Previous
I did see that post. That would be a core magic issue and would no way invalidate what I'm saying.
-Raesh
"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose
DR-RAESH
DAENAR-DR
Re: TM damage
03/12/2013 06:47 PM CDT
>> I did see that post. That would be a core magic issue and would no way invalidate what I'm saying.
:P I know, it was a subtle hint for you to take a look at it. Since I know how familiar you are with core-tm magic dmg, finding that multi-strike bug and all.
:P I know, it was a subtle hint for you to take a look at it. Since I know how familiar you are with core-tm magic dmg, finding that multi-strike bug and all.
DR-RAESH
Re: TM damage
03/12/2013 06:58 PM CDT
I did not write any part of core magic. I'm, generally speaking, the wrong person to look into those issues since I don't know the intended functionality.
-Raesh
"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose
-Raesh
"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose
SERC
Re: TM damage
03/13/2013 12:09 AM CDT
I would also like to say that I would appreciate a peer review on my test if anyone gets the time.
The core I idea is to isolate the wisdom variable and to measure the change in damage, not the total.
My approach was to go with someone that I could land the spell on, but not do much damage to. I don't think this part is necessary but I liked it because I think I avoided hitting any kind of damage cap on limbs vs vital area shots, which I thought may skew the results on higher damage hits.
Once I had a base damage range and average I adjusted the wisdom variable significantly. Up or down Didn't really matter since again, I was just measuring change in damage and tested again.
Additionally I only measured vitality damage dealt. Since none of my hits were hard enough to deal physical damage, that seemed another good control to avoid any sort of damage sharing mechanic that might be in place there (I have no idea at all how vit and physical damage are split up, so I just avoided physical all together.) I waited for my target to return to 100% vitality before casting again.
I feel like it was a strong test with positive results, but this kind of testing can be tricky and variables I'm not aware of may stick their ugly faces in. The more tests the better. I'm not sure how helpful the test is in helping the GM's find the source of the problem, but I would hate for someone to wade knee deep into complex code that's working because I didn't put together strong experiment.
-Serc
""It's a hell of a thing, killing some text. Take away all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's got, and all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's ever gonna have." -- Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven."-- Bahb.
The core I idea is to isolate the wisdom variable and to measure the change in damage, not the total.
My approach was to go with someone that I could land the spell on, but not do much damage to. I don't think this part is necessary but I liked it because I think I avoided hitting any kind of damage cap on limbs vs vital area shots, which I thought may skew the results on higher damage hits.
Once I had a base damage range and average I adjusted the wisdom variable significantly. Up or down Didn't really matter since again, I was just measuring change in damage and tested again.
Additionally I only measured vitality damage dealt. Since none of my hits were hard enough to deal physical damage, that seemed another good control to avoid any sort of damage sharing mechanic that might be in place there (I have no idea at all how vit and physical damage are split up, so I just avoided physical all together.) I waited for my target to return to 100% vitality before casting again.
I feel like it was a strong test with positive results, but this kind of testing can be tricky and variables I'm not aware of may stick their ugly faces in. The more tests the better. I'm not sure how helpful the test is in helping the GM's find the source of the problem, but I would hate for someone to wade knee deep into complex code that's working because I didn't put together strong experiment.
-Serc
""It's a hell of a thing, killing some text. Take away all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's got, and all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's ever gonna have." -- Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven."-- Bahb.
ALEPH-ONE
Re: TM damage
03/13/2013 03:02 PM CDT
>>I would also like to say that I would appreciate a peer review on my test if anyone gets the time.
Serc, I didn't see your test in this thread and I don't remember where you posted it.
That said, from what I recall, you did the test in Test, which makes it (sadly) not very useful. We simply don't know what has changed between Test and Prime by now.
Also, if I recall, the format you took was holding everything else steady and changing only Wis. This is a good format. However in order to really test it properly, you will need to take fairly large samples at each Wis level and then compare them with the proper statistical test (in this case an ANOVA) -- or at the very least show the averages and standard deviations. I could do that part for you if you like, if you were to do the test again in Prime. For a sample, I might suggest 30 casts at each Wis level.
>>The core I idea is to isolate the wisdom variable and to measure the change in damage, not the total.
I don't really know what you mean by measuring the change here. I'd just measure the total vitality damage with each cast.
-- Player of Eyuve
Serc, I didn't see your test in this thread and I don't remember where you posted it.
That said, from what I recall, you did the test in Test, which makes it (sadly) not very useful. We simply don't know what has changed between Test and Prime by now.
Also, if I recall, the format you took was holding everything else steady and changing only Wis. This is a good format. However in order to really test it properly, you will need to take fairly large samples at each Wis level and then compare them with the proper statistical test (in this case an ANOVA) -- or at the very least show the averages and standard deviations. I could do that part for you if you like, if you were to do the test again in Prime. For a sample, I might suggest 30 casts at each Wis level.
>>The core I idea is to isolate the wisdom variable and to measure the change in damage, not the total.
I don't really know what you mean by measuring the change here. I'd just measure the total vitality damage with each cast.
-- Player of Eyuve
DAENAR-DR
Re: TM damage
03/13/2013 03:22 PM CDT
>> Serc, I didn't see your test in this thread and I don't remember where you posted it.
>> That said, from what I recall, you did the test in Test, which makes it (sadly) not very useful. We simply don't know what has changed between Test and Prime by now.
Warrior mage folder. He tested it a 2nd time in PRIME after Armifer said he made the bug fix. Same results.
ALEPH-ONE
Re: TM damage
03/13/2013 05:16 PM CDT
>>Warrior mage folder. He tested it a 2nd time in PRIME after Armifer said he made the bug fix. Same results.
Ah, I don't read that folder at the moment. I'll try to remember to look at it later.
-- Player of Eyuve
Ah, I don't read that folder at the moment. I'll try to remember to look at it later.
-- Player of Eyuve
SERC
Re: TM damage
03/13/2013 06:29 PM CDT
">>Warrior mage folder. He tested it a 2nd time in PRIME after Armifer said he made the bug fix. Same results.
Ah, I don't read that folder at the moment. I'll try to remember to look at it later."
I posted it under targeted magic system in the MM folder, titled wisdom does nothing for damage. I didn't post the data just the results, if that's what you're looking for though. The aim of this last post was to better outline the test that I conducted for anyone who wanted to see if they replicate my results.
My sample sizes were smaller than I'd like but it's a game and I got bored. This is part of why I'd like to see others collect and verify.
"then compare them with the proper statistical test (in this case an ANOVA) -- or at the very least show the averages and standard deviations."
No! You don't get to do the fun part! ...Im teasing, but really it's the data collection that's tedious. I like the math.
"I don't really know what you mean by measuring the change here."
Hrm. How to word it better. The experiment is designed to measure the difference (or lack of) in mean damage between the sample sets of adjusted wisdom values. What I was getting at is that I don't want anyone who does the test to get distracted with my average damage being 7% for sample set 1 and theirs being 15% for sample set 1. What I want to know is if their sample set 2 is still 15% or if their mean damage has changed after adjusting wisdom.
"I'd just measure the total vitality damage with each cast."
Yep. That's the data I collected to establish the mean damage for each sample set.
-Serc
""It's a hell of a thing, killing some text. Take away all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's got, and all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's ever gonna have." -- Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven."-- Bahb.
Ah, I don't read that folder at the moment. I'll try to remember to look at it later."
I posted it under targeted magic system in the MM folder, titled wisdom does nothing for damage. I didn't post the data just the results, if that's what you're looking for though. The aim of this last post was to better outline the test that I conducted for anyone who wanted to see if they replicate my results.
My sample sizes were smaller than I'd like but it's a game and I got bored. This is part of why I'd like to see others collect and verify.
"then compare them with the proper statistical test (in this case an ANOVA) -- or at the very least show the averages and standard deviations."
No! You don't get to do the fun part! ...Im teasing, but really it's the data collection that's tedious. I like the math.
"I don't really know what you mean by measuring the change here."
Hrm. How to word it better. The experiment is designed to measure the difference (or lack of) in mean damage between the sample sets of adjusted wisdom values. What I was getting at is that I don't want anyone who does the test to get distracted with my average damage being 7% for sample set 1 and theirs being 15% for sample set 1. What I want to know is if their sample set 2 is still 15% or if their mean damage has changed after adjusting wisdom.
"I'd just measure the total vitality damage with each cast."
Yep. That's the data I collected to establish the mean damage for each sample set.
-Serc
""It's a hell of a thing, killing some text. Take away all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's got, and all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's ever gonna have." -- Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven."-- Bahb.
ALEPH-ONE
Re: TM damage
03/13/2013 10:55 PM CDT
>>I posted it under targeted magic system in the MM folder, titled wisdom does nothing for damage.
/mumbles something about navigating the forums
Here's the post just for reference:
>>I went into the test instance and re-specced my stats down to base. I trained INT to 50, Disc to 99. I then cast a series of fully targeted capped partial displacements at a target. My Damage range was 11% Vit to 6% Vit with an average damage of 8% vitality damage. I did this again at 50, 70 and 99 wisdom. The range and average stayed the same.
From this report I don't see what your sample sizes were. Report at least the average, standard deviation, and sample size for each level of Wis. Ideally do the ANOVA.
>>No! You don't get to do the fun part! ...Im teasing, but really it's the data collection that's tedious. I like the math.
Great! I always offer in case people don't know how.
>>What I was getting at is that I don't want anyone who does the test to get distracted with my average damage being 7% for sample set 1 and theirs being 15% for sample set 1.
Honestly? This is too confusing. Just post your own damage. We should all know that our mileage will vary depending on skill and target, etc.
In conclusion, you could redo the test if you like. It could stand to be improved. However, given that you tested in Prime(!), and given the bugginess of the system and the problems with stats in the past, if I were a GM I'd already be inclined to do some poking around. So my guess is that they will.
-- Player of Eyuve
/mumbles something about navigating the forums
Here's the post just for reference:
>>I went into the test instance and re-specced my stats down to base. I trained INT to 50, Disc to 99. I then cast a series of fully targeted capped partial displacements at a target. My Damage range was 11% Vit to 6% Vit with an average damage of 8% vitality damage. I did this again at 50, 70 and 99 wisdom. The range and average stayed the same.
From this report I don't see what your sample sizes were. Report at least the average, standard deviation, and sample size for each level of Wis. Ideally do the ANOVA.
>>No! You don't get to do the fun part! ...Im teasing, but really it's the data collection that's tedious. I like the math.
Great! I always offer in case people don't know how.
>>What I was getting at is that I don't want anyone who does the test to get distracted with my average damage being 7% for sample set 1 and theirs being 15% for sample set 1.
Honestly? This is too confusing. Just post your own damage. We should all know that our mileage will vary depending on skill and target, etc.
In conclusion, you could redo the test if you like. It could stand to be improved. However, given that you tested in Prime(!), and given the bugginess of the system and the problems with stats in the past, if I were a GM I'd already be inclined to do some poking around. So my guess is that they will.
-- Player of Eyuve
SERC
Re: TM damage
03/14/2013 06:39 AM CDT
I'm going to give it a few days. I was sent a cut an paste of a GM on TF chatter last night saying that TM should take stats into account now and that the change should be pretty noticeable. I'm taking that as confirmation that it wasn't and that a fix is being tested.
-Serc
""It's a hell of a thing, killing some text. Take away all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's got, and all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's ever gonna have." -- Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven."-- Bahb.
-Serc
""It's a hell of a thing, killing some text. Take away all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's got, and all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's ever gonna have." -- Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven."-- Bahb.
DR-ARMIFER
Re: TM damage
03/14/2013 07:53 AM CDT
Yeah, Raesh found something else that was also preventing stat mods from applying, but now we're a bit concerned it might swing too hard in the other direction. Such is the nature of the beast.
-Armifer
"In our days truth is taken to result from the effacing of the living man behind the mathematical structures that think themselves out in him, rather than he be thinking them." - Emmanuel Levinas
-Armifer
"In our days truth is taken to result from the effacing of the living man behind the mathematical structures that think themselves out in him, rather than he be thinking them." - Emmanuel Levinas
DAENAR-DR
Re: TM damage
03/14/2013 12:50 PM CDT
>> Yeah, Raesh found something else that was also preventing stat mods from applying, but now we're a bit concerned it might swing too hard in the other direction. Such is the nature of the beast.
I knew he would look even though he didn't write the code (see his above comment.) Curiousity killed the cat! (Or gave him many headaches in this case...) :P
ALEPH-ONE
Re: TM damage
03/14/2013 03:49 PM CDT
>>I'm going to give it a few days. I was sent a cut an paste of a GM on TF chatter last night saying that TM should take stats into account now and that the change should be pretty noticeable. I'm taking that as confirmation that it wasn't and that a fix is being tested.
Wait, so you're saying you think there's a fix in the works but it's not rolled into Prime yet?
-- Player of Eyuve
Wait, so you're saying you think there's a fix in the works but it's not rolled into Prime yet?
-- Player of Eyuve
OLSONM6
Re: TM damage
03/14/2013 04:50 PM CDT
>Wait, so you're saying you think there's a fix in the works but it's not rolled into Prime yet?
There is a fix, but it's not rolled into Prime yet. They want to make sure that they're not overcorrecting and that it doesn't introduce other issues.
There is a fix, but it's not rolled into Prime yet. They want to make sure that they're not overcorrecting and that it doesn't introduce other issues.
SERC
Re: TM damage
03/14/2013 05:56 PM CDT
I do appreciate the quick attention this got. Throwing spell shaped pillows hurts my feelings. And, sadly, ONLY my feelings.
-Serc
""It's a hell of a thing, killing some text. Take away all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's got, and all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's ever gonna have." -- Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven."-- Bahb.
-Serc
""It's a hell of a thing, killing some text. Take away all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's got, and all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's ever gonna have." -- Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven."-- Bahb.
OSUS
JENKINSAPDX
Re: TM damage
03/15/2013 05:29 AM CDT
>>Throwing spell shaped pillows hurts my feelings.
>> -serc
The push back I'm sensing from the GMs on this is a lolwhut? for me. Srsly, up damage calcs for MM spell objects (actually, SLS is fine as is. The only spell that's reasonable). Also, ditch multi-shot or change the weight calcs for TK spells. TKT/TKS aren't even novelty at this point.
>> -serc
The push back I'm sensing from the GMs on this is a lolwhut? for me. Srsly, up damage calcs for MM spell objects (actually, SLS is fine as is. The only spell that's reasonable). Also, ditch multi-shot or change the weight calcs for TK spells. TKT/TKS aren't even novelty at this point.
DIMINISHEDANGEL
Re: TM damage
03/15/2013 05:36 AM CDT
>>The push back I'm sensing from the GMs on this is a lolwhut? for me. Srsly, up damage calcs for MM spell objects (actually, SLS is fine as is. The only spell that's reasonable). Also, ditch multi-shot or change the weight calcs for TK spells. TKT/TKS aren't even novelty at this point.
Raesh has repeatedly stated that all spells of similar type (multi-shot, DFA, AOE, single-shot, cyclic, etc.) follow the same damage templates and go through the same calculations in core combat, and there is no way to manually adjust a single spell's power to make it stronger or weaker.
Raesh has repeatedly stated that all spells of similar type (multi-shot, DFA, AOE, single-shot, cyclic, etc.) follow the same damage templates and go through the same calculations in core combat, and there is no way to manually adjust a single spell's power to make it stronger or weaker.
JENKINSAPDX
Re: TM damage
03/15/2013 06:01 AM CDT
spell objects != single spell's power.
Basically, there needs to be an across the board change whether in weight calcs to multiple spells, guild based spells, or all TM calcs over the board...
Edit:
>>Raesh has repeatedly stated that all spells of similar type...
>>-DiminishedAngel
lol. You remind me of someone
Basically, there needs to be an across the board change whether in weight calcs to multiple spells, guild based spells, or all TM calcs over the board...
Edit:
>>Raesh has repeatedly stated that all spells of similar type...
>>-DiminishedAngel
lol. You remind me of someone
KROONERMANREVENGE
Re: TM damage
03/15/2013 08:06 AM CDT
>Basically, there needs to be an across the board change whether in weight calcs to multiple spells, guild based spells, or all TM calcs over the board...
I suspect you're making this way too complicated. Raesh has said that all the spells (yes, all of them) flow through the same mechanics, that there's not some 'tweak' they can do to make one spell weaker or stronger. What MM TM may be suffering from is the 2-damage-stats-only issue, which cripples spells doing only 2 types of damage (the Paladins shield bash spell, and Stone Strike both suffer from this), but I don't know enough about MM TM damage types to say.
You may feel TM as a whole is weak, lackluster, etc. And that's a valid complaint about the system; it's been said a lot since 3.0 released.
Pants.
I suspect you're making this way too complicated. Raesh has said that all the spells (yes, all of them) flow through the same mechanics, that there's not some 'tweak' they can do to make one spell weaker or stronger. What MM TM may be suffering from is the 2-damage-stats-only issue, which cripples spells doing only 2 types of damage (the Paladins shield bash spell, and Stone Strike both suffer from this), but I don't know enough about MM TM damage types to say.
You may feel TM as a whole is weak, lackluster, etc. And that's a valid complaint about the system; it's been said a lot since 3.0 released.
Pants.
DIMINISHEDANGEL
Re: TM damage
03/15/2013 08:18 AM CDT
>>spell objects != single spell's power.
>>Basically, there needs to be an across the board change whether in weight calcs to multiple spells, guild based spells, or all TM calcs over the board...
Nice try. In the quote below, you're very clearly asking for a few Moon Mage spells in particular to receive higher damage calcs.
>>The push back I'm sensing from the GMs on this is a lolwhut? for me. Srsly, up damage calcs for MM spell objects (actually, SLS is fine as is. The only spell that's reasonable). Also, ditch multi-shot or change the weight calcs for TK spells. TKT/TKS aren't even novelty at this point.
Which is what I responded to. If you are modifying your request to something like multi-shot templates, or if you had asked for that originally, I would not have responded.
A change went through yesterday that supposedly fixed a bug to make spells actually factor in stat bonuses. I have noticed a nice increase in damage to my TM on my Cleric since then. Do you still feel the damage is off compared other TM, or ranged weapons?
>>Basically, there needs to be an across the board change whether in weight calcs to multiple spells, guild based spells, or all TM calcs over the board...
Nice try. In the quote below, you're very clearly asking for a few Moon Mage spells in particular to receive higher damage calcs.
>>The push back I'm sensing from the GMs on this is a lolwhut? for me. Srsly, up damage calcs for MM spell objects (actually, SLS is fine as is. The only spell that's reasonable). Also, ditch multi-shot or change the weight calcs for TK spells. TKT/TKS aren't even novelty at this point.
Which is what I responded to. If you are modifying your request to something like multi-shot templates, or if you had asked for that originally, I would not have responded.
A change went through yesterday that supposedly fixed a bug to make spells actually factor in stat bonuses. I have noticed a nice increase in damage to my TM on my Cleric since then. Do you still feel the damage is off compared other TM, or ranged weapons?
DR-RAESH
Re: TM damage
03/15/2013 10:47 AM CDT
I think you're behind the times JENKINSAPDX.
Also, TKT/TKS (as stated by Armifer previously) only use the object to determine what type of damage they do in 3.0, not how much.
Also TKT does 3 types of damage, which is the higher damage template currently.
-Raesh
"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose
Also, TKT/TKS (as stated by Armifer previously) only use the object to determine what type of damage they do in 3.0, not how much.
Also TKT does 3 types of damage, which is the higher damage template currently.
-Raesh
"Ever notice that B.A.'s flavor text swells in direct proportion to how much one of our characters is getting screwed?" - Brian Van Hoose
DAENAR-DR
Re: TM damage
03/15/2013 02:18 PM CDT
>> I think you're behind the times JENKINSAPDX.
I was just thinking that. A big bug fix yesterday by Raesh helped out with all TM spells. I'd go recheck your spells to see how they are doing (caveat with multishots, see below.)
There is still a couple of issues remaining however.
1) Multi shot spells are really bad. They are still deciding, and/or waiting for approval to find a better way to implement them.
2) Multi shot spells with 2x damage types are bugged. They basically do less damage (1/3 less I believe) then multishot with 3+ damage types.
3) Multi shot tm exp is very low.
Fairly certain all 3 are in the process of being fixed, they've been around for at least a month now.
SERC
Re: TM damage
03/15/2013 08:52 PM CDT
Has the fix been rolled into prime?
-Serc
""It's a hell of a thing, killing some text. Take away all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's got, and all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's ever gonna have." -- Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven."-- Bahb.
-Serc
""It's a hell of a thing, killing some text. Take away all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's got, and all the numbers and letters and punctuation it's ever gonna have." -- Clint Eastwood, Unforgiven."-- Bahb.
BLACKRUSSIAN
Re: TM damage
03/15/2013 11:28 PM CDT
Did you look in abilities folder. According to the post by Raesh, it would appears it has.
BALTHIER3
Re: TM damage
03/30/2013 10:44 PM CDT
been doing some testing with PD and Do and TKT and TkS
TKS:
30 mana prep fully targeted 20 in cambrinth seems to have better damage results in just min prep (obviously)
however the learning for both 20+ in cam and at min prep seems to be not so great.
TKT:
10 prep fully targeted seems to teach just as much as min prep (2 mana) with +70 mana in cambrinth
the damage for both tks and tkt varied (i was using fire opals) in impact from 1 all the way to 18
PD:
10 prep fully targeted teaching on average 1 point of learning rate per cast
DO:
10 prep fully targeted teaches on average 1 point for every 1-2 casts.
with a prep of 19 with +40 in cambrinth taught 1 point
Lunar Magic: 462 24% considering (6/34) Attunement: 446 19% dabbling (1/34)
Arcana: 434 12% concentrating (9/34) Targeted Magic: 228 22% scrutinizing (17/34)
Augmentation: 371 02% clear (0/34) Debilitation: 216 76% clear (0/34)
Utility: 307 77% clear (0/34) Warding: 284 81% clear (0/34)
Sorcery: 0 20% clear (0/34) Astrology: 267 44% clear (0/34)
Strength : 20 Reflex : 40
Agility : 40 Charisma : 26
Discipline : 40 Wisdom : 30
Intelligence : 35 Stamina : 34
in short sls is still king of tm learning IMO but the other single strike spells (say that five times fast)
seem to be doing alot better since the fix was rolled in whereas tks and tkt's damage and learning
greatly needs tweaking. all these tests were done on oshu so maybe it's their resistances being put into play.
TKS:
30 mana prep fully targeted 20 in cambrinth seems to have better damage results in just min prep (obviously)
however the learning for both 20+ in cam and at min prep seems to be not so great.
TKT:
10 prep fully targeted seems to teach just as much as min prep (2 mana) with +70 mana in cambrinth
the damage for both tks and tkt varied (i was using fire opals) in impact from 1 all the way to 18
PD:
10 prep fully targeted teaching on average 1 point of learning rate per cast
DO:
10 prep fully targeted teaches on average 1 point for every 1-2 casts.
with a prep of 19 with +40 in cambrinth taught 1 point
Lunar Magic: 462 24% considering (6/34) Attunement: 446 19% dabbling (1/34)
Arcana: 434 12% concentrating (9/34) Targeted Magic: 228 22% scrutinizing (17/34)
Augmentation: 371 02% clear (0/34) Debilitation: 216 76% clear (0/34)
Utility: 307 77% clear (0/34) Warding: 284 81% clear (0/34)
Sorcery: 0 20% clear (0/34) Astrology: 267 44% clear (0/34)
Strength : 20 Reflex : 40
Agility : 40 Charisma : 26
Discipline : 40 Wisdom : 30
Intelligence : 35 Stamina : 34
in short sls is still king of tm learning IMO but the other single strike spells (say that five times fast)
seem to be doing alot better since the fix was rolled in whereas tks and tkt's damage and learning
greatly needs tweaking. all these tests were done on oshu so maybe it's their resistances being put into play.
BORGHEST2
Re: TM damage
04/06/2013 11:05 AM CDT
I get 2 or 3 mindstates per cast using min prep TKS and moon slivers on three or four creats. And have not been using SLS for target much lately. The daytime restriction is steep when you can't be logged in all the time. Tks locks TM about as fast as HT.
MERP
Re: TM damage
07/05/2013 10:12 PM CDT
So what I've seen is that all target spells go through the same core mechanics and that you can't just adjust one spell to be more powerful or less powerful. I also saw a statement that STRA seems to do more damage because it has an electric damage stat to it. it seems to me that there seems to be a way to make a single spell more or less powerful after all by just adding or removing damage types.
Is there any validity to this thought?
ALEPH-ONE
Re: TM damage
07/05/2013 10:28 PM CDT
>>So what I've seen is that all target spells go through the same core mechanics and that you can't just adjust one spell to be more powerful or less powerful.
Yes.
>>I also saw a statement that STRA seems to do more damage because it has an electric damage stat to it.
Well, keep in mind that most people using metal armor will be quite weak against electricity, comparatively. This will likely change once enchanting comes out, when I suspect armor will be able to be enchanted to defend particularly well versus certain elements.
-- Player of Eyuve
Yes.
>>I also saw a statement that STRA seems to do more damage because it has an electric damage stat to it.
Well, keep in mind that most people using metal armor will be quite weak against electricity, comparatively. This will likely change once enchanting comes out, when I suspect armor will be able to be enchanted to defend particularly well versus certain elements.
-- Player of Eyuve
