Malo + Slow, is Malosini worth it?

[Baler]

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

Again, I'll repeat.

If you can land Malosini on a mob, you can land Slow.

They have identical resist checks. There is no reason to cast Malosini as the next spell after Malo on a Slowable mob. Ever.

BS

Malo- Resist: Unresistable
Malosini- Resist: Magic(0)

Also I stated that it's possible to land malosini without malo. Idk if you read that though. Probably too busy spreading false information.

[Jimjam]

I think What ETB is trying to say is Malosini has the same resist check as slow, so if you land a malosini you could have landed a slow.

However, obviously there are reasons to land to try land malosini before slow; you may have other people in the group/raid trying to land important spells on that mob too (and your malosini will help them accomplish that).

[Troxx]

Yeah point is malosi and slow are equally likely to land after malo. If your biggest goal is to get it slowed, chain slow after malo.

[Baler]

On the same note...
-15 more MR on the target could be the different between 1 slow or many slows.
just sayin.

and against my point you may not land malosini after the malo and have to cast it again/multiple times.
Which those could have been slow attempts.

I'd say it's worth debating. but in the end if your goal is to slow. Yeah.. Should probably just slow. RNG is unpredictable.
Though -15 mr more does shift the rng odds in your favor slightly.

I've landed malosini on level 60 mobs first try and other mobs it never landed the entire fight. (they were not immune to it lol)

Why even malo,. just spam slow *giggles*
oh because malo lowers MR to increase your chances at landing the slow. Oh but malosini increases those chances even more. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

TL: DR- I'm arguing with myself.

[Troxx]

Baler, it really isn't worth debating.

From the shaman perspective if you're looking to slow a mob - malo first.

Following malo, you are equally likely to land malosini and slow. If it will take you 3 casts to land either of those you are looking at the following

Your way:
-Malo
-malosini fail
-malosini fail
-malosini land
-5th cast being your FIRST chance to land the slow - and still not guaranteed.

The shaman way:
-malo
-slow fail
-slow fail
-slow LANDS
-now the mob is slowed and you have all the time you need to land a stronger debuff and 7.5 minutes to refresh slow.

For this type of discussion, the only important factor is getting it slowed. For 99.9% of eq content - it's trivial once the slow is on board.

[Baler]

You have a higher chance of landing malosini because it's a level 57 spell and by now you should know that just about everything in eq, on p99 atleast, has level affect the formula in some way.
This is why using turgurs(51) on level 60 mobs lands more often than togors(39).


I think you willingly ignored what I said though. With malosini your chance to land slow is better than if you didn't use it.

It IS worth debating.

Your examples are skewed towards your way of thinking btw.

---
Malo- "Your chance of landing slow and or malosini increases."
Malosini- "Your chance of landing slow increases even more."

Also Once a mob is slowed it still does matter if it has -45 or -60 MR
You may have to re-slow the mob at some point.
According to the wiki: Malo last 13 minutes and Malosini lasts ~18-19 minutes. Turgurs lasts ~5 minutes.

And I'm not sure why you feel so strongly against malosini. I already said it depends highly on your mana and situation.

[EdTuBrutus]

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

5% away from 60 so no Malo yet.

For mobs that need a slow early I usually have both turgurs and togors loaded as you can instaclick btw casts and chain slow a bit faster until it lands. At 60 I'd malo first then alternate the slows until one sticks.

Do any of you other higher end shams use togors regularly? Only 5% less slow and the shorter duration doesn't matter for most fights - 75 less mana a cast. I still sometimes break out Tagars for faster pulling groups if I'm at all lower on mana.

Cast time does suck though.

Pre-60 and when trying to max your levelling efficiency, then downranking your Slow is a very good choice.

Obviously it's not going to matter in a full group with no efficiency. But if you're trying to max your levelling speed, then dropping the slow to the max needed for your Monk to regen through the fight will always increase your XP rate. A decently equipped Monk should be happy with Walking Sleep or Tagar pretty much up to the mid 50s vs efficient XP blues. A lesser tank like a Warrior or Knight probably won't get away with WS but should get away Tagar just fine till the same range.

But do remember to always keep Togor/Turgur up for Nameds, overpulls, CC and trains.

[EdTuBrutus]

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

You have a higher chance of landing malosini because it's a level 57 spell and by now you should know that just about everything in eq, on p99 atleast, has level affect the formula in some way.
This is why using turgurs(51) on level 60 mobs lands more often than togors(39).

This smells like bollocks, tbh.

Do you have *ANY* evidence for your claim?

Hint - "I think" and "I feel" aren't evidence. That's the same nonsense that leads to muppets running about with 200 Agi and 800AC. Because they "think" or "feel" Agi does something. They're wrong. I suspect you are too.

[Danth]

If something needs to be slowed ASAP then the wife will malo then spam slow as fast as possible...sometimes even alternating between the 51 and 39 slow. Malosini doesn't see much use in such situations; if it does it's typically only after the target's already slowed and things have settled down. I can think of no situation we've encountered in the past 4+ years at level 60 where malosini after malo but before slow would've been the preferred way of doing things. I agree with Brutus and Troxx fully in this case.

EDIT: As a Shadow Knight I use low-level spells quite often and I've never noticed any difference in resist rate between level 9 spells and level 55+ spells. Siphon Strength lands just as often as Cascading Darkness or Shroud of Pain. If there's a difference it can't be much. The only spells where I notice a difference in success rates are those with known resist modifiers (lifetaps, heat blood, etc).

Second edit: My own private testing suggests that agility does actually have some small effect, just not enough to be worth gearing for. I consistently need slightly less average healing per minute with Avatar on than without it. Someone who gears for agility in favor of raw AC is flat-out wrong, though, as are all those people who keep repeating outdated notions of broken AC here.

Danth

[Troxx]

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

You have a higher chance of landing malosini because it's a level 57 spell and by now you should know that just about everything in eq, on p99 atleast, has level affect the formula in some way.
This is why using turgurs(51) on level 60 mobs lands more often than togors(39).


I think you willingly ignored what I said though. With malosini your chance to land slow is better than if you didn't use it.

It IS worth debating.

Your examples are skewed towards your way of thinking btw.

---
Malo- "Your chance of landing slow and or malosini increases."
Malosini- "Your chance of landing slow increases even more."

Also Once a mob is slowed it still does matter if it has -45 or -60 MR
You may have to re-slow the mob at some point.
According to the wiki: Malo last 13 minutes and Malosini lasts ~18-19 minutes. Turgurs lasts ~5 minutes.

And I'm not sure why you feel so strongly against malosini. I already said it depends highly on your mana and situation.

Uh, no.

That's not how eq has ever worked.

It's the level of the caster vs the level of the mob ... not the level of the spell.

Lol

Togors lasts 3 minutes and slows 70%

http://wiki.project1999.com/Togor%27s_Insects

Turgurs lasts 6 minutes and slows 75%

http://wiki.project1999.com/Turgur%27s_Insects

The only reason to use Turgurs over Togors is when the 5% really matters, the cast time really matters, or when the extra 2 minutes really matters or some combination of the above makes it worth it. Togors and Turgurs are EQUALLY likely to land.

3 mobs hit camp and they take longer than a minute to drop each? I'll Togors the first target and then Turgurs the 2 being CC'd as it makes sure each slow lasts the duration of the fight and crowd control time. If mana is a non issue (or after I get torpor) - I'll laze around with just Turgurs.

You played a mage right? Please don't try to tell shamans how to most quickly land a slow. More debuff is always better, but if the actual goal is getting the mob slowed asap you're best off not trying to land the better but resistance debuff until the mob is slowed. Once the mob yawns, the fight is under control.

PS: I admit being wrong on the 7.5 minute duration. I was remembering the debuff time on more recent live servers with focus item durations. Turgurs lasts twice the duration of Togors - making it more efficient if you need the mob slowed longer than ~4 mins.