs).
It does not that really well. I do not remember the formulas, but let me present it simple 30k m.att = 10k p.att or even less, more like 7-8k. Thus 9k m.attack difference is not a lot, when we are speaking about awakened charracters. The cap difference is huge. I do not have such a high lvl nuker, but I am sure there will be a noticable dmg difference between 20k and 50k, but not between 20k and 49k. It is just that m.att works different. I am actually wondering how stupid people can be and give bilions of adena for 10% m.att pendant, when the +3 Int Pendant does equally well and the +3 Wit Pendants does even better.
Sorry, I'm confused. You still seem to think damage will scale down faster for the higher M.Atk nuker than the lower M.Atk nuker. Are you inventing some different type of math here? Damage formulas factor in M.Atk as a value. It doesn't make the high M.Atk nuker have 10k less M.Atk just because the target has 2k more M.Def. I'm not sure how you're arriving at that conclusion...
Simple math - nuker 1 does 100 dmg, nuker 2 does 200 dmg. Difference in dmg is 100. Now the target recieves buffs and lowers both nukers dmg 2 times and nuker 1 does 50 dmg, nuker 2 does 100 dmg. The difference in dmg is now 50.
I know it will not work exactly as in my simple example, but as you can now see, the dmg difference lowers.
People with a clue use Devil's curse. People who have OP gear or only know how to faceroll the keyboard don't. Don't tailor your argument assuming bad gameplay. Mass Devil's Curse is terrible and doesn't land as much due to the BLR being much lower than the single target version. Debuff landrate formula was reworked in GoD. It's not just M.Atk based.
Yep it is Wit and magic accuracy vs magic evasion based. Another reason to go for the magic sword, rather then the m.att option.
No one really cares if it's huge. It exists and it's enough.
What the OP wanted to know is what the best weapon was, and that weapon is a Retributer. It's simply superior to the 1H + Sigil or Shield because Shields on mages have gone through a ton of nerfs and we're at the point where you need specific buffs for it to be worth using. No mage is going to run with Knight's Harmony and even if you block with Mage Harmony the benefit of that block (unless exceptional) will be almost ignorable due to your terrible shield P.Def.
It exists and it's enough. I really did not like that.
20% base shield rate is still good, especially when receiving dmg from archers. And I would rather add 500 p.def (r95 shield) to my p.def when I block, than hit for 200 dmg more. On top of that have 30% more mana, which is almost 30% more survivability, rather than hitting for 200 dmg more.
That's the issue: Which is better?
It's simple. Retributer: ALWAYS.
More dmg does not mean it is better. Have you done the old FoG AoE with low level destroyer? The problem in the Necromancer Room for instance was not the dmg, but the stun resistance. You get stunned you die and u do not AoE. You could kill mobs all day long, you had the insane p.att, but if you get stunned often you were just dyeing. The problem was not solved with adding more p.att or crits, but with putting Frintezza and stun resist buff.
What I am trying to explain you is that in Feoh's case, not only you do not have the m.att to kill all day long as long as you are alive (in contrary to my low level Destro example, which had insane p.att), but you actually die relatively easy. Which means that your problem will not be fixed with +16 top R staff, but rather with +16 top R armor.
Feohs aren't that bad off. Double casting a passive to balance the class? Sorry, that would be met with swift nerfs to almost everything else.
Yes, we are that bad. We are the most easy to kill dpser and the least dmg doing dpser. And range now is something that does not exist in pvp.
Perhaps a better debuff landrate and less focus on nuke spamming and a bit more control actions integrated into the class would have been better, though. Right now it is the most faceroll class in the game, and that makes it boring to play and in many cases easy to counter because there is so little there that it becomes almost predictable to seasoned PvPers (not really any rabbits you can pull out of that hat). The class is too simple. It needs some diversity. Hopefully the update post-Lindvior brings that, since that update itself with the class diversification really won't do much to remedy that issue with the class.
It's why my Feoh is rotting right now. It's the most boring class I've ever played in an MMORPG... ever.
I agree and dont know how on hell they came with these extra nukes on most Feohs, but the Soultaker and the Kamael. This is a terrible idea to balance the class. Better ideas would have been to give something tipical for the nukers - cancel's, silences or skills that block the usage of skills (curse of doom like), slows, improved fear or smth like that, than one more nuke and m.att/casting speed buffs.
1. You're assuming both nukers lose 50% damage, which isn't the case. That's now how M.Def Affect damage from M.Atk nevermind there are other factors like debuffs and Attribute Resist/Attack that must be taken into consideration.
2. The difference between a LE and DE Main Class Feoh is more than 2-3 Int. The did between a DE and Orc Feoh is certainly more.
3. No one cares how much P.Atk M.Atk translates into. The buffs are scaled accordingly and it's balanced out. This thread is about Mage weapons. P.Atk is useless in this discussion - completely useless.
4. No one is going to go for a Sword for 1-2 Magic Accuracy. I'm not even going to expand on that, considering it is about as dumb as going Buster for an M.Crit +4 bonus (which is just as underwhelming).
5. No one cares about FoG Necromancer Room. Using a different weapon on a Destroyer will not lower the Stun. Only Epics and Buffs will do that. Terrible example. The Retributers are better, always.
I've also PL'd on an 85 Feoh in FoG AoEing solo, with a retributer at pretty much all the spots there. Did it on an EM as well.
6. You're trying to tangent the discussion towards armor, which I will not bother entertaining because the thread has absolutely nothing to do with that. A Retributer is better than anything on a mage. Anyone using anything else is willfully gimping themselves. There's a reason why almost every mage except those that OE'd Apoc weapons early on are using a Retributer. It's better, plain and simple.
7. Playing a Feoh involves more than sitting in one spot facerolling 3-4 nuke skills and trying to use hellbinding as an iWin when it's up. I suggest more practice, and perhaps more levels. Range exists, it's just a lot harder to keep range if you don't know how to blink and debuff intelligently.
8. I'm pretty sure NCSoft has no clue how to design and balance Wizard classes, which is why I've been playing other toons more and more lately.
Ok obviously you are not up for a discussion so I will breaf something for you
I am 92 Feoh with +4 top R magic sword and I go with a shield most often in oly.
I have no pendants and no dyes. I stack either m.accuracy/evasion or m.crit in oly with talismans.
I can beat everyone up to 95 with no problems. I asume that this is due to my huge experience in oly from few years ago.
I can beat some of the 95+ nukers. Smashed a 97 nuker yesterday.
I barelly lose to the bad lvl 99 nukers if I have Mana Up I will probably win against them. However no chance against the good players. But a lot of the Feohs think that as long as they are 99, with good gear, skill, pendant and dyes, they are good to go.
My secret is that as a human, I use stuns from double casting, while using unbind. Once I stun I use HellBinding, which apperantly lands a lot, especially if I increase the m. accuracy with talismans. Which forces them to use arcane shield when I use it and I use it once I get few hits. Then it is time to poison + mass hellbinding, which apperantly also land. Then it is not hard to kite around and use poison, to nulify the difference in the mp and hp and the fact that they got longer double casting and arcane shield.
Again my secret is that my debuffs land against the high lvl players. Now tell me how many feoh wizard you know that can keep up around 30-50 pts at my lvl doing their matches?
In open oly I can beat almost every warrior no matter their level. I lose against the good players, because they know how to use berserk. I can beat the rogues under 95. At 95 their replicates are too strong. I can beat ISS enchanters under 95. I can beat tanks under 95. I can beat most of the archers, lets say it is 50-50. I have no chance against summoners and healers. And yes in some matches I use knight harmony - archers and tanks.
Ok obviously you are not up for a discussion so I will breaf something for you
I am 92 Feoh with +4 top R magic sword and I go with a shield most often in oly.
I have no pendants and no dyes. I stack either m.accuracy/evasion or m.crit in oly with talismans.
I can beat everyone up to 95 with no problems. I asume that this is due to my huge experience in oly from few years ago.
I can beat some of the 95+ nukers. Smashed a 97 nuker yesterday.
I barelly lose to the bad lvl 99 nukers if I have Mana Up I will probably win against them. However no chance against the good players. But a lot of the Feohs think that as long as they are 99, with good gear, skill, pendant and dyes, they are good to go.
My secret is that as a human, I use stuns from double casting, while using unbind. Once I stun I use HellBinding, which apperantly lands a lot, especially if I increase the m. accuracy with talismans. Which forces them to use arcane shield when I use it and I use it once I get few hits. Then it is time to poison + mass hellbinding, which apperantly also land. Then it is not hard to kite around and use poison, to nulify the difference in the mp and hp and the fact that they got longer double casting and arcane shield.
Again my secret is that my debuffs land against the high lvl players. Now tell me how many feoh wizard you know that can keep up around 30-50 pts at my lvl doing their matches?
In open oly I can beat almost every warrior no matter their level. I lose against the good players, because they know how to use berserk. I can beat the rogues under 95. At 95 their replicates are too strong. I can beat ISS enchanters under 95. I can beat tanks under 95. I can beat most of the archers, lets say it is 50-50. I have no chance against summoners and healers. And yes in some matches I use knight harmony - archers and tanks.
You're not doing anything special, and yes, Wizards do take Knights in OLYMPIAD against high physical damage classes.
We're talking about a lot more than just some Olympiad matches.
The retributer is better. Math doesn't lie - even your bad math/post backed it up.
I'm aware Wizards take Knights against physical classes in Olympiad. I did it myself. But I never ran around a siege with Knight's Harmony and a Shield and 1H Mage weapon, sorry. That's just not... adviseable because the benefit you get form that setup in that situation is simply not worth the deficits.
Sometimes you just have to accept the fact that you're a glass canon and trying to turn glass into concrete also turns the cannon into a BB Gun.
well it's hard for me to say whitch is better between 1 handed and 2 handed. The most respected mage in clan nova on chronos named speer uses a 1 handed mage weapon. but then again tearsofheaven the feoh hero on chronos uses a 2 handed specter retri so its hard to tell what is better.
But I never ran around a siege with Knight's Harmony and a Shield and 1H Mage weapon, sorry. That's just not... adviseable because the benefit you get form that setup in that situation is simply not worth the deficits.
Neither did I. Nor I am suggesting to run with knight here and there, beside oly.
Sometimes you just have to accept the fact that you're a glass canon and trying to turn glass into concrete also turns the cannon into a BB Gun.
Retributer > All. Period.
Sorry but 30% more mp is quete a difference in survivability having in mind most parties run with 2 healers, thus mp is not a concern. For me the choice of retributor and magic sword is like choosing back in the days - bd or sws if you had to chose. BD makes you hit stronger, sws makes u survive longer. I would never chose the BD.
That being said I am still not in the end game, so I still can not say what is better for sure. If the mage does not die easy or it dies too easy (1-2 hits) then having more dmg is better. However if you are able to survive 3-4 hits, then the magic sword should be better.
On top of that we should add that feohs are not that good DDs in general. Every other DD does more dmg than feohs. Magic attack and int have little effect on debuff land rate, so why would you want to stack dmg in first place?
Oh one more thing? I havent been playinf for awhile, but since when m.crit dmg became better than m.crit rate? Did I miss something?
Personally I would go with what the feoh hero uses since he is the best feoh on the server! Most feoh heros use 2 handed weapons so 2 handed is the way togo!
Personally I would go with what the feoh hero uses since he is the best feoh on the server! Most feoh heros use 2 handed weapons so 2 handed is the way togo!
not always true. and honestly I had the chance to prove some heros (not only mages) that they were not that good as they thought they were.
But yet, this is just another example of ppl taking things as they are, w/o taking the whole picture into consideration.
Dunno but the best weapon for me is: Bound Apocalypse Buster, that should be +4, wind att. for Dark elves and SA = Cast. Speed, top for lvl to 95, mb less but very cheap!!!;)
Oh one more thing? I havent been playinf for awhile, but since when m.crit dmg became better than m.crit rate? Did I miss something?
M.Crit Rate scales better than M.Crit Damage, since if you don't crit the dmg is useless but the rate increases crit change. It's not that M.Crit dmg is better, per se, it's just that M.Crit Rate bonuses from Weapon OE are beyond laughable - almost insulting. Additionally, Mages don't have as many ways to boost crig dmg outside of Buff trading 20 (i.e. 2%) Crit for 20% Crit damage - which is worth it, but many mages are too dumb to click off Drum Melody to get it when they're in my group and I'm playing Iss.
What you did miss was the fact that the +4 M.Crit rate bonus on IIRC a Buster is so low that it mind as well not exist, while the M.Crit bonus on a Retributer is huge by comparison. Additionally, it stacks with the Dark Elf Crit bonus passive.
M.Crit rate you're better off getting from things like Sub Skills, Epics (like Valakas), and Passive Augmentation Bonuses (like Wild Magic) in addition to buffs. The +4 M.Crit rate bonus on Weapons is laughable, so it's not even a factor when comparing a Buster to a Retributer. If you're assuming +4, then the Retributer is just that much better than a Buster.
not always true. and honestly I had the chance to prove some heros (not only mages) that they were not that good as they thought they were.
But yet, this is just another example of ppl taking things as they are, w/o taking the whole picture into consideration.
Peace
In this case, it is. The whole picture has been painted in this thread.
Anyone can always dream up some special situation where the Retributer would be not as advantageous to wield. You can do that for any other class where there are obvious best weapons in a certain setup.
I'm sure there are Summoners out there using Crossbows with their Cougars or Busters and Casters with their Reapers. Doesn't make it better than the Bow or Retributer, respectively.
Same with Iss Enchanters using Dual Blunts. Unless you have huge crit already and can overcap it with buffs and dual swords there is no point in using the blunts.
Well I ve been playing awhile now and I do not know why, but I do have the feeling that Retributor gives a good dps boost. And I am on the oppinion that if you are a stacked mage this is the way to go.
However I still think that mana up SA > Empower SA and it is tricky what to chose when Feohs are not really a good dpsing class now. I think with the boost in Livindor the staff will be better 100% without a doubt, but right now I am still not convinced in that.
Well I ve been playing awhile now and I do not know why, but I do have the feeling that Retributor gives a good dps boost. And I am on the oppinion that if you are a stacked mage this is the way to go.
However I still think that mana up SA > Empower SA and it is tricky what to chose when Feohs are not really a good dpsing class now. I think with the boost in Livindor the staff will be better 100% without a doubt, but right now I am still not convinced in that.
Mana up has ALWAYS been a better SA than both Magic Power (on lower grade weapons) and Empower (on any weapon). Before it was better because of the longevity you got from it (more MP and Herbs give Mana based on your Maximum MP Pool) and now it's better because of damage reduction skills that are limited by your maximum MP pool (20% of damage goes to MP instead of HP).
So yes, anyone with a brain should get Mana Up as an SA if they can cap casting speed (or come fairly close to capping) easily or are getting a second SA on a weapon.
People who go Empower simply went with it because it said M.Atk and they just assumed it was better.
It's basically a useless SA, still.
For the investment the SAs on high grade weapons, and the way mage damage scales, Empower would need to give something like 1k+ M.Atk to make it better than Mana Up, and even then I'd probably still pick the mana over the M.Atk for some of the very valid reasons you bought up in your earlier posts (soft caps in the scaling and such).
well i get around 120k matk with buffs and spirit on so the empower sa is hard to notice but the m critical damage is good still. one handed weapon are nice also i guess cause i get about 3% more pdef with a 6+ eternal sigil or however it's spelled. i hope they put % on empower sa next big update :)
Correct. Multipliers only factor in base stats, which are those you have naked and what you get from STAT modifiers (INT, WIT, CON, DEX, MEN, STR) via Tats or Set bonuses (or Augmentations, etc.). If Empower only gives you 400 M.Atk, it's always going to be worth 400 M.Atk, which means as your character's stats scale up, the SA is worth less and less. 400M.Atk is worth a lot more to a low M.Atk level 70 than it is to a high M.Atk level 95 character, for which it is virtually useless.
The mana is pretty much always better for an Awakened character than the M.Atk you get from the Empower SA.
As for it scaling by %, NCSoft will likely tie that to an MP Consumption increase like they did Magic Power (Add Static M.Atk, increase Consumption by %) and Arcane Power (INcrease both M.Atk and Consumption by %).
It would be much easier for them to just triple the M.Atk bonus on the SA, as that would still not imbalance anything however it may make healers/summoners a bit more powerful in the Olympiad.
I guess my real question here is why people are discussing the 20k ceiling? Does something magical and mysterious happen at that point?
To my knowledge we used to be able to directly compare the performance of mage weapons simply by square rooting the base m attack of the weapon itself because the other parts of the magic damage formula do not change when the magic attack of the weapon changes.
And the increased survivability of the shield could be computed by showing the expected effective increase in hp compared to a feoh without a shield taking into account that the shield only works from the front.
Simple game mechanics. As far as I remember the m.att break points were 20k, 50k, 80k. The increase in damage in between these caps is insignificant, especially when progressing with the levels.
I dont remember the m.def break points, but they are were something like 3.2k, 4.8k, 7,2k (these numbers could be a complete bull**** but they are close to the truth), but any m.def increase in between is very significant.
That is why I was saying that m.att does not really matter. People are getting crazy over the insane m.att, but have u noticed that you grab a 400% m.att increase herb and you start hitting the mobs for about 2 times more dmg , and to players the damage increase is much lower.
Defense has been always more important than offence. UR showed that first with the server wars using SWS instead of BD. Nowadays people take 2 healers instead of 4 dds so they can survive longer. This is why I came up here saying that magic sword is the way to go - mana up SA is about 30% more survivability and effective EHP. However I would stick with xMilenium - every class should stack and stick with what it is good for. Dark Elfs are doing insane damage - so retributor, Elfs and Humans - magic sword to use their greater wit and men stats for both offensive and defensive purposes.
Simple game mechanics. As far as I remember the m.att break points were 20k, 50k, 80k. The increase in damage in between these caps is insignificant, especially when progressing with the levels.
I dont remember the m.def break points, but they are were something like 3.2k, 4.8k, 7,2k (these numbers could be a complete bull**** but they are close to the truth), but any m.def increase in between is very significant.
That is why I was saying that m.att does not really matter. People are getting crazy over the insane m.att, but have u noticed that you grab a 400% m.att increase herb and you start hitting the mobs for about 2 times more dmg , and to players the damage increase is much lower.
Defense has been always more important than offence. UR showed that first with the server wars using SWS instead of BD. Nowadays people take 2 healers instead of 4 dds so they can survive longer. This is why I came up here saying that magic sword is the way to go - mana up SA is about 30% more survivability and effective EHP. However I would stick with xMilenium - every class should stack and stick with what it is good for. Dark Elfs are doing insane damage - so retributor, Elfs and Humans - magic sword to use their greater wit and men stats for both offensive and defensive purposes.
So there is no proof whatsoever is what you seem to be saying.
I think what actually happened was that new mages weren't aware that m attack gets square rooted which would pretty much explain why people observe that magic damage increases nonlinearly with linear increases in magic attack but are unable to rationally explain why other than saying that there is a difference between 20k, 50k and 80k which would be perfectly explainable and expected of a formula based on square rooting. As per your observation that magic damage only increase by exactly 2 when magic attack gets increased by 400% this is also perfectly explainable by the fact that magic attack gets square rooted when calculating magic damage.
Obviously an increase of 400% is equal to multiplying the original amount by 4. So when you get a magic herb that increases your mattack by 4 that 4 can be treated as a scalar. So the magic damage formula would look something like magic damage=96*spellpower*sqrt(4*mattack)/magic defense
You can take the 4 out of the square root part of the formula by square rooting it and the square root of 4 happens to be 2. Thus the fact that an increase of magic attack by 4 perfectly correlates to an increase of magic damage by 2 proves that in reality there is no magic wall where magic damage suddenly increases faster at certain points than others. If there were a magic wall that someone with a mattack of 15k before using an herb would be doing more than 2 times as much damage after using an herb that brings them beyond 20k but that simply is not the case. The actual explanation is that magic attack gets square rooted when calculating magic damage and people have forgotten this fact and then tried to create an explanation that sort of explains the observations but was completely incorrect. So to conclude there is no special magic wall at 20k where magic damage or magic attack suddenly increases or decreases more than it would if mattack were going from 19,998 to 19,999 or from 20,001 to 20,002. The formula to determine listed magic attack is simply weapon mattack*(int bonus)*(player/environmental buffs)*(equipment buffs).
This touches on why I couldn't understand why people didn't simply compare the square root of the mattack of the weapons directly which would be the only part of the magic damage formula that changes when you change weapons.
As for magic defense, that is treated linearly. And since it is treated linearly then the effect of an increase is linear. So by doubling magic defense you are halving the amount of damage you are taking compared to what you received before.
Thus going from an m defense of 1 to 2 would cause you to only receive 50% magic damage, and from 2 to 4 would cause you to receive only 50% of 50% or 25%.
It thus comes as no surprise that there seems to be a significant difference between 3.6k, 4.8k and 7.2k because 7.2 happens to be double 3.6 so you would be taking 50% less damage than before and 3.6k is already a significant damage reduction.
The old magic damage formula was magic damage=a*spellpower*sqrt(magic attack)/(magic defense) where a=approximately 96 or 94 or some other number between 90 and 100.
Obviosuly if someone has some actual data to refute these claims I'd love to see it as we might be able to use it to figure out exactly what is going on here however that data needs to be extensive to account for the new variability in magic damage compared to when magic damage was always consistent(an uneccessary and undesireale change. However fixing the magic damage formula to remove the stupid square root so that we gain linear benefits from linear increases in weapon m attack would be a good and desired change). Specificlaly we need enough data so that we can work with the average or at account for the variation.
The formula wasnt simple as that - lets just square 4 the m.att. There are int, men, m.att, m.def, elemental attacks and resists, level of the target (and the hitter if I am not wrong) and their caps included in it.
I was just giving a simple example of how even with 400% m.att increase the damage increase will not go more than twice on a decent target.
I mean, the difference its negligible, especially when you add square root of that. Is retributer better in m.atk? Sure it is but its not even worth talking about because the difference isn't significant. I guess its personal preference, my personal preference will be always that mana up SA and even if the bonus at +4 sword is laughable, it adds up not down. Oh and the final blow, if you want to buy a retributer, its like double amount of adena than a magic sword so no thanks, I'll pass on that.
I guess I'm in the only few who clicked this link. From that test, it seems like its not even worth discussing
I mean, the difference its negligible, especially when you add square root of that. Is retributer better in m.atk? Sure it is but its not even worth talking about because the difference isn't significant. I guess its personal preference, my personal preference will be always that mana up SA and even if the bonus at +4 sword is laughable, it adds up not down. Oh and the final blow, if you want to buy a retributer, its like double amount of adena than a magic sword so no thanks, I'll pass on that.
Your clan doesn't have 10 Retributers in the CWH? Tell them to give you one...
The +4 bonus on the sword is so bad that it's as good as not having a bonus at all. There's a difference.
Most of us read that link when it was first posted so there is no reason to read it. Plus, it's not hard to see how the M.Atk scales since low R Grade weapons are basically free.
In any case using the +16s is a bit laughable since the chances of anyone having a choice of either is so small as to be unworthy discussion. This is a bit more in line with the discussion:
Wizard Results:
+4 Amaranthine Retributer - 10,248 M. Atk
+4 Amaranthine Retributer (Empower SA) - 10,752 M. Atk
+4 Amaranthine Caster - 9,382 M. Atk
+4 Amaranthine Caster + Sigil - 9,846 M. Atk
+4 Amaranthine Caster (Empower SA) - 9,842 M. Atk
+4 Amaranthine Caster (Empower SA) + Sigil - 10,306 M. Atk
+4 Amaranthine Buster - 9,382 M. Atk
+4 Amaranthine Buster + Sigil - 9,846 M. Atk
Suffice it to say if you wouldn't get Empower on a Buster/Caster, you're not getting it on a Retributer, and Vice Versa. The +4 bonuses are icing on the cake, and really make it a bit of a no brainer. If you plan to +4 your weapon, the Retributer is better because the M.Crit dmg bonus on top of the M.Atk is factorable.
The formula wasnt simple as that - lets just square 4 the m.att. There are int, men, m.att, m.def, elemental attacks and resists, level of the target (and the hitter if I am not wrong) and their caps included in it.
I was just giving a simple example of how even with 400% m.att increase the damage increase will not go more than twice on a decent target.
I realize the formula isn't as simple as what I posted, however the beauty of the math is that the extra variables which aren't changing don't matter and can be completely ignored if the only change you are comparing is the magic attack of the weapon.
So you would still compare the difference of the weapon simply by looking at the square root of the weapon. Obviously there are now extra variables which change slightly like Retributors now giving bonus m crit when OEd but that can be easily factored into the difference assuming it is just a flat 5% increase after the rest of the damage is calculated.
Your clan doesn't have 10 Retributers in the CWH? Tell them to give you one...
The +4 bonus on the sword is so bad that it's as good as not having a bonus at all. There's a difference.
Most of us read that link when it was first posted so there is no reason to read it. Plus, it's not hard to see how the M.Atk scales since low R Grade weapons are basically free.
In any case using the +16s is a bit laughable since the chances of anyone having a choice of either is so small as to be unworthy discussion. This is a bit more in line with the discussion:
Suffice it to say if you wouldn't get Empower on a Buster/Caster, you're not getting it on a Retributer, and Vice Versa. The +4 bonuses are icing on the cake, and really make it a bit of a no brainer. If you plan to +4 your weapon, the Retributer is better because the M.Crit dmg bonus on top of the M.Atk is factorable.
I agree crit damage is what kills people, but p.def is what makes you kill people. I see everyday more and more wizards going for Ethernal Heavy, while they have stuff like retributor and skill attack belt and saying that their casting speed and m.att does not go down much. So why not just add up p.def with the belt and using siegel/shield and mana up SA? I also agree that retributor is so much over rated that it is unbelievable.
Because it's a pretty bad setup for anything but Olympiad gameplay where you're wishing that one decent rare block will turn a loss into a win.
In open field full-buffed PvP using that setup on a Nuker simply isn't advantageous over using a full offensive setup, unless you only do 1v1 ganks. You certainly wouldn't XP like that, and if you get attacked from behind the Shield is useless anyways. That setup is way too situational to be completely viable outside of Olympiad, IMO. It's a bit wasteful compared to using a Retributer. As for the belt put whatever you want on it /shrug/ You don't put 300 Atribute and +4 + SA (possibly Double SA) belts. They are far easier to swap out when needed, or even replace altogether.
If they had given some M.Crit damage in the Sigil passive instead of that stupid MP Regen, then I'd totally be for using 1H Sword or Blunt. I think retributers look horrible, personally...
Hmm my clan? I haven't played for almost a year but I still see some people making arguments in this thread and they are still on their 85 wizards. Even if some clan had retributers, its my choice to go with magic swords and thats what I get at 95 too, too stupid for me to go other SA than acumen/mana up. Yea, the bonus itself is bad at +4 but dont isolate it from the other bonuses, you get crit from everywhere, like talisman, +4 sword, passives and it will add up not down. M.atk also scales very bad on low R grade weapons, giving the fact that top weapons +16 makes almost no difference, the ones with much lower m.atk makes like no difference at all. Also if you don't crit anything, its kinda pointless to have crit damage, a bonus that is more laughable than the one on +4 sword or empower SA because crit damage bonus is added to the final damage, something like empower SA which we all know its useless. If you like mp regen, even if its kinda useless with the new b2m, there are still times when its needed... tested with freya, sigil and +6 armor and many times I had the most amount of mp. Personally I really dont see the benefit of some extra 1k damage when I hit for 50~100k. Even a 10% m.atk pendant will add a bit more damage than that and we already know even that item is overrated.
Hmm, so Juji proved that Caster with siegel gives better m.att than retributor. I would guess that at some point with int dyes, m.att pendant and some good weapon even magic sword will give better m.att than retributor.
Hmm, so Juji proved that Caster with siegel gives better m.att than retributor. I would guess that at some point with int dyes, m.att pendant and some good weapon even magic sword will give better m.att than retributor.
That isn't what he showed nor what the math already made clear without needing Juji's pointless legwork.
What should have been intuitively obvious is that eventually the 5% increase provided by the sigel would at some OE level be able to exceed the flat mattack difference of the two hander.
This is intuitively obvious just by looking at the formulas.
Fnosigel(OElevel)=1.00*(weapon's base mattack+OElevel*6)
Gw/sigel(OElevel)=1.05*(weapon's base mattack+OElevel*6)
Clearly 1.05(350+6*x) will be greater than 1.00*(400+6*x) for some nonzero positive value of x.
However until that point is reached it will always be smaller. So unless you plan on OEing your mage weapon to a high OE level with a super low probability you are probably going to get more mattack out of the two hander.
And it should also be intutively obvious that your tattoo setup, pendants, etc. have nothing to do with determining whether you will have more m attack with a two hander than a one hander unless you have some special effect that only increases m attack when using a one hander (which is entirely possible if we are talking about future L2 updates).
But honestly I expected that the mage forum would have already understood the math without needing the example. I guess mages of today aren't quite the same as the mages of yesteryear.
But knowing all that I would still use a two hander instead of a one hander because generally the one handed magic weapons in L2 look awful and most of the sigels look pretty awful too.
Plus female Kamaels look totally bad *** when they are standing around holding a staff. (Not the dirty kind of staff, perverts).
you're saying that you need to oe your weapon a lot to get to the m.atk of the staff but what juji proved is that with the same enchant value, 1h caster has more m.atk than staff. no wonder in the korean pvp videos i've seen, there are no mages with staff weapons and those players are pretty decked out
actually the new r/r95/r99 staffs are pretty bad looking, for me are in the same list of worst looking items along with dual blunt weapons and 2 handed blunts for fighters.
you're saying that you need to oe your weapon a lot to get to the m.atk of the staff but what juji proved is that with the same enchant value, 1h caster has more m.atk than staff. no wonder in the korean pvp videos i've seen, there are no mages with staff weapons and those players are pretty decked out
actually the new r/r95/r99 staffs are pretty bad looking, for me are in the same list of worst looking items along with dual blunt weapons and 2 handed blunts for fighters.
thats true if i had a 16+ blessed buster i would have abit more matk and pdef than what i have now but i would do less damage cause 2 hand staff get the passive critical power that add more damage. all heros on north american server user staffs cause they are better than 1 handed weapons.
you're saying that you need to oe your weapon a lot to get to the m.atk of the staff but what juji proved is that with the same enchant value, 1h caster has more m.atk than staff. no wonder in the korean pvp videos i've seen, there are no mages with staff weapons and those players are pretty decked out
actually the new r/r95/r99 staffs are pretty bad looking, for me are in the same list of worst looking items along with dual blunt weapons and 2 handed blunts for fighters.
Yes, the staffs have always looked terrible, which is why it would be nice if they gave equivalent bonuses to 1H weapons and/or improved the Sigil Bonus - so we wouldn't be basically forced to use one to min-max our characters.
No one is saying you have to wear the best armor, just stop trying to make it seem like worse armor is better.
And really, like I said, comparing +16 blessed weapons and than using that exceptional case to make it seem like 1H is suddenly as good as 2H mage weapons is... Odd... to say the least.
thats true if i had a 16+ blessed buster i would have abit more matk and pdef than what i have now but i would do less damage cause 2 hand staff get the passive critical power that add more damage. all heros on north american server user staffs cause they are better than 1 handed weapons.
hmm what passive crit damage, the bonus from +4 that also the caster has it, because its a blunt too? i thought people already established how low of an impact that magic crit damage is since its added that exact value written after the damage is already calculated and there arent many things that add crit damage. yep, for example +int does nothing to crit damage even if its written that it does. its like the useless damage up or empower SA or anything of that kind. sure, everything adds up and its something there when you have really low amount of m.atk but that bonus is really insignificant when you have a weapon like your, if you still have it. you would crit something for 26k damage on average while with a weapon with similar m.atk that is not a blunt you would crit for 25k on average and thats probably exaggerated since magic crit damage comes in low amounts.
like i said, i've been watching a few korean players fraps and i havent seen them or the players in it using 2 handed weapons. they are also pretty stacked like i said and they dont use heavy like i saw on some players here or 2 handed to compensate and all that. like for example this is with 1 handed blunt (http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/3687/l2k.png).
you're saying that you need to oe your weapon a lot to get to the m.atk of the staff but what juji proved is that with the same enchant value, 1h caster has more m.atk than staff. no wonder in the korean pvp videos i've seen, there are no mages with staff weapons and those players are pretty decked out
actually the new r/r95/r99 staffs are pretty bad looking, for me are in the same list of worst looking items along with dual blunt weapons and 2 handed blunts for fighters.
Juji didn't prove anything.
If you bothered looking at the math you'd realize all he did was show what anyone could have figured out by using a little algebra or by drawing a graph. And this is simply that two straight slines within the same plane that have different slopes will always intersect at some point.
This also means that one handers with sigils do not have higher m attack at all OE levels, rather it means that a one hander with sigil will have a higher magic attack than a staff only beyond the point where the two equations intersect which is somewhere between +1 and infinity. Generally this will always be between +4 and +30 for any weapon between r and r99 grade.
I also think that all R to R99 staves look a hundred times better than any of the one handed magic blunts within the same grade range.
One handed magic blunts are generally ugly (dragon skull is one of the ugliest weapons in the game next to the skull staff, coincidentally both mage weapons).
if you think Juji didnt prove anything why bother posting about something you dont care or understand? m.atk difference is very low between different weapons types with same enchant lvl and since we all know how the magic damage is calculated, the difference in damage will be even lower. i mentioned that one detail, with caster having more m.atk than 2h blunts because some people think 2h blunts always have the best m.atk and one of them posting here actually has (or had) a +16 2h blunt on my server.
yes and 2h blunts are fugly
if you think Juji didnt prove anything why bother posting about something you dont care or understand? m.atk difference is very low between different weapons types with same enchant lvl and since we all know how the magic damage is calculated, the difference in damage will be even lower. i mentioned that one detail, with caster having more m.atk than 2h blunts because some people think 2h blunts always have the best m.atk and one of them posting here actually has (or had) a +16 2h blunt on my server.
yes and 2h blunts are fugly
Don't understand?
I think I made it pretty clear already that I at least understand the math perfectly since I implied that anyone could figure out what the damage difference of the weapons would be simply by comparing the square root of the weapon's magic attacks and that all Juji did is what anyone sitting at home with a calculator could have computed if they so chose to do so.
10,752 - 9846 = 906
906 / 9846 = 0.092 = 9.2% more matk
(0.092 + 1)^0.5 = 1.045
Which means retributer does a mighty 4.5% more damage...
Yea I'm taking buster + sigil + mana up
And the higher you enchant the weapons, the more in favour of 1 hand weapon it gets.
You should do the square root on the 10,752 and 9846. We need to know what the damage difference will be, we aren't interested in what the listed m attack difference is.
So it is (sqrt(10,752)-sqrt(9846))/sqrt(9846)=approx. 4.3%
or (f(x2)-f(x1))/f(x1)
So again the questions remain - empower SA vs Mana Up SA; sigil/shield vs no; how much you would like to spend to OE your weapon.
I personally like Mana Up SA and the ability to chose between siegel/shield in different scenarios.
1. Empower is worthless.
2. If you're going to put 2 SAs on a Weapon, the only weapon worth the monetary investment is a Buster. I would not waste Adena putting Empower on a Mage Weapon.
3. Mana Up is superior because it's a superior SA. Shield has very little benefits on a Feoh (Given the amount of crying you do about getting 1/2 shotted, how's it been working for you?). That isn't even a consideration when examining these SA choices.
If you're only going to use one SA: Retributer with Acumen.
If you're going to use 2 SAs, Buster with Acumen/Mana Up. Empower isn't worth the investment. You'll gain 20 damage per nuke with it but Mana Up will make Arcane Barrier more usable... Way more important for this class.
Casters are basically worthless. Buster offers superior Dual SA choices and same M.Atk otherwise, while Retributer is better if you're only going to use 1 SA.
Only eBayers and Pay to Players make choices based on +16 weapon comparisons... That is not common gear and so any discussion using them as a basis is fundamentally worthless to have.
2. If you're going to put 2 SAs on a Weapon, the only weapon worth the monetary investment is a Buster. I would not waste Adena putting Empower on a Mage Weapon.
3. Mana Up is superior because it's a superior SA. Shield has very little benefits on a Feoh (Given the amount of crying you do about getting 1/2 shotted, how's it been working for you?). That isn't even a consideration when examining these SA choices.
If you're only going to use one SA: Retributer with Acumen.
If you're going to use 2 SAs, Buster with Acumen/Mana Up. Empower isn't worth the investment. You'll gain 20 damage per nuke with it but Mana Up will make Arcane Barrier more usable... Way more important for this class.
Casters are basically worthless. Buster offers superior Dual SA choices and same M.Atk otherwise, while Retributer is better if you're only going to use 1 SA.
Only eBayers and Pay to Players make choices based on +16 weapon comparisons... That is not common gear and so any discussion using them as a basis is fundamentally worthless to have.
1- agree
2- agree
3- I use retributor atm, but planning to change to buster once I get to 99. It is always nice to be able to rotate to shield in some situation. For instance I found out that fighting in oly vs archer with a knight harmony is a win situation. Too bad I am stuck with my retributor to make use of a shield. Same with CoC. I start up with the knight harmony buff, then switch to wizard in mid fight. Again too bad I am stuck with no shield/sigil to switch in between. I am also having these situations in PvP against a heavy physical DDs, where I ask for knights when I see they are going to chase me until I die in mid fight(happens too often actually). Too bad I a can not use a shield in such a case.
About casters - I see many Korean players with casters and I am wondering why. I have made some basic math and I was wondering if you do stack high root chance would that mental hold/earth stance work at all? I have not seen anyone landing it in PvP, but it would be nice if it did.
Thumbs up for buster all the way for the regular player.
Trenshero: while I'm agreeing with you on buster superiority, I have to disagree on single SA on a weapon, since 2 SA gives +10% pvp damage, while 1 SA gives only 5%.
The only reason a mage would go for 2 SAs is cause they want to PvP, cause both Mana Up and Empower offer little gains in PvE. Empower is worthless and Arcane Barrier is not [really] used in PvE.
So the fact that you get slightly more PvP damage form dual SA doesn't matter. Buster and Caster cost almost the same amount of adena, so if you can get a caster, you can get a superior buster.
Just avoid getting a Caster and realize that at high level, especially if you PvP, the Buster > Retributer as well due to the superior Dual SA choice.
I wouldn't bother putting Dual SA on any weapon below R95 (Requiem or Apoc Weapons). It's a wasted investment. Save adena for R95+ gear/weapons/dual SA/whatever... 1 SA at those levels is good enough, it's not like you can put that PvP damage to good use at those levels, anyways...
Double sa on apocalypse weapons are relatively cheap so if you know you will pvp any at all then it is worth it. R95 double sa is a lot more cost prohibited especially for just 4 levels.
Just buy your Seraph Set early so you can start applying Crystals, etc. and have it ready for when you're R95. That makes more sense than wasting it on low grade double SA.
Double sa on apocalypse weapons are relatively cheap so if you know you will pvp any at all then it is worth it. R95 double sa is a lot more cost prohibited especially for just 4 levels.
Relatively cheap if you have 20 billion adena burning a hole in your pocket.
Prohibitively expensive if you are strapped for cash.
There is some middle ground.
Of coarse you wouldn't put 2 SA on a weapon if you strap for cash, but if I'm not mistaken, topic name is "Best weapon Feoh" and not "Best weapon for Feoh on a tight string budget" or "Best weapon for Feoh over 9000 mil adena or more".
At his level it wouldn't make any difference anyway, get best possible for your budget item and level up.
Relatively cheap if you have 20 billion adena burning a hole in your pocket.
Prohibitively expensive if you are strapped for cash.
An extra 200ish million adena is nowhere near 20b. If it weren't for bots, new players could easily farm 200m in a couple days if they wished.
My point was the price versus benefit was it makes more sense to double sa R than it is R95. In most cases you can make enchanted double sa apo cheaper than you can make +3 double sa R95 and the apo would be comparable.
An extra 200ish million adena is nowhere near 20b. If it weren't for bots, new players could easily farm 200m in a couple days if they wished.
My point was the price versus benefit was it makes more sense to double sa R than it is R95. In most cases you can make enchanted double sa apo cheaper than you can make +3 double sa R95 and the apo would be comparable.
And my point is that you are clearly mistaken on every single point.
Of course 200 million isn't close to 20 billion, that's why 200 million seems like chump change to a person who has 20 billion adena and so for that player 200 million is very cheap. Hoever, for a player with 100 million adena 200 million for a second SA is simply too expensive. Thus the measure of whether or not 200 million for a second SA is expensive is completely relative to both that players current wallet size and expected income.
I can tell you from personal experience it is not possible for a new player to farm 200 million in a couple of days. For a new player 200 million is still a lot of adena. Ever since they nerfed the drop rates of normal R grade most ventures into swamps result in a net loss of adena (because mobs drop bunk for adena or material or equipment drops, you could make more adena faster by hunting mobs that are below level 85) (and assuming you aren't using your time to make free shots using mentee certificates which you will no longer be able to do come Lindvior for some stupid and unexplainable reason). Kartia and SoA both result in nothing but an element stone almost all the time, and even if its a crystal because you need to element your armor and equipment you really can't afford to sell the crystal and then purchase a second SA with the proceeds but rather must convert that crystal into the element type you need, apply it and then cry for 10 minutes when it inevitably fails to apply elemental power to your weapon or armor.
And you also completely misunderstood the purpose of this thread. The purpose of this thread is choosing whether a 2 hander or one hander would offer the highest m attack given that a sigel will increase your m attack by 5% and that the player who asked was likely either purchasing their first apoc weapon or was cashing in diplomas for the free weapon. Thus the entire point of this thread was whether to a brand new level 86 player a one hander or a two hander would provide them with a greater bang for their purchase because they were strapped for cash. The first answer was that a two hander would do it because it had a higher base mattack that would still be higher even if you factored in the 5% bonus from a sigel.
The discussion then veered off topic into discussing whether or not the 5% bonus would provide you with more attack at a high overenchant level. It was determined that for OE levels below +16 the two hander would still provide a higher m attack but for some OE level above +16 the one hander with sigel would provide more attack.
That answer was modified by saying that if you use a one hander you could also use a shield which might increase your survivability in some situations and that should be taken into account and the decision should therefore not be based on m attack alone.
From that point the discussion veered off into whether or not a second SA was worth putting on a mage weapon given that most mage SAs are utter crap except for acumen. The only reason why this discussion would even take place is because the cost of the second SA was determined to be unduly expensive compared both to a player's income and to the value of the second SA itself which is basically zero because your choice is between either an extra 500 m attack before buffs or a little more mana.
Even assuming you had 20 billion in the bank I would say that 200 million for a mediocre SA on a weapon you are going to replace as soon as you hit 95 is still a huge waste of adena given all the expenditures you are going to have elementing and SAing your new r95 equipment. If you are a new player and only have 26 million in the bank at the time you hit level 85 (this is the actual expected amount of adena you'd have at 85 assuming you picked up most of the adena drops) then 200 million adena is going to be cost prohibitive between levels 85 and 95.
I understand that when you were level 85 and weapons and armor were dropping left and right, when you could get apoc weapons from doing SoA (and K85 I think) and had all that adena that you had accumulated when level 85 was the cap then 200 million wasn't as much adena. However the expected net worth and income of a new level 85 player is significantly less than what it was when GoD had first launched. And currently neither of those SAs would be worth putting on an immortal or apoc weapon even if you were rich.
An extra 200ish million adena is nowhere near 20b. If it weren't for bots, new players could easily farm 200m in a couple days if they wished.
My point was the price versus benefit was it makes more sense to double sa R than it is R95. In most cases you can make enchanted double sa apo cheaper than you can make +3 double sa R95 and the apo would be comparable.
First of all, it's not 200ish million adena. It's over 300M. The Purple Soul Crystal R Grade is 130M unless you farm all the fragments yourself (each one is 13M or so). The R Gems for second SA is over 250M adena IIRC, using a 1.2M price from Merchant of Mammon. So it's actually closer to 350-400M than 200M.
And putting a Dual Apoc SA on a Retributer is a huge waste since 5% extra PvP damage isn't worth that investment. The only one worth putting the double SA on is the Buster for the Mana Up (Arcane Barrier, and even some PvE benefits because of the bigger mana pool - i.e. Mages who run Arcane Power indefinitely).
Additionally, this is assuming a "new" player even had the funds to get a STANDARD Retributer, which is almost 200M adena clean (need ~70M for first SA). Most just have bound weapons. For most of those new players, the farming involves taking a few days to weigh the risks and benefits of ebaying the adena, not "farming it."
Dual SA Apoc was worth it 8-10+ months ago, when most people were below 95 PvPing/doing Olympiad. It isn't worth it anymore. All the PvP factors are 95+, for the most part, and it isn't worth setting up for PvP below that level. You don't want an R grade weapon on a mage set up for PvP at 95+... Save your adena for Seraph/Specter upgrades.
At the bold: The fact that the bots monopolize those old areas that have imbalanced drops (soon to be nerfed) completely destroys the credibility of that statement. Unless you're willing to deal with end-game 99 level players coming to destroy you those places are simply off limits to any "new player" and they simply play the game as if they don't exist.
You took one part of my post to reply to so grats you proved nothing.
A new player "can" farm 200m adena if someone told them how by, yes farming -85 places for a total of maybe 8 hours. You missed my actual point. Double SA apo is just as good as single SA R95 and the single SA r95 will cost much more hence wasting more money when you could use the same R for a longer period of time.
You took one part of my post to reply to so grats you proved nothing.
A new player "can" farm 200m adena if someone told them how by, yes farming -85 places for a total of maybe 8 hours. You missed my actual point. Double SA apo is just as good as single SA R95 and the single SA r95 will cost much more hence wasting more money when you could use the same R for a longer period of time.
That's the only part worth responding to.
Double SA R is not as good as single SA R95. Not on a mage, unless *maybe* if it's an OE'd weapon. Perma-500 Crit physical DDs get by much easier with lower grade weapons.
Also, you still need to buy R Armor, Jewels, etc. It's a waste of adena at this point, plain and simple.
And it's still closer to 400M than 200M (not counting cost of Standard Retributer, unless you're lucky and Identify your own as standard) so your estimation is bad and a new player isn't going to farm that in a couple days. It's impossible due to the amount of bots and R95+ protectors that proliferate those areas. It simply won't happen. No one cares about the theoretical (that will never happen).
You took one part of my post to reply to so grats you proved nothing.
A new player "can" farm 200m adena if someone told them how by, yes farming -85 places for a total of maybe 8 hours. You missed my actual point. Double SA apo is just as good as single SA R95 and the single SA r95 will cost much more hence wasting more money when you could use the same R for a longer period of time.
Care to tell me then where I can go to farm 200 million adena in 8 hours? Because I've never gotten even close that amount in that period of time. And that also suggests that for a new player, they aren't going to be farming that much adena because they won't know where to go to farm it. I'm going to say that I think you're adena earning rate is highly exagerated.
And as Trensh already said, putting a dual SA on a R grade weapon simply isn't worth the cost even if you could afford it, especially on a retributor. There is a lot more value ot be had by enchanting one's armor and weapon and even if one had extra adena lying around they'd be better off spending it putting a set of Seraph or R-99 together in preparation for when they hit the appropriate level.
Hb/al/mos all make 10-40m an hour without spoils..Unsure what that would be with. Not exaggerated in the very least. Hell if you and some friends got together you could aoe kariks in AL for a massive amount of adena which could be done on 85 toons.
I also said """if""" there weren't bots there which there obviously shouldn't be. Also 2nd sa cost is lowered in londvior. It's worth double sa on melee weapons most definitely although im unsure about mage weapons since i have little experience with mages.
Hb/al/mos all make 10-40m an hour without spoils..Unsure what that would be with. Not exaggerated in the very least. Hell if you and some friends got together you could aoe kariks in AL for a massive amount of adena which could be done on 85 toons.
I also said """if""" there weren't bots there which there obviously shouldn't be. Also 2nd sa cost is lowered in londvior. It's worth double sa on melee weapons most definitely although im unsure about mage weapons since i have little experience with mages.
I'm going to get some friends together, we are going to go to HB and see what kind of adena we get.
Lol even the spots that suck like the entrance mobs are taken.
Correct. There is no *if* because the chance of a bot group being there (or completely overrunning your spot shortly after Wednesday maintenance is over) is like 250%. It's not even worth going there.
I used to do AL before it became as bad as it is now. Full Vesper Drops, etc. you could just sell them to the grocer if you wanted for massive profits.
That's simply not possible anymore. Botters have their bot groups set to KS and everything down there, and it's impossible to train them because deeper in the groups are 9x level and the MOBs cannot kill them with the setups they're running no matter how many you pull on top of them (tried with my iss pulling tons of petrify mobs on a group and dropping the mobs on them with Polymorph).
Hellbound I never bothered trying to get into the tower because the key mob requires a low level toon to get a decent drop rate. I've spent hours there trying to get that key, so it wasn't worth it in the end. The other areas don't have enough MOBs to justify camping them unless you're AoEing them.
Even if the Adena is nerfed, if the item drops stay the same botters will still perma camp those spots since that is where a huge amount of adena come from. The actual items/mats that drop off of the MOBs. S80 weapon/armor parts sell for more than R grade, for example, and a farmer can likely craft a ton of full items to sell for huge profits.
Double SA is worth it on a mage, somewhat, it just depends on what weapon you're putting the double SA on. For fighters it depends on the class. Damage SA is basically as worthless as Empower and some classes with semi-decent gear gain little to nothing from Focus.
Lol even the spots that suck like the entrance mobs are taken.
So first you hinge your argument on a Feoh easily being able to earn 40 million an hour by farming in HB and then you present evidence saying that it is impossible for a Feoh to earn 40 million an hour at Hellbound.
I think we can therefore all conclude that a new Feoh cannot earn enough money to purchase a second SA within a reasonable time and given their expected income and the lack of benefit they'd get from a second SA it simply is not worthwhile.