Andor's Trail

I like this idea a lot. For those that want formulas, it's much easier to start by calculating average damage per strike, rather than per round:



Then the average damage per round is just the average damage per strike multiplied by the number of strikes per round. For the naysayers, yes that varies with a lot of different factors, including monster BC and DR, but it could be calculated for some "typical" examples, for a range of monster BC. An example of what you would get is here, where I compared some rings: http://andorstrail.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... ion#p41221. Plugging the appropriate weapon stats into the equations would allow you to compare them by just looking at the graphs.

SirGrindsalot wrote: DPS depends on whatever mob you are facing.

This is rational.
If you put more damage in your build than is enough to kill monster, than you could miss improving your AC or BC to make fight more effective.

The point is that after snakes in the cave, it is mostly impossible to predict next monsters AC BC and HP.


I don't see calculation as fiernaq see it: more attacks - more chance to miss. It is more chances for monster to hit you in response, but it highly depends on how many hits you need to kill it, and what is his other stats.
I think the chance and the damage is exactly the same. No meter how many attacks you do as long as all other conditions are similar.

To make it more simple, let's imagine one weapon makes
3 attacks per round and 2 dmg per hit
another 1 attack per round and 6 dmg per hit
monster has exactly 6 HP.
and successful chance to hit is 2 of 3

So if we fight 3 monsters - the all damage made by two weapons will be equal.

for the first wepon:
2,2,2 2t,2t,0 2,0,0

and
for the second
6 6 0

The average damage is the same. But, the difference is between how often monster will hit character after staying alive. If we don't know the exact HP AC BC it is mostly impossible to predict what weapon is better. The character with more attacks also has chance to flee in the case of failure. Also many other parameters impacts the successful fighting. So the minor difference in the average damage per round will has minor influence.

If you can kill monster from one blow, than it is better to make one powerful attack, but if you need more than one, it is better to divide this attacks by running away and attack again.

Spark wrote:So the minor difference in the average damage per round will has minor influence.

The problem is that right now it's not minor, because very little of the damage is from the weapon, so more hits is always better.

Spark wrote:If you can kill monster from one blow, than it is better to make one powerful attack, but if you need more than one, it is better to divide this attacks by running away and attack again.

But you can never be certain of killing a monster in one blow. On the other hand, if you have enough Evasion skill you can be certain of fleeing, and also certain of getting the first hit in an attack. So then attack and flee will always be better. Unless you can't flee because you are being mobbed, of course

rijackson741 wrote: But you can never be certain of killing a monster in one blow. On the other hand, if you have enough Evasion skill you can be certain of fleeing, and also certain of getting the first hit in an attack. So then attack and flee will always be better. Unless you can't flee because you are being mobbed, of course

I suppose master of evasion should be able to squeeze between enemies.

Sarumar wrote:

oskarwiksten wrote:Plan: Introduce new property on items and actor conditions that determines how many percent of the actor's base damage will be used as attack damage. Having several items or conditions with values in this new property will use as many percent as the sum of all of them. Keep the old attack damage range of weapons, in addition to this new modifier for base attack damage.

Example: Dull wooden sword has 1% and usual attack range 0-1. Player gets to use 1% of the leveled-up base attack damage plus 0-1 as actual damage in combat.
Example: Epic slicer of awesomeness gives 250%, and attack damage 5-12, and player is wearing two epic rings of awesomeness that both provide 25% each. Player gets to use 300% of the leveled-up base attack damage, plus 5-12 as actual damage in combat.

What should we call the new base attack damage percent modifier?
- Base damage potential (BDP)?
- Base damage modifier (BDM)?
- Percent base damage (PBM)?
- Damage multiplier (DM)?

+1 intresting idea... IMO this should be used to AC and BC as well...

I agree. I think it would be useful to do the same for AC and BC, as while there are substantial benefits from items for AC and BC at the moment (unlike AD), they are still not tied to a character's base AC or BC, which seems as unrealistic as not tying AD bonuses to a character's base AD.

At that point you might as well throw HP, Critical Hit, and even DR into the formula mix rather than leaving them static. I do, of course, fully approve of this.

Durf wrote:

Sarumar wrote:

oskarwiksten wrote:Plan: Introduce new property on items and actor conditions that determines how many percent of the actor's base damage will be used as attack damage. Having several items or conditions with values in this new property will use as many percent as the sum of all of them. Keep the old attack damage range of weapons, in addition to this new modifier for base attack damage.

Example: Dull wooden sword has 1% and usual attack range 0-1. Player gets to use 1% of the leveled-up base attack damage plus 0-1 as actual damage in combat.
Example: Epic slicer of awesomeness gives 250%, and attack damage 5-12, and player is wearing two epic rings of awesomeness that both provide 25% each. Player gets to use 300% of the leveled-up base attack damage, plus 5-12 as actual damage in combat.

What should we call the new base attack damage percent modifier?
- Base damage potential (BDP)?
- Base damage modifier (BDM)?
- Percent base damage (PBM)?
- Damage multiplier (DM)?

+1 intresting idea... IMO this should be used to AC and BC as well...

I agree. I think it would be useful to do the same for AC and BC, as while there are substantial benefits from items for AC and BC at the moment (unlike AD), they are still not tied to a character's base AC or BC, which seems as unrealistic as not tying AD bonuses to a character's base AD.

I think this was already implied by Thystonius (the one who started the thread). Oskar, I think that the new base attack damage percent modifier should be called Attack Damage multiplier (ADM). Furthermore, ACM, BCM, and HPM should mean Attack Chance multi., Block Chance multi., and Health Points Multi., respectively.