It's a debate between 5/5 slow and 1/5 para, vs 1/5 slow 5/5 para. Not either or. The additional proc rate on para outweighs the minimal increase from slow for tanking, solo or whatever else you do. MP/duration ratio is moot, you only use either spell when needed anyway.
I find it very difficult to discern between the two. Slow is by far the better spell on anything it lands on and is much more MP efficient but Para2 merits may well improve its efficiency more than Slow2 merits improves Slow2.
When solo though, I never toss Para2 on something unless I anticipate straight tanking it the whole time.
I find it very difficult to discern between the two. Slow is by far the better spell on anything it lands on and is much more MP efficient but Para2 merits may well improve its efficiency more than Slow2 merits improves Slow2. When solo though, I never toss Para2 on something unless I anticipate straight tanking it the whole time. Fixed for clarity.
Yeah, I put slow on full time for everything I fight solo or not. Para goes on if I get worried about taking some hits (like Zip I guess) or in a tank party etc. I just think an additional % chance to completely null an attack would beat 4% slow that really isn't doing much.
It's a debate between 5/5 slow and 1/5 para, vs 1/5 slow 5/5 para. Not either or. The additional proc rate on para outweighs the minimal increase from slow for tanking, solo or whatever else you do. MP/duration ratio is moot, you only use either spell when needed anyway.
You are right, but I am of the opinion that there shouldn't really be a debate between maxing either of them, considering the fact that capping out your bio 3 is incredibly more beneficial overall. They each deserve a single point, though, undeniably.
It's a debate between 5/5 slow and 1/5 para, vs 1/5 slow 5/5 para. Not either or. The additional proc rate on para outweighs the minimal increase from slow for tanking, solo or whatever else you do. MP/duration ratio is moot, you only use either spell when needed anyway.
You are right, but I am of the opinion that there shouldn't really be a debate between maxing either of them, considering the fact that capping out your bio 3 is incredibly more beneficial overall. They each deserve a single point, though, undeniably.
No? An additional 2/tic does not make or break a solo RDM, especially given that most solos are not solely dependant on DoT damage these days.
That throws a completely different swing on it, Bio 3 is great capped for solo, Para/Slow are great always. Besides, the ***'s situational argument has been done already (except Blind, that blows).
I find it very difficult to discern between the two. Slow is by far the better spell on anything it lands on and is much more MP efficient but Para2 merits may well improve its efficiency more than Slow2 merits improves Slow2. When solo though, I never toss Para2 on something unless I anticipate straight tanking it the whole time. Fixed for clarity.
Yeah, I put slow on full time for everything I fight solo or not. Para goes on if I get worried about taking some hits (like Zip I guess) or in a tank party etc. I just think an additional % chance to completely null an attack would beat 4% slow that really isn't doing much.
Absolutely if you look at it on paper, but you also have to look at consistency vs "random" too. Shadow Mantle is better damage reduction than Umbra during the day, but I'd still use Umbra just because consistency is incredibly important to RDM.
As for how good an extra 4% Slow is, admittedly probably not much. Could make the counterargument that Slow is more important than Paralyze so the extra magic accuracy in landing it is more essential (since some stuff does resist) but I'm not entirely convinced of that either. Hmm.
I agree with Mahayaya that Para2 is one hell of an MP sponge.
1/5 is nice when you've got another RDM present who likes to cast Para in lousy gear, but in an ideal or solo/lowman situation I'd agree that it's 4-5 merits or bust.
It's a debate between 5/5 slow and 1/5 para, vs 1/5 slow 5/5 para. Not either or. The additional proc rate on para outweighs the minimal increase from slow for tanking, solo or whatever else you do. MP/duration ratio is moot, you only use either spell when needed anyway.
You are right, but I am of the opinion that there shouldn't really be a debate between maxing either of them, considering the fact that capping out your bio 3 is incredibly more beneficial overall. They each deserve a single point, though, undeniably.
No? An additional 2/tic does not make or break a solo RDM, especially given that most solos are not solely dependant on DoT damage these days.
One merit into bio 3 is a thirty second duration. Five is a two and a half minute duration. That's a 500% increase in duration. The less often you have to cast bio 3, the more MP you save, the more time you can spend getting distance on your enemy and casting nukes/whatever else is necessary. Having to cast Bio a fifth of the time seems incredibly beneficial to me.
It's a debate between 5/5 slow and 1/5 para, vs 1/5 slow 5/5 para. Not either or. The additional proc rate on para outweighs the minimal increase from slow for tanking, solo or whatever else you do. MP/duration ratio is moot, you only use either spell when needed anyway.
You are right, but I am of the opinion that there shouldn't really be a debate between maxing either of them, considering the fact that capping out your bio 3 is incredibly more beneficial overall. They each deserve a single point, though, undeniably.
No? An additional 2/tic does not make or break a solo RDM, especially given that most solos are not solely dependant on DoT damage these days.
One merit into bio 3 is a thirty second duration. Five is a two and a half minute duration. That's a 500% increase in effectiveness. The less often you have to cast bio 3, the more MP you save, the more time you can spend getting distance on your enemy and casting nukes/whatever else is necessary. Having to cast Bio a fifth of the time seems incredibly beneficial to me.
It's kind of dumb to say that slow II has anything but a minimal effect while kiting =/
It's more of a safety net for oh-***moments than anything else. I certainly wouldn't use it in a fight that I know it would do me no good on. But obviously Zipacna, and the video example of Byakko are essential moments to use it.
Why? Because when you're in the middle of getting fist-***, you don't want to be trying to land slow on it, you want to worry about keeping your *** alive.
The reason you can't rely on Paralyze II for those oh-***moments is because the duration of the spell is all over the place.
Bio3 is a cool story but I wouldn't call it essential. I mainly like it for its duration more than anything.
I wouldn't call extra points into slow or paralyze essential, either. The increases are minimal at best. That's why Bio 3 is a better choice; it benefits greatly from the extra merits while other spells do not.
An additional 2/tic does not make or break a solo RDM, especially given that most solos are not solely dependant on DoT damage these days.
And while it doesn't last as long it costs less to cast. Merits are an extremely limited resource, items of convenience should be relatively low priority.
Absolutely if you look at it on paper, but you also have to look at consistency vs "random" too. Shadow Mantle is better damage reduction than Umbra during the day, but I'd still use Umbra just because consistency is incredibly important to RDM. As for how good an extra 4% Slow is, admittedly probably not much. Could make the counterargument that Slow is more important than Paralyze so the extra magic accuracy in landing it is more essential (since some stuff does resist) but I'm not entirely convinced of that either. Hmm. I agree with Mahayaya that Para2 is one hell of an MP sponge.
Well in this comparison you have both effects at the same time :x I agree slow is more important definitely, but RDM solo aside I'd lean more to a higher proc rate over a (likely) unnoticable slow effect. Hell you probably can't eyeball the increased para rate either.
It's kind of dumb to say that slow II has anything but a minimal effect while kiting =/
It's more of a safety net for oh-***moments than anything else. I certainly wouldn't use it in a fight that I know it would do me no good on. But obviously Zipacna, and the video example of Byakko are essential moments to use it. Why? Because when you're in the middle of getting fist-***, you don't want to be trying to land slow on it, you want to worry about keeping your *** alive. The reason you can't rely on Paralyze II for those oh-***moments is because the duration of the spell is all over the place.
Really? If they both work differently than the other then how can you compare the 4% of a constant to the 4% of a "random"? I have never heard anyone say they both mitigate the same amount of damage before.
Because you do analysis over time, same way people analyze how much dmg DA adds. And it's technically not dmg mitigation but more of just looking at how many less attacks you'll get over time.
Though after going back and looking at it and rethinking about how slow works, paralyze is SLIGHTLY better at reducing attacks per % than slow. Enough to be worth it, that depends on who you ask but I'll give you paralyze actually being slightly better than slow per %.
Leviathan.Dissonant said:
Not when you are thinking with relativity in mind. Just pretend we knew the proc rate on paralyze 2 was 5%, not saying it is, this is just for argument's sake. If you gained 4 more, that's an 80% increase in effectiveness, in comparison to like a 9% increase for slow.
You're actually not thinking very relatively here, all you're looking at is proc rate, what you should be looking at is how many less attacks occur because of the increase in merits. Just for reference para is about a 4/95 = 4.21% increase while slow is something like 3.5/95.23 = 3.67%
An additional 2/tic does not make or break a solo RDM, especially given that most solos are not solely dependant on DoT damage these days.
And while it doesn't last as long it costs less to cast. Merits are an extremely limited resource, items of convenience should be relatively low priority.
I feel like you are missing my argument that the benefits to extra points into slow and paralyze are small almost to the point of immeasurability. Their worth is very, very small. Bio 3 capped is an easily notable increase in damage and duration, not an "item of convenience." More damage means a quicker fight means less time for you to screw up and die.
It's kind of dumb to say that slow II has anything but a minimal effect while kiting =/
It's more of a safety net for oh-***moments than anything else. I certainly wouldn't use it in a fight that I know it would do me no good on. But obviously Zipacna, and the video example of Byakko are essential moments to use it. Why? Because when you're in the middle of getting fist-***, you don't want to be trying to land slow on it, you want to worry about keeping your *** alive. The reason you can't rely on Paralyze II for those oh-***moments is because the duration of the spell is all over the place.
If you're kiting... Delay is not a factor.
Zipacna(or anything with something like bindga) - could Thunder/Ice Break, forcing you to take some hits.
Byakko(or anything with high resist rates) - could resist bind, forcing you to straight tank until your bind recast is back.
Casting slow on the monster when you know you're safe as opposed to when ***starts to get heavy can easily be the difference between a win and a loss.
Bio 3 is really only noticeably useful for solos, the other spells are useful always. Besides, survivability > quicker solos, and even then you're only shaving off a little time.