1.0 was here: http://uorforum.com/threads/weapon-damage.10139/ The spreadsheet that was developed there was ruined by some asshole. Thanks. The conclusion of 1.0 was: 1) roll damage 2) calculate combat effectiveness 3) multiply roll by combat effectiveness 4) apply bonus damage(s) 5) apply armor With a CA calculated like this: Combat Ability = (Tactics - 49) + (anatomy)(0.2) + 0.1 if (anatomy = 100) + (strength)(0.2) The conclusion was: You can drop str or tactics without any influence on the damage, as long as you still manage to get the CA maxed. --- 2.0 was here: http://uorforum.com/threads/weapon-damage.15225/ I think the spreadsheet here is VERY confusing/wrong. The formula is totally different to that one in 1.0 as it works that way: 1 - Roll Damage 2 - Tactics Mod to DMG 3 - Str Mod to dmg 4 - Anat Mod to dmg 5 - Add #2, #3, #4 6 - Divide #5/2 7 - Multiply CA to #6 With this formula, tactics directly influences the dmg dealt. Independent of maxed CA or not. --- And then I once started a thread discussing LJ and slayer bonus application: http://uorforum.com/threads/how-does-weapon-damage-calculation-work.10444/ We ended with the formula: ((((base)*tactics))+magical modifier)))+LJ bonus)))) * 2(for slayers) But you can see for yourself, that this formula doesn't make much sense. At least in it's first part with base*tactics. Apart from that, there are way too many brackets closed in the formula. --- This overall confusion is enhanced by very secretive hints from staff who obviously don't want to share the UO:R formulas, else this would have been posted and provided long ago instead of these very unhelpful hints: Chris after quoting the default RunUO formulas: "Our combat mechanics are similar but they are based on a much more simple fact. If a weapon was designed by OSI to generate a damage range to a target of 8-32 damage our combat system will achieve that. With factors like magical bonuses, lumberjacking, durability being factored into the final result." Chris in another thread: "Our combat system was based on the following factors. Understanding the goals of the original OSI developers. Meeting the expectations of the players when using a specific weapon. Properly taking into account the effects skills have on the combat effectiveness process. (Modifying the damage roll). Providing players with the understood damage modifiers for weapons. Rewarding players who add the lumber jacking skill to their template with a more stable bonus damage. The following statements are also true. You can mitigate a reduction in your players strength with the use of a strength potion/spell or tactics bonus weapon. You can mitigate, to a lesser degree, a lack of tactics with the application of a tactics bonus weapon or strength potion/spell. You can mitigate a lack of anatomy skill with the application of a tactics weapon or strength potion/spell. You cannot however exceed a certain point by modifying your tactics and strength values. It is only applied after the combination of those 3 factors. This is based on our understanding of the maximum effect your skills can have on a damage roll. To exceed a weapons base damage you would need an exceptional or magical weapon. Or application of the bonus from lumberjacking. To be clear this is something custom that the Renaissance staff came up with after months and months of testing across the combat spectrum. We even designed the combat log book as a tool to assist us in getting it write, a large project in its own right." --- So, yeah, this is the confusing situation in which we are right now. Who's able to help out? Who has more knowledge about this messed up calculations? Did somebody safe the 1.0 spreadsheet and can provide it? Is the combat log on the test server still available? Can I or someone else get GM rights there in order to run simulations? There is also special confusion about slayers and whether they have a different formula. IMO it's all messed up so far.
I think those in charge of this don't see a problem. If they do, I would have thought they would have said at least once something like... "I agree. I think there is something wrong." I was given a work around for sub standard weapon performance though, it might help some of you. Were you to pair your weapon skills with a bard skill or better yet, taming... all the issues fade away. ... I would focus on two questions. Is CA changed from classic to always be a min of 40% regardless of skills/stats? Why is the combat log book gone?
Okay, after discussing a bit with Erlkonig, he explained to me that v2 has been derived from testing on the test server. So if this is true, and it looks like it is, anatomy always influences the final dmg, even with capped CA. A simple test would be to check the dmg rolls of a +0 weapon with a +25 weapon of the same type on a maxed CA toon (e.g. 100str, 100 tactics, 100 anatomy). But so far, it looks like v2 is correct... (Some other players also told me, that it seems like tactics always matter --> higher max dmg)
Could it also be that anatomy gets +30% at GM, while at 99.9 it only gives +19.98%. I think it might be the +10%@GM bonus that is making anatomy so boss hog. Tactics is a linear increase so subtracting small amounts wont make as big of an impact and, it influences BASE weapon damage by a %, so its effect on damage increase will vary from weapon to weapon depending on the size of the weapons base damage.
You are right Zim. It's additional +10% when GM. So plus 0.3 with 100 in anatomy. But I think that's already reflected in all the formulas.
