Difference between revisions of "Talk:Elemental Staff"
(Created page with "Hey Ensis, can you link me to where you found those numbers? Those numbers are just staggeringly low, and conflict with the LearnDB enough to make me suspicious. Per the Learn...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Hey Ensis, can you link me to where you found those numbers? Those numbers are just staggeringly low, and conflict with the LearnDB enough to make me suspicious. Per the LearnDB, it makes two Evoc/27 checks, and if either passes, it deals the additional damage. That makes it 100% reliable at 27 Evocations, and even at 15 Evo it's over 75% likely, which is so conceptually different from 7% max that I've got to be suspicious here... --[[User:MoogleDan|MoogleDan]] ([[User talk:MoogleDan|talk]]) 14:01, 15 January 2015 (CET) | Hey Ensis, can you link me to where you found those numbers? Those numbers are just staggeringly low, and conflict with the LearnDB enough to make me suspicious. Per the LearnDB, it makes two Evoc/27 checks, and if either passes, it deals the additional damage. That makes it 100% reliable at 27 Evocations, and even at 15 Evo it's over 75% likely, which is so conceptually different from 7% max that I've got to be suspicious here... --[[User:MoogleDan|MoogleDan]] ([[User talk:MoogleDan|talk]]) 14:01, 15 January 2015 (CET) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :I've checked with [https://crawl.develz.org/tavern/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=14787 the folks in Tavern], and while they couldn't confirm that two Evoc/27 tests (what LearnDB says) is correct, they DID confirm that it triggers often enough to be good at killing things. I'm switching it back for now, but if you can show me the source code that disagrees, I'll look into this further. --[[User:MoogleDan|MoogleDan]] ([[User talk:MoogleDan|talk]]) 14:40, 15 January 2015 (CET) | ||
Revision as of 14:40, 15 January 2015
Hey Ensis, can you link me to where you found those numbers? Those numbers are just staggeringly low, and conflict with the LearnDB enough to make me suspicious. Per the LearnDB, it makes two Evoc/27 checks, and if either passes, it deals the additional damage. That makes it 100% reliable at 27 Evocations, and even at 15 Evo it's over 75% likely, which is so conceptually different from 7% max that I've got to be suspicious here... --MoogleDan (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2015 (CET)
- I've checked with the folks in Tavern, and while they couldn't confirm that two Evoc/27 tests (what LearnDB says) is correct, they DID confirm that it triggers often enough to be good at killing things. I'm switching it back for now, but if you can show me the source code that disagrees, I'll look into this further. --MoogleDan (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2015 (CET)
