Ranger Height advatange
unienaule
Did you guys miss the post with the candy cane bow that shows you DO GET A DAMAGE INCREASE? What are you still arguing about?
DeanBB
Yeah, I thought I answered this way back on post #9:
That was based on my experience in-game and I thought it was fairly common knowledge to be the reality.
Quote:
| 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. |
Tobias Funke
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CHUIU
You obviously don't understand how the scientific method works so you are more likely to manipulate the results in your favor.
|
......
Of course increasing the sample size increases reliability of an average. There is nothing in this proposition, however, which mandates that sample sizes must be the same.
Your argument was that my calculation of the data was invalid because I compared a sample size of 5 to one of 7. The reason my sample sizes had different values is because the non-elevated sample had more critical hits in it. Critical hits were not a factor in the calculation of the average damage of a non-critcal hit that I was performing. I was not picking and choosing data like you were. ALL non-critical hits were included in my averages indiscriminately. Were I to have made the sample sizes the same, say at 5 and 5, then I would have been introducing bias in to the analysis because I would have chosen which 2 data points to disregard.
Obviously a larger sample would be preferrable and more reliable. that does not mean, however, that this analysis has no value. Also, I was only trying to disprove your point, not prove mine. If I was trying to make my own argument, I would provide my own data with a larger sample size.
Take AP Statistics your Senior year of highschool.
Sid Soggybottom
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by unienaule
Did you guys miss the post with the candy cane bow that shows you DO GET A DAMAGE INCREASE? What are you still arguing about?
|
Legolas Ravenwood
The thread should stay open. The thread title is Ranger Height Advantage, and we have only covered the damage aspects of this.
There is still a lot to cover such as range gain, flight time differences and possibly even a damage decrease if you are under your target. None of these I have time to investigate right now. I'll test them tomorrow if I am feeling up to it.
There is still a lot to cover such as range gain, flight time differences and possibly even a damage decrease if you are under your target. None of these I have time to investigate right now. I'll test them tomorrow if I am feeling up to it.
disarm76
I cleared every corner of cantha with my ranger and more than once I noticed that Height=more damage.
A great example is on Fort Aspenwood kurzick side. At the very beggining before the first teleport you can shoot arrows down to where the Arquitect is.
More than onde I stop a minor invasion to the green mine by shooting arrows from up there.
It's really a good diference in damage.
A great example is on Fort Aspenwood kurzick side. At the very beggining before the first teleport you can shoot arrows down to where the Arquitect is.
More than onde I stop a minor invasion to the green mine by shooting arrows from up there.
It's really a good diference in damage.
CHUIU
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tobias Funke
This sentence is hilarious. It proves that you don't understand scientific reasoning. Please explain how that syllogism works.
...... Of course increasing the sample size increases reliability of an average. There is nothing in this proposition, however, which mandates that sample sizes must be the same. Your argument was that my calculation of the data was invalid because I compared a sample size of 5 to one of 7. The reason my sample sizes had different values is because the non-elevated sample had more critical hits in it. Critical hits were not a factor in the calculation of the average damage of a non-critcal hit that I was performing. I was not picking and choosing data like you were. ALL non-critical hits were included in my averages indiscriminately. Were I to have made the sample sizes the same, say at 5 and 5, then I would have been introducing bias in to the analysis because I would have chosen which 2 data points to disregard. Obviously a larger sample would be preferrable and more reliable. that does not mean, however, that this analysis has no value. Also, I was only trying to disprove your point, not prove mine. If I was trying to make my own argument, I would provide my own data with a larger sample size. Take AP Statistics your Senior year of highschool. |
And for the record, I'm way past Stats class or high school for that matter.
Phaern Majes
Lmao...teaches me not to read all the posts before. Ignore what I said....well to some extent.
floppinghog
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by unienaule
Did you guys miss the post with the candy cane bow that shows you DO GET A DAMAGE INCREASE? What are you still arguing about?
|
Tobias Funke
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CHUIU
Critical hits are always a factor in the calculation of physical damage because there is always a chance of landing a critical hit.
|
jesh
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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).
|
My eyes popped out and I was like, "omg rangers rock". I don't have any mathematical analysis, but from experience I can say that my hits are higher on average if I maintain higher ground.
Shinto Sharingan
Guys you realize you can shoot from the very top of that mountain thing next to the bow targets? When I do that it seems like my damage is alwasys higher.
CHUIU
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tobias Funke
Yes but the issue was how elevation raises you non-critcal hits damage.
|
Phoebe
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CHUIU
I said:
Quote: Quote:
|
You obviously know NOTHING about statistics if you think 10 samples has any significant accuracy.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CHUIU
And:
Quote: Quote:
|
The number of sampling only affects the margin of errors.
Averages are compared, not margin of errors. The margin of error of all the statistics are added together to get the margin of error of the comparison.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CHUIU
You say:
Quote: Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CHUIU
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.
|
But in either case the results will be statistically irrelevent due to the very low levels of sampling.
Unless your goal in this discussion is to troll or to prove your are ignorant, I would suggest you either STFU or do some serious sampling.
Beside it has already been PROVED that higher ground = more damage.
TadaceAce
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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.
|
Fact: Bow damage does increase when your height advantage increases. It also makes it more likely to do an AL check on the helmet. There is no evidence it increases your chance to crit. Since range is based on flat model, the higher up, your shot becomes a secant shot between the points equating the third dimension so your range technically increases. Although your range increases, it still takes the same amount of time to get to that spot because it moves in a 2 dimensional speed to the target thus meaning accuracy remains the same.
Plushie Penguin
distance and a higher critical hit chance, that's all I know and that's all I care to bother to remember
oh, being below might reduce the arc time though... seems to be shorter at least to me
oh, being below might reduce the arc time though... seems to be shorter at least to me
scrinner
Just one second. Does the attack have to be a critical to do extra damage due to height?
XvArchonvX
Honestly, what is wrong with you people? I can't believe how many people don't believe that you get a damage bonus from a greater height. The fact that some people posted single screen shots of 2 shots making the same damage number with some random bow from level ground and one from a gentle kill means nothing and you should be slapped for not having common sense.
The damage bonus is not tremendous but it is there. Grab a Candy Cane bow and take one shot on ground then take another from somewhere that is at least one story higher (like a bridge or something).
/sigh
The damage bonus is not tremendous but it is there. Grab a Candy Cane bow and take one shot on ground then take another from somewhere that is at least one story higher (like a bridge or something).
/sigh
Curse You
How about this? Read this GuildWiki Article
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Bow
Now go to the Isle of the Nameless and talk to the Master of Bows.
http://gw.gamewikis.org/wiki/Bow
Now go to the Isle of the Nameless and talk to the Master of Bows.
WLlama
Just a note on why headshots are sometimes a good thing: Most people buy attribute head armor as soon as possible and then upgrade it with runes. Now, for those cheap peoples out there...3-4 new head pieces for 1.5k ea. O.o Oh noes! And so they continue to play with lower AL head armor to enjoy the runeage. (Note: I know this is less common now that rune salvaging is practically 100% effective and with factions you hit max AL much sooner but it still happens in my experience.)
Two April Mornings
/makes 8ft tall ranger
CHUIU
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scrinner
Just one second. Does the attack have to be a critical to do extra damage due to height?
|
Rydier
You might want to read this:
http://www.team-iq.net/forums/showthread.php?tid=916
http://www.team-iq.net/forums/showthread.php?tid=916
LagunaCid
"It's over Anakin! I have the high ground!"
arcanemacabre
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Two April Mornings
/makes 8ft tall ranger
|
This is what I'm wondering, and what I thought the title was referring to. Does making a tall ranger actually give some semblance (however small) of a damage increase? Would the increase be a bit greater against a very short toon? I doubt it, but it could be worth trying out, even if it's only an extra 1-2 points per battle.
For the record, I've always assumed that height affected damage. This is what I was told by friends before I started playing, then I read it on wiki, and finally the NPC on the isles. All of this solidified in me and I tended to notice it in actual gameplay. Granted, that could've been all in my head, but I'm pretty sure I did notice the difference.
Thanks for finally proving it all and making me realize I'm not crazy.
ratatass
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LagunaCid
"It's over Anakin! I have the high ground!"
|
High ground more damage. "period". It used to be that way anyways. As far as I can see - still is.
Rat
Guildmaster Cain
Empiric FTW!