| | |
|
|
| | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:41 pm | |
Sole-wield can spike harder in a single hit. But the difference in ACTUAL DPS is huge. One attack every three-four ticks for 150% damage isn't quite the same as two attacks every two ticks.
| |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
| | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 7:47 pm | |
Well that would rely on skill right? Someone Familar won't hit as often as someone who is Master, for obvious reasons. If someone with dual wield and sole wield duked it out, wouldn't the 150% reign supreme in the long run? Especially since I have never seen anyone attack more than 2 times in a row while wielding dual weapons. Oh, and does anyone else randomly get spurts of invisible combat too? It doesn't happen all thatoften except when I'm solo fighting something else, but I will see strings of things with no apparent echo but I will notice things like my health lower or my opponents.
| |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
| | |
|
Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 11:07 pm | |
No.
| |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
| | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:04 am | |
o.O I know that a general pc can wield a two weapons. A regular sized weapon and a smaller one. The regular, when compared to the large, does less damage. Then the smaller, when compared to the regular, does even less damage than that. So you can hit harder and the large weapon does the most just by base stats. Adding the two handed grip, and you are looking at much more damage. Or am I looking at it wrong?
BTW, I'm not quite sure what you're saying flat out No to.
| |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
| | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:10 am | |
No speed has nothing to do with skill level.
| |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
| | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:39 am | |
.
| |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
| | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 10:52 am | |
So, I did all the weapons and greatswords are faster than polearms, but they both do the same damage. Then the next most damage is large bludgeons and regular swords (despite taking four times the metal) But the large bludgeon is somehow faster than the greatsword, regular sword, and polearm. Next comes regular bludgeons and then knives. So it looks like if you want to deal damage, go with swords. IF you want middle man, go bludgeons. If you want fast go knives.
| |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
| | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:58 am | |
My information on this topic is a little bit old but I am fairly certain the underlying mechanics are still broadly the same as when I last looked at this codebase.
There are really two scenarios that you want to consider: when your opponent is heavily armoured and when your opponent is unarmoured. I don't know PARPI well enough to comment on how heavily armoured most people are but I suspect it's probably similar in numbers values to late period SOI.
The critical mechanic here is that damage from armour is taken off the initial unmodified damage roll. So for instance say you have a dagger/knife (for whatever reason things tended to do their AD&D values of damage - so that's probably about 1d4). Most people could muster at least 4 points of armour, particularly once you take into account weapon vs armour modifiers, so the vast majority of the time the knife will be reduced to 0 damage. When this occurs, there is a 50% chance of it instead doing 1 damage. All other modifiers generally take place after this point.
Why is this important? In many cases the vast majority of weapons end up, on average, being reduced to 0 damage and therefore just doing 1. It doesn't matter how MUCH less than 0 you were reduced to so the extra damage was just wasted. Thus, against a heavily armoured opponent it was always better in DPS terms to dual wield knives, because you'd hit more often and get those 1 damages in more often.
Against unarmoured targets though, the situation was actually slightly different. Because you're not getting damage reduction, your high damage weapons have a chance to shine. Some of the multipliers were HUGE. A critical strike to the neck used to be capable of doing 15x multiplier on damage. Imagine that on a say 12 damage hit from a polearm. I did some pretty extensive empirical testing on this scenario as it wasn't clear intuitively who would be better off, but it turned out to heavily favour the heavy hitting slow weapons. Generally the dwield daggers guys got a few small hits in and then just got chopped in half. It was pretty brutal.
The real life analogue would probably be the difference between a shotgun firing buckshot and a slug. Hit an unarmoured target with that buckshot and it will mess them the hell up, but hit a target wearing a bulletproof vest and you will do diddly - compared to a slug which still probably has a pretty good chance of breaking a bone even through a vest.
| |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
| | |
|
Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 12:04 pm | |
Right.
Flat damage reduction tends to have that sort of effect.
In this case, with weapon damages, a decent strength dual-wielder is probably going to average around twice the DPS of a sole-wielder, assuming both are armored.
Taking armor out of the equation makes things a bit different, but considering that everything in the game has natural armor, and that most PCs are highly geared, it's clearly not a relevant use-case. If you're fighting somebody that doesn't have armor, there's a decent chance you've already won, unless they're significantly higher skilled, just because, you know, they're not armored.
| |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
| | |
|
|
| | |
|
Posted: Sat Nov 30, 2013 10:12 am | |
Any recommendations on a system design that would alter that trouble, Jappy?
| |
|
| |
| | |
|
| |
| | |
|