The Energon Pub

Had anybody figured the numbers behind words of weapon stats? How much is incredible compared to light? 6 times? 32 times?

Who knows?

Its a general term.
AFAIK there isnt a direct numerical factor involved, Incredible just hurts a shitload more.

I mayt be wrong though.

iirc, incredible is over 33 of damage

Tammuz will undoubtedly know all the details...

Black Guardian wrote:Tammuz will undoubtedly know all the details...

And tell Tifereth he's completely wrong. I could do it here and now but I won't take Tammuz' joy from him.

Goribus wrote:

Black Guardian wrote:Tammuz will undoubtedly know all the details...

And tell Tifereth he's completely wrong. I could do it here and now but I won't take Tammuz' joy from him.

hahahaha

he says it with all his heart

Tifereth wrote:

Goribus wrote:

Black Guardian wrote:Tammuz will undoubtedly know all the details...

And tell Tifereth he's completely wrong. I could do it here and now but I won't take Tammuz' joy from him.

hahahaha

he says it with all his heart

WRONG!

Tammuz has no heart.

Burn wrote:

Tifereth wrote:

Goribus wrote:

Black Guardian wrote:Tammuz will undoubtedly know all the details...

And tell Tifereth he's completely wrong. I could do it here and now but I won't take Tammuz' joy from him.

hahahaha

he says it with all his heart

WRONG!

Tammuz has no heart.

Does too!

it's just shriviled and black and resembles a rasin.




but back to the subject at hand, Tammuz and Glyph did discuss this on the boards in the not so distant past..... All I really remember about it was that it was semi-complicated and that I was completly lost.

But then my brain is black and shriviled......

Burn wrote:...WRONG!

Tammuz has no heart.

how u know?

back on topic, sometime ago the collector made a thread about it, looooooong ago

Tifereth wrote:

Burn wrote:...WRONG!

Tammuz has no heart.

how u know?

back on topic, sometime ago the collector made a thread about it, looooooong ago

I'm wise.

Back on topic, there's a difference in spelling between "light" and "incredible".

aunt may is light
the hulk is incredible

steve2275 wrote:aunt may is light
the hulk is incredible

lol

Tifereth wrote:

steve2275 wrote:aunt may is light
the hulk is incredible

lol

Don't encourage the cowardly spammer with spam of your own!

i dont need encouragement
that is spam

I do have a heart, it is not black and shrivelled, it's bitter and twisted.

I don't know all the details, but to shed what little i remember; for "Damage Quantification" the words just a give range in which the min/max damage brackets fall, so just becuase two weapons bot say "light to moderate damage" does not mean both pump out the same damage, one could have it's minimum damamge point at the bottom of the light damage range, and it's max at the bottom of the moderate damage range, while another weapon could have it's min at the top of the light range and its mac at the top of the moderate range. the second weapon is clearly the better weapon damage wise, but both will have exactly the same damage qualification; light to moderate damage

also the raw damage is affected by the endurance, and armour type & qauntity of the target, and the strength of the attacker, so what you consider to be the null point(how much) strength, endurance, and armour you factor in) will affect what you call raw damage; without qualifying the conditions you can't quantify the raw damage

what glyph considers the null point is not what you think.


so, of course, Tifereth is wrong.

Tammuz wrote:I don't know all the details, but to shed what little i remember; for "Damage Quantification" the words just a give range in which the min/max damage brackets fall, so just becuase two weapons bot say "light to moderate damage" does not mean both pump out the same damage, one could have it's minimum damamge point at the bottom of the light damage range, and it's max at the bottom of the moderate damage range, while another weapon could have it's min at the top of the light range and its mac at the top of the moderate range. the second weapon is clearly the better weapon damage wise, but both will have exactly the same damage qualification; light to moderate damage

also the raw damage is affected by the endurance, and armour type & qauntity of the target, and the strength of the attacker, so what you consider to be the null point(how much) strength, endurance, and armour you factor in) will affect what you call raw damage; without qualifying the conditions you can't quantify the raw damage

what glyph considers the null point is not what you think.

OK. Let us call "raw damage" of the weapon the damage which a bot with 0 Str and this weapon deals to unarmored TF with 0 End. It can be measured in % of health of the TF being hit.

So, can it be said that "light" damage means, for example, between 1 and 5%, "medium" between 6 and 10% and so forth?

And must I really say that I sence another conspiracy here, as if somebody don't want the exact mechanics of damage dealing to be known to the majority of the players?

well no, naturally I'm biast to the cons why give it out here, when it's all available somewhere else in alot more detail, for my faction only of course, when it was just my research i didn't mind giving it out freely, but now i'm dealing with other's test data, and i have to have some loyalty to them.

but on those conditions Tif's aboslutely wrong.

i feel flattered, u always think on me xD

Elcor wrote:

Tammuz wrote:I don't know all the details, but to shed what little i remember; for "Damage Quantification" the words just a give range in which the min/max damage brackets fall, so just becuase two weapons bot say "light to moderate damage" does not mean both pump out the same damage, one could have it's minimum damamge point at the bottom of the light damage range, and it's max at the bottom of the moderate damage range, while another weapon could have it's min at the top of the light range and its mac at the top of the moderate range. the second weapon is clearly the better weapon damage wise, but both will have exactly the same damage qualification; light to moderate damage

also the raw damage is affected by the endurance, and armour type & qauntity of the target, and the strength of the attacker, so what you consider to be the null point(how much) strength, endurance, and armour you factor in) will affect what you call raw damage; without qualifying the conditions you can't quantify the raw damage

what glyph considers the null point is not what you think.

OK. Let us call "raw damage" of the weapon the damage which a bot with 0 Str and this weapon deals to unarmored TF with 0 End. It can be measured in % of health of the TF being hit.

So, can it be said that "light" damage means, for example, between 1 and 5%, "medium" between 6 and 10% and so forth?

There is a flaw in that logic however...

Mainly, the 'raw' or base damage range needs to be a 0Str attacker, versus a 10Str, 10End target, with the best armor possible.

Why? Because, AFAIK, no weapon has ever hit an enemy and done 0% damage. Attacks always deal a minimum of 1% damage, even in the afforementioned worst case scenario.

Your damage range for each weapon then should be established by:

Minimum Possible Damage =
a) 0Str Attacker
b) 10End Target w/ 10 tons of the best armor
c) Crappiest possible RNG

Maximum Possible Damage =
a) 10Str Attacker
b) 0End Target w/ no armor
c) Best possible RNG


Now, parts (a) and (b) could be empirically determined by the stronger players on the board, who could configure their bots specifically for the exercise and pit them against each other in the arena. However, it would be time consuming and expensive - Installing 10 tons of 8Rnk Armor alone would be a deterrent, and you'd probably have to do several battles for each weapon you wanted to examine, especially if you wanted to tease out variable (c).

Furthermore, the numerous confounds would be problematic. In order for the players to duke it out, they'll need to be the same level. So the weaker of a given pair would have to invest stat points in something seemingly inane, something that might have an unforseeable impact.

For example, when studying the Minimum damage, the attacker will need to have from 0-10Fpr and 0-10Skl, while the target will have 10Str, 10End, and presumably 8Rnk. The attacker will have to put a lot of stats elsewhere to be of equal level. The reverse then is true when studying the Maximum damage; the Attacker will need 0-10Fpr, 0-10Skl, and 10Str, while the target must have 0End...

What if Strength decreases damage even without armor?
What if Firepower or Skill increases damage regardless of the weapon used?
Which armor is best?

It would be a difficult and time-consuming project, that would demand a great deal of sacrifice from the players participating.

[/thinking out loud]

Caelus wrote:There is a flaw in that logic however...

Mainly, the 'raw' or base damage range needs to be a 0Str attacker, versus a 10Str, 10End target, with the best armor possible.

Wrong.
Against such a target we'd never know the margin between "lowest possible value of light" and "highest possible value of light" - they'd both be negligible small.

Caelus wrote:Why? Because, AFAIK, no weapon has ever hit an enemy and done 0% damage.
[/thinking out loud]

Oh, but that is explainable! The script either adds 1% to the total damage dealt, or - rather more probably - rounds the number up to the whole.

So, even if the actual calculation of raw damage is 0.000017 per cent, it will be rounded up to 1%.

That's sensible and easy to script; and, afaik, easy scripts are the easiest to rewrite and|or balance if need arise.

I'll give you this one for nothing:

Code: Select all

$dmg = max($dmg, 1);

sold

Elcor wrote:

Caelus wrote:There is a flaw in that logic however...

Mainly, the 'raw' or base damage range needs to be a 0Str attacker, versus a 10Str, 10End target, with the best armor possible.

Wrong.
Against such a target we'd never know the margin between "lowest possible value of light" and "highest possible value of light" - they'd both be negligible small.

In which case you will have established the minimum (base) damage for a light weapon to be 1%. You won't have established anything about the maximum damage - you'll need to change the situation. See the rest of my previous post for details.

Elcor wrote:

Caelus wrote:Why? Because, AFAIK, no weapon has ever hit an enemy and done 0% damage.

Oh, but that is explainable! The script either adds 1% to the total damage dealt, or - rather more probably - rounds the number up to the whole.

So, even if the actual calculation of raw damage is 0.000017 per cent, it will be rounded up to 1%.

That's sensible and easy to script; and, afaik, easy scripts are the easiest to rewrite and|or balance if need arise.

So? You were asking what the damage range for the weapon was. In that case the minimum is 1%. We don't need to know if the minimum is actually .000000017% or .99%. That knowledge has no practical application. My point is that the "base", "raw", or minimum damage of the weapon does not exist when:

Elcor wrote: a bot with 0 Str and this weapon deals to unarmored TF with 0 End.

The minimum is when:

I wrote:a) 0Str Attacker
b) 10End Target w/ 10 tons of the best armor
c) Crappiest possible RNG

Edit:

I think I see the conflict here. You only want to know what the damage range is in a constrained situation and subject only to the RNG variable. I want to know the overall damage range of the weapon.

Thanks, Glyph
It's always good to know when you're right...

Caelus wrote:In which case you will have established the minimum (base) damage for a light weapon to be 1%. You won't have established anything about the maximum damage - you'll need to change the situation. See the rest of my previous post for details.

So? You were asking what the damage range for the weapon was. In that case the minimum is 1%. We don't need to know if the minimum is actually .000000017% or .99%. That knowledge has no practical application.

I think I see the conflict here. You only want to know what the damage range is in a constrained situation and subject only to the RNG variable. I want to know the overall damage range of the weapon.

Yes.
I want to know a numerical value(s) that can be attached to each weapon, and I want them against non-armored, zero-end targets. That'd give me a part of the game mechanics.

After all, it's not very different from the game I work on in my company - there's weapon with lowest and highest possible damage, then there's character's Strength that modifies the damage and, last, there's enemy Armour and enemy Constitution that decrease the result.

First, we've got to know the margin of weapon damage.

Next, we can ask how Strength modify it.

After that, we can talk about End and armours...

HMW is a bit of a weird beast on the combat mechanics front. The system I inherited doesn't really make a lot of sense - it was initially programmed by a non-gamer, and it shows - and while I've done lots of stuff around the periphery of the game, I haven't yet ripped the heart out and rebuilt the core of the system in a way that's more to my liking. A large part of the rewriting for V2 involves doing just that.

In the current system, the one factor that really throws out all the attempts to catalogue and reverse-engineer the combat mechanics is the simple fact that the three factors which affect damage - STR, END and armour - all work as percentage modifiers rather than as fixed amounts. Unsurprisingly, this makes balancing stats a real bugger because what works at one end of the scale is just silly at the other - low-level players don't see much benefit from their stats, but things that are already powerful get much more so. STR makes the strongest weapons much stronger but does little for the weakest; armour is unrealistically much more effective against a fusion cannon than a peashooter simply because the fusion cannon does more damage.

This percentage system is one thing that is definitely being scrapped in favour of a more logical mechanic in the next version of the combat engine.

--EDIT--
Still, it's not as bad as it once was. Iron armour - yup, the RNK 0 open-access stuff - used to have a damage modifier of 10% per ton. Even though they couldn't see that number, it didn't take long for players to realise that 10 tons of Iron made them all but immune to non-tactic attacks, as any weapon attack - no matter how powerful - was reduced by 100% and therefore dealt only the minimum 1% damage...