Disintegrate Math Help

Mage
1

I’m trying to make lightning disintegrate work (only just reached empowered, and making progress), but the math is driving me a bit nutty. The ultimate goal of trying to calculate DPS effectively is so I can understand the relationship between something like “added spell damage”, “mana”, and “flat spell damage” and where diminishing returns of each are with respect to the other(s). I’ve read the maxroll dps guide, and i know the in game tooltips can be misleading, but i’ve stripped my character down to the bare minimum and the numbers still don’t make sense.

My character sitting naked in town in 4 different configurations (no gear, did not take laser focus, hyperfocal, searing plasma, etc. DID convert 100% dmg to lightning via Electrify).

  1. 5 int
  2. 5 int, +7 lightning spell damage
  3. 5 int, 31% increased lightning
  4. 5 int, 31% increased lightning, +7 lightning spell damage

Finally disintegrate has an effectiveness of 1.2 per tick or 4.8 per second, which is another source of confusion, but for this math we’ll use 1.2. In each of these scenarios the calculated damage (i think) should be:

  1. (24) * (1 + (20)/100) = 28.8
  2. (24 + (7 * 1.2)) * (1 + (20)/100) = 38.9
  3. (24) * (1 + (20+31)/100) = 36.24
  4. (24 + (7 * 1.2)) * (1 + (20+31)/100) = 48.92

In game however, these are my tooltip DPS numbers for each of these scenarios:

  1. 528
  2. 689
  3. 588
  4. 790

==insert confusion here==

What I ultimately want to know is if flat damage (+spell damage while channeling on helm/chest) with the updated effectiveness bonus would actually outweigh other options of int, mana, or spell crit (for ignivars).

The math for mana is easy, laser focus is a huge dps loss, but with hyperfocal and 1200 mana it’s a net 0. If you bump that mana pool up to 2057 you can cancel the negative multiplier on twinbeam completely as well.

Here’s a random clip of gameplay just after reaching empowered for funsies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACGZT-Oi3xc

2

Ignore Tooltip dps. It simply doesn’t work accurately enough to be used for calculating exact dps.

1 Like
3

What’s your Mastery? I assume Sorcerer, so you’ll need to take into account the 1% more damage per 2 max mana. Plus any other damage increases.

Tooltip dps is not your skills dps in a vacuum, it’s the estimated dps of the skill based on all possible variables. So if ANYTHING increases your damage outside of the variables you’re calculating, the numbers are going to be off. It’s still not super accurate, but no sheet dps is ever super accurate given enemy defenses and penetration.

Edit: that being said, swapping gear and checking how your tooltip dps changes is a “good enough” way to compare what’s better for the skill. I don’t think penetration calcs in the tooltip though, I could be wrong

4

Mastery is Sorcerer, definitely didn’t take into account any class passives (completely forgot about them). I agree the in game damage is very misleading (for example if you take Escalation and Amplification nodes your idle DPS goes up accordingly even though your beam isn’t actually at tier 2 or tier 3.

5

Oof. Hard for me to imagine giving up Runemaster’s Glyph of Dominion interaction with Disintegrate but on the other hand, the sorc changes ARE nice indeed. Hope it goes well for you. Working on Disintegrate as well.

6

This is good design when both options are good & you really want to have both.

1 Like
7

My theory was that with the updated flat damage effectiveness and the “archmage” passive that stacking mana might be a fun way to play it (with 1k mana you’re getting +15 spell dmg and 20% of all costs refunded). Then pair that with the new triboelectra wand for faster evading, more lightning damage and permanant lightning aegis via static orb, and those 3 extra skill points. That’s the theory anyway.

1 Like
8

That’s more or less exactly what I am running currently. I am in low Monos now and so far it still feels good. Take that with a grain of salt, I am just a sucker for death ray type skills, was also loving Aether Ray in Grim Dawn. But the last time I was trying Disintegrate I didn’t even get through the campaign because it just felt so bad, so it’s certainly better now.

I was a litte disapointed with the Unleashed Power node, because 3 seconds to cast Static Orb is a litte too slow for me. I got rid of it and tbh, you dont need it at all. The real kicker is Resurgence. To be able to continue on Tier 3 after repositioning or manually shooting a Static just feels so much better. I use Flame Rush to poop out even more Statics while getting away from enemies and then continue with max charge death beams.

1 Like
9

These are good questions, and it’s good that you’re trying to do this! And the ultimate question you’re trying to answer - that of relative weight of different affixes (flat damage, increased damage %, increased crit%, and Int) is the right question as well.

I have a full working model of Disintegrate, made in a spreadsheet, that agrees with both in-game damage numbers, and the tooltip, so I may be able to help you. However, the calculation depends quite a bit on your build, and especially on the skill nodes you chose.

The basic formula for a damage tick (which is what you see in game) is:
(baseDamage + addedDamage*damageEffectiveness) * (1 + totalIncreasedDamage%) * (1 + moreDamageSource1%) * … (1 + moreDamageSourceN%).

totalIncreasedDamage% is the sum of all increases applicable. This includes:

  • Spell damage
  • Lightning damage
  • DoT damage
  • Int contribution (4% per)
  • Channel damage
  • Elemental DoT
  • Lightning DoT

Note that the last three are not found anywhere on the character sheet (yet?), so you need to keep track of them manually.

For Disintegrate, baseDamage (again, per tick) is 24 (assuming you converted its damage to one element, which you did, to Lightning), and damageEffectiveness is 120%. addedDamage refers to the total of flat damage you added from all sources; this will be reflected in the (new) character sheet, except for “damage while Channeling”, which you may have on Chest or Helmet, and for any flat Lightning damage (such as from the amulet implicit).

Once you make the formula here, compare it first NOT with the in-game tooltip, but with the floating damage numbers you see. Disintegrate is much easier to validate than other spells because it doesn’t have the 20% variance factor (that spells that hit have), so you should always see the same number. Remember that the game sometimes collects two close instances of damage together, so you will twice the damage with Twinbeam. The ideal place to do that are the target dummies in the Arena zone, because they have level 1, and as such, no damage resistance (enemies above level 5 in this game have increasing damage resistance, up to 87% at level 100).

In-game tooltip numbers are different in the following way:

  • If you have Tier 2 or Tier 3, it will show that.
  • It shows damage per second, which is 4 times the damage per tick.
  • Flat damage while Channeled is ignored

Now to your values. The calculation you show is correct, but only if you have NO sources of spell or elemental damage from anywhere else but Int, nor any more damage %. This requires not only getting naked, but also having no passives or any skill nodes invested.

That doesn’t appear to be the case for you. For example, you use Lightning damage only, but without the Electrify node, that’s incorrect - Disintegrate base damage is 12 Fire, 12 Lightning, and any sources of Lightning damage will only apply to the latter half. It’s also likely that you didn’t completely refund all of your passive skill points. The first numbers you see in the tooltip appear to both be ~18 times the numbers from your calculation; 4 of that likely comes from tick to second conversion, and the rest - from any increasedDamage% you may still have on.

If you have more questions, feel free to respond here and I’ll help with what I can.

3 Likes
10

OP said they DID use the Electrify node, so I’m not sure why cover this case? But without Electrify, apparently any added spell damage is also divided between the two damage types. So for example the mentioned Triboelectra wand at +56 spell damage implicit would give you (28 fire * damageEffectiveness) and (28 lightning * damageEffectiveness). The same applies to any other sources of adaptive spell damage, such as:

  • “spell damage while channeling” affixes
  • Tyrant Regalia
  • Archmage passive from Sorc
    etc.

So converting Disintegrate to just one element is basically a must-have.

11

(Alternatively, feel free to message me at Charodey#5945

That was precisely my point - that the calculations as OP stated would only make sense without any nodes.

But no, adaptive damage isn’t divided so; only damage to a specific type is (which OP used as an example). So any adaptive damage, say from an implicit on the weapon, will apply in full, but any +fire or +lightning would apply in half, without such conversion.

Adaptive damage, however, would apply in full, being added to each of the elements. So while specializing in one element is useful for other reasons (access to nodes behind that, and being able to use school-specific increased damage%), this is not one of them.

12

OP also said that he stripped his character to the bare minimum, so everything checks out :wink:

That’s obviously false.

And I’m not the only one saying so. Check Elemental Nova in the Last Epoch planner.
6 Fire, 6 Cold, 6 Lightning
With a white 60 Spell damage Wand, the result is:
26 Fire, 26 Cold, 26 Lightning

Same for Disintegrate, a 60 Spell damage Wand would split into +30 Fire and +30 Lightning, that’s why conversion is important.

1 Like
13

u wut m8

Damage is added even if it does not match up with the tags, in full value.

Disintegrate that has +60 spell damage +60 cold spell damage,+60 void spell damage and 60 lightning spell damage

Still gets effectiveness. its effectiveness is 120% per tick, 4 ticks a second, this means with nothing else clogging the mechanics you get 60 * 1.2 = 72 split to fire and lightning or 36 fire, 36 lightning. Then the rest are just added. So you would get 36 fire, 108 lightning, 72 cold and 72 void damage per tick.

This is why stuff like lament of the lost refuge works even if you dont covert to void, you get that void base damage in full.

1 Like
14

But OP didn’t mention the skill nodes, or the passives for that matter.

Ah, I see the source of the confusion.

Yes, the damage will be split between the elements; but no, that doesn’t mean that the TOTAL damage will suffer, because the entire adaptive damage will get added.

Using your example:

With +0 adaptive, Disintegrate does 12 fire and 12 lightning, for a total of 24. If you were to convert it all to fire (simply because “fire” is easier to spell :)), it would now do 24 fire.

With +60 adaptive, it would, indeed, split that as 12+30 fire and 12+30 lightning, for a total of 42 fire and 42 lightning, or 84 total damage. If you were to convert, it’d do 24+60, or still 84 damage, but now all Fire. So the total amount of damage remains the same, conversion or not.

Conversion is still almost always required, for the reasons I mentioned (access to the nodes behind those, and being able to utilize school-specific sources, such as +increased Fire damage, which would only apply to the Fire portion without conversion, and thus would only apply at half value). But it’s not the case that you lose half of any added damage for not converting.

15

I think you’re the only one confused :slight_smile:

He did mention the skill nodes aswell.

I never said the total damage would suffer.

I also never said that you lose half of any added damage.

16

Did someone say spreadsheet??? Mind sharing? I’m a sucker for spreadsheets (I recently made a very quick table detailing at what MP and STR would Ripple Drive be better than default finisher/Blitz in KH1 because I couldn’t figure out what keyblade/ability to use based on my stats at the time)

1 Like
17

The added damage would be affected by the skill’s added damage effectiveness, but yes.

18

Also cast speed will skew tooltip DPS number even on channeling skills that theoretically shouldn’t. ( Or at least it did in the past )