Paladins and Bigfoot

basilmarket.com forums : Warrior | 16 posts archived

thread starter killerfan Sep 03 2009 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

So the first class I ever got far way back in .3X was a page and I've always wanted to go back and finish one. However I'm very attached to my MM and like the fact that he can get into bossing parties easy but the idea of a page is enticing. If I do make one I don't expect it to replace my MM but I want something that could be used to make money hince the question about bigfoot. So whenever I see people buying and selling bigfoot leech it seems to be heroes but as I read in the bowmen bossing reference phoenix pwns bigfoot cause he's fire weak. Does that mean that paladins would fair well selling bigfoot leech, and about what level could you start selling it?

inkodudez 09/04/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

ThePit is the only paladin ive seen bfing

Fryman 09/04/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

watch darius kill it! he kills hella fast

supereric317 09/04/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

well out of all the classes, with the same fund, i'd say hero is the safest and fastest class to kill bf 0_0, all you do is spamming brandish

Pyre 09/04/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Well my lv 13x pally friend kills bf..but I'm not sure if he sells. I'll go check later.

Senyain 09/04/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

ShMaiz3R : Brandish is 988%, and Blast on fire weak is 990%. Both of Blast and Brandish have the same speed. That's all you should know. :p Technically Blast is faster than Brandish, although it's only by a few attacks per minute (around 2). Also technically the 990% and 988% shouldn't be compared too directly, as I'm assuming BF has defense. Elements are applied before defense is subtracted, Combo is applied after. Therefore it's technically slightly more of a damage advantage for Paladins, and their single hit is a higher KB rate. Of course, I don't have practical experience against BF itself, so I've no idea how important the vertical range is against it. Is it like Pianus where a 1-handed sword can't hit without jumping?

draculahowsb 09/04/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

some 1 told me pg needed acc so bf leech has stopped

6Anthony9 09/04/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

darius kill a bf for me in 3 mins

killerfan 09/04/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

draculahowsb : some 1 told me pg needed acc so bf leech has stopped it doesn't and why hasn't this thread died, I'm not gonna abandon my MM which getting a paladin past its level will require. alas my dreams of paladinhood will be deferred for the forseeable future.

Scavenger90 09/04/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Senyain : Technically Blast is faster than Brandish, although it's only by a few attacks per minute (around 2). Also technically the 990% and 988% shouldn't be compared too directly, as I'm assuming BF has defense. Elements are applied before defense is subtracted, Combo is applied after. Therefore it's technically slightly more of a damage advantage for Paladins, and their single hit is a higher KB rate. Of course, I don't have practical experience against BF itself, so I've no idea how important the vertical range is against it. Is it like Pianus where a 1-handed sword can't hit without jumping? Brandish/Blast Faster (2): 630ms (-210ms) Faster (3): 690ms (-150ms) Fast (4): 750ms (-90ms) Fast (5): 810ms (-30ms) Normal (6): 840ms Slow (7): 900ms (+60ms) Slow (8): 960ms (+120ms)

Senyain 09/04/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Scavenger90 : Brandish/Blast Faster (2): 630ms (-210ms) Faster (3): 690ms (-150ms) Fast (4): 750ms (-90ms) Fast (5): 810ms (-30ms) Normal (6): 840ms Slow (7): 900ms (+60ms) Slow (8): 960ms (+120ms) Taken from the SP attack reference no doubt, which as it happens is quite flawed. All one needs to prove that is to look at the rest of its warrior figures, especially in the Faster(3) column, and its lack of allowance for variability.

Scavenger90 09/04/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Senyain : Taken from the SP attack reference no doubt, which as it happens is quite flawed. All one needs to prove that is to look at the rest of its warrior figures, especially in the Faster(3) column, and its lack of allowance for variability. "The method for retrieving these values is using the packets sent to the server. Each one contains a tick count. For those who aren't familiar with a tick count, it's generally represented as the number of milliseconds since your computer has been started" "I noticed random increases of 30ms while holding down the attack button. There seems to be no specific trigger. It happens with all skills listed (with the only exception of Hurricane thus far) and across all weapon speeds." u prolly know all this already anyway. if u know for a fact that these values are wrong, then i wonder what sort of advanced method u, or w/e ur source, used to retrieve even more accurate data than packet counting.

Senyain 09/04/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Scavenger90 : "The method for retrieving these values is using the packets sent to the server. Each one contains a tick count. For those who aren't familiar with a tick count, it's generally represented as the number of milliseconds since your computer has been started" "I noticed random increases of 30ms while holding down the attack button. There seems to be no specific trigger. It happens with all skills listed (with the only exception of Hurricane thus far) and across all weapon speeds." u prolly know all this already anyway. if u know for a fact that these values are wrong, then i wonder what sort of advanced method u, or w/e ur source, used to retrieve even more accurate data than packet counting. I performed tests with a stopwatch to see whether these figures were correct when I first found out about them a few months ago, because they did not at all square with figures I'd obtained when I played in GMS in 2007 except for the Faster(2) figures. So I made accounts for every job on a few alternate servers and tested every attack with every weapon a few hundred times. There were many results that should have been impossible if that reference's figures are correct. Just to name one major fault, the reference has 0.66 seconds given as the attack rate for a normal attack with no FA for a Fast(5) weapon with Booster, and gives no variability between different animations. This would give 90.9 attacks per minute maximum with no delay counted, and with the delay it would decrease, meaning it would be impossible to attack more than 91 times per minute. Given the random 30 ms delay, it would seem that the average should be more like 89-90. Yet across over 500 tests I've performed I have yet to ever see a result below 90 and I have seen results as high as 96 with that setup, and this is due precisely to the variation between animations which the reference neglects entirely (oddly, it also uses the same counts between weapons for FA, despite the known fact that different FA animations for different weapons take different lengths of time). The average att/min count for this seems to be 92-93 - figures that should be noticeably impossible to achieve even on the best possible test if the reference is correct - and it contains significant variability of 2-4 attacks per minute above/below those figures (lending a range as high as 8 att/min), far more than the level of variability allowed by the reference (which would allow for only 86.9-90.9 att/min, a range of 4). Additionally the Brandish tests consistently came out at roughly 90, yet according to that reference they should be landing on 87 evenly every time (or barely faster than a DS hits normally).

Scavenger90 Sep 04 2009 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Senyain : I performed tests with a stopwatch to see whether these figures were correct when I first found out about them a few months ago, because they did not at all square with figures I'd obtained when I played in GMS in 2007 except for the Faster(2) figures. So I made accounts for every job on a few alternate servers and tested every attack with every weapon a few hundred times. There were many results that should have been impossible if that reference's figures are correct. Just to name one major fault, the reference has 0.66 seconds given as the attack rate for a normal attack with no FA for a Fast(5) weapon with Booster, and gives no variability between different animations. This would give 90.9 attacks per minute maximum with no delay counted, and with the delay it would decrease, meaning it would be impossible to attack more than 91 times per minute. Given the random 30 ms delay, it would seem that the average should be more like 89-90. Yet across over 500 tests I've performed I have yet to ever see a result below 90 and I have seen results as high as 96 with that setup, and this is due precisely to the variation between animations which the reference neglects entirely (oddly, it also uses the same counts between weapons for FA, despite the known fact that different FA animations for different weapons take different lengths of time). The average att/min count for this seems to be 92-93 - figures that should be noticeably impossible to achieve even on the best possible test if the reference is correct - and it contains significant variability of 2-4 attacks per minute above/below those figures (lending a range as high as 8 att/min), far more than the level of variability allowed by the reference (which would allow for only 86.9-90.9 att/min, a range of 4). Additionally the Brandish tests consistently came out at roughly 90, yet according to that reference they should be landing on 87 evenly every time (or barely faster than a DS hits normally). u relied on human observation with a stopwatch? i was under the impression that reliance on the human eye for making detailed measurements is rather faulty, as my chem professor constantly reminded me... altho i suppose chem formulas are different from pixels and animation frames. furthermore, im just wondering if any client sided observations on attack animations would differ from what the server recognizes. lastly, i suppose ur prolly right intuitively since i imagine it ought to be difficult to program and design blast to be the same speed as brandish down to milliseconds while having completely different animations.

Senyain 09/04/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

Scavenger90 : u relied on human observation with a stopwatch? i was under the impression that reliance on the human eye for making detailed measurements is rather faulty, as my chem professor constantly reminded me... altho i suppose chem formulas are different from pixels and animation frames. furthermore, im just wondering if any client sided observations on attack animations would differ from what the server recognizes. lastly, i suppose ur prolly right intuitively since i imagine it ought to be difficult to program and design blast to be the same speed as brandish down to milliseconds while having completely different animations. I seem to recall that in this game, the observable rate of attack relies not on ticks anyway but on frames per animation. At least, that's how the attack rates for Mage spells were originally measured. However I have not personally measured them, not having any experience with hacking servers or clients. I am well aware of the potential faults of human observation, having majored in Applied Math & Statistics as an undergrad and having performed research for a Master's Thesis in education myself. The issue, however, is not with how reliable the figures themselves are - you will note I do not claim at any point to know the exact number of att/min or sec/att - but rather what figures should not be possible. 92-96 attacks in a minute should not square very well with a claim that to attack more than 90.9 times per minute is literally impossible. I daresay it's disproof by counterexample, actually.

silverblast 09/04/09 + PM | QUOTE | PERMALINK | REPORT

i saw a paladin kill it once i was like amazed unlike a hero wher its like o another hero killing it nothing special