So I decided to test strength and weapon attributes. I did this using a candy cane sword because the damage is constant, and there's no req. Some of this is old hat, but I'm not sure I've seen all this info in one place, backed up with actual numbers, so here it is. Mayhap some will find it useful;
1. Weapon attribute increases critical hit rate, but only when using weapon skills.
2. Strength's armor reduction feature only works when using weapon skills. It has zero impact on normal hits.
3. Armor penetration from penetrating attack DOES NOT STACK with armor penetration from strength.
4. Critical hits do not increase additive damage from skills.
5. Armor does not affect additive damage from skills in any way.
For my first test, I started at 1 swordsmanship, 1 strength, and slowly increased swordsmanship to 12. As I did so, damage went up as expected, to 8 pts on a normal hit and 11 on a crit at 12 swords/1 strength. What is interesting is that my critical rate did not change at all.
Then, I increased strength, up to 12/12, and my damage stayed exactly the same, 8 normal, 11 crit. Critical rate did not change.
I repeated the test using savage slash, sever artery, and hamstring, as none of those skills add damage. This time I started with 12 swordsmanship, and just upped strength. At 1 strength, I got 1 pt of extra damage when using the skills; 9 normal, 12 crit. Raising strength to 12 only netted me another 2 pts; 11 normal, 14 crit.
I noticed my critical rate went way up tho, so I tried again with swords at 1, and upped it to 12, and the crit rate on the skills roughly doubled as I did so.
I tested again using Galrath, with 12 swords 12 strength. At 12 swordds, the skills dds 32 damage. My slashes were hitting for 43/46, which is exactly the 11/14 of the earlier test plus the expected 32. This proves that crits do not increases additive damage.
I repeated the above test with a candy cane AXE and penetrating attack. If that skills armor penetration stacked with strength, then I should get more damage as I raise my strength while using the skill. This did not happen. The damage stayed exactly the same. I tried again against enemies with higher armor, then lower armor, and even got strength up to 14 and no change. This can only be because the skills' 20% subsumes strenght's penetration.
Anyway, that's what i did today when I was bored of not getting greens on SF runs. :)
PC Gaming News
Results 1 to 9 of 9

10042006, 16:40 #1
 Posts
 852
Strength, mastery, crits and damage

10042006, 16:59 #2
Er, my english not good. You are suggesting a warrior should max out mastery, with strength coming second?

10042006, 18:23 #3
#1 is news to me, and I always wondered about #3.
The other can be gleaned from the articles on dmg calculation, but its great to see some actual tests.

10042006, 21:23 #4Originally Posted by Massacre
While it is true that SonOfRah never found the exact formula for calculating the percent chance of criticals from your weapon's "Mastery" attribute, he did perform enough tests to come up with a close approximation. Other people who tried to confirm/refute his approximate formula never yeilded conclusive results. For example, in the following thread you can see a guy who tried two trials of 100 autoattacks. In one, he had a mastery of 9 and got 32 crits. In the second, he had a master of 13 and got 52 crits. You'll note that BOTH of these values are much higher than the 16% chance that SonOfRah postulates for a rank of 12.
http://forums.gwonline.net/showthrea...highlight=crit
My point? That you need a *very* large sample population to yield significant results that will refute SonOfRah's description, or that will refute the currently held majority observation that the base crit chance seems to apply to autoattacks.
For my own part, I'll vouch for the fact that my Assassin in FPE seemed to crit roughly 1 in 5 attacks (close to 16%) when my Dagger Mastery was at 12, and that was *without* any ranks in critical strikes.
We'll never know for sure until somebody does some extensive testing of autoattacks on target dummies using a bonafide method to show only the true crits (such as no Critical Strikes but running Critical Eye at all times so you can count the +1Es as they float up), and running tests of closer to 1000 to 2000 autoattacks per rank in weapon mastery.

11042006, 04:05 #5
 Posts
 168
Originally Posted by Aramaki
Originally Posted by Massacre
Hmmmm

11042006, 04:27 #6
 Posts
 852
Any skew on crit rate for normal attacks based on mastery would have been obvious when I was attacking with 2 swordsmanship. If the skill made any difference, I'd expect to be hitting roughly 0% crits with no ranks in it, yet I was hitting them about 20% of the time, same I was was with 12 ranks. My samples for the normal hits were about 100 each, tho I will admit my samples for the skills were smaller.
Again tho, if swordsmanship skewed crits on autoattacks, there would be an immediate and obvious nearabsence of them while running no or nexttono points in the attribute. This was not the case.

11042006, 14:25 #7Originally Posted by Massacre
Here are the results, which clearly show a progression of crit rate that is consistent with SonOfRah's *fuzzy* formula. I've broken down each of the results into a total crit amount for the entire 400 hits, followed by a breakdown of the crits that occurred in each 100 hits to show how wide the variance can be per hundred.
Also note that 400 hits is still way too small of a sample size to show a conclusive percentage crit rate. But it *is* large enough to clearly show trend, which is what I was after.
Code:0 ranks: 0 crits (0, 1, 0, 1) 1 ranks: 10 crits (1, 4, 2, 3) 4 ranks: 22 crits (7, 6, 4, 5) 9 ranks: 49 crits (6, 14, 17, 12) 13 ranks: 60 crits (11, 16, 20, 23)
How do these observations compare with what SonOfRah's formula would predict?
Critical hit chance = (1+[1.25*Attribute])*2^ ([CLVL  TLVL]/5)
Code:0 ranks = 1.00% (1+[1.25* 0])*2^ ([20  20]/5) 1 ranks = 2.25% (1+[1.25* 1])*2^ ([20  20]/5) 4 ranks = 6.00% (1+[1.25* 4])*2^ ([20  20]/5) 9 ranks = 12.25% (1+[1.25* 9])*2^ ([20  20]/5) 13 ranks = 17.25% (1+[1.25*13])*2^ ([20  20]/5)
Code:0 ranks: 0.50% observed, 1.00% predicted 1 ranks: 2.50% observed, 2.25% predicted 4 ranks: 5.50% observed, 6.00% predicted 9 ranks: 12.25% observed, 12.25% predicted 13 ranks: 15.00% observed, 17.25% predicted

11042006, 15:49 #8
 Posts
 28
My guess (yes, a guess) is that Anet wouldnt make it too difficult to work at crit chance, and i presume that at 12 Mastery you have a 15% chance to critical.
Thats just a outoftheblue guess, but thats what i think

11042006, 21:45 #9
I agree you need a good sample size to aproximate an actual percentage. But even for Massacre's small sample size, the result were significant. Remember, he's not going for conclusive percentage.
Shaktiboi saw:
Code:0 ranks: 0 crits (0, 1, 0, 1) 1 ranks: 10 crits (1, 4, 2, 3) 4 ranks: 22 crits (7, 6, 4, 5) 9 ranks: 49 crits (6, 14, 17, 12) 13 ranks: 60 crits (11, 16, 20, 23)
Code:1 ranks: 20 crits (~20)  only 1 set of 100 hits 2 ranks: 20 crits (~20) etc. 9 ranks: 20 crits (~20) 12 ranks: 20 crits (~20)
The difference in the results IS statistically signifigant enough to detect an anomolly, especially on the low end. Expecting 1%, and seeing 02% is fairly reasonable out of 100 samples. With an expected value of ~1% and recieving 20% over 100 data points is not within the normal bounds of testing, and should send out some red flags.
It's much more likely that the particular weapon he used has some *SPECIAL* properties to it. Especially since its oddity to begin with.