anybody got any info on diamond bolt spec?

 

like what %age of target defense it ignores.

and how much it boosts max hit

 

i doubt there's much info on the former, but it doesn't hurt to ask.

I thought it ignores your opponents def, meaning it will hit regardless.

 

Doesn't raise max hits or anything.

I thought it ignores your opponents def, meaning it will hit regardless.

 

Doesn't raise max hits or anything.

 

If it did ignore defense, it wouldn't GUARANTEE a hit, but it would make it extremely likely.

Gah, used to know how much it increased my max (pre lp update) but forget now =\

Was something like an increase from 38-41 though.

 

I remember years ago a forum thread with a j mod trying to explain how it worked... no one really understood.

Gah, used to know how much it increased my max (pre lp update) but forget now =\

Was something like an increase from 38-41 though.

 

I remember years ago a forum thread with a j mod trying to explain how it worked... no one really understood.

Jmods should post on TIF tbh

I rarely read RSOF, too many idiots.

:P

 

 

not to say there aren't idiots on here too ;)

 

highly unscientific, but when i use diamond bolts, i seem to do damage around 85-90% of the time.

badabump

I don't know the exact spec rates but I'm sure someone can do testing. When the spec happens the opponent's defense is set to 0 meaning that there is an equal distribution of hitting from 0 to the max hit. Also, I'm pretty sure the max increases by 10%.

I don't know the exact spec rates but I'm sure someone can do testing. When the spec happens the opponent's defense is set to 0 meaning that there is an equal distribution of hitting from 0 to the max hit. Also, I'm pretty sure the max increases by 10%.

Possibly, but I'm positive that I hit 0 with the specials more often than 1-300 or whatever my max happens to be.

I don't know the exact spec rates but I'm sure someone can do testing. When the spec happens the opponent's defense is set to 0 meaning that there is an equal distribution of hitting from 0 to the max hit. Also, I'm pretty sure the max increases by 10%.

Possibly, but I'm positive that I hit 0 with the specials more often than 1-300 or whatever my max happens to be.

 

Ya, according to the K-base (which i'm not saying its always right obviously)... "Chance of negating a size able portion of your opponent's defense against Ranged attacks."

 

To me this sounds like it ignores any ranged def boosts that armor gives. So instead of the following formula:

 

 

A = (Range Attack Level + Range Armor Bonus)

B = (Opponents Defense Level + Opponents Armor Ranged Defense)

If A > B = Hit

If B > A = Miss

 

It would be as follows:

 

A = (Range Attack Level + Range Armor Bonus)

B = (Opponents Defense Level)

If A > B = Hit

If B > A = Miss

 

So by removing the stats of your opponents defense you still have a high chance to hit, but can miss if you get a very low dice roll on your accuracy side of the equation.

 

In the Case of NPC's this pushes the idea that NPC's do have armor that they were for bonuses and weaknesses (Which is how Verac's special would also effect NPC's).

 

There is no real way to prove this, as accuracy is difficult to determine if you don't know all the variables, however it would be safe to say some component is being removed in the equation. Its just not really clear which component.

There is no real way to prove this, as accuracy is difficult to determine if you don't know all the variables, however it would be safe to say some component is being removed in the equation. Its just not really clear which component.

yeah but D&D dice roll based gameplay is pretty well accepted right now.

Would it be very hard to test it? Just thinking, the max hit with spec to max hit without spec ratio would give us the damage boost, and the accuracy on max range def with lowest range accuracy would give us an estimate of how much range def it ignores- perfect for testing in duel arena.

 

As far as i've seen(and i haven't made any numerical notes, beware), it seems to hit around 10% harder and ignore most of the targets defense against ranged(like max hit of ranged def* 0.1). There seems to be a higher number of hits above 300, but i'm not entirely sure about that.

There is no real way to prove this, as accuracy is difficult to determine if you don't know all the variables, however it would be safe to say some component is being removed in the equation. Its just not really clear which component.

yeah but D&D dice roll based gameplay is pretty well accepted right now.

 

Sorry, my paragraph didn't flow very well. What I meant was there was no way to prove that NPC's have separate defense and armor bonuses, since we don't know all the variables of accuracy and how defense level is weighted to armor defense.

 

And yes, you are correct that we can assume some sort of dice-roll is in play. The question is, what would be the best way to go about setting up a test to examine which function of the equation is getting removed?

 

1) You could test against someone with full armor and no armor to see if there is any major accuracy differences in specials. If not, it determines that armor bonuses themselves may be removed.

 

2) You could test 40 def vs 99 defense in rune armor, to see if there is any difference in special accuracy. If not, it determines that defense levels may be ignored.

 

3) If no noticeable changes occur on both of the above, the opponents total ranged defense may be reduced by a %, similar to how void boosts your total accuracy by a %.

Katori, you can't test against defense or defense bonuses, but you can test against defense max hit. From there, it isn't too hard to figure out which one of them is affected(just need 4 accuracy's- attack max hit nr 1 with and without spec; attack max hit nr 2 with and without spec).From what i've seen, around 100 hits with spec would be enough information to make quite conclusive assumptions based on it. The question is, who gives enough of a damn.