Ranger Height advatange
scrinner
I do remember reading something about this near guildwars launch time. However i never actually confirmed it. Is it true rangers have a chance to deal more damage in return for lower accuracy if they are on heigher ground?
Kha
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by www.guildwiki.org
Being at a higher elevation than your target increases the range your arrows can go, and at a lower elevation your range is shortened.
|
scrinner
Just found the article in the guildwars manuscripts book. "can be especially effective from elevated locations" Must have confused it with damage then. Thanks 
Yichi
The only advantage a ranger has as far as height is from an elevated location, the height in the terrain will allow a ranger to shoot an arrow a greater distance. thats about it.
Tijger
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scrinner
Just found the article in the guildwars manuscripts book. "can be especially effective from elevated locations" Must have confused it with damage then. Thanks
|
sdrawkcab11
I read somewhere that from a height the chance of hitting the head piece increases, not 100% sure tho.
ideologue
Height also gives ranger a higher chance of dealing critical hit, and more overall damage. try it in Isle of Nameless. If I remembered correctly, Wiki said it's more likely to hit the head of your target from higher ground. (head piece has the weakest armor in comparison with other armor pieces)
Pebbles
There is rangers get a range advantage I don't know about anything else but in Fort aspenwood you get ranger "archer turrets" whitch allow you to snipe out the luxon longbows guarding the mine and they can't hit you.
Also happened in the dragon festival thing. You loose range if your shooting from a lower position upwards. whitch is why it is somtimes advantagious to camp in your fort.
Also happened in the dragon festival thing. You loose range if your shooting from a lower position upwards. whitch is why it is somtimes advantagious to camp in your fort.
DeanBB
Yes, firing from above = more damage, firing from below = less damage. Accuracy isn't a factor any more than firing from level ground. Range is also affected.
Riesz
On BP runs in Tombs I have tested this and there was a slight damage increase, but not enough to be very impressive. Maybe +5 or so per hit... I'm sure it's a percentage, though.
I tested on the Courtyard map near the last wurm. A few times I ran down the stairs to fire at the wurm and mobs on ground level, and a few others I stayed on the overpass, which is quite a bit higher than ground level.
I tested on the Courtyard map near the last wurm. A few times I ran down the stairs to fire at the wurm and mobs on ground level, and a few others I stayed on the overpass, which is quite a bit higher than ground level.
XvArchonvX
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Armor
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Effective_ranger_guide
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Bow
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Primary_profession_guide
In summary, Higer elevation:
- Gives you greater range
- Keeps you farther out of harm's way
- deals more damage due to the increased likeliness of getting a headshot
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GuildWiki
Head - 12.5% of hits (this goes up if the enemy is on higher ground than you.)
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GuildWiki
Offensively, try to take the highest ground possible that gives you the best view at your enemies. Higher ground allows you to shoot farther and thus gives you a great advantage against foes below you. However, in PvP, foes may hide under the bridge you are on or run far enough away to prevent you from hitting them, thus depending on your role, you may need to sacrifice height for a clear path to chase a running foe. Also, the closer you are, the less flight time your arrows have, so if accuracy is important, you may need to close some distance.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GuildWiki
Being at a higher elevation than your target increases the range your arrows can go, and at a lower elevation your range is shortened.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GuildWiki
Increased arrow damage when attacking targets from a higher elevation.
|
In summary, Higer elevation:
- Gives you greater range
- Keeps you farther out of harm's way
- deals more damage due to the increased likeliness of getting a headshot
Legolas Ravenwood
Headshots mean nothing against Warriors or Rangers and maybe more classes because they can have the same armour bonus on their Helm or Mask as the rest of their armour.
However, I also remember reading that being higher does increase the damage.
Elevated Ranger = Faster Arrows = Higher Impact Force
This sounds like a valid statement to me, not sure if it does to the mechanics of Guild Wars though. What do you think?
However, I also remember reading that being higher does increase the damage.
Elevated Ranger = Faster Arrows = Higher Impact Force
This sounds like a valid statement to me, not sure if it does to the mechanics of Guild Wars though. What do you think?
gr3g
This can be verified with some experiments in the Isle of the Nameless.
[[Category:Research needed]]
[[Category:Research needed]]
LoKi Foxfire
I can confirm that the height does affect the amount of damage you do, especially if the difference in elevation is very noticeable. I remember back in the early days of Prophecies in the UW, I was clearing the entire place with my guild and the portion with the undead mobs and chained de-enchanters has a huge drop in elevation. Using JI and my arrow attacks I think I was doing around 250-300 damage with a good hit while on the ground level it was closer to 150 (both with JI on).
CHUIU
Attacking from a higher plane = longer ranger.
Testing shows no increased rate of critical or increased damage.
Testing shows no increased rate of critical or increased damage.
Evilsod
Funny, the last time i went to the Isle i dealt small differences in damage stood in different places on the critical hit.
lightblade
Elevation advantage becomes more obvious if you play the Kurzick Arena inside RA. Just make a dual shot spike ranger, equip with a longbow, and shoot down that high cliff from the top. You'll be able to kill an elementist before he even get into casting range.
Tobias Funke
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CHUIU
Testing shows no increased rate of critical or increased damage.
|
Oh a GW forum
Elevation does NOT increase damage. I just tested it in the battle isles.
With 16 markmanship and a 15>50 max damage un-customized bow, your critical hit value is 52, without using skills and while standing at the same elevation, as seen here:
When standing at a higher elevation and without using skills, as can clearly be seen here, your critical hit value remains at 52.
You will never hit higher regardless of your elevation. Elevation *may* increase the chances of a critical hit, but as for increasing your damage - simply untrue.
Oh, and care to debate me? Let's see some proof... enough hear-say. Verify what you say or shut up... Kthxbye.
With 16 markmanship and a 15>50 max damage un-customized bow, your critical hit value is 52, without using skills and while standing at the same elevation, as seen here:
When standing at a higher elevation and without using skills, as can clearly be seen here, your critical hit value remains at 52.
You will never hit higher regardless of your elevation. Elevation *may* increase the chances of a critical hit, but as for increasing your damage - simply untrue.
Oh, and care to debate me? Let's see some proof... enough hear-say. Verify what you say or shut up... Kthxbye.
Mercury Angel
Stand on the ledge on the isle of the nameless, without talking to The Guide, and wand the practice targets for AoE effects below. You'll find your critical is 42 damage. [Tested with A/E for wand + Critical Strikes]
Now go down and hit them on even terrain; The critical is 37 damage.
Not a huge difference, but it's there.
---
Pictures for wands:
---
Pictures for bows:
---
Edit: Added pictures for both the bows and wands, and the damage looks to be about a 13% increase from that elevation.
Now go down and hit them on even terrain; The critical is 37 damage.
Not a huge difference, but it's there.
---
Pictures for wands:
---
Pictures for bows:
---
Edit: Added pictures for both the bows and wands, and the damage looks to be about a 13% increase from that elevation.
Tobias Funke
But when you don't hit a crit, your damage is higher from higher elevation.
CHUIU
Guildwarsguru needs some better servers or forums/action system. Navigating and posting takes forever.
Longbow, 15^50, 10 marksmanship, 15 critical strikes using critical eye. Attacking from a higher elevation shows no increased damage and no increased rate of critical hit (I actually landed less critical hits when attacking from above.
As you can see both hits in the picture are critical and the damage is the same. To think ANET would purposely make the game overly complicated by adding lines of code to increase damage from non-critical hits at higher elevation is ridiculous. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.
Elevation only affects range.
Longbow, 15^50, 10 marksmanship, 15 critical strikes using critical eye. Attacking from a higher elevation shows no increased damage and no increased rate of critical hit (I actually landed less critical hits when attacking from above.
As you can see both hits in the picture are critical and the damage is the same. To think ANET would purposely make the game overly complicated by adding lines of code to increase damage from non-critical hits at higher elevation is ridiculous. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.
Elevation only affects range.
Oh a GW forum
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tobias Funke
But when you don't hit a crit, your damage is higher from higher elevation.
|
@ Tobias: You. Are. Wrong. Face the facts please... While conduncting my little test there was NO difference in damage... If you think I'm wrong, go test it yourself and report back.
Tobias Funke
Case closed. Range advantage, damage advantage.
CHUIU
Damage over time testing shows:
Elevated: 22, 46, 36, 25, 36, 34, 24, 46, 46, 38 = 35.3 average
Non-Elev: 32, 28, 22, 46, 30, 46, 22, 46, 46, 46 = 36.4 average
If anything I've proved that not being at a higher elevation deals more damage and lands critical hits more often. I'm sure I could test this till my fingers were blue, it would still be that the damage and critical hit rate doesnt change.
Elevated: 22, 46, 36, 25, 36, 34, 24, 46, 46, 38 = 35.3 average
Non-Elev: 32, 28, 22, 46, 30, 46, 22, 46, 46, 46 = 36.4 average
If anything I've proved that not being at a higher elevation deals more damage and lands critical hits more often. I'm sure I could test this till my fingers were blue, it would still be that the damage and critical hit rate doesnt change.
Tobias Funke
You are in the position of arguing that the game programers don't know how their own game works. You're going to have to have a larger sample size than that and the evidence to back up your data.
If you disregard the critical hits (which are alwasys the same) in your data you get a different picture.
Elevated: 22, 36, 25, 36, 34, 24,38 = 30.7
Non: 33, 28, 22, 30, 22= 27
If you disregard the critical hits (which are alwasys the same) in your data you get a different picture.
Elevated: 22, 36, 25, 36, 34, 24,38 = 30.7
Non: 33, 28, 22, 30, 22= 27
CHUIU
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tobias Funke
 Case closed. Range advantage, damage advantage. |
Mercury Angel
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tobias Funke
Case closed. Range advantage, damage advantage. |
What something 'says' is largely meaningless;
The important thing is providing hard data that is PROOF positive that something is the case.
Even more prominent is the need to understand that just because something doesn't work in one situation, doesn't mean that it is absolute.
floppinghog
Test:
candy cane bow with 16 marksmanship (it has 15-15 dmg) its always same.
i shoot 60 armor out of the other 3 armor cans at end of stairs (not on stairs)
dmg = 17
i shoot from mid stairs (on stairs)
dmg = 19
I shoot from top of stairs (not on stair case anymore -but higher)
dmg =20
my error corrected, as i was hasty to post = the 24 = critical hit. Higher chance the higher you are appears to be apparent.
therefore, it has and always been true, range and dmg is bonus for height advantage.
test it yourself
Edit: Flames removed. It is never appropriate to flame others on these forums, right or wrong.
candy cane bow with 16 marksmanship (it has 15-15 dmg) its always same.
i shoot 60 armor out of the other 3 armor cans at end of stairs (not on stairs)
dmg = 17
i shoot from mid stairs (on stairs)
dmg = 19
I shoot from top of stairs (not on stair case anymore -but higher)
dmg =20
my error corrected, as i was hasty to post = the 24 = critical hit. Higher chance the higher you are appears to be apparent.
therefore, it has and always been true, range and dmg is bonus for height advantage.
test it yourself
Edit: Flames removed. It is never appropriate to flame others on these forums, right or wrong.
scrinner
So i guess in a way it does increase damage though. I also never knew head pieces were better to hit. Interesting thoughts really..
Mr_eX
Boom, Headshot!
CHUIU
I just tested from that location aswell. It seems like the 'height advantage' requires you to be substantially higher than you opponents by at least 2 stories for it to work. But my tests were done on only 1 story higher ground.
Tobias Funke
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mercury Angel
The skill descriptions are particularly well-known for having confusing, inaccurate, or ambiguous wording, and being slow to fix.
|
Oh a GW forum
Hmm.. some interesting things here.
In the second picture I posted, you can cleary see I gain the range advantage, thus proving I am at a higher elevation, but I do not gain any increase in damage.
When I tried it at the location Mecury posted, my critical hit maxed out at 60, a 15-16% increase.
When I went over to the master of bows and climbed to the highest point, and shot down at the lowest target, my ciritical hit became a whopping 71! That is a 36-37% increase from same-elevation...
This means that the game can measure your elevation relative to your target, and is applying some sort of bonus to your damage, that changes with your height...
However, me and Chu's initial conclusion is still partially valid, there is a point where you are higher than your target and do NO additional damage, but as you become substantially higher, your damage substantially increases.
In the second picture I posted, you can cleary see I gain the range advantage, thus proving I am at a higher elevation, but I do not gain any increase in damage.
When I tried it at the location Mecury posted, my critical hit maxed out at 60, a 15-16% increase.
When I went over to the master of bows and climbed to the highest point, and shot down at the lowest target, my ciritical hit became a whopping 71! That is a 36-37% increase from same-elevation...
This means that the game can measure your elevation relative to your target, and is applying some sort of bonus to your damage, that changes with your height...
However, me and Chu's initial conclusion is still partially valid, there is a point where you are higher than your target and do NO additional damage, but as you become substantially higher, your damage substantially increases.
CHUIU
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tobias Funke
There is nothing confusing or ambiguous in that wording. I understand what you are saying, but I'm arguing a preponderance of the evidence here. That description plus my experience playing a ranger, plus CHUIU's own data show that this is the case. I was offering the SS as the fail nail in the coffin for this baseless debate. Besides, have any of the nameless master been proven to contain wrong information? I have not heard of any.
|
And the NPC's are so vague that you could interpret much of what in several ways. Unless an NPC tells me "you will deal +15% more damage due to yada yada" I'm not going to trust it. And even then I would have to do testing before I would trust what it said. ANET has been wrong so many times, and there are so many bugs still in the game that information from them is unreliable.
Tobias Funke
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CHUIU
My own data was a completely random sampling. If I would have sat there and wrote down numbers for an hour you would see very little difference between damage in non-critical hits rather than the small 3.7 you determined from the improper selection of 7 hits to 5.
|
CHUIU
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tobias Funke
You are still arguing from complete conjecture. I was merely pointing out that your data tends to prove the opposite of what you argued. The burden of persuation is on you not me because you are arguing one of the basic game mechanics isn't true.
|
Elevated: 22, 36, 34, 24, = 29
Non: 33, 28, 30, 22 = 29.5
Now you see what I mean? You would need to do seperate testing and take down only an exact number of non-critical hits to actually come to a conclusion.
Tobias Funke
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CHUIU
I am arguing that the sampling of data you used is flawed because you took an uneven amount and calculated results based off it. I could just as easily manipulate the data to reflect in my favor:
Elevated: 22, 36, 34, 24, = 29 Non: 33, 28, 30, 22 = 29.5 Now you see what I mean? You would need to do seperate testing and take down only an exact number of non-critical hits to actually come to a conclusion. |
Increasing the number of data points (say from 5 to 7) only makes the average more likely to be accurate. You can compare data sets with different number of entries and still have a valid comparison. A great difference between the size of two data sets only effects the reliability of the numbers compared, not the comparison itself.
Legolas Ravenwood
ELEVATED
http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?i...gherbowll4.jpg
NON-ELEVATED
http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?i...owerbowxf9.jpg
Although these do prove the damage increases, it might not be possible to obtain this damage bonus ingame.
Rangers need to come close if they are lower than their target, so when they get close they might be close enough to negate this damage bonus. Warriors, well obviously they attack at melee as do Assassins so this bonus will only count on the first hits if they are low enough. Casters however, I am certain that casting spells is based on only horizontal distance.
So, they kinda look like this:
Not sure if this is exactly how it is for the casters, but Rangers I'm sure of.
http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?i...gherbowll4.jpg
NON-ELEVATED
http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?i...owerbowxf9.jpg
Although these do prove the damage increases, it might not be possible to obtain this damage bonus ingame.
Rangers need to come close if they are lower than their target, so when they get close they might be close enough to negate this damage bonus. Warriors, well obviously they attack at melee as do Assassins so this bonus will only count on the first hits if they are low enough. Casters however, I am certain that casting spells is based on only horizontal distance.
So, they kinda look like this:
Not sure if this is exactly how it is for the casters, but Rangers I'm sure of.
CHUIU
I said:
And:
You say:
You're basically saying I'm right, it would make it much more accurate.
I encourage you to go take the average of 2 hits with a sword and compare the damage to the average of 20 hits with an axe. Your results will come nowhere near the accuracy or validity of testing with 40 hits from both. Though even if you did, I wouldn't trust your results. You obviously don't understand how the scientific method works so you are more likely to manipulate the results in your favor.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CHUIU
If I would have sat there and wrote down numbers for an hour you would see very little difference between damage in non-critical hits rather than the small 3.7 you determined from the improper selection of 7 hits to 5.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CHUIU
I am arguing that the sampling of data you used is flawed because you took an uneven amount and calculated results based off it.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tobias Funke
Increasing the number of data points (say from 5 to 7) only makes the average more likely to be accurate.
|
I encourage you to go take the average of 2 hits with a sword and compare the damage to the average of 20 hits with an axe. Your results will come nowhere near the accuracy or validity of testing with 40 hits from both. Though even if you did, I wouldn't trust your results. You obviously don't understand how the scientific method works so you are more likely to manipulate the results in your favor.