Originally Posted by dustbin187
palados, did you account for the lower amount of mana restored from illumination? it's true that you can achieve equal healing per second for less mana, but hl11 costs 130 more mana than 10 -- 78 more mana returned per crit. if you have 25% crit and cast 20 hls in 1 minute, that's 312 mana saved (assuming everything works as one might think), and obviously the more crit one has the "less efficient" downranking becomes
|
Yes, if you look carefull into that huge formula, you will see that I have taken into account illumination for both HL11 and HL 10 (thats why I wrote that crit was taken into account in that 265 mp5). And what Malleus wrote:
Originally Posted by Malleus
the return per mana point spent for HL11 and HL10 are identical. Therefore, if you can achieve the HPS required by spending less mana, it will always be better than trying to benefit more from crits.
|
It's better to think about crit restoring mana per mana point than restoring mana per cast. Since in reality all what we need - to keep some HPS and not to cast certain number of casts per minute. And the most efficient way to achieve it is to use lower rank spells with better hp/mana ratio (assuming that casting those downranked spells is enough to keep desired HPS).
Look at your example. If you want HL10 to match HL11 healing done you would have to cast a few more HL10. Even if each HL10 crit restores less mana, you would have more HL10 crits. If you do carefull calculations, you will see that average amount of mana restored per minute would be the same 312 mana. Now you could say, if we cast more HL10 than HL11 than do we save the mana actually? The answer is yes, since HL10 hp/mana is better than HL11 and thus for same HPS you would spend less mana. And the more +healing you have, the better hp/mana HL10 has. Since its mana price is always the same and % difference between healing done for HL10 and HL11 is decreasing.