lugiore 0 Report post Posted August 5, 2011 hey all, i know this might sound like a stupid question, but at what point dose a dk sword become better then a ancient flameberge? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mito24 0 Report post Posted August 5, 2011 (edited) i have the same question, but respect an ancient gis ns! :P Edited August 5, 2011 by Mito24 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
letrita 0 Report post Posted August 6, 2011 (edited) hey all, i know this might sound like a stupid question, but at what point dose a dk sword become better then a ancient flameberge? Lets see... DK flam + 0 has 4D7+0 DMG (S~M), so it can deal about 4~28 DMG Meanwhile an anc flam would have 2D13+0 (since normal flam has 2D11) and would deal 2~26 DMG all in all DK flam + 0 is better than ancient.. (Neme portal source) however this doesn't sounds quite right... Edit: i have been checking Nemesis portal again, and i found something weird DK flam +2 has the same dice than + 0 (4D7) BUT DK flam +4 has a total diferent dice, worst than a regular flam (2D10) and +4 of course. So it can be that theres a mistake in the web. In this way DK + 2 would deal more dmg than DK +4 something that seems strange. Maybe the real DMG from DK has always been 2D10 in wich case It would deal same damage than anc flam in +6 and only more dmg on +8. Edited August 6, 2011 by letrita Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lugiore 0 Report post Posted August 6, 2011 hey all, i know this might sound like a stupid question, but at what point dose a dk sword become better then a ancient flameberge? Lets see... DK flam + 0 has 4D7+0 DMG (S~M), so it can deal about 4~28 DMG Meanwhile an anc flam would have 2D13+0 (since normal flam has 2D11) and would deal 2~26 DMG all in all DK flam + 0 is better than ancient.. (Neme portal source) however this doesn't sounds quite right... Edit: i have been checking Nemesis portal again, and i found something weird DK flam +2 has the same dice than + 0 (4D7) BUT DK flam +4 has a total diferent dice, worst than a regular flam (2D10) and +4 of course. So it can be that theres a mistake in the web. In this way DK + 2 would deal more dmg than DK +4 something that seems strange. Maybe the real DMG from DK has always been 2D10 in wich case It would deal same damage than anc flam in +6 and only more dmg on +8. ty, that helps a bit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
~WhiteFang 0 Report post Posted August 6, 2011 Most things said here are sorta true... a DK flame +0 would indeed have a theoretically higher damage (4~28) then an ancient (2D13+0 = 2~26) or a DK gis +4 (2D10+2) BUT there are some things people forget to take in account, indirect factors that makes one thing become better then another. For example, one of the factors is hitting probability, the higher the "Throw" of a dice, the higher its hitting probability, 4D7 had only a throw of 7, while 2D10 has a throw of 10, resulting in a HIGHER hitting probability, therefore there's more chance to actually hit and the overall damage will be higher. On top of that, comparing DK swords on their own, the flame vs the GiS comparison I reffer again back to what I just explained, the hitting probability changes as it upgraded. Yet a third factor of the DK sword is forgotten to be taken in account, it's upgrade level (+0, +2, +4, +6, +8, +10, +12, +14, +15), each upgrade level adds 2 more physical damage to the item, that's why a DK sword +15 is so much better then a DK sword +8 for example. Yet again, there where the DK flame +2 would look superior to the dk GiS +4 and equalize the DK GiS +6, the hitting probability makes the difference right there. Not everything is theoretical numbers, you have to take in account factors as such, which are often forgotten or not even considered in theoretical and mathematical calculations like these. P.S.: the damage indicated on the portal site, which you posted a SS of, is 100% correct and accurate for that item, yet what's displayed is it's base damage, WITHOUT the additional physical damage of its upgrade level taken in account. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
letrita 0 Report post Posted August 7, 2011 Most things said here are sorta true... a DK flame +0 would indeed have a theoretically higher damage (4~28) then an ancient (2D13+0 = 2~26) or a DK gis +4 (2D10+2) BUT there are some things people forget to take in account, indirect factors that makes one thing become better then another. For example, one of the factors is hitting probability, the higher the "Throw" of a dice, the higher its hitting probability, 4D7 had only a throw of 7, while 2D10 has a throw of 10, resulting in a HIGHER hitting probability, therefore there's more chance to actually hit and the overall damage will be higher. On top of that, comparing DK swords on their own, the flame vs the GiS comparison I reffer again back to what I just explained, the hitting probability changes as it upgraded. Yet a third factor of the DK sword is forgotten to be taken in account, it's upgrade level (+0, +2, +4, +6, +8, +10, +12, +14, +15), each upgrade level adds 2 more physical damage to the item, that's why a DK sword +15 is so much better then a DK sword +8 for example. Yet again, there where the DK flame +2 would look superior to the dk GiS +4 and equalize the DK GiS +6, the hitting probability makes the difference right there. Not everything is theoretical numbers, you have to take in account factors as such, which are often forgotten or not even considered in theoretical and mathematical calculations like these. P.S.: the damage indicated on the portal site, which you posted a SS of, is 100% correct and accurate for that item, yet what's displayed is it's base damage, WITHOUT the additional physical damage of its upgrade level taken in account. Great explanation, i had to read it twice to understand it, haha.. Also i didn't know about the HP being related with the higher throw number.. Helbreath is full of surprises :P Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
