I *think* they finally fixed the droknar armor in ascalon arena exploit!

I just got a character ran today, and the strange thing is, for 70AL, my lvl 10 character is taking 30-50 damage from a stone submit gnasher just "attacking" me with his wand!

I'm pretty sure that's not normal... so I guess they must have closed that long time exploit once and for all! Good riddance to all that running spam I guess.

there's no way to tell because you didn't tell us what level the stone summit that were doing that damage were. if you knew the guidl wars damage equation, you'd know that level has a huge factor in how much damage you receive.

I'll try to wear that same armor and see how much those minotaurs do to my character

Edit: lvl 10 minos in anvil rock does an average of 16 to my lvl 10 character.. hmmm...

Edit: ok, same minotaurs, lvl 20 ele that was played "proper" wearing 60AL armor.. seems to average out at 12 damamge a hit. My lvl 10 mesmer OTOH was wearing the 60 + 10 vs physical rouge set..

I think there may be *some* grounds to it.

Err, there are no stone summit in ascalon areana, so how would a stone summit hitting you and doing 50 damage tell us that the armor wasn't affective in the areana anymore? o.o

That is Exactly what I was thinking.

Nono..

I was wondering if they programmed in code that causes higher AL armor to only give its wearing more of its full benefit as he/she levels up.

You titled your thread wrong, then

Well.. your character is level 10 and a Stone Summit Gnasher is level 24, which is why you would be experiencing more damage.

Say what?

Exactly what Wheel said. Take a level 20 back to a beginning level zone and use a spell or weapon attack against a level 5 or so creature and look at the huge damage you do, it will be like several hundred percent higher than you'd expect from the damage rating of the spell/weapon.

lvl 20 War using an Ithas bow against Hulking Stone Elemental = 2-6 damage
lvl 13 Ele using an Ithas bow against Hulking Stone Elemental = 3-6 damage

Why not try it with a R/ that has the proper requirements in Marksmanship?

Theres a big difference in damage btween wands/spells and physical weapons. Physical weapons are based on the attribute. Spells/wands are based on your level. That's once you have the necessary attribute of course.

Level 20 E/M, using fire wand of 11-22 damage, did 29-62 damage against a level 4 whiptail (29 once (+164% of minimum listed damage), 62 6 times (+182% of maximum listed damage).

Using Flare, listed damage of 40, did 80 against a level 4 whiptail (+100% damage), 63-66 against a level 4 grawl (+65% damage), 92 against a level 3 ulodyte (+130% damage), 80-84 against a level 6 boss (Mok, +110% damage)). Using Fireball, listed damage of 91, did 143 against a level 4 grawl (+57% listed damage), 209 against a level 3 ulodyte (+130% listed damage).

So, like most things to do with GWars, the damage algorithm is complete nonsense, you'll never know what the hell you'll get until you see it in practice against a specific monster when you are a specific level.

Nice game, but coded by the Forest Gumps of the game industry.

Maybe because their armor is so low?
Every 40 armor below 60 is double damage. So if they have 5-20 armor, you're going to notice big results right?

And why would I use Marksmanship if I wanted to see what a starter weapon did?

How did their armor get lower as my level got higher? Does my fireball now sneak past their armor? Did I learn to aim it through cracks in their armor? It's nonsense. It's just an arbitrary bit of code with no justification. Why does the fire from my wand to +182% damage against a whiptail and the fire from my flair do +100%? How does one get better at a better rate than the other, and if one did, wouldn't it be the flare spell instead of an inanimate object?

It's like having a 44 magnum handgun jumping in damage 182% after practicing with it. It doesn't. And you can't argue that it's 'improved aim', if so then at least some of my shots at level 5 would do +182% damage (a good hit), but they never do. Using that argument it would be like going from -always- winging them on the arm to -always- hitting them in the heart.

As I said, it's just a nonsense algorithm. Like belt pouches that can hold bows, or bows that don't need arrows, or any of the dozens of other things about GWars that make no sense.

it didnt get lower in absolute terms as it stayed at the minimum al

you on the other hand gained 16 levels above them

somewhere is a complete damage guide showing exactly how the damage breaks down among several factors including RELATIVE level of the 2 parties

Every person on this forum past 3rd grade should read this: "A Treatise on Combat Mathematics" instead of pouring crap over developers.

Say you have a lvl 20 E/Mo and your flare is said to be doing 40 damage a hit in its description. Say a lvl 4 grawl has 20 armor. So here we go: 40*2^((3*20-20)/40) = 80 damage a hit.

If you're smart enough you can figure out that at level 20 an elementalist would be doing exactly the amount of listed damage to ANY creature that has 60 armor. 60 armor is considered "normal" in GW. Anything that has less than 60 armor will take more than listed damage, anything that has more than 60 - less damage. So a ranger wearing studded leather armor from forge would take: 40*2^((3*20-(70+30))/40) = 20 damage a hit.

Similarly, if a level 30 monster casts flare (at the same attribute level) against our poor ele wearing airomancer's forge armor, the ele will take 40*2^((3*30-60)/40) = 67 damage a hit.

Read the article to find out how weapon (not skill) damage is calculated. Although I have to say that if you're attacking enemies that are much lower level than you, expect to do some 150% of the maximum of the listed weapon's damage pretty much all the time.

It doesn't. You deal more damage across the board as your level gets higher. This is a pretty universal concept.


It doesn't, both are dealing double listed damage because of your level and their relative weakness. Maximum damage from your wand is actually a critical hit that deals 1.41x as much damage, and since you're dealing double damage, that means 282% damage, or the +182% damage you saw.


It didn't.


That you don't understand something doesn't make it nonsense.


It's actually a bit more simple than that. "Normal" armor in Guild Wars is 3*clvl. That means that any character using spells on a target of the same level as him with normal armor will deal exactly the amount of listed damage. In effect the whole system scales up, and the damage listed in the skill descriptions is maximally useful at every stage along the way. Damage against 60 AL is not particuarly useful to a level 5 character. Damage vs no armor makes comparisons difficult between normal and armor ignoring effects. Damage against targets of the same level really is what you want, and while it gives some odd effects (like the 40 damage Flare dealing 80 damage to a weak creature) it's ultimately the mechanic with the best utility for the casual player.

Peace,
-CxE

To everything...turn,turn,turn..There is a season...turn,turn,titn...

This thread's time has passed.

But I'm not doing more damage as my level gets higher, if so it would show on my damage numbers when I held the mouse of the spell. I'm doing more damage as my level -differential- gets higher, and that makes no sense. Quoting the combat mechanics (which I understand perfectly well) doesn't make them any less nonsensical.

See my argument about the .44 magnum, the GWars game mechanic implies that I go from hitting marginal damage -all- the time to hitting more critically -all- the time as I increase in level -differential-, which is goofy.

Ensign wrote: "It doesn't. You deal more damage across the board as your level gets higher. This is a pretty universal concept."

No, that's not what is happening, I'm doing more damage as my level -differential- gets higher. It's not a universal concept in gaming. Take Fallout, for example. As you level up and improve in your weapon usage (assuming you build your character in a way that improves in this area) you don't go from -always- doing low damage to -always- doing high damage. Instead, your percentage of higher damage shots increases.

Here's how to implement increasing damage in Gwars correctly (using fake numbers):

1. The flare spell does 20-100 damage.

2. If your character is the same level as the creature targeted, you do 20-40 damage 40% of the time, 40-60 damage 30% of the time, 60-80 damage 20% of the time, and then 80-100 damage 10% of the time.

3. At, say, 10 levels above the creature targeted you do 20-40 damage 10% of the time, 40-60 damage 20% of thet time, 60-80 damage 30% of the time, and 80-100 damage 40% of the time.

Your minimum and maximum damage doesn't change, it can't, the spell is as powerful as it is. What changes is the percentage of time you manage to deliver 100% of this potential damage to the target.

The GWars system is nonsensical because you -never-, no matter how many times you cast flare at a creature your level, do any greater damage than any other time, whereas when you are much higher level than them you -never- do anything less than a much better degree of damage. Your always off (or on) target by the same amount. It's like a beginning marksman that -always- hits 8 inches off the bullseye in the same spot, it's not realistic.

Not at all. It's like a spellcaster lacking the focus or experience early on to deliver a more cohesive Fireball. It's like a warrior lacking the strength early on required to deliver faster, stronger blows. It's like a ranger lacking knowledge on fuels that make their arrows burn at a higher temperature.

I usually don't PvP with stone summit...? But thanks for that.

Agreed, I always assumed that these types of things were also supposed to be taking into account relative tactics also.

Say, for instance, take the .44 mag to someone who has never shot one before and put them in combat. Person's likely to miss a lot. Take me, a target shooter, I'm likely too miss much less. Then take a Military sharpshooter - not only will he/she have my ability in target shooting but has combat experience. So that takes care of the shooters end.

Then, take me - I've never been in any form of combat (I played paintball once). I don't know how to move, hide, or anything else that prolongs my ability to live. Then take a war games expert (say paintball). They most likely know much of those tactics but haven't dealt with the stress of combat. Lastly take a military individual - most likely plenty of training and combat experience.

There *should* be a large survival difference between a veteran of three tours of duty in vietnam, beirut, somlia, Iraq I and Iraq II and someone who has never picked up anything that is made to kill. That fight would most likely be over right quick - even though both weapons have the same killing power (both having the .44 magnum). OTOH that Marine against a another veteran of similar experiance? Should be a much closer match.

Damage and hit points are an abstraction of this type of fight, it was back in the early 80's when I started gaming and still is. There have been systems developed that do not use that much abstraction but they are typically very complicated and pretty much boring. Nor does that translate well into a RPG where you give commands to a character, they can be fairly well done (and have been done) with FPS and such though. Pressing buttons to cast spells and such are another such abstraction. So does "level" - skill pregression is a gradual thing, you don't cross some line that before that you couldn't hit the target but after you can. Much of RPG mechanics make little literal sense but are an abstraction for simplicity and playability.

If someone really wants to complain about something not making sense it would be having the ability to redistribute attribute points. How can I role play loosing knowledge about my pet in order to be a better at wilderness skills? That's something I both would not want to give up and something I can not role play, well unless I carry an hidden item "The De-learner/Imprinter" that can erase skills and carries the necessary brain patterns to learn new ones.

This is not what is happening. I'm not delivering a more cohesive fireball, if I was it would be just as much more cohesive against a level 20 opponent as a level 5, as it would be -me- that was better. Instead, I'm only better if my opponent is weaker. And even then, that's not what is happening. Let me post some more numbers to show how crazy this is:

A flare that does 40 listed damage does 80 damage against a level 4 whiptail, it does 20 damage against a level 20 rockshot. Crystal wave, that bypass armor and magic resistance, that does 82 listed damage does 82 damage against a level 4 whiptail and 82 damage against a level 20 rockshot. It gains no advantage at all from a level difference. Where did my ability to be more cohesive (that made no sense anyway), go?

This level difference effect is only applied to spells that take armor into effect. I challenge anyone to explain the 'real world' justification for the numbers I listed above. It's not you learning to focus or aim better, if so the crystal wave would have done more damage as well. It's simply a nonsense algorithm.

Hmm... correct me if I get this wrong, so a lvl 1 ele with 0 points in fire magic, as compared to a lvl 20 ele with 0 points in fire magic, whose flare will do more damage?

Aren't damage solely dependent on attribute point distribution?

it amazes me that Ensign could take the time to write an article(clearly and precisely and about 99.7% accurate)...Riflex could link the article in this thread....and yet people are still asking questions that could have been answered by reading the article....

You challenge us to explain a virtual game that's supposed to be fun to play in 'real world' justification? Then why don't you explain why don't the fireballs melt snow around the target, why doesn't the armor get hot from all those fire spells, why monsters set on fire extuinguish it so quickly while fighting etc.?

It's a game, it doesn't have to have a 'real world' justification - if I make a game and make an assumption that I want lower level targets to take more damage from higher level attackers, I don't need to present any kind of 'real world' justification.

You do if you want it to be a good game. All games have various areas that bend/break real world rules, a good game minimizes this to give a feeling of versimilitude. GWars is goes the other route, it violates any feeling of reality in almost every game mechanic it has. It's just poor game design, plain and simple.

This coming from the guy who doesn't have a shred of game design/creation experience. BTW, if you are going to use big words to make it seem like you have any clue at all, atleast spell them correctly. It is verisimilitude.

why would a game based around magic and fantasy have a quality of verisimilitude????

Thanks for the spelling correction, duly noted. I notice you didn't refute my argument, you just insulted me. Does that mean you can't think of any reason I'm wrong? If so, why insult me? Did I trigger your territorality by critiquing your baby? I use 'big words' at times because I'm smart and have a large vocabulary, I'm sorry if that offends you for some bizarre reason. I don't do it to make it 'seem like I have a clue', I don't need anything but my own intelligence to do that (or to fail to do that on the rare occasions when I'm wrong).

I don't have any car design experience either, that doesn't stop me from recognizing that a vehicle that rolls over in turns is badly designed. GWars is badly designed, not just in one way but in dozens of ways. That makes it *drum roll* a badly designed game.

Algren, you quoted a post that answered your question, so not sure what else you need to know. A good game tries to give a real feeling to the person playing it, that increases the immersion factor. A fireball that did cold damage would be easy enough to code, but no game designer would do it that had any sense because it offends the sense of rightness of the people who play the game. Spells that magically increase in damage for no other reason than an arbitrary bit of code break the player's immersion in the game (assuming they are smart enough to spot the problem).

A lot of these responses I'm getting (heck, almost every one) are just knee-jerk reactions by people feeling protective of GWars, not because any of them have any rebuttal to my points. And the rebuttals that -have- been given have been wrong. If anyone had bothered to read the figures I posted, you'd see that not only is the increase in damage due to increased level differential nonsensical, it's also applied sporadically. If damage spells were increased in damage due to increased level difference, then crystal wave would have done more damage when used by a level 20 against a level 4, it doesn't, it does 82 damage no matter what the level differential. So not only is this goofy code, it isn't even applied in a consistent way, just one more example of bad design (or buggy design, take your pick on that one).

whoa whoa whoa

you're throwing a lot of words out there

hey guess what

it's magic

it doesn't have to make sense in a real world context because

*drum roll*

it isn't real

People have written several refutations of your idea. I notice that you dropped the 44 magnum analogy and decided that spells were now your ticket.

I have some experience in software design and balance (A little in games, but not a whole lot) and I disagree. I will repeast this several times but not liking how something works isn't the same as bad design. Nor does your understanding, or lack thereof, make it that either.

How, preciesly, do you know how spells react in the real world? I don't know - how did you come to the conclusion that crystal wave should increase also? How is that in any way obvious to us? I can not fathom how you can say a totally artificial construct should conform to your ideas and "feel real". Do you mean that thier magic system isn't like other games you have played and are used too? It feels real enough to me, as real as any other system of spells and gaming skills I've played.

Again, you are complaining about something that has no real world application not being real. Redistributing attribute points, armor behaving the same with hammers, swords, arrows, and such, skill unlocks, a bow handle increasing you ability to survive, levels in general, and many many more things are MUCH MUCH more unrealistic - we have real equivilents of that and they absolutely do not translate. Deciding what increases spells damage and such is purely world specific as it is based of nothing more than thier imagination, they can create any system as long as the rules are consistenly applied (and they are, otherwise one could not post a deterministic algorithm for calculating damage of a spell). Heck, fireball could cause cold damage - how can you say that isn't real? When you show me yourself casting fireball and that it behaves as you suggest then get back to me about it "not feeling real".

Is it the way you would make it? Obviously not, that doesn't make it poorly designed. I hate a large chunk of the D&D spell system. It never made sense to me that Wizards had to learn each individual casting of a spell, it seemed to me that as long as the wizard knew it he/she should cast until they are tired (use manna or something). But, seeing how there are no wizards to compare, who am I to say that's unrealistic - maybe thats the way it would work if we had it in the real world. Not to mention many people like that system and find it realistic.

This system is easy to understand and works the same everytime. It is fairly well balanced, easy to use, and a pretty large skill set. All this with the flexibility it has on builds (hard to make one godly, hard to make one lame, and easy to change you build radically) and I would say it was pretty dang well designed.

So, the last thing Mr Great designer, what would you cahnge to make this system real? And, it would be helpful is you at least gave why that would make it real, as opposed to simply arbitrary and specific to your idea of magic.

Vorlin,

You have ignore virtually every rebuttle of your point. Allow me to sum it up:

"Level" is basically how experienced in combat you are. Combat experience works both ways. Someone with great combat experience will both kill better and be better able to avoid being killed. Thus, a higher level character deals more damage even to a character with equal armor and equal weapons because that person's inherent skill with the weapon is better than the other person's skill at avoiding the weapon, and the lower level character's skill with the weapon is less than the other person's skill and avoiding the weapon.

In any case.

It doesn't matter how unrealistic a game is if it's fun. For many, realism is fun, and Guild Wars may not be the game for them. Many, however, find less fun in realism than they do in fast-paced, dynamic gameplay.

Guild Wars is rampantly unrealistic. One sword stroke that actually hits you should probably be enough to kill you. One blast of fire should almost certainly be enough to at least incapacitate you. A "Deep Wound" shouldn't just go away after 15 seconds. You shouldn't automatically ressurect at the nearest ressurection fountain ten seconds after everyone you're hanging out with dies. You shouldn't be able to shuffle your skills around. You shouldn't be able to use a ring to extract the skills of an enemy from their dead corpse. There are a lot of things in Guild Wars that you shouldn't be able to do. But that's because this isn't a sim. This is an Action/RPG game with strategy elements. This is a game that has sacrified much realism for fun. You don't have to go out and buy another copy of the game whenever your character dies. You don't have to lock yourself into character choices that may well become obscolete later on. And a single sword stroke will almost certainly not be enough to kill you.

Because that wouldn't be fun.