Ruin I versus Ruin II

[JustPlainLucas]

snip

Yeah, that's my guess. He was most likely a raider, and I can under you'd want to be really careful with your MP management in raids, but this was just a roulette, so I don't really see why he had to bring it up unless he was just being snobbish.

[AskaRay]

As SCH I like Ruin 2 more since I love instant gratification
and also I haven't had MP problem since... the beginning of HW came out I guess. Also this one time in a dungeon when damage was so bad each pull took like 3-4 minutes it was awful but anyway
Honestly though as soon as Broil was an option...boom, that. If I need to move I'll pop off a Ruin 2 instead.
I use Ruin only when I can't use the others

[Kaurie]

So, I main SMN, and have been since 2.0 and today, I was told for the very first time by a SCH in Expert today that I shouldn't use II at all, and only use I. He left before I could ask him his reasoning, but I have a feeling it's because Ruin I uses less MP. It does, and the potency is the same, but it doesn't use THAT much less MP, and Ruin II blinds, and allows me to the freedom to move and DPS as well. If an AOE drops on me, I can Ruin II and move at the same time. I can Ruin II while I move in to Miasma II and Ruin II again to move back at a safe distance. And I have never once been in an instance where I run out of MP as a result of constantly using Ruin II. Maybe the SCH is just really bad at MP management? I dunno...

Fellow SMNs, any of you use I over II?

I usually use ruin i over ruin ii, but use ruin ii if I need to use an oGCD or move. Saving MP using 1 over 2 lets you use more 3's too.

For example, here is a random A5S log with my damage on my Summoner: https://www.fflogs.com/reports/Dar6f...-done&source=3

Ruin 1 is 4.11% of my damage
Ruin 2 is 1.90%
Run 3 is 11.20%

[LineageRazor]

It helps. I add Miasma II in with the rest of my DoTs before I contagion. If I'm DoTing while chain pulling, then when I hit Contagion and then Bane, the rest of the mobs get a Miasma II without me even casting it again.

Actually, Miasma II is NOT passed by Bane. It's explicitly written on the power's ability: "Spreads a target's Bio, Bio II, and Miasma to nearby enemies." Fester, too, does not include Miasma II in its potency equation. When I learned these things. Misama II became so much less valuable to me. ;_;

Against a single target, Miasma II is not worth using at all. It does 20 potency plus 10 potency a tic for five tics, for a total of 70 potency. Ruin or Ruin II is a better use of your GCD against a single target, since they do 80 potency. It's decent enough to use against groups, though. Even just three mobs, and Miasma II is more potent than Ruin III.

[Lilyth]

Actually, Miasma II is NOT passed by Bane. It's explicitly written on the power's ability: "Spreads a target's Bio, Bio II, and Miasma to nearby enemies." Fester, too, does not include Miasma II in its potency equation. When I learned these things. Misama II became so much less valuable to me. ;_;

Against a single target, Miasma II is not worth using at all. It does 20 potency plus 10 potency a tic for five tics, for a total of 70 potency. Ruin or Ruin II is a better use of your GCD against a single target, since they do 80 potency. It's decent enough to use against groups, though. Even just three mobs, and Miasma II is more potent than Ruin III.

Miasma II is a dps increase on a single target if you use contagion, albeit very small.

OT: I like ruin I. Cost almost no MP and allows you to cast moar ruin IIIs over the course of a battle. If I have the move or weave a oGCD, I use ruin II.

[AlphaFox]

I've always used Ruin 2 when on the move, I think it was just an uninformed healer who wanted to feel big or looking for a reason to leave so they were willing to grasp the slightest error and blow it up. However when no movement needed, ruin 1 is the way to go. Can't speak past 50 as I havn't touched it much since I hit 60.

[Garotte14]

This is a good question, but it also has a very easy answer. You just have to ask yourself one question. They are the same potency so what is the benefit of using Ruin II over Ruin I? Well, 2 things. 1) It adds a blind effect. This is only useful depending on the situation. The encounter, party makeup and skill level of your tanks and healers. I wouldn't put too much weight on this. 2) It's instant cast. This allows movement, and the ability to weave oGCDs.

So if you are just standing still spamming your Ruin spell, there is really no reason to use Ruin II. The MP you save affords you more Ruin IIIs, which is far more important.

If the argument is that MP is not an issue in a particular encounter, then you should be using Ruin III. If you need to move, or use an oGCD, Run II your little heart out. But if you are literally just standing there spamming Ruin II, I can see why someone might say something.


Again, there is zero advantage in using Ruin II if you are standing still, using no oGCDs.

[Jonnycbad]

Played both SCH and SMN...I never use Ruin I unless in a low-level dungeon that requires it. Everyone says that Ruin I is more MP-efficient, and that's true, but I have never been in a situation where I was so low on MP that I couldn't afford Ruin II. Ruin II can't be interrupted from moving to dodge mechanics, or from knockbacks. It's not that expensive. People used to say the same for SCH too, that don't spam Broil because it eats up your MP--but I can spam Broil for days while also throwing Succors and Adlos and never come close to running out of MP. This is even more true when overgeared for content because spell's MP cost is based on Level, not iLVL and most mage iLVL stuff has free Piety on it which means you have more MP for casts. Also, I may be wrong, but isn't the amount of MP you auto-regen based on your Max MP?

[Garotte14]

Played both SCH and SMN...I never use Ruin I unless in a low-level dungeon that requires it. Everyone says that Ruin I is more MP-efficient, and that's true, but I have never been in a situation where I was so low on MP that I couldn't afford Ruin II.

This is the exact argument though. If you have enough MP to cast Ruin II so much, then you should be using Ruin III or Broil. Ruin II for movement is great, but if you're standing their with plenty of MP spamming Ruin II, then you aren't using your resources correctly. There is literally zero benefit to using Ruin II outside of movement windows and oGCD weaving.

[bounddreamer]

I use a Ruin I, Ruin II combo when I'm synced down. On SMN after level 50 there's very little cause to use Ruin I at the expense of more powerful tools available. On SCH I almost never use Ruin I. They didn't know what they're talking about.