Guild Wars 2

So you don’t extra nerf the mixed gear people even more..

So the more Ferocity you stack it becomes less powerfull

Because the problem issnt the mixed gear people in PVE doing average damage.. your talking about the full zerker guys that becomes to strong.

No. The problem is people who are saying things like you. Hop over to dungeon for a bit and read up please. You will find that Zerker gear is not actually a ‘problem’ at all. The PvE design is the problem.

They are treating symptoms but leaving the illness checked.

Yea, everyone will still be using full zerker in dungeons because it is still the quickest. It makes no sense nerfing it.

Chris RJ.1843:

No. The problem is people who are saying things like you. Hop over to dungeon for a bit and read up please. You will find that Zerker gear is not actually a ‘problem’ at all. The PvE design is the problem.

They are treating symptoms but leaving the illness checked.

I know zerker gear issnt a problem..

But if crit damage becomes Ferocity and X amount of Ferocity = 1% damage..
That would only hurt mixed gear people and a massive nerf to celestial people way more compared to full zerker.

MiLkZz.4789:

Yea, everyone will still be using full zerker in dungeons because it is still the quickest. It makes no sense nerfing it.

Except I don’t really care about dungeons :-) I do for WVW/roaming..

loosing some minor damage in dungeons doesn’t do that much.

Where in wvw you often go for some mixed gear in power builds you do get a massive nerf (more compared to full zerker) that’s why I say make it scale like toughness..

So people still do same damage on mixed gear but less on full zerker.

nicknamenick.2437:

MiLkZz.4789:

Yea, everyone will still be using full zerker in dungeons because it is still the quickest. It makes no sense nerfing it.

Except I don’t really care about dungeons :-) I do for WVW/roaming..

loosing some minor damage in dungeons doesn’t do that much.

Where in wvw you often go for some mixed gear in power builds you do get a massive nerf (more compared to full zerker) that’s why I say make it scale like toughness..

So people still do same damage on mixed gear but less on full zerker.

What you’re saying makes really little sense..

If your build is ‘mixed’, and say your stat budget is like, 20% allocated to Vitality, 20% allocated to Toughness, 20% allocated to Power, and 20% allocated to Critical Damage (Ferocity),

^When Critical damage is shaved by say a (made up) 10%, in the transition to Ferocity, only 20% of your stat budget is being reduced by 10%. It’s pretty much peanuts to a mixed build like yours.

When your Berserker stat allocation is of 33% Power, 33% Precision, and 33% Critical damage, a shave of raw Crit damage for every point of Ferocity in your build is more punishing.

Any nerf to the baseline effectiveness of a stat IS the most punishing to the people who’ve stacked the most of it, IE, Berserkers – this is because you are essentially repeatedly stacking the nerf margin.

Regardless, I don’t think anyone should be up in arms about this (PvP, WvW, PvE). I predict the impact will be extremely minor.

The problem is in the formula itself. It ends up giving exponential gains when power, precision and ferocity/crit damage are involved.
Making low amounts really weak and high amounts too powerful.

nicknamenick.2437:

MiLkZz.4789:

Yea, everyone will still be using full zerker in dungeons because it is still the quickest. It makes no sense nerfing it.

Except I don’t really care about dungeons :-) I do for WVW/roaming..

loosing some minor damage in dungeons doesn’t do that much.

Where in wvw you often go for some mixed gear in power builds you do get a massive nerf (more compared to full zerker) that’s why I say make it scale like toughness..

So people still do same damage on mixed gear but less on full zerker.

So you don’t want to be nerfed, but you want others to be nerfed. How about supporting no nerfs at all?

Roe.3679:

nicknamenick.2437:

MiLkZz.4789:

Yea, everyone will still be using full zerker in dungeons because it is still the quickest. It makes no sense nerfing it.

Except I don’t really care about dungeons :-) I do for WVW/roaming..

loosing some minor damage in dungeons doesn’t do that much.

Where in wvw you often go for some mixed gear in power builds you do get a massive nerf (more compared to full zerker) that’s why I say make it scale like toughness..

So people still do same damage on mixed gear but less on full zerker.

So you don’t want to be nerfed, but you want others to be nerfed. How about supporting no nerfs at all?

No I don’t want to be nerfed.

Anet wants a nerf to full zerker people doing to much damage in PVE.
But its not only a nerf for them but also a nerf to EVERYONE running a mixed build.. that does AVERAGE damage.. but even they and me get the nerf also.

That why I say bring something like this so running a mixed build you loose like 5% damage but full zerker build loose 10%.. they still do way more damage, but its cost more also

Ofc I don’t want any of these nerfs, I just don’t like the idea that EVERY power build get a flat 10% damage nerf, because 10% may sound much for FULL zerker build.. but it issnt that huge.. 10% for mixed build is a huge nerf for them (also cant profit anymore from the high crit damage trrinkets.. so its more 15% damage nerf for them)

If the idea behind the damage reduction is to bring the extremes closer together, (low damage gear and high damage gear) then a curved translation of ferocity to critical damage sounds like a good idea to me.

It would make the final points of ferocity less useful than the first, but if the curve is just right, we wouldn’t be able to see a difference in PvP. Just a small difference when using a full zerker set, a noticeable difference when using a full zerker set + full damage traits, and a significant difference when using full zerker gear + full damage traits + banner of discipline-like skills + food.

More about this idea here.

nicknamenick.2437:

So you don’t extra nerf the mixed gear people even more..

So the more Ferocity you stack it becomes less powerfull

Because the problem issnt the mixed gear people in PVE doing average damage.. your talking about the full zerker guys that becomes to strong.

Sigh. Stacking toughness does not make it less powerful. I’m not going to explain all the math to you, but essentially, more toughness continues to make you more defensive.

style.6173:

nicknamenick.2437:

So you don’t extra nerf the mixed gear people even more..

So the more Ferocity you stack it becomes less powerfull

Because the problem issnt the mixed gear people in PVE doing average damage.. your talking about the full zerker guys that becomes to strong.

Sigh. Stacking toughness does not make it less powerful. I’m not going to explain all the math to you, but essentially, more toughness continues to make you more defensive.

Uhh yes ofc it does..

And so does Ferocity with this.

I don’t think you understand what I mean.

The more toughness you stack the less % damage reduction you get for every toughness stat.
Lets say 2000 toughness gives 30% damage reduction.
If you go for 3000 toughness you get 40% damage reduction.
You did increase it with 1000 that’s 50% but it doesn’t go from 30% to 60% damage reduction. Ofc you get more but the value of toughness becomes less and less..

This thread amuses me due to the implied math fail.

We can clearly see that doubling armour halves incoming damage and that quadrupling armour reduces incoming damage to a quarter, but not many seem to make the correlation that halving or quartering damage taken means doubling or quadrupling the amount of effective damage you can survive. In other words, a linear increase in toughness produces a linear increase in effective hp as a percentage of actual hp.

This is no different to measuring dps stats in terms of the increase to dps, which is the standard form of measurement and is readily understood to be linear. We can, however, apply the same ‘diminishing returns’ logic to dps stats by measuring them in terms of time to kill (TTK). If we double our dps, we half the TTK and if we quadruple our dps, we reduce the TTK to a quarter.

Whenever you measure things, you must keep the method of measurement consistent or you might find yourself suggesting something that is already the case.

Coldtart.4785:

This thread amuses me due to the implied math fail.

We can clearly see that doubling armour halves incoming damage and that quadrupling armour reduces incoming damage to a quarter, but not many seem to make the correlation that halving or quartering damage taken means doubling or quadrupling the amount of effective damage you can survive. In other words, a linear increase in toughness produces a linear increase in effective hp as a percentage of actual hp.

This is no different to measuring dps stats in terms of the increase to dps, which is the standard form of measurement and is readily understood to be linear. We can, however, apply the same ‘diminishing returns’ logic to dps stats by measuring them in terms of time to kill (TTK). If we double our dps, we half the TTK and if we quadruple our dps, we reduce the TTK to a quarter.

Whenever you measure things, you must keep the method of measurement consistent or you might find yourself suggesting something that is already the case.

His math actually works out. (Actually, as is proven later, it doesn’t work out exactly, math is complicated… I’m not clever enough.)

From the wiki:

In this game the damage is determined by:

Damage done = (Weapon strength) * Power * (skill-specific coefficient) / (target’s Armor)

Armor = Defense + Toughness

So, let’s say our damage is the following:

Weapon strength: 1.000
Power: 1.000
Skill specific coefficient: 1 (to make things easy)

1.000 * 1.000 * 1 = 1.000.000

Now to see how much damage we are actually dealing, we need to divide this by the armor of the enemy.

Let’s define the armor:

Defense (defined by armorclass): 1.000
Toughness: 500

1.000 + 500 =1.500

Attack/armor = the actual damage so:

1.000.000/1.500 = 667 damage.

Now if we were to increase the toughness by 500 points, we would get the following:

1.000.000/2.000 =500 damage

So those 500 points of toughness reduce the damage from 667 to 500.

667-500= 167 damage prevented by the 500 toughness.

Now if we were to add another 500 toughness, we would get the following:

1.000.000/2.500 = 400 damage

So these 500 points of toughness reduce the damage from 500 to 400.

500-400 = 100 damage prevented by this 500 toughness.

As you can see: The more toughness you add, the less effective each point of toughness added becomes.

Power is linear though, which means that each point of power will be equally effective at increasing damage, no matter how much power you already have. (The same goes for most stats in GW2, just not for toughness)

If my math here fails, please explain to me how?

nicknamenick.2437:

So the more Ferocity you stack it becomes less powerfull

The simplest change for them would likely be to replace the critdamage stat on gear, then calculate it from there into the existing stat. That would even allow them to keep the existing runes and foods as they exist now.

They implied they wanted to introduce Ferocity in part because that would give them more handles to balance crit damage with upcoming changes to encounters and new encounters (in PvE). They want other ‘roles’ then pure DPS to play a more important part in the game.

The Lost Witch.7601:

-snip-

edit: this paragraph had dodgy maths.

The easiest way to see it is that your percentage damage taken is oldarmour/newarmour. To work out the effective hp you are getting you take your current hp and divide it by the percentage damage taken. When you divide by a fraction it is the same as multiplying by its inverse, so the formula for effective hp is truehp*newarmour/oldarmour. This means that if an addition of toughness adds 5% to your effective hp, it adds that 5% regardless of how much toughness you already have. Every stat currently in the game has this scaling. The ‘diminishing returns’ you are seeing is because each point of a stat is less as a percentage of the whole than the one before it, which again is true for every stat.

But if you look at it in terms of survival, or number-of-hits-before-you-die and number-of-hits-before-the-other-bloke-dies there is a diminishing return on investment.

I think The Lost Witch made a good point. While doubling armor halves damage, doubling toughness does not so. However… it is already the same for critical damage.
There is a “base critical damage” from 50% which leads to a calculation similar to the one by The Lost Witch.

I will refer to the damage made by non-critical attacks as “base damage”
Additionally assuming we have 100% critical chance (keeping things easy):
A) 50% critical damage (as attribute): total damage = base damage * 2
B) 100% critical damage (as attribute): total damage = base damage * 2.5
C) 150% critical damage (as attribute): total damage = base damage * 3

Advantage of B over A: 2.5/2 = 1.25
Advantage of C over B: 3/2.5 = 1.2

If you have a lower critical chance, the difference will get smaller.

So there exists already a system like the one proposed. One might now want to argue, for example, it would be better to increase the base critical damage and lower the effect of ferocity in return (or the other way around?)

Hope this helps.

I think I am becoming confused here

In your example Scorch, the difference between A and B is a .5 multiplier. So is the difference between B and C.

Let’s say our base damage is 1000, then we would deal:

Scenario A: 2000 damage
Scenario B: 2500 damage
Scenario C: 3000 damage

And while 500 damage is 1/4th of the total damage in scenario A, yet merely 1/6th of the total damage in scenario C, it is still 500 damage.

Our enemies don’t magically get more hitpoints as we get more critical damage, so it doesn’t make sense to look at it as a percentage of the total damage we deal. I believe we should look at it as a fixed number. In which case the damage increase is steady with every percentage of critical damage. (Assuming that our power stays the same)

Unlike the way in which toughness works.

Toughness increases linearly the number of hits required to kill you. Same as vitality.

Let’s say you got player A that kills you in 10 hits. Then you acquire 100 more toughness. Now player A kills you in 11 hits. For every 100 more toughness you acquire, you’ll survive one more hit. You could be a 2000 or 5000 armor, it doesn’t matter. Get 100 more toughness = 1 hit more is required to kill you.

This is a linear return. Number of hits you can survive = base + toughness/100

The Lost Witch.7601:

As you can see: The more toughness you add, the less effective each point of toughness added becomes.

No, this is just wrong. Thoughness scales as linearly as Vitality in sense of “you need X toughness to survive an additional hit”.

Let’s say you have 10000 HP, 1000 Thoughness and are taking 1000dmg hits (That’s 1,000,000 base damage before toughness). Obviously, you survive 10 hits. For vitality it’s easy: You need 100 Vitality to survive an additional hit.

Now let’s move to Tougness. To survive an additional hit, you have to reduce each hit by to 909 (10000HP / 11 hits). To get that damage reduction, you need 100 Toughness (1,000,000 base damage / 909 actual damage = 1100 Toughness). To survive 12 Hits, you need 1200 toughness (1,000,000 / (10,000/12), or just 100*12), to survive 13 hits, you need 1300 Toughness, in short: each 100 Toughness grants one additional hit, just like vitality.

TL;DR: Although it’s unintuitive, Toughness scales your effective health linearly.

Btw: There is a game, where the total damage reduction scales directly with armor: Skyrim (or The Elder Scrolls series in general). This has the odd effect, that every point of armor becomes more important the more armour you already have. Think it through: To double the effective health, you need a damage reduction of 50% (thats 416 armor). To double your effective health again, you only need 208 addional armor (that brings you to 624 armour/75% damage reduction). To double that again, you only need 104 additional armor (936armor/87.5% damage reduction.

TL:DR: Scaling the damage redution linearly with the armor rating makes every point of armor more valuable, the more armour you already have

Skyrim and Oblivion before it are clearly broken here. There is no point using low quality armor at low skill level. It was all penalty for little benefit. But you needed to wear it to train in it anyway.

Actually, one can see that GW2 has actually the exact same issue. With Critical Damage! Critical Damage as it stands has horribly weak returns on low level gear because the higher level the gear, the more critical damage you get. With changing the formula to be with Ferocity like Precision, they can give us much more critical damage % per Ferocity point at low levels and solve that issue.

pmnt.4067:

The Lost Witch.7601:

As you can see: *The more toughness you add, the less effective each point of toughness added becomes.*

No, this is just wrong. Thoughness scales as linearly as Vitality in sense of "you need X toughness to survive an additional hit".

Let’s say you have 10000 HP, 1000 Thoughness and are taking 1000dmg hits (That’s 1,000,000 base damage before toughness). Obviously, you survive 10 hits. For vitality it’s easy: You need 100 Vitality to survive an additional hit.

Now let’s move to Tougness. To survive an additional hit, you have to reduce each hit by to 909 (10000HP / 11 hits). To get that damage reduction, you need 100 Toughness (1,000,000 base damage / 909 actual damage = 1100 Toughness). To survive 12 Hits, you need 1200 toughness (1,000,000 / (10,000/12), or just 100*12), to survive 13 hits, you need 1300 Toughness, in short: each 100 Toughness grants one additional hit, just like vitality.

*TL;DR: Although it’s unintuitive, Toughness scales your effective health linearly

Actually he’s right. You’re making the mistake of looking at it relatively. Of course it scales linearly in terms of relativity, but not in terms of actual effectiveness.

For example, those figures you used show 100 toughness being needed to survive an additional hit, but it did not show how much reduction was actually needed to survive that hit.

1,000,000 raw damage divided by 1,000 toughness becomes 1000, which can kill a 10,000 HP pool in 10 hits. 10,000 / 11 = 909. 1,000,000 / 909 = 1,100.
From 1,000 toughness, an additional 100 is needed to mitigate 91 damage.
1,000,000 raw damage divided by 1,100 toughness becomes 909, which can kill a 10,000 HP pool in 11 hits. 10,000 / 12 = 833. 1,000,00 / 833 = 1,200.
From 1,100 toughness, an additional 100 is needed to mitigate 76 damage.

Yes, doubling toughness will half the damage received. But each time you half the damage, the amount reduced is less. 100/2 = 50. 50/2=25.

Toughness does NOT scale linearly. The equation is:
(power * weapon_strength * skill_coefficient * product_damage_modifiers) / (toughness + defense)
i.e (assume weapon_strength is a constant, even though it’s actually a constant range)
constant / (variable + constant)

A linear equation cannot have a division where the denominator is a variable. The damage calculation formula does. It is therefore, NOT linear.

*EDIT:*
This also applies to Coldtart’s comments. His maths lead him to the wrong conclusion too.

Coldtart.4785:

This thread amuses me due to the implied math fail.

The irony =P.

Ah, I finally see what you are getting at. (Sorry, I’m slow like that.)

If we’re only taking physical damage then the linear (or apparently not linear… I’m not very good at this, sorry Impact) formula holds up.

Otherwise it gets messy.

In my example, we could be worn down by conditions to respectively 667/501/401 health and survive one hit depending on our toughness. (With the example strength hit)

Now the linear aspect doesn’t show. (the first 500 toughness would allow for say, 3 weak ticks of bleeding in addition to the hit while the later 500 toughness would only allow for 2 equally weak ticks of bleeding.)

A calculation that I haven’t been able to make is a scheme of breaking points.

You guys are clearly more clever at maths than I am, so if you could make one, that’d be great.

This could show wether we get more breaking points concerning the amount of hits of a certain strength that we could survive at a certain toughness level.

(For example, at 10.001 health, we would be able to survive one 6.666 hit, two 5.000 hits and two 4.000 hits. While at 14.000 health we would be able to survive two 6.666 hits, 2 5.000 hits and three 4.000 hits. At 10.001 health the lower toughness comes ahead, while at 14,000 health, the higher toughness comes out ahead in usefulness. I wonder if it evens out or if the lower toughness provides more breakpoint advantages.)

Anyways excellent job at proving me wrong. Thanks for the patience. The terms thrown around were too complicated for a simple mind like myself.

Impact.2780:

A linear equation cannot have a division where the denominator is a variable. The damage calculation formula does. It is therefore, NOT linear.

It’s all a matter of definitions. In my opinion, the BEST way to measure survivability is to talk in effective HP.

The survivability gained from a Toughness increase, as defined by the Effective HP against direct damage you gain is linear. Thus the Toughness effect on your survivability is linear.

stof.9341:

Impact.2780:

A linear equation cannot have a division where the denominator is a variable. The damage calculation formula does. It is therefore, NOT linear.

It’s all a matter of definitions. In my opinion, the BEST way to measure survivability is to talk in effective HP.

The survivability gained from a Toughness increase, as defined by the Effective HP against direct damage you gain is linear. Thus the Toughness effect on your survivability is linear.

Is it though? Or only if there is no condition or other toughness negating damage involved?

I said as the “Effective HP against direct damage”. Obviously here, I’m talking about a situation with no condition damage implied.

The Lost Witch.7601:

Anyways excellent job at proving me wrong. Thanks for the patience. The terms thrown around were too complicated for a simple mind like myself.

I thought I was proving you right =\.

Impact.2780:

The Lost Witch.7601:

Anyways excellent job at proving me wrong. Thanks for the patience. The terms thrown around were too complicated for a simple mind like myself.

I thought I was proving you right =\.

Haha, yeah you did, my maths were sound. But I didn’t keep the overall effect in mind when I said that his math worked out at start.

I was responding to everyone. (You guys can be confusing, but so can I!)

stof.9341:

I said as the “Effective HP against direct damage”. Obviously here, I’m talking about a situation with no condition damage implied.

Ah, yes, it was the conclusion:

stof.9341:

Thus the Toughness effect on your survivability is linear.

That fueled my question there. But yeah, I should read more closely and practise my maths.

TBH, the effect on toughness on your survivability against conditions is linear too. Having 0 effect at all is a linear function :p

I picked some values for the constants power, skill coefficient, weapon strength and product of damage modifiers, and using the damage formula constructed this table and accompanying graph.

As you can see, the relative increase in toughness is the same as the relative damage reduction, again supporting the figures presented by pmnt. However, you can also see from the line on the graph that the relationship is not linear. The black line is the linear regression line (calculated automatically for me by Excel - that’s why there’s no table for it). If you were to take the linear line, the results you get will only be close to accurate for two ranges of x in the sample range (1066-1116 and 1766-1816).

As I said before, a linear line is straight, meaning the highest power is 1, and any denominators must be constants, not variables.

Sigh, you don’t get it do you? Making it linear like that is a MISTAKE.

Toughness is linear with your survivability. Your survivability is defined as the time it takes you to die which is directly related to the number of attacks someone needs to kill you.

Making damage reduction linear will make you immortal quick. It’ll add a hard cap on damage reduction because at one point, you’ll already be taking 0 damage anyway. It’ll make getting 1 more point of toughness when you have 5000 armor a hundred times more valuable than getting 1000 points at 2000 armor.

The damage calculation/reduction isn’t linear, but that doesn’t mean toughness isn’t linear. You are looking at it from the wrong perspective.

For a constant vitality, each point of toughness you add will increase your EHP by the same amount. At no point do you reach some cap of “diminishing returns” where your EHP starts to go up by less than a previous amount.

It’s the same with every stat in the game.

If you have a ten dollars, and I give you a penny, your net worth goes up by 1 cent. If you have a million dollars and I give you a penny, your net worth goes up by 1 cent.

I have a suggestion ferocity nerf dps by 10% but we also get 10% higher vitality.

Ignore the first paragraph of my last post, it won’t edit and the math there is dodgy.

The assertion that damage stats scale linearly and toughness has diminishing returns comes from not measuring them in the same way. Damage stats and defensive stats alike will produce a linear effect when measured as an increase to your parameters (effective power, effective hp). In the same way when you measure any stat by their impact on an opponent they will show diminishing returns (time to kill, percent damage taken).

Lets say for example player 1 with power P is attacking player 2 with armour A. Player 1 deals a constant 1000 dps to player 2, who has exactly 10000 hp and is not healed at any point. Therefore at 1P and 1A player 1 has a dps of 1000 and a TTK of 10 seconds, while player 2 has an effective hp of 10000 and a damage reduction of 0%. If we then do this at 2P, player 1 has a dps of 2000 and a TTK of 5 seconds. At 3P, it’s now a dps of 3000 and a TTK of 3.33 seconds and at 4P the dps is 4000 and the TTK is 2.5 seconds. Notice how, for a linear increase in dps the TTK (time to kill in case you forgot) appears to have diminishing returns.

This ‘diminishing returns’ effect is because dps measures only the size of the power investment, while TTK measures that investment by its size relative to the whole. Likewise, effective hp measures the size of a toughness investment while percent damage taken measures that investment relative to the whole. 100 power will always add the same dps to your total, but 100 power is smaller as a percentage of 2000 power than it is of 1000 power. This is also the truth for precision, critical damage/ferocity, condition damage, vitality and toughness. Healing power works slightly differently but I won’t go into that here. As an added point, if player 1 has 2P and player 2 has 2A, the dps and TTK are identical to when it was 1P and 1A.

To give a practical example, an elementalist with no vitality or toughness wearing exotic gear has 10805 hp and 1836 armour. As 1836 is the lowest armour a character can have while wearing exotics, this is typically considered the base armour. If the elementalist adds 150 toughness (1986 armour) he takes 0.927 times the damage (-0.073) he did at base and has 11687.76 effective hp (882.76). Adding a further 150 toughness (2136 armour) brings the damage down to 0.86 times what he took at 1836 armour (-0.14, not quite 2*0.073) and raises his effective hp to 12570.52 (1765.52, which is 2*882.76).

Impact.2780:

Coldtart.4785:

This thread amuses me due to the implied math fail.

The irony =P.

No.

So let me try to get this straight:

My math works out and toughness is not linear in how much damage it will prevent per hit.

But when we look at the overall effectiveness on toughness in a vacuum over several hits, it turns out that the effectiveness of toughness on the amount of hits we can take until death is linear.

Now we don’t actually fight in a vacuum and condition damage is a real thing. So how does that work? Can we only accept toughness as having a linear function if we don’t account for damage that isn’t reduced by armor?

EDIT: Deleted that nonsense. Losing track of what my argument was, with people replying attempting to counter it with a different relationship - EHP. The damage reduction by armour is not linear. That was my point, that is what the thread concerns judging from the title and the original post, and it stands. Effective health is not the same as how much damage armour mitigates from a single attack.

nicknamenick.2437:

So you don’t extra nerf the mixed gear people even more..

So the more Ferocity you stack it becomes less powerfull

Because the problem issnt the mixed gear people in PVE doing average damage.. your talking about the full zerker guys that becomes to strong.

ferocity is a fixed amount, from what I understand it is say 500 ferocity means you will hit for base damage x1.5500, well I’m not to keen on the change it seems like this is a better way then using % increases that make all ready hard hitting attacks do ludicrous damage.