Rifleman Archive
Thread: What is with those damage numbers
Travek wrote:
because against ar0 creatures your dmg is (combat spam)x1.5x150% t21 is ap3 therefore you get a 150% bonus against ar0 creatures, therefore it is an armor issue.
um i thought we got a 25% bonus for each lvl above the armor??? 150% sounds a little much.
Travek wrote:
because against ar0 creatures your dmg is (combat spam)x1.5x150% t21 is ap3 therefore you get a 150% bonus against ar0 creatures, therefore it is an armor issue.
Waste93 wrote:
Travek wrote:
because against ar0 creatures your dmg is (combat spam)x1.5x150% t21 is ap3 therefore you get a 150% bonus against ar0 creatures, therefore it is an armor issue.
Incorrect. The T21 vs AR0 would be (1.25)*(1.25)*(1.25). Which is 195% damage. The damage bonus is 25% per step above and it's cumalative. That means one step up is 125%, two steps is 156%, and three is 195%.
You lose 50% damage per level the AR is above the AP. So AR3 vs AP2 is 50%. two steps down is 25% and three steps down is 12.5%.
The combat spam is the raw damage number. The floaty damage is the actual damage done. The floaty damage takes into account AP vs AR, armor level, resists, etc. The combat spam in the window is just the base damage.
There is one other issue to take into account. If the target is vulnerable to the damage type then it is considered to have AR0. However if vulnerable the weapon also does not get it's damage bonus. So if you use a T21 vs something vulnerable to energy you only do 100% damage. Not 195%. This is easy to see since the combat spam and floaty damage will be exactly the same.
SO the bonus is 95% and not 195% as 195% would be tripling your dmg output
MarcoRenaldi wrote:
SO the bonus is 95% and not 195% as 195% would be tripling your dmg output
Not exactly. Depends on how you word it. A 195% increase would be tripling. But 195% is the multiplier of the base damage. That results in (base damage) * (1.95).
So there is a 95% bonus. But it's also 195% of the base. So both ways of saying it are correct though it can beconfusing.
HARP00N wrote:
so its better for the target to have even as much as 40% resists vs your damage type rather than have no resists at allbecause then you lose your cumulative damage stack vs AR 0?
It can. Depends on the AP of the weapon and the AR of the target. I did some calculations in regards to player armor for the Wookiee debates.
It came out for wearing armor the cut off points were 20% AP2 and 36% AP3. That means if a player is wearing armor that has resists less than those vs damage types of those AP, they will take more damage than not wearing armor.
There was a post many months ago that was stickied on this forum that had the break downs for all the AP and AR combinations.
You can probably search for it or do the calculations yourself. Basically a target is 100% vs all damage types it's vulnerable to. AR doesn't matter.
You then compare it with the AP vs AR and factor in resists. If that number drops below 100% then you are better off using the vulnerable damage type.
Example. Target vulnerable to Stun (Jawa Rifle). Target is in composite and you are using a T21 (energy). The T21 normaly would do 156% damage while the Jawa does 100% (assumes no stun layers). If the composite is say only resist 10% energy that reduces the T21 from 156% to (1.56)*(.9). That means 141% so you are still better off using the T21. But if the resist is say 50% then it drops the T21 to 78%. That is less than the 100% for the vulnerable type and your better off using the Jawa.
If I've done my math correctly (feel free to make any corrections, my math is a little rusty) the cut off points should be about as follows.
Three step difference (AP3 vs AR0) 49%.
Two step difference (AP3 vs AP1, AR2 vs AR0) 36%
One step difference (AP3 vs AR2, AP2 vs AR1, AP1 vs AR0) 20%
Those numbers should mean that if the target has the listed resist or lower use the AP weapon. If the resist is greater than the listed number use the vulnerable damage type weapon.
One other thing. Special Protect superceedes Effectiveness. So even if a target has a higher Effectiveness then Special Protection for a damage type, you still use the Special Protection. Why they have two categories here I don't know. It would seem simpler if they just moved it all to effectiveness and dumped Special Protection all together.
nitemare111 wrote:
Nice explanation, Waste. I prefer to use the Drop method of figuring damage, myself.
Shoot it 'till it drops, that's when you've hit the cutoff point.
HARP00N wrote:
and resistances are taken account after AP calculation? Would there be a difference if it was the other way around?
Nope. No difference for the same reason that 5 * 2 * 3 = 30 and 5 * 3 * 2 = 30.