Bio vs Dia

[Gryff]

^_^ Well todays debate is: Bio vs Dia, is one ever always better, and when to use which.

I feel there has always been a "myth" put out that Bio is better because its a higher level So I decided to discuss my thoughts on them and how I use them.


Neutral State: ( No Dia or Bio ) Defence and Attack of the monster stay static, no change.


Dia: Mild DOT and lowers enemy defence allowing for a quicker kill.
Monsters damage remains constant.

Bio: Mild DOT and lowers enemy attack, kill length remains the same as Neutral State however the tank will take less damage.

Personally speaking I prefer Dia on all exp monsters regardless of Ninja or Paladin tank ( common logic is that Dia when you have a ninja tank and bio when you have a paladin tank ).

This is because, When Dia 2 is on a monster, every melee will be hitting it harder, ( 3-4 people ), as opposed to one person taking less damage when Bio is on the monster, the time saved killing it also decreases the damage taken by the tank. ( so it has at least a portion of the effect of bio also in that damage taken by the tank is reduced , while Bio does not reduce the defence/kill time of the monster ).

So following that I would put Dia 2 on all exp monsters.....however sometimes I use Bio 2. for very hard hitting HNM that can one shot.
In some situations Bio 2 can be the difference between your tanking living and dying, and saving 5-10 minutes from a 2 hour kill isnt particularly important.


Seems like common sense? Then why does every rdm I party with insist on Bio 2 .

[Icemage]

Depends on your party configuration, and what you are fighting.

For XP, All other things being equal:
High defense monster (crab, antican, etc.) = Dia II
High attack monster (raptor, beetle, goobue, etc.) = Bio II

If the party is weak on melees (PLD, RNG, BLM, RDM, WHM, BRD) then Bio II is better.

If the party is heavy on melees (PLD, MNK, SAM, SAM, BRD, RDM) then Dia II is better.

For HNM, Bio II is usually preferred to control the crazy damage output.


Icemage

[2.0]

HNM is the only time Bio II is better. Every other time Dia II is better. The monster dies faster you take less damage. And yes it really is that simple.

[Karinya]

Ignore the troll immediately above me, Icemage's analysis is correct (although I'm a little surprised that you would classify a beetle as a high attack monster, I would have listed spiders or pugils). Both have their advantages.

What, you want more explanation? OK: Dia doesn't increase all damage done to the monster, only certain kinds of attacks (normal melee and ranged attacks). It has little effect on physical WS, no effect on elemental WS, no effect on skillchain damage, no effect on nukes whether they are MB'd or not, and no effect on damage over time effects. If most of your damage is coming from the skillchain+magic burst, nukes and DoTs, Dia does nothing for you (besides its own minor DoT, which Bio does just as well).

Furthermore, if your tank dies to a 1032 damage sickle slash, the fact that you'll kill the spider 10 seconds afterwards instead of 20 doesn't prevent the downtime you are about to experience - nor the tank's well-justified resentment of your failure to weaken the monster's attacks.

Even if you take just as much damage in the long term (which you won't necessarily, but suppose you do), the fact that it is spread out over more time makes it easier to survive. This may or may not be worth the slower kill - it's a safety vs. speed issue, which depends a lot on the monster level vs. your party level; but dying is hardly ever good for exp.

[2.0]

What you call "trolling" Karinya, I call having a strong opinion. How can you not see that killing something faster is better than killing something slower? Gaining experience is all about speed efficiency. If you haven't learned that by now,can't help you. Maybe if you have some pathetic taru paladin for a tank bio's better dia. But that's the only time.

Besides Dia's an enfeebling spell. Bio's a dark spell. I'd much rather have the Red or White Mage casting something they're proficient in than something they're not.

[navpops]

D ef I in A tly DIA

[Miriamel]

Dia II and Slow combined make a tank's life easier, even on hard-hitting mobs.

Why? Easy.

The less hits the mob gets in, the less damage is taken. It makes a difference if a mob hits your tank 20 times for 85DMG (1700DMG) or 15 times for 100DMG (1500DMG). Saves you a Cure III = 46MP right there.

[greysenn]

I can't say anything about HNM, but the only time I can see Bio 2 being better is the oddball times you're in a caster heavy group. (2-3 blm for damage or something like that.) The added killing speed dia would give would be negligable at that point, but the reduced hits would not be.

[Icemage]

I find that using Dia II on monsters with huge physical WS attacks (Spiders and Goobue especially) to be an unacceptable risk. So what if you kill the monster 10 seconds faster? If you can still make chain 5 using Bio II, what's the difference, other than you are at far less risk of downtime from a dead party member.

Big damage on your tank = more enmity lost from tank = more chance someone else is going to get hit. Want to talk inefficient? How about being forced to throw a Cure V at your PLD, and then at your DRK because the PLD just took a 700 damage Uppercut from an Elder Goobue?

I think this lemming-like focus of people on killing efficiency blinds them to the realities staring them in the face. Killing monsters faster is good, but there's a practical limit to how fast you can kill stuff.


Icemage

[AtraposBLM]

Icemage makes a very good point - yes, additional kill speed is good, but there is a finite limit to how beneficial killing something quickly can be. Yes, if there were never any competing parties, and the monsters spawned like 3 times as fast as they do now, you could get like 10k exp/hour with an amazing setup. However, that's not really possible in the game as it is now. Most times, you're limited by pulls (either no pops, or just the travel distance makes you miss getting past chain 5), or by links, or by competing parties, or something that prevents you from killing as fast as possible anyways. So that makes the kill speed difference that much less important.

If you have 2 identical groups, one using Bio II, and one using Dia II, and both are making chain 5s, I guarentee that they'll be killing at about the same pace. The difference would be hardly noticeable, as the main forms of damage (weapon skills, job abilities, nukes, and mb's) aren't effected by Dia II.

Basically...use whichever you want. As long as one of them is getting used...the difference will be hardly noticeable.

[midnilux]

RDMs that chooses Bio over Dia are stupid because

1) Bio Sucks
2) RDM's DRK skill is generally ASS, no matter if you use Drain, Aspir, Bio, in every fight your Dark skill doesnt go up very fast.

[METDeath]

Originally posted by midnilux
RDMs that chooses Bio over Dia are stupid because

1) Bio Sucks
2) RDM's DRK skill is generally ASS, no matter if you use Drain, Aspir, Bio, in every fight your Dark skill doesnt go up very fast.

rdm/whm uses drain and aspir how exactly?

[Darkedge]

Originally posted by METDeath
rdm/whm uses drain and aspir how exactly?

There are quite a few RDM/BLMs

[Deodorant]

Neither. In exp situations I've never noticed bio2/dia2 making a lick of a difference. I do use dia2 whenever mp allows, but not a single melee in any party I've been in has been able to tell me that it makes a noticeable difference in the damage they do.

[Laehn]

I was under the impression those two spells do get partial resists quite often. Like the mob only takes the DOT effect and not the def down or attack down. Ive also been told by a couple people that the resists depends on the type of mob, like a light based mob will not take the effect of dia, but will take the effect of bio.