Curse

Neo-LD · Aug 17, 2005, 09:31 PM // 21:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCS

What a long pointless thread....

I got through 3 pages of MY WAR HAS STR SO IT DOES MORE DAMAGE before I gave up hope of actually seeing proof for either side.

Well coming from someone who has read every post here (I think), we have covered several points with both sides putting together logical, spirited, and convincing arguments. Then, seeing as how both sides had an argument, and neither would become convinced of the other's logic, and both sides grew weary of repeating the same points over and over (even thought they were valid points) the debate grew more emotional and insults flew back and forth attacking one another for stupidity and inability to see the "obvious" truth. Now weve moved back into the debate mode and have gotten some interesting new arguments from both sides, and the debate has widened to include bow rangers, spirits, and the GvG metagame.

So no I would not say this thread was pointless. Just b/c there is no clear "winner" at the end (and there probably wont be) doenst mean that many a nub and veteran havent learned a thing or 2 from reading.

Tuna · Aug 17, 2005, 09:35 PM // 21:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acan Vishnu

Its my understand that hits on a moving enemy will always result in critical hits. It is also my understanding that critical hits will always deal the maximum damage possible for your weapon. If both of those statements are true, then why would the damage range of a weapon matter in that particular situation?

I certainly don't think that more testing would be amiss, but that doesn't mean that his results are worthless.

While I can't verify that, I can verify that I rarely get the same amount of dmg when critically using the same attack.

MCS · Aug 17, 2005, 09:53 PM // 21:53

There is no clear "winner" and won't a clear "winner" because both classes are useful depending on the build of the team.

My guild uses a necro/monk for healing. Well hell yes a monk primary would heal better but where else are we going to fit in putrid.

I guess it isn't pointless but the originally intended point, to prove that a war primary is better than a r/w, is gone.

Wilymo · Aug 17, 2005, 10:05 PM // 22:05

Ranger/warroirs do have their place, their fast attack rate WITHOUT risking death makes them a viable asset to a team looking to spread poison/bleading fast while only doing 5% less dmg than warriors, but I will get to that later. They also can do another thing surprisingly well, mass criple. Hamstrings + apply poison + sever artery + gash = condition purgatory. Condition purgatory = hell for the person its on. Rangers have more armor against eles, Warriors have more armor against physical, cancels eachother out? Agreed. The only thing left is DPS and survivability. Everyone keeps saying how much dmg the "strength" attribute gives. It really doesnt give that much guys. Like someone said early....10 points in Strength will give you a 5% dmg bonus. Please. I would much rather be able to spam TF and be able to have a stance CONSTANTLY on while maintaning TF constantly as well. People say skill spamming isnt that important. BS. 33% Faster attack rate is aweome, and the best part about it is that you dont have to worry about any AoE spells doing double dmg on you, no worries on putrid, no worries and someone that sees you are using Frenzy and spams it so you are down in a matter of seconds, nope, none of that. 5% dmg or practically unlimited energy. You decide. Now i know you guys are griping about how someone could just energy drain you. Please. How many times does the MELEE role in a GvG/HoH match get energy drained. =.= Tigers fury does NOT cost too much energy using. I keep seeing that everywhere I look, that is not hte case. I can use it constantly wihtout losing ANY energy, it regens that fast. I know warriors please stop drooling, it will all be over soon. So while you warriors are risking your lives casting frenzy, which still costs 5 energy, and only lasts 8 seconds, and could get AoEd to death, and will eventually run out of energy due to your idea of "IAS skill spamming". Im not saying warriors dont have their place, they most certainly do. Im just standing up for my build and proving that ranger/warriors can be just as deadly if not even more deadly than the average/above average warrior. If you want to continue this debate with me outside the forums, then too bad cuz i only do this when im bored or waiting for gvg to start :P Happy Hunting.

WilyMo

Aug 17, 2005, 10:12 PM // 22:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acan Vishnu

Its my understand that hits on a moving enemy will always result in critical hits. It is also my understanding that critical hits will always deal the maximum damage possible for your weapon. If both of those statements are true, then why would the damage range of a weapon matter in that particular situation?

I certainly don't think that more testing would be amiss, but that doesn't mean that his results are worthless.

First because he's testing in Random arena, where not everyone is wearing 60 AL armor.

Second because a moving target isn't an auto-crit. It's a moving target if you hit them from behind. So hitting a person just "x" turning wont be helpful.

Third because even if you think all the controls are right, it's better to take multiple points of data just to make sure none of them are skewed.

S H I N O B I · Aug 17, 2005, 10:23 PM // 22:23

Well, I would say, in conclusion, that R/W is indeed an effective build. But a R/W being effective IMO does not hinder the W/x's effectiveness either, since each build has a different strategy that works depending on different situations, All in all, anti-R/W people don't need to feel threatened about R/W's taking your place... W/x's are here to stay, and so will R/W's. Different styles of philosophy for diff builds adds diversity to a game that is already crowded with cookie-cutter characters. Lets end this thread on a happy note... ^.^

Ristaron · Aug 18, 2005, 07:22 AM // 07:22

This subject has been beaten to death, kicked, and urinated on. Repeatedly.
This thread looks like it was ripped from an elephant's ass. Forcibly. With laxatives.

R/W and Warriors are both tanks, both have their own strengths, both have their weaknesses.
And, by the way, I play Ranger/Warrior, and I am not arrogant.
Actually, I was one of the first people to start the Ranger/Warrior trend... It was my choice after Ranger/Mesmer was nerfed. In the betas I was getting riddiculed because of my choice, but I knew that when I got certain skills I found descriptions of: I would be a better tank than most of the arrogant warriors playing.
Back then, when HB wasn't elite, I could have used Apply Poison + HB and followed it up with Victory is Mine while pumping out lots of attacks for low energy with Expertise+TF. I would have been able to tank half the game. When my R/W got out of the betas and I found my beloved HB was elite and not available until the friken END OF THE GAME I knew that axes could provide the same.
I used an Ithas Bow the moment I could wield it, and am planning to soon switch to my tank method.
I laugh in the faces of all the people in the betas and early release who scorned me for choosing R/W. The combination is far better than your pitiful W/Mo who you try to keep alive with the occasional Orison and Healing Breeze while getting attacked by several air ele spikers who ignore your macho armour.

ICURADik · Aug 18, 2005, 08:23 AM // 08:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackace

First because he's testing in Random arena, where not everyone is wearing 60 AL armor.

Second because a moving target isn't an auto-crit. It's a moving target if you hit them from behind. So hitting a person just "x" turning wont be helpful.

Third because even if you think all the controls are right, it's better to take multiple points of data just to make sure none of them are skewed.

The 5% bonus from the side, and 10% bonus from behind are ignored on crits. I don't see any other way a 12 skill Eviserate is hitting for 92, unless its a crit. The test was more than adequate.

Strength really is nowhere as good as people think. Only working on skills and at a pathetic 1% per attribute. Maybe if it worked on all attacks it would be a good point of argument.

I've already gone over how in a realistic situation with a ward against melee up and QZ, a r/w will hit approx 75% of the time, while a warrior will hit approx 62.5% of the time over an extended period. This is ~16% more hits. 16% more hits along with a constant 33% attack speed increase and the ability to easily use FGJ will mean that the R/W can consistantly start a knockdown chain within a 5-6 second period. A warrior might do this once, blowing all his energy... while a ranger can repeat it over and over.

Aug 18, 2005, 09:05 AM // 09:05

Theres a formula on the site for testing criticals.

JackOften · Aug 18, 2005, 10:44 AM // 10:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blackace

First because he's testing in Random arena, where not everyone is wearing 60 AL armor.

Second because a moving target isn't an auto-crit. It's a moving target if you hit them from behind. So hitting a person just "x" turning wont be helpful.

Third because even if you think all the controls are right, it's better to take multiple points of data just to make sure none of them are skewed.

I did it in Old Ascalon too (with Wild Blow vs Normal Hits for convenience), although without noting the results (The damage difference was even smaller there, so I thought for purely empirical testing this wouldn't be adequate). It wasn't a single testrun anyway, and one of the games I tested it in was conveniently a long stalemate (the one the 92 vs 100 number is from, all others stayed within the same ranges) - so I did get to compare across 2 AL 60 targets, the damages where the same. Just to be safe I had both Executioners Strike and Evisc fired at the same target whenever he ran with his back turned to me (not that it wouldn't have been obvious if a hit didn't crit) - and damage was identical, making sure I'd actually rolled a crit.

The Eviscerate was level 14 by the way, in case someone tried to follow up with the math.

Edit : The whole point of this is really just going out and putting the guides math to the test. We're not trying to deduce formulas off of it, but prove that the current ones are within reasonable accuracy - and with errors in supposed damage and actual damage spanning a measly +/- 3% I think we're pretty safe.

From that in turn, we can gather that theres no magical hidden property that makes strength not suck ass.

JackOften · Aug 18, 2005, 10:57 AM // 10:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuna

God help us all if you ever go into science or engineering. You did 2 tests with a weapon that has a range of 6-28. Regardless of strength you are going to get drastically different numbers. If you want to do a proper test you would have to do more like 100 hits each in an controled environment.

God help you if you ever go into preschool or anything. You could at least bother to read up on the basics of damage calculations and test them for yourself, it takes an entire 2 minutes.

JackOften · Aug 18, 2005, 11:18 AM // 11:18

[Effective Damage] = [Max Weapon Damage] × 2(( 5 × [Attribute Level] - 40 ) / 40)

[Effective Damage] = 28 × 2(( 5 × 14 - 40 ) / 40)

42 = 28 × 1.75

So thats a 42 base critical hit damage - there might be a rounding error in there, I remember seeing 41s. Now we take the level 18 Eviscerate for +50, and whats 42 + 50?

Hey look guys, that can't be 92 can it?

Also, earlier I said Evisc and Exec damages were identical. I could have sworn they were. Either way this wasn't the most extensive series of tests in the history of mankind, because so much of the groundwork that gets repeatedly ignored here has been done to death by much, much more thorough people.

Also, weapon mastery 16 instead of 14 would make this hit deal roughly 20-22 more damage (once you factor in the crithit modification). Teehee, who said arguing with morons couldn't yield interesting finds.

Edit : Actually the overlap is coincidential. Theres still mistakes all over there, cookie to the first person who finds them (heres a hint : it was done with a PvP char).

This of course brings up the question how accurate the combat mechanics info still is.

JackOften · Aug 18, 2005, 12:30 PM // 12:30

Wow, so this all looked so much easier in theory - turns out while the actual damage numbers listed in the combat mechanics treatise are perfectly accurate, the formulas there once plugged in are either highly erroneous or done in a different form than what I've learned.

The poster of that guides gets a factor of 1.41 out of the following equation :
2(( 5 × 12 - 40 ) / 40)

I've tried to backtrack through that, but it just doesn't start making alot of sense. Even once you assume that "(( 5 × 12 - 40 ) / 40)" has to resolve to 0.7, factor 0.7*40 (which ironically equals max axe damage, coincidential?) the 5 x 12 doesn't fit. Either the multiplication needs to equate to 68 (5*13.6 is my best guess), or the parenthesis are off in some very weird way.

So far my guess is that the attribute level number there should be approximately 12 + 0.4 - 0.35 per bonus attribute level, including the +4 for crits the poster lists. The numbers are still off to the high side by about a point or two, but since the method of testing is prone to errors we can let it slide for now.

For completions sake, heres the AL 60 testing numbers, with Wild Blow vs Elementalists with a physical weapon and no enchantments or stances used (so 20% modifier on the weapon and thats it) :

12 mastery - 48 - MDF1.41 (see guide)
14 mastery - 51 - MDF 1.51
16 mastery - 55 - MDF 1.63

And since I'm not not confident the majority of str-happy forumites will comprehend as much as the opening phrase of the last 4 posts, let me make sure this is clear : The str crithit test is still perfectly viable. This is a complete tangent on actual weapon damage and attribute level effects. Strength still blows, kthx.

Edit :
Appended what I'll dub the MDF (Mysterious Damage Factor) for now, to show how testing lines up with the guide entry. So far MDF seems to increase a steady 0.055 or so every level in an attribute over 12. These tests are axe-only crits so far, but thank god wild blow is a generic attack - I'll be doing more of these later on.

If this lines up over multiple weapons with some regularity, it should be pretty easy to put together an appended or revised equation for critical hit damage

JackOften · Aug 18, 2005, 12:40 PM // 12:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuna

While I can't verify that, I can verify that I rarely get the same amount of dmg when critically using the same attack.

Go Wild Blow the level 20 Necro mobs - Jade somethings - outside Amnoon Oasis. Your damage will be the same, every single time.

Aug 18, 2005, 01:11 PM // 13:11

People were wondering why you didnt use wild blow. Iirc a level 16 customized axe dealt 108 damage with Eviscerate from what Ensign said. I think Zrave got a 92 or 96 with a level 14 axe hit. Meh, it's 9am and all this was said hours ago so I'm sure its roughly translated but we did come to the conclusion that 92 is a bit low for an axe critical with Eviscerate. could be just a bit off stuff off on either side though.

Jake · Aug 18, 2005, 01:51 PM // 13:51

I think it's low because he's not using a +15% mod on his weapon. With +15% your 55 crit at 16 axes becomes 63, which is what I am used to seeing. Just use a +15% in stance collectors axe and keep frenzy on, you should use max damage to keep your data consistent then just fluctuate your strength from there, no confusion.

Off the top of my head with 16 axes and a perfect +35% weapon, 13 strength, I normal crit for 63, eviscerate and executioner strike crit for 112 each.

JackOften · Aug 18, 2005, 02:00 PM // 14:00

Yeah, MDF stays the same though, since it discounts weapon mods (the 20% mod has been subtracted too in my 1.41-1.63 tests). Thank god the math is entirely consistent on that one thing

Edit : In the original test BlackAce, just to get that 12% AP modifier from strength on some of the largest possible numbers I used moving targets with +damage bonii (in case it worked on those too) instead of Wild Blow. Admittedly they could have been a few points higher with a 15% mod (92 becomes 106, 100 becomes 115).

Edit 2 : As for finding the correct formula, I suppose it would be a matter of testing in attribute level steps down to 9 (minreq PvP) and later 3 (minreq period) and simply crafting a formula that approximates the movement of the MDF, since we now know the current one can't be more than a weak approximation either (especially as it can resolve to divide by zero, it can impossibly be the one used for actual calculations).

It could quite possibly make more sense to backtrack further though, but I'll get on that some later day. Right now I'd rather play a bit

Edit 3 : No wonder the 1.41 looked suspicious - thats the squrt of 2. So the original posting intends us to read the result of the parenthesis as 'to the power of'. That still leaves the problem open that it can equal 0 with valid attribute levels (we need a power of greater than 0 and smaller than 1 for the equation to produce a realistic result).

Infact for now (where I'm really going to be giving this a rest), this leaves us at the same point as before - with an arbitrary factor to describe the crithit increase over base. I'm well aware that we're raising max damage of the weapon crithit or no, but none of the equations have so far let me plug in 16s without breaking down and crying. Infact I'm still not clear on where the +4 weapon level comes in and how it relates to the 41% damage increase, because a +4 over 12 is 15%. Infact nowhere do 4 attribute levels alone equal 41% damage. From 8 to 12 for example they're a mere 29.3% - from 0 to 4 14.4%.

ElderAtronach · Aug 18, 2005, 02:15 PM // 14:15

Since when did this thread turn into a debate about how much dmg evisc crit does? Way to hijack the thread, Jack.

ICURADik · Aug 18, 2005, 05:56 PM // 17:56

A Power of 0 gives 1...
I.E. 2^0=1

Just stop man.

Allranges from 0 to 12 yield a 41% increase over every interval.

Ex.(0-4): 50/35.6 = 1.4045
Ex.(8-12): 100/70.7 = 1.4164

In actuality the number is the same every time, but this is using rounded values.

JackOften · Aug 18, 2005, 06:43 PM // 18:43

Oh, right I just looked at the table instead of checking wether it was a 41% increase from the base - big duh. Some of the equations seem to still be able to get to the power of 1s in them, and when that happens the results seem out of line with whats ingame.

Anyway the root of the problem was copy and paste removing the formatting necessary to read to the power of. I guess since real 18s can't happen now that its clear that the +4 attribute levels don't need to be plugged into the equation as well, it kind of solves itself though - thats why it just wasn't quite working yet.

But yeah, figured that out 5 minutes ago after digging up a scientific calculator on teh internetz. What a waste of time -_- (Although its interesting, you get 2^-1 at 0 attrib, or 0.5)