I was reviewing sources of information tonight and wondering why I was finding discrepancies in some of my calculations and oddities in damage ranges on uthgard. Every logged test I made of my composite 51 spec test gave me a range that was consistant of 100%-141% variance range. In one test I had 1 +1 spec and the variance did not confirm to the 25-125% rate that was stated by mythic and many other web sources. For example, my character at 1 +1 spec did a min hit of 53 on reinforced, and the max hit logged was 91.

The same char, same gear, but with composite 51 spec hit the target for 88-131 (approximately 100-150% range). On a test on leather armor, the damage range was 98-139 (approx 100-141/42%) and on scale, it was 78-111 (approx 141/142%) So far 2 tests lean towards the 141% theory. These are all 1000+ hit sample sizes btw. Bow tests yield pretty much the same thing. All tests seemed to be using the 141% mark at the high end.


Up until now, every source of information about variance (from mythic, and even team leads) stated variance ranges were 25-125% at 1 spec, and 100-150% at 50/51 spec. When I was looking back over testing logs from live (by wyrd and artemis) I discovered that the variance ranges in these also seemd to be 100-141% at composite 51 specs.

Wyrds info spreadsheet. Notice the reaver spec changes. 53-74 damage means that this follows a 100-141% variance rate?

http://www.classesofcamelot.com/other/s ... cTests.xls


Artemis test

http://web.archive.org/web/200509070037 ... nskill.htm

Log 1 has the lowest damage at 100 and highest being 142. Again, does this mean that it follows the 100-141% rate also?


I have several concerns and questions over this as basically all my theories/calculations have been done based on the researched information that damage variance took the previously mentioned form. My questions are:

1. Am i mistaken in my assumption that the live game uses something different than what mythic , team leads and many other people on the web have posted on? In short, are the 100-150% rules false, and if so, where do I find a list of how the variance SHOULD look with any given specialization into a skill up to 51 spec?

2. If damage variance is following 100-141% at composite 51 specs, how does one calculate the variance growth at lower specs or unspecced chars (i.e 1 spec) ?

Dunno if this is related to the subject, but on my lvl 44 SB, my damage variance is pretty messy even with 39+6 (I think) Axe. Using LA styles with 44+9 LA if that matters.

well, LA is a seperate beast from what I am talking about. LA mechanics are basically a penalty to damage that you spec in to decrease its effects against you. What I am referring to is the actual variance range on the base damage.

I just know that if you have 100% of your lv on weapon spec you should do 100+% and here you don't

demiurgo can you clarify? or perhaps add some examples of the things you have noticed?

50 weapon -> 75% - 125% melee variance.. there was a grab bag in former times, maybe i need to look it up again.

If you are referring to [url = http://www.camelotherald.com/more/474.shtml] THIS[/url] then I am afraid it lists the 50 / 51 spec variance as 100-150, not 75-125. However this is the problem I was referring to where mythic lists these but the actual recorded testing by players indiciates something else.

See http://vnboards.ign.com/Midgard_Rogue_P ... 2/78799461

for an example where wyrd is listing his logs and findings in his excel sheet. You will notice that at composite 51 specs on his flexible weapons, he is doing 53-75 for min max. This is roughly 141% , and not the 150% variance as stated by mythic.


A second and completely seperate test by artemis

http://web.archive.org/web/200509070037 ... nskill.htm

has in the logs, min max damages which are also 141% variance mark and not the 150% as stated by mythic. These are all 1000+ sample size hits and all at 51spec or higher.

All of this is why i am throwing doubt on the original information given by mythic and I would like to find out what the 'real' variance rates are at certain specs. For example I would like to know if i was 1 spec, would my variance be 25-125? or would it be 75-125? If i were 28 spec would it be 75 - 125, and if i were 50 spec should it be 100-141 of base damage?

From Valmerwolf site (it's a quite famous italian site) http://www.valmerwolf.com/doc/manarmi.htm (on top right you can see the date 23/10/05)
I try to translate this part
"- Con nessuna specializzazione il vostro danno varia dal 25% a 125% del danno di base (determinato dalle stats dell’arma e dal vostro livello).

- Fino a 2/3 di specializzazione il minimo danno cresce linearmente fino al 75%. Infatti a 2/3 di specializzazione varierà da 75% a 125%.

- Passati i 2/3, minimo e massimo varieranno fino a 100%-150% nel caso in cui abbiate la specializzazione al massimo.

La curva è morbida e non si hanno salti nella formula, quindi un livello 10 con 10 di specializzazione avrà 100%-150%, un livello 10 con specializzazione 9 avrà 90%-140%

Tenete presente che i punti aggiuntivi degli oggetti contano in questo calcolo."

In english

"- With no specialization your damage modify from 25% to 75% of the base dmg (given from weapon stats and your level)
- Training to 2/3 of your level spec your minimal damage increase linearly to 75%. At 2/3 of spec your damage will go from 75% to 125%.
- After 2/3 your minimal and max damage will go to 100% and 150% if you have max specialization. (this mean with 50 weapon your minimal hit is 100% of the dmg, max is 150%)

There are no "jumps" in the formula, so your dmg will increase linearly. A lv 10 with 10 spec in weapon will do 100%-150%, a lv 10 with 9 in weapon will do 90%-140%.

Bonus points from items count as spec points."

demiurgo i think you had a typo =P

""- Con nessuna specializzazione il vostro danno varia dal 25% a 125% del danno di base (determinato dalle stats dell’arma e dal vostro livello). "

25-125 % =)

In any event..i think the test logs show more evidence than anything else, However the problem is in finding test logs where someone had only 1 spec or 10 spec or 20, etc to show the changes in the variance. You need 2-3 points of comparision to be able to effectively derive any solid conclusions (i think). At the top end of things, I believe I have shown what the variance rate should be, however what is in question is everything below 51 spec.