| Author |
Topic:
Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your specs
|
Monigi_x 
Posts: 509
Registered: Aug 02
|
Date Posted:
5/31/03 8:31am
Subject: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your specs
|
As suggested by others, I have completed additional Pendragon testing; 10+ hours of exhaustive testing & data collection as a matter of fact. Here is the info (it’s a long read BUT has all the details). Feel free to chew on; I am satisfied I know which way to spec my ranger based on the way I play (and the targets I select), albeit it may be controversial for some. Perhaps some info here will help you!
Purpose: perform a ridiculous number (150 total) of “controlled” duels using 3 different specs, against 2 different opponents to better understand how Weaponskill (W/S), Celtic Dual (CD), and Pathfinding (PF) factor into melee results. This testing is a follow-up to testing I had performed last week. The BIG difference is that this time I deliberately chose opponents with much higher than average defensive capability (more specifics to be provided later).
Specs Tested: the following three melee-oriented specs were tested.
Spec#1 Blades 39, Celtic Dual 40, Pathfinding 36, Bow 34, Stealth 15
Spec#2 Blades 50, Celtic Dual 25, Pathfinding 36, Bow 34, Stealth 15
Spec#3 Blades 50, Celtic Dual 34, Pathfinding 27, Bow 34, Stealth 15
Note that these 3 specs involve tradeoffs in weapon skill, CD, and PF (since bow and stealth are unchanged). There is little doubt that Spec #2 will have fewer misses and fewer opponent blocks/evades/parries, relative to Spec #1 since the resultant Weaponskill will be appreciably higher. However, Spec #1 has a much higher CD (increased chance to swing off-hand). Spec #3 also has a high Weaponskill (identical to Spec #2) but this time PF has been reduced from 36 to 27 (lower damage add) in order to elevate the CD up to mid 30s.
Subject: realm rank 8.0 Ranger w/ Purge, FA2, IP, MoP 3, Dodger 2, Falcon’s Eye 2, AoM, Toughness 2, Aug Con 2, Aug Quick 2, Aug Dex 2. Subject has all high-end Druid buffs (group oriented Ranger), all MP gear, and all stats maxed.
Opponents: Hero and Bard (details below).
realm rank 6.2 Hero (Blades 50, Shield 42, Parry 3x) with Mastery of Blocking 2 and Mastery of Parrying 2; total HPs = 2526 (buffed)
realm rank 5.1 Bard (Sword and Shield equipped) with Dodger 4 and Mastery of Blocking 2; total HPs = 1821 (buffed)
Between the uber buffs, high realm ranks, and passive defensive-oriented realm abilities, these 2 opponents would represent harder opponents than you would expect to find on the battlefield on average.
Test Approach: accurately time the duration from 1st melee attack to opponent’s death as determined from log files using no styles (to reduce statistical variance); repeat the “duel” 25 times for each spec, for both opponents (150 duels total). Note: opponents are equipped with a crappy sword, put into attack mode simultaneously with subject Ranger, and able to block/evade/parry. Opponents were buffed each time before the duel with the same high-end Druid buffs and duels under no rez effects. Chat.log files were analyzed using Neill's DAoC Stats Parser at http://acm.cse.msu.edu/~penney/ which helped greatly.
Condensed Test Data:
=====
Spec #1
=====
Blades = 39+18 (57)
CD = 40+18 (58)
PF = 36
Weaponskill = 1307
Versus Hero:
Avg Duration till death (avg seconds from 30 duels) = 99.0 sec
Avg DPS = 25.5
Avg Base Damage = 75.3
Min/Max Base Damage = 62/88
Duel Wield% = 64.2%
Attacks = 2644 (Main Hand = 1610 + Off-hand = 1034)
Hits = 732 (27.7%)
Evaded = 64 (2.4%)
Parried = 1206 (45.6%)
Blocks = 484 (18.3%)
Misses = 153 (5.8%)
Fumbles = 5 (0.2%)
Versus Bard:
Avg Duration till death (avg seconds from 30 duels) = 29.6 sec
Avg DPS = 61.5
Avg Base Damage = 65.8
Min/Max Base Damage = 54/77
Duel Wield% = 62.5%
Attacks = 816 (Main Hand = 502 + Off-hand = 314)
Hits = 529 (64.8%)
Evaded = 95 (11.6%)
Parried = 0 (0.0%)
Blocks = 78 (9.6%)
Misses = 108 (13.2%)
Fumbles = 6 (0.8%)
=====
Spec #2
=====
Blades = 50+18 (68)
CD = 25+18 (43)
PF = 36
Weaponskill = 1399
Versus Hero:
Avg Duration till death (avg seconds from 30 duels) = 91.5 sec
Avg DPS = 27.6
Avg Base Damage = 74.8
Min/Max Base Damage = 62/88
Duel Wield% = 50.9%
Attacks = 2253 (Main Hand = 1493 + Off-hand = 760)
Hits = 736 (32.7%)
Evaded = 40 (1.8%)
Parried = 898 (39.9%)
Blocks = 421 (18.7%)
Misses = 151 (6.7%)
Fumbles = 7 (0.3%)
Versus Bard:
Avg Duration till death (avg seconds from 30 duels) = 31.7 sec
Avg DPS = 57.4
Avg Base Damage = 64.5
Min/Max Base Damage = 54/76
Duel Wield% = 53.9%
Attacks = 825 (Main Hand = 536 + Off-hand = 289)
Hits = 533 (64.6%)
Evaded = 80 (9.7%)
Parried = 0 (0.0%)
Blocks = 78 (9.5%)
Misses = 132 (16.0%)
Fumbles = 2 (0.2%)
=====
Spec #3
=====
Blades = 50+18 (68)
CD = 34+18 (52)
PF = 27
Weaponskill = 1399
Versus Hero:
Avg Duration till death (avg seconds from 30 duels) = 95.6 sec
Avg DPS = 26.4
Avg Base Damage = 74.4
Min/Max Base Damage = 62/88
Duel Wield% = 57.7%
Attacks = 2454 (Main Hand = 1556 + Off-hand = 898)
Hits = 772 (31.5%)
Evaded = 48 (2.0%)
Parried = 1038 (42.3%)
Blocks = 432 (17.6%)
Misses = 158 (6.4%)
Fumbles = 6 (0.2%)
Versus Bard:
Avg Duration till death (avg seconds from 30 duels) = 30.4 sec
Avg DPS = 59.9
Avg Base Damage = 65.0
Min/Max Base Damage = 54/77
Duel Wield% = 58.7%
Attacks = 800 (Main Hand = 504 + Off-hand = 296)
Hits = 542 (67.8%)
Evaded = 86 (10.8%)
Parried = 0 (0.0%)
Blocks = 72 (9.0%)
Misses = 98 (12.2%)
Fumbles = 2 (0.2%)
Tabulated Results:
Spec#1: DPS=25.5 against Hero, DPS=61.5 against Bard
Spec#2: DPS=27.6 against Hero, DPS=57.4 against Bard
Spec#3: DPS=26.4 against Hero, DPS=59.9 against Bard
Note that Spec#1 is best of the three against the softer target Bard (worse against the Hero); Spec#2 is best of the three against the highly defensive Hero (worse against the Bard); Spec#3 middle of the road, finishing 2nd in DPS against both Bard and Hero.
Conclusions: this testing, in conjunction with my previous testing, has confirmed something I had suspected, seen in my Ranger’s performance, yet been unable to explain/quantify. While it is commonly accepted that high Weaponskill specs excel at getting past an opponents defenses (parry, evade, block), those types of specs may actually under perform lower Weaponskill specs when facing “softer” targets. Fewer blocks/evades/parries from an opponent is NOT the entire story, since your increased off-hand hits and/or PF damage add can compensate for those missed opportunities. By softer targets, I mean casters and healer types that don’t have high defensive skills (innate or trainable).
Spec#1 outperforms Spec#2 and Spec#3 against the Bard opponent but underperforms against a mega-defensive opponent (sword+shield Hero with RAs to enhance parry/blocks). Spec#2 outperforms Spec#1 and Spec#3 against the Hero but underperforms against the softer target Bard. Spec#3 was the best compromise spec finishing middle-of-the-road DPS against both Bard and Hero.
All this kinda makes sense if you think about it, and is further evidence there is NO perfect spec since there are too many variables involved such as your play style, opponent faced, buff availability, etc. My job in the group I run in, is to take out healers and casters FAST, so something akin to Spec#1 helps me better.
I am sure these results will be disputed by some or rationalized as meaningless by others who have their “own” spec opinions to sell. But facts are facts. At this point, I don’t really care as I feel I have spent a great deal of time to help the Ranger community and taken great care to minimize statistical inaccuracy. And for what it’s worth, statistical variance in this kind of testing is quite large until you get 20+ encounters logged (I used 25). Logs of these duels are available upon request.
Take care all ….
-----signature-----
Monigi of Percival, 50 Ranger <R10L1>
Gluush of Percival, 50 Hero <R7L9> Errant Vel'Xunyrr
Teffia of Percival, 50 Bard <R5L1>
Draegan of Nimue, 50 Skald (retired), Rotag of Bedevere, 50 Paladin (retired)
"We don't lack leaders .... we lack followers
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DoubleDown24 
Posts: 1,523
Registered: Nov 02
|
Date Posted:
5/31/03 10:51am
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
- Date Edited: 5/31/03 10:54am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
DoubleDown24
|
/me points at 27pf spec.
THAT is a much better test bed, now, if we could get some peirce testing like that up in here... hrmmmm...
BTW very nice work.
-----signature-----
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
GP35
Posts: 1,761
Registered: May 02
|
Date Posted:
5/31/03 11:01am
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
|
Great tests.
About what I would expect.
Weird why misses were so much higher against bards.
The difference of Spec #2 and 3 against bard could be explained by difference in misses.
Thanks,
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
NainRedwood 
Posts: 396
Registered: Aug 02
|
Date Posted:
5/31/03 2:35pm
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
|
|
Thx for all that testing... that stuff makes it a lot easier to decide on how to respec and most deff. GJ!
-----signature-----
Nain Redwood <Reunion> 51 Druid
Adaran <Reunion> 50 Blademaster
Naim Jaskagidigskaja <Underhills> 51 Ranger
Co-GL of Reunion, Bedevere
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Kaber 
Posts: 6,138
Registered: Dec 01
|
Date Posted:
5/31/03 4:03pm
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
|
|
nice work
-----signature-----
Kaber 51 Ranger, Braemaar 50 Warden (active again)
Lernanoo 50 Druid <Nature's Fury>
Tupacalipse 51 Shadowblade <Midnight's Fury>
http://kaber.bladekeep.com
"I hope a plane falls out of the sky and lands on you then." - Modestmousey
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Elf_Ranger 
Posts: 95
Registered: Feb 03
|
Date Posted:
6/1/03 9:41am
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
|
|
wheres the stealth?
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Monigi_x
Posts: 509
Registered: Aug 02
|
Date Posted:
6/1/03 11:00am
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
|
What do you mean ... "where's the stealth"?
Stealth was at 15 for all three specs. Remember, the purpose of the testing was to get insight on tradeoffs of Weaponskill, CD, and Pathfinding, so keeping Bow/Stealth constants was a must.
Make sense?
-----signature-----
Monigi of Percival, 50 Ranger <R10L1>
Gluush of Percival, 50 Hero <R7L9> Errant Vel'Xunyrr
Teffia of Percival, 50 Bard <R5L1>
Draegan of Nimue, 50 Skald (retired), Rotag of Bedevere, 50 Paladin (retired)
"We don't lack leaders .... we lack followers
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Flikov
Posts: 966
Registered: Nov 02
|
Date Posted:
6/4/03 12:24pm
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
- Date Edited: 6/4/03 12:28pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Flikov
|
Monigi: I have a question for you. What was *your* evade rate with the three specs?
Edit: NM, reread your process. :\
-Flik
-----signature-----
Flikov/Loretta, Igraine
Jaerun/Loretta, Percival
Jaerun/Machilla, Guinevere
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
vn_toasteroven
Posts: 1,678
Registered: Dec 01
|
Date Posted:
6/4/03 3:02pm
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
- Date Edited: 6/4/03 3:04pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
vn_toasteroven
|
*this testing, in conjunction with my previous testing, has confirmed While it is commonly accepted that high Weaponskill specs excel at getting past an opponents defenses (parry, evade, block), those types of specs may actually under perform lower Weaponskill specs when facing “softer” targets.*
This does not prove that at all. It just proves that out of the three specs you tested having a better chance to duel wield was more important then weaponskill against targets with crappy defence. It is possible to have fifty weapon and a higher duel-wield then those builds you tested. There are a billion valid specs. Using the term high weapon skill and underperforming together is dangerous and misleading. All your tests showed is that for a Ranger who has a very narrow role(and unusual not sure a BM wouldnt do your role much better) in a gank group out of three specs tested number one was the best marginally. That is it.
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
NainRedwood
Posts: 396
Registered: Aug 02
|
Date Posted:
6/4/03 5:15pm
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
- Date Edited: 6/4/03 5:30pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
NainRedwood
|
Eh why the h8? 
Monigi_x had 3 spec's he wanted to test the performance for. He did the test as thorough as possible and shared the test results with the rest of us... which I for one appreciate since it stopped me from going high in CD.
No where in his post does he state that these are teh l33t pwn spec's to choose from. Use the data at your pleasure and draw whatever conclusions you can from it in regards to your own preferences for a ranger spec.
You btw just stated the exact same thing minogi said after dismissing his conclusion. Try to realise underperform here means "another variation of skillpoint use performs better in this situation".
Did someone pee in your cereal this morning?
TY again for the test Monigi_x.
-----signature-----
Nain Redwood <Reunion> 51 Druid
Adaran <Reunion> 50 Blademaster
Naim Jaskagidigskaja <Underhills> 51 Ranger
Co-GL of Reunion, Bedevere
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Monigi_x
Posts: 509
Registered: Aug 02
|
Date Posted:
6/5/03 9:42am
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
|
Toasteroven .... morons like you are the reason more peeps DON'T put the time and effort into doing anything purposeful and sharing it with the community.
When you want to put 10+ hours into running Pendragon tests which refute my testing or conclusions, and post it for others to evaulate, I promise to read it in earnest and make constructive commentary. Until, then ..... --^--
There is NO free lunch in this game; there is NO "teh win" spec; there ARE tradeoffs involved in everything and what fits one person might not fit another .... this was the essence of my post and to try and help others understand what those tradeoffs are.
And you know squat about my "role" in my group. FYI, most BMs I can kick to the street and still have the utility value of a bow/stealth when I want. Admittedly, some of that "edge" (pun intended) comes from elevated RR. Was it a pain to get RR8 to get this advantage? You bet it was! Was it worth it? You bet it was!
Have a nice ride home on the short bus!
-----signature-----
Monigi of Percival, 50 Ranger <R10L1>
Gluush of Percival, 50 Hero <R7L9> Errant Vel'Xunyrr
Teffia of Percival, 50 Bard <R5L1>
Draegan of Nimue, 50 Skald (retired), Rotag of Bedevere, 50 Paladin (retired)
"We don't lack leaders .... we lack followers
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Monigi_x
Posts: 509
Registered: Aug 02
|
Date Posted:
6/11/03 9:56am
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
|
Used single-line respec to make a modest spec adjustment and go with:
Blades 45+18 (63) ..... formerly 39
CD 40+18 (58)
Bow 35+18 (53) ..... formerly 34
PF 27 ..... formerly 36
Stealth 15+18 (33)
Extremely satisfied with the outcome.
The Blades increase from 39 to 44 increased my weaponskill decently but I could NOT justify taking it higher since most of my targets are "soft", i.e., with lower defenses, where my testing shows CD helps more than higher weaponskill.
Getting Bow up from 34 to 35 Rapid Fire was helpful, albeit I posted early it was gonna get a bit nerfed (and it did). Probably best actually since early adjustments tend to eliminate outcrys from peeps that can eventually lead to massive nerfs.
The rationale for dropping PF from 36 to 27 was borne out thru testing to be justified since I group mostly and have access to high-end Druid buffs. I'm not hitching my cart up to trends of dropping PF to ziltch either. I refuse to hassle with charges and weaponswitching plus I want a bit of self-buffage to fall back on should I need it.
-----signature-----
Monigi of Percival, 50 Ranger <R10L1>
Gluush of Percival, 50 Hero <R7L9> Errant Vel'Xunyrr
Teffia of Percival, 50 Bard <R5L1>
Draegan of Nimue, 50 Skald (retired), Rotag of Bedevere, 50 Paladin (retired)
"We don't lack leaders .... we lack followers
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DoubleDown24
Posts: 1,523
Registered: Nov 02
|
Date Posted:
6/11/03 10:10am
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
|
this in contrary to your first post saying 27pf was a huge mistake :P
But I have still always felt 27-30PF IS the best bang for your buck spec points wise if you are looking for a well rounded spec that covers you in and out of groups (buffed or not)
Glad to see your happy with your spec (however i'd never go to 40 cd lol :P)
give em hell :P
-----signature-----
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DAoCAlumni
Posts: 526
Registered: Jan 03
|
Date Posted:
6/11/03 10:59am
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
|
"Have a nice ride home on the short bus!"
ROFLMAO!!!!
-----signature-----
Buffs? Does DAoC really need buffs? At what cost?
Avengers of Veil - Guinevere
Alb Gal/Mid-Mer/Hib-Igr
One of the original Pellinorians
Member of A.B.M. (Anti Buffbot Movement)
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Elf_Ranger
Posts: 95
Registered: Feb 03
|
Date Posted:
6/11/03 12:27pm
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
|
for a stealth class 15 makes very little sence...
yes Archers are stealthers
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Monigi_x
Posts: 509
Registered: Aug 02
|
Date Posted:
6/11/03 1:23pm
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
- Date Edited: 6/11/03 1:29pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Monigi_x
|
I maybe stealth once or twice a night when running with Palodox .... to check a keep or wall situation. How on earth could I justify more stealth?
And with RR+SC of 18, a stealth of 15 is effectively 33 which is more than enough to allow me to get into positions of advantage when solo ..... PLUS (and this is an important point) ..... I want the assasins to find me most of the time; saves me all the trouble of finding targets.
Its the elevated value of CD that makes the low PF doable for me. What I lose in the damage add is more than made up for by the increased off-hand hits and procs (at least looking at my testing from PF range of 27-46). Again, remember, my primary targets in a group setting tend to be those with less defensive abilities (healers, casters). Do the same kind of testing I did (as described ad-nausem above) and I think you will find similar results.
-----signature-----
Monigi of Percival, 50 Ranger <R10L1>
Gluush of Percival, 50 Hero <R7L9> Errant Vel'Xunyrr
Teffia of Percival, 50 Bard <R5L1>
Draegan of Nimue, 50 Skald (retired), Rotag of Bedevere, 50 Paladin (retired)
"We don't lack leaders .... we lack followers
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Gallatin
Posts: 373
Registered: Jan 03
|
Date Posted:
6/12/03 7:29am
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
|
Thanks for the hours of testing, Monigi.
The most important thing I read was "further evidence there is NO perfect spec since there are too many variables involved such as your play style, opponent faced, buff availability, etc."
I guess people who are criticizing what you tested didn't understand that part.
I guess I can understand why tests that show a very different spec from what someone might have chosen causes fear. Spending those points makes us all nervous, to a certain extent. We don't want to put in hours and hours of work to find out we're gimps when a fight breaks out.
I guess that's where the hate comes in. Instead of reading your statement about "no perfect spec, so many variables", they see your spec and get all defensive about their own spec.
There's a ranger on Perc who's 1 million+ rp's, top 25 in the realm, who's only got a handful of CD points. Does that make Monigi wrong and her right? Nope, it just means that they have different strengths, different roles, different playstyles...but they both have tenacity and skill and a desire to be better. Maybe she's got 35 Stealth, but it doesn't make her "better", just more effective in certain situations.
I wish people could see that speccing a ranger (unless you bot) always involves some sort of tradeoff, and you have to be comfortable with what skill is a bit short, based on your playstyle.
/em eyes his coffee cup suspiciously and realizes he needs to shut up.
Thanks again, Monigi, it's good to see some numbers on solid testing. I'd turn down all your equipment and RR's if I could just have your free time
-----signature-----
Gallatiny, 50th season ranger
Fellowship of Dihn
"I haven't thought this all out because thinking pisses me off." - Valgrim
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Ubar_of_Ubars
Posts: 13
Registered: May 03
|
Date Posted:
6/12/03 9:46am
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
|
|
Great post. nice work. some people may not appreciate it but remember there are still a lot of folks that do /salute
-----signature-----
Marlenus Ubar of Glorious Ar
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
tyrfiel
Posts: 905
Registered: Jul 02
|
Date Posted:
6/12/03 10:35am
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
|
Toaster may not have performed lots of tests (and I thank you for doing it, Monigi), but he does have a point:
"...having a better chance to duel wield was more important then weaponskill against targets with crappy defence."
In the Bard fights, the average DPS scales right along with the Celtic Dual spec. Similarly, in the Hero fights, the DPS scales with the PF/Blades spec, not CD.
As Toaster said, the data seems to show that CD makes the most difference against soft targets, whereas weaponskill (spec and buffs) and damage add turn the tide against the hard-target shield users. Interesting stuff.
-----signature-----
Tyrfiel :: 50 Ranger :: Raven Ardent :: LGM Fletcher :: Merlin
Tottenham :: 50 Friar :: Noob :: LGM Nothing :: Galahad
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Monigi_x
Posts: 509
Registered: Aug 02
|
Date Posted:
6/12/03 1:27pm
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
|
No .... I said that!! It is my contention that there is NO perfect spec and that certain targets with less defensive abilities would be easier beaten by elevated CD and/or PF, versus higher weaponskill; and that higher defensive targets would be more easily defeated by a spec focusing on higher weaponskill (since CD and PF do nothing if you can't hit the target). This all seems so straightforward to me and borne out by tons of testing and gaming time.
Toaster dismissed those conclusions by saying that there are a billion different spec options and target combinations (duh) and that insinuated I was misleading peeps from this limited testing. Well I can't help but feel that 150 tests under very controlled circumstances is hardly a limited scope test AND the data was so "tight". Sorry, but when peeps offer nothing back to the community other than flames, they do nothing to further the knowledge base.
I stand by my testing and my conclusions.
-----signature-----
Monigi of Percival, 50 Ranger <R10L1>
Gluush of Percival, 50 Hero <R7L9> Errant Vel'Xunyrr
Teffia of Percival, 50 Bard <R5L1>
Draegan of Nimue, 50 Skald (retired), Rotag of Bedevere, 50 Paladin (retired)
"We don't lack leaders .... we lack followers
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
mordred-player
Posts: 1,717
Registered: Mar 03
|
Date Posted:
6/12/03 2:59pm
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
|
NA he made a very valid point. The point is that your statement high weap skill could hurt vs soft targets is incorrect.
It should have read low CDW spec will hurt vs soft targets.
Higher weap skill = harder hits as well and les misses.
I think he was trying to make that clarification and you got your panties knotted up cause he pointed out a flaw in your wording.
Obviously there is no 1 perfect spec, your testing showed that.
People understand your post and appreicate your time taken to generate solid information, HE was simply pointing out your wording could mislead people.
anyrate good job testing and well people with buffbots have always known PF = 27 is best
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
NainRedwood
Posts: 396
Registered: Aug 02
|
Date Posted:
6/12/03 3:06pm
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
|
Just out of curriosity:
1)
Why do your Ranger hit the hero for more in regard's to damage per hit?
2)
What kind of blades did your Ranger use?
-----signature-----
Nain Redwood <Reunion> 51 Druid
Adaran <Reunion> 50 Blademaster
Naim Jaskagidigskaja <Underhills> 51 Ranger
Co-GL of Reunion, Bedevere
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
NainRedwood
Posts: 396
Registered: Aug 02
|
Date Posted:
6/12/03 3:21pm
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
- Date Edited: 6/12/03 3:26pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
NainRedwood
|
>>> Higher weap skill = harder hits as well and les misses.
Is not entirely true actually... Which is why Monigi_x is right.
Copy paste of another post I did that linked to this one btw.:
Claim's (basis posted bellow):
----------------------------------
1) There's a cap in regard's the influence of base damage from WS.
2) This cap lies somewhere between 1100 and 1300 WS and my guess is it's closest to 1300 WS.
3) Style damage is not effected by this cap.
Basis:
----------------------------------
1)
I recently did a test on pendragon to test the effect of 39 blades versus 50 blades when my ranger was fully druid buffed (>300 str) and styling.
My result's we're to say the least, less than satisfactory.
My results for avg. base damage when using fireblade style
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39+15 blades, 28+15 CD fully buffed and no DA was 88.0
50+15 blades, 35+15 CD fully buffed and no DA was 88.6
The 39+15 blade specced had 1324 WS
The 50+15 blade specced had 1419 WS
This goes against EVERY claim in this thread in regards to how WS affect damage.
But I am not alone in my findings.
Monigi_x recently did a very extensive test of 3 different specs which can be seen here:
http://vnboards.ign.com/message.asp?topic=51098521&start=51115049
If you compare the base damage for
Spec#1 Blades 39, Celtic Dual 40, Pathfinding 36, Bow 34, Stealth 15
Weaponskill = 1307
Spec#2 Blades 50, Celtic Dual 25, Pathfinding 36, Bow 34, Stealth 15
Weaponskill = 1399
you will see this:
Spec #1 Versus Hero:
Avg Base Damage = 75.3
Spec #2 Versus Hero:
Avg Base Damage = 74.8
Spec #1 Versus Bard:
Avg Base Damage = 65.8
Spec #2 Versus Bard:
Avg Base Damage = 64.5
I can't see what other conclusion there is to draw from this but that WS > 1300 yields no addition to your base damage.
2)
We also know from GP35's test's that up to 1123 WS you do get additional damage from higher WS.
So if I'm correct in my interpretation of the above, there must be a cap somewhere between 1123 WS and 1307 WS.
3)
Style damage are not affected by this cap since style damage do infact continue to raise between 1300 and 1400 skill.
Fireblade gave me an increase from 21.9 Av. style damage to 24.9 av. style damage in the test mentioned above.
-----signature-----
Nain Redwood <Reunion> 51 Druid
Adaran <Reunion> 50 Blademaster
Naim Jaskagidigskaja <Underhills> 51 Ranger
Co-GL of Reunion, Bedevere
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Monigi_x
Posts: 509
Registered: Aug 02
|
Date Posted:
6/12/03 3:33pm
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
|
I think I see the point of confusion. My testing was performed to evaulate "tradeoffs" of skills oriented around melee (Blades, CD, PF) while keeping Bow and Stealth constant. So any increase in the Weapon portion MUST come at the expense of CD and/or PF; same said for CD traded for Weapon and PF, or PF traded for Weapon and CD. I thought that was clearly written in my testing purpose, but perhaps it was not understood.
Given that .... to boost your weaponskill will necessitate lower CD and/or PF. What my testing showed was for lower defense targets the advantages of CD (since you gonna hit the target much of the time anyhow) will result in a higher DPS than higher Weapon spec. Conversely, against a higher defense target, that same spec will have lower DPS than one emphasizing Weapon skill.
I mean its absurdly obvious that an increase in Weapon (and Weaponskill) while keeping CD and PF constant would result in more DPS ALWAYS. /sigh
Regarding my test results, Scale is vulnerable to slash while RF is resistant. And I used MP Arcanite Crescent Swords.
-----signature-----
Monigi of Percival, 50 Ranger <R10L1>
Gluush of Percival, 50 Hero <R7L9> Errant Vel'Xunyrr
Teffia of Percival, 50 Bard <R5L1>
Draegan of Nimue, 50 Skald (retired), Rotag of Bedevere, 50 Paladin (retired)
"We don't lack leaders .... we lack followers
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
NainRedwood
Posts: 396
Registered: Aug 02
|
Date Posted:
6/12/03 3:36pm
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
|
|
Doh of course
-----signature-----
Nain Redwood <Reunion> 51 Druid
Adaran <Reunion> 50 Blademaster
Naim Jaskagidigskaja <Underhills> 51 Ranger
Co-GL of Reunion, Bedevere
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
NainRedwood
Posts: 396
Registered: Aug 02
|
Date Posted:
6/12/03 3:39pm
Subject: RE: Pendragon Testing of Ranger (Phase 2); huge post with data and conclusions to help with your spe
|
|
Btw has it ever been established wether or not CD have any affect on base damage? The combination of our result's suggest a slight influence....
-----signature-----
Nain Redwood <Reunion> 51 Druid
Adaran <Reunion> 50 Blademaster
Naim Jaskagidigskaja <Underhills> 51 Ranger
Co-GL of Reunion, Bedevere
|
|
Post Reply
|
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
