IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Rage/cunning Numbers (download), Submitted for your approval
Tynan
post Jan 24 2007, 01:32 PM
Post #1


Ee san
Group Icon

Group: Nobles
Posts: 506
Joined: 3-July 06
From: British Columbia, Canada
Member No.: 12



*NOTE: The specifics of this post are WRONG. I am leaving it here for now but I have made corrections which can be found further on.*

All right, so, I made a spreadsheet during a boring topology lecture yesterday, and got some very interesting results. I compared current strike damages between Baekhos and Chung Ryongs (hereafter referred to as just rogues and warriors), and then made alterations.

First of all, though, some notes:

I used the formula: Damage = (8.8125 + Might/8 + 2.5*DAM + Weapon*Ingress)*Fury*Invisible

Note that Weapon is the average damage of the weapon ((minimum+maximum)/2) and that my calculations will show the damage done to +100 AC, as I am using the weapon values as displayed with no modification. This is of little consequence as my numbers are not meant to give an idea of raw damage, but rather comparative damage; so long as proportion is maintained, it does not matter if the numbers shown are very large or very small. This is also why the polearm modifier is dropped.

Also, Invisible is exactly a x9 multiplier, not x8 as some people believe. You are free to test it yourselves with a Star-staff and an invisible rogue...the strike will always be exactly 9 times as hard when the rogue is invisible, ignoring possible round-off error.

Furthermore, all numbers for each rank are given using the best polearm for that rank, as well as the best Ingress. I have also tried to give semi-realistic Might and DAM numbers for each rank, though I may have failed there as I honestly have little idea as to what is normal. I welcome criticism, though I doubt my values are off by enough to severely alter anything.

Finally, please note that I make no attempt to quantify the possible advantages of a warrior not needing to be invisible to do full damage, nor the fact that warriors always have 4-way attacks up. I leave it to the reader to gauge this himself, and only supply the strike damage done to a single target.

Without further ado, here are the numbers!

I have provided three files:

1.)XHTML output file
2.)OpenDocument Spreadsheet
3.)Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet (no idea if this works well since I saved it in this format through OpenOffice)

If you just want to look at the numbers, just look at the XHTML file. If you want to play with numbers yourself, look at a spreadsheet.

Please note that the output is not user-friendly, and neither are the spreadsheets. When I make such things I make them for myself and do not waste time with formatting and such, as I can understand them just fine. I will endeavor, however, to explain what you are looking at. While I admit it is ugly, I think the average person can understand it just fine if some effort is made, especially since I'll explain the main points.

First of all, you will notice that side-by-side are Warrior and New Warrior, and Rogue and New Rogue. The former titles show the statistics for swing damage as it currently is, with no modifications at all. The latter titles show the statistics for swing damage as I have suggested, with modifications to some values.

The Damage area for each shows single strike damage at each step of the fury, and for each rank. For example, an il san warrior currently will hit for 4326.25 damage at R3 by my formula. With my new numbers, under the same starting conditions, he will hit for 6922 damage.

The Mean area for each is the heart of this spreadsheet and is of the most interest. What it shows, for each rank, is the mean strike damage across the whole of the fury with the listed level being the last step.

I realize this is unclear, so I will explain with an example.

Let us look at the Mean area for the New Rogue. Specifically, please turn your attention to the box in the C3 row in the Level 99 column. You will see a value of 6739.21. What does this mean? This means that my new level 99 rogue who uses Cunning to get to C3 and then stops, staying on that level for the rest of the duration, will average 6739.21 damage per strike. The calculation averages the damage done at C1 for 150s, C2 for 150s, and then C3 for 638s, the remainder of Cunning.

I hope this explains it well enough. The goal of this portion of the spreadsheet is to give some idea of damage across a fury, rather than just compare damage at specific levels, which is not as enlightening.

While we are on the subject, please note that you need to use common sense when looking at these values. Is it realistic to assume a plain level 99 warrior will get to R6? No. He will only get to R4, maybe R5. Likewise, a Rogue will only get to about C4. Therefore, it is unwise to compare, at level 99, a rogue's C5 cycle to a warrior's R6 cycle - this will give no valid information.

Finally, to those brave souls who attempt to use the sheet themselves, all editing is done on the Data sheet, not the Stats sheet. Also, the only columns I advise you edit are New Rage, New Cunning, New W Ing (Warrior Ingress), New R Ing (Rogue Ingress), Might, and DAM.

You are free to edit Weapon, as well, but I have already entered the average PA values that are of the most importance. I suppose you can compare any weapons you wish, however.

As for the ordering in the columns, the first box is 99, then il san, then ee san, then sam san. It is not marked anywhere, but it will be obvious what I mean, especially given the numbers already in place.

If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please post here. Thank you.

*NOTE: The specifics of this post are WRONG. I am leaving it here for now but I have made corrections which can be found further on.*
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tynan
post Jan 24 2007, 02:00 PM
Post #2


Ee san
Group Icon

Group: Nobles
Posts: 506
Joined: 3-July 06
From: British Columbia, Canada
Member No.: 12



Anyway, based on what I found from my data which can be downloaded above, I discovered several things.

First of all, wow, warriors rely on R6 like a diabetic relies on insulin injections! I urge you to look at the mean damage done by a warrior without R6 and then compare it to the mean damage done by a rogue without C5. The warrior,obviously, takes a massive nosedive. In fact, at every level except il san, the warrior is behind the rogue by a lot until R6, particularly at the lowest rage levels.

This is of course due to the fact that Rage goes from x8 to x81, which is more than a ninefold increase, while Cunning only goes from x6 to x12, only a 100% increase. This makes Rage scale poorly.

Secondly, rogues do VERY well at 99, dominating warriors. Warriors turn this around at il san with R6 and a new ingress, while rogues receive none. Rogues catch up by sam san, however, and the mean damage gap decreases to almost nothing.

Thirdly, and this is not so much what the data showed but something we already knew, but damage does not scale up for warriors at sam san by any appreciable amount (the only increase is due to DAM and Might increases, which I did not include, though I suppose one could add a few extra DAM for the sam san warrior). Essentially, though, the damage is static - no new Rage step, no new ingress.

Here are things I do not like about what I see:

1.) Warriors do too little damage at the low end, even given 4-way attacks, and the damage spread is too large
2.) Rogues do not do enough damage at il san
3.) Warriors do not scale up at sam san

Here is what I did to remedy the problems:

1.) I changed Rage to x12, x18, x24, x36, x54, x72 (strengthened the low end, weakened the top end)
2.) I gave rogues an ingress at il san, and carried through a 0.5x step at each rank, ending at 2.5x at sam san
3.) I gave warriors a x6 ingress at sam san, so that they always increase by x1 each san

As you can see, if you look at my data, I did the following:

1.) I kept rogue and warrior mean damage very equitable at the higher ends, while conceding the lower ends to rogues given 4-way attacks
2.) I boosted overall damage for warriors by very little, even with the new Rage, except at sam san
3.) I boosted overall damage for rogues by significant margins (more than warriors)

I firmly believe in the importance of a new ingress at each san. It keeps the damage scaling with rank, which I believe is fair, and makes each san rewarding and noticeable.

As for the alterations to Rage, I believe it is far healthier this way. Warriors struggle at newbie 99 and they struggle on low rages even later on in the game. By making the stepping less severe, I have effectively minimized the pain of newbie 99 (look at how badly Cunning beats Rage down early on) and minimized the struggle of early Rages in higher hunting grounds. I have also, in the interest of fairness, weakened R6, which is too strong for its own good as it is.

Finally, I have boosted rogues from il san on. At il san a rogue is too weak compared to a warrior, while currently at sam san they are about right. However, as I boosted warriors at sam san, due to giving them an ingress, I felt they should be boosted to keep up.

In general, I have not tweaked things to too great of an extent. I feel my changes simply make things a lot smoother, from san to san and step to step, and a lot fairer.

I would be interested in any questions, comments, concerns, and especially any alternate suggestions, particularly with numbers.

P.S. Before I hear any attacks of warrior bias, I would ask two things:

1.) Look at the data. I think you will be surprised at what you see and how balanced it is.
2.) Consider the path abilities beyond strike damage. In light of that, I think I have been extremely even-handed, perhaps even too much, but I am not into punishing people for KRU's mistakes - just because rogues dominate warriors beyond hunting is not reason for me to punish rogues in hunting, as then nothing is accomplished.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hugen
post Jan 24 2007, 03:22 PM
Post #3


Enchanted
***

Group: Nobles
Posts: 116
Joined: 22-December 06
Member No.: 1,467



I think you are going to need to modify your formulae a bit.

You put the weapon range values in versus AC 100, but left the rest of the values in place from the formula for AC 0.

You can either divide your weapon value by 2 to make the whole thing consistent for AC 0, or
change the other values to make them work for AC 100. This would entail doubling the "8.8125 + Might/8 + 2.5*DAM" term of the equation.

As it is, you have reduced the role of "ancillary" damage terms. As Rogues gain more from these non-weapon components of damage than Warriors, you are underestimating Rogue damage.

Of course the actual values most appropriate for inclusion in the formula is up for much debate.

The 150 and 15 (Might and Dam) that you started CR's out at is exactly the same as I used in my calculations:

ChungRyong (Might Dam)
Base 130 2
Potence 0 2
Warrior Wind 4 1
Ambrosia x 2 16 10
ChungRyong w/ Polearm 150 15

I have no idea how you scaled up from there.

The Rogue numbers are even more difficult. None of the "pure vanilla" Rogue items (Black rings, Whisper bracelets, etc.) provide much in the way of Dam, but Rogues have realized how much it helps and find and equip items that do provide it. I have no idea what the most "typical" kit is for today's Rogue. (I went with Wind armor and a pair of Corrupted rings, but their are Claws, Masks, Orbs, etc. all available.)

That could be a whole topic of discussion on its own.


More later...

As far as your "mean" numbers. I will be the last to criticize that methodology, as that is the exact same way I calculate means, but I will question you as to possible drawbacks. You have a Rage6 who hunts in the "typical" modern Rage 6 locations. Do you get the opportunity to use your damage across the whole time you are on Rage 6 in the same way that you use all of your Rage 1 strikes, or do you typically clear rooms/areas and have to wait for a respawn or to move to another area? If the latter is true, then you are potentially applying too much weight to the Rage6 strikes. That would mean your means are somewhat of an overestimate of the true average strike.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tynan
post Jan 24 2007, 03:41 PM
Post #4


Ee san
Group Icon

Group: Nobles
Posts: 506
Joined: 3-July 06
From: British Columbia, Canada
Member No.: 12



All right, I used more suitable damage numbers and halved the weapon damage. I am going to re-upload the files now, one moment.

Oh, as for DAM values...

I always assume Wind is worn (+1 for warrior, +2 for rogue).

At 99 warriors get 12 more through Ambrosias and Potence.

At 99 rogues get 12 more through New Luck Amulets.

At il san both get boosted via gutuls, +2 total, no other changes.

At ee san both use Old claws, +4 boost for warriors, +2 boost to rogues.

At sam san both use Ancient claws and sam san flutes, +4 boost to both.

P.S. With the changes, warriors are too weak...scary.

P.P.S. As for Might numbers...fairly arbitrary. I am too lazy to calculate it exactly so I just guessed some values. Yes, this is not scientific, but it approximates closely enough. If someone wants to suggest better numbers, I would welcome it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tynan
post Jan 24 2007, 04:08 PM
Post #5


Ee san
Group Icon

Group: Nobles
Posts: 506
Joined: 3-July 06
From: British Columbia, Canada
Member No.: 12



QUOTE
As far as your "mean" numbers. I will be the last to criticize that methodology, as that is the exact same way I calculate means, but I will question you as to possible drawbacks. You have a Rage6 who hunts in the "typical" modern Rage 6 locations. Do you get the opportunity to use your damage across the whole time you are on Rage 6 in the same way that you use all of your Rage 1 strikes, or do you typically clear rooms/areas and have to wait for a respawn or to move to another area? If the latter is true, then you are potentially applying too much weight to the Rage6 strikes. That would mean your means are somewhat of an overestimate of the true average strike.


You are correct in that it does make some rather grand assumptions. Namely, as you said, it implies that every strike counts equally and that every step of the fury is used equally and fully.

As for how exact this is in practice...it varies wildly.

First of all, at least in my hunts, we never change areas. We stay in one room and hunt there the whole hunt. Whether this is Anchorite, Bandit, Hunter, etc. Therefore, the possibility of a clear is there and, when we do, we do not move on.

In some rooms in Hunter, I do clear on R6. These are the 'lesser' rooms. In other rooms, I do not clear, but I am a weak Assault in weak groups. The super groups where every fighter one-hits and the mages one-ferno might be different stories.

When I trio Bandit2 (I am barely Bandit2 anymore) I regularly clear the entire room on R6.

However, I suppose we must also consider keeping up full sets on R6. On R1-R4, and even R5, it is not hard to keep up a full set, since I kill so slowly. There are always many enemies, so the diamond is always full (unless I am hunting with someone else who is on C5/R6 and clearing). On R6, I kill things in the diamond so bloody fast that mages can struggle to keep up, and indeed the spawn usually cannot keep up, anyway. Just before a spawn, if I have not cleared, there are usually only enough enemies to form partial diamonds.

So, I suppose we do need to consider wasted potential, especially on R6. Indeed, few could argue that any fury can waste more damage, though I admit even C5s can.

Thus, we should be cautious with these means. However, they still do provide some benchmark without complex, variable analysis. I will say that I'd like Rage to be less variable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tynan
post Jan 24 2007, 04:22 PM
Post #6


Ee san
Group Icon

Group: Nobles
Posts: 506
Joined: 3-July 06
From: British Columbia, Canada
Member No.: 12



Okay, based on Hugen's suggestions I had to change a fundamental flaw in my spreadsheet, so my previous suggestions are rendered useless.

Thus, while I did not change any of the Ingress values from what I previously suggested, I did massively change Rage.

It is now x16, x24, x32, x40, x56, x72. Cunning is still x6, x7, x9, x10, x12, though rogues have a 1.5x, 2x, and 2.5x ingress at each san, while warriors got a x6 ingress at sam san.

How does this sit?

My goal with these numbers were to keep warriors weaker on lower rages than rogues are on corresponding cunnings, due to multi-hit powers rogues then lack.

However, on the higher rages, I wanted warriors to hit harder since rogues then multi-hit, too, and warriors should deal more damage when all else is equal.

Does that sound like a good goal?

You can see I tried to keep R1 around half as strong as C1 - this is because warriors can hit up to 7 targets at once, while rogues can only hit up to 3. Keep in mind that rogues will more often be hitting 3 at a time than warriors will be hitting 7 at a time, due to both probability and the fact that warriors require more ideal conditions (a full set). So, I feel rogues are better off, and that the virtues of backstab and flank are not as great as one might think.

I only give warriors a clear advantage on R5 and R6, which I feel is justified. I will accept arguments that state the contrary, though, but you will need to convince me that, in light of a rogue's other advantages, this is unfair.

P.S. The current downloads do not reflect this Rage change. It will have to be done manually, which takes 5s, literally. I will upload it again when more changes are made and things are more stable. As it stands, I am making changes every few minutes, so uploading it every time would be useless.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tynan
post Jan 24 2007, 04:42 PM
Post #7


Ee san
Group Icon

Group: Nobles
Posts: 506
Joined: 3-July 06
From: British Columbia, Canada
Member No.: 12



I forgot to add the warrior's innate Damage bonus of 2. My mistake.

I am considering adding it directly into the formula, but for now I will not. I will just need to remember to add it in the data sheet.

I am also going over the Might numbers and making them more accurate. I think the warrior ones on my sheet are quite good now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tynan
post Jan 24 2007, 06:44 PM
Post #8


Ee san
Group Icon

Group: Nobles
Posts: 506
Joined: 3-July 06
From: British Columbia, Canada
Member No.: 12



Okay, I now feel that I now have the Might and DAM values set correctly. I'm not quite sure what the maximum base Might is for both paths at each san, but I think I have them close, especially the warrior ones.

Right now I am using, in rank order:

Warrior: 130, 140, 150, 150
Rogue: 130, 136, 136, 136

If any of these are wrong, please tell me.

At every rank I have the rogue and warrior use white casques and wind armor. I have rogues use NLAs until ee san, where they switch to Claws thereafter, and warriors uses Ambrosias until ee san, where they switch to Claws thereafter. I have both paths use gutuls until sam san, where they both switch to flutes. I suppose I could substitute a few different choices, but I feel these fairly represent the norm.

Here are all new files, with every change made up to this point:

1.) XHTML output file
2.) OpenDocument Spreadsheet
3.) Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet (no idea if this works well since I saved it in this format through OpenOffice)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hugen
post Jan 26 2007, 11:39 AM
Post #9


Enchanted
***

Group: Nobles
Posts: 116
Joined: 22-December 06
Member No.: 1,467



I've looked at your spreadsheet and all your calculations seem right.

I'll summarize them briefly here for people who don't want to go to the links (I have added in the Polearm multipliers so a better estimate of damage progression from step-to-step is possible):

As things Currently stand:

Level/Stat Progression 1: sub-Enchant 99
5.5 ChungRyong w/ Polearm, Rage 1-3 {2.5 > 4.3 > 6.2}
11.2 Baekho w/ Polearm, Cunning 1-2 {9.8 > 11.5}

Level/Stat Progression 2: Enchant Stats
6.6 ChungRyong w/ Polearm, Rage 1-4 {2.5 > 4.3 > 6.2 > 8.1}
13.4 Baekho w/ Polearm, Cunning 1-3 {9.8 > 11.5 > 14.8}

Level/Stat Progression 3: Il san Stats
13.4 Fury w/ Military Polearm, Rage 1-5 {4.1 > 7.1 > 10.2 > 13.2 > 18.3}
18.8 Cunning w/ Heavy Polearm, Cunning 1-4 {13.0 > 15.1 > 19.4 > 21.6}

Level/Stat Progression 4: Ee san Stats
20.2 Assault w/ Military Polearm, Rage 1-5 {6.1 > 10.7 > 15.4 > 20.0 > 27.6}
32.6 Assault w/ Military Polearm, Rage 1-6 {6.1 > 10.7 > 15.4 > 20.0 > 27.6 > 62.2}
29.8 Swift w/ Military Polearm, Cunning 1-5 {18.9 > 22.1 > 28.4 > 31.5 > 37.8}

Level/Stat Progression 5: Sam san Stats
20.8 Barrage w/ Military Polearm, Rage 1-5 {6.3 > 11.1 > 15.9 > 20.6 > 28.6}
33.7 Barrage w/ Military Polearm, Rage 1-6 {6.3 > 11.1 > 15.9 > 20.6 > 28.6 > 64.3}
36.7 Shikari w/ Military Polearm, Cunning 1-5 {23.3 > 27.2 > 35.0 > 38.9 > 46.7}


As your Suggested Tweaks to Rage and Ingresses would make it:

Level/Stat Progression 1: sub-Enchant 99
9.0 ChungRyong w/ Polearm, Rage 1-3 {5.0 > 7.5 > 9.9}
11.2 Baekho w/ Polearm, Cunning 1-2 {9.8 > 11.5}

Level/Stat Progression 2: Enchant Stats
10.5 ChungRyong w/ Polearm, Rage 1-4 {5.0 > 7.5 > 9.9 > 12.4}
13.4 Baekho w/ Polearm, Cunning 1-3 {9.8 > 11.5 > 14.8}

Level/Stat Progression 3: Il san Stats
21.2 Fury w/ Military Polearm, Rage 1-5 {8.2 > 12.2 > 16.3 > 20.4 > 28.5}
22.2 Cunning w/ Heavy Polearm, Cunning 1-4 {15.3 > 17.8 > 22.9 > 25.5}

Level/Stat Progression 4: Ee san Stats
32.0 Assault w/ Military Polearm, Rage 1-5 {12.3 > 18.4 > 24.6 > 30.7 > 43.0}
36.4 Assault w/ Military Polearm, Rage 1-6 {12.3 > 18.4 > 24.6 > 30.7 > 43.0 > 55.3}
34.5 Swift w/ Military Polearm, Cunning 1-5 {21.9 > 25.6 > 32.9 > 36.6 > 43.9}

Level/Stat Progression 5: Sam san Stats
37.7 Barrage w/ Military Polearm, Rage 1-5 {14.5 > 21.7 > 29.0 > 36.2 > 50.7}
43.0 Barrage w/ Military Polearm, Rage 1-6 {14.5 > 21.7 > 29.0 > 36.2 > 50.7 > 65.2}
41.5 Shikari w/ Military Polearm, Cunning 1-5 {26.4 > 30.8 > 39.6 > 43.9 > 52.7}


I do think your tweaks would probably makes things better, I am just not sure they are the right solution. I think we may need to have a better understanding and agreement on exactly what the problem(s) are before it is possible to come up with a "final" solution.

For one thing, I've never bought into the premise that it is balanced for one path to strike at one thing at 3x the strength that another strikes at 3 things. That would be fine if there were always three things to kill, but that is not the case. How should the paths be balanced for Striking?

You've "flattened" out Rage somewhat, but not nearly to the "flatness" of Cunning.

Your suggestions do provide for a more consistent step-by-step progression than the original values, but they still vary too much for my taste. (Too much improvement at Il san, not enough at Sam san, for example.) That is not a criticism of your work, but probably more of the whole Rage and Cunning see-sawing damage model.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tynan
post Jan 26 2007, 03:31 PM
Post #10


Ee san
Group Icon

Group: Nobles
Posts: 506
Joined: 3-July 06
From: British Columbia, Canada
Member No.: 12



Well, the issue is indeed...complex. I suppose that is a glib way of putting it.

My main concerns with altering Rage are as follows:

1.) How much should Rage maintain its general theme of growing into an immensely strong fury? Should that entirely give way to a more Cunning-like progression? I am divided on this.

2.) How will duoing at lower stats be affect by such changes? As it stands, a Chung Ryong and a poet can duo quite respectably in Horse2 and Magus1, for example. I am loath to empower Rage to such a level that it becomes better than grouping, or vastly exceeds what a Baekho and mage duo can do.

You know, call me bland, but I do not like the idea of Rage and Cunning, period. I would much prefer that a new Fury and/or Ingress be learned at each rank that is flat. This would allow two things:

1.) Balance would be supremely easy

2.) Hunting would be a bit more normalized

Point 1 is rather self-explanatory. With a set level of damage at each mark, one would never have to worry about steps of a fury being too weak while later steps are too strong. There would be a consistent level of damage, which could be balanced against the caves one would hunt in at that point. Benchmarks for number of swings per kill could be set and maintained quite easily. For example, if it should take, at sam san, 15 strikes to kill a Hunter3 enemy, that could be done. Right now it varies from maybe 8 to 80 (rough guesses, do not take these to be exact).

As to point 2, as it stands, when one reaches places like Anchorite2 and up, one feels like they waste the first 1/3 or more of the fury. It feels this way because one simply cannot see their strikes doing any appreciable damage. Sure, everything contributes, but it is not very interesting for anyone involved to take, literally, 80+ swings to kill something. Part of Nexus's charm is fast-paced hunting, which is better represented on higher steps of the fury where things actually die at a good rate.

If I had my way, I could see myself implementing a system like this (I would probably make it so rogues hit for the same damage as warriors with polearms (having to be Invisible being the balance factor) and more damage when using regular weapons (via their stronger regular weapons) to maintain PA and non-PA balance,and always had 4-way strikes). This might be boring, but I think the simplicity and excellent potential balance would outweigh that. You would not see this massive variance that makes strikes either feeble or godly (Rage), or that makes one strike only forward or 4-ways (Cunning).

Of course, the above is just me musing, as I do not ever expect anything like that to happen. No, we must work within the confines of the stepped fury system, and I doubt even that will ever change much, even in simple values.

With that in mind, I have played with some new Rage values. I have left everything else intact, as the goal of this change is just to see what Rage would look like if its damage was further tightened.

I tried, first of all, to do what Cunning does: a 100% increase.

This worked out to Rage being: x30, x36, x42, x48, x54, x60. I of course tried to keep overall damage similar to Cunning.

This keeps the damage progression very steady (1/5 increase, 1/6 increase, etc.). However, it does offer some large problems.

First of all, R1 is now outrageously strong, relative to what it was. In fact, it is now roughly as strong as C1 (lower on earlier ranks, higher on others). This is quite unfair, in my opinion, as a warrior can hit more things at these levels.

At the high end, R6 vs. C5, they both do similar strike damage, again, of course. I suppose this is quite fair given that both strike 4 targets at the same time.

Anyway, this still looks to be a problem. And really, there is no simple solution that can deal with this. Either Rage scales poorly, or it is too buff compared to Cunning on lower steps.

Of course, this is only really a problem due to Cunning only hitting one way, forward, on C1, and only 3 ways (more like 2, considering how flank works) on C2 and C3.

Now, maybe we are approaching this the wrong way? Would it be totally insane to make Cunning hit 4 ways at all levels? Warriors and rogues already hunt so similarly with polearms, would this really be a horrible change? In some ways it would just finally complete what Nexon did long ago and truly make rogues and warriors similar in groups. In duos and soloing, of course, they would still be different.

If we did indeed make Cunning have flank and backstab capabilities at all levels, balance again becomes a snap. We only need consider how much stronger to make warriors in light of:

1.) Rogues having to be Invisible (downside, of course)
2.) Rogues being safer
3.) Rogues being more maneuverable
4.) Rogues having more balanced, efficient attacks

We could attempt to quantify this. We could claim that warriors, by these virtues, should strike for example, 10% harder than rogues. While my numbers do not perfectly match this, they could easily be made to.

Or, we could just leave Cunning as it is and claim that the above points provide justification as to why on lower ranks rogues should hit fewer targets.

Really, every push for balance within the current system just indicates that rogues and warriors need to be more alike. I blame Nexon, though, not our lack of imagination, as they are the ones who put a system in place where both fighters compete for the exact same role done the exact same way in a group.

So, after all of this rambling, I still do not know what to do. I do like the idea of a tighter Rage, but the implementation will involve a few other things possibly being changed.

Also, as for the scaling of damage across sans, clearly this must be done with Ingresses (unless KRU adds new polearms). I firmly believe two things in this area:

1.) Damage must scale up from rank to rank
2.) Damage should scale up less and less each rank

That is to say, the increase from ee san to sam san should be more than from sam san to sa san, and so on. This corresponds to the asymptotic nature of statistics as well, which is important as strike damage and special attack damage must stay somewhat proportional for caves to be balanced. Otherwise we might get a case where a sa san person's strikes are too much better than their special attacks, or vice-versa.

Anyway, that is all I have to say for now. I do think Rage needs to be tightened up, and that Cunning should be balanced against that as needed, but I am not exactly sure how to implement this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hugen
post Jan 27 2007, 10:35 PM
Post #11


Enchanted
***

Group: Nobles
Posts: 116
Joined: 22-December 06
Member No.: 1,467



QUOTE(Tynan @ Jan 26 2007, 03:31 PM) [snapback]24655[/snapback]

....
You know, call me bland, but I do not like the idea of Rage and Cunning, period. I would much prefer that a new Fury and/or Ingress be learned at each rank that is flat.
....
1.) Damage must scale up from rank to rank
2.) Damage should scale up less and less each rank

That is to say, the increase from ee san to sam san should be more than from sam san to sa san, and so on. This corresponds to the asymptotic nature of statistics as well, which is important as strike damage and special attack damage must stay somewhat proportional for caves to be balanced. Otherwise we might get a case where a sa san person's strikes are too much better than their special attacks, or vice-versa.


I'm 100% with you on the "flat" damage.

Clearly Cunning, with its tighter range of multipliers, is closer to the flat objective than Rage.

As far as how much scaling should occur between ranks, we have some numbers that can give us a frame of reference. Each "san" is essentially a doubling of the previous "san". That seems like an excellent place to start. If we refine my 5 Steps from above as:

Vita (k) (and improvement from previous step and from Step 1-a)
Step 1-a 15 n/a n/a
Step 1-b 30 +100% +100%
Step 1-c 60 +100% +300%
Step 2 120 +100% +700%
Step 3 240 +100% +1500%
Step 4 480 +100% +3100%
Step 5 960 +100% +6300%

So, basically, we will call a new-99 a 15k Vita Rage 1. Everything doubles from there. Attacks with a Polearm (for a CR) are currently following this progression:

Step 1-a 2.5 n/a n/a
Step 1-b 4.1 +65% +65%
Step 1-c 5.5 +34% +121%
Step 2 6.6 +21% +167%
Step 3 13.4 +101% +439%
Step 4 32.6 +144% +1213%
Step 5 33.7 +3% +1256%

Your suggested progression would be as follows:

Step 1-a 5.0 n/a n/a
Step 1-b 7.1 +44% +44%
Step 1-c 9.0 +26% +81%
Step 2 10.5 +17% +112%
Step 3 21.2 +102% +327%
Step 4 36.4 +71% +633%
Step 5 43.0 +18% +765%

In both there are little jumps and big jumps and no clear pattern. What is obvious is that neither envision normal strikes advancing at the same rate as "special" attacks. That makes sense, since it will help curtail outrageous rampaging in lower level caves that can still be entered.

But, with a more structured series of furies/ingresses could be designed that follow a more consistent pattern. Let's use a +55% improvement for example:

Step 1-a 2.5 n/a n/a
Step 1-b 3.9 +55% +55%
Step 1-c 6.0 +55% +140%
Step 2 9.3 +55% +272%
Step 3 14.4 +55% +477%
Step 4 22.4 +55% +795%
Step 5 34.7 +55% +1287%

The total progression is very similar to that currently in place, but it is a much more orderly progression.


These furies could still be tied to Mana, so that Warriors are forced to purchase that as well as Vita (to keep things fair). This could either be through casting cost or a learning requirement (you can't enter the room to learn the spell unless you have a certain mana).

In all of the series above, "normal" strikes diminish in their role as stats increase. If you start reducing the increase from step to step, they will fade even faster.


Where Rogues fits into this is.... more complex.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tynan
post Jan 28 2007, 02:23 PM
Post #12


Ee san
Group Icon

Group: Nobles
Posts: 506
Joined: 3-July 06
From: British Columbia, Canada
Member No.: 12



Well, first of all, a slight correction:

The sans occur, in vitality, at 10,000x2^n for n = 4, 5, 6, 7, ... (just start at n = 3 for mana).

Or, to put it in less geeky terms, 160K, 320K, 640K, etc. You seem to have them start at 120K - I wish! I would be nearly sa san by now. wink.gif

But, like I said, it is a small matter, because it would not affect your numbers (since they still double so the ratio is maintained) or idea.

More importantly, I think this could work (though obviously exactly which numbers to use would need to be tested). However, I wonder if this would not involve adding new cave levels and altering previous ones? Is the game suitable for such a progression?

I mean, let's say, for the sake of argument, that we made it so that a sa san warrior permanently hit as though he were on a x60 fury with the ee san ingress (~3/4 of current R6). Okay, now Cave3 is not going to be strong enough, at least the caves that are hunted now. Hunting would be trivial (well, more trivial).

Then again, I already support having something more like 5 cave levels divided in a different fashion. Pity we cannot really implement that now, and could at best add on levels to what we have.

This concern also extends to lower caves. If we force perfect smoothness, what is balanced in say, Dragon1, might be imbalanced in Sheep2, and then again balanced in Anchorite3.

See, this is what should have been done when Nexus was being designed. It should have been in the design document. If it were, a formula could have been made that would govern the buffness of a cave relative to the buffness of the swing damage relative to the buffness of special attacks. This way, things could progress in an orderly fashion to infinity. Right now, things are just all over the place, and fitting a fury that steps into it is just pure chaos.

Also, as for warriors needing to buy mana...

See, this is where I am divided. On the one hand, I can see why it is fair - then warriors cannot just become hulking vitality beasts. The problem is that while warriors are buying this mana, they are getting nothing back for it save the fury (Siege does not count, and Rend is a Barbarian thing). Rogues, on the other hand, are empowering their Lethal Strike to insane levels, and Desperate Attack is getting better, too.

So, if we would force warriors to buy mana at each new san for each new fury, we'd need to do one of two things:

1.) Make their vitality attacks depend IN A SMALL WAY on mana. This is not a formula I have balanced,but am just suggesting as an example: Berserk damage = 0.9*Vitality + 0.25*Mana, drains X% mana (X is small, warriors should not need constant inspires, but it is fair to drain something, like maybe 5%).

The goal would be to make the mana useful to warriors, but not so useful that they'd want to buy loads of it beyond the fury's requirements.

2.) Make their vitality attacks...ummm....not suck? Then again this needs to be done anyway. You know the drill: more damage, less drain, etc.

Rogues, I disagree with you, are easy. Make them require lots of mana, as they go 3:1 anyway, for the most part. It is not even a problem for them, really.

P.S. Another thing that stops warriors and makes things 'fair' - stat costs. Since warriors cannot balance their stats (or should not, as it is useless), they are punished by costs ramping up. Whereas every other path goes from 3:1 to 1:1, keeping the costs more even, thus getting more buff for less experience, warriors pump it all into vitality, and thus grow buffer slower.

This is one reason why warriors, even after getting their requisite R6 mana, do not pull away from rogues and actually can lose ground. All those warriors you see on the top end of the power lists would be a few spots higher if they could buy mana with purpose. That is one reason you'll likely never see a top 5 warrior again, though it is a small one.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hugen
post Jan 29 2007, 09:55 AM
Post #13


Enchanted
***

Group: Nobles
Posts: 116
Joined: 22-December 06
Member No.: 1,467



QUOTE(Tynan @ Jan 28 2007, 02:23 PM) [snapback]24752[/snapback]

Well, first of all, a slight correction:

The sans occur, in vitality, at 10,000x2^n for n = 4, 5, 6, 7, ... (just start at n = 3 for mana).

Or, to put it in less geeky terms, 160K, 320K, 640K, etc. You seem to have them start at 120K - I wish! I would be nearly sa san by now. wink.gif


I know that. I wasn't going for the start of a "san", I was going for the mid-point.

My five steps are:

Step 1 (sub-enchant 99) (broken into three sub-steps of 15k, 30k, and 60k vitality);

Step 2 (Enchant) (I use 120k, since that is the mid-point of the 80k-159k vita range);

Step 3 (Il san) (for this I used 240k, the midpoint of 160k-319k);

Step 4 (Ee san) (480k, the midpoint of 320k-639k); and finally

Step 5 (Sam san) (960k, not exactly a midpoint, but it should be when the next san (Sa san?) comes out).

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Siverno
post Feb 20 2007, 02:49 AM
Post #14


Level 5
*

Group: Peasants
Posts: 7
Joined: 12-December 06
Member No.: 1,401
Characters: Siverno



My reply here is kind of late... but...

It seems on your spreadsheet (I'm looking at the second Microsoft excel one) that you have a 99 Warrior using a 3x ingress.

That kind of confuses me honestly. I'm pretty sure the strongest Ingress for a non Il (not including the subpaths) is the level 70 one. Which is a 2x I thought.

There's something I'm forgetting or missing here I'm sure.


But either way...
I've already posted my thoughts on the Warrior attacks, so I'll just post what I think about Rage vs Cunning here really.


Honestly when you consider all of the problems with using incremental furies, such as a Sam san hitting like an insect when on R1. No matter how much you change ingress, you can't balance it properly in that regard. Because say you gave a x10 Ingress to a Sam san this would make them a lot more useful on Rage1, but too strong at R5+. Which is why the only possible way to balance anything is to change Rage and Cunning.


If they insist on keeping them incremental, then here's what I think should be done.

Remove all of the AC increases from Rage, and improve each step of Rage, and weaken R6.

Well actually for example, Tynan has some listed new possible values for R1-6 below. The x30-x60 I don't think works really, especially considering that I think they originally intended for Warriors to have to "build up" more of their strength.

I think the earlier values that were posted of x16-x72 makes it a little too weak at Rage1. However I think that it may work.

If you change Rage to be the x16, x24, x32, x40, x54, x72 and make cunning a x5,x6,x8,x10,x12 then provide an Il san ingress for rogues and a Sam san level ingress for warriors it would balance it a lot better.


I don't have time to post those changes into a Spreadsheet and everything, but at first glance they seem to at the very least work a lot better than the current setup.

I don't know about Mana cost changes and such, but I'd suppose they probably wouldn't need to change too much.

I think the only problem with Rage being x16-x72 is it's still too much of a jump from 1-6.

So I'm thinking, make the Sam san warrior Ingress a 7x and change Rage to be a x16,x24,x32,x40,x50,x60 or something very similar to that at least it would work. That along with improving Berserk for Warriors and possibly a slight improvement to Whirlwind, should balance things out a lot better.

But I'm forgetting something again, I just know it...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hugen
post Feb 20 2007, 10:05 AM
Post #15


Enchanted
***

Group: Nobles
Posts: 116
Joined: 22-December 06
Member No.: 1,467



QUOTE(Siverno @ Feb 20 2007, 02:49 AM) [snapback]26757[/snapback]

My reply here is kind of late... but...


It's never too late.

QUOTE

It seems on your spreadsheet (I'm looking at the second Microsoft excel one) that you have a 99 Warrior using a 3x ingress.

That kind of confuses me honestly. I'm pretty sure the strongest Ingress for a non Il (not including the subpaths) is the level 70 one. Which is a 2x I thought.


The last time I tested, it was 3x. And frankly, how much lower than 3x could it really be? It is, after all, the third Ingress Warriors receive.

Inititally there is no Ingress at 1x, then
the first Ingress is 1.5x,
the second is 2x, and
the third is 3x.

If the third were only 2x, what would the first and second be?

QUOTE

There's something I'm forgetting or missing here I'm sure.
But either way...
I've already posted my thoughts on the Warrior attacks, so I'll just post what I think about Rage vs Cunning here really.
Honestly when you consider all of the problems with using incremental furies, such as a Sam san hitting like an insect when on R1. No matter how much you change ingress, you can't balance it properly in that regard. Because say you gave a x10 Ingress to a Sam san this would make them a lot more useful on Rage1, but too strong at R5+. Which is why the only possible way to balance anything is to change Rage and Cunning.
If they insist on keeping them incremental, then here's what I think should be done.

Remove all of the AC increases from Rage, and improve each step of Rage, and weaken R6.

Well actually for example, Tynan has some listed new possible values for R1-6 below. The x30-x60 I don't think works really, especially considering that I think they originally intended for Warriors to have to "build up" more of their strength.

I think the earlier values that were posted of x16-x72 makes it a little too weak at Rage1. However I think that it may work.

If you change Rage to be the x16, x24, x32, x40, x54, x72 and make cunning a x5,x6,x8,x10,x12 then provide an Il san ingress for rogues and a Sam san level ingress for warriors it would balance it a lot better.
I don't have time to post those changes into a Spreadsheet and everything, but at first glance they seem to at the very least work a lot better than the current setup.

I don't know about Mana cost changes and such, but I'd suppose they probably wouldn't need to change too much.

I think the only problem with Rage being x16-x72 is it's still too much of a jump from 1-6.

So I'm thinking, make the Sam san warrior Ingress a 7x and change Rage to be a x16,x24,x32,x40,x50,x60 or something very similar to that at least it would work. That along with improving Berserk for Warriors and possibly a slight improvement to Whirlwind, should balance things out a lot better.

But I'm forgetting something again, I just know it...


We've played with these numbers, and while there are an almost infinite number of solutions that are better than the current system, we have to decide what we want to optimize.

Realistically, it is probably best to minimize radical change. So, while Rogues are overpowered at early 99, and a better solution for cave balance and progression might be to bring them down to the Warriors, the simplest is to simply leave them alone and bring Warriors UP to them.

Progression isn't as pretty, but the interpath balance is remarkable.

The: 24x, 30x, 38x, 46x, 54x, 64x Rage coupled with the very minor Ingress tweaks (Warriors get their +1x at Sam, Rogues get their Ingresses starting 1 mark lower), results in some very balanced, and much flatter values, as shown below in strike damage in k to 0 AC:

Level/Stat Progression 1: sub-Enchant 99
8.1 ChungRyong w/ Scale, Rage 1-3 {5.5 > 6.9 > 8.8}
10.9 ChungRyong w/ Polearm, Rage 1-3 {7.5 > 9.3 > 11.8}
11.2 Baekho w/ Polearm, Cunning 1-2 {9.8 > 11.5}

Level/Stat Progression 2: Enchant Stats
10.7 ChungRyong w/ Enchanted Scale, Rage 1-4 {6.4 > 8.0 > 10.2 > 12.3}
12.5 ChungRyong w/ Polearm, Rage 1-4 {7.5 > 9.3 > 11.8 > 14.3}
13.4 Baekho w/ Polearm, Cunning 1-3 {9.8 > 11.5 > 14.8}

Level/Stat Progression 3: Il san Stats
19.3 Fury w/ Il san Scale, Rage 1-5 {10.5 > 13.2 > 16.7 > 20.2 > 23.7}
22.4 Fury w/ Military Polearm, Rage 1-5 {12.2 > 15.3 > 19.4 > 23.4 > 27.5}
22.2 Cunning w/ Heavy Polearm, Cunning 1-4 {15.3 > 17.8 > 22.9 > 25.5}
24.1 Cunning w/ Heavy Polearm, Cunning 1-5 {15.3 > 17.8 > 22.9 > 25.5 > 30.6}

Level/Stat Progression 4: Ee san Stats
28.2 Assault w/ Ee san Scale, Rage 1-5 {15.4 > 19.2 > 24.3 > 29.4 > 34.5}
33.8 Assault w/ Military Polearm, Rage 1-5 {18.4 > 23.0 > 29.2 > 35.3 > 41.5}
30.5 Assault w/ Ee san Scale, Rage 1-6 {15.4 > 19.2 > 24.3 > 29.4 > 34.5 > 40.9}
36.6 Assault w/ Military Polearm, Rage 1-6 {18.4 > 23.0 > 29.2 > 35.3 > 41.5 > 49.1}
34.5 Swift w/ Military Polearm, Cunning 1-5 {21.9 > 25.6 > 32.9 > 36.6 > 43.9}

Level/Stat Progression 5: Sam san Stats
38.7 Barrage w/ Sam san Scale, Rage 1-5 {21.1 > 26.4 > 33.4 > 40.5 > 47.5}
39.9 Barrage w/ Military Polearm, Rage 1-5 {21.7 > 27.2 > 34.4 > 41.7 > 48.9}
41.9 Barrage w/ Sam san Scale, Rage 1-6 {21.1 > 26.4 > 33.4 > 40.5 > 47.5 > 56.3}
43.1 Barrage w/ Military Polearm, Rage 1-6 {21.7 > 27.2 > 34.4 > 41.7 > 48.9 > 58.0}
41.5 Shikari w/ Military Polearm, Cunning 1-5 {26.4 > 30.8 > 39.6 > 43.9 > 52.7}

Could it be done in a better way? Sure. I am a big fan of multitudes of flat furies learned in the back rooms of the Warrior guilds (every quarter mark or so in mana, you are able to enter a new "cave" where you can learn a new flat fury).

But, is their a better way that requires as little change? I don't know. If there is, I haven't seen it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Siverno
post Feb 20 2007, 11:37 PM
Post #16


Level 5
*

Group: Peasants
Posts: 7
Joined: 12-December 06
Member No.: 1,401
Characters: Siverno



Ahh I looked back through the spell list. I completely forgot they had Enchant, the level 28 ingress.

I had been thinking they had only 2 ingresses, level 55 and level 70.

Told ya I always forget something.



But either way, yeah a x24-x64 seems to work pretty well also. I suppose that is easier than weakening the earlier Cunning's as well.

In all honesty I doubt they'll ever add in an Ingress for Sam san warriors, or Il san rogues. Since that involves adding in a new spell completely, rather than editing an existing one, and we all know how Kru/Nexon is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SinJackal
post Mar 22 2007, 08:51 PM
Post #17


Level 99
**

Group: Citizens
Posts: 69
Joined: 26-August 06
Member No.: 714





It's time for SinJackal to post.



I would never make a post like this under normal circumstances, but



rofl, shut up dude. "24x, 30x, 38x, 46x, 54x, 64x " How arrogant can one person get?


Look.


Warrior damages: ingress: x5 + rage. Let's not factor in the extra damage boost from might, or the fact that warriors dont need an easily removable status (invisible) on to do their full damage. Or even the fact that warrior get full flank and backstab through 100% of their rage.


Sam rogue


c1: weapon: x6 (cunn) x2 (ingress) x9 (invis) = damage. That's weapon x108

c2: weapon: x7 (cunn) x2 (ingress) x9 (invis) = damage. That's weapon x126

c3: weapon: x9 (cunn) x2 (ingress) x9 (invis) = damage. That's weapon x162

c4: weapon: x10 (cunn) x2 (ingress) x9 (invis) = damage. That's weapon x180

c5: weapon: x12 (cunn) x2 (ingress) x9 (invis) = damage. That's weapon x216



Ee warrior:


r1: weapon: x5 (ingress) x 24 (your proposed r1) = damage. that's weapon x120

r2: weapon: x5 (ingress) x 30 (your proposed r2) = damage. that's weapon x150

r3: weapon: x5 (ingress) x 38 (your proposed r3) = damage. that's weapon x190

r4: weapon: x5 (ingress) x 46 (your proposed r4) = damage. that's weapon x230

r5: weapon: x5 (ingress) x 56 (your proposed r5) = damage. that's weapon x280

r6: weapon: x5 (ingress) x 64 (your proposed r6) = damage. that's weapon x320



So basically Ee warrior's r1 > sam rogue's c1, almost better than sam rogue's c2. Ee warrior's r2 almost better than sam rogue's c3. Ee warrior's r3 > sam rogue's c4. Ee warrior's r4 > Sam rogue c5. And obviously the rest blows cunning away, not taking into consideration the fact that warriors get flank and backstab on those lower rages, and rogues do not. Oh, and warriors have lower aethers to rage up too. *cough*, no.



Nothing about that idea is good.








As it stands now, CURRENT rage is FINE. Let me SHOW YOU.






Sam rogue


c1: weapon: x6 (cunn) x2 (ingress) x9 (invis) = damage. That's weapon x108

c2: weapon: x7 (cunn) x2 (ingress) x9 (invis) = damage. That's weapon x126

c3: weapon: x9 (cunn) x2 (ingress) x9 (invis) = damage. That's weapon x162

c4: weapon: x10 (cunn) x2 (ingress) x9 (invis) = damage. That's weapon x180

c5: weapon: x12 (cunn) x2 (ingress) x9 (invis) = damage. That's weapon x216



That's a SAM ROGUE. Would you like me to throw up EE rogue and compare it to an EE warrior? It would make you puke. Let me show you.


Ee rogue


c1: weapon: x6 (cunn) x1.5 (ingress) x9 (invis) = damage. That's weapon x81

c2: weapon: x7 (cunn) x1.5 (ingress) x9 (invis) = damage. That's weapon x94.5

c3: weapon: x9 (cunn) x1.5 (ingress) x9 (invis) = damage. That's weapon x121.5

c4: weapon: x10 (cunn) x1.5 (ingress) x9 (invis) = damage. That's weapon x135

c5: weapon: x12 (cunn) x1.5 (ingress) x9 (invis) = damage. That's weapon x162


8/14/20/26/36/81


Ee warrior:


r1: weapon: x8 (rage) x5 (ingress) = damage. that's weapon x 40

r2: weapon: x14 (rage) x5 (ingress) = damage. that's weapon x 70

r3: weapon: x20 (rage) x5 (ingress) = damage. that's weapon x 100

r4: weapon: x26 (rage) x5 (ingress) = damage. that's weapon x 130

r5: weapon: x36 (rage) x5 (ingress) = damage. that's weapon x 180

r6: weapon: x81 (rage) x5 (ingress) = damage. that's weapon x 405





Now don't forget the aethers being 30 seconds lower. So if we compared them properly. . . .



c1: weapon: x6 (cunn) x1.5 (ingress) x9 (invis) = damage. That's weapon x81 (0 seconds in)
r1: weapon: x8 (rage) x5 (ingress) = damage. that's weapon x 40 F/BS (0 seconds in)

r2: weapon: x14 (rage) x5 (ingress) = damage. that's weapon x 70 F/BS (120 sec in)

c2: weapon: x7 (cunn) x1.5 (ingress) x9 (invis) = damage. That's weapon x94.5 F (150 sec in)

r3: weapon: x20 (rage) x5 (ingress) = damage. that's weapon x 100 F/BS (240 sec in)

c3: weapon: x9 (cunn) x1.5 (ingress) x9 (invis) = damage. That's weapon x121.5 F (300 sec in)

r4: weapon: x26 (rage) x5 (ingress) = damage. that's weapon x 130 F/BS (360 sec in)

c4: weapon: x10 (cunn) x1.5 (ingress) x9 (invis) = damage. That's weapon x135 F/BS (450 sec in)

r5: weapon: x36 (rage) x5 (ingress) = damage. that's weapon x 180 F/BS (480 sec in


c5: weapon: x12 (cunn) x1.5 (ingress) x9 (invis) = damage. That's weapon x162 F/BS (600 sec in)
r6: weapon: x81 (rage) x5 (ingress) = damage. that's weapon x 405 F?BS (600 sec in)






k. Too lazy to think up or type anything more. Feel free to compare rage and sam cunn too. Ee r5 = sam c4, only they have more might and no need to invis, and they get to r5 30 seconds faster. etc etc


~ S.J.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hugen
post Mar 26 2007, 10:21 AM
Post #18


Enchanted
***

Group: Nobles
Posts: 116
Joined: 22-December 06
Member No.: 1,467



SinJackal, the problem with your calculations is they look at Weapon only. You say that like it is a simplification that is in the Warrior's favor, but the fact is, it is not. Rogues benefit MUCH more from Dam and Might values than Warriors do, even when the Warriors have HIGHER Dam and Might.

Let's look at your Sam Rogue and Sam Warrior to illustrate.

Both will follow the formula:

Damage = ( Wpn x Ing + Other ) x Fur x Inv

Where Other is the damage added from Might and Dam.

This can be rewritten as:

Damage = ( Wpn x Ing x Fur x Inv ) + (Other x Fur x Inv )

You have compared the first part of the equation, ( Wpn x Ing x Fur x Inv ), with no consideration for the second part of the equation.

But, remember that currently Warriors (CR's) have a Fur x Inv progression of:

8 x 1 = 8
14 x 1 = 14
20 x 1 = 20
26 x 1 = 26
36 x 1 = 36
81 x 1 = 81

with a weighted average over time of 42.5, or

Other x 42.5 across a Rage cycle.

Whereas Rogues (Baekhos) have a Fur x Inv progression of:

6 x 9 = 54
7 x 9 = 63
9 x 9 = 81
10 x 9 = 90
12 x 9 = 108

with a weighted average over time of 9.4 x 9 = 85, or

Other x 85 across a Cunning cycle.

So, the question then becomes, how significant to the damage done is this other stuff?

That question is answered in the workbooks Tynan created which used typical equipment values and Mights.


His numbers are balanced against Rogue damages, what they are endeavoring to do is flatten out the Warrior's damage a bit more across a cycle, so that there isn't the 10:1 variation that currently exists.

They are not designed to significantly boost total Warrior damage in respect to Rogue damage.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Vortextk
post Mar 26 2007, 01:54 PM
Post #19


Sam san
Group Icon

Group: Nobles
Posts: 808
Joined: 6-February 07
From: Cape Canaveral, Fl
Member No.: 1,757
Characters: Frog



I don't know why there is any debate to make rage stronger when warriors at r6 make more xp than rogues. Don't they? Always have with me. From il-san r6's in sheep2 to sam-san r6's now in whatever vortex3 cave I'm in, warriors give me more xp.

While I set well and pretty quick, I can't help it if something spawns in a set or if like 4 monsters rush next to a fighter in a diamond making it near impossible to get everything 1 tile away until 1-2 die. For a rogue, this means MUCH less damage for that period as they are constantly coming out of invis as we both vita/hf the monster in the way. A warrior hits that side for less damage, the rest is unaffected as he keeps swinging, and we kill the monster again with vitas/hf.

Zerk I think is a bit weak, but rage? The most important numbers are xp/time and warriors > rogues in that case as soon as they are r6 and c5 respectively.(Assuming PA fighting, with the 1hitter crowd I have no idea how the numbers stand)


--------------------
IPB Image
Pandemonium Frog My Progress
Warriors; so easy a caveman could do it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SinJackal
post Apr 10 2007, 10:42 AM
Post #20


Level 99
**

Group: Citizens
Posts: 69
Joined: 26-August 06
Member No.: 714





Exactly. Warriors have always been able to make 10-15% more experience than rogues (even worse when you get to cave3, and ESPECIALLY at Ee, when Assaults completely dwarf Swifts). There's absolutely no reason to beef an already powerful rage up any more than it already is.

If you want more exp, get higher stats and cycle more. Or hunt with better hunters. Warriors are already superior to rogues in polearm hunts. And now thanks to Mug, they're capable of being almost three times better in non polearm hunts.


You guys need to spend more time thinking of ways to help you in pk than hunts, because hunting was never a problem for warriors. Why waste your time?


As for vortextk's comment, if you're ONLY duoing rogue/poet, and warrior/poet, a rogue would outdo them (before the vita attack splash damage thing). The ability to lay traps, and control the hunt to a decent effect gives them an edge. If you had the stats to do so, hunts would be about 10-15% better better exp with a rogue, and much less stressful. Of course, any warrior buff enough to actually one-zerk, or one-assault can easily find a weak rogue who will trap for them. Yeah, it's an extra person, but with splash damage now. . .lol. Warriors like Suwan can kill as much as I can in 15 minutes in about 5-6 minutes if they play their cards right. And I'm getting extra kills with Assassinate too.

By far Mug's worst idea yet, in my opinion.


~ S.J.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st August 2017 - 09:01 AM
Nexus Forums is part of: Nexus Atlas © all rights reserved.