2710: Animist Bomber Damage calc based on target level is low.

Reported by ★★ Yint at Sat, 29 Oct 2016 18:24:32 UTC
gamemechanic bug
resolved
0 votes

Description

Animist bomber damage seems that its not being calculated like is being casted by the level of the animist even though the wisps are yellow. The evidence from my test show that it is being treated differently than lifetap DD for damage calculations based on level of target.

For my test I compared the level 45 lifetap and the level 48 arb spec bomber on a level 50 animist with 50+15 arboreal skill attacking the 3 different test dummies.

Level 5 Dummy
-The 225 delve bomber hits for 682
-The 164 delve lifetap hits for 512
-The 37% higher delve bomber is hitting for 33% more damage than the lifetap.

Level 30 Dummy
-The 225 delve bomber hits for 594
-The 164 delve lifetap hits for 512
-The 37% higher delve bomber is hitting for 16% more damage than the lifetap.

Level 50 Dummy
-The 225 delve bomber hits for 396
-The 164 delve lifetap hits for 359
-The 37% higher delve bomber is hitting for 10% more damage than the lifetap.

Conclusions
-I would expect the bomber damage to be 37% more damage than the lifetap against a zero resist target, irregardless of the targets level.

-The level 48 bomber spell's damage is not hitting cap dmg on a level 30 dummy while the level 45 lifetap is capping.

-Since the bomber already took damage reduction on a level 30 target, it seems to penalize it even more on the level 50 dummy in comparison to the lifetap. The 37% higher delve is only yielding 10% more damage at this point.

-The damage cap of the bomber is only 34% higher instead of 37% on extreme low level targets.

Reproduction Steps

1. Reproduce my test in description of issue.
2.
3.

Intended Behavior

Correct bomber spells damage calculation for the level of the caster vs the level of the target.

Evidence

Reference issues #1207, #2686 and the comments in them.

Status

issue was resolved by Genjiro
1 player says this report is valid, 0 disagree

Comments

Loading Comments...