There are a lot of misconceptions about how crit damage works. Some say it "doubles your damage" or increases your damage by whatever %. I believe many have been misinterpreting the phrases that wikis/other people provide. So I will attempt to clear up misinterpretations with my poor wording <3.
From what we do know:
Attack increases all base damage by 1% per point. Your skill's base damage will be multiplied by 1 plus this value.
IE:
A wizard with 500 attack has blizzard, which does 57-78 per tick. 500 attack will increase the damage to 285-390 per tick.
What about crits? No one has bothered to give a formula yet, but let's say for example that a basic, unmodified crit damage does 50% more damage.
Ok! Now Let's say our 500 attack wizard has 400% critical damage crits with his blizzard! What will happen?
Well, we know that we have a 285-390 damage blizzard, so let's just multiply this by four! This gives us 1140-1560 per tick.
Crits are pretty valuable, eh?
In all honesty, I do not think that is how crits work. I've heard people say they double your damage, so +critical damage will make it more than double!!
This is an absurd assumption. Why? Because it would make certain builds stupidly good in comparison to other viable non-crit builds.
IE:
A wiz with alabaster rune in blizzard increases its critical strike chance by 80%. With a no crit chance build, you will be doing unfair amounts of damage with just +damage and +crit damage.
1140-1560 per second with no crit chance investment just from one rune makes any other choice obsolete. Why reduce the arcane cost from 40 to 24 to do 285-390 when you could just spend 16 extra AP for 4x the damage?
It just doesn't add up, so let's assume crits do not "multiply your damage" by your increased crit damage.
This is how crits probably do work: They multiply your base damage, which is effectively just adding your bonus damage from your attack with your bonus crit damage.
Basically, our 500 attack wizarad increases his base damage by 500%. A crit would add it's bonus to that, so it would be a 900% increased damage blizzard (500 from attack plus 400 from crit).
Our same wizard critting with the new formula does 513-702 per crit. That's an 80% increase in the total damage of the hit by adding 400% critical strike damage.
Only 100% damage bonus from crits on the same wizard would increase the damage to only 342-468 from the original 285-390. This crit is only a 20% increase of the total damage of the skill by adding a 100% crit damage bonus to the base power of the skill. See what I mean?
Lastly, many skills just generally "increase all damage" like the wizard's crimson runed familiar or the barb's crimson runed battle rage. The desription for the wizard reads "increase damage of all attacks by 40% while Familiar is active." The barb "increases damage by 100%" while active. I would like to hear what others think about these kinds of skill desciptions. I personally think that these skills will just multiply the base damage of everything instead of increasing "all damage."
This can already easily be tested by an F&F player with a barb's battle rage. Get going!!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
From what we do know:
Attack increases all base damage by 1% per point. Your skill's base damage will be multiplied by 1 plus this value.
IE:
- A wizard with 500 attack has blizzard, which does 57-78 per tick. 500 attack will increase the damage to 285-390 per tick.
- What about crits? No one has bothered to give a formula yet, but let's say for example that a basic, unmodified crit damage does 50% more damage.
- Ok! Now Let's say our 500 attack wizard has 400% critical damage crits with his blizzard! What will happen?
Well, we know that we have a 285-390 damage blizzard, so let's just multiply this by four! This gives us 1140-1560 per tick.
Crits are pretty valuable, eh?
In all honesty, I do not think that is how crits work. I've heard people say they double your damage, so +critical damage will make it more than double!!
This is an absurd assumption. Why? Because it would make certain builds stupidly good in comparison to other viable non-crit builds.
IE:
- A wiz with alabaster rune in blizzard increases its critical strike chance by 80%. With a no crit chance build, you will be doing unfair amounts of damage with just +damage and +crit damage.
- 1140-1560 per second with no crit chance investment just from one rune makes any other choice obsolete. Why reduce the arcane cost from 40 to 24 to do 285-390 when you could just spend 16 extra AP for 4x the damage?
It just doesn't add up, so let's assume crits do not "multiply your damage" by your increased crit damage.
This is how crits probably do work: They multiply your base damage, which is effectively just adding your bonus damage from your attack with your bonus crit damage.
Basically, our 500 attack wizarad increases his base damage by 500%. A crit would add it's bonus to that, so it would be a 900% increased damage blizzard (500 from attack plus 400 from crit).
Our same wizard critting with the new formula does 513-702 per crit. That's an 80% increase in the total damage of the hit by adding 400% critical strike damage.
Only 100% damage bonus from crits on the same wizard would increase the damage to only 342-468 from the original 285-390. This crit is only a 20% increase of the total damage of the skill by adding a 100% crit damage bonus to the base power of the skill. See what I mean?
Lastly, many skills just generally "increase all damage" like the wizard's crimson runed familiar or the barb's crimson runed battle rage. The desription for the wizard reads "increase damage of all attacks by 40% while Familiar is active." The barb "increases damage by 100%" while active. I would like to hear what others think about these kinds of skill desciptions. I personally think that these skills will just multiply the base damage of everything instead of increasing "all damage."
This can already easily be tested by an F&F player with a barb's battle rage. Get going!!