Question in title.
Of course a +3 weapon has more pattack then a +0.
But I consider a weapon only better when I have to hit a mob less times to kill it, and this does not really seem the case. :confused:
I think its not better. Is it worth to enchant a weapon to +3?
The small pattack u gain is not enough to kill a mob faster (less hits to kill) it seems to me.
I noticed every single enchant on my SoL - and that's D Grade, two/four MAtk per.
Of course if you're already set on which mobs to hunt and not very flexible it doesn't make a difference - or maybe it doesn't at a higher level. Who knows? :p
For mages, a few + can make the difference between having to hit a monster twice and three times in order to kill it. Sometimes it means +5 or +8 instead of +3, but in return you are killing 50% more efficiently. This is a lot different than the case for melee types and again for casters. Sometimes that 20-30 extra damage can make the difference between life and death. The best way is to see how you actually feel about it. If you don't feel any actual difference, then there probably isn't any.
Every extra point of damage you can do per soulshot or per Bsps is more money for you.
Let's say that +3 means you have to use ONE less Soulshot charge per mob. 30 adena x how many mobs will you kill with that weapon? In B and A grade it adds up pretty quickly.
For Mages, the difference between two shotting a mob or three shotting it is quite a big difference.
With a +0 BotMT, you kill in 3 shots @367adena/shot
With a +3 BotMT, you kill in 2 shots @367 adena/shot
The mobs are dropping 900-1500 adena at a 70% rate.
3x 367 = 1101/kill
2x 367 = 734/kill
Average drop for these mobs is 1200.
ten kills should drop 7 times for 8400 adena
at x3 you spent 11010 adena to get 8400 adena = net loss
at x2 you spent 7340 adena to get 8400 adena = net profit
Of course, you probably should hunt lower mobs then... but your XP and drops will not be as nice.
Up to +3 means you are more adena and mana efficient overall. (for mages it is damage mana, for melees it is healing mana)
The +3 enchant is almost always worth it C grade and higher.
(D is worth it if you aren't powering through)
Overenchant is also quite worth it if you can afford the losses.
Any idea how powerful a pair of +11 B grade focus duals are in PvE? (Grats you on not needing A grade!)
Isn't mage damage calculated off the square root of matk, so an +3 vs a +0 weapon would only mean the difference between two shotting and three shotting if after two shots with the +0 the mob had just a sliver of hp left?
I have noticed the difference in damage between demon's and avadon isn't very significant on my level 60 sorc; demon’s only reduces the number of nukes per mob if I could smack the mob to death in 1-3hits after two nukes while in avadon. The change in matk between demon's and avadon is more then the difference between +0 and +3. I think the increase in matk changes land rate more than damage.
Melee is more likely to get advantage from safely enchanted weapons because, as the hits are smaller and more often, it is easier to decrease the number of them.
Examples:
Melee takes 10 attacks to kill a mob with 1k hit points, 100dmg per attack. They need to increase damage by 11% to decrease it to 9 attacks per mob. This requires an 11% increase in patk.
Nuker takes 3 attacks to kill a mob with 1k hit points, 450dmg per attack. They need to increase damage by 11% to decrease it to 2 attacks per mob. This requires a 23% increase in matk.
At 2/3 damage…
Melee takes 15 attacks to kill a mob with 1k hit points, 67dmg per attack. They need to increase damage by 7.2% to decrease it to 14 attacks per mob. This requires an 7.2% increase in patk.
Nuker takes 4 attacks to kill a mob with 1k hit points, 300dmg per attack. They need to increase damage by 11% to decrease it to 3 attacks per mob. This requires a 23% increase in matk.
The difference is probably even more then these examples show as, I believe, mages usually do more then 4.5x melee damage per attack. However, this does get somewhat complicated by crit rates.
Isn't mage damage calculated off the square root of matk, so an +3 vs a +0 weapon would only mean the difference between two shotting and three shotting if after two shots with the +0 the mob had just a sliver of hp left?
Right on, that's exactly true.
I never thought I'd see the day when someone else posted this :eek:
If I have 1000 base matk and I'm doing 1k dmg to a mob, then switch to a different weapon that bumps my matk to 1050, I would do ~24 dmg more to a mob per shot. This translates to a tiny sliver of HP on the mob's HP bar.
Does going to +3 really help that much for a nuker? It will depend on the mobs you're hunting. It doesn't increase your damage all that much, but it might make a difference on the mobs you could kill that would take nukes + a couple of melee hits.
Well i know that As a nuker, i would rather be carrying around some m attack that I dont really need just because its better safe then sorry, and that little bit of extra damage can make the difference between landing a debuff or not, getting that pvp point or not, 2 shotting that mob that gives 500 more xp...
If you have the money for scrolls then +3 is very worth it.
In my opinion of course.
its pretty much a no brainer till A grade
excludeing D grade, enchant weapon scrolls are such a small portion of the cost of a weapon that theres no reason you wouldnt +3 it
once you get to A grade and +3 doubles the cost of your weapon then you have to consider if its worth it
but +4 weapons glow is sooooo cool! :P
btw, sometimes you can find some +something sold at good prices, so my way is not to buy ew scroll, but looking for already enchandted weapons i can afford... anyway i'm still in D grade, but as far as i know, my +4 ELS adds some good damage that normal ELS, and with x2 mobs it saves me a couple of ss per mob (don't forget skills as sting or poison normally used in soloing, that fast pretty good the kill, and +4 adds also to m.attak even for melee)
Matk is calculated off the square root, but damage is a function of a multiplier determined by the power of the spell, matk, and your opponenets' Mdef.
Also of note, that raw 9 Matk you gain from +3 is multiplied by INT bonus, Empower bonus, Berz bonus, and set bonus (if applicable)
Pretty much, the extra damage per point of raw matk rises as you level as the damage mulitplier rises with the level and power of the damage spells.
Truth be told, that +3 adds a little chunk of damage, but it is damage that will usually make the difference between a 2-shot and a 3-shot.
Since bsps are expensive, and spending the mana on another nuke is costly for time, this is a bigger deal.
Someone already mentioned it, but cost is another reason.
Spending 1.5 mil (c grade) to make a 10 mil weapon almost 10% better seems like a solid deal.
Spending 6 mil (b grade) to make a 20mil weapon 7% better is a less profitable proposition, but still worthwhile.
Spending 18 mil (a grade) to make a 60mil weapon 5% better does not seem to pay.
I don't understand how you can say (maybe from experience?):
Truth be told, that +3 adds a little chunk of damage, but it is damage that will usually make the difference between a 2-shot and a 3-shot.
but I agree with everything else you say, however, it doesn't change anything :p.
The +patk from an enchant is multiplied by buffs/str bonus for melee too, right? Are you trying to say that melee get less from enchants than a nuker because nuker damage increases more with spell power than matk? Just that a nuker gets more out of using fewer attacks than a melee does?
Sorry but I failed to see what you disagreed with me on. :confused:
Edit: Doesn't weather you go from 3 to 2 shots depend on lvl/mob/class/tatoos/weapon? I didn't notice changing from avadon to demons decreasing my number of attacks per mob except for one or two of the mobs in a specific field at a specific level. It was great for those situations but it wasn't the norm. Changing from avadon to demon's increases one's matk much more than changing from a +0 to +3 weapon, so I assume the situations where +3 makes the difference between 3 and 2 shots are rarer.
I am not saying that enchants don’t help a mage, my sorc has a +4 weapon; I am just saying that the idea that it helps a mage more than a melee is wrong.
Thalenduros was attempting to disagree that MAtk doesn't get significant improvement from "safe enchants" due to the fact that MAtk-increasing effects will multiply the effect. I'm guessing that's where he thought you were wrong.
By my estimation, however, he was simply failing to understand that the square-rooting we referred to comes after all MAtk multipliers...so 1% is going to be 1% no matter how you cut it.
In the case where adding 1% damage can make the difference between 2-shotting and 3-shotting a foe, weapon enchants are worthwhile on a mage weapon. Thalenduros seems to think that happens quite often, while in my experience the difference between +0 and +3, if the caster has MAtk buffs/sets/etc, has practically never made the difference.
For overenchants, yes, you'll see a difference once in a while. For "safe" enchants, only on very specific monsters when you have very specific stats and buffs--or, in other words, only if you go out of your way to put yourself in a situation where it will matter.
Well, let's put some of these theories to the test.
As a start, I figured we'd begin at the low end.
I pulled out a newbie (Level 29 Dark Wizard) and spent 600k for 3 D weap ench and bought a used Demon fangs for 1.4mil. (Note he is wearing Knowledge set.)
Demon fangs are 66MAtk and +3 makes them 72MAtk for a 9% Raw Matk gain.
I found me a white mob (level 30 with 990HP) and nuked it (no bsps) with my standard Wind nuke using an unench demon fangs for 387.
The overhit spell (higher power) hit for 465.
At +1 (68Matk) I hit for 401 (+14) with the wind spell, and 482 (+17)with the overhit.
At +2 (70Matk) I hit for 416 (+15) with the wind spell, and 500 (+18)with the overhit.
At +3 (72Matk) I hit for 430 (+14) with the wind spell, and 517 (+17)with the overhit.
Going from +0 to +3 added 43 damage to a 387 damage spell. (11% increase.)
It also added 52 damage to a 465 damage spell. (11% increase)
Note that I still cannot two-hit the mob in question without a spirit shot, but that it only has 43HP left instead of 138HP left. Note that this is not an ideal mob, it is just the first one I came across that was white.
What does this mean?
Significant improvement will be up to the player. However, the test does help justify enchanting to +3 as it actually does improve damage output by more than the amount added.
Note that a 9% raw Matk improvement on a weapon increased damage output by 11%.
11% is not "a few piddly HP" to me... It means either more XP on the overhit or that I can kill more opportune mobs.
Note that in this case the difference in one nuke is an extra 4% of a white mob's overall HP. With a bsps, that's 8%. When I get level 30, it will be even more of the mobs HP per nuke extra. (due to higher power spell)
Is the 11% damage improvement worth the 600k I spent?
For me it is. 11% more damage meas I can kill better mobs or at least have a better selection of targets in case something is camped.
Well, let's put some of these theories to the test.
As a start, I figured we'd begin at the low end.
I pulled out a newbie (Level 29 Dark Wizard) and spent 600k for 3 D weap ench and bought a used Demon fangs for 1.4mil. (Note he is wearing Knowledge set.)
Demon fangs are 66MAtk and +3 makes them 72MAtk for a 9% Raw Matk gain.
I found me a white mob (level 30 with 990HP) and nuked it (no bsps) with my standard Wind nuke using an unench demon fangs for 387.
The overhit spell (higher power) hit for 465.
At +1 (68Matk) I hit for 401 (+14) with the wind spell, and 482 (+17)with the overhit.
At +2 (70Matk) I hit for 416 (+15) with the wind spell, and 500 (+18)with the overhit.
At +3 (72Matk) I hit for 430 (+14) with the wind spell, and 517 (+17)with the overhit.
Going from +0 to +3 added 43 damage to a 387 damage spell. (11% increase.)
It also added 52 damage to a 465 damage spell. (11% increase)
Note that I still cannot two-hit the mob in question without a spirit shot, but that it only has 43HP left instead of 138HP left. Note that this is not an ideal mob, it is just the first one I came across that was white.
What does this mean?
Significant improvement will be up to the player. However, the test does help justify enchanting to +3 as it actually does improve damage output by more than the amount added.
Note that a 9% raw Matk improvement on a weapon increased damage output by 11%.
11% is not "a few piddly HP" to me... It means either more XP on the overhit or that I can kill more opportune mobs.
Note that in this case the difference in one nuke is an extra 4% of a white mob's overall HP. With a bsps, that's 8%. When I get level 30, it will be even more of the mobs HP per nuke extra. (due to higher power spell)
Is the 11% damage improvement worth the 600k I spent?
For me it is. 11% more damage meas I can kill better mobs or at least have a better selection of targets in case something is camped.
Thats a pretty one sided and minimal test there Thalenduros.
I should think that this certainly proves the case when the square m attack created by the weapon is on par or close to the spell power, as in the experiment you did, however when we are examining the higher level spells which have a spell power of 87 to 120 and the square root of 800 magic attack is equal to roughly 28, the difference from an extra 9 m attack on the weapon becomes negligible. Even when one says the difference is doubled because of the use of bsps, the double increase, is also met by the mobs having a large amount of hit points. Case in point, I recently moved from a +4 soes to a +0 som, a difference of 6 m attack.
With the demon's set and a total tattoo modifier of +5, my total m attack rose from 780 to 804. The two mobs being examined are the Wisdom of Splendor and Flash of Splendor. Before the upgrade, I could only kill the wisdom with spells if I proceeded to whack it with the staff. The flash of splendor could be killed with two spells regardless provided one spell was hydroblast and the other spell was solar flare, otherwise it could only be killed with two hydroblasts provided it had proceeded to cast bezerk on itself, and if I killed it before the bezerk wore off. After changing to the SOM, the wisdoms were just dying with 2 spells and no know melee hits, and the flashes of splendor still could not be killed with 2 hydroblasts unless it had cast bezerk on itself. In the end, there was almost no change in the total damage output.
%Difference=(new-old)/old*100%=((M attack new)^(1/2)*B/A-(M attack old))^(1/2)*B/A)/((M attack old)^(1/2)*B/A)*100%
-as such, the A term standing for m defense falls is cancelled with the equation, as does the B term standing for spell power*91, so there becomes no point in using them within the proceeding calculations
% Difference=(28.35-27.93)/27.93*100%=1.53% more damage per spell
Now, repeating the same experiment with a d grade weapon,
we have, with m attack=(weapon's m attack)*(int modifier)^2*(player's level -11)^2, for a light elven mystic, level 25 with a conjurer's staff having a base m attack of 43 at +0,
m attack=(43)*(1.12)^2*(1+.25-.11)^2=72.58, which seems a little too small, but should work well enough for this example
with a +3 staff, m attack becomes (43+6)*(1.12)^2*(1+.25-.11)^2=82.71
+0 staff m attack=8.52
+3 styaff m attack=9.09
% Difference=(9.09-8.52)/8.52*100%=6.75%
thus we have shown that when the weapon and caster's level are both high, the % change in mattack from a +6 increase is much smaller than the % change in mattack from the same +6 increase when both the weapon's m attack and caster's level; which is the exact result one would expect when m attack is squared.
However, for physical damage, the returns from enchanting a weapon decrease in a less severe manner as both player level and weapon attack increase, due to physical damage not square rooting the p attack.
But overall, the benefit of adding that +3 enchantment falls as player level and weapon attack increase. One could even postulate that since the mobs hit points and defense continue to scale up linearly as their level increases, it should take an increasing number of both spells and physical hits to kill them as one increases in level due to the decreasing returns to increasing attack power, which is the exact result we see. Furthermore, this must become most notable during the large the A (level 61) and S (level 76) grade equipment ranges, when the player is required to go 15 levels without being able to upgrade their equipment, at a time when they are getting the least benefit from doing so as their level is at its highest.
Well, let's put some of these theories to the test.
As a start, I figured we'd begin at the low end.
I pulled out a newbie (Level 29 Dark Wizard) and spent 600k for 3 D weap ench and bought a used Demon fangs for 1.4mil. (Note he is wearing Knowledge set.)
Demon fangs are 66MAtk and +3 makes them 72MAtk for a 9% Raw Matk gain.
I found me a white mob (level 30 with 990HP) and nuked it (no bsps) with my standard Wind nuke using an unench demon fangs for 387.
The overhit spell (higher power) hit for 465.
At +1 (68Matk) I hit for 401 (+14) with the wind spell, and 482 (+17)with the overhit.
At +2 (70Matk) I hit for 416 (+15) with the wind spell, and 500 (+18)with the overhit.
At +3 (72Matk) I hit for 430 (+14) with the wind spell, and 517 (+17)with the overhit.
Going from +0 to +3 added 43 damage to a 387 damage spell. (11% increase.)
It also added 52 damage to a 465 damage spell. (11% increase)
Note that I still cannot two-hit the mob in question without a spirit shot, but that it only has 43HP left instead of 138HP left. Note that this is not an ideal mob, it is just the first one I came across that was white.
What does this mean?
Significant improvement will be up to the player. However, the test does help justify enchanting to +3 as it actually does improve damage output by more than the amount added.
Note that a 9% raw Matk improvement on a weapon increased damage output by 11%.
11% is not "a few piddly HP" to me... It means either more XP on the overhit or that I can kill more opportune mobs.
Note that in this case the difference in one nuke is an extra 4% of a white mob's overall HP. With a bsps, that's 8%. When I get level 30, it will be even more of the mobs HP per nuke extra. (due to higher power spell)
Is the 11% damage improvement worth the 600k I spent?
For me it is. 11% more damage meas I can kill better mobs or at least have a better selection of targets in case something is camped.
I guess it is your call.
lets look at what square root does
sqrt of 4 = 2
sqrt of 16 = 4
sqrt of 64 = 8
the point of that?
at low matk a slight in crease does MUCH MUCH more then say that kind of increase when u have 2025 matk (sqrt into 45) that 9 % matk gain now only gets us to 46.98, turning into a 4.4% gain, much more negligable.
so not only does it depend on wether the person wants or not but their total matk
Malk going to provide me with the weapon and enchants?
Its easier if you do it and post the results. Use my example and make it reproduceable.
Let me clarify.
I agree that melee and magic is both benefitted.
I believe BOTH should make the enchant to +3 as a no brainer for extra adena. Think of the enchant as an investment for XP and adena.
I believe Larena is partially correct in that melee benefits, but did not agree about the mage benefit being as small as larena and bekkar indicated.
I proved the mage half is not 1%, but is indeed 11% at +3.
(Their pseudo-calculations with sqrt in the matk formula are not correct because of HOW it is calculated, and the easiest way to prove them wrong was to actually use it in a reproduceable experiment.)
Melee does indeed gain benefit and really should take the enchant if possible. I do not argue this point. Better for mages? Better for melee? How do we define better?
-Kill speed difference? Melee wins.
-Mana efficiency difference?
(melee is manaless- bad comparison)
-Adena efficiency difference? (must be tested)
Seriously, if you hit something 10 times to kill it, (100/swing) and then enchant it and only have to swing 9 times you save both money and time. Why would you NOT do this? Not only did you save 30 adena, but you can start swinging at something else that much faster and you lost less HP in the process.
I believe Larena is partially correct in that melee benefits, but did not agree about the mage benefit being as small as larena and bekkar indicated.
I proved the mage half is not 1%, but is indeed 11% at +3.
(Their pseudo-calculations with sqrt in the matk formula are not correct because of HOW it is calculated, and the easiest way to prove them wrong was to actually use it in a reproduceable experiment.)
I don't think you understand what I am trying to say. I am not saying that the benefit to mages is negligible.
I am saying it isn't better for mages to enchant relative to melee as seems to be a common misconception.
Enchanting is good for both!
Your experiment does not prove me wrong, nor does it counter my pseudo calculations - what was the matk change on your character that gave you the 11% damage increase?
but did not agree about the mage benefit being as small as larena and bekkar indicated.
I proved the mage half is not 1%, but is indeed 11% at +3.
I had never said that +0 to +3 would be 1% difference even at low levels, which is what you demonstrated. I actually hadn't said anything even remotely close to that. My 1% came in as part of the phrase "1% is going to be 1% no matter how you cut it", which was in response to your comment that enchanting would be more beneficial in a buffed situation. It is, in fact, exactly the same %shift--each percent continues to be a percent, simply of a different whole.
In other words, you simply misunderstood me, and haven't proven me wrong at all, as I was talking about something else--the lack of a buffed-versus-unbuffed dispairity.
What I was saying about mage weapons, and what Larena has explained, and what I think Malkavian was getting at is that mages do not benefit more from weapon enchants. A very common misconception on this board is that, since it's easier to "break grade" with an overenchanted mage weapon, that enchanting benefits them more. The reality appears to be that they gain equivalent benefits at very low levels and significantly less benefits at higher levels, when compared to the PAtk benefit.
My statements that a few points of MAtk don't matter in normal farming is based on personal experience--I switched from a top+7 weapon to a top+5 on my nuker and found that I still required the same number of nukes to kill green and white foes. As I was already in the optimum experience-gain area for my level and class, the fact that I effectively lost 4 levels of normal enchantment made no difference whatsover during normal play.
Unless a character has gone out of his way or had abnormal luck, I suspect others will have the same experience due to the "all or none" nature of nukes. I think that, if you reflect on your own testing, you will agree with me that gaining any significant benefit would require the player to be seeking out a situation where it will help, and require that such a situation even exists for his class and level range.
I proved the mage half is not 1%, but is indeed 11% at +3
You proved nothing more than our so called psuedo calculations would have shown. And considering you did not test this out at the higher levels as well, which any good researcher would have known they would need to do because of the presence of the square root in the magic damage formula, you actually porved less than you had set out to do.
So the 11% benefit you noticed was purely situational. I dare you to try to get the same result using a level 61 spellsinger with a different weapon. When you find what we have already known, then you will know it is not our calculations which were wrong, but your one sided experiment.
To see that this is so, notice my above calculations where I took the real magic attack of my own spellsinger, fighting a real mob and told of the real difference for increasing the m attack of the weapon by +6 had. That 1.52% increase which I found pales in comparison to your 11% increase, yet both are real values, though mine had calculations as well as the experiment to show what was going on behind the scenes.
And I still don't understand when you say,
Their pseudo-calculations with sqrt in the matk formula are not correct because of HOW it is calculated, and the easiest way to prove them wrong was to actually use it in a reproduceable experiment
If anything, I have proved that these calculations are right, the returns to increasing either the enchantment level or of buying a new weapon increases in a decreasing manner, and this is true whether we are examining magic damage which is square rooted or physical damage which uses a linear function.
Maybe you have forgotten that this is naught but a computer program, and must therefore use algorithms when performing any action. When that algorithm is for a function, knowing what that function is allows one to calculate the effect any change would produce without having to perform an experiment to determine what the effect will be.