Diablo III™

So I noticed that Blizzard said they would base cast speed on weapon speed to help stop wizards from HAVING to use big 2h weapons.

My question is, will they reduce the arcane cost of spells since it requires you to cast a fast spell more to do the same amount of damage as a slow big hitting spell with a 2h weapon?

Example.
- 2h axe: cast arcane orb to do 500 damage every 2 sec = 17.5 arcane per sec. per 250 dmg

- 1h wand: cast arcane orb to do 100 damage every 0.4 sec = 87.5 arcane per second per 250 dmg

The idea is basically the same as Monk, Barbarian, and Demon Hunter...faster weapon = faster AP recovery. You will be able to cast your signature spells quicker and gain AP faster. Basically you will be able to cast more of the arcane orbs with a faster weapon because you generate AP faster while a slower weapon will have stronger arcane orbs but cast fewer of them.

Where does it say that by having a faster attack speed weapon that you'll regen AP quicker?

10/23/2011 06:02 PMPosted by JumpyMonkey

The idea is basically the same as Monk, Barbarian, and Demon Hunter...faster weapon = faster AP recovery. You will be able to cast your signature spells quicker and gain AP faster. Basically you will be able to cast more of the arcane orbs with a faster weapon because you generate AP faster while a slower weapon will have stronger arcane orbs but cast fewer of them.

10/23/2011 06:02 PMPosted by JumpyMonkey

The idea is basically the same as Monk, Barbarian, and Demon Hunter...faster weapon = faster AP recovery.

That is only true if you use golden runes and/or the passive prodigy. Signature spells are, at sufficiently high enough level, 0 AP but do not inherently generate AP. If you don't use those regen runes/passive it's better to have the slower weapon.

And apparently Jay Wilson (and supposedly the rest of the development team) thinks that's ok.

I think another element needs to be incorporated into the mix to help further balance the issue, that is the AP cost per spell.

AP cost of spell, excluding signatures, should be based on:
Weapon speed

Assuming you're spending AP as soon as it regens, then no Wizard in their right mind would choose a faster cast in favor of heavier damage, since at that point all consideration would be based on damage per AP

That is only true if you use golden runes and/or the passive prodigy. Signature spells are, at sufficiently high enough level, 0 AP but do not inherently generate AP. If you don't use those regen runes/passive it's better to have the slower weapon.

And apparently Jay Wilson (and supposedly the rest of the development team) thinks that's ok.

While yes that is true you don't generate additional AP unless you use the golden runestones or the passive, you do get to cast more signature spells while your AP is regenerating naturally. If you use gear with +AP on crit, you will be seeing more crits with a faster weapon due to more casts.

I understand it might not seem balanced but I think they are trying to do the best they can.

edit: I just wanted to note that I think there will be perfectly viable builds using both faster or slower weapons, just like with the other classes. Although you have to take the golden runestones or the passive, you can clearly see faster weapons have an advantage when taking them.

10/23/2011 07:21 PMPosted by JumpyMonkey

While yes that is true you don't generate additional AP unless you use the golden runestones or the passive, you do get to cast more signature spells while your AP is regenerating naturally. If you use gear with +AP on crit, you will be seeing more crits with a faster weapon due to more casts.

That's the only other benefit of more casts. The + AP power on crits, but when it's 3 attacks vs 6 attacks that's only 3 more opportunities to get a chance at critting and getting AP. These are chances at AP regen though, not guaranteed. In the beta you can get a pretty high crit due to out leveling the content, but I don't know about so much in Inferno...

A weapon of 100 DPS w/ 1 attack per second vs a weapon of 100 DPS w/ 2 attacks per second, the number of casts between those meteors in the question I said at blizzcon is the same. I don't think that Jay Wilson answered that part of my question. But I was nervous as hell in asking it in front of such a huge audience + directtv customers, so I felt more like I wanted to get out of line than actually get my question clarified. Stupid emotions :(

In that scenario, the scenario with meteor, even if you get more casts in of, your total damage is the same with a slow weapon or fast weapon of the same DPS, in between the meteors - the only difference is the actual damage of the meteor who gets a greater benefit.
To illustrate my point: 3 casts of 110% weapon damage signature skills vs 6 casts of 110% weapon damage signature skills but at half damage because of twice the cast rate is still 330% weapon damage. The only difference is the 450% weapon damage of the meteor on the slower weapon is twice as much as the 450% weapon damage of the fast cast rate meteor. For having the same DPS item.

This gives no incentive to using any faster weapons if you use any skills that overall drain your arcane power to 0 and have to rely on passive regeneration. Which, in all reality all skills that are in the "offensive" tab under the wizard, with exception to disintigrate and arcane torrent are expensive enough to actually care about the regeneration rate.

He answered my question in a round about way by essentially saying 'we're not worried about slower weapons being more arcane power efficient than faster weapons.' I don't particularly agree with that, but he did say they are working on arcane power costs at the moment, so it really may be a lesser issue. 35-60 AP per offensive spell might be a little high especially given that the blizzcon internal testimony to difficulty in inferno implies that each battle will definitely drain your Arcane Power bulb completely. If say more 'offensive' skills were moved from the 35-60 AP range to the 25-40 AP range faster weapon speeds would still be viable for doing enough damage without completely exhausting each resource.

Perhaps the benefit of just getting your spell cast off in 1 second and being able to move again might be a benefit enough in itself if you still can get your entire round of casting off. But we'll just have to wait and see. Jay has said if you make things a math question, the math people will figure it out. I think this is the case with cast speeds at the moment. Without tying in some sort of higher regeneration for faster cast speeds, the math just supports that slower attack speeds are better.

I hope at least this conversation gets back to Jay Wilson and the dev team so he can see the math effects, because he didn't seem to really imply that they actually considered the fact that cast speeds don't affect total damage done during the time you're casting signature spells (At least at the time that I asked the question). He implied more casts are better, but the total damage done is the same because the slower signature spells do proportionally more damage in the slower casts, so it doesn't matter. You just made your meteor better. Without getting a better item. Or worse yet, if you have a fast weapon, you just completely nerfed your meteor (or any other offensive spell other than disintegrate or arcane torrent which is significantly lower cost) because you didn't find/choose a slow weapon of same DPS.

They seem to be assuming you will be taking a signature spell to recover AP and this is probably going to be true in most cases. If you assume everyone will be taking a signature spell with golden runestone or Prodigy passive, faster weapons will be generating a lot more AP.

Lets take Magic Missile with golden runestone for the example, assuming you hit a target every time you will gain 14 AP per cast. I will just take your example of 3 casts vs 6 casts. The fast weapon generated 84 AP while the slow weapon generated 42 AP, not including natural regen of course. The fast weapon user has enough AP to use another Meteor while the slow weapon user doesn't have enough AP yet. Although each meteor does less damage, this results in more meteors coming from the fast weapon user.

Also I just wanted to note they said weapon speed will effect the tick rate on channeled spells so faster weapon users might be better off using those rather than spells like meteor.

10/24/2011 01:45 PMPosted by JumpyMonkey

They seem to be assuming you will be taking a signature spell to recover AP and this is probably going to be true in most cases. If you assume everyone will be taking a signature spell with golden runestone or Prodigy passive, faster weapons will be generating a lot more AP.

If your assessment that they are assuming that is true then if you go with a golden rune for that then all other 4 options for signature spells are worthless. Where's the choice? Why did they make 4 other runes for signature spells if they are expecting you to use golden runes?

And only the low level ones readily available. For example it's 14 AP per cast of magic missile with a level 7 rune, but in normal you're using a level 1 rune, which is 2 AP. Nightmare? 4 AP. Hell? 6 AP. Inferno 8 AP. This isn't very significant.

10/24/2011 04:45 PMPosted by Defenestrate

If your assessment that they are assuming that is true then if you go with a golden rune for that then all other 4 options for signature spells are worthless. Where's the choice? Why did they make 4 other runes for signature spells if they are expecting you to use golden runes?

You could take the passive Prodigy instead and use the other runestones options. There are also other options in the skills for AP management, I just should have worded that better. They expect you to choose one of the options as a source of AP recovery and I am just showing how this one option works with the faster weapons.

And only the low level ones readily available. For example it's 14 AP per cast of magic missile with a level 7 rune, but in normal you're using a level 1 rune, which is 2 AP. Nightmare? 4 AP. Hell? 6 AP. Inferno 8 AP. This isn't very significant.

Sure the numbers might be lower but it doesn't change the fact that a faster weapon will be gaining AP faster using the golden runestone.

You can easily get by without using either. They are not required in any way. In fact I made a post awhile back about Crimson Magic Missile is superior to Golden Magic missile for single target purposes.

Sure you could focus on the damage dealing of the signature spells but it means less casts of the offensive spells. I don't know how you calculated your comparison but I am just assuming Blizzard will balance this the best they can.

Faster cast rate also means you consume more AP with offensive spells.
Faster cast rate also means you generate more AP via signatures.

Faster cast doesn't make offensive spells consume more AP, sure you will use the AP faster but it doesn't cost more. That is where the second part of your statement comes in, you regen faster utilizing fast casting signature spells.

10/24/2011 05:23 PMPosted by Omgonoz

However, faster cast rate does not increase your natural regeneration, a very large factor in your AP acquire rate.

It might not directly increase natural regeneration but it is still increasing AP regen. Using rank 4 runestones, casting Magic Missile once per second is giving you an additional 8 AP per second. That is almost a 60% increase for AP regen per second. That is what makes it better to use a faster weapon with this type of AP regen. A slower weapon casting Magic Missile once every two seconds is only giving 4 AP per second, only about a 30% increase.

If your cast rate is 1 per second,
Blizzard costs 45 AP/sec.
Magic Missile returns 14 AP/sec
You regenerate 12.5 AP/sec

If your cast rate is 2 per second,
Blizzard costs 90 AP/sec
Magic Missile returns 28 AP/sec
You regenerate 12.5 AP/sec

The comparison doesn't work like that.

In the first case you are gaining 26.5 AP/sec so it would take about 1.7 seconds to regen 45 AP and cast one blizzard. In 10 seconds you would regen 265 AP and be able to cast 5.9 blizzards.

In the second case you are gaining 40.5 AP/sec so it would take about 1.1 seconds to regen 45 AP and cast one blizzard. In 10 seconds you would regen 405 AP and be able to cast 9 blizzards.

Note: This does not factor in cast time for each blizzard.

10/24/2011 05:52 PMPosted by JumpyMonkey

Faster cast doesn't make offensive spells consume more AP, sure you will use the AP faster but it doesn't cost more

It doesn't make that specific cast cost more AP. No.

It does make it cost more per damage done though.

For example:
Weapon 1: 100 DPS .5 attack per second.
Weapon 2: 100 DPS 1 attack per second.

First weapon:
Arcane orb: 225 damage 1 second, 1 cast, 35 AP spent.

Second weapon:
Arcane orb: 225 damage, 1 second, 2 casts, 70 AP spent.

Now lets use arcane orb in a real scenario. A battle vs a bunch of monsters. You need to deal a theoretical at least 1000 damage w/ arcane orbs.

First weapon:
Arcane orb: 1125 damage, 5 second casting out of 6 seconds, 5 casts, 175 AP spent.
To get the Arcane power to cast all 175 AP worth in addition to your first 100 AP, it takes 6 seconds to regenerate it. This gives you time to cast 1 signature spell. Assuming 1 magic missile add 110 more damage.

1235 damage done in 6 seconds.

Second Weapon:
Arcane orb: 1012.5 damage, 4.5 second casting out of 17.2 seconds, 9 casts, 315 AP spent
To get arcane power to cast all 315 AP worth in addition to your first 100 AP, it takes 17.2 seconds to regenerate it. This gives you time to cast 25 signature spells. Assuming 25 magic missiles add 1375 damage.

2387.5 damage done over 17.2 seconds, prorated to 832.8 seconds for the first 6 seconds.

If you add runes, and passives with regeneration, it helps bridge the gap of 402.2 free damage done by the slower weapon speed person, but if you don't then there's no reason not to use slower weapon speeds:

First weapon:
6 Magic Missiles, 6 seconds = 660 damage
1 meteor, 1 second = 450 damage

Second Weapon:
12 magic Missiles, 6 seconds = 660 damage.
1 meteor + 1 magic missile, 1 second = 335 damage.

No reason not to use slower weapon unless you actually DO use the AP regenerating on signature spells.

The real question is the following one (In the next post):

First Weapon:
Arcane orb always cast on sufficient AP, then magic missile (Rank 4) to regen

Time AP Damage Skill
(sec) (total) (cast)
0 100 0 None
1 65 225 Arcane Orb
2 42.5 450 Arcane Orb
3 20 675 Arcane Orb
4 40.5 785 Magic Missile
5 5.5 1010 Arcane Orb
6 26 1120 Magic Missile
7 46.5 1230 Magic Missile
8 24 1455 Arcane Orb
9 44.5 1565 Magic Missile
10 21.5 1790 Arcane Orb
11 42 1900 Magic Missile
12 19.5 2125 Arcane Orb
13 40 2235 Magic missile
14 17.5 2460 Arcane Orb
15 38 2570 Magic Missile


Second Weapon:
Arcane orb always cast on sufficient AP, then magic missile (Rank 4) to regen

Time AP Damage Skill
(sec) (total) (cast)
0 100 0 None
0.5 71.25 112.5 Arcane Orb
1 42.5 225 Arcane Orb
1.5 13.75 337.5 Arcane Orb
2 28 440 Magic Missile
2.5 42.25 495 Magic Missile
3 13.5 607.5 Arcane Orb
3.5 27.75 662.5 Magic Missile
4 42 717.5 Magic Missile
4.5 13.25 830 Arcane Orb
5 27.5 885 Magic Missile
5.5 41.75 940 Magic Missile
6 13 1052.5 Arcane Orb
6.5 27.25 1107.5 Magic Missile
7 41.5 1162.5 Magic Missile
7.5 12.75 1275 Arcane Orb
8 27 1330 Magic Missile
8.5 41.25 1385 Magic Missile
9 12.5 1497.5 Arcane Orb
9.5 26.75 1552.5 Magic Missile
10 41 1607.5 Magic Missile
10.5 12.25 1720 Arcane Orb
11 26.5 1775 Magic Missile
11.5 40.75 1830 Magic Missile
12 12 1942.5 Arcane Orb
12.5 26.25 1997.5 Magic Missile
13 40.5 2052.5 Magic Missile
13.5 11.75 2165 Arcane Orb
14 26 2220 Magic Missile
14.5 40.25 2275 Magic Missile
15 11.5 2387.5 Arcane Orb

Given this specific scenario, there's a large advantage to slower weapons. You do your damage more up-front so things die faster. You do more overall damage in any given time so you kill things faster. You do more damage with your orbs, so you do more splash damage so you kill things faster.

Yes. Golden Runes to help make up the difference for faster casting weapons, but at least at level 4 and magic missile it's still inferior. Slower weapons, are better all the time (
at no additional cost, assuming same DPS).

Given the data, we probably can assume they are good until a certain breakpoint that would likely be extremely well geared in Inferno, to where faster weapons may break even or exceed slower casting speed weapons.

I don't know if I feel good about this. They said they like the idea of being able to immediately be able to tell when something is better. This requires math and really isn't as intuitive.

Hopefully the speed of weapons won't be so radically different as to create these huge discrepancies in the numbers? I should really check to see if the issue is as big as these numbers.

Edit (Merged from the post I deleted after this):

According to current information on the website, the slowest weapons are 2h maces with a .9 attacks per second, while the fastest is (1h) daggers at 1.5 attacks per second. That is a pretty big difference in attack speeds. Almost to the degree of the twice as fast scenario that I outlined.