Descent - Official Skills and Information

Has anyone gotten the 100 skills yet? I have enough influence and I'm under the prestige limit, but all the skill books are red.

PhantomThief - Archosaur wrote: »

You have to have the prestige amount, which is about 6 weeks of doing every single quest available each day/week.

Ooh. I thought it was a limit, like you can't go over that amount. Thanks!

Jesusisback - Raging Tide wrote: »

Super bump.

That knocked me off my chair b:embarrass

PLS.... "THE MASSIVE RESSURECTION" of the new mistyc skill is that an aoe buff or its a normal skill to aoe res ppl?????

b:thanks

i wasnt sure where to post this but i was wondering what rank means and any other info i need to better my playing :P

_Svenla_ - Archosaur wrote: »

nouuuu an aoe version QQ that sucks

It also acts like the sage version. So 1 - you don't need to get the sage version if your sage. 2 - You can have both versions as a demon.

Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »

Slaying Damage Amplification = 3 * Slaying Level / ( 300 + Slaying Level )
Warding Damage Reduction = Warding Level / (Enemy Level + Warding Level)

That's kind of annoying. I was hoping a straight multiplier. 60 attack levels becomes a 50% increase.

Asterelle, I have noticed that there are two new weapons available at the Divine Emissary of the Void and are available nowhere else. They are a level 70 blade with strength and damage boost as well as a stun effect and a level 81 sword with vitality, physical defense and MP boost. They are the Bloodtooth Blade and Imperial Sword, respectively. These were not present in the Divine Weapons selection before, and I can only assume they came out with Descent, or at least shortly after.
I do not believe any additional weapons have been added, and I can see why they were swords, as the only preexisting legendary swords around their levels were level 61 and 88, making a huge gap in legendary weapons for Seekers and swordwielding Blademasters in which they were usually forced to get Twilight Temple swords instead for high-end weapons.

Elenacostel - Heavens Tear wrote: »

That's kind of annoying. I was hoping a straight multiplier. 60 attack levels becomes a 50% increase.

Well 60x3 / 360= 0.5 that means 50% right?

.39 i get with 45 slaying lvls /same is written in my char info/ so should be that lol...


about the Shadow Sight im farming it.. but w/o missing day to do daily and 20 extra influence cuz of the maitenance i got 2235 prestige 890 influence.. need 3500 prestige for that skill. So its not possible any1 to have it by now.

Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »

I did some more testing with Slaying Levels / Warding Levels and was finally able to figure out the equations.

Slaying was pretty tricky since I didn't know how to do fixed damage while equipping the lvl 95 weapon until I realized that Genie Attack Skills were affected by the slaying level and always deal fixed damage.

It wasn't too hard to figure out the formula after I noticed the amplification was some sort of fraction and I setup a spreadsheet http://i.imgur.com/28Aub.png

Slaying Damage Amplification = 3 * Slaying Level / ( 300 + Slaying Level )
Warding Damage Reduction = Warding Level / (Enemy Level + Warding Level)

Also added to the wiki
http://pwi-wiki.perfectworld.com/index.php/Damage#Slaying_Levels_and_Warding_Levels

This is nice, but also a tad confusing. To me it looks like it would calculta eof physical def and magical def were 0.

What I would like to know is (but i think i know the answer from this post) it acts more like "physical damage reduction" then adding to the phys/magical def.

Exemple with numbers thrown out quick (purely fictional for easiness) :

level 100 BM in TT99 : 90% physical def / 35% magical def

level 100 BM in new suit : 75% physical def / 28% magic def but 20% from warding levels

Does it become :

A : BM with 95% physical / 48% magical def
or
B : BM with 75 % physical / 28 % magic def and THEN 20% less of whats left


Another question, warding levels affect mobs our level, does that mean it doesnt kick in fighting lower level ones ? Like throwing that bm in bh69 in Morai stuff would get hit more then sending him in Hell/heaven ?

TY

There is no proof that the formulas for slaying and warding level given in the WiKi are correct

if these formulas are from testing, you have to count in everything, i.e. base stats usually change when you swith gear to adjust warding/slaying level
conclusion: to much variables, to less measured values...

personally i doubt that the monster level count in, because damage already changed depending on player/monster level difference

as long as you don't have the formulas from the source or from disassembling i would classify them as incorrect (but maybe useful as approximation)

PotatoHeadQR - Dreamweaver wrote: »

it's not hard to make sure that you have the same amount of dex or mag with two weapons....

maybe you can compensate stats for weapons, but there is also the fact that tere are currently only 4 slaying levels available to test: 5, 45, 50, 60
this is far to less and also the distribution of the values itself is to inconsistent for a good approximation

the problem on armor is that you want to keep almost everything the same, except warding level. when switching armor in most cases base pdef and base mdef changed which you have to compensate by using the related TT-x0 armor with the same base defenses. and then you have to adjust the vit/str that might have been changed

so it's not as easy as it seems to approximate the real values and also i wonder why using a "trial and error determined" rational function for approximation instead of a polynomial function of degree 2 or 3 which can easily be created by solving the linear equation system of the measured values...

for all those who want it the easy way, press 'c', hover your mouse over warding/slaying level and you get the amplification in percent rounded to integral numbers

Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »

Don't worry I know what I'm doing.

I found the results from in game testing. Specifically I used genie skills which always do a fixed amount of damage. By doing repeated attacks on the same mob you can find out the exact amp you are getting.

5 slaying level = .04918 more damage = 3/61 = 15/305
45 slaying level = 0.39127 more damage = 9/23 = 135/345
50 slaying level = 0.42857 more damage = 4/7 = 150/350

These values are exact since genie skills (at least Bramble Rage) always do an exact amount of damage. I'm also able to compensate for the effects of attack levels, defense levels, and defense since those effects are all well understood. It's not really necessary to correct for those if you are doing repeated attacks on the same mob while only changing Slaying Levels.

If you want to repeat these experiments try casting bramble rage on a mob while varying your Slaying Level and you will see the same results.

You will do also same amount of damage if you remove weapon. Of course then you cannot test 45 and 50 lv. but for 5 it should work.

Asterelle - Sanctuary wrote: »

Don't worry I know what I'm doing.

I found the results from in game testing. Specifically I used genie skills which always do a fixed amount of damage. By doing repeated attacks on the same mob you can find out the exact amp you are getting.

5 slaying level = .04918 more damage = 3/61 = 15/305
45 slaying level = 0.39127 more damage = 9/23 = 135/345
50 slaying level = 0.42857 more damage = 4/7 = 150/350

These values are exact since genie skills (at least Bramble Rage) always do an exact amount of damage. I'm also able to compensate for the effects of attack levels, defense levels, and defense since those effects are all well understood. It's not really necessary to correct for those if you are doing repeated attacks on the same mob while only changing Slaying Levels.

If you want to repeat these experiments try casting bramble rage on a mob while varying your Slaying Level and you will see the same results.

please post the damage dealed to mobs with slaying level and without slaying level i want to check this

like i said this might be a very good approximation, but it's not the formula used in the source code