Genuine question about the October Vote results

Edit: I totally forgot to add- This post is more about scouts bow damage variance, not just physical, and it's a comparison from DAoC SI 1.65 to Phoenix Currently.

This regards the physical damage variance section. Did anyone else notice this?
https://forum.playphoenix.online/survey-results

"Do you prefer the ***original*** way physical damage variance works (a random bonus of 0% to 50%) or the current way (the average, always 25% bonus)?"

v1.65 SI, Dark Age of Camelot, never had a 0-50% damage dice roll for it's physical damage variance for scouts critshots from what I remember. The original damage variance felt like it was actually a fixed value, or better yet pre-calculated on each critshot hit, which meant if you hit someone for cap damage, (for the sake of this argument) for 800 damage... then the next time you hit with that same ability/style, it would be 800 (for critshots). the variance was already calculated in that swing. at least it's what it felt like https://camelotherald.fandom.com/wiki/Patch_Notes:_Version_1.65

My question is, why was it worded this way? This is very misleading to people skimming through the voting process when they see, "Original" vs "Current". I feel as though saying the original way the variance worked being 0 to 50% is very disingenuous/misleading to players. (if they ever played a scout) because scouts actually hit for capped damage back then a good majority of the time. so literally by definition, there is 0 variance if you're hitting for cap.

I hope this can come to light and people here on phoenix will see the issues this creates.
This is not a knock on the Dev team or how they operate. I'm also not implying any purposeful wording behind their actions. it could have very well been a typo or something.

Best regards. Have a great day!

Thu 13 May 2021 12:43 AM by

gruenesschaf

You truly believe that, eh?

Oh look what's this, an entirely unrelated test that has nothing to do with variance yet includes observed min and max damage:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050907003750/http://www.dragonheart-guild.com/arena/results-weaponskill.htm
Oh look, roughly 80 - 120 as observed damage values.

Oh what's this, a site about mechanics calling out variance? https://talsyra.tripod.com/daocmechanics/damage_variance.html

Oh what's this, a site showing archer melee damage with a combat log excerpt that contains at least low 8x hits and 11x hits? https://sites.google.com/site/daoctests/home/archer-melee-dps

Almost looks like variance was a thing. How unexpected.

Thu 13 May 2021 12:51 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 12:43 AM
You truly believe that, eh?

Oh look what's this, an entirely unrelated test that has nothing to do with variance yet includes observed min and max damage:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050907003750/http://www.dragonheart-guild.com/arena/results-weaponskill.htm
Oh look, roughly 80 - 120 as observed damage values.

Oh what's this, a site about mechanics calling out variance? https://talsyra.tripod.com/daocmechanics/damage_variance.html

Oh what's this, a site showing archer melee damage with a combat log excerpt that contains at least low 8x hits and 11x hits? https://sites.google.com/site/daoctests/home/archer-melee-dps

Almost looks like variance was a thing.

That was a test from 2005, SI 1.65 was early to late 2002. which wasn't v1.65?
Are you seriously talking to me like a child? after being polite with my post? That's not professional and leave me with bitterness for a retort. I wont go that route because I'm not wanting to get banned for stating facts. There is no reason to be as rude as you were after my OP. This is also very disappointing and unprofessional coming from you :/

As I stated, yes, Variance was a thing, I never said it was not. It was a fixed value in v1.65. A value of just 25% not 0-to-50%. That was later and much later, introduced as you showed in your thread.

Thu 13 May 2021 12:52 AM by

gruenesschaf

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 12:51 AM
As I stated, yes, Variance was a thing, I never said it was not. It was a fixed value in v1.65. A value of just 25% not 0-to-50%. That was later and much later, introduced as you showed in your thread.

A value of just 25% was our custom setting at launch and it stayed that way up to this vote at which point we changed it as the other option won.

Thu 13 May 2021 12:57 AM by Fugax

Would be interesting to see Cloakwork's take on it. He is pretty good at advise with these types of things Paqdizzle.

Thu 13 May 2021 1:00 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 12:52 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 12:51 AM
As I stated, yes, Variance was a thing, I never said it was not. It was a fixed value in v1.65. A value of just 25% not 0-to-50%. That was later and much later, introduced as you showed in your thread.

A value of just 25% was our custom setting at launch and it stayed that way up to this vote at which point we changed it as the other option won.

I mained a scout since 2002. The variance was a fixed value. how? Scouts hit for capped damage majority of the time, my link even proved that from 1.65, which is noted in your "About us" section that 1.65 was the foundation.
Listen, I'm not being rude, there is no reason you should have responded as such. Oh What's this.... Oh what's this..... Oh look at that. That is very rude and I would have gotten a mute or ban just acting that way, the way you responded.. This is why I don't use the forums here. I gave links that got dismissed as faulty. I pointed out at what era of DAoC I was referring to, still got dismissed with a rude response. I'm very disappointed you see it this way and had to give a link from 2005 which was not v1.65.

I have a picture of the damage variance I've seen on my 9l4 scout here on phoenix, and even that was dismissed. I'll send it to you through a DM so you can see.

You're disregarding everything I stated just to be rude to me.

Thu 13 May 2021 1:03 AM by paqdizzle

Fugax wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 12:57 AM
Would be interesting to see Cloakwork's take on it. He is pretty good at advise with these types of things Paqdizzle.

The problem is, I bleed Red, Green, and Blue since 2001, it was my only game to play because how great it was. So when I refer to something I know deep in my veins to be true, even posted links to 1.65 values- and get a response like this? man.. I'm afraid of responding how I want to, being treated this way by him because I'll get in trouble and he wont :/

Thu 13 May 2021 1:05 AM by

gruenesschaf

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 12:51 AM
Are you seriously talking to me like a child? after being polite with my post? That's not professional and leave me with bitterness for a retort. I wont go that route because I'm not wanting to get banned for stating facts. There is no reason to be as rude as you were after my OP. This is also very disappointing and unprofessional coming from you :/

What do you expect when you make such an easily disproven claim that by definition means you're saying we're lying / misleading? While the word fact kind of lost all meaning as alternative facts are now a thing, I'd very much prefer to only refer to actual facts as facts here.

It's fine to misremember things, it's however not fine to post something like this multiple times without even doing the slightest hint of research. I mean you apparently even ignored the second link I posted, otherwise you'd have seen that it talks about 1.66 at the very top while also referencing a grab bag from 2002 which even spells out the 100 - 150% thing: https://web.archive.org/web/20040305095050/http://www.camelotherald.com/more/474.shtml

Thu 13 May 2021 1:08 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 1:05 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 12:51 AM
Are you seriously talking to me like a child? after being polite with my post? That's not professional and leave me with bitterness for a retort. I wont go that route because I'm not wanting to get banned for stating facts. There is no reason to be as rude as you were after my OP. This is also very disappointing and unprofessional coming from you :/

What do you expect when you make such an easily disproven claim that by definition means you're saying we're lying / misleading? While the word fact kind of lost all meaning as alternative facts are now a thing, I'd very much prefer to only refer to actual facts as facts here.

It's fine to misremember things, it's however not fine to post something like this multiple times without even doing the slightest hint of research. I mean you apparently even ignored the second link I posted, otherwise you'd have seen that it talks about 1.66 at the very top while also referencing a grab bag from 2002 which even spells out the 100 - 150% thing: https://web.archive.org/web/20040305095050/http://www.camelotherald.com/more/474.shtml

Read my post again...

"I hope this can come to light and people here on phoenix will see the issues this creates.
This is not a knock on the Dev team or how they operate. I'm also not implying any purposeful wording behind their actions. it could have very well been a typo or something."

I even stated this from the get.. and it's literally not disproven. I provided OG DAoC 1.65 SI Patch notes for you to look through. This isn't an argument either. Just concern. Then you come off like I'm some brat child misbehaving in a store.. Very unprofessional and very rude for little to no reasoning behind it.

Thu 13 May 2021 1:24 AM by

gruenesschaf

Since you are apparently not reading anything that's further down in a reply let me open with a quote from the 2002 grab bag I linked

If you have NO trains in your weapon at all, each swing may do 25% to 125% of X in damage. X is equal to the result of a complex formula, taking into account weapon quality, condition, bonuses, your strength or dex, the opponent’s armor, and some other things.

If you have trained up to 2/3 of your level in your weapon, each swing may do 75% to 125% of X.

If you are trained up to your level, each swing may do 100% to 150% of X.

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 1:08 AM
I even stated this from the get.. and it's literally not disproven. I provided OG DAoC 1.65 SI Patch notes for you to look through. This isn't an argument either. Just concern. Then you come off like I'm some brat child misbehaving in a store.. Very unprofessional and very rude for little to no reasoning behind it.

This entire thread is just utterly pointless and just wastes time. This is like claiming the earth is flat or the sun revolves around the earth, the existence of variance in daoc is literally that basic. Still, disproving such a claim wastes time, especially if you move the goal post to only accept direct sources around the si patch level without providing literally anything to back up your claim, like a post 1.65 patch note saying variance was introduced. I would imagine introducing variance would have been a pretty big deal worthy of a patch note remark.

Thu 13 May 2021 1:38 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 1:24 AM
Since you are apparently not reading anything that's further down in a reply let me open with a quote from the 2002 grab bag I linked

If you have NO trains in your weapon at all, each swing may do 25% to 125% of X in damage. X is equal to the result of a complex formula, taking into account weapon quality, condition, bonuses, your strength or dex, the opponent’s armor, and some other things.

If you have trained up to 2/3 of your level in your weapon, each swing may do 75% to 125% of X.

If you are trained up to your level, each swing may do 100% to 150% of X.

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 1:08 AM
I even stated this from the get.. and it's literally not disproven. I provided OG DAoC 1.65 SI Patch notes for you to look through. This isn't an argument either. Just concern. Then you come off like I'm some brat child misbehaving in a store.. Very unprofessional and very rude for little to no reasoning behind it.

This entire thread is just utterly pointless and just wastes time. This is like claiming the earth is flat or the sun revolves around the earth, the existence of variance in daoc is literally that basic. Still, disproving such a claim wastes time, especially if you move the goal post to only accept direct sources around the si patch level without providing literally anything to back up your claim, like a post 1.65 patch note saying variance was introduced. I would imagine introducing variance would have been a pretty big deal worthy of a patch note remark.

You're just the worst aren't you? holy cow... What's the green name supposed to mean again?
Did you not play daoc in 2002? on live? version 1.65? or..... if so, did you make a scout? if so, when you hit a target several times, what happened to you damage values? did they change? or were they the same? It really sounds like you never played in 2002/1.65. Can you explain how I was capable of doing 1k damage critshots every 10 seconds? repeatedly- so long as it was after 10 seconds it never changed... at all.

I would like to urge you to find some footage of 2002 gameplay of a scout then come back here and try to punk me around like I'm some kid. I don't appreciate you acting this way towards a concerned player.. Are you going to tell me that Levi is the same as 1.65 too? or PA? or what about SoS being alb only? are you going to tell me that was never a thing too? You are purposefully pressing my buttons, for no reason... And to state it's like arguing about earth being flat? unbelievable... It's like you know I'm right, so you purposely press my buttons enough for me to be vulgar or say something just so you can ban me with a just cause. I'm not falling for it.

Go look at scout damage variance from 2002 or melee for that matter. Find a video so you can see that variance in action, then come back and you can say sorry for being rude.

Thu 13 May 2021 1:41 AM by

gruenesschaf

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 1:38 AM
You're just the worst aren't you? holy cow... What's the green name supposed to mean again?
Did you not play daoc in 2002? on live? version 1.65? or..... if so, did you make a scout? if so, when you hit a target several times, what happened to you damage values? did they change? or were they the same? It really sounds like you never played in 2002/1.65.

Moving the goal post again? Now sources with variance in 1.65 are not enough but it must be a scout?

Thu 13 May 2021 1:48 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 1:41 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 1:38 AM
You're just the worst aren't you? holy cow... What's the green name supposed to mean again?
Did you not play daoc in 2002? on live? version 1.65? or..... if so, did you make a scout? if so, when you hit a target several times, what happened to you damage values? did they change? or were they the same? It really sounds like you never played in 2002/1.65.

Moving the goal post again? Now sources with variance in 1.65 are not enough but it must be a scout?

Guy, the goal post is 2002 SI v1.65.... it never moved. You saw my PM right? 219 damage variance from 314 to 533 in my first 8 shots(all critshots). regardless- Do you think that's fair?

Thu 13 May 2021 1:56 AM by Magesty

Wait so where is the evidence Scouts didn’t have damage variance in 1.65? Am I missing something in these patch notes?

Thu 13 May 2021 1:56 AM by

gruenesschaf

Raising your bow specialization has an effect on the damage done by your normal shots, exactly the same way melee specialization has on melee skills. With no specialization, your damage varies from 25-125% of your base (which is determined by your weapon's stats and your level). From there to two-thirds modified specialization, the minimum damage you will do is increased linearly up to the 75% mark. At two-thirds modified specialization the damage variance will be 75-125% of base per swing. Past two-thirds specialization both minimum and maximum raise until at full spec your range is 100-150%. Modified specialization includes training, bonuses from items, and bonuses from realm ranks.

2003 cached version: http://web.archive.org/web/20030602023709/http://www.rothwellhome.org/guides/archery.htm

So, now we have a source around the 1.65 patch level talking about bow spec and variance. Let's add another one that among other things references that one https://talsyra.tripod.com/daocmechanics/archery_bow_mechanics.html

We now saw the goal post move from no variance back then to no variance in exactly 1.65 to no variance for scouts in 1.65, are we now going to see a move to "but not this kind of variance"?

Thu 13 May 2021 2:06 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 1:56 AM
Raising your bow specialization has an effect on the damage done by your normal shots, exactly the same way melee specialization has on melee skills. With no specialization, your damage varies from 25-125% of your base (which is determined by your weapon's stats and your level). From there to two-thirds modified specialization, the minimum damage you will do is increased linearly up to the 75% mark. At two-thirds modified specialization the damage variance will be 75-125% of base per swing. Past two-thirds specialization both minimum and maximum raise until at full spec your range is 100-150%. Modified specialization includes training, bonuses from items, and bonuses from realm ranks.

2003 cached version: http://web.archive.org/web/20030602023709/http://www.rothwellhome.org/guides/archery.htm

So, now we have a source around the 1.65 patch level talking about bow spec and variance. Let's add another one that among other things references that one https://talsyra.tripod.com/daocmechanics/archery_bow_mechanics.html

We now saw the goal post move from no variance back then to no variance in exactly 1.65 to no variance for scouts in 1.65, are we now going to see a move to "but not this kind of variance"?

Is Critshot, a normal shot? or is that only standard? legit question. or is this moving the goal post?
According to the link you provided, the variance didn't effect Critshot. we're back to my OP.

Thu 13 May 2021 2:11 AM by

gruenesschaf

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:06 AM
Is Critshot, a normal shot? or is that only standard? legit question. or is this moving the goal post?

In your images look at the damage modifier, if you see 5xx as damage for a critshot and with rather close damage modifier a 3xx "critshot" the second one was not a crit shot (assuming the same target ofc). If both have widely different damage modifier, say 1700 for the 5xx one and 1200 for the 3xx one it could be max and min variance shot back to back.

Thu 13 May 2021 2:15 AM by

gruenesschaf

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:06 AM
According to the link you provided, the variance didn't effect Critshot. we're back to my OP.

No, the link I provided doesn't say that. Please quote the section you think that says that.

Thu 13 May 2021 2:18 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:15 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:06 AM
According to the link you provided, the variance didn't effect Critshot. we're back to my OP.

No, the link I provided doesn't say that. Please quote the section you think that says that.

"Raising your bow specialization has an effect on the damage done by your normal shots, exactly the same way melee specialization has on melee skills. With no specialization, your damage varies from 25-125% of your base (which is determined by your weapon's stats and your level). From there to two-thirds modified specialization, the minimum damage you will do is increased linearly up to the 75% mark. At two-thirds modified specialization the damage variance will be 75-125% of base per swing. Past two-thirds specialization both minimum and maximum raise until at full spec your range is 100-150%. Modified specialization includes training, bonuses from items, and bonuses from realm ranks."

or did you miss it?

Thu 13 May 2021 2:20 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:11 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:06 AM
Is Critshot, a normal shot? or is that only standard? legit question. or is this moving the goal post?

In your images look at the damage modifier, if you see 5xx as damage for a critshot and with rather close damage modifier a 3xx "critshot" the second one was not a crit shot (assuming the same target ofc). If both have widely different damage modifier, say 1700 for the 5xx one and 1200 for the 3xx one it could be max and min variance shot back to back.

Nah, I think you need to look at the image I sent you in PM, ALL shots are crit shots. I even waited 10+ seconds per attempt. Now it seems like I'm the one wasting my time dealing with someone who never played in 2002 to even compare the differences..

Thu 13 May 2021 2:26 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:11 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:06 AM
Is Critshot, a normal shot? or is that only standard? legit question. or is this moving the goal post?

In your images look at the damage modifier, if you see 5xx as damage for a critshot and with rather close damage modifier a 3xx "critshot" the second one was not a crit shot (assuming the same target ofc). If both have widely different damage modifier, say 1700 for the 5xx one and 1200 for the 3xx one it could be max and min variance shot back to back.

System messages will say, You can't land a critical shot and your shot is changed to standard, if I did it too soon. So can you see why I'm confused as well? lmao

Thu 13 May 2021 2:26 AM by

gruenesschaf

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:18 AM
gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:15 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:06 AM
According to the link you provided, the variance didn't effect Critshot. we're back to my OP.

No, the link I provided doesn't say that. Please quote the section you think that says that.

"Raising your bow specialization has an effect on the damage done by your normal shots, exactly the same way melee specialization has on melee skills. With no specialization, your damage varies from 25-125% of your base (which is determined by your weapon's stats and your level). From there to two-thirds modified specialization, the minimum damage you will do is increased linearly up to the 75% mark. At two-thirds modified specialization the damage variance will be 75-125% of base per swing. Past two-thirds specialization both minimum and maximum raise until at full spec your range is 100-150%. Modified specialization includes training, bonuses from items, and bonuses from realm ranks."

or did you miss it?

What? Like, what? Are you serious? Like, for real, this excerpt tells you crit shot is not affected by variance? The excerpt that explicitly says how bow spec affects the variance for bow damage? Bow damage which happens to be what the crit shot damage multiplier is applied to which aside from being unable to crit is the only difference to a normal shot, that bow damage?

Thu 13 May 2021 2:31 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:26 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:18 AM
gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:15 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:06 AM
According to the link you provided, the variance didn't effect Critshot. we're back to my OP.

No, the link I provided doesn't say that. Please quote the section you think that says that.

"Raising your bow specialization has an effect on the damage done by your normal shots, exactly the same way melee specialization has on melee skills. With no specialization, your damage varies from 25-125% of your base (which is determined by your weapon's stats and your level). From there to two-thirds modified specialization, the minimum damage you will do is increased linearly up to the 75% mark. At two-thirds modified specialization the damage variance will be 75-125% of base per swing. Past two-thirds specialization both minimum and maximum raise until at full spec your range is 100-150%. Modified specialization includes training, bonuses from items, and bonuses from realm ranks."

or did you miss it?

What? Like, what? Are you serious? Like, for real, this excerpt tells you crit shot is not affected by variance? The excerpt that explicitly says how bow spec affects the variance for bow damage? Bow damage which happens to be what the crit shot damage multiplier is applied to which aside from being unable to crit is the only difference to a normal shot, that bow damage?

Looks like you didn't keep reading your own link you provided. I feel bad now...

[edit] he must be reading it now.
You need to be fired...

Thu 13 May 2021 2:43 AM by

gruenesschaf

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:31 AM
Looks like you didn't keep reading your own link you provided. I feel bad now...

Ok. Let me tell you a secret. Crit shot is a multiplier on normal damage. Even the link knows that secret:

As a broad generalization which does not take the continuous curve nature of this into account, critical shots will do 2.0 times normal damage to all targets that con grey, green, blue, or yellow

But good to know that the goal post has been moved from no scout variance in 1.65 to no scout crit shot variance in 1.65.

Thu 13 May 2021 2:50 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:43 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:31 AM
Looks like you didn't keep reading your own link you provided. I feel bad now...

Ok. Let me tell you a secret. Crit shot is a multiplier on normal damage. Even the link knows that secret:

As a broad generalization which does not take the continuous curve nature of this into account, critical shots will do 2.0 times normal damage to all targets that con grey, green, blue, or yellow

But good to know that the goal post has been moved from no scout variance in 1.65 to no scout crit shot variance in 1.65.

here is a secret, Critshot isn't a normal shot. Another secret, you were simply wrong about my image I sent you... You also stated it was NOT a critshot, which it clearly was, or are you implying the system messages are lying to me?

Being condescending isn't helping your case. Answer me this one: ************Did you play back in SI 1.65?************ be honest.. if so, how on earth.... how on flat earth did you forget about scouts damage values? did you not play one? If you never had hands on experience with DAoC SI 1.65 then your words hold zero merit to my concerns.

Let's just say hypothetically, you're 100% correct: you're saying Phoenix added this fixed 25% value at the VERY FIRST start of Phoenix being open to test, only to say hey, this is too much, let's make 35 archery the only valuable archery spec for scouts, Knowing they have poop melee, to: maybe we should fix it, except to all archery instead of the only archer class that had great Bow damage, to, Let's revert it back to low damage across the board, forgetting Rangers aren't effected nearly as much- due to self-buffs and great melee, to putting in a 0-50% damage variance on top of low damage all the while Scouts melee was never adjusted to compensate even though we just wanted our bow damage back?.... unbelievable.. Except, I've played a scout since 2001 on live, and know when I critshot a target, ran off to re-stealth, and then re-critshot, I would see the same exact damage value on my critshots.... How am I remembering this but you can't? Like I said... Have you played DAoC in that era? cause it sounds like you haven't at all..

Thu 13 May 2021 2:51 AM by Kwall0311

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:50 AM
.... how on flat earth

This explains it all now

Thu 13 May 2021 3:00 AM by paqdizzle

Kwall0311 wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:51 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:50 AM
.... how on flat earth

This explains it all now

I was only referencing what the Dev said to me as if I'm some moron.. Phoenix, where you can't troll people on the forums except Devs or Mods... I really hope he get's in trouble. I've done nothing wrong and yet he's treating me this way?.. ffs

Thu 13 May 2021 3:04 AM by

gruenesschaf

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:50 AM
here is a secret, Critshot isn't a normal shot. Another secret, you were simply wrong about my image I sent you... You also stated it was NOT a critshot, which it clearly was, or are you implying the system messages are lying to me?

If you must take an condescending tone at least get your facts correct, it always looks quite stupid to be on a high horse only to fall down on something basic as facts. I never claimed that it was not a critshot, I raised the possibility of it not being one which you could figure out by looking at the damage modifier and the damage numbers. I haven't looked at your image as it's hosted on facebook and it's not really required given that we literally show the damage modifier which would answer all questions but feel free to rehost it on something else.

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:50 AM
Let's just say hypothetically, you're 100% correct: you're saying Phoenix added this fixed 25% value at the VERY FIRST start of Phoenix being open to test, only to say hey, this is too much, let's make 35 archery the only valuable archery spec for scouts, Knowing they have poop melee, to: maybe we should fix it, except to all archery instead of the only archer class that had great Bow damage, to, Let's revert it back to low damage across the board, forgetting Rangers aren't effected nearly as much- due to self-buffs, to putting in a 0-50% damage variance on top of low damage all the while Scouts melee was never adjusted to compensate?.... unbelievable.. Except, I've played a scout since 2001 on live, and know when I critshot a target, ran off to re-stealth, and then re-critshot, I would see the same exact damage value on my critshots.... How am I remembering this but you can't? Like I said... Have you played DAoC in that era? cause it sounds like you haven't at all..

We are finally in the bargaining stage? You have come to terms with being wrong and are now going to your actual point, that you are unhappy with the bow damage, maybe even the variance itself?

Color me surprised, that is so unexpected. Who would have thought that I was right all along despite being so condescending?

Thu 13 May 2021 3:05 AM by

gruenesschaf

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 3:00 AM
I was only referencing what the Dev said to me as if I'm some moron.. Phoenix, where you can't troll people on the forums except Devs or Mods... I really hope he get's in trouble. I've done nothing wrong and yet he's treating me this way?.. ffs

What you did wrong is being wrong about basic facts and acting like you were right. Had you asked a question about variance, you would have received a normal reply but by stating your wrong stuff as facts you got what you got.

Thu 13 May 2021 3:07 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 3:04 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:50 AM
here is a secret, Critshot isn't a normal shot. Another secret, you were simply wrong about my image I sent you... You also stated it was NOT a critshot, which it clearly was, or are you implying the system messages are lying to me?

If you must take an condescending tone at least get your facts correct, it always looks quite stupid to be on a high horse only to fall down on something basic as facts. I never claimed that it was not a critshot, I raised the possibility of it not being one which you could figure out by looking at the damage modifier and the damage numbers. I haven't looked at your image as it's hosted on facebook and it's not really required given that we literally show the damage modifier which would answer all questions but feel free to rehost it on something else.

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 2:50 AM
Let's just say hypothetically, you're 100% correct: you're saying Phoenix added this fixed 25% value at the VERY FIRST start of Phoenix being open to test, only to say hey, this is too much, let's make 35 archery the only valuable archery spec for scouts, Knowing they have poop melee, to: maybe we should fix it, except to all archery instead of the only archer class that had great Bow damage, to, Let's revert it back to low damage across the board, forgetting Rangers aren't effected nearly as much- due to self-buffs, to putting in a 0-50% damage variance on top of low damage all the while Scouts melee was never adjusted to compensate?.... unbelievable.. Except, I've played a scout since 2001 on live, and know when I critshot a target, ran off to re-stealth, and then re-critshot, I would see the same exact damage value on my critshots.... How am I remembering this but you can't? Like I said... Have you played DAoC in that era? cause it sounds like you haven't at all..

We are finally in the bargaining stage? You have come to terms with being wrong and are now going to your actual point, that you are unhappy with the bow damage, maybe even the variance itself?

Color me surprised, that is so unexpected. Who would have thought that I was right all along despite being so condescending?

No I said "I've played a scout since 2001 on live, and know when I critshot a target, ran off to re-stealth, and then re-critshot, I would see the same exact damage value on my critshots.... How am I remembering this but you can't? Like I said... Have you played DAoC in that era? cause it sounds like you haven't at all.."

This clearly means otherwise. I'm not wrong. and you're the one with the attitude towards me, my very first post didn't and/or shouldn't have gotten a smart @$$ remark from anyone. it wasn't vulgar, no name calling, no assumptions as to what was OG DAoC SI 1.65... You still haven't answered my question... it's like you're not wanting to answer because you actually know something is indeed fishy here. at this point you're trying to bully me.. Wrong guy to try and bully my guy.

You single handedly ruined this thread and made it toxic because why? This is insane that you couldn't have taken a better approach to find out what the problem was. Not once did you ask me for anything, you just threw dirt on my allegations just because you're the one on that high horse.. you're not trying to fall off of it..

Thu 13 May 2021 3:09 AM by

gruenesschaf

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 3:07 AM
No I said "I've played a scout since 2001 on live, and know when I critshot a target, ran off to re-stealth, and then re-critshot, I would see the same exact damage value on my critshots.... How am I remembering this but you can't? Like I said... Have you played DAoC in that era? cause it sounds like you haven't at all.."

That is because you likely hit for cap damage as you were either bb buffed and/or templated and/or your target was wearing crap and/or you had relics and/or your target was a caster with shields down.

Thu 13 May 2021 3:12 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 3:09 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 3:07 AM
No I said "I've played a scout since 2001 on live, and know when I critshot a target, ran off to re-stealth, and then re-critshot, I would see the same exact damage value on my critshots.... How am I remembering this but you can't? Like I said... Have you played DAoC in that era? cause it sounds like you haven't at all.."

That is because you likely hit for cap damage as you were either bb buffed and/or templated and/or your target was wearing crap and/or you had relics and/or your target was a caster with shields down.

See LOL you're assuming instead of asking what I hit.. This was on an NPC in SI lands at 48-50. Literally every single mob I hit with critshot, and re-critshot, had the same damage value... STILL you haven't answered if you played in that era to know what I'm referring to.. Having a stat sheet and values on how it works vs actually putting in the time and effort to test it for yourself is a big leap past assumptions. I was told I shouldn't see 200 damage on my variances ever by a Dev. I sent him that picture and never got anything back

why is that I wonder..

Thu 13 May 2021 3:23 AM by

gruenesschaf

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 3:12 AM
See LOL you're assuming instead of asking what I hit.. This was on an NPC in SI lands at 48-50. Literally every single mob I hit with critshot, and re-critshot, had the same damage value... STILL you haven't answered if you played in that era to know what I'm referring to..

And in that great memory of yours, would that damage number happen to have been in the 9xx - 11xx range?

And while it's entirely irrelevant, yes I played in 1.65, I even had a scout and bb among many other classes at 50 at that time, imagine I was even in a premade with a theurgist.

Thu 13 May 2021 3:24 AM by

gruenesschaf

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 3:07 AM
You single handedly ruined this thread and made it toxic because why? This is insane that you couldn't have taken a better approach to find out what the problem was. Not once did you ask me for anything, you just threw dirt on my allegations just because you're the one on that high horse.. you're not trying to fall off of it..

You were treated with the respect your initial proposition deserved given the apparent conviction and hence obvious lack of having done even the most basic research. I don't think calling the thread toxic is fair, I think everyone who read the initial post knew this would get outlandish and quite fun.

Thu 13 May 2021 3:30 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 3:24 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 3:07 AM
You single handedly ruined this thread and made it toxic because why? This is insane that you couldn't have taken a better approach to find out what the problem was. Not once did you ask me for anything, you just threw dirt on my allegations just because you're the one on that high horse.. you're not trying to fall off of it..

You were treated with the respect your initial proposition deserved given the apparent conviction and hence obvious lack of having done even the most basic research. I don't think calling the thread toxic is fair, I think everyone who read the initial post knew this would get outlandish and quite fun.

Aren't you supposed to know the Rules? you broke them.. My first post was genuine concern due to my own test numbers on phoenix. Like I said, You can post any thread you want regarding actual values, but I've seen my own 2 eyes- otherwise.... So instead of trolling me and being an ass to me, you could have had a MUCH more professional approach to my concerns, instead you are in fact the one on a high horse literally scared to fall off just to downplay my OP as if it's automatically false.. Even though I even gave you a screenshot, and you still assumed incorrectly. This is beyond frustrating for a player to have this type of interaction with someone who should know better...

and you played in that era? how do you NOT know what I'm talking about regarding scouts damage/variance.. Like seriously, how...

Thu 13 May 2021 3:33 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 3:23 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 3:12 AM
See LOL you're assuming instead of asking what I hit.. This was on an NPC in SI lands at 48-50. Literally every single mob I hit with critshot, and re-critshot, had the same damage value... STILL you haven't answered if you played in that era to know what I'm referring to..

And in that great memory of yours, would that damage number happen to have been in the 9xx - 11xx range?

And while it's entirely irrelevant, yes I played in 1.65, I even had a scout and bb among many other classes at 50 at that time, imagine I was even in a premade with a theurgist.

Isn't this what I was referring to with my OP about critshots/scouts damage? instead you said I was moving a goal post........ man this is absolutely terrible coming from you being in the position you're in. I said I'm NOT trying to argue with you about it, I'm trying my very hardest to not lose my cool, but you're purposefully trying to get under my skin. From your very first retort to now. I even stated in my OP that this wasn't a stab at the devs or anything.. Like if we were having this conversation in person, I 100% know for a fact you'd not take this tone with me, because my tone wasn't..

Thu 13 May 2021 3:34 AM by

gruenesschaf

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 3:30 AM
Aren't you supposed to know the Rules? you broke them.. My first post was genuine concern due to my own test numbers on phoenix. Like I said, You can post any thread you want regarding actual values, but I've seen my own 2 eyes- otherwise.... So instead of trolling me and being an ass to me, you could have had a MUCH more professional approach to my concerns, instead you are in fact the one on a high horse literally scared to fall off just to downplay my OP as if it's automatically false.. Even though I even gave you a screenshot, and you still assumed incorrectly. This is beyond frustrating for a player to have this type of interaction with someone who should know better...

I thought we were already in the bargaining stage? Now we're going back? Hm that's disappointing. It's almost like arguing with and based on facts with someone who just has faith in being right is pointless.

Thu 13 May 2021 3:40 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 3:34 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 3:30 AM
Aren't you supposed to know the Rules? you broke them.. My first post was genuine concern due to my own test numbers on phoenix. Like I said, You can post any thread you want regarding actual values, but I've seen my own 2 eyes- otherwise.... So instead of trolling me and being an ass to me, you could have had a MUCH more professional approach to my concerns, instead you are in fact the one on a high horse literally scared to fall off just to downplay my OP as if it's automatically false.. Even though I even gave you a screenshot, and you still assumed incorrectly. This is beyond frustrating for a player to have this type of interaction with someone who should know better...

I thought we were already in the bargaining stage? Now we're going back? Hm that's disappointing. It's almost like arguing with and based on facts with someone who just has faith in being right is pointless.

There was nothing you provided to bargain with. you were just being rude and condescending from the beginning. Then go on to assume what I was shooting regarding archery's critshots and it's damage variances. You just came in on your high horse and threw dirt on my post. You had a scout lvl 50... so you say.. did you ever test this for yourself during that time? did you ever critshot someone for 1k in RvR? 900? 800? The damage was there, except not on phoenix. what about PvE, did you critshot something and do a specific amount of damage, then re-critshot 10 seconds later to see the variance? if so, Then you know what I'm talking about. Stop pretending like you don't. There was a fixed damage value you hit and it never changed unless you changed targets to something stronger or weaker. in which case, if you tested that mob with the same techniques, you'd see that it doesn't change either from your initial hit. You could hit a mob for 912, with critshot, and if you waited 10 seconds, guess what? that next critshot was doing 912. That's what I'm wanting to see scouts get back on Phoenix. Because technically, that 912, NO variance..

Variance: the fact or quality of being different, divergent, or inconsistent.
Doing 912 and then doing it again 10 seconds later literally means the opposite of a variance. aka Consistency.

Thu 13 May 2021 3:51 AM by easytoremember

If I may interject I'm not confident in your memory of your damage from shooting junk SI mobs on a scout circa 2001 with that ESL-tier interpretation of the poll question regarding melee variance~

Hypothetically you being correct about scout bow or critshot variance still doesn't affect melee variance being the subject of the question and the use of "original" referring to undoing phoenix's adjustment. If you wanted to be rid of archery variance particularly ya goof'd not outright saying as much from the start instead of taking the 'people didn't know what they were voting for!' angle (again)

Thu 13 May 2021 3:52 AM by

gruenesschaf

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 3:40 AM
There was nothing you provided to bargain with. you were just being rude and condescending from the beginning. Then go on to assume what I was shooting regarding archery's critshots and it's damage variances. You just came in on your high horse and threw dirt on my post. You had a scout lvl 50... so you say.. did you ever test this for yourself during that time? did you ever critshot someone for 1k in RvR? 900? 800? The damage was there, except not on phoenix. what about PvE, did you critshot something and do a specific amount of damage, then re-critshot 10 seconds later to see the variance? if so, Then you know what I'm talking about. Stop pretending like you don't. There was a fixed damage value you hit and it never changed unless you changed targets to something stronger or weaker. in which case, if you tested that mob with the same techniques, you'd see that it doesn't change either from your initial hit. You could hit a mob for 912, with critshot, and if you waited 10 seconds, guess what? that next critshot was doing 912. That's what I'm wanting to see scouts get back on Phoenix. Because technically, that 912, NO variance..

Variance: the fact or quality of being different, divergent, or inconsistent.
Doing 912 and then doing it again 10 seconds later literally means the opposite of a variance. aka Consistency.

You know what would be really embarassing, what if there were an official post stating something along the lines of archery having a hight amount of variance, imagine if that were used as one of the justifications for moving to new archery.

Imagine what would be if such a post exists https://camelot.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=9050

Imagine if it contained the following words

More reliability: Archery damage has a large variance, and as a result it is difficult to know how much damage would be dealt at any given time.

Thu 13 May 2021 3:58 AM by paqdizzle

easytoremember wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 3:51 AM
If I may interject I'm not confident in your memory of your damage from shooting junk SI mobs on a scout circa 2001 with that ESL-tier interpretation of the poll question regarding melee variance~

Hypothetically you being correct about scout bow or critshot variance still doesn't affect melee variance being the subject of the question and the use of "original" referring to undoing phoenix's adjustment. If you wanted to be rid of archery variance particularly ya goof'd not outright saying as much from the start instead of taking the 'people didn't know what they were voting for!' angle (again)

See, this I can actually respond to and say I was wrong. I should have posted that. Which was what I was going to do. it was going to be more of an example I had for the damage variance. At the same time, Have pally's always had a 100 damage variance? I can't recall how they were, I knew they had the low end of DPS, but I don't ever remember my pally hitting for a random chance that my 90-120ish damage would be subject to a possible 0-50%. isn't that half? I don't remember my pally hitting for half of 90-120 ever so I assumed incorrectly, in which case my bad. I should have added the scout part in my OP.

BUT, yes I'm sure there were people who didn't know when they voted. not everyone, just some I said. With the current damage variance that's in game, my warrior doesn't see this steep of a variance. in fact I'm going to go hit a test dummy a thousand times to see my min and max and see the variance and come back to you.

But thanks for being professional right off the bat.

Thu 13 May 2021 4:00 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 3:52 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 3:40 AM
There was nothing you provided to bargain with. you were just being rude and condescending from the beginning. Then go on to assume what I was shooting regarding archery's critshots and it's damage variances. You just came in on your high horse and threw dirt on my post. You had a scout lvl 50... so you say.. did you ever test this for yourself during that time? did you ever critshot someone for 1k in RvR? 900? 800? The damage was there, except not on phoenix. what about PvE, did you critshot something and do a specific amount of damage, then re-critshot 10 seconds later to see the variance? if so, Then you know what I'm talking about. Stop pretending like you don't. There was a fixed damage value you hit and it never changed unless you changed targets to something stronger or weaker. in which case, if you tested that mob with the same techniques, you'd see that it doesn't change either from your initial hit. You could hit a mob for 912, with critshot, and if you waited 10 seconds, guess what? that next critshot was doing 912. That's what I'm wanting to see scouts get back on Phoenix. Because technically, that 912, NO variance..

Variance: the fact or quality of being different, divergent, or inconsistent.
Doing 912 and then doing it again 10 seconds later literally means the opposite of a variance. aka Consistency.

You know what would be really embarassing, what if there were an official post stating something along the lines of archery having a hight amount of variance, imagine if that were used as one of the justifications for moving to new archery.

Imagine what would be if such a post exists https://camelot.allakhazam.com/story.html?story=9050

Imagine if it contained the following words

More reliability: Archery damage has a large variance, and as a result it is difficult to know how much damage would be dealt at any given time.

it's like you can't say anything without being rude to me... but I'm on a high horse... neat.
as of now, I'm testing Warrior damage variance. I'll be back with data.

Thu 13 May 2021 4:02 AM by

gruenesschaf

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 4:00 AM
it's like you can't say anything without being rude to me... but I'm on a high horse... neat.
as of now, I'm testing Warrior damage variance. I'll be back with data.

I never claimed to not be condescending from my high horse, I merely said when you are on a high horse you should at least be right. And you will most certainly not see a change in tone until you concede that you were fundamentally wrong with pretty much all claims you made in your opening post

Thu 13 May 2021 4:03 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 4:02 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 4:00 AM
it's like you can't say anything without being rude to me... but I'm on a high horse... neat.
as of now, I'm testing Warrior damage variance. I'll be back with data.

I never claimed to not be condescending from my high horse, I merely said when you are on a high horse you should at least be right.

.. I know what you said. No you never claimed to be, you just were...

Thu 13 May 2021 4:10 AM by Magesty

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 3:04 AM
I haven't looked at your image as it's hosted on facebook and it's not really required given that we literally show the damage modifier which would answer all questions but feel free to rehost it on something else.

Here is the image:

https://preview.redd.it/tzamoqnsxyx61.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=b72f565e8ad44ce76e26bdb2012935ac47e6b922

Thu 13 May 2021 4:11 AM by ExcretusMaximus

I have a sneaking suspicion that Paqdizzle booger_911 from this Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/daoc/comments/n79jyr/phoenix_what_are_we_doing/gxp34me/?context=3

Thu 13 May 2021 4:16 AM by paqdizzle

ExcretusMaximus wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 4:11 AM
I have a sneaking suspicion that Paqdizzle booger_911 from this Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/daoc/comments/n79jyr/phoenix_what_are_we_doing/gxp34me/?context=3

I am. lol and? I went on reddit due to the toxicity I'd receive here. sure was right about it too. just didn't except it to come from the staff. Did you ever ask the /advice what's the best melee spec for scouts yet? XD

Thu 13 May 2021 4:17 AM by paqdizzle

Magesty wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 4:10 AM
gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 3:04 AM
I haven't looked at your image as it's hosted on facebook and it's not really required given that we literally show the damage modifier which would answer all questions but feel free to rehost it on something else.

Here is the image:

https://preview.redd.it/tzamoqnsxyx61.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=b72f565e8ad44ce76e26bdb2012935ac47e6b922

Thanks

and that was literally my first 8 shots.

Thu 13 May 2021 4:19 AM by

gruenesschaf

Magesty wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 4:10 AM
https://preview.redd.it/tzamoqnsxyx61.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=b72f565e8ad44ce76e26bdb2012935ac47e6b922

Nice, it literally contains 17xx and 12xx as the modifier I mentioned in my example.

Thu 13 May 2021 4:23 AM by

gruenesschaf

btw why did you change the arrow damage type between those shots?

Thu 13 May 2021 4:24 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 4:19 AM
Magesty wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 4:10 AM
https://preview.redd.it/tzamoqnsxyx61.png?width=600&format=png&auto=webp&s=b72f565e8ad44ce76e26bdb2012935ac47e6b922

Nice, it literally contains 17xx and 12xx as the modifier I mentioned in my example.

They are all critshots, 219 variance. This never happened on my scout in DAoC SI 1.65.

Thu 13 May 2021 4:27 AM by ExcretusMaximus

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 4:16 AM
I am. lol and? I went on reddit due to the toxicity I'd receive here. sure was right about it too. just didn't except it to come from the staff. Did you ever ask the /advice what's the best melee spec for scouts yet? XD

My point being, given your post history in that Reddit thread, you came here looking not for a conversation, but a fight; and you got it. Now you're crying foul because Grue has put you in your place and called out your horrible debate technique, while still trying to assert that your false remembrances / lies are in fact, fact.

Maybe next time don't get into a numbers argument with the lead programmer? You know, the guy who builds the fucking game?

Thu 13 May 2021 4:28 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 4:23 AM
btw why did you change the arrow damage type between those shots?

I didn't though... Don't test dummies have all res 26%? would I see a difference in values on my damage?

Thu 13 May 2021 4:31 AM by paqdizzle

ExcretusMaximus wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 4:27 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 4:16 AM
I am. lol and? I went on reddit due to the toxicity I'd receive here. sure was right about it too. just didn't except it to come from the staff. Did you ever ask the /advice what's the best melee spec for scouts yet? XD

My point being, given your post history in that Reddit thread, you came here looking not for a conversation, but a fight; and you got it. Now you're crying foul because Grue has put you in your place and called out your horrible debate technique, while still trying to assert that your false remembrances / lies are in fact, fact.

Maybe next time don't get into a numbers argument with the lead programmer? You know, the guy who builds the fucking game?

Wrong. I came here trying to ask why it was worded as "Original" vs "Current" when the original damage variance wasn't this steep ever, Now I was wrong about not including why this post ever came to be by not adding in SCOUTS as my main focal point. considering this is what I used since 2002 to test my values vs RvR and PvE. The lead programmer had an attitude from the get go and now I know why... he think's he didn't mess up somewhere along the lines. He's perfect, I forgot.

Thu 13 May 2021 4:35 AM by paqdizzle

After doing a few hundred hits with my warrior on the test dummy, I never saw the variances my scout saw from it's first 8 shots. Which is where I got confused about the variances being set in stone as a value from 0-50%. Seems legit for my warrior, 471 was my highest, 378 was my lowest hits. but wait a minute!? Something still doesn't add up does it..

How is it the variance is supposed to be 0-50% yet my scouts first 8 shots I saw a 219 variance, yet on my warrior I hit several hundred times more than my scout shot, and saw barely 100? Is there something wrong with archers? or is the variance really 0-50% for all physical types of damage? or do I need to shoot several hundred times more?

Thu 13 May 2021 4:40 AM by

gruenesschaf

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 4:28 AM
I didn't though... Don't test dummies have all res 26%? would I see a difference in values on my damage?

The one shot with 314 and -159, that's 33.6% resist, that's not (just) variance.

Thu 13 May 2021 4:42 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 4:40 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 4:28 AM
I didn't though... Don't test dummies have all res 26%? would I see a difference in values on my damage?

The one shot with 314 and -159, that's 33.6% resist, that's not (just) variance.

So the test dummy is lying by saying it's got 26% resist? or is archery bugged? Something isn't right... whch lead me to my OP..

Thu 13 May 2021 4:48 AM by paqdizzle

I made an edit to the OP, so it's not as confusing.. This was supposed to lead to archery and how it's currently effected vs, DAoC SI 1.65 from 2002 and it's damage variances.
Back then, I could Critshot a target for 900, restealth (allowing another critshot to be enabled) and re-critshot said target for 900 again, from lvls 48-through-50 (900 being an example number) VS phoenix's damage variance, I did the same thing to an NPC/mob and saw an actual variance. (Unless I was just hitting cap damages on said target, which usually meant I was hitting a yellow, not a red or OJ).

Is this supposed to be like this by comparison to 2002? and if we're talking "Original" vs "Current" then why is it back in 02, I saw no variances but I do on phoenix? Did oldschool DAoC mess up? or is something bugged here on phoenix where archery is getting shafted by a bug? or typo?

Thu 13 May 2021 4:52 AM by paqdizzle

Warrior testing: another several hundred swings on test dummy, this time Ragnarok from the back, This time, I had a better overall average, but that's expected from the math and the style I was using.. in fact, my warrior seems normal... My scout on the other hand, feels broken. Which is where my confusion comes in. It doesn't makes sense.

Yeah, archery is either bugged or the variance is bugged on specific mobs ie, test dummies, or simply- the test dummies are bugged.. According to your values posted I should not have hit a 219 on that test dummy, with the resistance type. regardless of arrow, if all res is 26%. no?

Now regarding the era I was referring to, I never once saw my scout's damage fluctuate on this level or at all vs Mobs.. Something is NOT adding up from your end. based on what you provided. With that being said, you still came off unprofessionally and very rude, and I know why... Lead programmer.. It's not bad or wrong to be proud of your work, but to not find out what the real issues were, instead you insisted on trying to put me down as if what I went through wasn't valid enough to govern an explanation... Instead a childish and very rude explanation to your values vs SI values on paper... There is obviously still work to filter through. and I'd expect better management next time a real issue like this comes to light.

Thu 13 May 2021 5:15 AM by

gruenesschaf

The cap for that one shot was 812, the cap for the other shots is 934, the difference is exactly the 1.15 multiplier / bonus you would get from an arrow. Since only arrows define the damage type (and therefore the used resists) and this bonus, it seems obvious something went wrong with the actual arrow selection for that one shot.

As it was only for a single shot my guess right now would be the last shot in the quiver or something like that, I guess someone should test what happens if you use the last arrow in the quiver for example or similar rare occurences.

Thu 13 May 2021 5:19 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 5:15 AM
The cap for that one shot was 812, the cap for the other shots is 934, the difference is exactly the 1.15 multiplier / bonus you would get from an arrow. Since only arrows define the damage type (and therefore the used resists) and this bonus, it seems obvious something went wrong with the actual arrow selection for that one shot.

As it was only for a single shot my guess right now would be the last shot in the quiver or something like that, I guess someone should test what happens if you use the last arrow in the quiver for example or similar rare occurences.

This would make sense but when I did this test, I had a quiver full of the same arrow type so I could get 800 shots of each arrow for my test, and my bag was full of the other arrows. as far as I can recall, you never shot arrows out your bag, just your quiver. I never swapped arrows on this test just so you know.

Can you see how I am confused? and needed help? instead of being rude to me, you could have asked me more about the situation and had a much better and more meaningful conversation about it. I've always mained a scout and never in my life seen this type of issue. again, since 2002 :/ I don't know what else to tell you. I'm sure you remember if you say you had a scout back then too. It wasn't anything like phoenix when regarding damage and/or variance.

Thu 13 May 2021 5:22 AM by paqdizzle

Think about it, if I had ran out of that arrow type, and auto swapped to the next arrows in line(in my quiver) then the next few shots wouldn't have similar values as my first. Unless somehow I had 1 arrow, being w/e type, then another single arrow of a different type, just to go back to the same arrow type I first shot? I don't set my quiver up that way. I always have 400 slash, 200 Blunt, and 200 thrust. ofc you wouldn't know that so I'm sorry for not including. I forget to include important data when I'm in a rush to find out wtf is going on lol... Listen, I'm not trying to call you out, or diss you, or make you mad, and would still love to have an actual civil conversation. Just next time, take it easy, and be more professional, it yields much better results when there is a real issue. At least ease in to where I messed up in my OP, and ask what I meant, because I totally forgot it was regarding how scouts had something wrong with damage variances vs when I played in 02. and I KNOW (if you did have a 50 scout in DAoC SI, 1.65) you saw the same values/damages I did. So it didn't merit being mean to me if you know what scouts are capable of.

Thu 13 May 2021 5:25 AM by

gruenesschaf

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 4:52 AM
Now regarding the era I was referring to, I never once saw my scout's damage fluctuate on this level or at all vs Mobs.. Something is NOT adding up from your end. based on what you provided. With that being said, you still came off unprofessionally and very rude, and I know why... Lead programmer.. It's not bad or wrong to be proud of your work, but to not find out what the real issues were, instead you insisted on trying to put me down as if what I went through wasn't valid enough to govern an explanation.. There is obviously still work to filter through. and I'd expect better management next time a real issue like this comes to light.

That you actually encountered a bug changes nothing regarding your initial post, the entire premise for this thread was and still is false. This thread didn't even show something interesting / the bug until the relevant image was posted which was still overshadowed by your claims regarding 1.65 not having had variance on crit shots, which you probably still claim.

Thu 13 May 2021 5:28 AM by

gruenesschaf

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 5:22 AM
Think about it, if I had ran out of that arrow type, and auto swapped to the next arrows in line(in my quiver) then the next few shots wouldn't have similar values as my first.

They would do the same as dummies have 26% against all regular resists. However, this particular shot did something unexpected and used who knows what damage type in the end (for ranged attacks arrows provide the damage type and this shot had no arrow), maybe even falling damage, and those resists can have all sorts of garbage values as they are uninitialized due to never being used (under regular circumstances).

Thu 13 May 2021 5:33 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 5:25 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 4:52 AM
Now regarding the era I was referring to, I never once saw my scout's damage fluctuate on this level or at all vs Mobs.. Something is NOT adding up from your end. based on what you provided. With that being said, you still came off unprofessionally and very rude, and I know why... Lead programmer.. It's not bad or wrong to be proud of your work, but to not find out what the real issues were, instead you insisted on trying to put me down as if what I went through wasn't valid enough to govern an explanation.. There is obviously still work to filter through. and I'd expect better management next time a real issue like this comes to light.

That you actually encountered a bug changes nothing regarding your initial post, the entire premise for this thread was and still is false. This thread didn't even show something interesting / the bug until the relevant image was posted which was still overshadowed by your claims regarding 1.65 not having had variance on crit shots, which you probably still claim.

Do you think it's because the damage nerf itself made these variances more pronounced? because like I said, I never saw this much of an effected archery variance back then.. which lead me to believe there was no variance, simply because by definition, Variance means the fact or quality of being different, divergent, or inconsistent. when I played then, I never saw my damage dip so low, RvR or otherwise. Did we just hit for cap damage always(based on res type)? lol

Thu 13 May 2021 5:35 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 5:28 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 5:22 AM
Think about it, if I had ran out of that arrow type, and auto swapped to the next arrows in line(in my quiver) then the next few shots wouldn't have similar values as my first.

They would do the same as dummies have 26% against all regular resists. However, this particular shot did something unexpected and used who knows what damage type in the end (for ranged attacks arrows provide the damage type and this shot had no arrow), maybe even falling damage, and those resists can have all sorts of garbage values as they are uninitialized due to never being used (under regular circumstances).

Either way, this happened on phoenix to me multiple times vs players and NPCs, and NEVER on live 02+. not once.
Besides my OP is supposed to be regarding scouts, not all physical damage, I just forgot to add that and came off sounding wrong. so I do feel like I should apologize for that. That too was very misleading and created the issues from the start, I can see how you got upset and took that route with me... At the same time, you are supposed to be the professional, not me. and the fact we can both see there was an actual issue here with my numbers... How would it not lead me to think the way I came off in my OP. You being the professional could have easily guided me through this problem instead of taking 20 posts to finally see that there is in fact something wrong with my dang scout lol... Like I said, I'm not trying to make this out as the Devs KNEW and hid it from us. I just want some real help as to why it's happening on phoenix.

Like I said, Maybe the damage nerf to archery opened up that variance to be more pronounced and noticeable. My scout in SI days 2002-03 never hit with this type of variance. ever... and again, if you had a scout back then, you know 100% what I mean, you can't deny it. They hit like trucks.

Thu 13 May 2021 5:39 AM by

gruenesschaf

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 5:33 AM
Did we just hit for cap damage always(based on res type)? lol

If you had a bb you were rather likely to hit cap in pve against yellow mobs when using the right damage type, pretty much guaranteed with relics. Similar in rvr against untempted people, caster without shields or with relics against cloth/leather targets without spec af.

Thu 13 May 2021 5:44 AM by

gruenesschaf

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 5:35 AM
Either way, this happened on phoenix to me multiple times vs players and NPCs, and NEVER on live 02+. not once.

While I don't know how common this particular bug is, given that it apparently hasn't been reported before I would assume that it's one the rarer side. This bug results in somewhat noticeably low hits and I would imagine those to be scrutinized a bit, if the resists don't add up it's an immediate red flag. Also if the number looks too low I'd guess some people would have done the cap calculation (damage divided by damage multiplier times 3000) by now and discovered that some of their hits have a lower cap than the others and reported that.

Thu 13 May 2021 5:49 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 5:44 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 5:35 AM
Either way, this happened on phoenix to me multiple times vs players and NPCs, and NEVER on live 02+. not once.

While I don't know how common this particular bug is, given that it apparently hasn't been reported before I would assume that it's one the rarer side. This bug results in somewhat noticeably low hits and I would imagine those to be scrutinized a bit, if the resists don't add up it's an immediate red flag. Also if the number looks too low I'd guess some people would have done the cap calculation (damage divided by damage multiplier times 3000) by now and discovered that some of their hits have a lower cap than the others and reported that.

While true, maybe the fact is, the archery nerf is covering up rather important stats that are skewing any real results. Maybe the community just thinks it's archery's damage nerf rather than a variance or a bug with test dummies.. as you can tell, This is a real issue, and again, it's happened to me quite often, which even prompt me to test on the dummies in the first place.

This is why I'm in favor of never trying to fix something that isn't broken and let the community QQ about dying to archers.. You think casters/nukers would play their class or try and figure out wtf is wrong if they saw a damage variance of 219? XD that's a heck to the no. But us archers have to bite the bullet and just let it happen because the current meta don't know how to combat vs archery, even though it's so dang simple... Near sight, Shields, DD procs for rupts.. ect.. it's not hard, but we're forced to live with the changes or simply not play.

Thu 13 May 2021 6:05 AM by paqdizzle

gruenesschaf wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 5:44 AM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 5:35 AM
Either way, this happened on phoenix to me multiple times vs players and NPCs, and NEVER on live 02+. not once.

While I don't know how common this particular bug is, given that it apparently hasn't been reported before I would assume that it's one the rarer side. This bug results in somewhat noticeably low hits and I would imagine those to be scrutinized a bit, if the resists don't add up it's an immediate red flag. Also if the number looks too low I'd guess some people would have done the cap calculation (damage divided by damage multiplier times 3000) by now and discovered that some of their hits have a lower cap than the others and reported that.

See I've played DAoC so long that, I felt it. I didn't have to do any of the calculations when I noticed something was off. it was a feeling based on how I remember what scouts used to be like with the physical damage variances. Sure.. it's wrong to just go by feel at times, but we found something didn't we

other than finally some common grounds to have a civil conversation on.

Thu 13 May 2021 6:14 AM by Astaa

I'm not going to read 7 pages about it, but I certainly think that current variance is bad...or at least feels bad. I like precision. Base variance should be low, crit variance should be where you get your variance from* and perhaps Crit RAs should have a side function that reduces that variance. Increase crit chance, reduce crit variance on a sliding scale.

Edit, not specific to archery ofc, all damage.

*on top of the inherent variance from damage types vs armour/buffs/resists etc

Thu 13 May 2021 7:34 AM by paqdizzle

Astaa wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 6:14 AM
I'm not going to read 7 pages about it, but I certainly think that current variance is bad...or at least feels bad. I like precision. Base variance should be low, crit variance should be where you get your variance from* and perhaps Crit RAs should have a side function that reduces that variance. Increase crit chance, reduce crit variance on a sliding scale.

Edit, not specific to archery ofc, all damage.

*on top of the inherent variance from damage types vs armour/buffs/resists etc

I can agree to that. Maybe not with assassins melee, due to phoenix's current debuff/poisons being extremely powerful. Or- remove that, and give them their DPS from melee back

I've been sitting and got PA'ed for just under 300 damage(around 260 something)((on my pally)) but still. That's bad (by comparison)

Scouts should be #1 archer class regarding Bow damage. hands down. But with a 0-50% damage variance stacked on top of nerffed archery damage, it's rough and makes it very confusing to feel out the scouts potential.

I just feel like they should revert Archery altogether to beta values. start fresh. Remove "Stop" and go from there. Scouts didn't need a root or snare and just feels cheap when executed well. That's why "Stop" was even nerffed.

As for the current damage variance, I feel like for some classes it feel normal, ie warrior, arms.. mercs, ect. But for other melee based classes, it feels like it's a bit too much over the top, ie- Pally and classes of that sort. I don't think classes that already struggle to deal decent-to-good DPS shouldn't see a variance of 100. For phoenix's meta, I believe 300 damage is below average. 400-500 is around what seems to be the common good/great damage values, depending on speed. someone who casts 1.5 seconds for a 300-500+ damage nuke, depending on debuffs will never see a variance. Melee don't see those numbers but once a blue moon and a MUCH slower rate. half the time, those classes even lack the utility most casters have. so it's bottom barrel to me and should be fixed imo.

Thu 13 May 2021 7:38 AM by paqdizzle

Astaa wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 6:14 AM
I'm not going to read 7 pages about it, but I certainly think that current variance is bad...or at least feels bad. I like precision. Base variance should be low, crit variance should be where you get your variance from* and perhaps Crit RAs should have a side function that reduces that variance. Increase crit chance, reduce crit variance on a sliding scale.

Edit, not specific to archery ofc, all damage.

*on top of the inherent variance from damage types vs armour/buffs/resists etc

Yo I just noticed your "Only bads use AHK"
This is another issue of mine for another thread perhaps.. but in a nutshell, it's gotta be seriously SUPER hard to balance classes out that require the use of AHK for a perfect/near perfect performance.

Thu 13 May 2021 7:50 AM by Astaa

No classes require AHK, just some players

Thu 13 May 2021 8:16 AM by DJ2000

Iam at still at work, but i was so inspired by this thread that i had to test it out and see the undeniable truth for myself.

I used the most iconic race in all of DaoC, an eyepatch dwarf.
Combine that with the greatest class in DaoC history, the Healer.

I went and hit some NPCs, which i will not explicitly discuss any further, and striked them with my Hammer like i used to do back in the early 2000.

I thought my eyes were decieving me !!!

10 hits, all the same damage !
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)

ThEr Is nO VaRiaNcE ! VaRiAnCe Is A lIe !!!
How dare you say earth is not flat, Gruens !
You cannot be trusted!
I demand an explanation, and an official excuse.

Thu 13 May 2021 8:17 AM by Centenario

I read it all, thank you for the effort on both sides.
Passion is good, confrontation too.

If we look at the wiki page given by gruene on the physical damage formulas of Phoenix, we can see that there are a lot of ways that things can be wrong and/or modified to improve.

I played scout in SI times too, I remember scouts being way stronger. ^^ They used to be the only viable archer out of the three realms. (just memory)

I wanted to main scout and made one, I didnt last long, the difference between PvE and RvR is drastic. It feels like Scout is only meant to hit target with low AF/Absorb/Resists.
I deleted my scout after it took me 10+ arrows to kill an afk target. Waiting like a duck to kill the only possible opponent for 20 seconds felt so wrong.

What I would do as a dev to get a real world experience as a scout as a basis to making any changes:

the devs should test the scouts in RvR:
1) try to get them viable via succeeding this test
2) Remove IP from viability test <- custom choice
3) Don't consider assist in viability test <- custom choice

TEST: As a scout am I consistently (75% +) able to kill casters/healers/hybrids -> if success is under 75% then something is wrong.
What is a failure here: [1] target ran away [2] scout died 1v1 [3] scout died because the fight was too long

I would like to share this post in french, which was done around 1.65:
http://terresetlegendes.free.fr/guides/eclaireur.html
Main things of interest in that post:

Ranger max range is 2100 on flat terrain
Hunter max range is 2000 on flat terrain
Scout longbow can reach 2280 on flat terrain (sidi bows and heart of the north) otherwise 2200 for heavy longbows different from hunting bows or longbows.

10 dex is supposedly equivalent to +3Longbow

Volley damage is based on the weapon Listed speed instead of swing speed

Scout should move with shield in order to block PA/BS or block arrows, which hit for around 800dmg

Being on higher ground will increase the range of the bow.

Piercing arrow allow the piercing of pulsing bubbles but not self bubbles

Longbows have a large weapon bonus, which is lost during rapid fire

This is what interests me the most, I do remember this heavy or large weapon bonus (grandes armes; different from two hand bonus), which was only available for scout longbow, polearm and celtic spear.

Damage increases by 0.6% per spec point above lvl 50

Scout gain 0.1 sec draw speed per 6 quickness

Falcon eye RA raises crit by 5% per rank

Mastery of archery raises draw speed by 3% per rank

Longshot penetrates all bubbles (even self bubble)

Range of volley is 3200, can reach 5000 when higher than target.

Anyway another interesting source: (in french)
https://web.archive.org/web/20030216212136/http://library.l9c.org/buffs.html
What I find most interesting here is the AF explanation:
AF is used twice once for determining the damage done and once for determining the local damage on the piece or armor hit.
Magical AF (selfbuff or classbuffs) is used only on the first part of the calculation, not on the local damage.

We can also see this:

La skill augmente aussi le maximum de dégâts possible (que vous pouvez voir en frappant un monstre très bas niveau par exemple), mais pas les dégâts de base sur lesquels s'applique la variance, sauf pour l'Arc et la Lance dont les dégâts de base augmentent de 0.45% par point de skill.
Which categorize Bow and Spear into a special category, saying that each skill point increases the damage cap, but not base damage, except bow and spear which also increase base damage by 0.45% per skill point.

It also says that basic spells as opposed to spec spell are subject to variance, while spec spells will always delve 125%.

Base block rate for shield is 5% for small, 10% for medium and 15% for large.

Finally another source which explores class coeff for weaponskills calc: http://la.horde.sauvage.free.fr/pages/statistiques/caracteristiques.htm with links to more sources.

Would these sources be considered trustworthy? They certainly seem to be.

Thu 13 May 2021 8:25 AM by paqdizzle

Astaa wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 7:50 AM
No classes require AHK, just some players

That's what I meant

but yeah, it's rough out here..

Thu 13 May 2021 8:37 AM by paqdizzle

Centenario wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 8:17 AM
I read it all, thank you for the effort on both sides.
Passion is good, confrontation too.

If we look at the wiki page given by gruene on the physical damage formulas of Phoenix, we can see that there are a lot of ways that things can be wrong and/or modified to improve.

I played scout in SI times too, I remember scouts being way stronger. ^^ They used to be the only viable archer out of the three realms. (just memory)

I wanted to main scout and made one, I didnt last long, the difference between PvE and RvR is drastic. It feels like Scout is only meant to hit target with low AF/Absorb/Resists.
I deleted my scout after it took me 10+ arrows to kill an afk target. Waiting like a duck to kill the only possible opponent for 20 seconds felt so wrong.

What I would do as a dev to get a real world experience as a scout as a basis to making any changes:
the devs should test the scouts in RvR:
1) try to get them viable via succeeding this test
2) Remove IP from viability test <- custom choice
3) Don't consider assist in viability test <- custom choice

TEST: As a scout am I consistently (75% +) able to kill casters/healers/hybrids -> if success is under 75% then something is wrong.
What is a failure here: [1] target ran away [2] scout died 1v1 [3] scout died because the fight was too long

I would like to share this post in french, which was done around 1.65:
http://terresetlegendes.free.fr/guides/eclaireur.html
Main things of interest in that post:
Ranger max range is 2100 on flat terrain
Hunter max range is 2000 on flat terrain
Scout longbow can reach 2280 on flat terrain (sidi bows and heart of the north) otherwise 2200 for heavy longbows different from hunting bows or longbows.

10 dex is supposedly equivalent to +3Longbow

Volley damage is based on the weapon Listed speed instead of swing speed

Scout should move with shield in order to block PA/BS or block arrows, which hit for around 800dmg

Being on higher ground will increase the range of the bow.

Piercing arrow allow the piercing of pulsing bubbles but not self bubbles

Longbows have a large weapon bonus, which is lost during rapid fire
This is what interests me the most, I do remember this heavy or large weapon bonus (grandes armes; different from two hand bonus), which was only available for scout longbow, polearm and celtic spear.

Damage increases by 0.6% per spec point above lvl 50

Scout gain 0.1 sec draw speed per 6 quickness

Falcon eye RA raises crit by 5% per rank

Mastery of archery raises draw speed by 3% per rank

Longshot penetrates all bubbles (even self bubble)

Range of volley is 3200, can reach 5000 when higher than target.

Anyway another interesting source: (in french)
https://web.archive.org/web/20030216212136/http://library.l9c.org/buffs.html
What I find most interesting here is the AF explanation:
AF is used twice once for determining the damage done and once for determining the local damage on the piece or armor hit.
Magical AF (selfbuff or classbuffs) is used only on the first part of the calculation, not on the local damage.

We can also see this:
La skill augmente aussi le maximum de dégâts possible (que vous pouvez voir en frappant un monstre très bas niveau par exemple), mais pas les dégâts de base sur lesquels s'applique la variance, sauf pour l'Arc et la Lance dont les dégâts de base augmentent de 0.45% par point de skill.
Which categorize Bow and Spear into a special category, saying that each skill point increases the damage cap, but not base damage, except bow and spear which also increase base damage by 0.45% per skill point.

It also says that basic spells as opposed to spec spell are subject to variance, while spec spells will always delve 125%.

Base block rate for shield is 5% for small, 10% for medium and 15% for large.

Finally another source which explores class coeff for weaponskills calc: http://la.horde.sauvage.free.fr/pages/statistiques/caracteristiques.htm with links to more sources.

Would these sources be considered trustworthy? They certainly seem to be.

Dang, you read everything!? if so, sorry if I came off as confusing at times, I tried to get in what I could based on memory. I appreciate your post 100% worth the read.
what it all comes down to me is, I want archery/scouts damage back the way it was in SI/early phoenix beta. We never needed a snare from 45 shield because our bow damage compensated for the lack of CC.

BTW I have 69 archery and still only see 500ish damage on my critshots on most players. I've seen 700 but they are most likely not temped and/or squishy. when really, that should be 900ish damage on critshots. I totally forgot that pen arrow was only for a specific BT. not the base line self version. which to me isn't a big deal, I usually just fired a standard shot and followed it up with critshot. That and a lot of people don't know you can critshot the same target every 10 seconds.

Thu 13 May 2021 8:42 AM by paqdizzle

DJ2000 wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 8:16 AM
Iam at still at work, but i was so inspired by this thread that i had to test it out and see the undeniable truth for myself.

I used the most iconic race in all of DaoC, an eyepatch dwarf.
Combine that with the greatest class in DaoC history, the Healer.

I went and hit some NPCs, which i will not explicitly discuss any further, and striked them with my Hammer like i used to do back in the early 2000.

I thought my eyes were decieving me !!!

10 hits, all the same damage !
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)

ThEr Is nO VaRiaNcE ! VaRiAnCe Is A lIe !!!
How dare you say earth is not flat, Gruens !
You cannot be trusted!
I demand an explanation, and an official excuse.

I before E except after C. I'm glad you're allowed to troll and break the rules of the forums.

Thu 13 May 2021 8:52 AM by DJ2000

And now i get threatend to get banned ?
This is an anti eyepatch-dwarf conspiracy !

Thu 13 May 2021 9:23 AM by Astaa

DJ2000 wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 8:16 AM
Iam at still at work, but i was so inspired by this thread that i had to test it out and see the undeniable truth for myself.

I used the most iconic race in all of DaoC, an eyepatch dwarf.
Combine that with the greatest class in DaoC history, the Healer.

I went and hit some NPCs, which i will not explicitly discuss any further, and striked them with my Hammer like i used to do back in the early 2000.

I thought my eyes were decieving me !!!

10 hits, all the same damage !
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)
153 (-8) Damage (mod:3000)

ThEr Is nO VaRiaNcE ! VaRiAnCe Is A lIe !!!
How dare you say earth is not flat, Gruens !
You cannot be trusted!
I demand an explanation, and an official excuse.

I don't think it works the same way in pve (correct me if I am wrong) because you go through the cap on a low or equal level mob, so always hit cap, as it were. It's best to test on dummies.

Thu 13 May 2021 10:14 AM by paqdizzle

DJ2000 wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 8:52 AM
And now i get threatend to get banned ?
This is an anti eyepatch-dwarf conspiracy !

Made me have one of those nostril p.s.i. laughs. I'm not 100% sure, but I think a snot must have flew out onto my keyboard, except I can't find it.

On another note, for these values on the variance beyond 50 spec, what does it mean when it says "Bonus".
100-150% bonus after having more than 50 pts in the bow spec line. Also when a physical damage dealer hits for cap damage almost every hit(unless you're hitting red+ mobs), what does variance truly mean if you see none due to dealing cap damage? Do we still call it a "Variance" even though there is no change to damage dealt? I guess that's where I'm confused.

Thu 13 May 2021 6:16 PM by ExcretusMaximus

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 8:42 AM
I before E except after C.

More words "break" that "rule" than obey it. Since you're giving faulty grammar advice, I'm now going to accuse you of trolling and ask that you be banned.

Thu 13 May 2021 6:18 PM by paqdizzle

ExcretusMaximus wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 6:16 PM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 8:42 AM
I before E except after C.

More words "break" that "rule" than obey it. Since you're giving faulty grammar advice, I'm now going to accuse you of trolling and ask that you be banned.

Faulty grammar? what does decieving mean? what does deceiving mean? oh.. I guess I wasn't trolling at all. simply a mnemonic rule of thumb.

Thu 13 May 2021 9:19 PM by easytoremember

paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 6:18 PM
ExcretusMaximus wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 6:16 PM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 8:42 AM
I before E except after C.

More words "break" that "rule" than obey it. Since you're giving faulty grammar advice, I'm now going to accuse you of trolling and ask that you be banned.

Faulty grammar? what does decieving mean? what does deceiving mean? oh.. I guess I wasn't trolling at all. simply a mnemonic rule of thumb.

doesn't seem very efficeint to me mr grammer sceintist

Thu 13 May 2021 11:34 PM by paqdizzle

easytoremember wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 9:19 PM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 6:18 PM
ExcretusMaximus wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 6:16 PM
paqdizzle wrote: ↑
Thu 13 May 2021 8:42 AM
I before E except after C.

More words "break" that "rule" than obey it. Since you're giving faulty grammar advice, I'm now going to accuse you of trolling and ask that you be banned.

Faulty grammar? what does decieving mean? what does deceiving mean? oh.. I guess I wasn't trolling at all. simply a mnemonic rule of thumb.
doesn't seem very efficeint to me mr grammer sceintist

It's just how it works sometimes. it is what it is