Combat Weapons:

[Faust]

There has been a lot of chit chat involving PvP in the last few days. A lot of this revolves around the skill factor involved with it. The arguement mainly falls back on weapon damages. The best PvPer's can lose as often as they win because of this. I think the main reason for this is because of the damage tables we are currently using for weapons here. Here is the current table that is being used below.

Current Table: http://web.archive.org/web/199910130704 ... m/arms.htm

If you take a look at the hally it stands at a default value of 5-49 damage. This variable doesn't take into account of the 150% tactics, 20% str, and the gm made weapon increase to damage. If you do the math for the maximum 49 damage it is a +24 tactics, +9 str, and +4 gm weapon for added damage bonuses. This adds up to a possible staggering 12 minimum and 86 maximum damage not counting armor. Now if you think about this in the terms of skill factor a 12-86 value is well beyond the extreme side of random.

My solution for this is quite simple. It is well known that the stratics '99 site holds two weapon tables for this era. Here is the other table below.

Second Table: http://web.archive.org/web/199905022020 ... m/arms.htm

If you take a look at the hally in this other table it now holds a value of 10-35 damage. This is a drastic change to +21 min and +63 maximum damage compared to the other.

The closer you add the minimum and maximum damages for a value on a weapon the lesser PvP will thrive on random end results. This will not only make PvP less random it will add a much needed improvement to the skill factor involved with PvP at the moment.

The damages with this table are much lower, and are more era accurate in my opinion. For example, the kryss under this table is actually faster than the katana like most people remembers it being all so well.

I think this is a very reasonable solution that can be put up at least for testing. I think the end results on this would be a much improvement to the current system for overall skill factor in PvP. I'm looking forward to everyone elses opinion on this matter with constructive feedback on the topic.

Thanks,
Faust

[Mazer]

Anything that could be argued as accurate that would improve the quality of PvP is a no-brainer. Tightening damages is a great idea.

Please do it

[BloodyBandage]

excellent find Faust...I remember kryss being the fastest wep in the game as well, while swords having the heavy hitters and macing being the middle ground

[son]

Sorry for the odd tangent, but is there any table that has the values of weapon damage that is currently implemented in UOSA?

[Ronk]

I posted the following in the Guide section under the weapon damage discussion...I figured it applies here so I am reposting.

I got bored and decided to play with the 'way back machine'. Here are some of my findings...

First, I searched for uo.stratics.com. I did NOT search for uo.stratics.com/arms.htm because searching for that specific site lead to fewer results. So, from uo.stratics.com I navigated to the weapon damage page.

Of the pages I found...
December 12, 1998 *
Jan 25, 1999 *
Feb 10, 1999
Apr 22, 1999 *
Apr 29, 1999
May 08, 1999 *
Oct 12, 1999 *
Oct 13, 1999
Where in the * means the page was updated. I brought up every page in my browser then scrolled to the weapons link and opened them in a new browser tab. This told me the exact URL being viewed to ensure it wasn't showing me the wrong thing.

The URL's came out as follows:
http://web.archive.org/web/199910130704 ... m/arms.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/199905022020 ... m/arms.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/199905022020 ... m/arms.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/199905022020 ... m/arms.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/199905022020 ... m/arms.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/199905022020 ... m/arms.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/199910130704 ... m/arms.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/199910130704 ... m/arms.htm
As you can see, even though the wayback machine labels different ones with updates, the arms page stayed the same...which, ironically if you search just the arms pages you get the two unique results.

http://web.archive.org/web/199910130704 ... m/arms.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/199905022020 ... m/arms.htm

If I just search for arms.htm I get one on May 2, 1999 and one on Oct 13, 1999. If we look at the numbers in the URL...
1999-10-13-07041
1999-05-02-202037

Note: We are currently using the October values. So why does it go from the October values in December of 1998 to the May values from Feb to May then switch back to the October values? This is certainly a puzzle as patch notes don't seem to imply any change or revert.

Lets compare October (in use now) to May for some popular weapons...
Oct Kryss - 3-28 damage, 53 speed
May Kryss - 5-11 damage, 65 speed
Oct Katana - 5-26 damage, 58 speed
May Katana - 1-16 damage, 58 speed
Oct Dagger - 3-15 damage, 55 speed
May Dagger - 3-9 damage, 50 speed
Oct Hally - 5-49 damage, 25 speed
May Hally - 10-35 damage, 25 speed

If we look at February 2000, its a new arms.htm page but its the same stats in regards to the weapons above as October.

Even up until 2002 the October values for those weapons seem to hold. So I guess its a mystery, still, as to why Stratics apparently dipped into a different set of weapon stats for 4 months before reverting back.

Edit:
Here is more from February 12th, 1998: http://web.archive.org/web/199905082158 ... rms212.htm
Feb '98 Dagger - 3-12 damage, 70 speed
Feb '98 Kryss - 6-18 damage, 50 speed
Feb '98 Katana - 4-20 damage, 40 speed
Feb '98 Hally - 4-48, 20 speed
Its interesting to note, these stats here seem to say what a lot of the fencers remember. I.E. kryss being faster than katana, and dagger being ungodly fast.
Also note, it says these stats apply to weapons 'Generated before feb 12, 1998'. Could that mean different weapons, depending on when they were crafted, could have had different stats?

[Ronk]

As for my thoughts, posted in a separate thread to keep it separate from the info block I posted, I think we have nothing to lose in testing the other values. I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible to load the alternate values and restore the previous if its deemed gimp.

From what it seems, its a global damage cut across the board on weapons. This 'could' be really bad for dexxers. And the increased speed only seems to apply to the kryss, which I find odd. Personally, I recall it being much easier to disrupt mages back in the day than it is here...of course, maybe they didn't have GM wrestling or maybe I remember wrong.

It looks to me like UO did a lot of tweaking of the weapons over the years...that or Stratics was just confused and couldn't get an accurate idea of what was correct.

[son]

Now I am really confused. Kryss or Katana faster in UOSA?

Where is this data as currently implemented? Can we get it on the wiki?

[Ronk]

Now I am really confused. Kryss or Katana faster in UOSA?

Where is this data as currently implemented? Can we get it on the wiki?

The main thread says "Current Table" with a link. Click the link and you'll see whats currently implemented.

[BlackFoot]

test.uosecondage.com <---- lets try it out

[Faust]

A kryss isn't the only thing that gets a speed increase. Heavy crossbows, warhammers, quarterstaves, and of course the kryss all key weapons that gets increases. The kryss is the only drastic change in regards to speed obviously though.

I think this may actually benefit dexers Ronk. The damage board overall has decreased for most of all the weapons, but the decrease in the hally takes the most decrease in 19 points. This means that dexers will be hitting for more dps in the long run compared to now. Also, there seems to be more dice values being rolled for most weapons, which means more consistant middle damage instead of a more random value.

[son]

Faust, your first web archive link to statics are the current damage and speeds of all weapons currently implemented in t2a?

[Kaivan]

There has been a lot of chit chat involving PvP in the last few days. A lot of this revolves around the skill factor involved with it. The arguement mainly falls back on weapon damages. The best PvPer's can lose as often as they win because of this. I think the main reason for this is because of the damage tables we are currently using for weapons here. Here is the current table that is being used below.

Current Table: http://web.archive.org/web/199910130704 ... m/arms.htm

If you take a look at the hally it stands at a default value of 5-49 damage. This variable doesn't take into account of the 150% tactics, 20% str, and the gm made weapon increase to damage. If you do the math for the maximum 49 damage it is a +24 tactics, +9 str, and +4 gm weapon for added damage bonuses. This adds up to a possible staggering 12 minimum and 86 maximum damage not counting armor. Now if you think about this in the terms of skill factor a 12-86 value is well beyond the extreme side of random.

My solution for this is quite simple. It is well known that the stratics '99 site holds two weapon tables for this era. Here is the other table below.

Second Table: http://web.archive.org/web/199905022020 ... m/arms.htm

If you take a look at the hally in this other table it now holds a value of 10-35 damage. This is a drastic change to +21 min and +63 maximum damage compared to the other.

The closer you add the minimum and maximum damages for a value on a weapon the lesser PvP will thrive on random end results. This will not only make PvP less random it will add a much needed improvement to the skill factor involved with PvP at the moment.

The damages with this table are much lower, and are more era accurate in my opinion. For example, the kryss under this table is actually faster than the katana like most people remembers it being all so well.

I think this is a very reasonable solution that can be put up at least for testing. I think the end results on this would be a much improvement to the current system for overall skill factor in PvP. I'm looking forward to everyone elses opinion on this matter with constructive feedback on the topic.

Thanks,
Faust

One very important thing that we are forgetting about combat damage, the damage is halved at the end of the calculation.

To give you an example, assume we have a normal quality halberd in brand new condition. The halberd has a 5-49 damage range. If we apply the various damage increases to the weapon, we have the 50% damage bonus from tactics, the 20% bonus from strength, and a 20% damage bonus from anatomy. Taking those damage bonuses and applying them to each extreme of the weapon we get these damages (all decimals are held in place as part of the calculation):

Bottom end halberd damage (5) = 5 * 0.5 + 5 * 0.2 + 5 * 0.2 + 5 = 9.5 damage
Top end halberd damage (49) = 49 * 0.5 + 49 * 0.2 49 * 0.2 + 49 = 93.1 damage

This damage range of 9.5 - 93.1 is the full damage range of the halberd. If we cut that damage in half as the calculation calls for, and round any numbers at the end of the calculation to whole numbers, we are yielded a range of 5 - 46. While this range is not the same as the starting range, the resulting range is approximately 95% of the damage of the origonal range. This can be confirmed with a check on the average damage of the two ranges:

Origonal damage range: 5 - 49 = 27 average
Resulting damage range: 5 - 46 = 25.5 average
% of origonal damage range that is part of resulting damage range: = 25.5 / 27 = 94.44444% ~ 95%

This can also be confirmed as a generic result for all weapons using the damage equations:

100% damage + 50% increase + 20% increase + 20% increase = 190% damage / 2 = 95% damage

Finally, we add on the + 4 damage from a GM quality weapon. This does not significantly change the damage output, and depending on the damage you are dealing with, will add anywhere between 1 and 3 extra damage when rounding is used. When compared with average damages, the damage addition is always +2, which firmly places GM quality weaponry in a superior category to that of might weaponry (a general rule that all of us agree on).

So, in reality, the weapon damages that we deal with for halberds and all weapons in general are no more random than their original values (we can also perform a quick calculation to get their resulting damages).

Beyond that point, the damages displayed on the two stratics pages refer to two seperate times of Ultima history. The later damages that stratics had on hand were the values that were introduced in October 98 and they existed for all of T2A and UOR, while the values used between Febuary 98 and October 98 were from pre-T2A and were part of an earlier fix to weapon damage (more on that later).

Finally, if we were to use these earlier values, it would set a very bad presidence of effectively nerfing most weapons across the board. Granted, some weapons would recieve a small increase in damage (except the mace and kryss which recieves a large speed increase) but the effective nerf to damage to most if not all weapons will be a very significant factor (I have not done the effective speed increase % to weapon damage % decrease for all weapons but the ones I have calculated show a decrease to weapon efficiency).

One final note: While it is not certain that the weapon calculation that was used by OSI specifically used decimal numbers during the calculation, we know that it was guarantueed that they did indeed use decimal numbers for their calculations. If they did not, the armor calculations that are displayed on the Stratics website (and verified via the demo) could not mathematically work out. Aside from that, the empirical evidence suggests that decimals were indeed used for the weapon calculations.

I posted the following in the Guide section under the weapon damage discussion...I figured it applies here so I am reposting.

I got bored and decided to play with the 'way back machine'. Here are some of my findings...

First, I searched for uo.stratics.com. I did NOT search for uo.stratics.com/arms.htm because searching for that specific site lead to fewer results. So, from uo.stratics.com I navigated to the weapon damage page.

Of the pages I found...
December 12, 1998 *
Jan 25, 1999 *
Feb 10, 1999
Apr 22, 1999 *
Apr 29, 1999
May 08, 1999 *
Oct 12, 1999 *
Oct 13, 1999
Where in the * means the page was updated. I brought up every page in my browser then scrolled to the weapons link and opened them in a new browser tab. This told me the exact URL being viewed to ensure it wasn't showing me the wrong thing.

The URL's came out as follows:
http://web.archive.org/web/199910130704 ... m/arms.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/199905022020 ... m/arms.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/199905022020 ... m/arms.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/199905022020 ... m/arms.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/199905022020 ... m/arms.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/199905022020 ... m/arms.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/199910130704 ... m/arms.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/199910130704 ... m/arms.htm
As you can see, even though the wayback machine labels different ones with updates, the arms page stayed the same...which, ironically if you search just the arms pages you get the two unique results.

http://web.archive.org/web/199910130704 ... m/arms.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/199905022020 ... m/arms.htm

If I just search for arms.htm I get one on May 2, 1999 and one on Oct 13, 1999. If we look at the numbers in the URL...
1999-10-13-07041
1999-05-02-202037

Note: We are currently using the October values. So why does it go from the October values in December of 1998 to the May values from Feb to May then switch back to the October values? This is certainly a puzzle as patch notes don't seem to imply any change or revert.

Lets compare October (in use now) to May for some popular weapons...
Oct Kryss - 3-28 damage, 53 speed
May Kryss - 5-11 damage, 65 speed
Oct Katana - 5-26 damage, 58 speed
May Katana - 1-16 damage, 58 speed
Oct Dagger - 3-15 damage, 55 speed
May Dagger - 3-9 damage, 50 speed
Oct Hally - 5-49 damage, 25 speed
May Hally - 10-35 damage, 25 speed

If we look at February 2000, its a new arms.htm page but its the same stats in regards to the weapons above as October.

Even up until 2002 the October values for those weapons seem to hold. So I guess its a mystery, still, as to why Stratics apparently dipped into a different set of weapon stats for 4 months before reverting back.

Edit:
Here is more from February 12th, 1998: http://web.archive.org/web/199905082158 ... rms212.htm
Feb '98 Dagger - 3-12 damage, 70 speed
Feb '98 Kryss - 6-18 damage, 50 speed
Feb '98 Katana - 4-20 damage, 40 speed
Feb '98 Hally - 4-48, 20 speed
Its interesting to note, these stats here seem to say what a lot of the fencers remember. I.E. kryss being faster than katana, and dagger being ungodly fast.
Also note, it says these stats apply to weapons 'Generated before feb 12, 1998'. Could that mean different weapons, depending on when they were crafted, could have had different stats?

Here are the patch notes that track the changes to weaponry over the lifetime of UO.

• Pre Febuary 1998 weaponry.
• All weapons created before Febuary 1998 follow the origonal weapon damage scheme found here. These are the origonal damages that were used starting in day 1.

• Febuary 98 to October 98 weaponry.
• This is the patch note that notes the change to weapons that occurred on Febuary 12, 1998:
  • A general pass on balancing weapons has been done to ensure that there is no "best weapon" in the game, and that each of the three weapons proficiencies is a competitive choice depending on your stats and tactics. Note that this only affects new weapons, not existing ones.
• This is where stratics gets the archived page in May of 98 displaying the weapon damages.
• This also gave birth to the "pre-patch" weapons that had existed during UO's early days.
• The Febuary 98 weapon scale can be found here.

• October 98 to Febuary 2003 weaponry.
• These are the patch notes that detail the changes that were done to weapons. The notes were posted as part of the November 10, 1998 patch notes:
  • The new weapons scale
    • This is the first pass at balancing weapons. It is not intended to be a final balance for weapons, but rather a good starting point. We expect there to be individual weapons and possibly weapons proficiencies that will require further tweaks.
    • A retroactive weapons fixer will adjust weapons to fit the new weapons statistics going in. This code will attempt to transfer over your old weapons and adjust them to the correct weapons scale. It will fix one-hit weapons, "prepatch" weapons with outdated damage ratings, weapons with multiply applied magical bonuses, and similar problems. However, it may not function perfectly with all particular combinations of weapon abilities. In particular, exceptional quality weapons may lose some of their capability in the adjustment.
    • The first pass at weapons statistics will be in place. Key features here are that all three weapons proficiencies should be comparable in effectiveness in combat, but they will all require different tactics to use well. They will also prove to have different strengths against different types of opponents (eg, some weapon types will do better against heavy armor than others, and some will be more effective against mages, etc).
• This maps the final change to weapon damage, and the reason for the damage table change on stratics.
• The discrepencies between the patch notes date and the stratics page update can be equated to "patch note" lag as seen in several other examples with patch notes (Renaissance released in very early April of 2000 and patch notes recording the changes brought about by Renaissance were not recorded until April 28). Stratics likely recieved the new weapons table right as it was introduced (there is a page where Den Dragon actually states that he recieved the information regarding the new weapon damages straight from OSI).
• The new weapons scale coencides with the release of T2A to within a few days if it's release. Again, descrepencies about the exact release date exist (The wikipedia article says October 31, 1998, while another source says October 10, 1998, and archived versions of the old http://www.owo.com website say "early October"), but regardless of the minor descrepencies in the release date (only a couple of weeks time at most), the existence of the old weapon damage scale was very brief and can only technically be considered T2A accurate, much like no pre-casting or scaled heal times.
• The October 98 weapons scale can be found here.

Hopefully this answers your questions about the reason why the weapon damages changed during each of those three time periods.

[Faust]

aye, I suppose I should have looked a little further down in the RunUO code to see the halved damage that I didn't calculate. My calculations did seem a bit extreme. I still think a hally dealing out 5-49 damage is random and a bit ridiculous. When you have two dice values of 23 being thrown that leads to absolute luck instead of skill, especially if you take into account of the older value of 5 dice with 6 sides instead.

After all Derrick did say that most of his combat mechanics are based off of early '99. This was the reason he took the earlier healing system in '99 over the later in early '00. Why wouldn't you take the same approach with the combat table as well?

If you take into account of the weaken spell that leaves 90 hp. If you throw in the average explosion(25) and ebolt(24) damages with the maximum of a hally that is instant death. However, if you throw in the same averages with the minimum of 5 that revolves around absolutely nothing but luck.

I still think it's a worthy cause to at least see the results of it on the test center. The current dice values for the october table is too extreme on the low and high end for the values it produces and it definitely shows.

[Ronk]

I still think it's a worthy cause to at least see the results of it on the test center. The current dice values for the october table is too extreme on the low and high end for the values it produces and it definitely shows.

I agree, it can't hurt. Some of the combat here seems 'off'. Course, I am fairly indifferent either way and am not pushing for either.

[Derrick]

Kavian,
In the summary: February 98 to October 98 weaponry.
should be Oct '99?
October 98 to February 2003 weaponry.
should be:
October 99 to February 2003 weaponry. ?

If so, and I just want to make sure that I have that straight first, are there any other changes that came with the Oct '99 weapons change that would make our current combat system inconsistent if we switched to the pre-Oct.'99 weapons.

Forgive me if something in you above post already indicated the answer to this, it's been a long day