Malaise making a big difference

[Tecmos Deception]

I'm used to playing a chanter, of course. So I always had everything tashed and never stopped to look into how much of a difference it really made because it just seemed obviously worth doing thanks to the tash spells' low mana costs and short cast times. This time around I'm on a sham, and I hadn't been sure whether malaise spells were worth using. Or when they were worth using and when they weren't. They're significantly more expensive compared to tash, and they're resistable, and they don't even debuff all the resists I hit in a normal exp fight.


Today I'm level 30, killing some level 25 mobs. I have been pulling with malaise, then casting affliction, (recasting malaise if it resisted), then casting envenomed breath a couple times while rooting and medding until my mob is dead.

So of all my malaise and affliction casts, they've been done on a mob 5 levels below me that is not resist debuffed (since I pull with malaise, and malaise doesn't lower disease resist). And for all of my envenomed breath and root casts, they've been done on a mob 5 levels below me that is at -20 poison/disease resist. I've also cast some nukes here or there, again always on a mob -5 levels and at -20 cold resist.

Malaise resists/casts: 13/85
Affliction resists/casts: 8/77
Envenomed breath resists/casts: 1/194
Root resists/casts: 0/175
Spirit strike full resists/casts: 0/45
Frost strike full resists/casts: 0/15


I'm assuming (pretty safely, I think) that Baobob and Chanda Miller don't have heightened disease resistance.

So malaise, the lowliest shaman resist debuff at a mere -20, dropped my resist rate from an average of ~13% to an average of .002%.

And anecdotally, I've probably only had 10-15 roots wear off before their full duration had run its course even though I'm recasting 1 or 2 (1 for chanda and 2 for baobob) envenomed breaths (with a DD component) per fight.



I know the mobs are quite blue and won't resist a ton regardless, but I thought malaise made an interesting enough difference to look into and type up a post about between kills [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Tecmos Deception]

Of course, I'm still not convinced it is worth casting in situations like this. 60+ mana per fight on malaise vs 12% more resists on my poison, root, and nukes? Malaise ends up costing more raw mana than it saves. But I figure full duration roots make it appealing enough to use anyways.

[astuce999]

I presume you're getting that ~13% from your combined resist rate on your unmodded spells?

It is logical, but since it is EQ and not all the data is available to us the only real way to compare would be with the resist rate of your same "other" spells without casting malaise first. Can't take shortcuts.

I'd speculate that at 5 levels below, it's not worth it. But between 2 below and 2 above is where you'll get the most bang for your buck, and see spells that would otherwise be resisted land partially and fully (although at 2 above, it'll be very hard to land malaise in the first place).

cheers,

Astuce

[stebbins99]

I have a recent, albeit anecdotal example to support your findings Tecmos:

I was grouped in BW at the giant fort as a 40 druid-- many/most of the giants were yellow and red cons. I was definitely under-leveled but wanted to play the druid.

I was grouped with a 45 shaman and a bard. When the shaman cast Malaise, I was seemingly landing 80% or more of my spells on said yellow/red cons. Conversely, when I tried to cast (for instance, acting as the puller) without any Malaise, I was getting resisted a majority of the time.

This become apparent-enough that we basically had the Shaman "pull" with Malaise-- this allowed my druid to be useful for the ensuing battle (provided Malaise landed). Snares, roots, and dots etc

[Tecmos Deception]

Originally Posted by astuce999 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I presume you're getting that ~13% from your combined resist rate on your unmodded spells?

It is logical, but since it is EQ and not all the data is available to us the only real way to compare would be with the resist rate of your same "other" spells without casting malaise first. Can't take shortcuts.

I'd speculate that at 5 levels below, it's not worth it. But between 2 below and 2 above is where you'll get the most bang for your buck, and see spells that would otherwise be resisted land partially and fully (although at 2 above, it'll be very hard to land malaise in the first place).

cheers,

Astuce

You're losing me.

1. What I did was logical.
2. I can't do what I did because it was a shortcut.
3. You decided to speculate up a more precise theory on less/no evidence anyways.

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

[Tecmos Deception]

Originally Posted by stebbins99 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I have a recent, albeit anecdotal example to support your findings Tecmos:

I was grouped in BW at the giant fort as a 40 druid-- many/most of the giants were yellow and red cons. I was definitely under-leveled but wanted to play the druid.

I was grouped with a 45 shaman and a bard. When the shaman cast Malaise, I was seemingly landing 80% or more of my spells on said yellow/red cons. Conversely, when I tried to cast (for instance, acting as the puller) without any Malaise, I was getting resisted a majority of the time.

This become apparent-enough that we basically had the Shaman "pull" with Malaise-- this allowed my druid to be useful for the ensuing battle (provided Malaise landed). Snares, roots, and dots etc

I'm looking forward to finishing my current camp and fighting some stuff closer to my level to see how it affects it. And to getting a new malaise at 34 and testing the difference between the older and newer ones on the same things, etc [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Ligma]

It is really nice but when you're in a group or raid and your main goal is to land a slow it's kind of a waste because if malX would land then slow would have too. Which is why malo is so amazing.

[astuce999]

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

You're losing me.

1. What I did was logical.
2. I can't do what I did because it was a shortcut.
3. You decided to speculate up a more precise theory on less/no evidence anyways.

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

It was logical for you to infer that your resist rate from your other spells might be similar, but you can't be sure unless you test those other spells without malaise. So you'll have to cast 194 envenomed breath without malaise first to see if you get the same 1/194 or if it's significantly different.

I used the word "speculate" properly, and coincidently stebbins anecdote seems to support it [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

cheers,

Astuce

[Tecmos Deception]

Originally Posted by astuce999 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I used the word "speculate" properly, and coincidently stebbins anecdote seems to support it [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You don't seem to be getting my point.

You basically told me I don't get to draw any conclusions based on less-than-perfect data.

But then you went on to state a theory based on NO data.

And seemingly to avoid admitting as much, you keep reminding me about stuff that's obvious.


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

[astuce999]

I hope you're not getting me wrong, I do get your point and you did great work.

I am not ready to do as much work as you do, and content myself with speculation.

But if you are willing to do more tedious work (the no shortcut part), then you will be able to move from "theory" to "hypothesis" and perhaps even "thesis".

I'm happy to stay at the speculation level, because I am lazy and I don't want to cast 194 envenomed breaths.

Does this help more?

Again, you're doing great work and don't stop [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Astuce