cRPG

cRPG => Beginner's Help and Guides => Topic started by: Torben on October 26, 2013, 01:09:47 pm

Title: difference between 120, 145, 160wpf
Post by: Torben on October 26, 2013, 01:09:47 pm: im a polearmor and prefer the lhb. now im wondering what you guys say to the above wpf.

iirc 145 was quite sufficient, I am spoiled atm with 160 and like it alot.

do you think 120 and 140 are ok? also considering strat battles with their tincannery?
Title: Re: difference between 120, 145, 160wpf
Post by: no_rules_just_play on October 26, 2013, 01:53:58 pm: Had 172 in polearm and went to 160 recently. I guess I'm not the best person to help you:3
Title: Re: difference between 120, 145, 160wpf
Post by: Torben on October 26, 2013, 01:59:45 pm: Quote from: no_rules_just_play on October 26, 2013, 01:53:58 pm
Had 172 in polearm and went to 160 recently. I guess I'm not the best person to help you:3

any difference?
Title: Re: difference between 120, 145, 160wpf
Post by: no_rules_just_play on October 26, 2013, 02:04:39 pm: I actually have no idea. I got so used to 172 that i started sucking with 160, but now im used to 160 I don't feel the difference anymore. If you ever get 8 wm like me i suggest going for a hybrid as it's much more fun than being slightly faster.
Title: Re: difference between 120, 145, 160wpf
Post by: Teeth on October 26, 2013, 02:18:02 pm: In my book high wpf is only worth it with very slow or very high damage weapons due to the percentual damage/speed increase, actually the correct term would be attack duration reduction instead of speed increase. Weapons with a long attack duration or high damage benefit more in absolute terms from wpf than short attack duration or low damage.

Unless you are planning on using Flamberges, Great Mauls, Pikes or Long Mauls a lot, you should probably get IF. Especially in Strat where everyone wears plate, the high wpf gets reduced a lot by armour. This reduction is also percentual, which means high wpfgets more absolute wpf reduction than low wpf. Which means WM's effectiveness gets reduced relatively, while the effectiveness of IF with 75 body armour gets increased a lot. With fast weapons like a LHB, 0 WM is fine, 3 is fine too, just max more important skills and use in WM what you have left. I went from 4 to 7 WM as a longspearman and I felt a difference for sure, but that is because the weapon has low speed rating. Also I think stun duration might get reduced with high wpf, which is also why I maxed on my polearmer, but I am not sure.

Note the bigger reduction (steeper sloped line) in attack duration per wpf for slower weapons here.
Quote from: WaltF4 on February 26, 2011, 08:00:32 pm
(click to show/hide)
visitors can't see pics , please register or login

Quote from: HESKEYTIME on October 26, 2013, 01:15:56 pm
(I only crave more wpf if i'm ranged or 1handed)
What, 1h is exactly my favourite class to skimp on WM in favour of IF or shield. It's fast attacks and low damage means that WM does not make a very large difference.
Title: Re: difference between 120, 145, 160wpf
Post by: Torben on October 26, 2013, 02:38:25 pm: teeth, my main concern is actually this:

i can have 7 wm and 7ps or 0wm and 8ps + 3 more hp

this as a hybrid cav polearmer.

whats your take on that?
Title: Re: difference between 120, 145, 160wpf
Post by: Gurnisson on October 26, 2013, 02:45:47 pm: I'd say 7 wm and I'm not a big fan of wm myself.
Title: Re: difference between 120, 145, 160wpf
Post by: Strudog on October 26, 2013, 03:05:16 pm: i always stick to 5 WM with pretty much all my builds, so it around 145 wpf which for me is just right

120 is good for hybrid builds, and 160 is just a little too much for me
Title: Re: difference between 120, 145, 160wpf
Post by: Teeth on October 26, 2013, 04:55:40 pm: Quote from: Torben on October 26, 2013, 02:38:25 pm
teeth, my main concern is actually this:

i can have 7 wm and 7ps or 0wm and 8ps + 3 more hp

this as a hybrid cav polearmer.

whats your take on that?
I was going to do the maths so I could see the damage difference using this formula from the mechanics thread:
hold_bonus * (WPF*0.01*0.15+0.85)*(power_strike*0.08+1.0)+strength/5.0

But I don't get what I have calculated because these seem to be just damage modifiers and I don't know how they relate to base weapon damage. In any case with guesstimating effective wpf at 0 WM and 7 WM with an armour set with like a Light Kuyak and comparative other stuff I got the following values assuming hold bonus of 1:

8 PS, 95 effective wpf = 6,42
7 PS, 140 effective wpf = 5,85

Don't know what this means though so no smart answer from me unless someone smarter can shed light on what this means.

From less precise mechanics stats I'd say if that is the trade off you are looking at, I guess you should go for the WM. There is a difference of like 40-50 effective wpf and 10 wpf increases damage with 1,5%. One powerstrike point adds 8% and the extra strength adds slight damage as well.

So it's 6,5% damage + swing speed increase + lower repairs OR a little above 8% damage increase and 3 hitpoints. You should experiment with a stf as to how important you find the swing speed increase, see if you feel or see a difference. In my opinion attack speed is much more dependent on your ability to make the weapon fast by using it properly than wpf mechanics, but it still can't hurt to be a little faster overall.
Title: Re: difference between 120, 145, 160wpf
Post by: Torben on October 26, 2013, 05:16:56 pm: k thanks guys . )
Title: Re: difference between 120, 145, 160wpf
Post by: Leshma on October 26, 2013, 06:26:50 pm: Always had WM maxed (8 WM on main), but now I'm going with 0 WM and just 113 wpf.
Title: Re: difference between 120, 145, 160wpf
Post by: San on October 26, 2013, 06:51:16 pm: 7PS 7WM is a bit more powerful than 8PS 0WM. 7PS 140 wpf is like having 8.3 PS at 95wpf, which is like half a damage point.

For speed, think of 12-15 wpf as +1 speed, varying depending on base weapon speed.

I've tried 131, 172, and 184 with 1h. On the lower end, I definitely felt a weapon slowness compared to pure builds. Every millisecond counts when swinging, depending on your playstyle.

Quote from: Teeth on October 26, 2013, 04:55:40 pm
I was going to do the maths so I could see the damage difference using this formula from the mechanics thread:
hold_bonus * (WPF*0.01*0.15+0.85)*(power_strike*0.08+1.0)+strength/5.0

But I don't get what I have calculated because these seem to be just damage modifiers and I don't know how they relate to base weapon damage. In any case with guesstimating effective wpf at 0 WM and 7 WM with an armour set with like a Light Kuyak and comparative other stuff I got the following values assuming hold bonus of 1:

8 PS, 95 effective wpf = 6,42
7 PS, 140 effective wpf = 5,85

Don't know what this means though so no smart answer from me unless someone smarter can shed light on what this means.

You need to multiply by a base weapon damage (like 40) beforehand, or the bonus damage from strength overpowers the other damage bonuses.

Multiplying by 40 base damage:
8 PS, 95 effective wpf = 69,908
7 PS, 140 effective wpf = 70,344

These are raw damage values without factoring in armor mitigation or speed/hold bonuses.
Title: Re: difference between 120, 145, 160wpf
Post by: Torben on October 26, 2013, 08:24:20 pm: woha, ty san o0

and leshi, hit me up how thats working out for you =)
Title: Re: difference between 120, 145, 160wpf
Post by: Prpavi on October 26, 2013, 09:14:49 pm: had exactly 120 polearm wpf on my Main before respec, now i have 156 and I must say i do notice the difference

I also like Lesh max out my WM on almost every build, in 3 mil will have 8 wm :wink:
Title: Re: difference between 120, 145, 160wpf
Post by: Leshma on October 26, 2013, 09:50:12 pm: Quote from: Torben on October 26, 2013, 08:24:20 pm
and leshi, hit me up how thats working out for you =)

Will do. Currently, I'm at 103 2H wpf with 18 agi and it's fine. Of course, damage with 170+ wpf was noticeably higher, but that number gets reduced to 140 with the gear I was wearing. If you wear light gear, it pays off. Not so much if you're a tank.

@San
According to cRPG Calc, body armor weight reduces wpf more than any other armor part. Is that correct?
Title: Re: difference between 120, 145, 160wpf
Post by: San on October 26, 2013, 11:39:13 pm: As far as I know from the game mechanics thread..

Code: [Select]
total_weight = head+body+leg+hand effective_weight = 2*head+ body+ leg+ 4*hand - 10 final_wpf = wpf * (1 - 0.01 * effective_weight);
This formula ends up with a few more points of effective wpf than the current calculators. I think the minimum weight before your wpf decreases was increased at one point.

Body armour is most of your weight so it will of course contribute the most. Hand armour scales so well for its weight that heavier gloves and slightly lighter armour provides more wpf than if you had plate armour + lighter gloves and the same armor value. Leg armour between 16-20 on high end body armors also scale poorly.

In general, lighter head armour and slightly lowering glove armour works the best, but you'll really only shave 5-10 points (not worth it). Having 140-150 effective wpf is already really good; even 20wpf more than your opponent is noticeable. Best not to worry about it too much and wear whatever you want. Just stack WM when you have no other place to allocate your points.
Title: Re: difference between 120, 145, 160wpf
Post by: DonNicko on November 04, 2013, 12:02:40 pm: For me, I dont feel any difference, maybe because of high ping. I had 180 wpf and 100 and for me it was the same speed. And sometimes I dont see my swings with 100 wpf and the same with 180. And on strat battles being 21 lvl and having 1 wpf and 7 ps I killed enough people with the pike...
Title: Re: difference between 120, 145, 160wpf
Post by: Bulzur on November 04, 2013, 02:06:08 pm: High wpf also influences the stun duration after being blocked (after a thrust with a pike, for example, wich is the most noticeable).

I really like max WM build, and still hoping/waiting for that wpf change wich will make WM more viable.
Title: Re: difference between 120, 145, 160wpf
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on November 04, 2013, 04:59:32 pm: Also, not that it should really influence your decision, but higher WPF lowers your upkeep chances on melee weapons.
Title: Re: difference between 120, 145, 160wpf
Post by: Fartface on November 04, 2013, 06:37:59 pm: I always max out IF and use WM as a dump stat, got 125 2h wpp and im doing fine.
Title: Re: difference between 120, 145, 160wpf
Post by: njames89 on November 04, 2013, 07:21:26 pm: I have used between 150-120 wpf for the longsword and I have found that 125 is about ideal for me. I can put the rest of my points into xbow and arb people from the bushes with 100 wpf in xbow.