Thorough Test 2 (and 3) (in General)

New thread, the old one was getting cluttered.

First, I untrained my BL. So here are the results for just DD = Str.

Magic
1: 14,988
2: 18,879
3: 12,438
4: 12,579
5: 15,177
6: 12,013
7: 20,209
8: 11,535
9: 20,897
10: 18,250
11: 19,218
12: 20,074
13: 14,566
14: 11,585
15: 17,613
16: 11,778
17: 11,353
18: 21,076
19: 15,716
20: 11,746

Physical
1: 22,127
28,982
2: 19,494
31,237
3: 19,362
29,934
4: 26,416
31,346
5: 21,722
19,206
6: 22,081
28,341
7: 29,551
27,121
8: 27,310
25,757
9: 25,465
29,749
10: 29,895
30,463
11: 26,092
27,220
12: 30,154
22,105
13: 30,154
22,105
14: 24,513
28,414
15: 20,920
26,287
16: 21,329
26,109
17: 25,909
31,326
18: 31,839
26,282
19: 27,656
25,892
20: 30,041
30,377

Next, I re-trained BL back to as close as possible to the 60% limit. It seems like it's about 1/5 of str now. :)

So my Str is 49,014 and BL is 9,786 for a total of 58,800. I trained my FB to equal 58,800 and ran the test again. I didn't get much new physical damage data, as the target died in the first round of melee before I could attack with my Tank, but we've got enough from the first test and I'll re post that here. (Physical damage range hasn't changed for this test from the first test, only magical)

Magic
1: 22,566
2: 15,270
3: 22,902
4: 26,782
5: 14,397
6: 14,414
7: 16,293
8: 21,157
9: 22,843
10: 13,905
11: 20,437
12: 23,925
13: 16,764
14:21,119
15: 27,162
16: 22,661
17: 25,332
18: 13,709
19: 14,612
20: 23,035

I think the first thing that jumps out at me is nothing can match BL. for around 1/5th of your damage XP, BL gives a 60% increase.

Physical damage repost from first test.

Physical
1: 49,545
35,779
2: 45,694
36,537
3: 47,403
35,430
4: 32,732
35,121
5: 31,238
37,888
6: 48,592
42,689
7: 39,577
37,504
8: 48,259
35,704
9: 44,121
44,073
10: 34,092
39,764
11: 39,804
39,902
12: 35,707
46,206
13: 31,612
46,084
14: 37,958
35,732
15: 45,896
32,720
16: 49,000
46,841
17: 43,289
48,291
18: 49,526 - only round with single hit
19: 44,348
39,710
20: 48,083
31,105

In another way, (if we assume DD and Physical damage is equal) there is no way DD spells can match a 60% damage increase for a 20% XP increase. As DD is linear, a 20% XP increase will only increase DD by 20%.

DD will always be behind physical damage modified by BL.

The levels of BL + ST isn't the same as a lvl 58000 DD spell, your spell has more overall experience trained into it.

I'm not looking at XP expenditure, but the performance of both physical and magical damage at the same level.

It wouldn't matter if I trained half as much XP into Str, and got the total level from item boosts. It's level versus level, not XP costs versus XP costs.

in other words, you give the tank an experience advantage :p

np though, was just commenting :)

If this gets physical damage reduced you owe me a drink...;)

"in other words, you give the tank an experience advantage :p

np though, was just commenting :)"

;) Hehehehe, he already has a NW advantage!

Johnny, I'm not looking at getting physical damage reduced. Just to get everything clear.

And don't you owe me a beer? :P

I'll get the beers in if you go to the butchers and get the cumberland sausage

>_<

That's given me nightmares!

Oh OK then, you just can't beat free beer! ;)

Mmmm. Free beer. And rhubarb.

he doesn't have a NW advantage but a money disadvantage ;)

LOL Shade! I love your thinking! :D

Archery now only gives a chance of attacking in the second round of ranged doesn't it? And it's still a 1/4 Str for 100%?

So in essence for 25% XP you gain a 50% damage increase.

Just taking the first phyical hit per round versus the magic hit for that round, in the first test here (number 2) physical damage is on average 1.6 times larger than magical. For the next test (number 3) it's 2.1 times larger.

Personally, I think that's fine. I am using a BoNE, the largest type in the game If I was using a smaller wepaon, my damage would be closer to my DD level.

I have two problems though.

First, the BoNE has obviously taken my over the standard damage range. This isn't refelcted in my power rating, and should be.

Secondly, misses or multiple hits really confuse things. Personally, I'd say it's easier (in general) for physical damage to land more than one hit per round, than it is to get down to say a 50% chance of landing a single hit.

That is to say, Tank will face more opponents without the Dex, Evasion and/or pth reduction to take them down to 50% on one hit, than they will with.

:)

is this still just the first round of melee? if so, you should change to CoC, since in this test fb has already fired THREE rounds. And as i said, unlearn EC, i bet you miss most of the time, showing how important DX is, and how tanks require it

Pit, that doesn't matter.

I don't care about damage over all. I don't care that FB has already fired three times.

I don't care about dex until you can tell me the number of hits per round Jon has based physical versus magical damage on. And then I could just adjust the physical damage results to take that into account.

I could use CoC, which has a higher damage then FB. Or I could use MM, which has the lowest single target damage of the three DD spells.

I choose FB because it is the middle for single targets, more than MM, less than CoC. Plus I just didn't want to untrain any more as well.

Please, don't think this has anything to do with my strat, or how well I can kill. It's just a compariosn of an equal level DD to an equal level physical attack.

im just saying CoC would be a more fair comparison because it waits until melee like melee dmg does, fb has less damage because it goes early, thats the advantage of fb. so i dont think you're making an accurate comparison. and i think dx is important because with similar prs, no char will have st = to a mages DD because tanks NEED dx. granted thats not what jon was looking for in that earlier test, but dx is important, and because of that no tank will have st equal to a mages DD of similar pr. since you dont care about the number of hits, why don't you show damage with EC and without EC, so we can see the variation there.

Because I really don't want to do any more untraining?

Dex doesn't matter. At all. It doesn't matter how people have set thier teams up, that isn't being tested.

FB is the average, the middle ground out of the DD spells. It doesn't matter that it has some sort of 'advantage' because it fires in ranged. I'm only interested in melee damage to comapre it to physical melee damage.

I could plow my EC XP into Dex on my Tank. Would that make a difference to the results I posted aready? I doubt it.

This isn't a Tank versus Mage strategy comparison, is just a direct look at how both types of damage are now working.

Plus, you could also say this doesn't really matter until someone get's to 100K and gets past the low level DD reduction.

*shrug*

If the test was flawed, ignore the numbers. I tried. :(

im not criticizing so much as making suggestions, to see just how important dx is, untraining ec would make a good comparison to the existing data, as would comparing coc in addition

single FB minions to be "effective" are trying to kill in ranged rounds, or atleast decimate an opponents offense before melee.

I stated on your other post, the real way to get more accurate results than what you had last night was to equip an MgS on your mage to nullify EC temporarily. Then run through the test 10 times with the tank, with no EC benefit. The damage numbers you showed without BL are almost exactly what I predicted they should have been on your post last night, so no need to untrain anything.

If noone is willing to loan you an MgS for this test, I will reimburse you to rent the cheapest MgS in rentals right now for the point of testing.

Truly ranged damage of FB should be calculated into your "theory", and what I would really like to see is total DI for each minion if they both live to the end of the fight, or the total dmg inflicted by each until the first minion dies....

Maybe you could try this, (not sure if you would live or not) equip MgS on FB minion, leave in front. Fight 10x's and record total DI for tank. Move tank to front, loan weap to me for 1hr, so he is not doing dmg, runt test again 10x and record total DI for mage.

Even if you can't get the DI numbers (your mininons die) I would like to see how the tank fares with single round dmg without the mage casting EC to help him out.

now wait a minute you arent being fair in your data, your ec is over 37k. that gives your tank quit a nice advantage there. both in the ST difference and the DX difference. and also you are using the "middle of the road" DD spell, but the highest possible physical dmg weapon.

haha, you know, since we seem to be the only ones partaking in this, me you and velvet should just make a chat room ;)

I will partake.

Brock Samson
Score / PR / MPR: 989,823 / 617,484 / 550,974 Net Worth: $21,858,528

Shimmer
Score / PR / MPR: 1,388,707 / 579,725 / 579,725
Net Worth: $11,030

Shimmer defeated Brock Samson after 4 rounds of combat
Ranged Hits / Shots / Avg Damage 0 / 0 / 0 4 / 4 / 21,996
Melee Hits / Blows / Avg Damage 0 / 0 / 0 2 / 2 / 164,372 DD Cast / Avg Damage 4 / 119,208 0 / 0

The mage won, mages are overpowered!

welcome to the party sefton. :)

Just so it dosen't get missed before you waste anymore time testing (again)

Read what I said earlier (and last night) about equipping an MgS to nullify EC on your next round of testing.... BL is a known factor we can calculate, EC I have no idea what it might be doing to the results!

:P I'd have to get two ECs... I'm not going to. I'm not going to run any more test. There' enough info here.

As for why Dex isn't important;

Let's assume that the average DD hit is 15K and the average physical is 30K.

When testing 20 Dex versus 2 Dex, physical damage lands 50% of the time. Making both sets of damage equal.

Now, you train a miniscule amount into dex, to raise your chance of landing a hit to 100%. o keep things fair, you train the exact same amount into your DD. You need around 30 Dex to land a single hit every time. I'll be generous and call that 50 XP. That increases your DD damage by a couple of points, probably not even a single percent.

Yest your physical damage increases by double.

Then you add a little more to land two hits all the time (in conjunction with the +50 on yoru weapon.

Again, to keep thing fair, you train the same amount (a couple of hundred more levels) on your DD spell. Your Magical damage increase a little amount, while your physical has doubled again.

Next, you add another +100 to your weapon, which still keeps it under your WA.

Your physical damage has increased by another 50%, while your DD has stayed the same.

See why Dex and number of hts doesn't really matter? ;)

"and also you are using the "middle of the road" DD spell, but the highest possible physical dmg weapon."

Yeah! :D I was waiting for that to be mentioned! ;)

Which is why I *don't* (just fo Sefton!) think that physical damage is overboard, or tanks are overpowered.

Using a lower wepaon, an average, might bring memore into line with my FB damage, while CoC might be closer to my BoNE.

;)

But, chaging from FB to CoC (ignore the retraining loss) doesn't change my PR in any way. Equipping a lower weapon might, or rather should. :)

the st difference is also increasing your phys dmg as well, since the have some -37k st

you're right in that since your not doing total DI anymore, dx isn't really a factor though

wow that is a really great theory Gent.... unfortunately, most characters in the game have opted to use more than a base dex on their tanks, so your theory is completly irrelevant....

I have almost 1mil dex, a +50 weapon, and a 1.4mil ToA... and still just manage to get double hits with a few tripples from time to time.

Throw a pair of decent sized DB's into the mix, and I am still missing on strikes. Explain one more time how exp., trained to dex dosen't matter? Me and my 1 mil dex aren't quite getting it.

******************************************

It is becoming fairly obvious that you are only doing these tests to try to achieve one solitary result. Now that you are begining to see that your theory is unraveling (faster than your comments on the weapon allowance thread) you are gonna take your ball and go home.

I know there were only a few characters giving actual input to your results, but hopefully other players atleast looked at the results to see the balance of DD to Melee truly is there, or atleast fairly close (which is at best what we can hope for)

I'm 100% sure CB doesn't recognise negative numbers.

And the str reduction is miniscule. I dont think the loss of 20 Str would even increase damage by a single percent. ;)

But, if negative Str does increase the damage you take, WooT! EC rocks!!!! Hard!!!! All those 20 Str walls are gonna crumble! ;)

OK if we start with GL's consession that tanks are not over powered, all that is left is to answer VP's piercing light of truth question:

"My orginial question stands.

A mage and tank with equally trained ammount of exp and similar armor would have similar PR. If neither char had a weapon equiped who would win the fight?

So why should a tank be charged additional PR to equip what he needs to use to become equal to the Mage?

If anyone could answer me that, I will lay the topic to rest."

how can you be so sure it doesnt recognize negative numbers? it certainly displays them as negative in post battle stats

pit,

DX still is a factor as with 20dex vs. 20dex. (no EC) he is only going to hit 50% of the time (slightly higher depeinding on his PTH)

DX must be factored into the equation ST/DX should Equal DD EXP. in order to see accurate numbers.

"So why should a tank be charged additional PR to equip what he needs to use to become equal to the Mage?"

It shouldn't. But a weapon at max WA is far more powerful than the DD spell on the mage. Weapon allowance is huge (the whole 2/3 of all XP trained is totally untrue... it's far greater than that. Someone, I forget who, found the real formula, and it works like a champ.) If you clamp weapon allowance more appropriately, then the issue is moot.

VP. How much dex? Equal to Str? Why when it's wasted versus a 20 Dex target? Dex doesn't matter...

Sef! :D

"My orginial question stands.

A mage and tank with equally trained ammount of exp and similar armor would have similar PR. If neither char had a weapon equiped who would win the fight?

So why should a tank be charged additional PR to equip what he needs to use to become equal to the Mage?

If anyone could answer me that, I will lay the topic to rest."

Simple.

I'm sure that DD is compared to some weapon, be it a Tulwar or a Katana. For any weapon of that size, or lower, Tanks shouldn't get any PR increase. (I toyed with having thier PR reduced, as they are working under power to the standard, but then it would get silly with pople sticking Daggers on Enchanters).

Weapons above that size should gain an aditional PR increase for being over powered to the standard. And to show the increase in relative power to everyone else. :)

I would also like specials having thier own PR increase.

I've answered yours, my turn!

Why should a 100K NW Whip add the same PR as a 100K NW Morg?

Oh, I will also add that I do think BL is too much though. ;)

you didnt answer my st question ;) and i think special weapons should be counted higher in weapon allowance, but shouldnt add pr(unless over WA of course). DD has their own special advantages such as attacking multiple opponents or attacking from the rear, and there's no extra pr for those advantages

The negative number stuff? I can't answer that. only Jon can. :/

would be interesting to know, but i doubt well find out ;)

Been thinking more about my answer to Sef. What I seem to be asking for is a Weapon Allowance.

It's size is based on MPR to the NW of the 'standard' weapon.

As MPR increases, you can use a larger and larger 'standard' weapon.

Bigger based weapons should be smaller, or increase PR. Conversly smaller base wepaons shuould be able to grow larger before increasing PR.

The only way I can see this happening is with PR weighting for wepaons. The standard being even, with smaller weapons having a smaller weighting and larger a larger.

Tack on any weighting increase ue to special properties after.

:)

I think that would sort out perceived power levels. :)

Sounds fairly reasonable to me, I would hate to have to weight them myself though :)

again, you shouldn't do it with PR weights but WA weights, because as velvet said, its not fair to add pr for the requirement to do dmg. higher WA weights for bigger weapons, smaller weights for lower weapons

But that's just it, if you are using a weapon of the appropriate size, you won't go over your WA limit and your PR won't increase. :) If you do, it does, and (in my opinion) so it should! ;)

"The only way I can see this happening is with PR weighting for wepaons. The standard being even, with smaller weapons having a smaller weighting and larger a larger. "

your last post wasnt talking about modifying WA, it was talking about adding pr weight to weapons

Gent I thought we finalized this conversation in another forum. PR weights on lower weapons would have NO bearing because NOONE uses them past a certain point.

Right now unknown to you, a dagger has a PR weight of .1, but a MH has a PR weight of .2. You can feel free to forge that dagger all the way up to 100MIL NW and you won't suffer a PR increase, but a 51mil MH you will.......

Ok that isn't really true, but WHO HAS A 100MIL NW DAGGER?!!??!?!?!?!?!!? Sorry about the caps but we have been talking about this so long my laptop has figured out how to type it itself!

Why on gods green earth would anyone want to use a 2HF with twice the NW of a VB, just because the PR weights allowed it? NO ONE. Your argument is ludacris

while you are on the subject of PR increases.... why don't you ask for a .1 increase on all Corns over 50mil NW?

*shrug*

Giving people reasons to use lower weapon is another topic. It's ponitless making a grand change to weapon PR weighting if you only do it for the ones people use..

Persoanlly, I think a lot of weapons could be removed from the game.

*shrug*

"while you are on the subject of PR increases.... why don't you ask for a .1 increase on all Corns over 50mil NW?"

What?

"Why on gods green earth would anyone want to use a 2HF with twice the NW of a VB, just because the PR weights allowed it? NO ONE. Your argument is ludacris"

Why would anyone want to use an Exec twice the Networth of a BoNE?

Look, ignore that I said whip, ignore that a 100K NW whip doesn't exist. instead of skirting around my question, would you mind just answering it? I've changed and re done test, I've answered all questions (I haven't missed) asked of me.

Please just give me an answer to mine.

2 final thoughts on an already overly exhausted exercisize in futility.

In a way the PR weighting you ask for already exists due to Base NW of the items. A specialty item with a base NW multitudes higher than a "normal" weapon has already been "weighted"

Second.... The "normal" weapons you would think should be eliminated serve a very important purpose. They give new players some variety. It allows them to try some different things and expirement when starting a tank based team. How many new players would we retain if their choices were whip, dagger, or DD spell? Of course if we were all to look back to our early days playing we would know, the difference between a 2HF or a battle axe is negligble at best, and all that experimintation is futile, but in the grand scheme of things, that experimintation, and the ability to set goals of what to buy next is what kept us playing.

The weapons are designed to be outgrown by anyone planning on running a successful tank for a long period of time, as there is no way one of the bonuses granted by specialty weapons would not be more benefical to any team than a x50000 dagger.

I can only pray that I have shown you the absolute irrelevance of what you are asking for, if not I am done trying, as you can't get blood from a rock no matter how hard you try.

And to make certain I understand that question I will reiterate.

Why should one weapon which is less "useful" but equal in NW affect PR identically to one which is more "useful" (please please please do not worry about the term "useful", I will gladly insert ANY weapon's name that would still fit the statement)

Tough question to answer. My completely OFF the wall guess is that it would be a programming nightmare to correctly weight and then adjust all weights of all weapons when a change is made to one of them.

Unlike armor, weapons "usefulness" is comparible, as in, a katana is more useful than a tulwar but less useful than a BoNE. If a change is made to a Katana, it could in theory, be now better than a BoNE and thus all weapons would have to be re-adjusted every time a change is made to one of them.

In armor, you cannot really say an Adam is more or less useful than a MC, it might be for your application, but the reverse true for some other application.

Tossing out out any "special" powers of weapons, the only way to determine utility is by how much damage it does and whether it is 1 or 2 handed. That said, I could see a programming challenge to keep up with a system of weights on weapons.

I would lump a Bone into the "specialty weapons" group based on it's highest base damage output, and low upgrade costs.... Anyone seeking maxium dmg output to all players regardless of AC would be best suited to build up a BoNE therefore I see no reason it should be weighted any differntly than a VB.

Again, the lower upgrade costs (due to higher base dmg, and lower base NW) take care of the weighting for you on this item.

If someone disagrees fabulous that is why this community is so great.... we all get our own opinion.

Along the lines of Seftons response (since we are actually speaking sense now).....

The usefulness or non-usefulness of one weapon vs another is completly strategy, and opponent specifc. What makes a MH great in my strat, could be useless to someone else. I would never give up free life leech for reduced Protection/AC. Someone else may decide increased dmg output is not worth a 2H dex penalty..... Each person has to decide for themselves what is most worthwhile in their own strat. Any additional weighting would only be useful to further funnel what weapons everyone would choose.

I still don't understand why your not putting in Dex and counting ranged rounds.

Right now your just graphing the average damage curve of mages with FB and warriors with a super weapon... and your not even doing a really good job at that because damages fluctuate so much. Just take a look at the FB, sometimes it gets smaller as you put more exp into it which doesnt look right to me.

Sorry VP, you have missed the point. Please answer my question. Sefton kindly re worded it for me.

Exec to BoNE. Katana to ELS. What ever. Why should a clearly (no weapon usefulness is not completly strategy. A ELS is more useful than a dagger, no matter how you look at it...) inferior weapon add the same PR as a better wepaon of the same NW?

Please, just give your thoughts on this.

VP, you went straight to the special powered items. Those items usefulness is definately strat specific, however; I do not believe you can make the same statement about weapons that are not "specially powered".

If they are both one-handed and one has a higher damage base, neither has any special powers, and the NW are equal, then the "usefulness" of the higher based weapon is "greater"

"I still don't understand why your not putting in Dex and counting ranged rounds."

;) Secrets....

"Right now your just graphing the average damage curve of mages with FB and warriors with a super weapon... and your not even doing a really good job at that because damages fluctuate so much. Just take a look at the FB, sometimes it gets smaller as you put more exp into it which doesnt look right to me."

I'm not doing a good job? That digs. ;) How could I do a better?

FB never get's smaller the more XP you put in it. You might notice less damage, that's because the damage is random over a range. Take a look at the first post. 11K to 20K damage. That has nothing to do with my testing...

a better weapon has an inherently higher nw, because they are rare and you must spend more on them. so while they dont affect pr directly, they do affect you char by taking that nw away from other places. such as a smaller weapon, which would have higher nw, if you add in the cost for a base, which if over the WA could add pr on the big weapon but not the small weapon. Big weapons have an inherent amount of nw added in due to base cost.

besides, mages already have a pr/nw advantage over tanks, why make it even harder for the tanks :P

use CoC instead of fb, using a top end weapon why not top end DD since youre just counting the first round of melee. seems unfair to use the best of one and the middle of the road for the other

with non-specialty items, I don't think it really has any bearing to the overall strategy of the game. As I said earlier the majority of them are merely stepping stones to give new players something to play around with and aspire to get next.

At those low levels, the NW difference of the small weaps., will put certain characters over their WA regardless, so it takes care of itself. For the discrepencies that do exist, it is such a short period of time for most characters I don't think it really has an impact.

For instance. I saved and saved and saved to get myself a kat when I started playing. I used a lucerne hammer while I was saving up. I finally found a katana in auctions I could afford and I was so exiceted I could afford it I overpaid by something like 1 1/2 times it actually selling value (based on expired auctions at the time) just because I wanted it so bad, and had the money.

Probably 2 weeks later I sold the Kat for a big loss, and got a hold of an exec. again overpaid just because I HAD TO HAVE IT.... my fightlist was unchanged by the "better" weapon (or atleast not drastically changed).

maybe another 2 or 3 weeks goes by... I was clanned up, and got ahold of a BotH, and GAVE the exec. sword to a clan member. For all those transitions of weaps, I don't think any ammount of PR weighting would have truly made a difference, as it was the number of fights I was investing daily, and the ammount of experience I was training that made the difference, not the weapons I was using.

At lower lvls I don't think the weapon you use really has that great of an impact on your wins and losses. With a solid strat, and good use of BA, you will progress with any "non specialty" weapon that is close to your WA regardless of what it is.

It is already complicated enough for new players to figure out not to equip a high NW item early on with adding in PR weights..... as I have said before, the NW of the weapons for hte most part takes care of any large discrepencies..... and any small discrepencies are not game altering.

Sorry for such a long story, but it is the only way I can figure to get my point across.

the rarity of items gives them an inherent yet unseen nw, a 100k morg will not have the same nw as a 100k dagger, because the morg will cost at least a mil more. while this does not affect pr directly, it does affect your char

And a good point it is VP. Sound logic. The only place it MIGHT fall down is in "exceptions" that are true in fact but not in practicality. If I used a dagger and you used a Bastard Sword, the difference would be noticable at lower levels, true in fact, but in practicality, no one would choose to use a dagger over a BS if the money to purchase either was available, which beyond JUST starting out, the money is available.

also the weapons we are talking about Bone, ELS, Exec, Katana....

I have no idea what the base NW's are on these items, but any one of these items with a x2 modifier will do more dmg than a base of any of the others (due to the relatively close base dmgs) a x3 on one will do more than x2 on most others.... We would be splitting hairs to talk about any inherent dmg differences between these weapons, I have to assume that the base NW would cover any gaps in damage differential for the most part.

The most drastic difference is the one handed vs 2 handed dex penalty assesed respectively and with the (relatively) low PTH/Dex of most charcters using these weapons even that becomes a moot point.

Pit, the cost you pay for a wepaon has no bearing on it's NW, or power.

You oculd buy a 2 Million NW weapon for 4 million CB2, 50 USD or be given it for free. It's still a 2 million NW wepaon, and increases PR exactly the same as any other 2 million NW weapon, regardless of how usefulll that weapon is...

Again VP, don#'t skirt around my question by claiming it isn't valid if you have enough money to own a BoNE. Please answer it.

it has no direct nw impact, but it does affect your overall nw, since that money could be spent on other things which do directly impact your nw

I have answered the question to the best of my abilitiy... I truly do not see a large enough power difference between a x300 kat, and x200 Exec Sword, to warant using valuable server processes, and someones brainpower to try to find a PR weight for either.....

If you like a kat better than an Exec. use it simple as that.... If someone wants to use a BonE that is the same NW as my MH but does double the dmg more power to them It obviously is beneficial to them, and not me.

Why is a kite shield not assigned a higher PR weight than a buckler? for close to the same NW they will block the same ammount of dmg, but one requires more blacksmithing to get there, and has a different penalty set.

Close being the key word here, nothing is EVER going to be exactly equal, close is all we can hope for.

Ok here are two examples I found in auctions.... Both items have the same PTH in both cases. Ignore item naming bonuses for now as that could be changed for any item. taking the (base dmg x modifier = total dmg) I have listed the dmgs after each item.

Note that at a lower NW the bone does more dmg (base x modifier) than a katana, but at higher NW the kat does more than the Bone....


Blade of the Gods [92x33] (+20) $752,898 (3036 dmg)
A Katana [74x31] (+20) $792,517 (2294 dmg)

Soul Clasp [74x77] (+25) $1,173,191 (5698 dmg)
A Blacksword of Nan Elmoth [92x50] (+25) $1,731,096 (4600 dmg)

Where praytell do you assign the PR weight? Do you get even more complex and varry the PR weight based on item NW? Obviously somewhere between the two examples I found the linear damage curve of the two items would reach equality which is exactly what I was trying to explain.

It is imposible and for the most part irrelevent to try to assign a weight to either of these items.

Thank you your honor I rest my case.

NOW equip an MGS and show me what I want to see!

Okay again I ask is your FB 100k lvl or better so its not doing reduced damage?

"it has no direct nw impact, but it does affect your overall nw, since that money could be spent on other things which do directly impact your nw"

Or it could be given to your for free.... Not impacting you at all. ;)

"I truly do not see a large enough power difference between a x300 kat, and x200 Exec Sword, to warant using valuable server processes, and someones brainpower to try to find a PR weight for either....."

The problem is that (if?) as the katana has a worse upgrade cost, it *won't* be x300 compared to a x200 Exec. It would be something like x150 to a x200 Exec. Before you mention "The + could be higher instead" the Exec will also have a better + stat, or better combination of both. Yet they grant the same power increase. I don't care if you think changing this will be a big task, don't you agree it's non sensical for a inferior weapon to grant the same 'power' as a superior one?

"Blade of the Gods [92x33] (+20) $752,898 (3036 dmg)
A Katana [74x31] (+20) $792,517 (2294 dmg)"

All well and good here. The Bigger weapon does more damage, for the same 'power' rating.

"Soul Clasp [74x77] (+25) $1,173,191 (5698 dmg)
A Blacksword of Nan Elmoth [92x50] (+25) $1,731,096 (4600 dmg)"

This I am worried aobut. How is it possible that a Katana can have such better stats than a BoNE, with 600K NW less? There has to be something wrong here...

"Where praytell do you assign the PR weight?"

Easy. As said above. 'Even' or standard weight is applied to the weapon Jon has based DD to physical damage around. Above that gets an increased rat, below a lower. Easy, logical and realistic.

"NOW equip an MGS and show me what I want to see!"

No. I'm done with testing this. Dex is not a factor so the EC didn't matter for that.

And again, I'm sure losing a measly 20 str and the minescule damage reduction that goes with it has virtualy no effect.

So no. Unless Jon let's more info go, and something like negative Str actually increases damage taken, I'll not test this any more. The numbers are there.

"Okay again I ask is your FB 100k lvl or better so its not doing reduced damage?"

;) Of course they're not 100K. I posted the levels in the first couple of posts. One point of this was also to see how much of an impact the second low level DD reduction has made. :)

"Soul Clasp [74x77] (+25) $1,173,191 (5698 dmg)
A Blacksword of Nan Elmoth [92x50] (+25) $1,731,096 (4600 dmg)"

Comparing these 2 items is not advised.
Remember item naming adds x150 more to the weapon so the Soul Clasp is in reality a 74x257 item worth about 1.1M cb2 more.

Same with this comparison also:

"Blade of the Gods [92x33] (+20) $752,898 (3036 dmg)
A Katana [74x31] (+20) $792,517 (2294 dmg)"

We're ignoring the naming bonus Ranger. :) It doesn't add to NW anyway. ;)

I was just trying to find the linear damage to net worth curves of the two items Ranger ignoring the naming bonus and only viewing the NW : dmg ratio.

have I officially satisfied your curiosity now GL?

How can you ignore naming bonuses since it is part of the damage done, the x150 bonus I mean?

yea, how many of the big 4, or 5 if you consider vb now, are given away, that is the exception not the rule

just looking at the base dmg done by the weapons in general.... not those specific items......

In response to GL's insessent (SP?) questioning about wanting to add PR weights to non-specialized weapons.

I was trying to prove to him that the actual difference between a katana and bone are not as drastic as he believes them to be and that in fact the katana starts out weaker, and gets stronger than the bone at equal NW.

There has to be a problem with that. There is no way that katana should be bigger than the BoNE at 600K less NW!!

Can anyone explain that?

Pit, assume it happened for me then, so the market value of my BoNE is zero, and therefore didn't effect my overal NW in any way. But anyway, that's a silly thing to talk about. USD, contest giveaways, free gifts alter that sort of thing. :)

"I was trying to prove to him that the actual difference between a katana and bone are not as drastic as he believes them to be and that in fact the katana starts out weaker, and gets stronger than the bone at equal NW. "

How the heck can you say the Katana is stronger than the Bone at equal NW? Again you are comparing a named Katana vs an unnamed Bone.

You CANNOT ignore the naming bonus as it gives x150 more to the weapon, therefore getting free NW for expendature of USD.

Compare named items or unnamed items but NOT a named katana to an unnamed Bone and say the Katana is better.

In this example :
"Soul Clasp [74x77] (+25) $1,173,191 (5698 dmg)
A Blacksword of Nan Elmoth [92x50] (+25) $1,731,096 (4600 dmg)" ,
you are comparing a 74x227 Katana to a 92x50 Bone.

Of course the Katana will do more damage, duh?

"There has to be a problem with that. There is no way that katana should be bigger than the BoNE at 600K less NW!! "

Ranger bangs his head against the wall so many times, grey matter is now running down to the base of said wall.

Again,
A named Katana get x150 more to it for no more NW. Basically FREE NW.

Can someone please understand that point!!!

What GL is having issue with is that for less money, the Katana has more x. That's busted, broke, and down right odd.

gl, thats a damn weak arguement and you know it, most people dont get free ones. you're just getting someone else to take the inherent nw for you

Novice and GL,

One has to look at the upgrade curves for the + before you can conclude that the Katana has more x for the NW. The upgrade on the + for the katana may in fact me less in the early going but far more in the later going.

That, I assume, is the reason your getting more x on the katana in the lower ranges.

Ranger.... we are pretending that all 4 items are named.... or all 4 are unnamed take your choice, Noone involved in this discussion actually owns any of them, just discussing the NW of 2 katanas and 2 Bones with equal PTH.

If you can't pretend that all or none ar named.... you may not want to get involved in this as GL dosen't even believe in dexterity for a tank..... I am still having trouble getting over that one.

Ahha,

I understand where the problem is!!

IE:A Blacksword of Nan Elmoth [92x50] (+25) $1,731,096 (4600 dmg)"

What you are doing is multiplying the base damage times the x of the weapon. In this case 92 times 50 and getting 4600.

However, Jon has stated numerous times that is NOT how weapon damage works. He has never given the true formula. So multiplying like you are doing is not a true representation of the weapons ability to do damage.

If multiplying numbers would tell what weapon is better then a 66x10 Loch would be better than a 92x5 Bone and Jon stated quite a few times that is not true.

i heard back in cb1 the weapon damage is like takea BoNE for example 92x50...its like having a 92 sided die and rolling it 50 times...not to sure if that was true but thats what i heard on cb1 a long long time ago!

Briefly, if damage for weapon stats X and strength Y is N, then damage for 10X and 10Y is now 10N, for any X, Y, and N.


how is anyone supposed to make sense of this?

It's very simple... Doubling strength gives root 2 times the amount of damage. Doubling weapon damage modifier gives root 2 times the amount of damage. You must double both nw and strength in order to double damage. As I was saying in some other post, that is why there are so many armors that upgrade str, since it does NOT increase damage linearly.

in that case would quadrupiling NW double damage with equal str?

Yes, I believe so

Ranger, ignore the name on the Katana for a second.

Soul Clasp [74x77] (+25) $1,173,191

A Blacksword of Nan Elmoth [92x50] (+25) $1,731,096 (4600 dmg)

Both wepaons have the same '+', so we can ignore that.

Look at the NW of the two items, and their 'X' value.

At 600K less NW the Katana has 27 'X' more than the bone.

If it was the '+' throwing the NW out, wouldn't you still expect the Katana to be higher networth than an item above it with better upgrade costs for both 'X' and '+'. I just cannot explain how that Katana has a total NW 600K lower than the BoNE.

Can anyone?

Thanks for the dig VP, but I understand why Dex isn't important, even if you don't.

:( I missed off removing the (4600) damage thing... Ignore those damage values as well. :)

"gl, thats a damn weak arguement and you know it, most people dont get free ones. you're just getting someone else to take the inherent nw for you"

OK, then assume I was better at camping than Sefton when it was around and I got all my Rares at their base cost.

What you purchase an item for, has no reflection on how much NW that item has.

not directly no, but there is no more camping, and due to an items rarity, you will have to spend much more to get a higher item. while this higher amount is not included in nw you do have to pay it. a base dagger and a base morg will not cost the same, they both have $0 nw (i know its not zero but i dont know the exact nw for base) but you still pay over 1 mil more for the morg. that is what i mean by inherently higher nw. since camping has been abolished, someone has to pay that nw cost, usually you, but in the rare exception of free items someone else pays it for you

for example, last near base exec sold for 50k. last near base morg sold for 1.65 mil. so for the same cost to you, you could have a 1.6 mil nw exec, or a base morg. thus, while it does not have nw directly it does have an inherent nw and affects your overall nw. you cannot camp anymore so you _always_ pay more for the more rarer weapons.

Or I could just spend 20USD, threaten the seller with violence or blackmail in real life, or take them out for a beer in exchange.

;)

Someone mention beer?

Ah Johnny! ;) How many beers do I owe you for my BoNE? ;)

:P

I think the beer to CB$ ratio is a bit different to USD. I think it's 1:1..... ;)

one beer for one BoNE sounds cool to me! ;) Any weighting on that? Is it a half or shandy top?

How do the beers weight up? Surely a Stella is a class above a Fosters?

And what about the blond beers? They've got to be worth a Morg don't they?

Nah, i find blonde beers to be particularly week. Now a Stout is nice and strong.

Where do Bitters and Real Ale fit into this?

Are we talking just beer, or are shorts and alcopops included as well?

;)

Alcopops have their place. A bit like a two handed flail they can get the job done if. What I want to know is: what's the tulwar of booze? I can't stomach Thunderbird but....

Diamond White. ;)