Caustic Vs Hemo (is this right?) [Archive] - EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

View Full Version : Caustic Vs Hemo (is this right?)

steelbadger

02-28-2007, 04:56 PM

I was bored this evening so I started to fiddle with my calculator, and got to be thinking about the new Hemo, is it really any better? I'm not one to fly in the face of conventional wisdom but to my noobish eye it looks like Hemo would do more damage, on average, than Caustic would. Calcs as follows: please note that all calculations are theoretical averages, and i'm not so sure that they're right <img src="/smilies/1cfd6e2a9a2c0cf8e74b49b35e2e46c7.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> 0% Haste: 4.9 ppm (procs per minute) => 1 proc per 12.245 seconds Assume 5 points in hemo, not many other places of use to put them, additionally all poison damage figures are taken at 174 INT. Hemo: 291 dmg dealt 7 times over 14 seconds => 291 dmg per 2.3333 seconds (14/6 as the initial proc happens instantly) Thus Hemo would do 291 x 12.245/2.33333 = 1527 dmg per proc (on average) Caustic 646 dmg dealt once => 646 dmg per proc (on average) Of course this is something that has been expected, it has been widely said by assassins that with high haste caustic would continue to dominate Hemo so... 125% Haste: 4.9 procs would now occur every 60/225 x 100 = 26.666 seconds. thus => 1 proc every 5.44 seconds (26.666/4.9) Hemo: 291 dmg every 2.333 seconds (see above). So Hemo will hit on proccing, then, 2.333 seconds after proccing will hit again, then after an additional 2.333 seconds (if still up, and due to a mere 0.22 second difference between the normalised procs this can be considered likely enough to be considered). so, if hemo stays up for 5.6666 seconds it will do 873 dmg, however, if we find how much it will do on average over an infinite period of time we get: 873/5.666 x 5.44 = 847 dmg per proc Caustic will not see any change with this high haste and will remain at 646 dmg per proc Thus it would seem to me that Grandmaster's Hemotoxin is the better choice in any fight that lasts more than 5 seconds <img src="/smilies/136dd33cba83140c7ce38db096d05aed.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Is that right? What have I missed?

Graton

03-02-2007, 12:55 PM

Algazeed@Runnyeye wrote: <blockquote>I was bored this evening so I started to fiddle with my calculator, and got to be thinking about the new Hemo, is it really any better? I'm not one to fly in the face of conventional wisdom but to my noobish eye it looks like Hemo would do more damage, on average, than Caustic would. Calcs as follows: please note that all calculations are theoretical averages, and i'm not so sure that they're right <img src="/smilies/1cfd6e2a9a2c0cf8e74b49b35e2e46c7.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> 0% Haste: 4.9 ppm (procs per minute) => 1 proc per 12.245 seconds Assume 5 points in hemo, not many other places of use to put them, additionally all poison damage figures are taken at 174 INT. Hemo: 291 dmg dealt 7 times over 14 seconds => 291 dmg per 2.3333 seconds (14/6 as the initial proc happens instantly) Thus Hemo would do 291 x 12.245/2.33333 = 1527 dmg per proc (on average) Caustic 646 dmg dealt once => 646 dmg per proc (on average) Of course this is something that has been expected, it has been widely said by assassins that with high haste caustic would continue to dominate Hemo so... 125% Haste: 4.9 procs would now occur every 60/225 x 100 = 26.666 seconds. thus => 1 proc every 5.44 seconds (26.666/4.9) Hemo: 291 dmg every 2.333 seconds (see above). So Hemo will hit on proccing, then, 2.333 seconds after proccing will hit again, then after an additional 2.333 seconds (if still up, and due to a mere 0.22 second difference between the normalised procs this can be considered likely enough to be considered). so, if hemo stays up for 5.6666 seconds it will do 873 dmg, however, if we find how much it will do on average over an infinite period of time we get: 873/5.666 x 5.44 = 847 dmg per proc Caustic will not see any change with this high haste and will remain at 646 dmg per proc Thus it would seem to me that Grandmaster's Hemotoxin is the better choice in any fight that lasts more than 5 seconds <img src="/smilies/136dd33cba83140c7ce38db096d05aed.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> Is that right? What have I missed? </blockquote>there's a thread already on the board called 'poison changes on test' where you should probably post this instead. in short, if you have an illusionist in your group and are at 100% haste you'd want to use caustic. if you have fairly low haste 50% and lower hemo is currently better if you spend 5 points in the aa.

Siclone

03-02-2007, 01:18 PM

yea this is what the coder said which I think goes along with your statementThe aa skill works to decrease the duration as you all know from 24 to 14 if you max out the skill. The increase in tick count causes the poison ticks to occur every 2.3 seconds instead of ~3 seconds. So with the initial damage plus 2 ticks or 4.6 seconds total you actually surpass caustic and initial plus 1 tick is slightly below caustic. In theory poisons should proc every 12 seconds approximately which has some nice damage potential with hemotoxin. Of course that is assuming no proc modifiers but even with some slight modifiers from like the cunning set you should still get to the 4 second point most of the time. if the fight last longer then 4-5 sec depending on proc modifiers hemo is better. (which is most of the time right?)Though reading that other thread people still think its not, that caustic is better, which it confused the heck out of me. I dont want to be a game develper and run stats, I just want to bottom line on this stuff and right now its as clear as mud to me. Lots of people saying lots of different things from what I can see. Though, I can understand why some are upset, they have to max the AA, just to make it slightly better then something they can use, without spending AA. And now is not poision better for Rangers who can max there Caustic posion AA, which is naturally better anyway.