UO Second Age

my understanding of how damage works is as follows.

base weapon + gm modifier
* str, tactics, anatomy mods (1.9 with anat, 1.7 without, +.01 per tactics bonus)
+ magic bonus
/2

tested results consistently average 5-7% higher than this formula predicts using published base damage numbers, and max damage observed is typically a few pts over the prediction. for weapons with many or several large die it would take an unreasonable number of swings to expect to achieve a max roll. a 1d26 kryss on the other hand should be easy.

not sure if the damage discrepancy is coming from incorrect use of formula or inaccurate published damage bases. testing with more combinations of str and tactics would allow those stats' behavior to be deduced.

Here's how you should normalize weapon use in your mind: gm or heavy as hell. Friendly field fights somewhere in between. The end.

One more question to bring up, how should the damage bonuses be applied to the base damage?

Should they be applied to each dice, or should they be applied after the initial dice roll?

There really is a lot of ways this can go.

With your test, it seems like its too small of a sample. We are talking about a 4 damage difference between gm exceptional and power. Perhaps if you tested more it would reflect an around 4 damage difference. Then again you should realize it's possible to have many bad rolls and have the gm doing a much larger amount of damage within a sample and also visa versa.

But what's the harm in the staff checking

/shrug

However, its already very obvious its better to use good magic weapons over gm anyway.

For the record, GM weapons should have a +4 damage bonus, so the difference is 3 damage between power and GM. Damage modifiers listed below:

Power damage modifier is +7
Force damage modifier is +5
GM damage modifier is +4
Might damage modifier is +3

We can see that the GM weapons are actually not the same as force or might, but between the two. In addition to that we should note that the original patch which affected tactics (accuracy & damage) did not affect magic weapon damage (even with a tactics modifier). I would say that some research into patch notes by players and staff and look at the code is definitely in order.

dren wrote:For the record, GM weapons should have a +4 damage bonus, so the difference is 3 damage between power and GM. Damage modifiers listed below:

Power damage modifier is +7
Force damage modifier is +5
GM damage modifier is +4
Might damage modifier is +3

We can see that the GM weapons are actually not the same as force or might, but between the two. In addition to that we should note that the original patch which affected tactics (accuracy & damage) did not affect magic weapon damage (even with a tactics modifier). I would say that some research into patch notes by players and staff and look at the code is definitely in order.

I concur.

GM weapons were always slightly below force weapons in the T2A days.

Bump

If only out of curiosity, Rose, I'd also like to hear what --if anything-- Kaivan and Anarcho have turned-up through investigation.

From this thread, the following quoted-post cites no authority nor test-study but, if true, here's 'the likely culprit' (but, as has been stated by others, before, the original sample-set to which this thread refers is inadequate):

aspade wrote:my understanding of how damage works is as follows.

base weapon + gm modifier
* str, tactics, anatomy mods (1.9 with anat, 1.7 without, +.01 per tactics bonus)
+ magic bonus
/2

Under the above scheme, +4GM would enjoy the *1.7 strength+tactics modifiers, while +7Power would not: the bonuses would then present as, +6.8GM v. +7Power; since damage is then halved before it is applied, the observable difference would be, +3.4GM v. +3.5Power.

However, aspade's remarks do not include any provenance. Otherwise, if Kaivan & Anarcho can confirm/deny the "order of operations", it then follows that WAI/EA would need to be evaluated.

Is there any word, Kaivan and/or Anarcho?

SS