UO Second Age

Psilo wrote:Learn the pvp mechanics, most of the people who are complaining about it haven't even given it a chance.

They are still too used to Divinity/the old hally spam system.

I still see people spamming hallies....Kooter, Guerilla ect.

That's the worst way to pvp now, it only works in tournaments since inevitably there's going to be sudden death so it doesn't matter how bad both pvpers are.

Most people I fight that spam the hally have no sense of timing/strategy. No wonder they have to keep off-screening from me. Because their gheals got interupted by my fire/ball and e bolt since I timed better.

....
All I am saying to everyone who is complaining about the new and accurate mechanics. Practice, learn the feel, use less hally and learn to go offensively more. Stop ghealing to 100% health, leave your health lower and let people attack you then be better at strategy/spell timing to kill them and force them to run even though you're still low.

lol...

/Anti-Proton mudslingers off

Back on Topic:

The "fresh weapon" modifier does not modify the exceptional/whatever damage bonus ONLY: it modifies the TOTAL base damage generated on any specific hit.

So, from the top:

CASE 1: durability modifier applies to base weapon damage

halberd damage base range: 5-49 (2d23+3);
exceptional bonus (+4) raises this to 9-53;
4a) GM Tactics 1.5*(9-53);
4b) 100 Strength: 1.5*(9-53) + .2*(9-53), which is the same as 1.7*(9-53);
4c) GM Anatomy: 1.5*(9-53) + .2*(9-53) + .2 (9-53); 1.9*(9-53);
4d) "fresh" durability modifier adds another .25*(9-53):

• without GM Anatomy: 1.95*(9-53);
  with GM Anatomy: 2.15*(9-53)

Step5+ Subtract for AR & Reactive Armor (test conditions = 0 to both), and halve remaining damage.

The final damage numbers should be:

• No Anatomy: Min 8.775; Max 51.675; Avg 29.25;
  GM Anatomy: Min 9.675; Max 56.975; Avg 32.25

RoseRIP's data includes a result of 53 @ No Anatomy, which is impossible if this case is true.

CASE 2: durability modifier is applied to the final result of steps 4a)-4c);

• No Anatomy: 1.25*1.7*(9-53), or 2.125*(9-53);
  GM Anatomy: 1.25*1.9*(9-53), or 2.375*(9-53)

The final damage numbers are:

• No Anatomy: Min 9.5625; Max 56.3125; Avg 31.875;
  GM Anatomy: Min 10.6875; Max 62.9375; Avg 35.625

This matches the collected data more closely.

Implications:

Compare,
damages generated under the "old" system ("fresh" = 100% damage modifier):

• No Anatomy: Min 7.65; Max 45.05; Avg 25.5;
  GM Anatomy: Min 8.55; Max 50.35; Avg 28.5

to,
damages generated under "new" (125%) system:

CASE1 (ruled-out by data):

• No Anatomy: Min 8.775; Max 51.675; Avg 29.25;
  GM Anatomy: Min 9.675; Max 56.975; Avg 32.25

CASE2 (supported by data):

• No Anatomy: Min 9.5625; Max 56.3125; Avg 31.875;
  GM Anatomy: Min 10.6875; Max 62.9375; Avg 35.625

CONCLUSION:

Against AR 0, with no Anatomy bonus, an exceptional halberd used to possess a minimum hit of 7 and a maximum hit of 45, with an average hit of 25-26;

under the same conditions, an exceptional halberd now possesses a minimum hit of 9 and a maximum hit of 56, with an average hit of 32!

I would simply ask someone from staff to confirm that CASE2 is the desired algorithm here, rather than CASE1 (personally, I think CASE1 makes much more sense, and I "feel" that weapons are hitting a little too hard right now ...)

SS

25-26 dmg average sucks.

You can mini heal all that really fast.

I'm glad GM weapons do more damage now.

SighelmofWyrmgard wrote:MATH YO

Good thinking, I went over this with Derrick a while back and from what I remember CASE #1 is supposed to be the way it works.

SighelmofWyrmgard wrote:exceptional bonus (+4) raises this to 9-53;

Hold onnnn... exceptional quality items are +5 not +4... Everything else looks solid tho.

All damage modifiers should be calculating off of the base roll then added together, no single damage mod should be operating differently. This is to say that the durability damage mod should be calculated from the base roll (2d23+3) and not after any other mod has been added.

Derrick, dost thou concur with Sighelm's Cases?

Psilo wrote:25-26 dmg average sucks.

You can mini heal all that really fast.

I'm glad GM weapons do more damage now.

Ya, Psilo, go eat rock now: stoopid, inane post dun; rock tasty, keep teeth strong; rest brain, brain hurt; maybe brain will work later, so you can add more pointless opinion later.

I'll try to put this in terms you will un-der-stand (monosyllables are out of the question, though, I'm afraid):

The "No Anatomy" numbers are:

OLD system: min 7, max 45, avg 25-26;

NEW should be BUT ISN'T: min 8, max 51, avg 29;

INSTEAD NEW is: min 9, max 56, avg 32.

No one with 0 Anatomy should be achieving a 56-HP whack with a GM halberd.

This is not era-accurate; I believe this is because there is a logic error in the construction of the algorithm, to which I have kindly pointed; this requires a disposition from staff.

@Mikel123: 110% of the final damage product is a magnitude of error that is pretty significant ...

To all people who can neither read, nor even follow elementary-school-level mathematics: why are you even here? Why aren't you outside smashing your head with a rock? Do me and the rest of the "real" human race a favour, and do it in the middle of the Interstate on a cloudy moonless night.

SS

RoseRIP wrote: Hold onnnn... exceptional quality items are +5 not +4... Everything else looks solid tho.

Hello!

http://www.uosecondage.com/stratics/arms.html

In the "fine-print" at the top of the table, it stipulates +4.

SS

Indeed... I never noticed that before. I kept hearing somewhere that UOSA uses +5 for exceptional quality items... anyone? maybe I'm high.

Rose, it's definitely +4.

Sighelm, yes. I think you could have explained your point in about two sentences, but I read it all and I concur. It looks like we're using the first of the two cases.

CASE 1: Base*(STR+Tactics+HPs)
CASE 2: Base*(STR+Tactics)*HPs

Where HPs means the 25% full HPs weapon bonus.

No clue as to which we *should* be using.

To my understanding this is from decompiled demo.

Psilo, you should stick to spamming hallies rather than spamming pvp discussions when you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

SighelmofWyrmgard wrote: Assuming UOSA is not using different numbers, positive deviations will indicate the magnitude of the "unused weapon" modifier; 120% at unused seems a fair estimate, perceived from analysing the product of the completed damage calculation, but bear in mind that this modifier is likely applied to the base damage, so

assuming 125% of base damage,

• 0 Anatomy = Min9; Max 52; Avg29;
  GM Anatomy = Min 10; Max 57; Avg32.

The results in the original post suggest to me that the "fresh weapon modifier" is actually being applied to the final sum of step4 of the damage calculation, instead of to base weapon damage only, but the sample size presented here is not nearly large enough to be considered representational; someone from staff might confirm that the "fresh weapon mod" is "4d" in the calculation and is, itself, calculated only on base weapon damage.

SS

From my first entry in this thread, length: two sentences.

Mikel123, I'm glad you think we concur, but we don't: it is Case2 that has been implemented in error, when it should be Case1; RoseRIP has remarked that (um, in this thread, a couple of posts up ), as per discussion with Derrick, it should be Case1.

[irony]In an attempt to keep the contents of my posts as simple as possible [/irony], I excluded reference to a couple of other Cases which might account for our number discrepancies; in the interests of completion, I'll also mention a variation on "my" Case1:

Weapon-durability damage modifier (*1.25) is applied to

• Case 1, base damage result, including weapon quality modifier: 1.25*((2d23+3)+4);
  Case1a, base damage result, excluding weapon quality modifier: 1.25*(2d23+3)+4;
  Case2, final product of step4 damage calculation: 1.25*(1.7*((2d23+3)+4));
  Case2a, between steps 4a) and 4b): 1.25*(1.2*(1.5*((2d23+3)+4)));

If RoseRIP did not misunderstand Derrick in the same fashion that Mikel123 has apparently misunderstood me, we should be using either Case1 or Case1a, but are instead using Case2 or Case2a (there are a couple of other Case possibilities I still haven't mentioned; DON'T MAKE ME ...); someone from staff will crumble all of these bits into the hopper of the analyser, and give us a disposition; hopefully soon ...

SS

EDIT: corrected recurring typo, present in this post only, so that base damage-by-type now correctly reads, "2d23+3", instead of "2d13+3".

SS

Dude, seriously... bring your grudge somewhere else. I don't know why you want to turn this into a pissing contest. I get what you're saying, which is remarkable because your "two-sentence" original post in this thread literally does not fit on my computer screen - I have to scroll down to read it all. I don't know of any documentation wherein it says the 1.25 multiplier is put onto the base or the modified damage. If Derrick says one or the other is correct, so be it. All I'm saying is, I follow you, but I don't know which way is correct.

Perception wrote:To my understanding this is from decompiled demo.

Psilo, you should stick to spamming hallies rather than spamming pvp discussions when you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Lol? I am probably the one mage that DOESN"T spam the hally and never have even before the patch. I don't see the need in limiting mine and my opponents mana pools by exchanging weapon hits constantly so we're constantly casting gheal.

1. Mages aren't warriors.
2. Low mana makes mages run, do you want your opponent to run? Then stop hally spamming.
3. Casting spells is more fun and I am able to kill people with 40-50 mana thanks to the new mechanics!

Mikel123 wrote:Rose, it's definitely +4.

Sighelm, yes. I think you could have explained your point in about two sentences, but I read it all and I concur. It looks like we're using the first of the two cases.

CASE 1: Base*(STR+Tactics+HPs)
CASE 2: Base*(STR+Tactics)*HPs

Where HPs means the 25% full HPs weapon bonus.

No clue as to which we *should* be using.

Highlighted is the error to which I was referring. Between, you and I, you are the only one harboring a grudge: make fewer mistakes and I will correct you less often.

RoseRIP wrote:Good thinking, I went over this with Derrick a while back and from what I remember CASE #1 is supposed to be the way it works.

is the other bit to which I was referring.

SS