Ruin I versus Ruin II

[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.

[Kosmos992k]

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.

Your last point is a very telling one. Healers are already forced to stand still in order to deliver their heals. So any attack that let's you stay on the move is very welcome. As Sch I'd always go with Ruin II over Ruin if it is an option for that very reason. I also have to say that a SCH could usefully run in, pop Miasma II on a pack, once the tank has aggro, and then retire to a safer range for healing. Instant cast attacks are awesome when you are otherwise rooted to the spot to cayrry out your role.

[Deathgiver]

I don't understand how this thread is still going... If you need to move or weave ogcd use ruin II, if you don't need to move use a combination of ruin and ruin III/broil. Any further use of ruin II is a dps loss.

[Rawrz]

On summoner:
Ruin III if you have the MP (you should always have the mp in dreadwyrm)
Ruin II if you need to move or weave. You should be weaving very frequently.
Ruin If you have nothing to weave, lowish mp, and will not need to move.

On Scholar:
Broil if you won't have to move.
Ruin II if you need to move or weave. Ruin II, cs off, lustrate, cs on, back to dps, is a dps increase over not utilizing your ogcds.
Ruin if you want to always lose dps.

[RyuSaarva]

I use ruin I and follow it by ruin II, it's a lot more fun since you attack 2 times in a row and you actually see ruin do some damage that way, ruin 1 is the least fun skill in the game does no damage and has a long cast time.

[DarkblueMateria227]

What I do is I use Ruin 1 first and use Ruin 2 right after.

There really isn't a definitive way of playing a job. Just read up on your spells and abilities, practice different types of rotations, pick the best rotation (for whatever situation) and do your best on pumping out as much DPS as possible