The Mace Case (or, "Why it's STOP! using a HAMMERTIME!")

[AegisXOR]

I am picky. Very picky. I OCD about character optimization sometimes.

The debate in here is frustrating for me. Nobody's brought any Science! into it. So without further ado..

The basic premise of the argument for hammers is that they do more damage. Sort of a ludicrous argument taken without proper explanation. But I digress.

First off, the contestants.

vs.

Note that both weapons have identical critical rates, are unupgraded, and that the hammer has a STR bonus the mace does not. My character is 25 SPR/x STR, and I have up-to-date weapon masteries (so any findings will be accurate.)

Generally, what I'd do at this point is measure how long each weapon takes to kill a specific type of monster, and infer from that which one is more powerful. However, I have a hypothesis about this situation that may change things quite a bit: I believe the weapon speeds are lying to us.

So, here's the plan. I put on the weapon, find a monster that doesn't stun, and record a video at sixty frames per second measuring how long it takes to kill. No self-healing, only stones and potions, and normal attacks only. Then I repeat the process with the other weapon and analyze the recorded video to determine the actual weapon speeds.

(It took me a long while to kill a Goblin without critting once with each weapon, lol.)

Also, there are five times to consider for each weapon that relate to the attack animations.

MACE
Idle to first hit - 46 frames - .76 sec
First to second - 65 frames - 1.08 sec
Second to third - 61 frames - 1.016 sec
Third to fourth - 54 frames - .9 sec
Fourth to first - 73 frames - 1.21 sec
Total - 299 frames - 4.983 sec
Average - 60 frames - 1.0 sec/hit

HAMMER
Idle to first hit - 44 frames
First to second - 83 frames
Second to third - 77 frames
Third to fourth - 58 frames
Fourth to first - 95 frames
Total - 357 frames - 5.95 sec
Average - 71 frames - 1.2 sec/hit

As for the rest of the video:

Mace damage: ~127
Time taken: 955 frames (15.91 sec)
Hits: 16

Hammer damage: ~158
Time taken: 979 frames (16.31 sec)
Hits: 14

Assuming perfect accuracy and no crits, the mace will kill faster.

Counterweights:
Maces have more chances to crit, though they have a lower percentage
Hammers do more damage per hit, so whether or not you crit on a skill or a regular attack matters much more
Mace damage is spread out more, and therefore is a slightly higher average damage over time, especially on targets you're not perfectly accurate against (as you'll lose less damage to missing)

Conclusion:

- Each weapon actually attacks on average .1 sec faster than described
- If all you care about is raw damage potential, use a mace.
- If you need big numbers on crits (say, for PVP) use a hammer.

[Enraya]

Um, I'm no cleric, but if we're only talking about the weapons you posted up, why would you pick the mace? o_o The hammer has more damage, more STR, more END, more DEX, and it has a free license ._.

[AegisXOR]

Lol, I put that license on. I've been using that hammer for 4 levels, actually; the mace just dropped and I decided to do a rigorous experiment.

>_>

I won't be looking for a hammer when I get close to 50, that's for sure.

BTW, the point was that even though the hammer had more STR on it it was outdamaged by the mace.

[Ralath]

[quote=AegisXOR;286651]

Mace damage: ~127
Time taken: 955 frames (15.91 sec)
Hits: 16

Hammer damage: ~158
Time taken: 979 frames (16.31 sec)
Hits: 14

I think there are too many variables in here when you have both the TIME taken and the HITS required. I think TIME needs to be held constant if you want to compare them.

Actually, I just compared these two numbers and it looks like Hammer does more damage over time than Mace:

Mace:
(127*16)/15.91=127.71 damage per second

Hammer:
(158*14)/16.31=135.62 damage per second

Hopefully, I've done that right.

Assuming perfect accuracy and no crits, the mace will kill faster.

Why would we assume this?

Counterweights:
Maces have more chances to crit, though they have a lower percentage

Hm... I'm not sure about this one. I understand what you're saying (more hits over time=more crits) but most of the time, maces have very low crit percentage. 5% is really good for a mace while I don't think it's very good for a hammer.

Hammers do more damage per hit, so whether or not you crit on a skill or a regular attack matters much more

Mace damage is spread out more, and therefore is a slightly higher average damage over time, especially on targets you're not perfectly accurate against (as you'll lose less damage to missing)

Agree with this but it's hard to solve for.

Nice idea in theory, but I think there are a few problems with this experiment.

By not taking crits into account, you favor the mace. Also, you don't take into account cleric attacks (which, I know there are only two of them but I Bash every chance I get) which aren't dependent on cleric speed or cleric heal which will increase the time it will take to kill the monster.

One final observation kind of related to your experiment. I think the mace damage might eventually catch up (or at least even out) to the hammer because of its faster attack speed and most consistent accuracy. But the effect is more pronounced in higher leveled monsters with lots of health than with low level health. In those cases, the hammer's slow attack time becomes less of a factor.

For example, you can easily tell the damage difference between a Mace Bash and a Hammer Bash on a Slime.


But for the most part, I think Fiesta weapons are fairly balanced and it's really a matter of personal preference.

[Vasu]

Yeah, while he favoured the mace by not taking crits into account, he also favoured the hammer by not taking misses into account. I'm not saying they balance each other out, but yeah...

[AegisXOR]

I think there are too many variables in here when you have both the TIME taken and the HITS required. I think TIME needs to be held constant if you want to compare them.

I measured the time it took to get a kill, and included the number of hits it equaled for kicks.

Actually, I just compared these two numbers and it looks like Hammer does more damage over time than Mace:

Mace:
(127*16)/15.91=127.71 damage per second

Hammer:
(158*14)/16.31=135.62 damage per second

Hopefully, I've done that right.

If the mace does about 127 damage in one hit of 1.0 sec, the hammer would have to do 1.2 times more damage.. which is about 152.4.

Why would we assume this?

At lower levels, at least, an aim scroll makes the first happen. Crits are relatively the same.

Hm... I'm not sure about this one. I understand what you're saying (more hits over time=more crits) but most of the time, maces have very low crit percentage. 5% is really good for a mace while I don't think it's very good for a hammer.

White crit percentages are 3% and 5% respectively, but green prefixes can raise it to 5-6% and 8%.

By not taking crits into account, you favor the mace. Also, you don't take into account cleric attacks (which, I know there are only two of them but I Bash every chance I get) which aren't dependent on cleric speed or cleric heal which will increase the time it will take to kill the monster.

Healing yourself and using skills would slow down both weapons equally. Skill damage is added on to your base, remember, so the only difference is the difference between the base damages of the weapons. (Bash even balances out; maces don't get as much % increase to their base, whereas maces' bonus is counterbalanced by the animation compared to attack speed)

One final observation kind of related to your experiment. I think the mace damage might eventually catch up (or at least even out) to the hammer because of its faster attack speed and most consistent accuracy. But the effect is more pronounced in higher leveled monsters with lots of health than with low level health. In those cases, the hammer's slow attack time becomes less of a factor.

I'm not saying one is definitively better. In all honesty I'm surprised at how equal they are given the setting. Takes forethought in design.

For example, you can easily tell the damage difference between a Mace Bash and a Hammer Bash on a Slime.

see above

[Enraya]

Ohh, I hadn't read the rest of the post yet *o*
There are a lot of these threads in the officials, but each of them prove a different thing with tons of math in it xD Try checking them out too to prove your conclusion.

[Blood Raven]

There are some problems with this experiment that have been stated by Ralath but if u truly wanted to prove that a mace or hammer is better then u should do it from lvl 1 to lvl 80 and record the different weapons times and damages for each lvl set (1,8,16,20,30,etc) to really see if mace is better then hammer or hammer is better then mace. I have heard mace has a good dps but not sure if the dps ever catches up with the hammer increasing damage difference and the increase of enemies health and def. I really don't know which is better but I still stick to a hammer +9. Been doing that since lvl 30.

[joshbl56]

There are some problems with this experiment that have been stated by Ralath but if u truly wanted to prove that a mace or hammer is better then u should do it from lvl 1 to lvl 80 and record the different weapons times and damages for each lvl set (1,8,16,20,30,etc) to really see if mace is better then hammer or hammer is better then mace. I have heard mace has a good dps but not sure if the dps ever catches up with the hammer increasing damage difference and the increase of enemies health and def. I really don't know which is better but I still stick to a hammer +9. Been doing that since lvl 30.

um, just to throw this out here, but you cant get a hammer until lvl. 20, which means you would start at lvl. 20, not 1.

and about your calculations, did you add the time it took for the hammer and mace to swing cause, just like with skills, it takes about an extra second to for the character to move his/her arm.

sorry for necroposting, thought it said the thread started on February 27 not January 27.

[Blaaaaaaaah]

sorry for necroposting, thought it said the thread started on February 27 not January 27.

You are not necroposting. The month counts from the date of the last post, not the date of the thread created. =]