Hit Recovery and Block Speed Break Points

[Tommi]

Let me clarify:

The incorrect tables were derived by using the weapon attack rate formula as follows.
- Base = Base frames for hit recovery (known)
- Speed Increase = EFHR = [(120 * FHR)/(120 + FHR)]
THIS IS THE INCORRECT FORMULA

(Several people - lemekim at the LL, Tao and colds at the AB, among others - noted that real data did not match these. Well, nobody knew anything better.)

Some time ago Karon/Rivo (the same guy, different aliases) conducted extensive tests (I do not know details), through which he derived empirical data for FHR and FBR breakpoints. With the help of Hammerman, we were able to find out some theoretical implications (from the game code), for example for amazons blocking with swinging weapons. I compiled the page from the posts for easier reference (as I usually do, good info should be stored). I did not do any tests, just referred to Karon's/Rivo's results and Hammerman's info. So:

Karon/Rivo --> The guy who made the tests
Hammerman --> The guy who read the game code
Tommi --> The guy who wrote this all down from the forum posts and asked the above two guys for all missing information

These tests and work lead to formulas close to previous ones, BUT with some important differences. First, the basis before Speed Increase was 50 normally, 100 only with Holy Shield. Second, there was no +1 before Base. Animation speed was not 256 in all cases (not visible in the weapon speed formula). See formulas in my page.

Lemekim, I suggest that you correspond with Rivo/Karon (Kar0n at The LL, Rivo at the AB, Karon at dii.net) about the tests. Some breakpoints based on Hammerman's data are not tested, especially those where Animation Speed differs, I believe. Perhaps you are able to find explanations to your observations, or further elaborate the FHR/FBR info. I'll update the page whenever new reliable data is acquired.

LavCat, if you look at the thread you posted and read the quote from me (in ShadowHM's post), it is apparent that the tables are purely theoretical and untested. They were derived using the same incorrect method as I described at the beginning of this post.

Cheers,

Tommi