Ironworks Gaming Forum - View Single Post

EEWorzelle · 09-04-2003, 10:25 AM

Good stuff, Sultan.

Yeah I post on VN also, but haven't been regularly following RPGDot. Dorkus' work is good. I wonder what editor he is using and whether he is able to use it with v 1.2.4.

The work He did on Powercast is inconclusive and does not match higher resistance (non-scientific) observations made in my games on the Peak. I have had the opportunity to compare no Powercast Spells with Powercast 100 against monsters at numerous resistances and often the damage there, on the Peak is 0 without Powercast.

Also I worked a particular example there a bit, with a comparison of a Alchemist and Gadgeteer casting Tsunami, and a Mage casting Blizzard. They were attacking 12 creatures with a resistance of only 90 or 100 in the Water Realm.

The results were all three casters hitting all twelve monsters for an average of

Alchemist - 107
Gadgeteer - 72
Mage - 96

All spells were successfully cast at Power Level 7. The Mage actually had slightly higher Powercast (107) versus Alchemist (99), but Blizard is only a Level 6 spell. I studied this one because I found the 1300 Damage in a single round of the Alchemist interesting and the fact that the three of them "averaged" over 1000. At the time players were posting that magic is less effective on the peak. I was also using this to discuss the wisdom of taking on multiple parties of foes at once, for a Magic-Heavy party (contradicts traditional wisdom but is often smart to do).

However I found the Bards attack spells, with or without Powercast - makes no difference for the Bard - were often ineffective (Damage = exactly 0) on the peak.

Good job on your confirming measurements. Now that is quality information. It is indeed interesting, that your measurements show less than half of what the weapons give. We have known there are other factors, like level of party and foe, but the impact of those is not quantified yet. What I am wondering is if it is really 4% for Critical Strike Skill = 100, like Otter proposes, or a higher % with these same "other" factors having an impact. i.e. maybe Scott's original presumption of 10% was closer to correct, in an apples to apples comparison to Kill % on weapons, but that other factors reduce both, in practice, to something much less than that. Just an idea.

No, wait a minute. That would not match the data in your previous experiment, would it, where you found critical strikes should be and were the same with the Ninja and Rogue using 4% of Critical Strike Skill in your Ninja calculation? Did you take numbers for your earlier test?

This is definitely getting much closer to a complete picture, isn't it?

[ 09-04-2003, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: EEWorzelle ]

09-04-2003, 10:25 AM	#49
EEWorzelle Manshoon Join Date: October 25, 2002 Location: Gilbert, Az Age: 72 Posts: 234	Good stuff, Sultan. Yeah I post on VN also, but haven't been regularly following RPGDot. Dorkus' work is good. I wonder what editor he is using and whether he is able to use it with v 1.2.4. The work He did on Powercast is inconclusive and does not match higher resistance (non-scientific) observations made in my games on the Peak. I have had the opportunity to compare no Powercast Spells with Powercast 100 against monsters at numerous resistances and often the damage there, on the Peak is 0 without Powercast. Also I worked a particular example there a bit, with a comparison of a Alchemist and Gadgeteer casting Tsunami, and a Mage casting Blizzard. They were attacking 12 creatures with a resistance of only 90 or 100 in the Water Realm. The results were all three casters hitting all twelve monsters for an average of Alchemist - 107 Gadgeteer - 72 Mage - 96 All spells were successfully cast at Power Level 7. The Mage actually had slightly higher Powercast (107) versus Alchemist (99), but Blizard is only a Level 6 spell. I studied this one because I found the 1300 Damage in a single round of the Alchemist interesting and the fact that the three of them "averaged" over 1000. At the time players were posting that magic is less effective on the peak. I was also using this to discuss the wisdom of taking on multiple parties of foes at once, for a Magic-Heavy party (contradicts traditional wisdom but is often smart to do). However I found the Bards attack spells, with or without Powercast - makes no difference for the Bard - were often ineffective (Damage = exactly 0) on the peak. Good job on your confirming measurements. Now that is quality information. It is indeed interesting, that your measurements show less than half of what the weapons give. We have known there are other factors, like level of party and foe, but the impact of those is not quantified yet. What I am wondering is if it is really 4% for Critical Strike Skill = 100, like Otter proposes, or a higher % with these same "other" factors having an impact. i.e. maybe Scott's original presumption of 10% was closer to correct, in an apples to apples comparison to Kill % on weapons, but that other factors reduce both, in practice, to something much less than that. Just an idea. No, wait a minute. That would not match the data in your previous experiment, would it, where you found critical strikes should be and were the same with the Ninja and Rogue using 4% of Critical Strike Skill in your Ninja calculation? Did you take numbers for your earlier test? This is definitely getting much closer to a complete picture, isn't it? [ 09-04-2003, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: EEWorzelle ]