Curse

unienaule · Oct 17, 2006, 09:45 PM // 21:45

Did you guys miss the post with the candy cane bow that shows you DO GET A DAMAGE INCREASE? What are you still arguing about?

DeanBB · Oct 17, 2006, 09:51 PM // 21:51

Yeah, I thought I answered this way back on post #9:

Quote:

Yes, firing from above = more damage, firing from below = less damage. Accuracy isn't a factor any more than firing from level ground. Range is also affected.

That was based on my experience in-game and I thought it was fairly common knowledge to be the reality.

Tobias Funke · Oct 17, 2006, 09:55 PM // 21:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHUIU

You obviously don't understand how the scientific method works so you are more likely to manipulate the results in your favor.

This sentence is hilarious. It proves that you don't understand scientific reasoning. Please explain how that syllogism works.
......
Of course increasing the sample size increases reliability of an average. There is nothing in this proposition, however, which mandates that sample sizes must be the same.

Your argument was that my calculation of the data was invalid because I compared a sample size of 5 to one of 7. The reason my sample sizes had different values is because the non-elevated sample had more critical hits in it. Critical hits were not a factor in the calculation of the average damage of a non-critcal hit that I was performing. I was not picking and choosing data like you were. ALL non-critical hits were included in my averages indiscriminately. Were I to have made the sample sizes the same, say at 5 and 5, then I would have been introducing bias in to the analysis because I would have chosen which 2 data points to disregard.

Obviously a larger sample would be preferrable and more reliable. that does not mean, however, that this analysis has no value. Also, I was only trying to disprove your point, not prove mine. If I was trying to make my own argument, I would provide my own data with a larger sample size.

Take AP Statistics your Senior year of highschool.

Sid Soggybottom · Oct 17, 2006, 09:56 PM // 21:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by unienaule

Did you guys miss the post with the candy cane bow that shows you DO GET A DAMAGE INCREASE? What are you still arguing about?

Yep time to close this thread. The question has already been answered but there's still people who will still argue and cant admit that they were wrong.

Legolas Ravenwood · Oct 17, 2006, 10:26 PM // 22:26

The thread should stay open. The thread title is Ranger Height Advantage, and we have only covered the damage aspects of this.

There is still a lot to cover such as range gain, flight time differences and possibly even a damage decrease if you are under your target. None of these I have time to investigate right now. I'll test them tomorrow if I am feeling up to it.

disarm76 · Oct 17, 2006, 10:30 PM // 22:30

I cleared every corner of cantha with my ranger and more than once I noticed that Height=more damage.

A great example is on Fort Aspenwood kurzick side. At the very beggining before the first teleport you can shoot arrows down to where the Arquitect is.
More than onde I stop a minor invasion to the green mine by shooting arrows from up there.
It's really a good diference in damage.

CHUIU · Oct 17, 2006, 11:12 PM // 23:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobias Funke

This sentence is hilarious. It proves that you don't understand scientific reasoning. Please explain how that syllogism works.
......
Of course increasing the sample size increases reliability of an average. There is nothing in this proposition, however, which mandates that sample sizes must be the same.

Your argument was that my calculation of the data was invalid because I compared a sample size of 5 to one of 7. The reason my sample sizes had different values is because the non-elevated sample had more critical hits in it. Critical hits were not a factor in the calculation of the average damage of a non-critcal hit that I was performing. I was not picking and choosing data like you were. ALL non-critical hits were included in my averages indiscriminately. Were I to have made the sample sizes the same, say at 5 and 5, then I would have been introducing bias in to the analysis because I would have chosen which 2 data points to disregard.

Obviously a larger sample would be preferrable and more reliable. that does not mean, however, that this analysis has no value. Also, I was only trying to disprove your point, not prove mine. If I was trying to make my own argument, I would provide my own data with a larger sample size.

Take AP Statistics your Senior year of highschool.

Critical hits are always a factor in the calculation of physical damage because there is always a chance of landing a critical hit. Regardless or whether or not they are a factor, you are right that you should have collected your own data for the analysis.

And for the record, I'm way past Stats class or high school for that matter.

Phaern Majes · Oct 17, 2006, 11:22 PM // 23:22

Lmao...teaches me not to read all the posts before. Ignore what I said....well to some extent.

floppinghog · Oct 17, 2006, 11:48 PM // 23:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by unienaule

Did you guys miss the post with the candy cane bow that shows you DO GET A DAMAGE INCREASE? What are you still arguing about?

which is why i flamed, and it got removed... they are stupid... (note: i aint directing this to anyone particularly)

Tobias Funke · Oct 17, 2006, 11:57 PM // 23:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHUIU

Critical hits are always a factor in the calculation of physical damage because there is always a chance of landing a critical hit.

Yes but the issue was how elevation raises you non-critcal hits damage.

jesh · Oct 18, 2006, 12:13 AM // 00:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by LoKi Foxfire

I can confirm that the height does affect the amount of damage you do, especially if the difference in elevation is very noticeable. I remember back in the early days of Prophecies in the UW, I was clearing the entire place with my guild and the portion with the undead mobs and chained de-enchanters has a huge drop in elevation. Using JI and my arrow attacks I think I was doing around 250-300 damage with a good hit while on the ground level it was closer to 150 (both with JI on).

I remember the first time I made a ranger, I was exploring around ascalon post searing, and found a fairly large cliff.. don't remember where. There was a devourer down there and I was able to reach it because of being so high up.. I believe I was around level 8 and and I scored something like 129 damage.
My eyes popped out and I was like, "omg rangers rock". I don't have any mathematical analysis, but from experience I can say that my hits are higher on average if I maintain higher ground.

Shinto Sharingan · Oct 18, 2006, 12:17 AM // 00:17

Guys you realize you can shoot from the very top of that mountain thing next to the bow targets? When I do that it seems like my damage is alwasys higher.

CHUIU · Oct 18, 2006, 12:22 AM // 00:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobias Funke

Yes but the issue was how elevation raises you non-critcal hits damage.

No the issue when I posted my averages was simply damage delt. You turned it into damage delt in non-critical hits. Which is why I didn't want you to use my data, because I had included all critical hits in my sampling and to take them out would result in an unaccurate sampling of data.

Phoebe · Oct 18, 2006, 01:16 AM // 01:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHUIU

I said:
Quote:

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.

But you didn't.
You obviously know NOTHING about statistics if you think 10 samples has any significant accuracy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHUIU

And:
Quote:

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.

Again, you prove that you know nothing about statistics.
The number of sampling only affects the margin of errors.
Averages are compared, not margin of errors. The margin of error of all the statistics are added together to get the margin of error of the comparison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHUIU

You say:
Quote:

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.

No, he's saying you don't have a clue about what you're talking about, and he's right about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHUIU

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.

Comparing the average of 2 hits with a sword versus an average of 20 hits with an axe has more accuracy than comparing the average of 2 hits with a sword with the average of 2 hits with an axe.
But in either case the results will be statistically irrelevent due to the very low levels of sampling.

Unless your goal in this discussion is to troll or to prove your are ignorant, I would suggest you either STFU or do some serious sampling.

Beside it has already been PROVED that higher ground = more damage.

TadaceAce · Oct 18, 2006, 01:23 AM // 01:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeanBB

Yes, firing from above = more damage, firing from below = less damage. Accuracy isn't a factor any more than firing from level ground. Range is also affected.

This guy is right. You do more damage if you are higher than the enemy. Yes it will also make you more likely to hit the person in the head since it is a projectile just like all other projectiles (stone daggers, shock arrow, etc) but this doesn't increase damage unless the guy has like a dragon hat on with no armor. Hell I remember this was in the tutorial area in the GWNF preview weekend, did none of you pros do the tutorial!!!

Fact: Bow damage does increase when your height advantage increases. It also makes it more likely to do an AL check on the helmet. There is no evidence it increases your chance to crit. Since range is based on flat model, the higher up, your shot becomes a secant shot between the points equating the third dimension so your range technically increases. Although your range increases, it still takes the same amount of time to get to that spot because it moves in a 2 dimensional speed to the target thus meaning accuracy remains the same.

Plushie Penguin · Oct 18, 2006, 01:27 AM // 01:27

distance and a higher critical hit chance, that's all I know and that's all I care to bother to remember

oh, being below might reduce the arc time though... seems to be shorter at least to me

scrinner · Oct 18, 2006, 01:59 AM // 01:59

Just one second. Does the attack have to be a critical to do extra damage due to height?

XvArchonvX · Oct 18, 2006, 02:30 AM // 02:30

Honestly, what is wrong with you people? I can't believe how many people don't believe that you get a damage bonus from a greater height. The fact that some people posted single screen shots of 2 shots making the same damage number with some random bow from level ground and one from a gentle kill means nothing and you should be slapped for not having common sense.

The damage bonus is not tremendous but it is there. Grab a Candy Cane bow and take one shot on ground then take another from somewhere that is at least one story higher (like a bridge or something).

/sigh

Curse You · Oct 18, 2006, 02:37 AM // 02:37

How about this? Read this GuildWiki Article

http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Bow

Now go to the Isle of the Nameless and talk to the Master of Bows.

WLlama · Oct 18, 2006, 03:27 AM // 03:27

Just a note on why headshots are sometimes a good thing: Most people buy attribute head armor as soon as possible and then upgrade it with runes. Now, for those cheap peoples out there...3-4 new head pieces for 1.5k ea. O.o Oh noes! And so they continue to play with lower AL head armor to enjoy the runeage. (Note: I know this is less common now that rune salvaging is practically 100% effective and with factions you hit max AL much sooner but it still happens in my experience.)