Sustained DPS numbers.

[Azure]

I was curious and did some quick math for rend based on server ticks and OOM.

It works out every 40 seconds = 784 damage (7 seconds for server tick for 20 mana at lvl 60 * 40 = 280 mana)

That works out to a similair equivelent weapon ratio of 784/40

That is fairly awesome.

However of course it's going to be in general more efficient then melee dmg which averages out to probably half that.

Now I know there's some wicked 12/20 300 damage procing weapons etc. However, I'm curious what the actual sustained DPS is for melees. That 19.6 is on the very low end for a wizard.

I bet wizards using lures and droughts at higher levels are doing much more dps then that sustained. Especially if you couple in gear, buffs (IKR melee count haste, wiz should count C2) and things like epic in their mana regen, which would pump that number even more off the chart.

I'm not claiming wizards are top sustained dps. They are great burst DPS. But I think there is a flawed conception of DPS and how effective a wizard can be even in a prolonged fight.

Thx for any input. This is just theorycraft.

Give some love 2 ur wiz0rds and w1z3rd35535

[Eslade]

pity reply

[Swish]

Originally Posted by Azure [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I was curious and did some quick math for rend based on server ticks and OOM.

It works out every 40 seconds = 784 damage (7 seconds for server tick for 20 mana at lvl 60 * 40 = 280 mana)

That works out to a similair equivelent weapon ratio of 784/40

That is fairly awesome.

However of course it's going to be in general more efficient then melee dmg which averages out to probably half that.

Now I know there's some wicked 12/20 300 damage procing weapons etc. However, I'm curious what the actual sustained DPS is for melees. That 19.6 is on the very low end for a wizard.

I bet wizards using lures and droughts at higher levels are doing much more dps then that sustained. Especially if you couple in gear, buffs (IKR melee count haste, wiz should count C2) and things like epic in their mana regen, which would pump that number even more off the chart.

I'm not claiming wizards are top sustained dps. They are great burst DPS. But I think there is a flawed conception of DPS and how effective a wizard can be even in a prolonged fight.

Thx for any input. This is just theorycraft.

Give some love 2 ur wiz0rds and w1z3rd35535

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

<3

[FaithlessKR]

Originally Posted by The Bears [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I cant even work on helping you.. your math is pretty far off. As a weapon, offering one swing, if you're trying to find some kind of equal it would be more like 300 dmg 400 delay (40 seconds, 784 dmg 1 strike as a lvl 60 melee).

Or something.

But you're just massively off. How are you failing at aspiring to be a math nerd?

You're showing, without any resists, at all, or fizzles, 20 dps. Average 60 monk, rogue, war are 70 dps in combat.

Wizards are burst, not sustained dps, invaluable in raid content and pvp. Irrelevant in the dps picture of a group grind unless able to PBAEO.

Rogue only doing 70 would be pretty pathetic....pretty sure I was averaging like 95-110 when I still played.

[Azure]

This is what happens when I try to do math. Thanks for the insightful, if a little insultful insight though <3

I did get some more technical answers in the blue server general chat. But I much rather enjoyed the colorful red version [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Zanzabarr]

A tick is 6 seconds. If you are assuming 20 mana per tick, it would take 14 ticks (84 seconds) to med enough for a single rend. Then you have to consider the cast time of rend (6.3 seconds), and the fact that it can be partially and fully resisted. You also have to account for evocation specialization mana reduction. If you take all of the complicated things out of the equation, and assume the spell lands for full damage every time, that's like a 784/900 weapon (lets say 78/90). Of course, it would be less than this, because this doesn't take into account the lack of damage bonus, nor the partial and full resists.

[Mutant Type]

Originally Posted by Zanzabarr [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A tick is 6 seconds. If you are assuming 20 mana per tick, it would take 14 ticks (84 seconds) to med enough for a single rend. Then you have to consider the cast time of rend (6.3 seconds), and the fact that it can be partially and fully resisted. You also have to account for evocation specialization mana reduction. If you take all of the complicated things out of the equation, and assume the spell lands for full damage every time, that's like a 784/900 weapon (lets say 78/90). Of course, it would be less than this, because this doesn't take into account the lack of damage bonus, nor the partial and full resists.

Holy shit after 3 years of waiting you broke your posting cherry on this.

[Slathar]

Originally Posted by Zanzabarr [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A tick is 6 seconds. If you are assuming 20 mana per tick, it would take 14 ticks (84 seconds) to med enough for a single rend. Then you have to consider the cast time of rend (6.3 seconds), and the fact that it can be partially and fully resisted. You also have to account for evocation specialization mana reduction. If you take all of the complicated things out of the equation, and assume the spell lands for full damage every time, that's like a 784/900 weapon (lets say 78/90). Of course, it would be less than this, because this doesn't take into account the lack of damage bonus, nor the partial and full resists.

Who are you?

[Gaanon]

Originally Posted by Mutant Type [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Holy shit after 3 years of waiting you broke your posting cherry on this.

That is pretty funny 2011 join date posts 1, wtf is this mystery.