Couple interesting SMN videos

Note these are not my videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJ1BLokxOlU

@12:34 - Discussing the differences and uses between Garuda and Ifrit.

@19:43 - Talking about the validity in adding Thunder to your dot lineup. Main argument against it is that it isn't affected by Fester. Wondering if his observations here are accurate since a lot of SMNs seem to say to take it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diROOR4VZKg

Side-by-side comparison of Garuda to Ifrit. Seems Ifrit is way ahead of Garuda in terms of raw damage till you factor in enemy defenses then they're about even, though the ease of using and keeping Garuda alive makes her generally the winner.

I found it interesting he found Ifrit to benefit from all melee debuff types (blunt, slashing, and piercing) so if you have a melee heavy party and the mob will be affected by multiple melee debuffs it could be better to use him assuming you can keep him alive.

Thoughts?

I misread the title of this thread as:

Couple interested in S&M videos

:O

Some basic misinformation here:

Thunder does 210 total potency for 212 MP (not including Raging Strikes/Contaigen). 3 casts of Rune will cost 237 MP and give you 240 damage while costing you 3 GCDs. Why on earth would you keep Thunder out of your rotation and instead spam a skill that gives the same damage/MP cost but significantly lower damage/GCD?

Shadow Flare: The tooltip reads 25 potency, but after the first 2 ticks it starts doing damage equal to Bio II's 35 potency. Is it a bug? Maybe. But as it stands now, Shadow Flare does only slightly less damage than Bio II for slightly more MP, and should always be cast on Swift Cast cool downs. For it's cost, it's slightly more mana efficient than spamming Ruin (while again using less GCDs) based on the tooltip, it's significantly more powerful based on the actual damage it puts out.

I like to use Thunder and Shadow Flare over Ruin. Another thing that makes Garuda better than Ifrit IMO is the fact that the +15s DoT extender works on both Thunder AND Miasma II (which makes Miasma II worth using). Basically you pop Raging Strikes, Bio II, Miasma, Thunder, Bio, Miasma II, and then use Garuda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoffburger

I like to use Thunder and Shadow Flare over Ruin. Another thing that makes Garuda better than Ifrit IMO is the fact that the +15s DoT extender works on both Thunder AND Miasma II (which makes Miasma II worth using). Basically you pop Raging Strikes, Bio II, Miasma, Thunder, Bio, Miasma II, and then use Garuda.

---

In any end game boss fight, MiasmaII is negligible as you wont be running close to any boss ever else risk getting cleave. But i do agree contagion is the main reason why every SMN should use Garuda in a boss fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcusow86

In any end game boss fight, MiasmaII is negligible as you wont be running close to any boss ever else risk getting cleave. But i do agree contagion is the main reason why every SMN should use Garuda in a boss fight.

---

Uh. cleaves are frontal.

You can be in melee range of every endgame boss.

Source: I'm on Turn 5.

Not to mention you perform an auto attack too when in melee range...extra dps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevee

Uh. cleaves are frontal.

You can be in melee range of every endgame boss.

Source: I'm on Turn 5.

---

My point is, you would not want to risk going too close to any boss due to unforeseen circumstances.

Furthermore, i am usually busy with my rotation, i do not see any opening to cast miasmaII.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcusow86

My point is, you would not want to risk going too close to any boss due to unforeseen circumstances.

Furthermore, i am usually busy with my rotation, i do not see any opening to cast miasmaII.

---

I guess melee don't want to risk getting too close, either..


Do you cast Ruin/Ruin II?

Yes?

Then you have time for Miasma II before Contagion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevee

I guess melee don't want to risk getting too close, either..


Do you cast Ruin/Ruin II?

Yes?

Then you have time for Miasma II before Contagion.

---

melee DPS are at risk all the time and seems to take damage more times from bosses. As a range DPS and going to melee range just cause you can miasmaII and contagion is not something that should be encouraged.

From a healer PoV: If a range DPS is in melee range of the boss, it better be due to boss mechanism and not because you would like your parser number to be on top. Just saying.

I cast Miasma II only when Contagionis off CD. Other than that I do indeed avoid it. Am I casting Ruin/RuinII, rarely. Rune II mainly for the Blind if I notice someone else isn't constantly spamming it making the DR kick in and making it useless. The thing I love about SMN is the ability to help out the healer a bit. Is it needed? Sometimes no, sometimes yes. But does making things a bit easier ever a bad thing?

Going into melee for a Miasma II with contagion seems too much trouble to be worth it imo. It's a marginal gain and the repositioning requirement it may cuase down the line may cost you what little you gained.

I mostly just use Miasma II for the aoe snare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcusow86

In any end game boss fight, MiasmaII is negligible as you wont be running close to any boss ever else risk getting cleave. But i do agree contagion is the main reason why every SMN should use Garuda in a boss fight.

---

Not true. Ifrit you need to stack, parts of Garuda you have safety in getting nearby, Titan also relatively safe to run near enough to hit him with it, puddings easy to do, Tonberry King easy to do, as its instant you can use it when sucked in by goobbue while running out, Demon Wall/Bees you're nearby to do it, dragon you're nearby to do it, Psycheflayer/golems you're nearby to do it, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crescent_Dusk

Going into melee for a Miasma II with contagion seems too much trouble to be worth it imo. It's a marginal gain and the repositioning requirement it may cuase down the line may cost you what little you gained.

I mostly just use Miasma II for the aoe snare.

---

There's no reason to not be in melee for pretty much every encounter ever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcusow86

My point is, you would not want to risk going too close to any boss due to unforeseen circumstances.

Furthermore, i am usually busy with my rotation, i do not see any opening to cast miasmaII.

---

it just needs a bit of getting used to, now I always find an opening to get in melee range to miasma 2 -> contagion without any dps downtime, it really just does need a little of getting used to, before I don't even use thunder but I had to get used to it and it's no longer a problem tracking it.

EDIT: just to mention, whenever in melee range and you are right clicked at the boss, you let out a free weapon auto attack when casting instant cast spells like miasma II or bio or even ruin II, the free damage is around 65+.

Just go to a dummy and parse your dmg rotation using thunder for 2 min. Then parse it again without using thunder in your rotation.


You will get your answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maku

I cast Miasma II only when Contagionis off CD. Other than that I do indeed avoid it. Am I casting Rune/RuneII, rarely.

---

WTF is rune?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcusow86

In any end game boss fight, MiasmaII is negligible as you wont be running close to any boss ever else risk getting cleave.

---

Why not use miasma 2 its a instant dot aoe.yes you will not use it on every boss but adds yes.some tanks like you to be close. Sometimes you will get close by accident to the boss.

Sure using Miasma II with contagion is a "marginal" DPS increase. So is using Raging Strikes, so is Enkindle. When you are doing Coil, you don't have the luxury of being lazy with DPS. If you aren't trying your hardest then you aren't being an effective member of the raid and need to be removed. Squeezing Miasma II into your rotation before contagion is a joke to do. If you think that it is hard to add Miasma II to your rotation, then you need to stay the f*#% away from Dragoon and Monk, possibly needing to reroll Bard. I'm sorry if I offend you, but the truth is if you aren't doing everything you can to do the most damage, then you are simply a burden to your raid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevee

There's no reason to not be in melee for pretty much every encounter ever.

---

I don't want to have to move out of Caduceus's tail whip, or have to be careful about not getting cleaved if when they split the tanks don't pick them up properly. That's just an example where a marginal gain from Miasma II doesn't justify bothering to run to melee range.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hoffburger

Sure using Miasma II with contagion is a "marginal" DPS increase. So is using Raging Strikes, so is Enkindle. When you are doing Coil, you don't have the luxury of being lazy with DPS. If you aren't trying your hardest then you aren't being an effective member of the raid and need to be removed. Squeezing Miasma II into your rotation before contagion is a joke to do. If you think that it is hard to add Miasma II to your rotation, then you need to stay the f*#% away from Dragoon and Monk, possibly needing to reroll Bard. I'm sorry if I offend you, but the truth is if you aren't doing everything you can to do the most damage, then you are simply a burden to your raid.

---

You must not play a monk if you would even compare them to this scenario. Not a single choice they make in rotation is a marginal benefit that can be offset by any drawbacks. I sure as hell hope to see you with the optimal foods and using your intelligence boost pots aligned with cooldowns at the right phases or I suggest you be cast off the cliff as a burden to your raid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crescent_Dusk

I don't want to have to move out of Caduceus's tail whip

---

So stand on the side or just move in on an instant cast, and out after you cast Miasma II.

Melee can do it.

So can you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevee

There's no reason to not be in melee for pretty much every encounter ever.

---

A Reverse Question:

If there are no reason why SMN should not go melee in EVERY encounter ever, so can i assume you support SMN to be a melee class?

Every MMO out there have range and melee DPS, and with a reason they are classified as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marcusow86

Every MMO out there have range and melee DPS, and with a reason they are classified as such.

---

The reason is that they can attack from a range if they so choose.

There is no dead-range.

There is nothing forcing you to fight at range.

You function the same at range as you do in melee.

If a range can gain DPS by being in melee(for instance BRD weaving in Replling Shot), they should. There's no detriment to doing so, and it takes no extra effort.


Edit:

"Oh, I'm classified as a RANGED DPS so I have to stay RANGED." doesn't cut it when you aren't forced to be at range. When all of your abilities can function in melee, and some even require melee, there is no reason not to use them. None. There's no reason not to be in melee for a Miasma II cast every minute. The only time when this may not apply is when actual fight mechanics require a certain number of ranged(think the tidal surges or whatever from Akylios in Rift).

also, I don't ALWAYS try to run in just to get a miasma II right before contagion, example: I'm too far and it would cost me point something seconds of not doing anything if I go near just to miasma II or that if the boss has some kind of anti-melee attack at the start of the fight, the point is, why not do it? it's free dps increase, it's double the ruin damage + a book attack cause it's an instant attack spell.

// so can i assume you support SMN to be a melee class?//

I don't understand how you got to this point just because of miasma II. I would trade not having thunder and raging strikes if ever they think SMN should be melee.