When is it worth to use entchanted reprise?

Two scnenarios

1) I'm at 60/60 mana when manafication get's off cooldown. What do I do for max dps?
Do I use enchanted reprise to get to 50/50? Do I just use manafication right away or do I just continue doing damage till I'm at 80/80 and keep manafication for the next time I'm at 50/50?

2)I'm at 60/60 mana and the boss makes it impossible to cast any spell with cast time for a few seconds. Do I actually use enchanted reprise in this situation or isn't it worth to do so because of the manacost and the delayed melee/finisher combo that comes with it?

Edit: Sorry for the typo in the heading. Unfortunately I can't edit it

A complete combo from Enchanted Riposte all the way to Scorch consumes 160 mana, refunds 35 mana, and deals 2270 potency, and takes (base) 10.2s. In 10.2s of single target spellcasting, you could have dealt 1162.8 potency, and generated 37.74 mana.

Jolt II: 250 potency, 6 mana
Veraero/Verthunder: (310 potency and 11 mana) + 50% chance to boost the next Jolt by (20 potency and 3 mana) ==> 320 potency and 12.5 mana

One dualcast is worth 570 potency and 18.5 mana over (base) 5.0s. In 10.2s the expected values are 1162.8 potency and 37.74.

This means that a complete combo deals (base) +1107.2 potency and costs 162.74 mana, and the mana is worth +6.8 potency per mana.



Enchanted Reprise consumes 20 mana, deals 220 potency, and takes 2.2s. In 2.2s of spellcasting, you could have dealt (base) 250.8 potency and generated 8.14 mana. This means E.Reprise deals -30.8 potency and costs 28.14 mana. We expect 28.14 mana to deal +191.352 potency, so using E.Reprise in general is a loss of 222.152 potency per use.


In re: (1)
In the specific scenario where you have 60|60 and Manafication is within 3s of cooling down, we don't care about E.Reprise's waste of manapotency, because that mana would have been wasted upon Manafication anyway, so all we have to look at is its actual potency vs the spellcasting potency. In 2.2s of spellcasting, you could have dealt (base) 250.8 potency, so E.Reprise would have to deal at least this much for it to be a gain when used as a mana dump before Manafication. However, since it only does 220, Jolt II is (base) equal in value in this scenario. And since Jolt is affected by spell speed, it turns out to be worth slightly more. To be clear, I'm saying that casting Jolt II, not dualcasting anything, and activating Manafication would be as-good-or-better-than using E.Reprise. (But also to be clear, I'm not saying you should cast Jolt II without dualcasting anything--dualcast something, then activate Manafication)



In re: (2)
If Manafication isn't going to come off cooldown by the time the boss is targetable again, the answer is a hard no, as any use of E.Reprise that does not involve specifically dumping mana prior to Manafication is a 222 potency loss. If Manafication is going to come off cooldown by the time the boss is targetable again, and you don't even have time to cast JoltII/Veraero/Verthunder, and you don't have Swiftcast available, then yes, using E.Reprise will be better than doing nothing. If you have Swiftcast available, a Swiftcast-Verslowspell takes the same amount of time to activate as E.Reprise and deals more damage.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rongway

This means that a complete combo deals (base) +1107.2 potency and costs 162.74 mana, and the mana is worth +6.8 potency per mana.

---

Not to totally derail this threat, your conclusions ultimately came to the same ones that I have with respect to reprise, but I want to make a small argument here considering that this is very important to the TC math that I myself do.

I have our potency per mana number at ~9.2 (depending of course on recast), the difference in our numbers being accounted for by you considering the time spent not gaining mana as a cost of the melee combo, while I do not. Admittedly, my calculations for this were built on doing it the same way as in Stormblood, when we only had one melee option to even remotely consider. However, I'd still argue this: it does not make sense to consider the time spent not gaining mana as a cost of the melee combo, because there is no other reasonable thing that you would spend that mana on. You are, in effect, saying that the melee combo is weaker because it is taking away time that could be spent toward building up another melee combo - the logic is somewhat circular. I'd be interested to hear a counterargument, as this would of course totally reframe my work!

In any case, same conclusion - do not Reprise, overcap mana instead. Reprise is currently only useful as a movement tool when all others are exhausted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turing

Not to totally derail this threat, your conclusions ultimately came to the same ones that I have with respect to reprise, but I want to make a small argument here considering that this is very important to the TC math that I myself do.

I have our potency per mana number at ~9.2 (depending of course on recast), the difference in our numbers being accounted for by you considering the time spent not gaining mana as a cost of the melee combo, while I do not. Admittedly, my calculations for this were built on doing it the same way as in Stormblood, when we only had one melee option to even remotely consider. However, I'd still argue this: it does not make sense to consider the time spent not gaining mana as a cost of the melee combo, because there is no other reasonable thing that you would spend that mana on. You are, in effect, saying that the melee combo is weaker because it is taking away time that could be spent toward building up another melee combo - the logic is somewhat circular. I'd be interested to hear a counterargument, as this would of course totally reframe my work!

In any case, same conclusion - do not Reprise, overcap mana instead. Reprise is currently only useful as a movement tool when all others are exhausted.

---

its like the arguments about DRK and blood spiller.
it stops u from building up blood from your DPS combo.
but u build that blood to spend on blood spiller.

if you dont remove the DPS loss from not building up the blood, because you delayed the builder on the spender, your numbers end up not reflecting the final DPS outcome.
i get the general concept, but im not able to fully grasp it, other than see the numbers end up matching more accurately when ppl take it into consideration.

EDIT: i guess the better way to put it is;
if mana has a DPS value, it came from somewhere, you borrowed it from the spender, so you need to minus it from the spender

obviously if u spam builders, u wont ever use the mana, and therefor the valued DPS you assume comes from mana doesnt actually equate DPS.

but if the DPS "comes" from the spender, you need to literally minus the DPS from 1 place, and add it to the other, in order to get its value.

Just like Engagement, Enchanted Reprise's only use is to fit into a specific niche scenario to let you keep consistent uptime.

Example: Targeted by Innocence Tether, Swiftcast on CD, using Enchanted Reprise is better than just running to where you need to be without casting anything.

It's not meant to be a tool to spend excess mana, or to be a DPS gain on its own. It's basically Scathe, and you want to avoid using if possible, but to use it if necessary.
The only real issue is that it does delay your next melee combo, which is pretty punishing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hikelos

Just like Engagement, Enchanted Reprise's only use is to fit into a specific niche scenario to let you keep consistent uptime.

Example: Targeted by Innocence Tether, Swiftcast on CD, using Enchanted Reprise is better than just running to where you need to be without casting anything.

It's not meant to be a tool to spend excess mana, or to be a DPS gain on its own. It's basically Scathe, and you want to avoid using if possible, but to use it if necessary.
The only real issue is that it does delay your next melee combo, which is pretty punishing.

---

Not entirely true with Engagement, although not terribly rewarding, Enagement can give you an additional 50-150 potency every manafiction cycle. [150 if manafiction gets pushed back from Mana requirements.] At level 40, it would fix so many pre-72 platform issues, while opening the skill slot for an OGCD support skill (I can dream ok.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zyneste

Engagement does provide an advantage beyond mobility, its a DPS gain with good use, because of the fast animation, allowing it to go into cool down. After using Manafiction, you should be using Engagement immediately after. Either during the same weave or right after Enchanted Riposte. From there you should be using Displacement whenever its cool down doesnt align with any other OGCDs, but it should always be used off CD, either as Engagement or Displacement. You have about ~5 seconds in wiggle room to squeeze in your weaves.

With Engagement: 0, 35, 70, 105. 600-700 potency.
With Displacement only: 6 [Melee combo pushes it back], 41, 76 [Manafiction comes off cool down before Displacement does.] 600 potency.

---

Reprise at the moment I agree. It is nothing but a VerScathe. Moulinet/Riposte fits the bill better for mana dump. It has its uses as a VerScathe, but its potential is very saddening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turing

I have our potency per mana number at ~9.2 (depending of course on recast), the difference in our numbers being accounted for by you considering the time spent not gaining mana as a cost of the melee combo, while I do not. Admittedly, my calculations for this were built on doing it the same way as in Stormblood, when we only had one melee option to even remotely consider. However, I'd still argue this: it does not make sense to consider the time spent not gaining mana as a cost of the melee combo, because there is no other reasonable thing that you would spend that mana on. You are, in effect, saying that the melee combo is weaker because it is taking away time that could be spent toward building up another melee combo - the logic is somewhat circular. I'd be interested to hear a counterargument, as this would of course totally reframe my work!

---

You are quite welcome to argue that, and I think that's the popular view of it.

My reasoning is that we calculate the relative potency of the melee combo based on the potency of the spells that could have been cast during that time. Why then wouldn't we also calculate the relative cost of the melee combo based on the mana that could have been generated by those spells? Mana would have been generated during that period; it matters not that the melee combo is the only reasonable thing we have to spend mana on (in a single target scenario).

When examining just the melee combo by itself, reasonable arguments might be made that the cost is really just the 125 net loss from the three weaponskills. However, in almost all contexts where we're examining the worth of a point of mana, it's to compare the melee combo to Moulinet, and now Reprise; and in those contexts it is important that we consider the mana that we could have generated in addition to the mana consumed, because the lost mana generation does meaningfully affect how soon we can execute the next melee combo, or the next Moulinet spam with cooldowns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rongway

The Swiftcast Verslowspell happens in both scenarios, so let's ignore that. Then the cost of the E.Reprise, besides the time taken to use it, is just the two spells totalling 20 mana. It doesn't require an additional generation of the X 'lost' mana that 'would have been generated' during the time I spent executing E.Reprise.

---

Its still lost mana.
its like using manafication at 50/50.
you gain 100 mana, as opposed to using it at 40/40, which you only gained 80.
The extra 20 lost, is still mana you will eventually use, even if its not in the very next WS combo.
(and the amount of seconds you waste waiting to use manafication also lowers your DPS per second)

if it didnt take up the GCD, THEN it would be a completely different story.
It takes up;
Mana generation
Mana (consumes it)
GCD

Its the very reverse way in which Swift cast is a DPS gain.
Swift Cast is only a DPS gain, because slow spells do more dmg per GCD.

If you spend that GCD not generating mana for the actual spender, but instead waste it towards a weaker spender, you lost 3 things, not simply 1.
(technically you save on MP, until lucid is up, but MP shouldnt be an issue. Moulinent (w/e the cone is called) is better for taking up less time in the GCD, and more potency efficient.)
Only if u must stay in range, and cant keep casting, otherwise you have better alternatives.