Magic damage too random? (in General)

Hi all, new topic for discussion.

Is magic damage too random?

For example, for no apparent reason, I've observed myself hitting for 30% + less (Maybe even more...) than I would expect. If people want, I'll spend the time (when I get it) to record damages inflicted to show this.

Now, also from observation, it seems that physical damage is a lot tighter in it's spread. It doesn't suffer as much from the random number generator.

Physical to Magic attacks have always been balanced by physical attacks hitting more than once.

In essence, isn't losing around 30% total damage like losing a whole physical attack? Except that for physical attacks, this can be influenced by purchasing pth upgrades, while for magical attacks it's at the whim of the gods (well, RNG).

Wouldn't it stand to reason though that although sometimes you deal 30% less than this magical 'standard average damage' that should be dealt, that sometimes you deal 30% more damage than usual? So yes, sometimes you 'lose a whole physical attack,' but sometimes you may also gain the equivalant of one.

I guess I have no objection to your point that the randomness could be toned down, but I don't connect the randomness with the idea that it is weakening you. On the contrary- I see the occassional large magic hit as a large positive the mage has. With mages already being the biggest damage dealers in CB2 (aside from 30mill+ NW weapons that those half dozen or so at the top have), random massive magic damage seems like more of a plus than anything and it gives mages a shot at taking out a superior foe with the above average damage. Of course it works both ways, so it's give and take.

If it worked like that it would be cool! very streaky, but cool.

But it doesn't.

I've seen maybe 1 or 2 results every over my estimated damage. But loads far below it.

:(

I don't get much randomness on my coc tattoo but it does seem to hit less than it's level but I think that is because the people on my list have a toe/ac

For example: 485k coc is the most damage I did now even though my tattoo level is 512k x 4%named

So I should be doing the damage of my tattoo level but I think at most times I only got to around 90% of tattoo level as being my max damage.

For CoC, about 90% of level is average damage.

I've just seen 300K hit's (Or there abouts, for a 600K CoC) on 1PR characters.

Maybe I'll go get some results.

Well Vaynard is still correct in a way. You could assume that CoC is suppose to do 90% of it's level but sometimes does less. OR you could reverse your thinking and say to yourself that the CoC hits for about 63% of it's level but almost always gives you bonus damage up to 90% of it's level.

Instead of saying it does 30% less damage then it's suppose to sometimes you could say it does 43% MORE damage then it's suppose to when your lucky.

It's hard to say that CoC and FB are not performing at their effective level when clearly most of the time the damage is well above that simply because you are often fighting less then 5 people with it. You could have a case however if you were talking about the effective level versus the damage of a MM.

the thing is I know that coc on minions can go beyond 100% of dd in damage if it is against 1target, for tattoo it is different, I end up with 90% of tattoos level as max damage while on minion the max damage can be above dd level if it is against 1 target because 25% of dd is damage against 1 target out of 5, so the less targets there are the more damage the % of dd goes up per target, so going by only attacking 1 target you can end up with 25% more damage than dd level.

I have witnessed this happen myself while training minion coc.

It is possible that tattoo dd is 95% of its level and 5% as hp and then there is another 20% of tattoo level as hp bonus but im not sure about that, then again can anyone remember into beginnings of cb2 and remember if dd tattoos ever even had hp before the bonus hp was introduced?

OK, some results.

First, my CoC at time of fighting was 645,310 (143,465). I fought 5 Score 1 characters, with no armour, tattoos or AMF. Here are 34 results; (names taken out for ease of posting)

[423631]
[343791]
[488754]
[380486]
[575353]
[376004]
[658993]
[366191]
[418470]
[434123]
[500250]
[574361]
[474973]
[532255]
[519390]
[514096]
[494533]
[581895]
[348000]
[654466]
[581921]
[529301]
[407948]
[457455]
[460244]
[631940]
[481024]
[365729]
[639137]
[389753]
[466130]
[603749]
[333881]
[523534]

Average damage: 486,228
Minimum damage: 333,881
Maximum damage: 658,993

If the average damage is 90% of CoC level, it should have been around 580,779. The actually average is about 84% of this, or 75% of my CoC level.

The minimum is 69% and the max is 136% of the average damage done. Giving a fairly even range around the average. It's around +/- 30% each way.

Let's call it a third. This is still a big margin.

Now if the average is actually around 90% of the DD level, the minimum becomes 57% and the max 113% of the average. A larger swing into DD spells able to deal out much more lower than average damage than higher.

Is +/- A third of your average damage too random?

I'm leaning towards CoC s average damage to be 75% of it's level. Compared to MM s and FB s around 50%.

:)

From those numbers, I think I'd have to agree with you, GL.

136% as being your max damage is because it is trained on the minion, while on tattoo it is 90% of level as max damage. What happened to entire level of tattoo being the level of dd?

Soldier's familiar's Cone of cold hit ........ [529759]

My new max hit, let's see what that is a % of the level of dd.

.966536 this time.

Is there a penalty for reaping fun data on newbie?

what about fb?

is it the same?

But isn't tank damage just as variable? And isn't that a good thing? I sometimes lose to mages that I usually kill with 1/2 my tank HP to spare, and sometimes beat mages that usually annihilate me. I know I complained about DD variability a while back, but it provides variety and an opportunity to "harden" your strategy.

what strikes me as funny is GL is married to this 90% number and feeling cheated that he's not getting it, even after he's demonstrated that this isn't how it works.

;) Jon, I think it was something about CoC being buffed by 40%, somehow I added 40% to the (around 50%) it was.. 90% seemed to fit casual observations. My bad!

I'm more than sure now it's a 40% increase on the (around 50%) which would bring it up to (around) 70/75%.

Which seems to be backed by the quick testing I did.

But, my main point is the (around) 30% variation each way around the average that magic damage (at least CoC) has shown. Isn't that a little too reliant on the RNG?

;)

Your point about physical damage being 'less random' doesn't hold much weight, GL.

Take an average tank against an average mage or enchanter; he has a chance of hitting once, twice, or three times. Assuming hitting twice is 'normal' in this instance, and for simplicity's sake that every hit is for the same damge, he can hit for as little as 50% or as much as 150% of normal damage. The same tank against another average tank has a chance of hitting once, twice, or not at all, with 'normal' being one hit. He may hit for between zero and 200% of normal damage. I realise I'm simplifying things a fair bit, but you get my point, I'm sure.

Instead of saying 'my mage should hit for x, but it might be less', try 'my mage will hit for 0.7x, and it could be much more'. Then you can rely on the RNG. :)