09-13-2004, 01:32 PM
Good analysis but I'd like to make some observations
Firstly you're comparing an 80 skill point Blizzard with a 40 skill point Orb.
Next damage per cast probably isn't the most useful benchmark. Damage over time is more useful. Converting your figures to damage per second we get:
Blizzard 2972.5
Orb 1506
Lastly you observed Blizzard's effectiveness using a large monster (Andariel). The spell will be a lot less effective against smaller monsters since fewer shards would hit. The same is true of Orb also but to a lesser extent. Orb's shards move so the relevant dimension of a monster is width. Wider monsters get hit more. Blizzard's shards however rain down so the relevant dimension is area. Area changes by a greater degree than width as monster size changes
Your research is very useful - I think you've proved a case for Blizzard being superior for certain roles, such as Meph running. I don't think your data establishes Blizzard as a superior spell for general play. Good work
Firstly you're comparing an 80 skill point Blizzard with a 40 skill point Orb.
Next damage per cast probably isn't the most useful benchmark. Damage over time is more useful. Converting your figures to damage per second we get:
Blizzard 2972.5
Orb 1506
Lastly you observed Blizzard's effectiveness using a large monster (Andariel). The spell will be a lot less effective against smaller monsters since fewer shards would hit. The same is true of Orb also but to a lesser extent. Orb's shards move so the relevant dimension of a monster is width. Wider monsters get hit more. Blizzard's shards however rain down so the relevant dimension is area. Area changes by a greater degree than width as monster size changes
Your research is very useful - I think you've proved a case for Blizzard being superior for certain roles, such as Meph running. I don't think your data establishes Blizzard as a superior spell for general play. Good work