monk ratios, primary and offhand choices

[Keebz]

Monks have more than a 50% chance to dual wield, but please don't redo your 'math', thanks.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Keebz [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Monks have more than a 50% chance to dual wield, but please don't redo your 'math', thanks.

More than 50% dual wield would further close the gap between 1h and 2h, so that supports my position.

[bcbrown]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So the 1h weapons would do roughly 225 less damage per damage set of 150 1h swings and 41 2h swings. 225 damage is basically 1-2 hits from this 2h weapon.

Agreed with this conclusion from your (valid) assumptions.

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This means the 2h weapon will underperform the 1h weapons basically anytime you miss more often than the pure average, which is more likely with a 2h weapon in an individual fight. The 1h weapons also have a higher chance to roll above average damage in an individual fight, due to having more damage rolls. Parry/dodge/riposte also affect 2h weapons more when they nullify a high damage hit.

I agree that the 2h weapon should outperform the 1h weapons on a normal distribution. But in individual fights 2h weapons are more swingy.

I do not agree with this part. Yes, 2h weapons are more "swingy" - fewer samples means higher variance. But this part is not true: "The 1h weapons also have a higher chance to roll above average damage in an individual fight, due to having more damage rolls."

Having more damage rolls means that the outcome will more often be close to the expected average outcome - 1937 damage for 2h and 1710 for 1h. Having fewer damage rolls means that there is more variance in outcomes - relatively speaking compared to 1h, the 2h fights will both have more far-above-average and far-below-average outcomes.

In fact, having the more damage rolls there are, the more likely the result will be the same as the expected average outcome.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I do not agree with this part. Yes, 2h weapons are more "swingy" - fewer samples means higher variance. But this part is not true: "The 1h weapons also have a higher chance to roll above average damage in an individual fight, due to having more damage rolls."

Having more damage rolls means that the outcome will more often be close to the expected average outcome - 1937 damage for 2h and 1710 for 1h. Having fewer damage rolls means that there is more variance in outcomes - relatively speaking compared to 1h, the 2h fights will both have more far-above-average and far-below-average outcomes.

In fact, having the more damage rolls there are, the more likely the result will be the same as the expected average outcome.

Indeed, more damage rolls means 1h is closer to the expected average. I said that already. Thats why 1h is more consistent on an individual fight against high AC targets. 2h has a higher risk of being below average in a single fight. People want to avoid that risk by going 1h for something like AoW where you don't get a second chance at the fight. This assumes you have a good enough set of 1h weapons of course.

If you roll 30 dice, you'll probably see more 6s than if you rolled 5 dice. That was my point. Will there be 1s to cancel out the 6s? Sure. But I'd take more rolls over less rolls, as you get a smoother result on average, with perhaps an extra 6 or two you didn't expect in an individual fight. It will all smooth out on a normal distribution, but people want to be as consistent as possible on a critical fight.

Originally Posted by Solist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

DSM not understanding anything, poorly explaining things incorrectly.

Don't change p99 forums. Dont change.

Making things up I see. Please change for the better so you can properly contribute.

[Troxx]

It is reassuring that some things in life never change.

Truly cringeworthy!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is reassuring that some things in life never change.

Truly cringeworthy!

Troxx comes back to bloat the forums with nonsense. Sadly he doesn't know how the game works, and cannot contribute anything else to the topic.

[bcbrown]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

2h has a higher risk of being below average in a single fight.

This is not true!

[Troxx]

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is not true!

Lol

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is not true!

It is true. If you fight 2 mobs, you'll probably get 1 below average fight, and 1 above average fight with 2h. This averages out to the middle. This is why you always pick whichever weapons have the better average when killing a lot of mobs.

When you are fighting 1 mob that spawns every 7 days, you don't want to get the below average fight. Unless your guild wipes and is able to try again, you won't get a second fight to average it out.

[bcbrown]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is true. If you fight 2 mobs, you'll probably get 1 below average fight, and 1 above average fight with 2h.

If you fight 2 mobs with 1h weapons, you'll probably get 1 below average fight and 1 above average fight. Both weapon sets will have the same probability of below-average or above-average damage: 50%.

But I think I understand the point you're trying to get at, however imperfectly your argument is articulated. I think you're trying to say that a string of bad luck can result in a time-to-kill that is longer than the CH chain can sustain the raid will wipe, and that kind of "string of bad luck" is more likely with a higher-variance weapon. Is that right?