Third Bind Guide and/or Discussion.

[Grimy_Bunyip]

mage isn't as good as melee on the majority of monsters

ghosts? fire giants? demons? warriors? brutes? as well as various boss monsters:

Maybe not a majority, but a nontrivial number of monsters.

I mean basically your opinion is that you'd rather have +4% melee DPS over +30% magic dps.

And and sure you need to make fire runes/water/earth, but elemental runes can be looted or crafted more losslessly than say, having to chop an entgallow.

but more there's definitely not more than 7.5x as many monsters that you would rather melee over mage

furthermore fire surge with CCS puts out damage faster on skeletons/zombies than a primal 2h.

 

Sly wizard's kinda been allowed to go too long without putting up a reasonable argument.

i thought the mods were supposed to do something about that.

[Quyneax]

mage isn't as good as melee on the majority of monsters

ghosts? fire giants? demons? warriors? brutes? as well as various boss monsters:

Maybe not a majority, but a nontrivial number of monsters.

I mean basically your opinion is that you'd rather have +4% melee DPS over +30% magic dps.

And and sure you need to make fire runes/water/earth, but elemental runes can be looted or crafted more losslessly than say, having to chop an entgallow.

but more there's definitely not more than 7.5x as many monsters that you would rather melee over mage

furthermore fire surge with CCS puts out damage faster on skeletons/zombies than a primal 2h.

I should think that concludes the discussion with Sly Wizard, also as this is a 3rd bind discussion wheres Sly seems to be discussing second/first binds.

[Youmu]

A bit of a tidbit: empowered elemental staves have +10% magic boost attached to them. Thus by binding emp fire + csb fire surge, you've effectively boosted the max of fire surge from 280 to 308, without blazer.

 

Of course, celestial catalytic staff is still better if you craft fires (280 + 30% = 364 w/o blazer). Just pointing this out.

 

Some people don't seem to take this into consideration when comparing the two... 56 dmg diff is still pretty significant tho.

[Sly_Wizard]

First, let's look at the merits of binding a CCS if you're a melee'er.

 

xpx clearly stated that fire surge with a CCS is only best on around 40% of the monsters, meaning I'm going to assume he thinks that on the other 60% of the monsters, melee is best. Assuming level 100 dungeoneering, we could have the following two set-ups:

 

Set-up #1

 

99 strength

SSH

Primal Maul

Primal Gauntlets

CSB

+178 strength

 

Melee: Assuming no prayer modifiers that correlates to a max hit of 420, topping out at 540 with turmoil.

Magic: Max hit of 220/240/260/280 with wind/water/earth/fire surge, respectively.

 

(Not going to take pots into consideration.)

 

Set-up #2

 

99 strength

SSH

Chaotic Maul

CCS

+166 strength

 

Melee: Assuming no prayer modifiers, that correlates to a max hit of 400, topping out at 514 with turmoil.

Magic: Max hit of 286/312/338/364 with wind/water/earth/fire surge, respectively.

 

So by binding a CCS over something like primal gauntlets, you give up between 20 and 26 points of damage on 60% of the monsters to gain between 66 and 84 points of damage on 40% of the monsters. Of course, since they are "easy" to make, then the melee'er in set-up #1 can "easily" make an empowered staff. Taking that into account, his/her max hit with air/water/earth/fire surge increases to 242/264/286/308, meaning (s)he only loses out on between 42 and 56 damage on 40% of the monsters.

 

And this is without taking into addition melee pots, which will widen the imbalance completely because melee pots can be supplemented by damage increasing prayers, while mage pots cannot. Going back to the previous:

 

Set-up #1

 

99 strength

Strong melee pot

Any magic pot

SSH

Primal Maul

Primal Gauntlets

CSB

+178 strength

 

Melee: Assuming no prayer modifiers, that correlates to a max hit of 523, topping out at 675 with turmoil.

Magic: Max hit of 266/290/314/338 with wind/water/earth/fire surge, respectively, w/o an empowered staff.

-Max hit of 288/314/340/366 with wind/water/earth/fire surge, respectively, with an empowered staff.

 

Set-up #2

 

99 strength

Strong melee pot

Any magic pot

SSH

Chaotic Maul

CCS

+166 strength

 

Melee: Assuming no prayer modifiers, that correlates to a max hit of 497, topping out at 642 with turmoil.

Magic: Max hit of 332/362/392/422 with wind/water/earth/fire surge, respectively.

 

(Someone check my math here, as I think I'm forgetting something and am understating the melee max hits.)

 

So in this instance, you give up between 26 and 33 damage on 60% of the monsters go gain between 44 and 56 damage on 40% of the monsters. Good luck explaining the logic behind that one.

 

In essence, your argument is that a melee'er is better of by making his or herself worse against most monsters while better against a minority of them? Hahaha! No, sorry. Only a moron would do that (harsh, yes). A melee'er who binds a magic weapon makes himself comparatively worse to not only other melee'ers his level, but also to a mage his level. Any melee'er who binds a CCS is wasting a bind better spent on increasing his damage output in the form of combat (s)he uses the most. It would seriously be like me binding a melee weapon at 100 dung.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Quyneax
Cleaned up.

[Crossed_Body]

I've asked two or three times now for anyone to show me someone who uses melee as their primary form of combat who has binded a CCS

I do.

[Michael]

Highest strength =/= good.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Quyneax
Cleaned up.

[green9090]

Sly, have you ever heard of the concept of prioritizing monsters?

 

Just wondering.

[Sly_Wizard]

Highest strength =/= good.

 

No, but if you'd notice I was comparing max hits. Though I'm sure if you want to compare damage output, then we could do that, too :thumbsup:.

 

You do realize that doesn't much help your point, correct? If something like a battleaxe would be a better comparison because it has a higher damage output than a maul even though it has a lower max hit, then it would mean that melee becomes even more comparatively better (yeah, I'm sure that's grammatically incorrect) than does magic, meaning in actuality you lose more when you decide to forego your melee in favor of binding a magic staff. Juuust so you know :rolleyes:

Edited May 13, 2011 by Quyneax
Cleaned up.

[Obtaurian]

First, let's look at the merits of binding a CCS if you're a melee'er.

 

xpx clearly stated that fire surge with a CCS is only best on around 40% of the monsters, meaning I'm going to assume he thinks that on the other 60% of the monsters, melee is best. Assuming level 100 dungeoneering, we could have the following two set-ups:

 

A fair assumption, and I agree with him.

 

Set-up #1

 

99 strength

SSH

Primal Maul

Primal Gauntlets

CSB

+178 strength

 

Melee: Assuming no prayer modifiers that correlates to a max hit of 420, topping out at 540 with turmoil.

Magic: Max hit of 220/240/260/280 with wind/water/earth/fire surge, respectively.

 

(Not going to take pots into consideration.)

 

Sorry, but that's nowhere near an efficient bind setup, and as such can't be used for comparison.

 

Your comparisons would be incredibly interesting if you had compared two good setups as opposed to those troll setups you came up with.

 

In essence, your argument is that a melee'er is better of by making his or herself worse against most monsters while better against a minority of them? Hahaha! No, sorry. Only a moron would do that (harsh, yes). A melee'er who binds a magic weapon makes himself comparatively worse to not only other melee'ers his level, but also to a mage his level. Any melee'er who binds a CCS is wasting a bind better spent on increasing his damage output in the form of combat (s)he uses the most. It would seriously be like me binding a melee weapon at 100 dung.

 

That's an interesting conclusion based on very unrealistic binds (which is hilarious considering you completely ignored every setup in this guide).

Edited May 13, 2011 by Quyneax
Cleaned up.

[Sly_Wizard]

Sorry, but that's nowhere near an efficient bind setup, and as such can't be used for comparison...

 

...Inefficient setup #2. You're not helping your argument at all.

 

If that's an inefficient set-up, then it means that the melee'er isn't maxing his damage output. If he's not maxing his damage output, then the disparity between him and the trade-off (s)he makes by binding a staff instead of something which makes him/her more effective at melee grows larger once (s)he adopts an efficient melee set-up. Think about it. If you were to put forth an even better set-up for the melee'er, then you would only make the case that (s)he is better off focusing on melee than (s)he would by trying to focus on melee and magic, therefore harming your own point.

 

That would be incredibly interesting if you had compared two good setups as opposed to those troll setups you came up with.

 

That's an interesting conclusion based on very unrealistic binds (which is hilarious considering you completely ignored every setup in this guide).

 

And see my first comment.

 

So what you're saying is that there is only one monster in dungeoneering and it is equally weak to every weapon, so everyone should use a primal rapier and this discussion is pointless.

 

No, what I said was that it's better to make yourself better against 60% of the monsters in a dungeon in favor of 40% of them.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Quyneax
Cleaned up.

[Obtaurian]

Well, I think the problem is that he's forgetting monster weaknesses and prioritizing in GDs. He also doesn't seem to understand DPS, or he wouldn't have suggested a primal maul of all things.

 

Ignorance isn't a bad thing in itself, but I'm vaguely annoyed by his insistence on it.

 

EDIT:

 

If that's an inefficient set-up, then it means that the melee'er isn't maxing his damage output. If he's not maxing his damage output, then the disparity between him and the trade-off (s)he makes by binding a staff instead of something which makes him/her more effective at melee grows larger once (s)he adopts an efficient melee set-up. Think about it. If you were to put forth an even better set-up for the melee'er, then you would only make the case that (s)he is better off focusing on melee than (s)he would by trying to focus on melee and magic, therefore harming your own point.

 

Perfect example of what I said above. You need to take monster priority into account. This is not slayer.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Quyneax
Cleaned up.

[muuuuuuuuuu]

Sorry, but that's nowhere near an efficient bind setup, and as such can't be used for comparison...

 

...Inefficient setup #2. You're not helping your argument at all.

 

If that's an inefficient set-up, then it means that the melee'er isn't maxing his damage output. If he's not maxing his damage output, then the disparity between him and the trade-off (s)he makes by binding a staff instead of something which makes him/her more effective at melee grows larger once (s)he adopts an efficient melee set-up. Think about it. If you were to put forth an even better set-up for the melee'er, then you would only make the case that (s)he is better off focusing on melee than (s)he would by trying to focus on melee and magic, therefore harming your own point.

 

The problem is maxing your strength bonus (which you do with a maul) DOESN'T max your damage output since the attack style used in Dungeoneering makes a HUGE difference, and a maul only has the Crush style. Trying to crush a zombie, even with a high strength bonus is not optimal.

[green9090]

2 people on a team go into a GD with a primal warrior and a zombie.

 

Scenario 1: One person has a CCS and one has primal gaunts. One gets excellent DPS against the warrior, another against the zombie.

 

Scenario 2: Both have primal gaunts. WAT DO

[Sly_Wizard]

2 people on a team go into a GD with a primal warrior and a zombie.

 

Scenario 1: One person has a CCS and one has primal gaunts. One gets excellent DPS against the warrior, another against the zombie.

 

Scenario 2: Both have primal gaunts. WAT DO

 

Bind a CSB and cast air surge against the primal warrior.

[green9090]

HEY SLY:

 

2 people on a team go into a GD with a primal warrior and a zombie.

 

Scenario 1: One person has a CCS and one has primal gaunts. One gets excellent DPS against the warrior, another against the zombie.

 

Scenario 2: Both have primal gaunts. WAT DO

 

Bind a CSB and cast air surge against the primal warrior.

So let's look at this again

 

2 people getting excellent DPS

 

OR

 

1 person getting excellent DPS and the other getting mediocre DPS

 

HMM WHICH IS BETTER

[Obtaurian]

HEY SLY:

 

2 people on a team go into a GD with a primal warrior and a zombie.

 

Scenario 1: One person has a CCS and one has primal gaunts. One gets excellent DPS against the warrior, another against the zombie.

 

Scenario 2: Both have primal gaunts. WAT DO

 

Bind a CSB and cast air surge against the primal warrior.

 

Congratulations, you just lowered your DPS. :thumbup:

[Sly_Wizard]

HEY SLY:

 

2 people on a team go into a GD with a primal warrior and a zombie.

 

Scenario 1: One person has a CCS and one has primal gaunts. One gets excellent DPS against the warrior, another against the zombie.

 

Scenario 2: Both have primal gaunts. WAT DO

 

Bind a CSB and cast air surge against the primal warrior.

So let's look at this again

 

2 people getting excellent DPS

 

OR

 

1 person getting excellent DPS and the other getting mediocre DPS

 

HMM WHICH IS BETTER

 

The second is better. You see, xpx said-- to which Ob later agreed-- that a CCS is only better on 40% of the monsters. If this is true, then a melee'er (which is what I'm guessing is what they think) is better off making himself better against 60% of the monsters and foregoing a CCS in favor of barehanded casting instead of binding a CCS and making his or herself comparatively worse against the other 60%. It's quite simple, really, and no amount of disagreement will make it any less simple than that.

[Obtaurian]

HEY SLY:

 

2 people on a team go into a GD with a primal warrior and a zombie.

 

Scenario 1: One person has a CCS and one has primal gaunts. One gets excellent DPS against the warrior, another against the zombie.

 

Scenario 2: Both have primal gaunts. WAT DO

 

Bind a CSB and cast air surge against the primal warrior.

 

Congratulations, you just lowered your DPS. :thumbup:

 

...On 40% of the monsters while increasing it on 60% of the others.

 

Way too black and white. You do realize that mage-able monsters are often the slowest monsters to kill in GDs, right? And it's not just warriors. I'm honestly confused by your lack of understanding here, so I'm afraid I can't take you seriously anymore. I really should have shrugged you off when you admitted to having never used a third bind, but alas, I made a mistake and I have to live with it.

[Sly_Wizard]

HEY SLY:

 

2 people on a team go into a GD with a primal warrior and a zombie.

 

Scenario 1: One person has a CCS and one has primal gaunts. One gets excellent DPS against the warrior, another against the zombie.

 

Scenario 2: Both have primal gaunts. WAT DO

 

Bind a CSB and cast air surge against the primal warrior.

 

Congratulations, you just lowered your DPS. :thumbup:

 

...On 40% of the monsters while increasing it on 60% of the others.

 

Way too black and white. You do realize that mage-able monsters are often the slowest monsters to kill in GDs, right? And it's not just warriors. I'm honestly confused by your lack of understanding here, so I'm afraid I can't take you seriously anymore. I really should have shrugged you off when you admitted to having never used a third bind, but alas, I made a mistake and I have to live with it.

 

lol, I seem to have a better understanding than anyone here.

 

Most of the mageable monsters in dung have low LP's. The only two with high LP's that I can think of of the top of my head are are black demons and fire giants, though that problem can be easily solved by having one dedicated mage attack them from the start while everyone else clears out the non-mageables. Generally, by the time they finish, the mage should have killed them and if not, then everyone can pile them. Rarely do you see a room with a bunch of mageable monsters with high LP's running around.

 

Edit: Oh, yeah. Warriors have low LP's. You can usually kill them within 5 or so casts, even the primal ones.

Edited May 13, 2011 by Quyneax
Cleaned up.

[bedman]

HEY SLY:

 

2 people on a team go into a GD with a primal warrior and a zombie.

 

Scenario 1: One person has a CCS and one has primal gaunts. One gets excellent DPS against the warrior, another against the zombie.

 

Scenario 2: Both have primal gaunts. WAT DO

 

Bind a CSB and cast air surge against the primal warrior.

 

Congratulations, you just lowered your DPS. :thumbup:

 

...On 40% of the monsters while increasing it on 60% of the others.

 

Way too black and white. You do realize that mage-able monsters are often the slowest monsters to kill in GDs, right? And it's not just warriors. I'm honestly confused by your lack of understanding here, so I'm afraid I can't take you seriously anymore. I really should have shrugged you off when you admitted to having never used a third bind, but alas, I made a mistake and I have to live with it.

 

Any further troll attempts by you will be reported.

 

lol, I seem to have a better understanding than anyone here.

 

Most of the mageable monsters in dung have low LP's. The only two with high LP's that I can think of of the top of my head are are black demons and fire giants, though that problem can be easily solved by having one dedicated mage attack them from the start while everyone else clears out the non-mageables. Generally, by the time they finish, the mage should have killed them and if not, then everyone can pile them. Rarely do you see a room with a bunch of mageable monsters with high LP's running around.

 

Edit: Oh, yeah. Warriors have low LP's. You can usually kill them within 5 or so casts, even the primal ones.

HAHAHA, do you realise that is exactly what they are suggesting? One dedicated mage who will be mostly maging and has CCS bound so he can optimize his mage dps.

 

By letting the mage prioritize mageable mosnters and meleers prioritze meleeable monsters, the mager won't be giving his dps on 60% of the monsters, since the meleers will take care of those and he can concentrate nearly 100% of the time on the 40% monsters that are left

[Sly_Wizard]

HAHAHA, do you realise that is exactly what they are suggesting? One dedicated mage who will be mostly maging and has CCS bound so he can optimize his mage dps.

 

By letting the mage prioritize mageable mosnters and meleers prioritze meleeable monsters, the mager won't be giving his dps on 60% of the monsters, since the meleers will take care of those and he can concentrate nearly 100% of the time on the 40% monsters that are left.

 

No, what they are suggesting is that a melee'er bind a magic weapon. That's dumb because, as I've said time and time again, he not only makes himself comparatively worse than melee'ers his level, but also a mage his level. If you're going to have someone dedicated to maging then-- guess what?-- get a mage.

 

There is NO reason why a melee'er should be binding a CCS.

[Sir_Squab]

I've lost track of what we're even arguing about.

 

Let's see...

 

At first I said empowered fire staff > CCS. Someone disagreed. Then we got to melee'ers binding CCS as their third bind and how I said that's a terrible idea. The rest is kind of muddled.

 

Allright. Well, considering how CCS hits higher then standard fire surge... all you need is some type of elemental rune drop or ess drop/cash drop, some time to RC, and you're hitting higher then CCS then with emp fire. A little more effort, but now that I think of it, it seems worth it in my opinion.

 

As for melee'ers binding CCS... in DG, its generally better to be primary melee, because there's pretty much nothing you can't kill with a team of melee'ers. However, some things die much more quickly to mage, hence a surgebox. And if you're maging, a magic staff is useful, correct? As a third bind and all. Just for like one person on a team to mage with. Hence, CCS as a third bind.

[Quyneax]

Closed for cleaning.

 

I clearly stated that the argument would end with my post. I'm now going to have to clean this. Give me a moment.

 

The argument on empowered fire staff versus ccs ends now. Thank you and happy posting.

 

If more stuff needs removing, report it please, responding to it is what made this take so long.

[CharlieBrown]

I'd just like to say i have a CCS + primal b axe + hood bind setup

And i can assure you i NEVER use all my fire surges, even if i'm the only one with magic on the team. Which generally i'm the only one with staff so i just mage stuff rather than other people.

It's all about knowing how to dps and what to attack.

So yeah, i'm that one person you wanted to see.

I never use mage as my primary weapon.

 

Psst. To enaid, i hope this post is okay? :P Not fueling the debate i hope

Remove it if you must :P

[Alphanos]

Due to the strangely-lengthly discussion of the benefits of primal gauntlets vs. CCS as a third bind, I threw some numbers together quickly.

 

1:1 Melee:Mage DPS Ratio; CCS					
Attack Preference	Frequency	Base DPS	DPS Bonus	Final DPS	Overall DPS Contribution
Melee			0.6		1		0		1		0.6
Mage			0.4		1		0.3		1.3		0.52
										Avg DPS	1.12

1:1 Melee:Mage DPS Ratio; Primal Gauntlets					
Attack Preference	Frequency	Base DPS	DPS Bonus	Final DPS	Overall DPS Contribution
Melee			0.6		1		0.06		1.06		0.636
Mage			0.4		1		0		1		0.4
										Avg DPS	1.036

1:0.8 Melee:Mage DPS Ratio; CCS					
Attack Preference	Frequency	Base DPS	DPS Bonus	Final DPS	Overall DPS Contribution
Melee			0.6		1		0		1		0.6
Mage			0.4		0.8		0.3		1.04		0.416
										Avg DPS	1.016

1:0.8 Melee:Magee DPS Ratio; Primal Guantlets					
Attack Preference	Frequency	Base DPS	DPS Bonus	Final DPS	Overall DPS Contribution
Melee			0.6		1		0.06		1.06		0.636
Mage			0.4		0.8		0		0.8		0.32
										Avg DPS	0.956

 

These calculations are obviously simplistic, accounting for very few variables. However it should be clear that a 30% bonus on DPS for 40% of opponents can indeed be mathematically superior to a 6% bonus on 60% of opponents.