A lot of shots later, it looks like ammo matters more than crossbow stats, at least in between various bows of the same kind. I tested the following bows, with leaf bolts and pulzones.
Leafhead Bolt:
very heavy (10/26) puncture damage
poor (2/26) slice damage
poor (2/26) impact damage
no (0/26) fire damage
no (0/26) cold damage
no (0/26) electric damage
The leafhead bolts is dismally (2/17) designed for improving the force of your attacks.
Pulzone:
very heavy (10/26) puncture damage
low (3/26) slice damage
somewhat heavy (8/26) impact damage
no (0/26) fire damage
no (0/26) cold damage
no (0/26) electric damage
The steel-tipped pulzone is poorly (3/17) designed for improving the force of your attacks.
A forester's crossbow is a light crossbow type weapon.
A forester's crossbow trains the crossbow skill.
The forester's crossbow is extremely well (11/17) designed for improving the force of your attacks.
You are certain that the crossbow is well (9/15) balanced and is very well suited to gaining extra attack power
from your strength.
A clockwork slurbow with a nightsilk-wrapped tyrium barrel is a heavy crossbow type weapon.
A clockwork slurbow with a nightsilk-wrapped tyrium barrel trains the crossbow skill.
The clockwork slurbow is perfectly (17/17) designed for improving the force of your attacks.
You are certain that the slurbow is reasonably (7/15) balanced and is reasonably (7/15) suited to gaining extra attack power from your strength.
A heavy mistwood repeating crossbow with a nightsilk-wrapped stock is a heavy crossbow type weapon.
A heavy mistwood repeating crossbow with a nightsilk-wrapped stock trains the crossbow skill.
The repeating crossbow is perfectly (17/17) designed for improving the force of your attacks.
You are certain that the crossbow is fairly (5/15) balanced and is not (0/15) suited to gaining extra attack power from your strength.
A dark ebonwood double-stringed crossbow set with an ivory skull-shaped boltplate is a heavy crossbow type weapon.
A dark ebonwood double-stringed crossbow set with an ivory skull-shaped boltplate trains the crossbow skill.
The double-stringed crossbow is perfectly (17/17) designed for improving the force of your attacks.
You are certain that the crossbow is fairly (5/15) balanced and is well (9/15) suited to gaining extra attack power from your strength.
To test, I did load, full aim, fire and looked at damage per hit, vitality (per appraise), and shots to kill. In the case of the repeater, I paused on loads to account for critter vitality recovery a bit. Target was Elder armadillos. It is likely I am capping them for damage bonuses in some areas, and they have mean slice damage resistance, so that may have affected results.
Side note: I miss 100% of the time with a 3-4 second aim, so either the aim penalty is off, or the cap is much higher than Kodius has indicated before. If I am a couple hundred ranks over what these creatures are supposed to be (700 ranks), it's meh to me that I need full aims to hit. I think the aim bonus/penalty may not be working right. Anything short of full aim seems totally awful, and there was an early bug where a snap aim was auto full aim, so maybe this is the reverse. I beat elders around easy with 3 melee weapons lower than crossbow (using the "less" accurate attacks like slice, chop, punch, and not just draw--full aim fire should be at LEAST as good as draw).
General conclusions:
LX was noticeably worse than HX with the same ammo, but LX with good ammo was better than HX with bad. No idea why, but the lighter crossbow and worse ammo message damage much worse than the kill rate it actually reflects. LX "looks" weaker than it is, until you count kills and vitality hit per shot. If you look at just damage messaging per shot, it looks like the slur and DSX crush things, but they don't kill noticeably faster.
I'd like to see suitedness of weapon matter a lot more in crossbow (hard to tell if it's doing anything at all) and I'd like to see someone look hard at whether non-full aim shots are getting a nasty minus 30% penalty (old snap shot) or something. There is a small but noticeable stun rate difference between FOI of weapons below. I didn't track it though.
Here's a couple average data points(except for LX, which was 16 seconds per attack, all others are 20 seconds per attack, that counts load and full aim):
LX: 10 shots to kill, 2 misses, with bolts; 6.5 shots to kill, .6 misses, with pulzones
Slur: 6.5 shots to kill, 1 miss, with bolts; 5 shots to kill, 1 miss, with pulzones
HX repeater: 6.5 shots to kill, .5 misses, with bolts; 5 shots to kill, .333 misses, with pulzones
DSX: 5.5 shots to kill, .5 misses, with bolts; 4 shots to kill, no misses, with pulzones
Note: At 16-20 seconds per attack, each kill, optimistically, comes out to ballpark 108 seconds. This is on elder armadillos which my character should supposedly heavily outclass. And this testing was using the most "cannon" rare ranged weapons available. I offer the points above for comparison against a lot of the LT and HT testing going on. The positive flipside of crossbow is that you can wear at least 4 loaded crossbows, instantly cutting your attack time in half (load and full aim time are pretty close). To me, this justifies a lot of the relative DPS weakness I see in my own tests so far.
MOCKERJB
DEFOL
Re: Crossbows and Stats?
02/06/2013 03:15 AM CST
I have to say it doesn't come as a very big surprise to see anything other than quads, frogs or pulzones to be underperforming (still looking forward to crossbow/bolt crafting).
I don't have any LT/HT numbers in comparison but the way these work, it should not even come close to crossbow damage -- either being able to carry 4 loaded crossbows or not, you still need to aim and during which time you already get destroyed in melee.
<< To me, this justifies a lot of the relative DPS weakness I see in my own tests so far.
I can see this being an argument when comparing with bows but what about the thrown weapons then? You can can carry as many as you want and just throw them at people as you move along.
I don't have any LT/HT numbers in comparison but the way these work, it should not even come close to crossbow damage -- either being able to carry 4 loaded crossbows or not, you still need to aim and during which time you already get destroyed in melee.
<< To me, this justifies a lot of the relative DPS weakness I see in my own tests so far.
I can see this being an argument when comparing with bows but what about the thrown weapons then? You can can carry as many as you want and just throw them at people as you move along.
DIMINISHEDANGEL
Re: Crossbows and Stats?
02/06/2013 04:37 AM CST
>>A lot of shots later, it looks like ammo matters more than crossbow stats, at least in between various bows of the same kind. I tested the following bows, with leaf bolts and pulzones.
Thanks a lot for the rather extensive data! I've saved it just in case it's ever needed for... well, anything.
It doesn't seem like the ratio of damage importance vs. balance/suitability importance has changed much in 3.0.
Thanks a lot for the rather extensive data! I've saved it just in case it's ever needed for... well, anything.
It doesn't seem like the ratio of damage importance vs. balance/suitability importance has changed much in 3.0.
KROONERMANREVENGE
Re: Crossbows and Stats?
02/06/2013 07:34 AM CST
Can we please use this as a justification to have ammo sold that isn't embarrassingly bad? It doesn't have to be capped top end better than pulzones, but it should be better than pushing rope.
Note: this is not a plug for Genie or Elanthipedia or Mars Bars.
Note: this is not a plug for Genie or Elanthipedia or Mars Bars.
MOCKERJB
Re: Crossbows and Stats?
02/06/2013 07:58 AM CST
<<I can see this being an argument when comparing with bows but what about the thrown weapons then?>>
The issue I was thinking of is that it wouldn't be really fair to balance the damage of crossbow by reference to the roundtime (i.e. it takes forever so it should hit like a tank) if it's possible (even limited to just 3-4 crossbows) to shortcut the "drawback" and chain several attacks together quickly.
<<Can we please use this as a justification to have ammo sold that isn't embarrassingly bad? It doesn't have to be capped top end better than pulzones, but it should be better than pushing rope.>>
I definitely agree, but I think (hope?) that crafting will really step up the potential for crossbows, so that might be a better answer than storebought pulzones etc.
The issue I was thinking of is that it wouldn't be really fair to balance the damage of crossbow by reference to the roundtime (i.e. it takes forever so it should hit like a tank) if it's possible (even limited to just 3-4 crossbows) to shortcut the "drawback" and chain several attacks together quickly.
<<Can we please use this as a justification to have ammo sold that isn't embarrassingly bad? It doesn't have to be capped top end better than pulzones, but it should be better than pushing rope.>>
I definitely agree, but I think (hope?) that crafting will really step up the potential for crossbows, so that might be a better answer than storebought pulzones etc.
REWYN
Re: Crossbows and Stats?
02/06/2013 10:07 AM CST
All weapons cant do similar DPR (Damage per round time) because in 3.0 mitigation is such a key introduction now that armor skill matters. Low DPR but high DPA (damage per action) weapons excel against heavy mitigation which would otherwise reduce damage down to nothing. Take the following made up numbers as an indication of the theory which thus far seems true (ish).
Lets say you hit me, and between all my armor, I'm reducing your damage by 12.
You have a weapon that deals 15 damage every 5 seconds. Comparatively you had another wepaon that does 30 damage every 15 seconds. The second weapon has an inferior DPR (30 damage every 15 seconds comes out to 2 damage a second, vs the formers 3 damage a second) however if attacking me, the first weapon registers 9 damage after 15 seconds of combat (9 damage, 3 times, with each shot mitigated down to 3). The later did 18 damage in the same period of time.
Idealistically lower damage/lower rt weapons are going to excel at lighter armored targets, targets with mitigation debuffs and for wittiling away small chunks of health to gain advantage in balance/position, etc. Your higher damage weapons are going to be inferior in terms of kill speed until some breaking point in the targets damage mitigation comes to pass.
Now thats my theory, I dont know the reality. It could be crossbows are under tuned. My general belief though is that ranged is no longer intended to have anywhere near the kill speed of melee, because ranged has an advantage of mitigating danger and striking without advancing (not that anyone in the thread said it should). Something interesting would be to test the total kill time with snap shots vs aims, cause while aims definately increase damage, are they actually TIME efficient? My non thrown skills are too small to effectively test this.
Lets say you hit me, and between all my armor, I'm reducing your damage by 12.
You have a weapon that deals 15 damage every 5 seconds. Comparatively you had another wepaon that does 30 damage every 15 seconds. The second weapon has an inferior DPR (30 damage every 15 seconds comes out to 2 damage a second, vs the formers 3 damage a second) however if attacking me, the first weapon registers 9 damage after 15 seconds of combat (9 damage, 3 times, with each shot mitigated down to 3). The later did 18 damage in the same period of time.
Idealistically lower damage/lower rt weapons are going to excel at lighter armored targets, targets with mitigation debuffs and for wittiling away small chunks of health to gain advantage in balance/position, etc. Your higher damage weapons are going to be inferior in terms of kill speed until some breaking point in the targets damage mitigation comes to pass.
Now thats my theory, I dont know the reality. It could be crossbows are under tuned. My general belief though is that ranged is no longer intended to have anywhere near the kill speed of melee, because ranged has an advantage of mitigating danger and striking without advancing (not that anyone in the thread said it should). Something interesting would be to test the total kill time with snap shots vs aims, cause while aims definately increase damage, are they actually TIME efficient? My non thrown skills are too small to effectively test this.
ALDEN
Re: Crossbows and Stats?
02/06/2013 11:19 AM CST
Interesting testing but I want to mentiont that a year or two back someone did fairly extensive and well documented testing on exactly what you are looking at- comparing ammo and standard HX/Slurbow, DSX, and Museum reduced load HX.
His conclusion was ammo was the main factor. Luckily now, that is not as important for training. But for killing I would imagine that hasn't changed any.
His conclusions were, as I recall roughly: ammo is the chief factor.
Regarding HX's- Slurbows hit hardest, but Museum HX's dealt more damage out per time spent shooting. His testing on DSX had them being markedly worse than Slurbows.
I really don't understand why crossbow ammo is still the only ammo that cannot be player crafted, or why pulzones and quads- which do not appear to be to be any more 'game threatening' in power than player made top quality arrows- have been intentionally been so limited in distribution.
I am lucky enough to still have enough Pulzones left, but attrition is taking its toll.
After so many years of HX training hell though, just being able to train with it now makes so giddy that I feel almost bad bringing up the ammo issue again.
REWYN
Re: Crossbows and Stats?
02/06/2013 11:39 AM CST
>>I really don't understand why crossbow ammo is still the only ammo that cannot be player crafte
Thats a pretty valid complaint. Not sure why this wasnt done during fletching or its reviews.
Thats a pretty valid complaint. Not sure why this wasnt done during fletching or its reviews.
TEVESHSZAT
Re: Crossbows and Stats?
02/06/2013 11:48 AM CST
>>Thats a pretty valid complaint. Not sure why this wasnt done during fletching or its reviews.
Fletching isn't in 3.0 yet, either.
The teeth lands a solid (5/23) hit that pokes the teeth into Turul's rear end (more embarrassing than painful!).
Fletching isn't in 3.0 yet, either.
The teeth lands a solid (5/23) hit that pokes the teeth into Turul's rear end (more embarrassing than painful!).
REWYN
Re: Crossbows and Stats?
02/06/2013 11:51 AM CST
>>Fletching isn't in 3.0 yet, either.
I meant the original systems. Its a criticism of GM's past, not present.
I meant the original systems. Its a criticism of GM's past, not present.
TEVESHSZAT
Re: Crossbows and Stats?
02/06/2013 11:57 AM CST
>>I meant the original systems. Its a criticism of GM's past, not present.
Kinda a weird thing to talk about at this point.
The teeth lands a solid (5/23) hit that pokes the teeth into Turul's rear end (more embarrassing than painful!).
Kinda a weird thing to talk about at this point.
The teeth lands a solid (5/23) hit that pokes the teeth into Turul's rear end (more embarrassing than painful!).
DR-KODIUS
Re: Crossbows and Stats?
02/06/2013 03:50 PM CST
The size of the crossbow adds a flat % to damage comparable to its RT. So if the load/aim/fire time is 33% longer, it should be doing about 33% more base damage. Not 100% accurate, but that is the gist of things.
Crossbow bolts set the base, however. So 33% bonus to under-performing cross bolts won't be as noticeable. This makes me think a better bonus might be 18%, +4 or something. So you bonus partially a % and partially a base...hmm.. would make poor ammo not as much of a factor.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Crossbow bolts set the base, however. So 33% bonus to under-performing cross bolts won't be as noticeable. This makes me think a better bonus might be 18%, +4 or something. So you bonus partially a % and partially a base...hmm.. would make poor ammo not as much of a factor.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
KROONERMANREVENGE
Re: Crossbows and Stats?
02/06/2013 04:31 PM CST
>Crossbow bolts set the base, however. So 33% bonus to under-performing cross bolts won't be as noticeable. This makes me think a better bonus might be 18%, +4 or something. So you bonus partially a % and partially a base...hmm.. would make poor ammo not as much of a factor.
Wouldn't this also make good ammo simply perform less well?
Note: this is not a plug for Genie or Elanthipedia or Mars Bars.
Wouldn't this also make good ammo simply perform less well?
Note: this is not a plug for Genie or Elanthipedia or Mars Bars.
MOCKERJB
Re: Crossbows and Stats?
02/06/2013 07:06 PM CST
Interesting, thanks for the feedback. I'm okay with the status quo assuming that we will have decent room to improve/fletch bolts via tinkering and other things, but one of the biggest surprises to me seems to be that "suitedness" is not playing a noticeable role in damage.
DR-KODIUS
Re: Crossbows and Stats?
02/06/2013 11:32 PM CST
>>Wouldn't this also make good ammo simply perform less well?
A little, but assuming crafted ammo 2.0 can have higher stats than what is currently used, I don't see that being a bad thing.
Now - capped basilisk arrows = good damage
Then - capped basilisk arrows = moderate damage
Then - capped diamondique-tipped arrows = great damage
Now - storebought bolts = terrible damage
Now - quads/pulzones,etc = good damage
Then - storebought bolts = poor damage
Then - quads/pulzones = moderate damage
Then - Tarask horn bolts = great damage
... Tarask horn bolts of greater acid ball = runaway!
Anyhow, the goal is to make storebought stuff completely usable, and capped rare stuff great, but not overpowered. With ammo its also a bit more balanced since you'll inevitably lose some along the way. A heavy crossbow with storebought bolts should probably be doing comparable damage to a light crossbow with capped bolts, just because of the RT difference.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
A little, but assuming crafted ammo 2.0 can have higher stats than what is currently used, I don't see that being a bad thing.
Now - capped basilisk arrows = good damage
Then - capped basilisk arrows = moderate damage
Then - capped diamondique-tipped arrows = great damage
Now - storebought bolts = terrible damage
Now - quads/pulzones,etc = good damage
Then - storebought bolts = poor damage
Then - quads/pulzones = moderate damage
Then - Tarask horn bolts = great damage
... Tarask horn bolts of greater acid ball = runaway!
Anyhow, the goal is to make storebought stuff completely usable, and capped rare stuff great, but not overpowered. With ammo its also a bit more balanced since you'll inevitably lose some along the way. A heavy crossbow with storebought bolts should probably be doing comparable damage to a light crossbow with capped bolts, just because of the RT difference.
"I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
MOCKERJB
Re: Crossbows and Stats?
02/07/2013 12:04 AM CST
<<... Tarask horn bolts of greater acid ball = runaway!>>
So cool.
So cool.
DIMINISHEDANGEL
Re: Crossbows and Stats?
02/07/2013 08:00 AM CST
>>Can we please use this as a justification to have ammo sold that isn't embarrassingly bad? It doesn't have to be capped top end better than pulzones, but it should be better than pushing rope.
I'm not against stopgag measures, but player-made bolts aren't terribly far away, at the rate Kodius is coding systems.
I'm not against stopgag measures, but player-made bolts aren't terribly far away, at the rate Kodius is coding systems.
