Curse

Tobias Funke · Oct 17, 2006, 07:47 PM // 19:47

But when you don't hit a crit, your damage is higher from higher elevation.

CHUIU · Oct 17, 2006, 07:50 PM // 19:50

Guildwarsguru needs some better servers or forums/action system. Navigating and posting takes forever.

Longbow, 15^50, 10 marksmanship, 15 critical strikes using critical eye. Attacking from a higher elevation shows no increased damage and no increased rate of critical hit (I actually landed less critical hits when attacking from above.

As you can see both hits in the picture are critical and the damage is the same. To think ANET would purposely make the game overly complicated by adding lines of code to increase damage from non-critical hits at higher elevation is ridiculous. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.

Elevation only affects range.

Oh a GW forum · Oct 17, 2006, 07:57 PM // 19:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobias Funke

But when you don't hit a crit, your damage is higher from higher elevation.

I beat you to it Chu

@ Tobias: You. Are. Wrong. Face the facts please... While conduncting my little test there was NO difference in damage... If you think I'm wrong, go test it yourself and report back.

Tobias Funke · Oct 17, 2006, 07:59 PM // 19:59

Case closed. Range advantage, damage advantage.

CHUIU · Oct 17, 2006, 08:00 PM // 20:00

Damage over time testing shows:

Elevated: 22, 46, 36, 25, 36, 34, 24, 46, 46, 38 = 35.3 average
Non-Elev: 32, 28, 22, 46, 30, 46, 22, 46, 46, 46 = 36.4 average

If anything I've proved that not being at a higher elevation deals more damage and lands critical hits more often. I'm sure I could test this till my fingers were blue, it would still be that the damage and critical hit rate doesnt change.

Tobias Funke · Oct 17, 2006, 08:04 PM // 20:04

You are in the position of arguing that the game programers don't know how their own game works. You're going to have to have a larger sample size than that and the evidence to back up your data.

If you disregard the critical hits (which are alwasys the same) in your data you get a different picture.
Elevated: 22, 36, 25, 36, 34, 24,38 = 30.7
Non: 33, 28, 22, 30, 22= 27

CHUIU · Oct 17, 2006, 08:05 PM // 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobias Funke

Case closed. Range advantage, damage advantage.

Quoting NPC's is as reliable as quoting ANET when they say they're going to get something in the game by X date. You never know until you see for yourself.

Mercury Angel · Oct 17, 2006, 08:05 PM // 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobias Funke

Case closed. Range advantage, damage advantage.

Although my experience supports that, I'd just like to say... Guild Wars skill descriptions and information in-game doesn't exactly have a sparkling reputation. The skill descriptions are particularly well-known for having confusing, inaccurate, or ambiguous wording, and being slow to fix.

What something 'says' is largely meaningless;
The important thing is providing hard data that is PROOF positive that something is the case.
Even more prominent is the need to understand that just because something doesn't work in one situation, doesn't mean that it is absolute.

floppinghog · Oct 17, 2006, 08:09 PM // 20:09

Test:

candy cane bow with 16 marksmanship (it has 15-15 dmg) its always same.

i shoot 60 armor out of the other 3 armor cans at end of stairs (not on stairs)

dmg = 17

i shoot from mid stairs (on stairs)

dmg = 19

I shoot from top of stairs (not on stair case anymore -but higher)

dmg =20

my error corrected, as i was hasty to post = the 24 = critical hit. Higher chance the higher you are appears to be apparent.

therefore, it has and always been true, range and dmg is bonus for height advantage.

test it yourself

Edit: Flames removed. It is never appropriate to flame others on these forums, right or wrong.

scrinner · Oct 17, 2006, 08:09 PM // 20:09

So i guess in a way it does increase damage though. I also never knew head pieces were better to hit. Interesting thoughts really..

Mr_eX · Oct 17, 2006, 08:12 PM // 20:12

Boom, Headshot!

CHUIU · Oct 17, 2006, 08:12 PM // 20:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercury Angel

Pictures for wands:

---
Pictures for bows:

---
Edit: Added pictures for both the bows and wands, and the damage looks to be about a 13% increase from that elevation.

I just tested from that location aswell. It seems like the 'height advantage' requires you to be substantially higher than you opponents by at least 2 stories for it to work. But my tests were done on only 1 story higher ground.

Tobias Funke · Oct 17, 2006, 08:15 PM // 20:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mercury Angel

The skill descriptions are particularly well-known for having confusing, inaccurate, or ambiguous wording, and being slow to fix.

There is nothing confusing or ambiguous in that wording. I understand what you are saying, but I'm arguing a preponderance of the evidence here. That description plus my experience playing a ranger, plus CHUIU's own data show that this is the case. I was offering the SS as the fail nail in the coffin for this baseless debate. Besides, have any of the nameless master been proven to contain wrong information? I have not heard of any.

Oh a GW forum · Oct 17, 2006, 08:24 PM // 20:24

Hmm.. some interesting things here.

In the second picture I posted, you can cleary see I gain the range advantage, thus proving I am at a higher elevation, but I do not gain any increase in damage.

When I tried it at the location Mecury posted, my critical hit maxed out at 60, a 15-16% increase.

When I went over to the master of bows and climbed to the highest point, and shot down at the lowest target, my ciritical hit became a whopping 71! That is a 36-37% increase from same-elevation...

This means that the game can measure your elevation relative to your target, and is applying some sort of bonus to your damage, that changes with your height...

However, me and Chu's initial conclusion is still partially valid, there is a point where you are higher than your target and do NO additional damage, but as you become substantially higher, your damage substantially increases.

CHUIU · Oct 17, 2006, 08:25 PM // 20:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobias Funke

There is nothing confusing or ambiguous in that wording. I understand what you are saying, but I'm arguing a preponderance of the evidence here. That description plus my experience playing a ranger, plus CHUIU's own data show that this is the case. I was offering the SS as the fail nail in the coffin for this baseless debate. Besides, have any of the nameless master been proven to contain wrong information? I have not heard of any.

My own data was a completely random sampling. If I would have sat there and wrote down numbers for an hour you would see very little difference between damage in non-critical hits rather than the small 3.7 you determined from the improper selection of 7 hits to 5. Besides that I have also shown that the additional damage does not come from the elevation I was at but instead at a much higher elevation. So my data cannot possibly be counted because ANET doesnt consider the 2 points I was attacking from different elevations in respect to bow damage and range.

And the NPC's are so vague that you could interpret much of what in several ways. Unless an NPC tells me "you will deal +15% more damage due to yada yada" I'm not going to trust it. And even then I would have to do testing before I would trust what it said. ANET has been wrong so many times, and there are so many bugs still in the game that information from them is unreliable.

Tobias Funke · Oct 17, 2006, 08:33 PM // 20:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHUIU

My own data was a completely random sampling. If I would have sat there and wrote down numbers for an hour you would see very little difference between damage in non-critical hits rather than the small 3.7 you determined from the improper selection of 7 hits to 5.

You are still arguing from complete conjecture. I was merely pointing out that your data tends to prove the opposite of what you argued. The burden of persuation is on you not me because you are arguing one of the basic game mechanics isn't true.

CHUIU · Oct 17, 2006, 08:40 PM // 20:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobias Funke

You are still arguing from complete conjecture. I was merely pointing out that your data tends to prove the opposite of what you argued. The burden of persuation is on you not me because you are arguing one of the basic game mechanics isn't true.

I am arguing that the sampling of data you used is flawed because you took an uneven amount and calculated results based off it. I could just as easily manipulate the data to reflect in my favor:

Elevated: 22, 36, 34, 24, = 29
Non: 33, 28, 30, 22 = 29.5

Now you see what I mean? You would need to do seperate testing and take down only an exact number of non-critical hits to actually come to a conclusion.

Tobias Funke · Oct 17, 2006, 08:45 PM // 20:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHUIU

I am arguing that the sampling of data you used is flawed because you took an uneven amount and calculated results based off it. I could just as easily manipulate the data to reflect in my favor:

Elevated: 22, 36, 34, 24, = 29
Non: 33, 28, 30, 22 = 29.5

Now you see what I mean? You would need to do seperate testing and take down only an exact number of non-critical hits to actually come to a conclusion.

No you are still wrong. I disregarded all values of 46, which was your critical hit value at that height. It was fair to disregard these as what we are looking for the average damage of a non-critical attack. Therefore I was not omitting them from the sample as they were not data points for the question asked to begin with. Your example, however, is a selective sample of data to generate the answer you want. Your analogy is completely wrong.

Increasing the number of data points (say from 5 to 7) only makes the average more likely to be accurate. You can compare data sets with different number of entries and still have a valid comparison. A great difference between the size of two data sets only effects the reliability of the numbers compared, not the comparison itself.

Legolas Ravenwood · Oct 17, 2006, 08:51 PM // 20:51

ELEVATED
http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?i...gherbowll4.jpg

NON-ELEVATED
http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?i...owerbowxf9.jpg

Although these do prove the damage increases, it might not be possible to obtain this damage bonus ingame.

Rangers need to come close if they are lower than their target, so when they get close they might be close enough to negate this damage bonus. Warriors, well obviously they attack at melee as do Assassins so this bonus will only count on the first hits if they are low enough. Casters however, I am certain that casting spells is based on only horizontal distance.

So, they kinda look like this:

Not sure if this is exactly how it is for the casters, but Rangers I'm sure of.

CHUIU · Oct 17, 2006, 09:26 PM // 21:26

I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHUIU

If I would have sat there and wrote down numbers for an hour you would see very little difference between damage in non-critical hits rather than the small 3.7 you determined from the improper selection of 7 hits to 5.

And:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHUIU

I am arguing that the sampling of data you used is flawed because you took an uneven amount and calculated results based off it.

You say:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobias Funke

Increasing the number of data points (say from 5 to 7) only makes the average more likely to be accurate.

You're basically saying I'm right, it would make it much more accurate.

I encourage you to go take the average of 2 hits with a sword and compare the damage to the average of 20 hits with an axe. Your results will come nowhere near the accuracy or validity of testing with 40 hits from both. Though even if you did, I wouldn't trust your results. You obviously don't understand how the scientific method works so you are more likely to manipulate the results in your favor.