Halitosis
26th Oct 07, 03:25 PM
This is something I’ve been thinking about for a while and have decided that it would be a great thing to post as my last piece of theorycraft for PoC. The question is “How much spell damage do you need before VE makes all your spells return their mana cost?”
Gonna theorycraft it, gonna try and miss out as much “workings out” as possible and gonna get you a silly answer to laugh at
Here’s the theorycraft formula (inc how it is worked out):
Spell mana cost (MANA) x 20 (5%x20 = 100%) to get total damage needed to be done to cover mana cost of spell.
Remove 60% damage (15+10+10+5+20) to get unbuffed damage.
Remove the original spell damage (SPELL) to see how much extra damage there is
Now remove the spell bonus coeffiant %(SPELLBONUS%) to see how much actual + damage needed to cover the cost of the spell.
So you end up with:
(((MANAx20)/160%)-SPELL)/SPELLBONUS%=Damage needed to be 100% regen.
So:
VT: (((425x20)/160%)-650)/100% =((8500/160%)-650)/100% =5312-650 =4662.5
(lets assume I use this for the rest of the spells and spare you more spam)
VT needs 4662 +shadow damage to be 100% mana efficient.
SWP needs 1569 +shadow damage to be 100% mana efficient.
MF needs 3911 +shadow damage to be 100% mana efficient.
MB needs 3410 + shadow damage to be 100% mana efficient.
SWD needs 1668 +shadow damage to be 100% mana efficient.
DP needs 7795 + shadow damage to be 100% mana efficient.
The end result is if you have over 3k shadow damage you are going to be 100% mana efficient and a living God.
You’ll also be a hacker that will get flamed to death by people and have your account banned by Blizzard. But that’s besides the point.
The interesting thing is SWP and SWD. It actually could be possible to have these 2 spells returning more mana than they cost if you had the best end game gear. This I didn’t expect.
*note. This is all theory and is supposed to be taken very lightly. If any of my maths doesn’t add up or is just plain wrong please tell me what bit, what I did wrong and what I should of done. Thank you.
Captain Spam out.
Gonna theorycraft it, gonna try and miss out as much “workings out” as possible and gonna get you a silly answer to laugh at
Here’s the theorycraft formula (inc how it is worked out):
Spell mana cost (MANA) x 20 (5%x20 = 100%) to get total damage needed to be done to cover mana cost of spell.
Remove 60% damage (15+10+10+5+20) to get unbuffed damage.
Remove the original spell damage (SPELL) to see how much extra damage there is
Now remove the spell bonus coeffiant %(SPELLBONUS%) to see how much actual + damage needed to cover the cost of the spell.
So you end up with:
(((MANAx20)/160%)-SPELL)/SPELLBONUS%=Damage needed to be 100% regen.
So:
VT: (((425x20)/160%)-650)/100% =((8500/160%)-650)/100% =5312-650 =4662.5
(lets assume I use this for the rest of the spells and spare you more spam)
VT needs 4662 +shadow damage to be 100% mana efficient.
SWP needs 1569 +shadow damage to be 100% mana efficient.
MF needs 3911 +shadow damage to be 100% mana efficient.
MB needs 3410 + shadow damage to be 100% mana efficient.
SWD needs 1668 +shadow damage to be 100% mana efficient.
DP needs 7795 + shadow damage to be 100% mana efficient.
The end result is if you have over 3k shadow damage you are going to be 100% mana efficient and a living God.
You’ll also be a hacker that will get flamed to death by people and have your account banned by Blizzard. But that’s besides the point.
The interesting thing is SWP and SWD. It actually could be possible to have these 2 spells returning more mana than they cost if you had the best end game gear. This I didn’t expect.
*note. This is all theory and is supposed to be taken very lightly. If any of my maths doesn’t add up or is just plain wrong please tell me what bit, what I did wrong and what I should of done. Thank you.
Captain Spam out.