Yup, that's pretty much how it goes.

But...

Couldn't one argue that, since with less strength and more dex, a larger percentage of your damage rolls will "zero out" on a sword (meaning they'll roll less than the monster's defense, making you deal 0 damage), going less strength/more dex with a sword would increase your average damage by a negligible amount? (As compared to axes and other weapons which never "zero out.")

@ massivelybored: he's not comparing builds, he's comparing weapon types. Read the first post again.



Ofc.

This post was edited by iin77 on Jan 25 2009 06:01pm

thats just only one example

they make the same effect (same avg dmg.) on the long run, that has been proved mathematically




yeah, thats true
but its another thing, we are talking about dmg now

This post was edited by ButUCItsNotMeItsNotMyFamilyInUrH on Jan 25 2009 05:57pm

you could, but then again you're on a different playing field, because though more of the monster's defense is "wasted" you're not doing as much damage as you would with optimal multiplier
so it would really depend on how many more 0's you'd be hitting and by how much under the defense as compared to how much it lowers your average multiplier damage by
but it's almost negligible like you said so yourself

I wouldn't call it ignorance as much as I would say personal preference.

I climb with a set of clubs, using an all str build now, and before when I evenly distributed dex/str I found I killed slower.

I don't care what your math says.

you obviously didn't read it properly because you're missing the main point

first page

first page

To call those who think differently than you based on their own experiences versus your theoretical mathematics is rather ironic

to me..that is ignorance as Experience = Wisdom regarding an event or situation.

Hypotheticals are fictional events without solid outcomes.

Its kind of like comparing inductive reasoning to deductive reasoning, Your approach starts with one problem or question and ends up with multiple solutions that are all possible. Theres is more like deductive reasoning they start with the same situation or problem and end up with one result that they find supreme based on processes like trial and error and elimination.

I would take cold hard facts and experience over theoretical equations anyday..Your math may be spot on or it could not be in every single encounter that VARIES with luck as criticals are random..not fixed.

Their outcome is always the same e.g. always 3 hits to kill a 2k life monster (Unless they crit in which case..they could actually end up killing in the same amount of hits as you even when your criticaling)

In the long run that can save you up to 200+ life from not taking that extra 4th hit you would of taken by using a dex build depending on criticals..you could argue the same that those criticals could save you the same amount of life.

But realistically whats more likely? On an average basis you are going to critical one out of every 3 hits (Leading to the monster dying in 2 hits) or they aren't going to kill the monster in 3 hits even though basic math says its almost a certainty?

Criticals being random will give the pure str build the advantage 7/10 minimum.


In my personal opinion your math isn't really 100% reliable as you aren't accounting for the fact criticals aren't guaranteed they are random so when you don't crit your damage could very well fall behind that of a pure str build of the same type...ESPECIALLY in short periods as apposed to long ones.

Oh and this guy he is my new hero..^^ I don't know why exactly but he seems knowledgeable & outspoken and those are two nice attributes to combine.

if you would even read what I said
the whole point of this thread is to show that if a certain build is good for axes it is good for swords and vice versa
and that the type of weapon you wear should have nothing to do with how you allocate your stat points