I am not sure this is correct. It may be 90-100% is "unused", and 80-89% is "slightly used" or whatever.archaicsubrosa77 wrote:You have 10% of a weapons hit points between levels of wear. Which would be like from 90-99% of a weapons durability if it's in the first stage of use.
Look. Do me a favor. Stop spreading BS here, and go test this for yourself. You said that your friend was testing and his halberd noticeably dropped in damage output after 12 hits. Go buy a halberd and hit something 12 times with it, and then use Arms Lore. Do this on as many halberds as you want. I guarantee that NONE of them will be at anything but "unused". Therefore, your friend's impression is incorrect. He may have gotten worse rolls after 12 hits with it, but that's just luck. It had nothing to do with item wear and tear.archaicsubrosa77 wrote:Surely a couple points damage could be credited to even slight wear of a weapon and have some impact on damage output.
It would be more accurate to say that, on average, a bardiche has more HPs. Their max possible HPs is irrelevant. You could spawn a halberd with 80 HPs and a bardiche with 40. But regardless, I see your point and agree.archaicsubrosa77 wrote:Being a hally has 80 hp (10%=8) and bardiche has 100 max(10%=10)...the effect of wear would impact the hally more then the bardiche over time.
MY point is, 50 swings is not nearly enough to notice this difference. The halberd averages 3 more points of damage per swing (according to the actual stats, not Matron's testing). Even if it was a full arms lore level below the bardiche, it would still be doing 95% of it's damage versus the bardiche's 100%. And even then, the halberd would be doing an average of about 2 points more damage per swing.
Even if the halberd was at the THIRD best arms lore level, versus the bardiche at full HPs, it would STILL be doing more damage than the bardiche on average, by about a full point of damage per swing.
My point, once more, is that if Matron's testing shows differently, then it's overwhelmingly likely that it's due to small sample size.