Difference between revisions of "Talk:Combat Items"
(New page: I don't want to break the chart, but a couple things I noticed: I thought EMP Device was 50% damage, also it prevents action that round TNT stuns for at least 1 round Enerbun does scali...) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
Deck of Cards seems to have a stun range of 1-3, not a flat 3. [[User:Cristiona|Cristiona]] | Deck of Cards seems to have a stun range of 1-3, not a flat 3. [[User:Cristiona|Cristiona]] | ||
| + | : EMP is 60%, and indeed stuns for 1 round. TNT was exactly 1 round stun 10 out of 10 tries, Enerbum is 50% against robots, deck of cards is 2-4 rounds. Added all here and in relevant pages, thanks for the initiative :) --[[User:Muhandes|Muhandes]] 16:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think I finally understand the stunning system. Somewhat. The gigaguy cannon's crashing atom skill can give a few different results. Opponent was stunned- it was only kept from attacking. Opponent was /badly/ stunned. It was kept from attacking the next round. This may not carry over to the other stunning items, but I'll check around. Also I don't think TNT always stuns for 1 round after using, because I tested it and first time it didn't. But will test again. Also, I think TNT is actually closer to 65%, from my dealings in s7g. The 60% figure didn't match up to the numbers at all. Also, we should settle on a convention for stunning purposes, because we're switching between counting the round it's used as a stun round, and counting only the rounds after it's used, and it's confusing me :/ - Satan | ||
| + | : The convention is that the stunning count ALWAYS includes the round in which in it was used. This is also the same in KoL wiki. If you find a place in which this isn't so, correct it. Indeed, TNT always stuns for one round, as I said a few lines above. No one said TNT is 60% damage, it's either 66% or 2/3. I can't really decide between the two, they both seem to miss by 1 damage here and there. I'm pretty sure rounding is ceiling(), but I might be wrong on that, which might explain the discrepancy. Using 65% seems to miss by 2-3 damage. --[[User:Muhandes|Muhandes]] 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 12:59, 28 April 2009
I don't want to break the chart, but a couple things I noticed:
I thought EMP Device was 50% damage, also it prevents action that round
TNT stuns for at least 1 round
Enerbun does scaling damage (like EMP) against robots
Deck of Cards seems to have a stun range of 1-3, not a flat 3. Cristiona
- EMP is 60%, and indeed stuns for 1 round. TNT was exactly 1 round stun 10 out of 10 tries, Enerbum is 50% against robots, deck of cards is 2-4 rounds. Added all here and in relevant pages, thanks for the initiative :) --Muhandes 16:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think I finally understand the stunning system. Somewhat. The gigaguy cannon's crashing atom skill can give a few different results. Opponent was stunned- it was only kept from attacking. Opponent was /badly/ stunned. It was kept from attacking the next round. This may not carry over to the other stunning items, but I'll check around. Also I don't think TNT always stuns for 1 round after using, because I tested it and first time it didn't. But will test again. Also, I think TNT is actually closer to 65%, from my dealings in s7g. The 60% figure didn't match up to the numbers at all. Also, we should settle on a convention for stunning purposes, because we're switching between counting the round it's used as a stun round, and counting only the rounds after it's used, and it's confusing me :/ - Satan
- The convention is that the stunning count ALWAYS includes the round in which in it was used. This is also the same in KoL wiki. If you find a place in which this isn't so, correct it. Indeed, TNT always stuns for one round, as I said a few lines above. No one said TNT is 60% damage, it's either 66% or 2/3. I can't really decide between the two, they both seem to miss by 1 damage here and there. I'm pretty sure rounding is ceiling(), but I might be wrong on that, which might explain the discrepancy. Using 65% seems to miss by 2-3 damage. --Muhandes 20:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
