Talk:Splinter Mine (Flame Geyser)

The listed damage does not appear consistent with the damage calculation article. That says that armor=60 does 100% of damage and armor=0 does 282%. So,
 * If Armor=0 has 500 damage, then armor 60 should have 500/2.82 = 177 damage = base damage.
 * If Armor=60 has 219 damage, then armor 0 should have 219*2.82 = 619 damage; base damage = 219.
 * Alternatively, the listed formula of defense adjustment = 2^((armor-60)/40) is incorrect.

My own recent experience suggests that the base damage is probably closer to 180. My L8 ranger's pet got hit with 239 damage. Since the pet's effective AC (per this site) is 3*8+20=44, that would suggest base damage is 239/1.32 = ~180. Alternatively, the flame geyser in the catacombs differentially affects toons based on profession, delivering more damage to necros than to other classes. Does anyone have experiential data that we can check against? Thanks -- Tennessee Ernie Ford 16:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've done more research. Hitting the geyser w/o armor gets 500 damage -> so, listed base is correct. And, while it's true that AR0 receives 2.8 times as much damage as AR60, it's not true that it's 2.8x base damage, as implied by the Armor rating and damage calculation articles. The exponential formula (above, on various articles) is correct comparing to AR60; the armor tables are misleading b/c (1) they imply target level matters (it does not) and (2) that you can plug the numbers into the simple formula (you won't get the expected results). 100% damage at AR60 is only true if base damage is defined as that delivered by a weapon from an L20 caster or from a brawler with an attribute rank of 12 for the weapon. The armor rating table doesn't work if the damage is skill or environment based.


 * So, I will make some relevant updates here. I'm also planning on re-writing the AR, dmg calc articles for that other wiki. Depending on how that is received, I'll present something similar here and see whether people prefer the current presentation or not. Tennessee Ernie Ford 06:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Where did the 219 come from? Anet mostly uses round numbers for base damage, and 180 seems 'bout right. Backsword 08:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 219 was in the article when I first looked. I have no idea where it comes from; that's why I asked. My data comes from walking into the Geyser with various ARs. I walked in nekkid and was hit with -500 health.


 * FWIW, I misunderstood the term, Base Damage &mdash; in most other games, it refers to damage before modifications rather than a specific level attacker attacking a specifically hardened target (in GW, L20 attacking AR60). Please forgive my misuse of the jargon above.


 * In this case, the damage is environmental and, for some reason, NCSoft's round number appears to be 500, which is the damage to an AR0 target. With various different ARs and damage reducing equip, I've recorded 160, 210, 218, 241, 250, &amp; 500. I don't have a PRE char with AR60 to test what the exact number would be, so I extrapolated using the 2^((60-AR)/40) formula.
 * If we assume that the base is 500 @AR0, then we divide 500 by 2^(60/40) = 176 or 177 (depending on rounding).
 * If we assume that 500 @AR0 is calculated, then 177 would be the base for AR60.
 * IMO, 219 is clearly off-base.


 * When I updated the geyser article, I forgot to update the splinter mine. (Should be done by the time you read this.) Tennessee Ernie Ford 18:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing
I made an edit so that the skill no longer shows the screenshot of the elona reach creature, but of its actual monster skill image. However, it still needs a bit of work. I believe the ID number of the skill is missing, and thus some of its properties. Also, it still shows up on the signets page which seems incorrect as it is not usable by human players. --Bastet 08:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It was because the flag "no monster skills" has been missed on list of signets page, not because of this skill is supposedly wrongly described. I fixed that flag. --Slavic 09:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)