Talk:Firestorm

Quality effects on Firestorm
It cannot be 0.2s per quality... I've got a 7% quality gem and the interval between fireballs is 0.14, down from the basic 0.15. 0.2% perhaps? Torinir (talk) 11:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's obviously true, 0.15 - 0.2 = -0.05. I found a relatively recent post from Mark confirming that it is 0.0015s per %quality. hoeppy 07:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Just some numbers
Min 100 Damage (for example) Duration is 1.20 seconds Fireball every 0.15 seconds 8 Fireballs Total damage is 100*8 = 800 DPS is 800/1.2 = 667

Max 100 Damage Duration is 1.20*1.83 = 2.20 Fireball every 0.12 seconds (20% gem quality) 18 Fireballs Total damage is 100*18 = 1,800 DPS is 1,800/2.2 = 818 -AnnanFay (talk) 06:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Area of Effect's Effect
There seems to be quite a bit of discussion on whether increased Area of Effect negatively impacts Firestorm's single target damage. This surprises me quite a bit considering it's a pretty simple and objective matter. While increasing the AoE does not change the number of fireballs that will hit any one spot, it does change the number of fireballs that will hit any one section inside the larger AoE. Enemies in Path of Exile obviously take up space, meaning you have to consider how many fireballs will hit a section of the AoE, not just a single spot, and as the AoE increases, obviously the enemies you are fighting will take up a smaller percentage of that AoE. Let's take it to extremes to make it obvious. Let's say you are fighting a very large enemy and have decreased your AoE considerably, so much so that the enemy actually takes up 100% of the Firestorm area. It's obvious in this case that the enemy will be hit by every single fireball. Now, let's say you've increased your AoE instead of decreasing it and the enemy actually only takes up 1/4 of the AoE. It's difficult to estimate exactly how many fireballs will hit him, but it's obvious that some fireballs at least have the chance to miss. While this is taking the example to extremes, it very simply illustrates that AoE size does have a negative impact on single target damage. --Teebird1 (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It is oversimplified to say the impact is negative or positive. Yes, when the monster is as big as the firestorm region, that is one extreme case where it is obvious increased AoE reduces damage. But this is also assuming monsters are standing still at the center of the storm, which rarely happens in practice. For monsters closer to the edge of the storm, the damage is increased. To take the other extreme, if you shrink the radius enough a monster on the edge will no longer be hit at all.


 * The following, for simplicity, assumes areas and monsters are rectangles not circles, and shows the % of hitting a monster with a given fireball when it is standing at the center, or immediately inside the corner of a 30x30 region, 50x50 region, or 70x70 region (these are the areas of the 3 sizes of Firestorm I looked at).

As the table shows, larger monsters closer to the center benefit from reduced AoE size, but small monsters near the edge benefit from increase AoE size. But again, this is assuming a stationary monster. The better measure would be to look at a monster moving through a firestorm. Assume a monster, during a firestorm duration, walks from 25 units west of the firestorm center to 25 units east of the center. I'll come back and calculate that properly later, but a rough estimate from the above data for a size 10 monster is it would be hit by 28.6% of fireballs in a 60% AoE firestorm, 29.3% in a 100% AoE firestorm, and 27.3% in a 140% AoE firestorm, so almost balanced. Larger monsters would benefit from the larger storm, smaller monsters from a smaller storm. --Qetuth-(talk) 01:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Radius
Such radius info exist in the wiki infobox as easter egg for a while, but it never shown in-game. And probably not from the pypoe mining data. So that i removed it as not able to verifiy that after so many patch it is still relevant/ up to date or not. The last "update" for the value by user is 2013 (Special:Diff/64504), based on version 1.0.4 patch note. Neokowloon (talk) 21:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)