Which is better Plasma wand or God king?

[suroktheslayer5]

I'm trying to figure out which will give me more dps, the plasma wand or the God King wand. At first glance the plasma wand gives you the 8% proc damage boost but the God King wand has a damage proc plus it raises your int by 71. Is a 71 int boost more than 8% damage boost? Thoughts? <img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b344/suroktheslayer/plasma.jpg" border="0"> <img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b344/suroktheslayer/Suroksig.jpg" border="0">

[BungFoo]

I have a feeling that the best answer starts with "Well it depends . . " Notice that the 8% increase in damage is only for 12 seconds and procs an average of 1.8 times per minute. While the other wands proc lasts for 36 seconds and has the same average number of procs. The Wand of crystalized plasma has clearly better base stats but the other wand seems to have a better proc. I say you switch back and forth between them for a few days and see if one is clearly better than the other. I can't explainwhy but I think the wand of crystalized plasma is going to be the winner.

[TsarRasput]

WCP is MUCH better than Godking.  The INT buff from godking really won't add much especially if you're over the 480 soft cap.  The only time to potentially use Godking would be soloing because of the heal proc.  8% damage boost on a raid is definitely noticable

[Darien al'Staff]

Wand of Crystalized Plasma is the second best wand in the game.  The only better is the Staff of Light.

[Kaycerzan]

I would go plasma if I had one? Basically be the time you're thinking about these other wands, Godking is best served if you need the 14 mana regen.  If you can get the Flowing Thought count up there, or have the mana to cover without it, then it and it's non-augment-accepting [donkey] should be collecting dust in the backup items bag.

[TsarRasput]

Flowing Thought FTL!  Power Procs is where it's at for power regen.

[simpwrx02]

<p>If you want to haev power go for the dagger from the boss of unrest 200 power proc 1.8 times per minute or ~35ish FT but dosent affect the FT cap.  Only better one I knwo of is from 3P wand of the tempest 1.8 times per minute  92 power instantly and 138 every 5 seconds for 10 seconds.</p><p>Personalyl I switch between Crystalized plasma and wand fo the tempest depending on power needs for the fights.  The only godking weapon that is still totally viable is the healer one as the proc it has is insane for them.</p>

[TsarRasput]

as far as power proc gear there are a lot of options Wand of the tempest, or cold-blooded blade for a weapon Necromatic orb of the death reveler for a symbol Boots of Zal-Naz for Boots Spellbound Silk Pants, Pantaloons of Mystical Silk, or the Leggings of Lucidity for pants Xhaviz gown of Glory, or Robe of Forgotten Dreams for a BP there are a lot more, like shoulders and helm but I don't feel like putting them all here

[simpwrx02]

Yes I totally agree there are a ton of power procing items, i just listed the main weapon choice as this topic is concerning weapons.

[daray]

<cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>WCP is MUCH better than Godking.  The INT buff from godking really won't add much especially if you're over the 480 soft cap.  The only time to potentially use Godking would be soloing because of the heal proc.  8% damage boost on a raid is definitely noticable </blockquote> There is no soft cap anymore. And yes, the plasma wand is a far superior weapon - second only to the Staff of Light as far as (raid) dps gains are concerned.

[TsarRasput]

yes there is.... at 480 the curve becomes much less effective.  it becomes dimishing returns at that point , just like haste over 100% is less than the actually stated amount, to 200% haste is actually only 125% haste

[Kaycerzan]

I know it's a tangent and I apologize to the OP..  But can someone show me the mathematics behind comparing +power procs to FT ? I like crunching numbers.

[Dextera]

<p>Cold-blodded Dagger - 200power @ 1.8 times/m</p><p>200 x 1.8 = 360 power/m</p><p>There's 10 ticks in a minute, therefore it's +36 power/tick which is FT36.</p>

[daray]

<cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>yes there is.... at 480 the curve becomes much less effective.  it becomes dimishing returns at that point , just like haste over 100% is less than the actually stated amount, to 200% haste is actually only 125% haste </blockquote>You can't pick an arbitrary number in a diminishing returns system and call it a soft cap, and then say ... <blockquote>The INT buff from godking really won't add much especially if you're over the 480 soft cap. </blockquote> At level 70, INT still provides quite noticeable gains up and into the 700s, so stating that raising INT over 480 makes a negligible difference is an error of judgement.

[Dextera]

Aye Daray, it seems that around 700+ is where the diminishing returns really start to kick in.

[TsarRasput]

<cite>daray wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>yes there is.... at 480 the curve becomes much less effective.  it becomes dimishing returns at that point , just like haste over 100% is less than the actually stated amount, to 200% haste is actually only 125% haste </blockquote>You can't pick an arbitrary number in a diminishing returns system and call it a soft cap, and then say ... <blockquote>The INT buff from godking really won't add much especially if you're over the 480 soft cap. </blockquote> At level 70, INT still provides quite noticeable gains up and into the 700s, so stating that raising INT over 480 makes a negligible difference is an error of judgement. </blockquote>I NEVER stated that it was a negligible difference I stated that it was diminishing returns.  at 480 INT you have 80% of the max you can EVER get the spell's damage. 1080 INT is 100%.  From 0-480 it is a better than 1-1 ratio for damage increasing.  past 480 INT it is less than 1 to 1.  480 INT is equivalent to 100% haste on the haste curve.  add another 100 haste and you get 125% haste.  add another 600 INT and you get 20% more damage.  I can draw you the picture if you need it, but I don't think I should have to.  480 INT coincidentally is equivalent to the damage output at the old stat caps, so anything above 480 INT is the bonus 25% damage you can recieve.  This is how EVERY curve in the game works, it's now a logarithmic curve works. Power, HP, Damage, WIS resists they all work on this same curve.  480 INT is the break point on the curve.  I'm not sure why I even bother when people misquote me, or don't know the reasons behind what I say.  Yes you can get more from more than 480 INT, but it's only in that last 20% of the damage, or power curve.  First the number is NOT arbitrary, nor did I say that it was negligble above that number.  I said it was a matter of diminishing returns.  When I raid I have well over 900 INT, because I want every bit of extra damage I can get.  It is NOT an error of judgement, nor is it a problem with my math, I'll post a picture if you want but that's all the more I'm explaining this concept to you.

[daray]

<cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>480 INT coincidentally is equivalent to the damage output at the old stat caps, so anything above 480 INT is the bonus 25% damage you can recieve. </blockquote> If this was the case, then the damage range on my spells would not have dropped at 545 INT when we switched between the old linear system, and the new diminishing returns system. It is higher than that. So again, picking arbitrary numbers to support your claims makes it hard to take what you have to say seriously. <b>EDIT:</b> And i suppose while I am correcting your maths, I might as well point this out to you too ... <cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>480 INT is equivalent to 100% haste on the haste curve.  add another 100 haste and you get 125% haste.  add another 600 INT and you get 20% more damage.  I can draw you the picture if you need it... </blockquote><cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>it becomes dimishing returns at that point , just like haste over 100% is less than the actually stated amount, to 200% haste is actually only 125% haste </blockquote> 100 Haste = 90% haste in real terms (approx) 200 Haste = 125% haste in real terms 100% haste in real terms = 117 haste Increasing your haste from 100 to 200 under the diminishing returns system adds ~35% in real terms. Therefore, your premise that 100 haste = 100% haste and an additional 100 haste adds just 25% haste is completely wrong. 117% of the old haste cap (under the new diminishing returns system) will put you back up to where you were if you were capped under the old linear system.

[TsarRasput]

wow you didn't refute anything i said, Obviously going any further would be a waste....

[daray]

<cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>wow you didn't refute anything i said, Obviously going any further would be a waste.... </blockquote> If you fail to see where you are going wrong after i pointed out some of the various discrepancies in your premises and reasoning, then you are just reinforcing the conclusion that you really dont know what you are talking about. Reread the posts you have made in this thread, specifically the quotes i have been picking out for you, then read the corrections i have been making for you <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> The only thing I have agreed with you so far in this thread is that the plasma wand is far superior to the god king wand. There is a lot of misinformation in these forums because there is quite a large part of the participating community here that really does not know what they are talking about.

[Echgar]

I urge caution to those of you finding yourself in the position of disagreeing with some of the posts here.  You are welcome to disagree, but be sure not to let your disagreement turn to personal attacks, insults, and namecalling. When it comes to in-game issues, different players will have different opinions and experiences.  Work with each other constructively and if you ultimately cannot agree, recognize that, agree to disagree, and move on.

[simpwrx02]

<p>Did I just lose one of my messages that count towards my total since you deleted my quote?</p>

[Darien al'Staff]

Long story short? Wand of Crystallized Plasma > ALL (EXCEPT) Staff of Light. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[daray]

I was hoping not to waste anymore time on this, but I suppose I will take the time to elaborate then ... <span style="color: #ffff00"> 1)</span> <cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>The INT buff from godking really won't add much especially if you're over the 480 soft cap. </blockquote><i>Interpretation of your comments:</i> INT over 480 is negligible because it "won't add much". <i>My response:</i> Raising your INT above 480 is very advisable because you will see sizeable gains from it. In fact, you will see quite decent returns from raising your INT all the way up to and into the 700s. If you are content to just leave your INT around 500, then you are selling yourself short as a sorcerer. Better explained in point 4 below. <span style="color: #ffff00"> 2)</span> <cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>...if you're over the 480 soft cap.</blockquote> <cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>at 480 the curve becomes much less effective.  it becomes dimishing returns at that point </blockquote> <i>Interpretation of your comments: </i>Diminishing returns only kicks in at 480 INT. Therefore raising your INT from 480 to 481 will have "much less effect" than raising your INT from 479 to 480. <i>My response:</i> Again this is wrong. There is no soft cap. The whole graph (from 1 INT) is diminishing returns. You are always gaining <b>marginally less</b> from adding another point of a stat than you did from adding the previous point of that stat at any point on the graph. The graph does not suddenly hit an angle at 480 INT when everything "becomes much less effective" as you worded it. It is a very gradual process. <span style="color: #ffff00"> 3)</span> <cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>it becomes dimishing returns at that point , just like haste over 100% is less than the actually stated amount, to 200% haste is actually only 125% haste </blockquote><i> Interpretation of your comments:</i> 100 in-game haste = 100% real haste. 200 in-game haste = 125% real haste. Below 100 haste you will return a greater than 1:1 ratio, while above 100 haste you will see a less than 1:1 ratio. <i>My response: </i>Again this is wrong. 100 Haste = 90% haste in real terms (so already less than a 1:1 ratio). Also, as with stats, haste is diminishing in returns from 1, and not from the point where it returns a less than 1:1 ratio. <span style="color: #ffff00"> 4)</span> <cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>at 480 INT you have 80% of the max you can EVER get the spell's damage.</blockquote> <cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>... add another 600 INT and you get 20% more damage. </blockquote> <i>Interpretation of your comments:</i> 480 INT = 80% of the max damage. Taking INT to cap will add damage gains of 20%. <i>My response:</i> I disagree and appear to be getting different figures to you. A quick check on my character just now returned the following results (note that I chose the initial hit of Fire Seeds for comparison as it was least likely to be influenced by BoE effects, whilst still providing a large enough hit - this means while they won't be completely accurate, it will be close, and enough to illustrate my point): <ul><li>At 1 INT, my Fire Seeds returns 2037 dmg </li><li>At 240 INT, my Fire Seeds returns 2573 dmg = +26.2% from 1 INT </li><li>At 480 INT, my Fire Seeds returns 2983 dmg = +15.9% from 240 INT </li><li><b>At 720 INT</b>, my Fire Seeds returns 3281 dmg = <b>+10% from 480 INT</b></li><li>At 960 INT, my Fire Seeds returns 3408 dmg = +3.8% from 720 INT </li><li>At 1070 INT, my Fire Seeds returns 3414 dmg (capped)</li></ul>So, in the above example, while the first 480 INT takes you up to approximately 87% of the total damage, you are already receiving 60% of the total potential damage at 1 INT. Now if we focus on just the gains you receive by increasing your INT, we get: <ul><li>1 INT = +0 .................. 1 INT equates to 0% of the overall gain. </li><li>240 INT = +536 ...... 240 INT equates to 39% of the overall gain. </li><li><b>480 INT = +946 .... 4</b><b>80 INT equates to 68.7% of the overall gain.</b> </li><li>720 INT = +1244 .... 720 INT equates to 90.3% of the overall gain. </li><li>960 INT = +1371 .....960 INT equates to 99.5% of the overall gain. </li><li>1070 INT = +1377 ..1070 INT equates to 100% of the overall gain.</li></ul> What this basically means, is at 480 INT you are receiving approximately <b>65% of the total potential</b> <b>gains</b> possible, not 80% as you stated in several spots. This also ties back in with how haste % diminishes as you increase haste (see point 6 below). And with reference back to point 1, raising your INT by just 240 up to 720 (easy to do), will add approx 10% to your overall dps. <span style="color: #ffff00"> 5)</span> <cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>1080 INT is 100%. </blockquote> <i>Interpretation of your comments:</i> You believe that stats cap at 1080. <i>My response:</i> The actual stats cap at Level 70 is 1070. Formula is (Level * 15) +20. You don't gain anything for being over 1070. Just confirmed this myself while i was getting values for Fire Seeds in point 4. <span style="color: #ffff00"> 6)</span> <cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>480 INT is equivalent to 100% haste on the haste curve.  add another 100 haste and you get 125% haste.  add another 600 INT and you get 20% more damage. </blockquote><i> My response:</i> See points 3 and 4 above. To elaborate on your haste arguement further: <ul><li> 100 Haste = 90% haste in real terms</li><li> 200 Haste = 125% haste in real terms</li><li> 100% haste in real terms = 117 haste</li><li> Increasing your haste from 100 to 200 under the diminishing returns system adds ~35% in real terms</li></ul>Therefore, claiming that 100 haste = 100% haste (1:1 ratio at that point) is wrong. Claiming that raising your haste from 100 to 200 adds 25% haste in real terms is also wrong. 117% of the old haste cap (under the new diminishing returns system) will put you back up to where you were if you were capped under the old linear system. <span style="color: #ffff00"> 7)</span> <cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>480 INT coincidentally is equivalent to the damage output at the old stat caps </blockquote><i> My response:</i> Again, this statement is false. The new diminishing returns curve actually crosses the old linear graph twice. It is the second intersection that represents the point where the new diminishing returns curve meets the old linear graph at the old stat cap. And this actually occured in the upper 500s and <b>not</b> at 480 (never got an exact number for it). It would not surprise me actually, if it was also at 117% of the old cap, as with haste in point 6. <span style="color: #ffff00"> 8 )</span> <cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>Flowing Thought FTL!  Power Procs is where it's at for power regen. </blockquote><i>My response: </i>Common knowledge, and you are right. However, the 2 aren't mutually exclusive. <span style="color: #ffff00"> 9)</span> <cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>WCP is MUCH better than Godking. </blockquote><i>My response: </i>I completely agree, though probably not for the same reasons as you. <span style="color: #ffff00"> 10)</span> <cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm not sure why I even bother when people misquote me, or don't know the reasons behind what I say. </blockquote><cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>wow you didn't refute anything i said, Obviously going any further would be a waste.... </blockquote><cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'll post a picture if you want but that's all the more I'm explaining this concept to you. </blockquote><i> Interpretation of your comments: </i>You think I'm agreeing with you on all your points and that I like pictures (maybe an art lover?). <i>My response: </i>Learn to read. <span style="color: #ffff00"> <b>Conclusions:</b></span> I score you with 2/10, which puts you ahead of "3.2k naked". Edited to fix typo.

[Dextera]

<p>Daray wins EQ2.</p><p>3.2k Naked.</p>

[TsarRasput]

yay let's have an e-[Removed for Content] fight even after the mod tells us to stop.... you people make me sick, yes I could rebuttle, but I'm not going to

[daray]

<cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>yay let's have an e-[I cannot control my vocabulary] fight even after the mod tells us to stop.... you people make me sick, yes I could rebuttle, but I'm not going to </blockquote> My post is constructive and on-topic as per the mod's requests. I fail to see an issue. Like the Echgar said, you are welcome to disagree with my opinions and conclusions. In fact, if i make a mistake, I am more than happy to listen to what others have to say and learn from it. Just remember that <b>you</b> were the one who asked me to clarify, back up and justify my statements in one of your posts that Echgar deleted when the thread took somewhat of a derailment. I took the time to write that lengthy post to help you better understand the mechanics of this game, and to save the spread of some further misinformation in the future. If this is your way of dismissing the debate, because you are struggling to find ways to back up your claims, then so be it. I am more than happy to just leave it at this. I think i covered everything pretty thoroughly as is.

[simpwrx02]

<p>Very constructive and informative post Daray.  </p><p>I persoanlly appricaite the effort you put in to explain the int to damage graph as now I will use it against the  necro buff whors in my mage group who whine for vim to give them 960 int instead of only 865, where I could deffinately use the extra power.</p><p>/shakes fists at necros and thier never ending power supply.</p>

[Darien al'Staff]

<cite>TsarRasputin wrote:</cite><blockquote>yay let's have an e-[I cannot control my vocabulary] fight even after the mod tells us to stop.... you people make me sick, yes I could rebuttle, but I'm not going to </blockquote> ...You're wrong.  Just get over it.

[Syndarin]

<p>The only reason I came to this post is becuase Dextera said something about 3.2k naked. All I can say is that Vexus kinda got owned in the face =/ "Long story short? Wand of Crystallized Plasma > ALL (EXCEPT) Staff of Light."</p><p>Not true. If you have the dark orb of the mind, WoCP is one of the worst weapons for ya. But this is a rare case of course </p>

[Darien al'Staff]

Udoaka@Antonia Bayle wrote: <blockquote><p>The only reason I came to this post is becuase Dextera said something about 3.2k naked. All I can say is that Vexus kinda got owned in the face =/ "Long story short? Wand of Crystallized Plasma > ALL (EXCEPT) Staff of Light."</p><p>Not true. If you have the dark orb of the mind, WoCP is one of the worst weapons for ya. But this is a rare case of course </p></blockquote> You're factoring in other things dooky.  As pure weapon vs weapon, crystallized plasma > all FYI, for those curious, the dark orb of the mind and crystallized plasma don't stack...thus the reason dooky is saying that <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

[ksux]

I'm glad someone posted about the Dark Orb of the Mind not stacking with the Wand of Crystallized Plasma.  I hadn't heard that before.  Is that something intentional that the Devs did?  I could see them not stacking if it was the same effect (name and function, kinda like how haste items don't stack), but it's not. Wand of Crystallized Plasma Plasma Boost - When target casts a spell this spell has a chance to cast Plasma Boost on caster. Lasts for 12.0 seconds. This effect will trigger an average of 1.8 times per minute. Increases the base damage of hostile spells cast by 8%. Dark Orb of the Mind Plasma Amplification - When target casts a spell this spell has a chance to cast Plasma Amplification on caster. Lasts for 16.0 seconds. This effect will trigger an average of 1.8 times per minute. Increases the base damage of hostile spells cast by 10%. Do either of these items stack with the Vine-Wrapped Boots then since it has a similar effect too?

[simpwrx02]

The Vine wraped boots go towards your Bolt of Energy total so they stack with either the WoCP or the Dark orb.

[ksux]

<cite>simpwrx02 wrote:</cite><blockquote>The Vine wraped boots go towards your Bolt of Energy total so they stack with either the WoCP or the Dark orb. </blockquote>Ah, good to know, thank you. Is there a cap on Bolt of Energy?

[Dextera]

<cite>ksuxtc wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm glad someone posted about the Dark Orb of the Mind not stacking with the Wand of Crystallized Plasma.  I hadn't heard that before.  Is that something intentional that the Devs did?  I could see them not stacking if it was the same effect (name and function, kinda like how haste items don't stack), but it's not. Wand of Crystallized Plasma Plasma Boost - When target casts a spell this spell has a chance to cast Plasma Boost on caster. Lasts for 12.0 seconds. This effect will trigger an average of 1.8 times per minute. <b><span style="color: #cc0000">Increases the base damage</span></b> of hostile spells cast by 8%. Dark Orb of the Mind Plasma Amplification - When target casts a spell this spell has a chance to cast Plasma Amplification on caster. Lasts for 16.0 seconds. This effect will trigger an average of 1.8 times per minute. <b><span style="color: #cc0000">Increases the base damage</span></b> of hostile spells cast by 10%. Do either of these items stack with the Vine-Wrapped Boots then since it has a similar effect too? </blockquote><p> The Orb/Wand don't stack because of the indentical buffs. For example.</p><ul><li>Vine-wrapped Boots - On a successful spell attack this spell has a 10% chance to cast Powerfont on the caster. Lasts for 7.0 seconds. Powerfont will <b><span style="color: #cc0000">increase the damage</span></b> of hostile spells by 10%.</li></ul><p>As you can see, the Wand/Orb will affect base damage while the VWB will affect just damage. This allows the VWB to stack with the Wand/Orb.</p><p>Also, VWB (but not the Wand/Orb because they affect base damage) do contribute to your +dmg cap (BoE, etc) on your spells. I believe the cap is around 10-15% of the spell's base damage, although if someone knows the exact number feel free to correct me.</p>

[simpwrx02]

If i remeber right it is 10% on the lower number and 15% on the upper number for BoE caps.

[Squigglle]

<cite>suroktheslayer5 wrote:</cite><blockquote>I'm trying to figure out which will give me more dps, the plasma wand or the God King wand. At first glance the plasma wand gives you the 8% proc damage boost but the God King wand has a damage proc plus it raises your int by 71. Is a 71 int boost more than 8% damage boost? Thoughts? <img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b344/suroktheslayer/plasma.jpg" border="0"> <img src="http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b344/suroktheslayer/Suroksig.jpg" border="0"> </blockquote>i love your sig hahaha

[slippery]

<cite>simpwrx02 wrote:</cite><blockquote>If i remeber right it is 10% on the lower number and 15% on the upper number for BoE caps.</blockquote> Incorrect. The cap is based on Normalization rules. For a 3 second casting DD spell it will have a cap of 100%, for less than 3 seconds it scales accordingly. For DoT's divide by the number of tics to a minimum of 5 (so like irradiate caps at 20% BoE or increased damage). AE DD's /3, AE DoT's /3/tics(min 5). Generally speaking, if you had no BoE equiped the damage number you see on the spell is how much BoE you can benefit from. So if the spell did 100 damage you would see benefit from 100 boe, however the actual increase is going to depend on casting speed. If it had a 3 second casting speed it would do 200 damage with 100 boe, if it had a 1.5 second casting speed it would do 150 damage with 100 boe. In either case adding more than 100 boe would do nothing for that spell. Edit: The reason the 10 and 15% numbers come up often is because those are the spells people have managed to cap boe on, and they are typically low damage dots with a decent number of tics.