Difference between revisions of "Talk:Critical hit"
(→Different Critical Hit Effects Based on Damage Type) |
(→Wiki page wording) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Wiki page wording== | ||
From the wiki page: | From the wiki page: | ||
"but critical hits on spell damage would seem to be far less potent, since spells generally deal their damage over time, rather than in huge chunks per hit. Occasionally adding 10% to the critical hit damage of a 1-6 damage spell isn't very impressive, even if the spell is hitting 20x a second. A wizard would seem better off boosting the % chance of scoring a critical hit." | "but critical hits on spell damage would seem to be far less potent, since spells generally deal their damage over time, rather than in huge chunks per hit. Occasionally adding 10% to the critical hit damage of a 1-6 damage spell isn't very impressive, even if the spell is hitting 20x a second. A wizard would seem better off boosting the % chance of scoring a critical hit." | ||
| − | Why would a spell that hits 1x for big damage be any different from a spell that hits 20x for similar damage? The overall bonus that critical hits provide would be the same since the critical hit chance would check on each hit. | + | Why would a spell that hits 1x for big damage be any different from a spell that hits 20x for similar damage? The overall bonus that critical hits provide would be the same since the critical hit chance would check on each hit. -- 19:51, 14 November 2009 Vadoff |
| + | |||
| + | : Good point. We should rephrase that. Any suggestions? --[[User:Leord|Leord]] 11:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | "A wizard would seem better off boosting the % chance of scoring a critical hit." isn't even true, so I'm changing it now. In the long run, for example, doubling your crit chance from 20% to 40% OR doubling your crit damage are the same. | ||
Latest revision as of 16:05, 13 January 2011
Different Critical Hit Effects Based on Damage Type[edit source]
Anyone else think that arcane's critical hit effect (silence) seems a little underpowered? I guess it all depends on the prevalence of spellcasting enemies, and what actually counts as a spell. Lazuli 16:45, 5 September 2009 (CEST)
- Not so much the prevalence, but severity. In D2, maxing your resists made all hostile spells a joke (except Gloams). If maxing your resists wouldn't be convenient, but necessary it'd be somewhat useful (ex. you die of 2 Fireballs if you don't max it. Maxing it means you can take 7-ish). --Vipermagi 20:09, 5 September 2009 (CEST)
- I thought about this as well. I would likely much more appreciate some sort of damaging or physically impairing effect than silence. I suppose Fallen Overseers etc won;t be whipping minions to battle, but other than that, it's mostly physical enemies in D2. Perhaps spectres drain effects etc would count, but then it would almost be too good... --Leord 15:37, 8 September 2009 (CEST)
Wiki page wording[edit source]
From the wiki page:
"but critical hits on spell damage would seem to be far less potent, since spells generally deal their damage over time, rather than in huge chunks per hit. Occasionally adding 10% to the critical hit damage of a 1-6 damage spell isn't very impressive, even if the spell is hitting 20x a second. A wizard would seem better off boosting the % chance of scoring a critical hit."
Why would a spell that hits 1x for big damage be any different from a spell that hits 20x for similar damage? The overall bonus that critical hits provide would be the same since the critical hit chance would check on each hit. -- 19:51, 14 November 2009 Vadoff
- Good point. We should rephrase that. Any suggestions? --Leord 11:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
"A wizard would seem better off boosting the % chance of scoring a critical hit." isn't even true, so I'm changing it now. In the long run, for example, doubling your crit chance from 20% to 40% OR doubling your crit damage are the same.
