19 Warrior - Crusader Vs. Lifestealing?
- Thread starter Acombs101
- Start date
Omgimarogue
OG
Grunge said:
what he means is: once sader procs, you will get CC'd for as long as possible to avoid the burst sader gives. So i would say LS on 1h and 2h enchant depends on playstyle. Go with sader if you want, although look into 25agi for the crit and +9dmg for more sustained DPS
Theme
OG
Yes hamstrings and rends proc both enchants, go and try your self. Crusader will not proc the same amount per minute but less if you have fast weapon. Parry/dodge/block affect crusader twice (so does miss chance), when your trying to proc it and when you actually have it. In theory if every of your attacks got avoided crusader would have done 0 dmg, whereas lifestealing can only miss. And block doesnt block anything from lifestealing wth are you talking about?
Simplified doesnt always equal better. And actually Ive done these maths swing-per-swing with excel and also done maths about how crusader actually scales with gear unlike lifestealing. That was years ago tho.
Underseer
OG
Theme said:
I see what you mean by the parry/dodge now. But blocks would reduce the same amount of damage no matter if the swing was originally 200 or 500 damage (during a crusader). Hence even if the enemy has 100% block chance it won't make crusader worse.
Why don't you explain what the results were in your excel sheet instead of bashing me for the fact that I didn't want to spend an hour taking every bit of information into account?
Simplified conclusions are better than no conclusions
edit: I don't count overpower as one of the instants that make slower weapons better, simply because the rate at which it procs is bound to weapon speed (dodges per minute if you want to call it something).
Theme
OG
Yes I am pretty much 100% sure hamstring and rend proc both enchants. There cannot be general conclusion when circumstances change so much (rogue-priest-warrior as target for example) but in most cases with 1h the dps difference is quite minimal unless your having huge amounts of haste, whereas healing difference is pretty large. And your using 1h when your taking dmg so lifestealing is generally better. This conclussion has been told by tens of people here already.
About the block, with you using 1h, a warrior shield block on can block your whole attacks rendering crusader useless (scenario where shield block is activated after the proc once again).
Edit: Actually now I thought it, those calculations were made when I was running with 30% crit and 10% haste on my arena gear. Id expect that lifestealing does more dmg in 1h against nearly anything except a clothie nowdays (very slightly so tho). I could try to find that sheet and do the maths. The sheet is not perfect ether propably but should give an overview.
Edit2: Okey found it and tested a bit. Against a rogue (20%dodge, 5%parry, 25%armor) with 2.7s speed and 20% crit, hit cap, no haste: crusader (without tcs, rends, hss, ops): 4.94dps, Lifestealing: 4.82dps Fiery: 6.43dps.
Against more armor or more avoidance crusader drops, against a clothie it raises. Count in specials and crusader rises a bit.
This was assuming 3special/10sec, average 13sec of crusader used per proc (overslapping, cc and such, maybe a bit high value) and giving ls/fiery 0% crit chance.
If someone would attempt to do something similar Id be grateful I am actually quite intrested if these are anywhere near correct values or if I have screwed something totally.
Try it for yourself guys...
crusader rarely ever procced when i played with it...
lifestealing on the other hand made me stay alive a lot more and enabled me to actually kill other twinks !
may you do the math or not.. crusader is not the best enchant for a warrior !
if you want DPS, go for fiery weapon instead, it procs a lot more then crusder and will kill the opponent faster !
i say try it before saying anything.
i tryed it, crusader in a whole BG would be proccing about 10 times only. lifestealing would have procced tripple the amount. crusader adds more dps when it does proc, but its healing is strickly inferior to lifestealing and thats a fact.
go ahead try it... see for yourself how much crusader is not what it seems in reality !
theorycraft won't be getting him his answer.
crusader rarely ever procced when i played with it...
lifestealing on the other hand made me stay alive a lot more and enabled me to actually kill other twinks !
may you do the math or not.. crusader is not the best enchant for a warrior !
if you want DPS, go for fiery weapon instead, it procs a lot more then crusder and will kill the opponent faster !
i say try it before saying anything.
i tryed it, crusader in a whole BG would be proccing about 10 times only. lifestealing would have procced tripple the amount. crusader adds more dps when it does proc, but its healing is strickly inferior to lifestealing and thats a fact.
go ahead try it... see for yourself how much crusader is not what it seems in reality !
theorycraft won't be getting him his answer.
by the way people, you seem to forget that things with chance on hit usually have internal CDs which we are not very much knowing !
Ymir
OG
Theme said:
It's pretty straightforward.
Crusader = 100 str up a quarter of the time. Avg 25 str=50ap=3.5dps.
Lifestealing 6 ppm 30 damage. 6 proc/60s = 1 proc/10s=30 damage/10s=3dps.
Crusader scales with both melee crit and enemy mitigation, while lifestealing does not. Not going to make a huge difference. Both scale with enemy avoidance, again, no difference.
If you wanted to do a whole load of testing you could but it seems a bit pointless when all the factors coming into play were tested to death 4 years ago and summarized like so. The only thing that isn't mentioned there is instant 'weapon damage' attacks, which crusader scales far better with, but which 19s don't have.
Oh, and there is no significant dps difference between either enchant on a 1h and the same enchant on a 2h, I'm not sure why you keep mentioning that you're only talking about a 1h.
Theme
OG
That actually does quite huge difference. And its not as straightforward as you make it sound, considering different nature of the procs. There are attacks that benefit from crusader as a warrior. Tc, op, rend are ones for example. Reason we keep mentioning 1hs is the difference in usage of 1h+shield and 2h. On 2h nothing but dmg/burst matters making crusader a clear choice, while with 1h+shield you need to think your survivability also as your using those under fire.
Cliche
OG
ArthurianKnight said:
PPM enchants have no internal cooldowns. Sader can proc off of hamstring and rend and since sader has a higher % chance to proc on slower weapons, it is the best enchant for a 2 hander. Sader scales with mitigation in a negative way, armor makes sader less useful while armor does not affect LS. LS is better for a 1h.
Twinkytoes
OG
Cliche said:
This ^^ .
Ymir
OG
Given say, 20% melee crit and say, 20% mitigation, crusader isn't going to see much change in overall dps benefit from the fact that it scales with mitigation and crit.
You're right though, I forgot they updated tclap to benefit from AP. Still doesn't provide the feedback loop that things like whirlwind do, since it won't proc off tclap. But yes, fair point, crusader benefits one more source of a warriors dps than lifestealing does.
And again, it makes no objective difference whether it's a 1h or 2h. Yes crusader will proc more on a 2h. Guess what, so will lifestealing. The only difference is the role you expect to be performing, with a 2h you're going for damage, with a 1h you may want the extra healing.
You're right though, I forgot they updated tclap to benefit from AP. Still doesn't provide the feedback loop that things like whirlwind do, since it won't proc off tclap. But yes, fair point, crusader benefits one more source of a warriors dps than lifestealing does.
And again, it makes no objective difference whether it's a 1h or 2h. Yes crusader will proc more on a 2h. Guess what, so will lifestealing. The only difference is the role you expect to be performing, with a 2h you're going for damage, with a 1h you may want the extra healing.