
Originally Posted by
Wayfinder3
simply spamming scatter for the same amount of gcd's will net you 300 x 4= 1200 but significantly less mana.
First set of alternating spells: Scatter [3|3] + Veraero [11|0] + Scatter (0.75[3|3] + 0.25[8|8]) + Verthunder [0|11] yields [17|17] - [22|22] mana (expected [18.25|18.25]).
Subsequent sets: Scatter (0.75[3|3] + 0.25[8|8]) + Veraero [11|0] + Scatter (0.75[3|3] + 0.25[8|8]) + Verthunder [0|11] yields [17|17] - [27|27] mana (expected [19.5|19.5]).
First set of 4xScatter is [3|3] + 3(0.75[3|3] + 0.25[8|8]), or [12|12] - [27|27] (expected [15.75|15.75])
Subsequent sets are 4(0.75[3|3] + 0.25[8|8]), [12|12] - [32|32] (expected [17|17]).
Here's a more readable table
Code:
Min Max Expected
Alternating (1st set) [17|17] [22|22] [18.25|18.25]
Alternating (after 1st) [17|17] [27|27] [19.5 |19.5 ]
Scatter spam (1st set) [12|12] [27|27] [15.75|15.75]
Scatter spam (after 1st) [12|12] [32|32] [17 |17 ]
Alternating spells guarantees [5|5] more than the minimum, but expected values are only [2.5|2.5] apart. Alternating spells are expected to generate more mana, but will only grant one extra E.Moulinet per twelve spells compared to full Scatter spam.
Alternating on a group of 3 (and, in some cases, larger groups) is a good idea, but the best reason is to keep a stronger mob even with the rest of the group; not necessarily because of the extra mana generation.