a nukemage?

[lilbyrdie]

Here is the skill damage comparing the two (mega mage sets):

Gemstone Wand + Bracer:

Min, Max, Average
Weapon DPS 179 224 202
Heal 133 271 202
Frostbite 209 267 238
Ice Storm 159 195 177
Firestorm 275 389 332
Lightning 262 394 328
Drain Life 305 450 377.5

Gemstone Staff:

Min, max, average:
Weapon DPS 226 264 223
Heal 131 267 199
Frostbite 253 310 281.5
Ice Storm 204 239 221.5
Firestorm 318 430 374
Lightning 306 435 370.5
Drain Life 348 490 419


I'm going to be putting all of this together. I had been planning a guide last week, but I was too busy.

This is the sort of comparison you have to do when comparing sets. Weapon damage is such a small percent of total damage of a mage that it's very important to carefully consider the effect of the sets on total skill damage.

You can use a calculated DPS to help, by adding up all the DPS of all the skills and the weapon, but doing so at several estimated mob armor levels. The higher the mob armor, the more obvious the effect of a low base damage on a fast weapon becomes -- not to mention the massive loss in damage from skills. Then, once you have all of that in place, add in the differences due to hit% (if under 85%) and crit% -- both of which also apply to attack skills. For instance 10% more hit and 5% more crit translates to about 15% more overall damage.

For a nuke mage, you want the maximum combination of all of that. dodge, armor, regen, and all the rest are gravy -- as others have said, a max damage nuke mage is going to be more fragile because of the typical item trade-offs.

Another minor point: although a 50-150 and a 95-105 damage item at the same speed should add the same base damage to skills and, statistically, do the same damage to mobs, the 95-105 is a "safer" bet. You can't _just_ look at the averages...

[KaotiicxDream]

May i get the definition of a "Nukemage"? Is it just a Mage with really high weapon dmg and skill dmg? or is it something else?

[lilbyrdie]

May i get the definition of a "Nukemage"? Is it just a Mage with really high weapon dmg and skill dmg? or is it something else?

If you get your skills just right, and just the right weapon, and just the right time of day, you'll set off a nuclear explosion and clear the area in one hit.

j/k

It's exactly what it sounds like... and is pretty much how many mages play. Walk in, blow everything up, keep walking.

[KaotiicxDream]

If you get your skills just right, and just the right weapon, and just the right time of day, you'll set off a nuclear explosion and clear the area in one hit.

j/k

It's exactly what it sounds like... and is pretty much how many mages play. Walk in, blow everything up, keep walking.

The first part u wrote is when i play Modern Warfare 2 xD

[WhoIsThis]

Skill damage is what defines a nuke mage. Spell damage is the main killer here.

[Hullukko]

Another minor point: although a 50-150 and a 95-105 damage item at the same speed should add the same base damage to skills and, statistically, do the same damage to mobs, the 95-105 is a "safer" bet. You can't _just_ look at the averages...

I agree with the rest, but one minor correction. They're not statistically the same. The difference, when there is any, is in favour for 50-150. Enemy armor above 50 starts work in favour of the wider range. Which is most apparent when the enemy armor reaches 105 after which the smaller range makes eggs while the other still manages to do something. This is because is no such thing as negative damage, if there were, their damage would indeed be equal regardless of enemy armor.

[lilbyrdie]

I agree with the rest, but one minor correction. They're not statistically the same. The difference, when there is any, is in favour for 50-150. Enemy armor above 50 starts work in favour of the wider range. Which is most apparent when the enemy armor reaches 105 after which the smaller range makes eggs while the other still manages to do something. This is because is no such thing as negative damage, if there were, their damage would indeed be equal regardless of enemy armor.

Good point.

That same point works in reverse, too. If you're in an area with average mob armor of, say, 90, a good percent of the hits of the 50-150 will be absorbed by the armor (a "miss", I think), while the 95-105 will land more (no misses due to armor absorption).

It further goes to show that graphing damage per hit against various armor levels and then normalizing against time is about the only way to get an estimated picture of what the weapons will feel like in battle...


What I'm not sure is if we, like mobs, have some minimum damage when a hit is landed, regardless of armor. For instance, we can armor up all we want and drop into FH, but we'll still take 5-6 damage per landed hit. (That's where H/s starts to matter more, too. It can quickly erase those minimum hit "scratches.") It doesn't really change the calculations any, it just means we'd always be a tiny bit useful instead of totally useless in the worst cases.

[Sigkill]

nuke mages are equally as weak as they are strong. The stronger your offense gets, the weaker your defense gets. Currently the best nuke mage build in the game is a WHOPPING 74 armor, pretty high eh? xD, I am in love with Mastermind armor, never ever been able to get 100% overkill WITHOUT buffs before.

Tbh, normally your posts are clear and concise but I have no clue what you are trying to say here

[Hullukko]

Good point.

That same point works in reverse, too. If you're in an area with average mob armor of, say, 90, a good percent of the hits of the 50-150 will be absorbed by the armor (a "miss", I think), while the 95-105 will land more (no misses due to armor absorption).

Incorrect. Read again what I wrote.

At 90 armor. The 95-105 is making average of 10 damage. The 50-150 will be making 18 average damage (0*4/10+30*6/10). This exactly because when the wider range is hitting "negative" damage it actually gets truncated to 0 damage and that skews the average in favour of the wider range.

Thus, like I said, withe ranges you mentioned the enemy armor being anything between the wider range you're better off with the wider range. Below 50 or above 150, they're equal. And thus, in all circumstances you're better off with the wider range. Hope that makes it clear.

It further goes to show that graphing damage per hit against various armor levels and then normalizing against time is about the only way to get an estimated picture of what the weapons will feel like in battle...

Yes, but for mages it's a lot more complex than that. The weapon dps is such a small factor and spell damage is everything. And there are some oddities at play that haven't been fully figured out yet. The effect of hit% to the enemy dodge roll for one. Another example is why the 55 gemstone 1H swords give better spell damage even though their damage range is smaller than that of the axes (I'm not confusing dps here with base damage, the base damage range of a gemstone axe IS higher than that of the sword but wield the sword and your skill damages are higher. I dunno why.)

What I'm not sure is if we, like mobs, have some minimum damage when a hit is landed, regardless of armor. For instance, we can armor up all we want and drop into FH, but we'll still take 5-6 damage per landed hit. (That's where H/s starts to matter more, too. It can quickly erase those minimum hit "scratches.") It doesn't really change the calculations any, it just means we'd always be a tiny bit useful instead of totally useless in the worst cases.

There is a minimum damage inflicted when a hit lands. I can't recall what it is exactly, but it's there.

[WhoIsThis]

Yes, but for mages it's a lot more complex than that. The weapon dps is such a small factor and spell damage is everything. And there are some oddities at play that haven't been fully figured out yet. The effect of hit% to the enemy dodge roll for one. Another example is why the 55 gemstone 1H swords give better spell damage even though their damage range is smaller than that of the axes (I'm not confusing dps here with base damage, the base damage range of a gemstone axe IS higher than that of the sword but wield the sword and your skill damages are higher. I dunno why.)

1. Do I hit? Up to 85-86% chance of hitting a target or your hit %, whichever is lower.
2. Does the target dodge? It depends on the targets dodge.

So the real chance of hitting is your hit % OR hit cap (whichever is lower) - enemy dodge.



For spell damage, it's been established that 1 handed weapons give a higher percentage of their damage to skill damage 95 - 100% versus 2h weapons which are usually in the 70s.

[Hullukko]

1. Do I hit? Up to 85-86% chance of hitting a target or your hit %, whichever is lower.
2. Does the target dodge? It depends on the targets dodge.

So the real chance of hitting is your hit % OR hit cap (whichever is lower) - enemy dodge.

So sure of yourself, are you?
The physiologic's guide to advanced mechanics is inconclusive in this matter. He did not try out different enemy dodges nor did he try lower values of hit%. Thus where, when and if the cap takes place was left undetermined. There are many experienced players here suggesting that the hit percentage might play a role in the enemy dodge roll in a sense that a player would benefit froma hit% higher than 85. In a sense that even if the max obtainable successful hit rate would be 85%, some people are saying that against enemies with higher dodge it might be beneficial to have a hit percentage higher than that.

What physiologic did was prove that one cannot hit above a certain rate. That is not the same as a player should not have a higher hit percentage than that rate.
Based on those tests one cannot say that a hit percentage above 85% would be useless. He proved that one cannot hit with a higher success rate than that, but he used very high values of hit% there leaving the question of how would have a hit% of 85 performed there.

The point being that, those results do not show that what is at play is a cap, it may also be a minimum miss-rate of 15%. If the latter is the case and hit percentage plays a role in enemy dodge roll then there is a difference between successfull hits between having hit% at 85 or at, say, 95. Now, that is hypothetical, I don't know which is it. All I'm saying that in the absence of other data the results are inconclusive in this matter.

My personal hunch on the matter is that I hit better with a gear set-up where my hit% is 100ish than what I do with a 85, but I cant say for sure. This is something I've been meaning to determine by experiments but I haven't gotten around to do that. Just wait and see.

For spell damage, it's been established that 1 handed weapons give a higher percentage of their damage to skill damage 95 - 100% versus 2h weapons which are usually in the 70s.

Oh, come on. I was referring to the one handed gemstone sword and one handed gemstone axe. The axe has higher base damage, but lower skill damage. That is something I have not seen explained yet. The difference between them, apart from being an axe and a sword, is in the hit rate. It's as if a higher the hit rate carries a slight negative effect on spell damage. This is an example that there's more to it than just handedness.

I have not seen a thread where the "base damage -> spell damage" relation is fully explained. If there is one, please give a pointer.

[Peterlawl]

Ok so i want to make a nuker i wanna deal the maximum ammount of damage with the best protection possible how should i allocate my skills? Please explain why. You can use 6 1 1 6 corridence i understand what it means. Just never had a mage

I'm only a lvl 33, but I've found great success with a couple of things when it comes to a pure INT mage:
-As a pure INT mage you're not going to have alot of health, so I either recommend doing dungeons with friends, or getting some good items with a decent health regen.
-On my mage I use 6 BOV, 1 BOM, 6 Lightning, 6 Firestorm, 6 Ice Storm, 6 Health
-People say that my method may be unorthodox, but as a nuke mage you should be worried about 2 things:
1.Healing yourself and others
2.Doing as much damage as possible (BOV gives a huge boost to DPS and Damage: then use Ice Storm, Lightning, Firestorm)
Hope I helped

PS: BOM also gives a small armor bonus

[WhoIsThis]

So sure of yourself, are you?
The physiologic's guide to advanced mechanics is inconclusive in this matter. He did not try out different enemy dodges nor did he try lower values of hit%. Thus where, when and if the cap takes place was left undetermined. There are many experienced players here suggesting that the hit percentage might play a role in the enemy dodge roll in a sense that a player would benefit froma hit% higher than 85. In a sense that even if the max obtainable successful hit rate would be 85%, some people are saying that against enemies with higher dodge it might be beneficial to have a hit percentage higher than that.

What physiologic did was prove that one cannot hit above a certain rate. That is not the same as a player should not have a higher hit percentage than that rate.
Based on those tests one cannot say that a hit percentage above 85% would be useless. He proved that one cannot hit with a higher success rate than that, but he used very high values of hit% there leaving the question of how would have a hit% of 85 performed there.

The point being that, those results do not show that what is at play is a cap, it may also be a minimum miss-rate of 15%. If the latter is the case and hit percentage plays a role in enemy dodge roll then there is a difference between successfull hits between having hit% at 85 or at, say, 95. Now, that is hypothetical, I don't know which is it. All I'm saying that in the absence of other data the results are inconclusive in this matter.

My personal hunch on the matter is that I hit better with a gear set-up where my hit% is 100ish than what I do with a 85, but I cant say for sure. This is something I've been meaning to determine by experiments but I haven't gotten around to do that. Just wait and see.

Until we get opponents that debuff us - which would admittedly be quite interesting to see, we really don't need anything that high unless you PvP, in which case you WILL get debuffed regularly.

I'm not talking about Physiologic's guide only, although he has the most in depth (and really, only) written article. I have tested myself and concluded that there isn't any noticeable difference between 90% and 100%+. If there is, it is probably in the low single digits unless of course, you are debuffed. One easy way to test if you want is to use the same level, test with 2 characters (if you have them) and to see. This has the advantage of costing no platinum. Ideally, you'll want 3; one of each class, a strength-oriented character such as a bear or perhaps a pally (lowest hit %), int mage (around 100% now), and a dex bird (very high). They don't have to be very high level to test this. Record with camera, and count % of hits. Write down results and see if there is a difference. Of particular interest is the mage vs. the bird's hit rate.


And for the sake of argument, let us say that you are correct. What are your equipment recommendations? Bear in mind that something with a hit % boost, namely Mastermind, Flusher, or Scrubber means giving something else up (Shadow is also a viable alternative, as is Cosmos). You will have to justify that the loss in that something over the common consensus, as currently mega mage (which most people consider to be the best choice as it offers a good compromise between survivability and high base damage) does not offer any hit % increases. Another thing to consider is that even if you were correct, the laws of diminishing returns also begins to apply.