Quick Spell Speed Question

[JackFross]

But you don't want to F2->B3 if you don't have to. But I agree on the F3-F1 thing. Many annoyings.

Wasn't saying it's not a loss, just I think I remember that being a way to salvage it. Though that might have also been before the 12s AF timer - back when AF in that situation would wear off before Transpose is back. D:

[Waliel]

Plus you also get extra room for bonus T3 procs. 390>280 even when not including the DOT.

?_? F4 is 529,2p with AF3 and Eno. Spamming TC without any regard to how much has passed since previous application of Thunder of any type is a bad idea.

No Crit has no diminishing returns either. The higher the crit, the higher the chance and the higher the damage. It's like double dipping.

Not really double dipping. If crit didn't increase crit damage, it would have diminishing returns. Going from 20% to 21% is worse than going from 5% to 6%.

Ideally 1000+ spell speed is best, 8-900 is far too low.

I really want to know where this idea of 900 SS being too low suddenly came up. You won't magically be able to do something differently with 1000 SS compared to 900. Well I guess you could go to fourth Eno rotation without cutting an F4 if needed, but that's quite niche.

SS and AoE things.

Don't cast anything during ice and just wait until after the first tick before casting F3. That's all there is to it.

SS doesn't do anything for you in AoE situation until you can shave off a full three seconds. That said, Ley does absolutely nothing for you in AoE. I guess you could technically get that last F2 or Flare off before some/all of the mobs die, and increase the kill speed by 0.5 seconds. Yay, I guess? There is also some TC shenanigans you can do with 900 SS+, but you can't quarantee the procs when you want them to happen, so yeah. Anyways, I'm not sure if it's even possible to do the normal rotation in 12 seconds, because you always need two mana ticks to do anything worthwhile.

[StouterTaru]

Not really double dipping. If crit didn't increase crit damage, it would have diminishing returns. Going from 20% to 21% is worse than going from 5% to 6%.

Going from 5% to 6% is an increase of 0.51% of base damage, 0.49% increase of adjusted damage
Going from 20% to 21% is an increase of 0.81% of base damage, 0.72% increase of adjusted damage

Crit hit rate has increasing proportional returns, similar to spell speed.

[JackFross]

Going from 5% to 6% is an increase of 0.51% of base damage, 0.49% increase of adjusted damage
Going from 20% to 21% is an increase of 0.81% of base damage, 0.72% increase of adjusted damage

Crit hit rate has increasing proportional returns, similar to spell speed.

They specifically said "If crit didn't increase crit damage" - you then just responded by saying "but because it buffs crit damage" which seems to ignore the comment that was made.

Maths below the cut.

Regardless, yeah. It's clearly NOT diminishing, as Waliel said:
If your crit is such that you have a 5% crit rate base, you deal 150% damage on a crit. Thus, adjusted base damage is:
100 x (.05*1.5 + .95*1) = 102.5

Increasing it to 6% (and thus Crit damage to 151%):
100 x (0.06*1.51 + .94*1) = 103.06

Difference: 103.06 - 102.5 = 0.56 -> 0.56/102.5 = 0.546% increase in damage

And similar calculations for 20% (165%) -> 21% (166%):
100 x (0.20*1.65 + .80*1) = 113
100 x (0.21*1.66 + .79*1) = 113.86

Difference: 113.86 - 113 = 0.86 -> 0.86/113 = 0.761% increase

However, if you get rid of the crit rate increasing crit damage, the crit mod is always 1.5. If we plug this into the above formulas, we can actually solve everything. Consider x to be the current crit rate as a percentage. Below, I solve to find the net change in potency that is gotten when increasing the critical hit rate by 1%:

net change = [ 100 x (((x+1)/100)*1.5 + ((1-(1+x))/100)) ] - [ 100 x ((x/100)*1.5 + ((1-x)/100)) ] -> simplify:
net change = [ 1.5(x+1) - x ] - [ 1.5x + 1 - x ]
net change = [ .5x + 1.5 ] - [ .5x + 1 ]
net change = .5x - .5x + 1.5 - 1 = 0.5

Considering the fact that, as your crit rate increases, the expected potency of each hit, adjusted for crit, increases as well, even with constant crit damage percentage, the fact that you have a constant rate of change (rather than variable) leads to a pretty clear picture as to why what Waliel said is completely accurate.

tl;dr: Waliel is right.
With crit damage, 20-21% gives a buff of 0.761% whereas 5-6% gives a buff of 0.546%.
But if crit damage were NOT increased by crit, both the gain from 20-21% and from 5-6% give the same static buff to net potency, resulting in a higher percentage gain for 5% to 6%.


What they were saying (and are NOT wrong about) is that increasing Crit is NOT double dipping. You get good gains from the boost to crit damage which clash with the diminishing returns on crit rate. Thankfully, the bigger gain from the damage outweighs the diminishing effect of boosted rates to make it an overall increasing growth curve.

[StouterTaru]

They specifically said "If crit didn't increase crit damage" - you then just responded by saying "but because it buffs crit damage" which seems to ignore the comment that was made.

They followed it with "Going from 20% to 21% is worse than going from 5% to 6%" without a qualifier added in.

ps - your maths are wrong, base crit damage starts at +45% (just a hair under) instead of +50%.

[JackFross]

They followed it with "Going from 20% to 21% is worse than going from 5% to 6%" without a qualifier added in.

ps - your maths are wrong, base crit damage starts at +45% (just a hair under) instead of +50%.

RIP me. I didn't double-check the formula before working it. Yeah, 0.499% v 0.723% not whatever numbers I put up.

[Waliel]

They followed it with "Going from 20% to 21% is worse than going from 5% to 6%" without a qualifier added in.

I thought it was pretty obvious I was talking about without crit damage. Text is hard sometimes.