Xavius2007-08-29 18:29:07
QUOTE(mitbulls @ Aug 29 2007, 07:08 AM) 436979
Ya, I should have clarified. It's not that one-handers get 8/3 as many criticals, but a one-hander has 8/3 the chance of getting a creature-killing critical on a given denizen compared to a two-hander (or mage, or anyone else).
Which would still be wrong, since it's not a constant number, and the ratio could never exceed 200%.
Unknown2007-08-29 18:57:08
QUOTE(Xavius @ Aug 29 2007, 01:29 PM) 437000
Which would still be wrong, since it's not a constant number, and the ratio could never exceed 200%.
You are somewhat right. I was remembering the comparison from one-hander warriors to mages, which gave them 8/3 because high-speed weapons can hit faster than mage attacks. Here is the quote I was thinking of, though it is just one example of many out there that say the same general thing:
QUOTE(Shorlen) 359019
So, assume a creature has 10,000 health. Assume a warrior can hit it for 350, and a mage can hit it for 1,000. The warrior hits twice every 3 seconds, the mage hits once every 4 seconds. A WSCH from either kills it in one blow, and the warrior gets 8 chances for this every 12 seconds. The mage gets 3 chances for this every 12 seconds.
Now assume another creature has 20,000 health. The warrior now needs two WSCHs, and the mage still only needs one. The warrior has 8/3rds the number of chances as the mage to get these. Therefore, probabilistically, the warrior is still better off than the mage.
Even if a warrior and a mage have equal DPS, the damage increase from a WSCH changes things a lot. If a warrior just barely kills something, and a mage does three times the creature's maximum health, the thing is just as dead. The number of critical hit chances is very significant, and warriors get 8/3rds as many of them as non-warriors do.
Now assume another creature has 20,000 health. The warrior now needs two WSCHs, and the mage still only needs one. The warrior has 8/3rds the number of chances as the mage to get these. Therefore, probabilistically, the warrior is still better off than the mage.
Even if a warrior and a mage have equal DPS, the damage increase from a WSCH changes things a lot. If a warrior just barely kills something, and a mage does three times the creature's maximum health, the thing is just as dead. The number of critical hit chances is very significant, and warriors get 8/3rds as many of them as non-warriors do.
So, the point here (and in other places) is still that one-handed warriors come out over typical classes easily. The same idea applies for one-handers vs two-handers, though you're right that the ratio would be 2/1 instead of 8/3, assuming all specializations can whittle their attack speed down so that a two-hander attack speed is the same as one-hander combo speed. Also, the 2/1 an 8/3 ratios do not actually describe the chance to get a creature-killing critical hit, but the chance to get a given type of critical hit. I had the details all mixed up (I always sucked at math and statistics, which is ironic considering I'm a computer programmer with a Psychology degree), but the end point is still the same.
