Talk:Damage

Archive

---

• 2010-2012

Condition Damage Calculations Incorrect

I ran the condition damage calculations based on base level @ 80 and the values provided in the table and all my results were off by a decimal (i.e 32.8 instead of 328). I think the forumulas should look like the following:

((8 / (4*Level)) + (0.25*condition damage))*10 = base

Example (result is rounded):

((8 / (4*80)) + (0.25*131))*10 = 328

((8 / 320 ) + 32.75 )*10 = 328

( 0.025 + 32.75 )*10 = 328

32.775 *10 = 328

Am I wrong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gussy2000 (talk • contribs).

I think you're just interpreting the table wrong. The first formula is for total damage. The 328 is the base damage. The 131 is the amount of condition damage (stat) you need to increase the damage by 10%, to ~361. --JonTheMon 20:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Your first operation is wrong, it's 8 + 4*level, not 8 / 4*level. If you have 0 Condition Damage, then burning does 328 damage/s, but your formula would result in 0.25 damage/s.

Also, the right-hand column is how much CD you need to increase the damage by 10% over the base. So if you factored in 131 CD to the burning formula, the result should be 328 * 1.1 = 360.8 —Dr Ishmael 20:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

YUP. Blame poor monitor resolution. When I printed it out I saw it was a plus sign not a divide by. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gussy2000 (talk • contribs).

Does Power affect Critical Damage

It is stated on the critical hit article that the damage of a critical hit is your critical damage multiplied by the base damage. Here it is said that your base damage is calculated with power. Does that mean that power also raises your damage from critical hits? Example: I hit 1000 base damage. If this criticals (without any more critical damage) it will do 1500 damage (a critical is 150% damage). I upgrade my power, so I deal 1100 damage. Do I then deal 1650 critical damage or will that stay on 1500, until I upgrade critical damage? 82.73.133.18 17:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

This would be a question for the forums but before you look for that there might as well answer it here. The bonus damage you get on a critical hit, without any critical damage+ gear, will always be 50% on top of the base damage. So if you stack up more power to raise your base damage your critical hits will, as you explained yourself in your example, do more damage. 500 base damage will become 750 on a critical, 600 will be 900 etc. etc. If you use critical damage+ gear on top of that this will be added on the base as well. For example: 500 base damage +20% critical damage will end up as a 850 damage critical hit as you get a critical multiplier of 1,70 (170% base damage) instead of 1,50 (150% base damage) (note that critical damage does not get multiplied on the base crit damage but will get added up. i.e. no crit damage+ gear = 150%; +20% = 170%; +100% = 250% base damage etc.) Hope that could help Magistrella 17:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You're theorizing that if you don't equip any +critical damage, the damage of your critical hits with 2000 power at level 80 might be the same as the damage of your critical hits with <100 power at level 1? I think someone would have noticed. --Felbryn 17:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Magistrella got it right. The base crit multiplier is 1.5, and your Critical Damage attribute is added on top of that (e.g. Critical Damage 20% increases your multiplier to 1.7).

To answer the OP, yes, increasing your Power increases the damage you deal with both non-critical and critical hits. Increasing your Critical Damage only increases the damage you deal on critical hits. —Dr Ishmael 17:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I asked the question btw. But thanks for the answer. So only investing in crit dmg and precision won't do much if you don't have some power. Qiff 15:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Damage modifiers cause ambiguity

There is more to damage dealing than just armor. Final damage can be affected by modifiers such as +% damage sigils, +% potions and reduced by -% reduction and Protection. Now there are two ways these bonuses could be calculated.
(a) "multiply all" Damage done = (weapon damage) * potion * sigil * Power * (skill-specific coefficient) / (target's Armor * protection * potion) (b) "group bonuses" Damage done = (weapon damage) * (potion + sigil) * Power * (skill-specific coefficient) / (target's Armor * (protection + potion))
Once we've resolved this issue I propose we add to the equation item "bonus" and smart-looking tooltip that explains whether these bonuses are multiplied or added together, just for the sake of readability. --Joppe 19:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I also want to see the break down of damage including the pluses (i.e. from traits) and minuses (i.e. protection). But I don't think it's a straight out Multiplication because, for example, if (potion + sigil) is equal to zero (0), then you deal zero damage because anything multiplied by zero is zero.--Sir Vincent III 21:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The factor in Joppe's 2) formula would actually be (1 + potion + sigil), since the bonuses from potion/sigil are +X% damage, e.g. with a Superior Sigil of Force and no Nourishment you'd have (1 + 0 + 0.05) for that factor. —Dr Ishmael 21:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Adding skill coefficients to skills

So I've seen a large number of people, myself included, become interested in what the damage coefficient for each skill of their profession is. Do you think It would be okay to add that number in the trivia section of each damaging skill? I'd be happy to spend some time to figure them all out. It would help lots of people who are trying to really figure out the numbers of their build and since it's part of the damage calculation it's a necessary number if you want to theory craft your damage out. I want to sure where to ask this, so I plopped it here Any thoughts on this? Thanks :) [edit: I wasn't signed in when I posted this, oops] Habar414 20:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather describe how you calculate it first.--Relyk ~ talk > 21:10, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'd be using the steady PvP weapons with no gear on in the PvP area against the heavy, err, punching bag guy... (I know he has 2600 armor) so It would be (skill-specific coefficient) = damage dealt * armor /weapon damage * power —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Habar414 (talk • contribs).

I believe you're missing some parentheses in that equation.

How do you intend to account for random variation in damage dealt? Even ignoring glancing blows and critical hits, weapons have a range of weapon damage, and you won't know exactly what value out of the range was used for any particular attack.

Have you considered using the damage hints already listed on most skill pages as your starting point instead? That seems easier and more precise. --Felbryn 22:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I've been doing a bit more reading, and I'll be using the tooltip as well as using the steady weapons in the PvP area since they dont have a damage range, just a consistent listed damage. Yeah, I am missing some parentheses thanks,

So it's (skill-specific coefficient) = (damage dealt * armor) / (weapon damage * power) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Habar414 (talk • contribs).

every skill page? -Chieftain Alex 09:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Attacking that golem with a steady weapon produces numbers that slightly (fractionally) deviate from the tooltip values. Where do you get the evidence that the golem has 2600 armor anyway? 76.253.0.17 00:55, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose it is precisely because of what you wrote? :) If the number is 2600 and hitting the golem produces predicted damage, then it must have 2600 armor. I suppose the 2600 number was deduced by using the same skill repeatedly with different weapon strengths and power combinations. --Alad 04:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you read the word "deviate" as "produces predicted damage". All we know is that the tooltip damage and the golem damage are close, but different. If you understood the math you would know power and weapon strength can't separate which part of the remaining factors are due to armor or skill-specific coefficient. The latter is merely derived from assuming the former. So if there is empirical data out there with damage tests against known armor values, I refer you to my original question: where is the evidence? It's an honest question, I'd like to see the data. 76.253.0.17 06:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You could test it yourself, grab a friend in WvW with 2600 armor and see if you get the same results, I guess.--Relyk ~ talk > 06:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I considered that first before asking here but my friends are not technical players and would probably not be interested in doing it. I suppose though that to get the answers I want it is a situation where I will just have to be persuasive. 76.253.0.17 17:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Well you said "fractionally", meaning decimals which can be due to rounding. Anyway, the 2600 figure has been floating around for a long time. Either it's real, provided by a reliable source, or it's an assumption. As long as you derive the coefficient using that assumption, and then use them both back together in the formula, you'll get the correct damage, since the formula contains (C/A). This is the earliest reference I was able to google regarding the 2600 (you made me work! :) but it was instructive.) Oh, and don't be so pompous. You don't have a monopoly on maths. --Alad 12:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Nobody claimed a monopoly on math. Please avoid personal attacks and keep your comments relevant to the discussion. The post you reference again only begins with the assumption that the armor value is 2600 and doesn't provide any data to verify this. For all we know these kinds of posts are exactly the source Habar was working from. I'm sure that this number has indeed been around a long time because it's "either real, reliable, or an assumption". Again my question is: please show me how it's real or who provided this authoritative information, or otherwise if it is merely an assumption then let's recognize that and produce some data. 76.253.0.17 17:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That's not a question ^^ Either test it yourself, look for the answer on forums, make a thread about it, or wait for a good samaritan on the wiki to verify it for you. You can use Habrar's reddit thread and Puandro's stuff.--Relyk ~ talk > 21:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Go troll somewhere else, mate. Your question has been answered to the best of our knowledge. Produce the evidence yourself, if you care so much about it, and everyone here will thank you for your contribution to the wiki. --Alad 21:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

So if my math is right, it looks like we can just divide the damage of each skill by 336 to get the damage coefficient? Can I get some other people to look into this and see if they can find a more precise number than 336. Also if this holds true someone can just write a method to derive the coefficient and put it into the skill page template so we don't have to document the damage and coefficients separately for each skill.75.185.12.231 00:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No. The factors involved are the skill coefficient, the average weapon strength, and the target's armor. Target's armor is constant for all skill tooltips, but weapon strength is not. You can determine a factor for each weapon, just not a universal one for all skills. —Dr Ishmael 00:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

So what I'm saying is that if you divide the damage for each skill by 336 you seem to get the damage coefficient everytime for each skill75.185.12.231 00:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And what I'm saying is that the number you're quoting as 336 is different for each weapon. —Dr Ishmael 02:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It is at least holding true for Dagger, Sword, Scepter, and Shortbow. Which weapons is it different on? 75.185.12.231 03:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was oversimplifying before. There are some weapons that have the same average weapon strength (given same level and rarity), and you got lucky and chose 4 that all have 952.5 (level 80 exotic). Try longbow next, it has avg strength of 1000, it will have a different scale factor. —Dr Ishmael 04:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's a full table of avg strengths. I'd forgotten there were so many that shared the same midpoint.

Weapon type	Avg strength level 80 exotic
Warhorn	857
Focus	857.5
Shield	857.5
Torch	857.5
Axe	952.5
Dagger	952.5
Mace	952.5
Pistol	952.5
Scepter	952.5
Short Bow	952.5
Sword	952.5
Harpoon Gun	952.5
Spear	952.5
Trident	952.5
Longbow	1000
Greatsword	1047.5
Hammer	1048
Staff	1048
Rifle	1095.5

The scale factor is (avg strength * power) / (armor), which for sword/staff/etc. is (952.5 * 916) / (2600) = 335.573. Longbow is (1000 * 916) / (2600) = 352.308. —Dr Ishmael 04:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha, it looks like the skill damage on the wiki is posted as base level 80 stats. It's easy to get base 80 power, it's just 916. I guess the armor is assumed and fixed at 2600 for some reason. So the logic that we could apply to the skill template to have the weapon damage would involve a check of the weapon type associated with the skill grabbing it's min and max ranges for level 80 and getting that average. Then we have all three values necessary to find the scale factor for the weapons. Finally we just take that scale factor and divide it by the skill damage and bingo bango we have the skill template calculating the skill damage coefficient's for us. The only issue is that I'm not proficient with programming on the wiki to make that happen.75.185.12.231 22:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Attack attribute effect on skill damage

I don't remember if the Attack attribute tooltip used to say so before the changes to the hero panel, but it now says: "...determines skill damage." Since it doesn't determine weapon skill damage, I'm wondering if they mean it determines Utility skill damage... --Alad 23:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Attack (attribute)--Relyk ~ talk > 00:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know that :) I was wondering if anyone had tried to find a correlation between utility skill damage and the attack attribute. --Alad 00:57, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"utility skill damage is only based on power", nope? I mean, they are both derivatives from power, and doesn't correlate with each other. MalGalad 01:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The proof is when you equip weapons with different strengths, thus changing your Attack value (use weapons that don't affect Power, of course, or that have identical Power bonuses). Do the different strengths affect utility skill damage? No, it doesn't, so utility skill damage is completely unlinked from weapon strength and Attack. —Dr Ishmael 01:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL, so the devs are deliberately lying to us? :) --Alad 05:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Base Damage

How is base damage of a skill used in calculations? For example the 252 on Chop, I understand how the 0.7 is used. Is the 252 a number on Chop which needs to be used for calculations, or is it a number calculated with a certain Power value which we have assigned to Chop for comparison's sake? Zuphixavex (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Skill formatting#Skill facts explains the value shown on the wiki. The value shown in-game is already explained on this page. —Dr Ishmael 12:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I added a subsection on how the skill-fact damage shown on the wiki can be used to calculate direct damage for different power and armor values. The formula is implied by the formulas that are already there, but I think it may be useful to explicitly show how the skill fact can be used. --Abraxax (talk) 16:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Skill coefficient

Doesnt the game already calculate this part or does skills have this mystery value found via testing? Because if its simply the damage increase a skill gets from power, then that cleans calculations up but complicates wiki pages info documentation. Pages should be cleaned up to show just rate of info damage increase per power instead of overall damage change unless this coeff isnt that simple. Game seems to be clear... except when traits boosts damage directly on info boxes and indirectly via conditionals... which are just multipliers players have to math outside and separately anyways. 164.106.166.48 20:41, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Added subsections on the skill coefficient and on the skill-fact damage. Similar questions about these issues seem to appear repeatedly, so I tried to make it clearer.

I was looking around but there does not seem to be a place on the Wiki where it is specified how precisely we compute skill coefficients (Updated: see Damage calculation for a similar definition). In any case, going through the skill facts, different people seem to have used different procedures at different times, in particular when it comes to rounding the result.

Sometimes the value 2600, sometimes 2597 is quoted for the reference armor. Is there a strong reason that we should use one or the other? --Abraxax (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm a sucker for round numbers. For that entirely arbitrary reason, I vote for 2600. Who thinks the 0.1155% difference is important? ~ 1Maven (talk) 19:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed! --Abraxax (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the 2600 armor, the value used in tooltip calculations in-game is 2597. It's a very common armor value for many enemies in the game, including most of the raid bosses. The heavy golem in HotM uses this value as well. It was specifically read from memory from the raid bosses, and I find it safe to assume it's the standard used for most other mobs too. I've discovered that turret detonations do steady damage, so you can detonate a healing turret on a mob and napkin math the armor assuming there aren't any other modifiers in play. You wont get perfect numbers on non-2597 armor targets, but it's good for approximations. The detonation deals 1270 damage to a 2597 armor target, as stated by the tooltip. Towelcat (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there are two pages, Damage and Damage calculation, which in their current state discuss similar things. We could/should merge them, or perhaps have a simple summary page and a page with more detailed explanations. There also is a page on Weapon strength, which is not consistently referred to, and there is a table on weapon strength in Damage calculation but not in Weapon strength. That table I find useful, but it would be even better to use the template for item stats to get the weapon strength ... --Abraxax (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I added a big table of weapon strength ranges to weapon strength as part of rewriting the whole thing. Referring to the template is inefficient, since it would require 10 calls per weapon type, 170 calls in total, as well as some #var: usage in order to calculate the midpoint and variance. Any changes to these numbers will be extremely rare, so static data is fine. —Dr Ishmael 18:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice, I really like that table. I had wanted to add ascended weapons, because it is their midpoint values which are nice round numbers, which puts the exotic weapon numbers into perspective. --Abraxax (talk) 10:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Damage Numbers on Wiki Pages

So, I've seen *many* random numbers on the wiki that pertains to skill damage that was just randomly added. Although I'm a metazerk guy, I'm going to run all numbers for the Guardian and Revenant sections and change them to tooltip damage without any modifiers or sigils of the sort using the Weapon Skills inside the Build Section of the Hero Panel in PvP without any amulets, runes or sigils for standardization, since that's even on all stats and it's the base stats. Although I'm only taking care of damage numbers for the Guardian and Revenant section, I would love if people took care of the other pages as well.

Again, please use the Weapon Skill numbers from the Build Section of the Hero Panel without using amulets/beneficial traits/runes and multipliers like Zealous Blade on Guardian that gives it a 105% damage.

"Weapon Skills inside the Build Section of the Hero Panel in PvP without any amulets..."

This isn't the method for damage wiki damage values. The standard is the stated tooltip damage in PvE with an exotic weapon and base 1000 power. Towelcat (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Weapon strength: level 80 exotic - why?

So, I spent some time on how damage numbers are calculated on tooltips (from chat codes/chat links, to be clear), and after some trial and error the used weapon strength from these codes are from level 77 fine weapons (overview for average damage here: User:Nefastu/Coeff). From what I can tell, this is old news, as these weapon strengths are already used for utility spells/spells that can be used with multiple weapons (example   Well of Suffering has a weapon strength of 690.5, same for   Surprise Shot). Here's the part that I don't understand: Why exactly do we use average level 80 exotic damage for skills that can only be used on one weapon type? Wouldn't it be better to calculate damage numbers with the same weapon damage average to keep numbers consistent with utilty skills (and skills that can be used with multiple weapons) on this wiki? -Nefastu (talk) 00:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I've updated my user page with a tool to calculate skill coefficients and damage from only your power and the listed damage value from a chat code — maybe this is helpful. Still I'd like to know why the weapon strength of level 80 exotics was picked for wiki damage facts. —Nefastu (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Level 80 exotic is an arbitrary baseline. That was the max weapon strength available on release. That changed with Ascended tier, but it would've been superfluous to change all the numbers to Ascended and require players to get ascended equipment, which is difficult for new players. The numbers have changed anyways since they raised the upper bound multiple times. There were issues with using tooltips, mostly due to scaling with power and people not getting consistent numbers and not knowing the formula. I don't remember any other reasons so you could create a naked PvP to grab facts as a consistent method for getting coefficients?--Relyk ~ talk < 01:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmph, fair enough, thank you. Coefficients aren't problematic. What bugs me is the inconsistency for what weapon strength should be used for which type for displaying damage skill facts on this wiki:

• Weapon skills use their respective weapon strength Flevel 80 exotic,
• Bundles, kits, conjures use Flevel 78 exotic sword strength,
• Skills for transformed players use Clevel 78 fine staff strength? Or G level 80 ascended sword strength? I don't even know.
• All other skills (utilities, health skills, elite skills, profession skills, ?) use Clevel 77 fine sword strength.

My suggestion is to use Clevel 77 fine weapon strength to display damage from skill facts for all skills. —Nefastu (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Feedback 2018/10/04: No visible damage numbers when a player causes damage to an invisible target.

This fact was added as a bug. I don't know if this has been brought up by the developers in some capacity, but I strongly see this as a design choice. - J.P. 01:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

--Agreed. Turbo404 (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

It is most definitely a design choice if it's been like this for 7 years. I'm going to revert the change, again. - Towelcat (talk) 20:30, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Upgrade components that increase outgoing condition damage lists effects that apply percentage coefficients, yet following those wikilinks displays articles which raise Power / Condition Damage rather than applying a coefficient. 1.145.20.248 02:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The section is from before runes were reworked during the release of SOTO, I'm inclined to suggest removing that section altogether since I think listing runes that just boost the condition damage stat would be too long. --ItVictor (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Ya it should only be damage mods for it but they don't exist for runes anymore so removed it. --Dak393 (talk) 07:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)