Combat Mechanics? Attack Speed, Recovery

[hugin7]

I've added cipher focus gain column to the spreadsheet. Here is the logic, if anyone want to double check everything:

 

1. basic focus gain is 25% of the damage dealt (verified with the CheatEngine to see the fractional values of the focus)

2. draining whip adds flat bonus of 2 per hit, here hit means any attack that connects, including grazes

 

so the formula is:

(average focus gain) = 0.25 * (average damage) + 2 * (number of attacks) * (1 - chance of miss)

 

to get the correct values, you need to set the damage mod manually to the correct value: 1.2 for regular soul whip and 1.4 for biting whip.

 

After finding a lot of flawed information online on focus gain, I decided to test it myself and was fortunate to run into MaximKat's post.  There was a cell reference error in the focus gain formula, which I corrected.

 

I also noticed that someone broke the Quick Switch formulas after I uploaded them, perhaps when the tables were relocated.  I corrected these formulas and added columns for focus gain based on Quick Switch.

 

With these new findings, Penetrating Shot is looking much better for Ciphers.  Typical scenarios show ~20% damage gain with blunderbuss, which compensates for ~10% loss in rate of fire.  Result: 10% more damage and focus gain with blunderbuss and an even greater damage increase for some spells, such as Mind Blades.

[Myrten]

20 WeaponDmg vs 40 WeaponDmg

10DR

0 Dmg Mods

0 Accuracy Mods

 

Old Way:

20 Base -> 3.5 Dmg

40 Base -> 17 Dmg

Comparision 17/3.5=4.85 <- The Weapon with 40 Damage is 4.85 times better.

 

New Way:

20 Base -> 5 Dmg

40 Base -> 18.5 Dmg

Comparision 18.5/5=3.7 <- The Weapon with 40 Damage is 3.7 times better.

 

4.85/3.7= 1.31   -> the old calculation favors the higher weapon damage by 31% -> 31% inaccurate. thats nearly 1/3. clearly significant imo.

 

this would get worse if we had a situation with high dmg mods and critchance.

OK, I did this change, formula is monstrous now

[Myrten]

 

I've added cipher focus gain column to the spreadsheet. Here is the logic, if anyone want to double check everything:

 

1. basic focus gain is 25% of the damage dealt (verified with the CheatEngine to see the fractional values of the focus)

2. draining whip adds flat bonus of 2 per hit, here hit means any attack that connects, including grazes

 

so the formula is:

(average focus gain) = 0.25 * (average damage) + 2 * (number of attacks) * (1 - chance of miss)

 

to get the correct values, you need to set the damage mod manually to the correct value: 1.2 for regular soul whip and 1.4 for biting whip.

 

After finding a lot of flawed information online on focus gain, I decided to test it myself and was fortunate to run into MaximKat's post.  There was a cell reference error in the focus gain formula, which I corrected.

 

I also noticed that someone broke the Quick Switch formulas after I uploaded them, perhaps when the tables were relocated.  I corrected these formulas and added columns for focus gain based on Quick Switch.

 

With these new findings, Penetrating Shot is looking much better for Ciphers.  Typical scenarios show ~20% damage gain with blunderbuss, which compensates for ~10% loss in rate of fire.  Result: 10% more damage and focus gain with blunderbuss and an even greater damage increase for some spells, such as Mind Blades.

 

Can you make sure that your changes are in in current version? I've been making big overhaul to damage formula and your changes might have got lost

[hugin7]

 

 

I've added cipher focus gain column to the spreadsheet. Here is the logic, if anyone want to double check everything:

 

1. basic focus gain is 25% of the damage dealt (verified with the CheatEngine to see the fractional values of the focus)

2. draining whip adds flat bonus of 2 per hit, here hit means any attack that connects, including grazes

 

so the formula is:

(average focus gain) = 0.25 * (average damage) + 2 * (number of attacks) * (1 - chance of miss)

 

to get the correct values, you need to set the damage mod manually to the correct value: 1.2 for regular soul whip and 1.4 for biting whip.

 

After finding a lot of flawed information online on focus gain, I decided to test it myself and was fortunate to run into MaximKat's post.  There was a cell reference error in the focus gain formula, which I corrected.

 

I also noticed that someone broke the Quick Switch formulas after I uploaded them, perhaps when the tables were relocated.  I corrected these formulas and added columns for focus gain based on Quick Switch.

 

With these new findings, Penetrating Shot is looking much better for Ciphers.  Typical scenarios show ~20% damage gain with blunderbuss, which compensates for ~10% loss in rate of fire.  Result: 10% more damage and focus gain with blunderbuss and an even greater damage increase for some spells, such as Mind Blades.

 

Can you make sure that your changes are in in current version? I've been making big overhaul to damage formula and your changes might have got lost

 

 

They are in.  I just made some corrections and enhancements.

Edited April 4, 2015 by hugin7

[ErlKing]

Wow, unexpected results with focus gain for melee.

[hugin7]

 

20 WeaponDmg vs 40 WeaponDmg

10DR

0 Dmg Mods

0 Accuracy Mods

 

Old Way:

20 Base -> 3.5 Dmg

40 Base -> 17 Dmg

Comparision 17/3.5=4.85 <- The Weapon with 40 Damage is 4.85 times better.

 

New Way:

20 Base -> 5 Dmg

40 Base -> 18.5 Dmg

Comparision 18.5/5=3.7 <- The Weapon with 40 Damage is 3.7 times better.

 

4.85/3.7= 1.31   -> the old calculation favors the higher weapon damage by 31% -> 31% inaccurate. thats nearly 1/3. clearly significant imo.

 

this would get worse if we had a situation with high dmg mods and critchance.

OK, I did this change, formula is monstrous now

 

 

Please verify if your changes are in, too.  Google Docs doesn't seem very robust as far as concurrent changes and merging is concerned.  Since we now have several contributors, we might be better off with real version control, such as SVN or Git.

[Baki]

 

20 WeaponDmg vs 40 WeaponDmg

10DR

0 Dmg Mods

0 Accuracy Mods

 

Old Way:

20 Base -> 3.5 Dmg

40 Base -> 17 Dmg

Comparision 17/3.5=4.85 <- The Weapon with 40 Damage is 4.85 times better.

 

New Way:

20 Base -> 5 Dmg

40 Base -> 18.5 Dmg

Comparision 18.5/5=3.7 <- The Weapon with 40 Damage is 3.7 times better.

 

4.85/3.7= 1.31   -> the old calculation favors the higher weapon damage by 31% -> 31% inaccurate. thats nearly 1/3. clearly significant imo.

 

this would get worse if we had a situation with high dmg mods and critchance.

OK, I did this change, formula is monstrous now

 

 

gj. thanks!

 

i think it would be better to show dps values in the big damage table. 

 

i'm more interested in dps values vs certain DRs than pure dmg values. the one cell with avg dps is just not enough :/

[Myrten]

 

 

20 WeaponDmg vs 40 WeaponDmg

10DR

0 Dmg Mods

0 Accuracy Mods

 

Old Way:

20 Base -> 3.5 Dmg

40 Base -> 17 Dmg

Comparision 17/3.5=4.85 <- The Weapon with 40 Damage is 4.85 times better.

 

New Way:

20 Base -> 5 Dmg

40 Base -> 18.5 Dmg

Comparision 18.5/5=3.7 <- The Weapon with 40 Damage is 3.7 times better.

 

4.85/3.7= 1.31   -> the old calculation favors the higher weapon damage by 31% -> 31% inaccurate. thats nearly 1/3. clearly significant imo.

 

this would get worse if we had a situation with high dmg mods and critchance.

OK, I did this change, formula is monstrous now

 

 

Please verify if your changes are in, too.  Google Docs doesn't seem very robust as far as concurrent changes and merging is concerned.  Since we now have several contributors, we might be better off with real version control, such as SVN or Git.

 

Damn, it seems we have a conflict - it's either your or mine version. I've made a rollback to my version - you can verify if my changes are in bychecking if first sheet is called 'Main', also between focus gain and damage/dr table there should be another table with: Graze Chance Graze Damage Hit Chance Hit Damage Crit Chance Crit Damage

 

 

 

I'm not sure if SVN or GIT would help here as it would have to support merging xlsx files not code files which are plain text

Edited April 4, 2015 by Myrten

[Myrten]

 

 

20 WeaponDmg vs 40 WeaponDmg

10DR

0 Dmg Mods

0 Accuracy Mods

 

Old Way:

20 Base -> 3.5 Dmg

40 Base -> 17 Dmg

Comparision 17/3.5=4.85 <- The Weapon with 40 Damage is 4.85 times better.

 

New Way:

20 Base -> 5 Dmg

40 Base -> 18.5 Dmg

Comparision 18.5/5=3.7 <- The Weapon with 40 Damage is 3.7 times better.

 

4.85/3.7= 1.31   -> the old calculation favors the higher weapon damage by 31% -> 31% inaccurate. thats nearly 1/3. clearly significant imo.

 

this would get worse if we had a situation with high dmg mods and critchance.

OK, I did this change, formula is monstrous now

 

 

gj. thanks!

 

i think it would be better to show dps values in the big damage table. 

 

i'm more interested in dps values vs certain DRs than pure dmg values. the one cell with avg dps is just not enough :/

 

After me and Baki manage to merge our changes I'll put DPS vs DR table to the second sheet

[Baki]

you mean you and hugin? I've done nothing in the ciphers part

[Myrten]

you mean you and hugin? I've done nothing in the ciphers part

Yeah, me and him.

 

BTW

Could you put a link to the spreadsheet into your first post?

[Daemonjax]

 

I got an idea - set dexterity to 50 by console and check what is affected. This should give some decisive results

 

Yeah, I'll give that a shot.

 

 

Here's 1h dagger (not dual wielding) 50 dex naked:

 

 

 

 0 : Game is paused

 1 : Game is NOT paused

-------------------------------

 2 : Actor animations start playing 

-------------------------------

 6 : Attack animation_B begins (  6 -   1 =  5 frame attack delay)

13 : Idle animation begins ( 13 -   6 =  7 frame attack animation_B length)

17 : Recovery bar is full       ( 17 -  13 =  4 frame recovery delay)

31 : Recovery bar is empty ( 31 -  17 = 14 frame recovery length)

------------------------------- ( 31 -   1 = 30 frames total

 

36 : Attack animation_A begins ( 36 -  31 =  5 frame attack delay)

43 : Idle animation begins ( 43 -  36 =  7 frame attack animation_A length)

48: Recovery bar is full ( 48 -  43 =  5 frame recovery delay)

61: Recovery bar is empty ( 61 -  48 = 13 frame recovery length)

------------------------------- ( 61 -  31 = 30 frames total

 

66: Attack animation_A begins ( 66 -  61 =  5 frame attack delay)

74: Idle animation begins ( 74 -  66 =  8 frame attack animation_A length)

78: Recovery bar is full ( 78 -  74 =  4 frame recovery delay)

91: Recovery bar is empty  ( 91 -  78 = 13 frame recovery length)

------------------------------- ( 91 -  61 = 30 frames total

 

96: Attack animation_A begins ( 96 -  91 =  5 frame attack delay)

103: Idle animation begins (103 -  96 =  7 frame attack animation_A length)

108: Recovery bar is full (108 - 103 =  5 frame recovery delay)

121: Recovery bar is empty (121 - 108 = 13 frame recovery length)

------------------------------- (121 -  91 = 30 frames total

 

125: Attack animation_B begins (125 - 121 =  4 frame attack delay)

133: Idle animation begins (133 - 125 =  8 frame attack animation_B length)

137: Recovery bar is full (137 - 133 =  4 frame recovery delay)

150: Recovery bar is empty (150 - 137 = 13 frame recovery length)

------------------------------- (150 - 121 = 29 frames total

 

 

 

150 - 1 = 149 total frames

149 / 5 = 29.8 average frames per attack

 

Compared to 10 dex that's a 58.5 / 29.8 =  96.31% increase in attack speed -- not the expected 120% as shown on the character sheet.

 

If you do some wacky math you can get something predictive:

 

50 - 10 = 40 dex points above the 10 base

40 * 3 = 120%

 

1.0 + 1.20  = 2.2

1.0  /  2.2   = 0.455

1.0 - 0.455 = 0.545

58.5 * 0.545 = 31.8825     -- which is kinda close to 29.8 (off by 7%)

 

But, yeah, according to the data, the attack and recovery delays act like a global cooldown which is not affected (much) by the dexterity speed bonus... maybe by 1 frame each.

 

Doing the same for 18 dex:

 

18 - 10 = 8 dex points above the 10 base

  8 * 3   = 24%

 

1.0 + 0.24  = 1.24

1.0  /  1.24   = 0.81

1.0 - 0.81 = 0.19

58.5 * 0.19 = yeah, that doesn't work at all... we'll have to do math excluding the delay frames, unless you just want to go with a 19% decrease (but it's actually closer to 18%).  May as well just use a 2.25% per point of dex because it gives more accurate results:

 

50 dex: 50 - 10 = 40 ==> 40 * 2.25 = 90 ==> 1 + 90 / 100 = 1.90 ==> 58.5 / 1.90 = 30.79 (29.8 observed)

18 dex: 18 - 10 =  8 ==>    8 * 2.25 = 18 ==> 1 + 18 / 100 = 1.18 ==> 58.5 / 1.18 = 49.58 (49.71 observed)

14 dex: 14 - 10 =  4 ==>    4 * 2.25 =   9 ==> 1 +   9 / 100 = 1.09 ==> 58.5 / 1.09 = 53.67 (53 observed)

 

2.25 is just a number I pulled out of my ass.

Edited April 4, 2015 by Daemonjax

[kmbogd]

As I mentioned before, during my tests for dual wielding I did not get the recovery duration being 1.2*attack duration. It was mostly being equal to the attack duration.

[hugin7]

 

 

 

20 WeaponDmg vs 40 WeaponDmg

10DR

0 Dmg Mods

0 Accuracy Mods

 

Old Way:

20 Base -> 3.5 Dmg

40 Base -> 17 Dmg

Comparision 17/3.5=4.85 <- The Weapon with 40 Damage is 4.85 times better.

 

New Way:

20 Base -> 5 Dmg

40 Base -> 18.5 Dmg

Comparision 18.5/5=3.7 <- The Weapon with 40 Damage is 3.7 times better.

 

4.85/3.7= 1.31   -> the old calculation favors the higher weapon damage by 31% -> 31% inaccurate. thats nearly 1/3. clearly significant imo.

 

this would get worse if we had a situation with high dmg mods and critchance.

OK, I did this change, formula is monstrous now

 

 

Please verify if your changes are in, too.  Google Docs doesn't seem very robust as far as concurrent changes and merging is concerned.  Since we now have several contributors, we might be better off with real version control, such as SVN or Git.

 

Damn, it seems we have a conflict - it's either your or mine version. I've made a rollback to my version - you can verify if my changes are in bychecking if first sheet is called 'Main', also between focus gain and damage/dr table there should be another table with: Graze Chance Graze Damage Hit Chance Hit Damage Crit Chance Crit Damage

 

 

 

I'm not sure if SVN or GIT would help here as it would have to support merging xlsx files not code files which are plain text

 

 

I just merged my changes in, so I believe everything's in sync now.

 

While version control software can't properly merge .xslx files, it would prevent us from uploading a new file until we manually merge in the changes from the server.  Google Docs lets us overwrite each other's changes with no warning, though perhaps there are settings to prevent this.

[Baki]

 

you mean you and hugin? I've done nothing in the ciphers part

Yeah, me and him.

 

BTW

Could you put a link to the spreadsheet into your first post?

 

somehow i cant edit the first post.

[illathid]

 

 

you mean you and hugin? I've done nothing in the ciphers part

Yeah, me and him.

 

BTW

Could you put a link to the spreadsheet into your first post?

 

somehow i cant edit the first post.

 

There's a timer. You can only edit for a few hours after it's posted.

 

I know, it's lame.

[Myrten]

 

 

20 WeaponDmg vs 40 WeaponDmg

10DR

0 Dmg Mods

0 Accuracy Mods

 

Old Way:

20 Base -> 3.5 Dmg

40 Base -> 17 Dmg

Comparision 17/3.5=4.85 <- The Weapon with 40 Damage is 4.85 times better.

 

New Way:

20 Base -> 5 Dmg

40 Base -> 18.5 Dmg

Comparision 18.5/5=3.7 <- The Weapon with 40 Damage is 3.7 times better.

 

4.85/3.7= 1.31   -> the old calculation favors the higher weapon damage by 31% -> 31% inaccurate. thats nearly 1/3. clearly significant imo.

 

this would get worse if we had a situation with high dmg mods and critchance.

OK, I did this change, formula is monstrous now

 

 

gj. thanks!

 

i think it would be better to show dps values in the big damage table. 

 

i'm more interested in dps values vs certain DRs than pure dmg values. the one cell with avg dps is just not enough :/

 

DPS vs DR table is now in second sheet

[ErlKing]

So 2W fast actually pretty close to twohanded style in terms of dps, interesting.

[Hatred]

 So is dexterity doing anything or not ? I am a little confused by a few of the statements being made sorry.

[helmino]

 So is dexterity doing anything or not ? I am a little confused by a few of the statements being made sorry.

 

I'm curious too

[lionspaw]

So 2W fast actually pretty close to twohanded style in terms of dps, interesting.

 

Yes, my results doing math by hand are showing similar conclusion to the spreadsheet.

 

I think for melee rogues, dual wield is very competitive. You want to dual wield stiletto's, which is the Ruffian weapon specialization, which also comes with Sabre (really good slower one hander), Pistol and Blunderuss (good ranged weapons). 

 

If you go the two handed route, you have to pick the adventurer weapon specialization for Estoc, and the other weapons in that spec are just bad. 

[ErlKing]

Soldier was good choice before update for arbalest start followed by switching to pike or two-handed sword or warhammer with shield (for tanking), its still viable, but I guess with arqebus.

 

Btw, anyone considered comparing damage resistances by type for various monsters? Only tendency I noticed is that skeletons have really high pierce DR, but I wonder what about other kinds of monsters, maybe weapons with slash/crush, pierce/crush as viable as estoc if difference between DR types more than 5.

Edited April 5, 2015 by ErlKing

[ErlKing]

Anyone frapsed default speed of casting and recovery times for it? My impression is that spells have long casting time and really small recovery time, though I might mistake, but it makes me wonder if armor affect casting time or only recovery from spell?

[Akos]

 So is dexterity doing anything or not ? I am a little confused by a few of the statements being made sorry.

 

It is, it's just doing less than it displays on the character sheet, according to the information being presented. A couple of posts back I set my Dexterity to 999 and let my character loose upon the world for giggles. He was most definitely attacking at speeds that rivaled even the mightiest of super saiyans. 

Edited April 5, 2015 by Akos

[Hatred]

cheers.