| Author | New Sword of Sun |
|---|
Is it worth buying?
How is it compared to sword of cold |
If you have a shooter based army then sword of cold is better as the water damage is applied to shots.
If you have a melee army the sword of sun will be better as this gives a higher percentage bonus that will not be reduced by magic resistance |
| I noticed that this new stuff is firstly very expensive and then very cheap. Finally its pricing becomes similar to other items of its kind. Staff of sun first was about 130-150k, then fell to 65k and now at about 100-130k. |
| [Post deleted by moderator Arcanide // On request] |
for virtual_vitrea:
"+5% melee damage and increases by 1% per every 3 combat levels of the Lord."
Isnt it meele dmg for CL18:
5% + 1%*(18/3)=5%+6=11%? |
| Also consider that SwoS has 1 less attack comparing to SoC. |
ah my bad
I read it as 5% melee damage every 3 levels. This makes it a lot worse than sword of cold then in my opinion. I was thinking maybe dark elf or tamer could use it instead but even they would end up with -1 attack in exchange. In my understanding, the 2% extra melee damage is simply worse compared to the elemental damage that sword of cold offers, especially when you factor in the additional +1 attack parameter.
#4 is a completely wrong assessment then. Mods feel free to delete. |
Lord MilesTeg assessment is still valid. It has some advantages when your army has no shooters and you need +1% ini. But to me it seems that in 90% of cases, SoC is better or same. If that is the case, then for someone who often changes factions this might not be worth it to keep that sword.
Once price falls to about 100k, we might add one or 2 for depo as a supplement for some situations. |
| So, if I read/understand correctly, only tamer has use for it? Lol |
only tamer has use for it
UN, DE, SB, DD too
And probably tribals without centaurs build, FB boar build, to some extent Holy Wiz, FD without harpooners (that +1 speed build with bears and beastslayers)
So yeah, you still have options.... |
What is the typical level of melee resistance versus magic resistance? I think magic resistance tends to be higher, though that is just a hunch(plus the fact that the cloak gives 20% which is much higher than any melee resistance).
How the numbers work out when you consider those factors plus the 1 less attack. However they will be pretty similar, which is what you would want for balance, but am sure they would set the numbers so it does give an advantage in certain cases, albeit a marginal one, which I think is as it should be |
New Sword of Sun
Useless. |
| id they ninja nerf the sword? i swear the melee % was different when i bought it. calculated it out at 13% melle damage for my level and now its 11%? now it is useless as 1 attack loss is not worth the 1% melle damage bonus even for melee only factions. lol |
What is the typical level of melee resistance versus magic resistance? I think magic resistance tends to be higher, though that is just a hunch(plus the fact that the cloak gives 20% which is much higher than any melee resistance).
How the numbers work out when you consider those factors plus the 1 less attack. However they will be pretty similar, which is what you would want for balance, but am sure they would set the numbers so it does give an advantage in certain cases, albeit a marginal one, which I think is as it should be
I just rewatched one of my battles. Looks like I had 21% melee resistance and 25% magic resistance. Even if melee resistance was lower, I believe it is superior to magic resistance by far. The reason being that magic resistance only reduces the elemental portion of the damage.
Take this scenario of a hero with 20% melee resistance against hero with base 100 damage and sword of sun:
100+ 11% melee bonus from sword gives 111 total melee damage. Against a unit with 20% melee resistance, it will do 111-22 = 89 damage. Magic resistance in this case is irrelevant.
Scenario 2: Hero with 30% magic resistance against hero with base 100 damage and sword of cold:
100+ 9% water elemental damage gives 100 melee damage + 9 water elemental damage. Now the 30% resist only reduces ~3 damage from elemental portion of damage. Even with 50% or so you only reduce 4 damage at best. You get around 105 or 106 final damage. In a realistic situation, the defending unit will also likely have the same amount of melee resistance because you don't really have to choose one or the other, the final damage will be reduced by melee resistance and you will have 20% reduction from base damage of 100 giving you final damage of 80 + 6 elemental damage =86.
So 86 (with SoC) vs. 89 (SoS) is the actual difference on melee units. But this calculation hasn't taken into account the +1 attack from sword of cold which I believe evens it out even for the melee only factions. Sword of cold is just superior in most situations because magic resistance will be closer to 25-30% range and the +1 attack helps it out more imo. |
In essence I agree, - though as a simplification one need only consider the added damage, the base damage will have the same amendments to it so can be ignored when making a comparison
Base simplified setup
water elemental bonus in SoC is smaller than melee damage bonus for SoS
magic resistance is consistently higher than melee resistance
SoC gives +1 attack, which in most situations gives 5% more base damage
In order for SoS to be better the combined impact of higher % damage increase, and lower reduction, have to outstrip the 5% bonus from having an extra +1 attack and the fact that this is only applied to melee (whereas SoC is for ranged and melee)
Given the increased melee damage is on the order of 2%, then the difference in magic vs melee defence has to account for another 3% to be significant. This will not be the case, thus SoC is better.
Of course if the SoS has +1 attack as well rather than +1% ini then it would give a marginal benefit for melee and be worse for ranged armies.
I wonder if they will switch the initiative state for attack and make it such that there is a more clear cut scenario where SoS is better than SoC |
for Lord MilesTeg:
Yes, the point of my post was to show what the practical damages look like with either sword versus magic resistances and melee resistance numbers. That's how you arrive at this:
Given the increased melee damage is on the order of 2%, then the difference in magic vs melee defence has to account for another 3% to be significant. This will not be the case, thus SoC is better.
Instead of:
If you have a melee army the sword of sun will be better as this gives a higher percentage bonus that will not be reduced by magic resistance
Thank you :) |
for virtual_vitrea:
Yep, first analysis was based on the assumption that they would have done their numbers right, as typically these arts are to incentivise donations by gaining a better weapon. For this to be a better weapon the melee damage would need to outstrip the impact of not applying to ranged.
It would seem that on basic principles (without running a full test of all variables) this is not the case, which I am still surprised by, and therefore am waiting to either be proved wrong on the numbers or else for them to change the numbers somehow. |
| The other impact that doesn't seem to have been discussed much is that if they are going to introduce sun/cold variants for every slot, then the availability of each individual artifact will be much lower (as there will be twice as many artifacts to choose from for sales) and the prices will rise |
| I don't think this is the case. More arts also mean that each individual art is used less. If this new sword is now used instead of SoC in X% of cases, X% of SoC sales can go to SoS and the price should not be affected. No? |
| You make a fair point, but I don't think demand for SoC will change much from this introduction. Maybe the if the SoC is 5x as popular as SoS they will put it on sale 5x as often, but I wouldn't expect so and so the SoC price would increase |
