Dmg bonus, da/dw formulas

[Cippofra]

So I have a few questions regarding contradictions with how monk melee works. At level 30 I get a 1 damage bonus. This is displayed on every weapon I inspect. So this makes my jade mace 10/18? Also, supposedly offhand does not get a bonus. But I've been hitting for 34 dmg with a knuckle duster at only 100str. I also want to find formulas for dual wield and double attack chance. This is surprisingly hard to find

[Tecmos Deception]

Damage bonuses are a flat +x damage on each hit, not a modifier on the weapon's stats.

Damage formula has a number of things that factor in besides the damage on the weapon and your strength, which is what's affecting how hard you hit with your KD.

I'm not sure if anyone really KNOWS the p99 formulas for dw and da, but I'm pretty sure the wiki has the stock emu formulae on it somewhere.


http://wiki.project1999.org/index.php/Game_Mechanics

[Cippofra]

,I've been under the impression that you can accurately calculate max damage. And that max damage is only determined by weapon damage, skill, bonus, and str

[Tecmos Deception]

,I've been under the impression that you can accurately calculate max damage.

Grats? I don't know what you want me to say. I'm sure you CAN accurately calculate max damage, supposing you know the right formula for it.


And that max damage is only determined by weapon damage, skill, bonus, and str

Well the page that I linked for you does say that these are the things to use to calculate max damage with the stock emu code.


If you modify the damage formula on the wiki a bit it seems like it gives a pretty accurate estimation of damage on p99.

Use ((skill + strength) - 75) / 75 + damage bonus instead of the stock formula given. That formula would say your max damage is just about 34 (I don't know your weapon skill exactly), and it is within a few points of the max damage I have done on a few logs I could check just now with my rogue.

I can't figure out how to tweak the backstab formula to be more accurate in the 2 minutes I've looked at it though. It is giving much-too-low numbers.