Немного теорикрафта от наших друзей с офффорума____________ INTRODUCTION ____________
As a "power gamer" I tend to be a perfectionist in how I handle my skill/stat paths to maximize my potential in game. Before I "get into" a game I almost always read up on which choices of builds I like best and see if I can actually find universal "better thans," despite the game claiming "no strategy or class is better than the other" jargin. Before I actually loaded WoW, i spent 2 weeks writing down every bit of information on builds, potential combo ideas, tactics and other research I could in order to know my path before I even installed it. In my personal experience, if you truly boil down the numbers... one race, one class, one skill or tactic always comes out on top, or at least... more of the time, in more situations. I realize games SHOULD be designed in a way that prevents such a bias but its really hard to do such a thing on an "uber nerd" level when you're taking every mathematical factor into account. I hope this thread doesnt influence too many people to begrudgingly take one path versus another theyd enjoy more. Im only posting this to help MYSELF, to find which path i like best, because i dont have all the information nor outside suggestions or arguments on the subject... and i need them... so please feel free to post comments, arguments, or added info that would make this post more clear and accurate. Happy killing
______________ METHOD ______________
I started researching this stuff only to find limited information online and in the guide so I decided to do my own numbers on dps, etc. There are a lot of factors that influence swing speed, damage, etc so I used the console cheats to factor all the possibilities out. I used a digital countdown clock to calculate swing rates and the rest is either speculation or values from in game. I realize this clock method is very primitive.
Damage: The different damage variables I acknowledged were weapon skill, perks and weapon quality. Weapon skill (1h or 2h) only influences the damage output of the associated weapon, not its swing speed. When "improving" a weapon at a forge (with 100 smithing) one can almost double its damage potential by making it "Legendary". Additionally, through the perks menu one can exactly double any weapons damage in addition to the earlier damage modifiers. I used the same quality of weapon throughout... Daedric... Im guessing that other material types might have a better/worse ratio COMPARATIVELY WITHIN their material types but overall, I doubt any other materials will have higher ratings THAN Daedric.
Swing Speed: I did swing speeds for all weapons including 1x1h versus 2x1h (dual wielding) versus 2h. I took a digital timer and set it for 30 seconds... I wanted to do longer for better accuracy but I realized that any longer period of time would result in a higher chance of "swing stuttering" to occur from the graphics card or game processing. I realize a longer time sequence would result in more accurate dps numbers, especially since many weapons were "in between swings" when the clock reached zero. I always rounded down in this case, which admittedly might not be the best solution. I only counted regular swings, not power attacks and to make sure I ONLY swung regular strikes, I used the console to put my Stamina perpetually at 0. I haven't noticed a difference in swing rate of regular attacks if STA is set at 0 or max (but maybe im wrong?), it only seems to affect the ability to use power atks. In previous TES games there was a "sweet spot" in the mouse click rate to swing, if you clicked too early or quickly, the next weapon swing would stutter but if you clicked within the "sweet spot" rate, you would get maximum swing speed. I havent noticed this factor in Skyrim so Im assuming this wasnt implemented. Because of this, I used a turbo-click macro to get the fastest consistent swing rates. I also didnt have any armor and only had the weight of the weapon(s) I was immediately timing on my person, although Im not sure if weight or armor has any influence on rate at all. It might influence STA cost per swing or Patk cost but that wasnt a factor since my STA was at 0 anyways.
______________ DATA ______________
- Base dam = data from prima guide on weapons, guessing 0 in skill and no perks, etc. Max dam = 100 in skill, the 5 perks related to damage% and legendary smithing quality of the item. Thats all. Again, all were done with Daedric weapons.
base dam / max dam
Dagger - 11 / 63 * x 2 with dual?
Sword - 14 / 72 * x 2 with dual?
Waraxe - 15 / 74 * x 2 with dual?
Mace - 16 / 78 * x 2 with dual?
G Sword - 24 / 102
Bat Axe - 25 / 105
War Hamm - 27 / 111
# swings in 30 sec / dual // per 1 sec / dual
Dagger - 43 / 24 // 1.43 / 0.80
Sword - 34 / 19 // 1.13 / 0.63
Waraxe - 31 / 17 // 1.03 / 0.57
Mace - 28 / 15 // 0.93 / 0.50
G Sword - 27 / X // 0.90 / X
Bat Axe - 27 / X // 0.90 / X
War Ham - 23 / X // 0.77 / X
dam over 5 sec (avg fight) / dual weap
Dagger - 451 / 504
Sword - 407 / 454
Waraxe - 386 / 428
Mace - 363 / 390
G Sword - 459 / X
Bat Axe - 473 / X
War Ham - 427 / X
* Note - Again, this data is primitive at best both in method and because it does not include enchantments, Patks or weapon effects. I'll talk more about those.
___________ Speculative ____________
In addition to the core data above there are a few other fundamental things that influence the comparable effectiveness of weapons. Almost all weapons have an added effect that's uniquely poised towards that theme of weapon exclusively (not including enchantments). Bladed weapons like Swords and G Swords have a perk tree related to criticals, blunt weapons like the War Hammer and Mace have armor penetration perks, and War Axes and Battle Axes cause bleeding on the enemy. This makes choosing a weapon style even more complicated as these added effects can influence a weapon's relative effectiveness even more so than the simple comparison of DPS above. For the most part this information isn't out there on the net yet in core dissected math, so a bit of this is speculative, if not all of it, seeing as these effects will probably undergo some form of "balancing" in the future patches to the game... who knows.
Bleeding:Bleeding is a damage over time effect added to War Axes and Battle Axes that procs whenever you strike an opponent. The prima guide describes bleeding as follows, "The exact amount of bleeding depends on the axe but in general this perk causes each hit to do 1-3 dam each second for 3-6 secs..." This quote is in regards to the bleeding related perks, im not sure if the weapons have the effect intrinsically or only when you select those perks. Bleeding status in other games traditionally negated armor which can be useful on high armored foes. I assume in this game, the same applies? Also, it seems to stack with, "each hit" although who knows if there is a cap. I would assume that bleeding only applies to living creatures, not to undead or creations. Generally speaking, I don't usually go for weapons with this status for a few reasons. For starters, the math in it isn't as linear nor clear as it is for other statuses like armor penetration or criticals. For example, lets say you have a weapon that swings once a second and you're fighting a creature that takes roughly 6 swings (6 sec) to die, assuming there's no fancy melee tactics going on. Damage from bleeding wouldn't see its full potential over all of the swings because only the first strike would have gone through the full 6 second duration, with each following swing seeing 1 less tick of damage against the creature (in terms of bleeding effect). The last blow wont even see any bleeding damage against the creature at all most likely. Its difficult to know the real effectiveness of your weapon's effect when it behaves like this and for that reason I don't like this as an option. In it of itself, bleeding IS more effective on longer fights than shorter ones but in contrast to other choices of effects, id much rather have armor penetration... i think? Doing the math on a 6 swing / roughly 6 second fight, with the maximum bleeding effect the guide gives, you would maybe see 63 total damage (possibly through armor) against a foe. If this creature takes 6 swings to kill with a massive weapon like a daedric war hammer... the war hammer would be inflicting roughly 666 dam over 6 swings (without armor) in contrast to the minor addition of 63 dam you'd get if it had bleeding on it. Assuming there IS armor on the creature, you might see 400s in damage over those 6 swings. The comparable difference in 63 inflicted damage from bleeding, versus the roughly 100+ damage you'd see against that same high armored foe from armor penetration would make bleeding less effective overall but more effective on lower leveled creatures, where 63 damage is considered a lot in comparison to your total weapons damage. If the weapon nets 200 damage in 6 swings over 6 seconds, then 63 is a big addition and more so if the fight goes longer. As you get into uber levels and uber damage numbers, the effectiveness of bleeding would most likely dwindle proportionally to the massive numbers you're getting from your uber weapons. In an epic fight where it may take 50 swings to bring something down, you could be more broad in your bleed-math and assume that each swing would add roughly 18 total damage to your weapon because virtually all swings would result in full bleeding effect over such a long time scale.
The argument against this is in using dual wield war axes tho... oooohhhh. Swinging away like crazy with TWO of them at 36 damage each double-swing makes it all seem more interesting not to mention the more numerous swings with lighter weapons. Doing some very hypothetical math here... with dual daedric war axes at 75 dam each (including dam perks/smithing etc), while adding 18 dam from bleeding to each weapon would give you roughly 106 dam per sec on long fights. Yet even still, dualing swords would net you 90.8 or so dps and that's WITHOUT criticals worked into the equation, let alone maces with armor penetration. I didn't include the perk related to dual weapon swing rate because it would increase both swords, maces, daggers and war axes proportionally and this section is about the differences in the effects, not 1h vs 2h yet. If you could add the bleeding effect to daggers then it would be considerable but then the perks related to bleeding wouldn't apply to the dagger because the perk is for axes specifically. Ultimately, Im still not sure if axes are a viable option VERSUS other choices, if you're looking for outright effectiveness but honestly, axes are my favorite melee weapon in games and in real life (hypothetically). If sh*t went down in my neighborhood and I had to pick a weapon from my nerd wall of armaments, id rush for the quick swinging hand axe over a sword, it feels better, it hits through armor and crushes bone better and it looks barbaric muahaha.
Criticals:Criticals occasionally happen during a fight with various weapons whereby the damage of a single swing is increased by %50, so the swing does roughly 1.5 times the damage it would normally do. It doesn't negate armor, that still needs to be worked into the equation, but overall the math influencing criticals is very generous in this game. Again, I don't know anything about the general behavior of criticals, whether or not all weapons have them or if only Swords and G Swords have it. I also don't know what the base percentage chance of criticals occurring is without the perks relating to it, all I have is the information from the guide which states, "When a weapon scores a critical hit, it deals 50% more damage, more for ranks 2 and 3. Statistically this perk works out to a 5% boost in your average dam over time at rank 1, and a 15% boost by rank 3..." Now since the first rank in the perk tree related to this quote says, "Attacks with swords have a 10% chance of doing critical damage." it would appear that criticals may only apply to the sword family because 10% at rank 1 seems like a starting point for criticals all together. I haven't played this game enough to know whether that's true or not but for simplicity, I'll just assume it is true, seeing as bleeding and armor penetration only apply to their respective weapon trees similarly. Where the quote above really confuses me is, "it deals 50% more dam, more for ranks 2 and 3." Does this mean that the damage of a critical increases beyond 50% with higher ranks? Or only that more of them happen with higher ranks in the perk? Its one thing to say the chances of it increases but if the damage does too, then it makes this all much more complicated to hypothetically math out, especially if the technical information on it isn't available yet. Taking the guides statement on the math about a "15% avg dps increase" on faith, I can simply factor that into our dps comparison by adding 15% to it since I don't really know the full guts of that equation. Who knows where the 15% dam increase is added in their equations, be it onto the total damage output of the weapon, or only onto its base damage without skills increasing it, but id assume its factored in after all that and multiplied by the total damage you inflict with the weapon, as it is in most games. If this is the case then a semi maxed out Daedric dual Sword would have roughly 103.5 dps including the added 15% dps increase in criticals. Interestingly, this is LESS than the bleeding bonus is for axes, PLUS the added 15% critical damage would STILL have to go through the armor where as bleeding probably doesn't. To my surprise, it seems bleeding weapons might be a more viable choice over long periods of time (cuz im learning this stuff as Im writing it).
When i began to write the paragraph above, I thought bleeding would be the weakest effect but criticals (assuming this whole, "15% inc in avg dps" speculation is viable) seems to be the weaker of the two. Not only would you see a higher dps with bleeding dual war axes than dual swords with crits against high armored foes, but also just in it of themselves against monsters without armor where the dps of the axes would be 106 and the dps of the swords would be 104 ish. Only in short fights where the bleeding effect doesn't have enough time to run its full course would you see criticals possibly being a better choice... but who cares about those fights? you run through zillions of low to mid level fights in order to get to the big guy and shiny loot behind him!... oh wait... hrm, well I guess it depends then lol. Want a quicker, easier time through the gauntlet of the mundane and trivial? Or an easier time through the tough boss trials you've been hacking your way to get to? The only criticals that would compare would be theif criticals... daggers doing x15 times damage on a stealth backstab!?.. if TWO daggers!? that's possibly 1,890 damage from a dual wield daedric dagger strike from stealth... FAAAAAK! but that's not the same "criticals" effect we're comparing here which is in regards to the perks relating to swords. Daggers dont seem to have any perk influencing their dps aside from backstabs and the general dual wield swing speed one.
Armor Penetration:Certain weapons have armor penetration that negate the defenses of the monster you're fighting. The damage output of the weapon is fully realized (or more so at least) against armored foes as opposed to weapons with criticals or bleeding effects against the same foe, even though the weapons with armr/pen are generally slower and have the worst core dps of any weapons. Really this choice depends on the reality of the game, on how many monsters through your journey will in fact have armor and how much. Only someone who has played the game through and through will know how much time one will spend against creatures with high armor but for the sake of speculation, I would say most bosses will probably have high armor and most humanoids you encounter. Additionally, the fact that monsters reflect YOUR level as you progress means monsters that might not have any armor in lower levels might have some at higher levels and monsters with crummy armor early on might be in full daedric plate by the time you're at lvl 50. I remember how leveled up the gear was for simple bandits in Oblivion. By the time I was maxed out, they were wearing daedric and glass even though technically they were all still friggin bandits. Who needs to rob passer-byers on a road if they're decked out in full daedric!? Sell that sh*t and RETIRE bro. Its not only the humanoid monsters with actual "armor" that will have armor but also some creatures... possibly dragons, possibly everything? I really don't think its a viable assumption to think that maces and hammers wont be of much use overall simply because one will not fight many humanoid-gear-armored creatures in the game. For starters, i don't know if that's even true, I remember most daedric monsters in oblivion and morrowind were humanoid. I remember all the bandits and bosses were virtually all humanoid. Really the creatures that were secondary daedric or dremora, the random forest beasts who died in one shot, and dungeon trash that got in your way were the only ones without it and even though there were more of them, they didn't matter as much. Id think there's actually quite a few humanoid creatures with gear in the game. Secondly, who cares about the minor creatures you'll be fighting in game that probably wont have any armor? The tougher fights, be it humanoid or not will most likely have high or at least some armor and that's what important to me. Now, getting all the speculation of whether armr/pen will be applicable to most fights out of the way, what about its usefulness in it of itself and compared to other weapon effects? Well im not sure how the armor rating system in this game works but judging by previous titles of the series, there will be an armor cap and it will be a flat % of damage absorption unlike other games that use a different formula. Since it would be too elaborate to research and math out the statistical average in armor rating among the most common foes in the game, lets just take a few simple ideas for perspective on the matter.
In previous titles, there were dremora that had roughly 70% melee damage absorption with the armor they had and even in other forums on this game specifically im reading that people are encountering quite a few challenging bosses/minor fights where the creatures in question have tremendously high damage absorption and maybe only 30% of their weapons' damage is getting through against them. If this is the case, then the full perks with armor penetration which state that weapons associated with the perk deal as much as 75% armor penetration, will be of immense use. Even if a creature has 50% armor rating which isnt even high, the dps of high critical dual daedric swords would have about 51.75 dps against him where a dual mace would have about 68.3 dps against him even though the mace overall has much lower dps intrinsically. The usefulness of armor penetration is massively over proportional when dealing with armored creatures, no doubt. The real question in my opinion is how bleeding stacks up against armor penetration, against armored creatures or no armor. That's tough to work out because the bleeding effect works similarly to armor penetration and is generally a flat DoT on armored or not armored. Against armored foe, bleeding is better than criticals and we can easily assume less effective than armor penetration, so bleeding might be a viable option overall depending on how much armor you will actually go up against in the game. The other thing to consider is that the weapons with armr/pen ALSO have the highest "stagger" chance. Staggered foes are an easy win if it happens, they cant block, cant do jack. Maces and Hammers have a huuge stagger chance compared to the other weapons and this is a huge bonus for em. Ultimately, i just dont know enough about it all to really pick between bleeding and armor penetration... my gut tells me armor penetration because the harder fights will be easier even if that means itll take longer against the blah foes. If you're like me and you hate cheating but will if it changes only minor things... then you'll pick one or the other, play through the game and after a while, if one kind of obstacle comes up more than the other, you'll just switch the perks you put into one of the trees into the other through the console cheat and switch the weapon type you originally chose. It doesnt really change any overall context in what you've done in the game up to that point and only changes a singular, small choice you made in the past one way or the other. ;p
Dual wield versus 2h:The game allows you a few choices on weapon style; using two lighter weapons (one in each hand), a single larger 2 handed weapon, or a single light weapon and a shield. Im not going to compare 2h versus 1h + shield because that really depends on a lot of things about your playing style and weaknesses. A shield might darn well be a necessity if you didnt choose any armor perks or armor magic. Or you might have emphasized nuking spells as your primary source of damage and just need a shield and minor 1h weap to handle the last bit of the fight when the guy's in your face and hangin on by a singed, thin thread from all your nuking. Really, Im comparing dual wield versus 2h because both assume you're relying more on your melee weapon dishing the damage. This is a pretty simple debate because both 1h and 2h weapon trees each have the same effects of bleeding, crits and ar/pen as the 1h weapons. If you've picked one weapon effect over the other, you still need to choose between 2x1h or 1x2h so the debate still stands independently of that choice on the effects. Judging by the dps numbers above, its surprising that the dps of dual wielded weapons is actually LESS than their respective 2h counter parts, excluding daggers. This DOES NOT include power attacks. I have no idea how power attacks factor into dual weapons versus 2 handers and i wont even begin to speculate on it. Anyways, the core dps comparison is only part of it, having two weapons produces more critical chances than 1, bleeding effects stack twice with 2 weaps, and armor pen is sorta linear in that respect. I think the biggest factor between the two choices will be in enchantments. Assuming you pick the enchantment perk that gives you TWO enchantments on a weapon... thats 4 enchs for 2 weapons and 2 for one 2 handed weapon... proportionally, its all still the same if the enchantments are percentage based BUT sometimes not because many enchantments aren't percentage based but just flat damage value increases. For example... An enchantment that gives you an added 20% bonus to damage will apply with equal proportion to both 2 1h and 1 2h weapon. Whatever the higher dps is for the single 2h weapon will be proportionally increased equal to that of the two 1h weapons, so the 2h is still a better option in dps. Just because two weapons both have 20% dam increase doesn't give you +40% overall, it gives you 10% overall with 1 and 20% with two because one enchanted weapon doesn't influence the other... they combine to net 20% overall.
HOWEVER, if the enchantments in question are a FLAT damage increase by, lets say 20 damage per strike, then the proportional increase in effectiveness between 1 weapon versus 2 WON'T be the same. You will in essence get +40 damage with two of them versus +20 with one changing the overall dps comparison between the two styles. The same flat, linear increase in damage is seen in the Bleeding effect, whereby two bleeding weapons linearly doubles the combined weapons' dps versus just 1 weapon with it. Because of this, a dual wielding axe-man with bleeding perks and four FLAT damage enchantments on his weapons could see a tremendously over-proportional increase in his weapons' effectiveness versus a non bleeding, 2h handed 2 enchanted weapon with percentage based enchantments... BUT... really, that all depends on the potential options for enchantments all together. Flat damage SEEMS to be the predominant enchantment theme with things like, "such and such value of fire damage, ice shock etc" added to the weapon. The only instances of percentage damage enchantments are in NON weapon enchantments, within the hands, feet, neck and ring gear. Considering that "fortify melee skill" (percentage based damg) applies to BOTH 1h and 2h skill trees, the added bonus of flat damage buffs in favor towards 1h makes it more viable overall. ALL of this is EXCLUDING the perks that increase dual wielding speeds by 30 or so % which makes 2 better than 1 even more so. There is no perk for 2h swing speed. The problem with dual wield tho comes in the form of no blocking mechanism. With a two hander you CAN BLOCK which is massively useful. You MIGHT be able to use dodge effectively as a dual wielder but I have no idea how viable of an option that is in game, if it is, then who needs block? You will also get a higher stagger chance with the larger 2 handed weapons which is very useful but who knows how necessary. The big iffy that favors two handers is the perk allowing for ?cleaving? whereby your power attack hits ALL enemies surrounding you. That sounds really awesome if they swarm on you but I doubt this game is engineered like it that much, even in dungeons, monsters are pretty spread out and in the dual wielders defense, you can still LURE single foes away from the group pretty easily. In contrast the versatility of being able to use a shield IF necessary, OR a spell in one hand, OR two of the same weapon out shines 2 handers in my book any day. Plus... playing 200 hours in a game where you just swing away with 1 weapon then block then more swinging; the same thing over and over again sounds more like a chore than stimulating... Id rather have options. Regardless, it SOUNDS like dual wielding will net you more damage overall when including enchantments and effects over its 2 handed counterpart despite its CORE dps numbers being lower than 2h.
____________ CONCLUSION ___________
For anyone whos actually read this far (give you props for that), you will of course realized that there is so much speculation in all of this post that really, which ever weapon you think LOOKS cooler is probably the best option for you considering you'll be looking at the d*mn thing for many hours as it moves across your screen. Its the same argument I have for races and sex selection for my character in games. True, in some games, one sex might be more suited for something over the other, but personally... Id much rather be staring at a female's a*s in the center of my screen for 300+ hours than a male's behind, even though I might "relate" more to a male character in "role playing" games since Im a guy myself. Still, I get satisfaction out of knowing that the weapon or race or class I chose, I chose with good reason because I did the research, or at least TRIED to do the research and the time I put into that reflects upon my favoritism towards the ultimate choice I make. I think that in itself makes WHICHEVER weapon I choose circumstantially more important to me than the others, regardless of the reality in comparisons, because I invested into the choice. However, if i had to put money on the "best"? I would have a hard time choosing between two maces for the armor penetration and higher staggering effect versus two war axes for the flat damaged bleeding effects with minor arm/pen but definitely dual wield overall because I love enchantments. It adds a whole nother level of gameplay and dynamics and I want to see that element manifested TWICE in my hands lol. It gives more customizing options, you may face a dungeon with both fire and ice based creatures so having both on your weapons might help more than taking your chances with 1 elemental weapon. The damage output seems better (in the end) with two weapons and i thiiiiiiiink not being able to block won't be as much of a hindrance as one might expect. In Oblivion and Morrowind, just dashing backwards when you saw the guy start to swing at you was enough to evade the damage all together... and it really... wasn't... that... hard to do... I eventually DID use a shield in those games because they simply added other useful enchantments to my guy overall to the point of not EVER having to swing or cast simply because the combination of enchantments on my gear allowed for like... 150% melee damage reflected back at the attacker? and 100% magic absorption... choosing a shield was circumstantial at that point... hell... my melee weapon was too because in the end my ultimate "weapon" was just running into a room and standing there until everything died around me as i stood still lol.
But yeah anyways, the other thing to consider that I certainly didn't in this post involves specific enchantments from specific unique items that may swing the favor towards one weapon style over the other. Sometimes enchanted unique items in game are FAR more powerful than anything the best enchanter could make on their own. This alone might sway the game in favor of one choice over the other, as would unique weapons with especially high dps for their respective classes... I simply don't know. The final thing to consider... and in all honesty, this goes against almost everything ive said lol, is the simple fact that all the math above is based on a non-blocking, non-complicated melee fight where the comparison in weapon dps ASSUMES you're just clicking away as fast as you can and there's no time spent in between the strikes on blocking etc . This is a CRUCIAL note because damage over time REALLY doesnt apply if your actual swing style is slower than the available option to with the weapon. I mean think about it, if you're the type of guy who gets really impulsive at the sight of any creature that bleeds and rushes in and click click click away as fast as you can... then yes... the information above applies to you entirely and "as is"... BUT... if you are taking your time, possibly holding off on a swing in order to dodge a counter swing or to block it or holding off on your swing to avoid HIS block on you, then your weapon speed will most likely go PAST the most dps the weapon has to offer and you'll be playing like a "real fighter would" tactically. If thats the case then without a DOUBT, take the 2 handed war hammer without question because most likely, the slower speed that the big ol massive hammer will allow for you to strike with will be in sync MORE with your "tactical" melee style. If you had two swords... you'd still probably be swinging it at the rate that the HAMMER ALLOWS to be swung! So why not just TAKE THE HAMMER and get more damage with the same number of swings?! Still... its not that simple for me because im NOT that tactical... I really DO just rush in and CLICK CLICK CLICK DIE! DIE! DIE! my way up and down the land lol so I like fast, reckless swings and melee, at least in theory lol.
... All im saying is... take some time playing with the quickest possible weapon(s) and see where your fighting style REALLY nets you in regards to swing rate when you include all the dodging and sidestepping you'll most likely do. Ultimately, you should pick the closest dps weapon that MATCHES this pace, I mean, even the War Hammer has a swing rate of 1.3 seconds if its daedric, that's still pretty quick when you include the time you'll be taking to wait and see if the opponent is about to strike between your swings, the time it takes when you get staggered, moving around the room in response to his movement, etc. If a weapon is capable of swinging faster but you don't actually use it that fast... then whats the point in the higher dps of it over one that meets your actual pace with higher damage? Anyways, I hope anyone who actually read this ranting post will help me out here on the data and core equations and other elements I didn't even think of. To be honest, this is a pretty weak post, more of a rant than anything and Id like it to have a little more credibility in its utility for other readers. PLEASE respond with questions or corrections or arguments for or against things in the post, as you can tell, early information on any given game is usually pretty weak and it takes lots of dialogue like this to get the info-ball rolling. - Chase... happy hunting...
Tengus. 100mn Tengu, Nuff said. © PotatoOverdose
У меня за Воров пролет вышел с переписанием конторской книги в самом Рифтене
в ночлежке. Пришлось пропустить. И большая проблема в Маркарте - там где квест с изгоями. Тот квест где с человеком встречаешь в храме Талоса. Пришел к нему второй раз - там труп и все.. Any ideas?
Вход
Регистрация
Наверх
