Hi, welcome to the Dragon Age Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Talk:Companion Strategies page.

I hope that you will stick around and continue to help us improve the wiki.

Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Tierrie (Talk) 20:58, 13 January 2010

Can I have a source on Shadow Striking mechanics, please? Edit

Subj. If the source is your empirical testing, please describe the methodology. Thanks in advance! IN 09:00, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Weak Points Edit

Unfortunately, the modifier does not show at DamageScale of the target, so I have no firm numerical data. From my experience, though, Weak Points boosts the base damage by 10% (or by 0.1 -- tested on DamageScale=1.0 creatures). It also seems to be stackable. BTW, your question made me to re-test Mark of Death in v. 1.03. Much to my dismay, it is no longer stackable :) I'll update the necessary articles. IN 08:40, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Hello IN: If weak points does not affect DamageScale, what does it affect? Also, when you say it is stackable, do you mean stackable with itself? Stackable with Mark? If so, additively or multiplicatively? Thanks :)--User:Thc 20:34, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
This is highly speculative, but, to the best of my understanding, it is stackable additively both with itself and with Mark. Then again, I may be utterly wrong: it's very hard to evaluate such things empirically, even given extensive experience, especially when there is a whole lot of other variables involved and the damage numbers are naturally high (auto-crit archers with 3.0+ CriticalRange property tend to hit very hard). Weak Points clearly affects DamageScale, not something else, so I don't know why it is not displayed at the properties :( IN 22:39, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
Also, I assume you have a custom script to show DamageScale of a target? If so, can I have/see it? Sounds like a really useful tool, as I'd like to determine defense/attack/armor values etc of various mobs in Awakening. --User:Thc 20:36, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
Sure. I'll e-mail it to you gladly. IN 22:39, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
Yay. Can you e-mail it to surfa808(AT) Also, the source if you can. Thanks :)--User:Thc 22:51, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, in fact, there is an easier way! None of the scripts are authored by me. You will find them here: Almost forgot about those links. This guy did (and still does) a lot of work on mechanics. A nice person and a software engineer (probably), so he knows a lot about coding, logging, filtering, and suchlike. You may wish to contact him directly via his Talk page in the future: I'm not an authority on technical subjects by any means -- in fact, the Toolset still refuses to work on my Vista ;) IN 23:07, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

It is possible to get as high as +60 Cun for pre-buff Edit

With Vest of the Nimble. However, it is obviously quite a rare drop... IN 03:36, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up :)--User:Thc 03:53, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
Also, wolf treads: +63? :3--User:Thc 18:21, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm... I don't know what do you mean by 'also', as Wolf Treads were accounted for from the very beginning (there was a typo in the link, but they were there) :-P Also, Partha + Legion of the Dead = +22 cun, not +28 cun. Anyway, simple arithmetics will show it's still +60 cun overall ;) IN 09:04, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Script sent + an important note Edit

1. Script sent to the address specified by you. 2. While I surely appreciate your enthusiasm for researching game mechanics, it is no excuse for editing out whole paragraphs out of complete guides. You have every right to edit, of course -- this is a wiki, but the term 'editing' usually denotes, ahem, a bit more refined process. In other words: re-formulating, re-wording, correcting the text is always preferable to deleting whole chunks of it altogether just because the information presented is partly incorrect. By the way, I'm not even sure your new information is complete: I know I was evasion-locked by enemies in practice. 15% chance to play the animation with no modifying factors, you say? Well, maybe just a permanent bad luck on my part, but it seems I was consistently falling into that 15% for 15-20s... Moreover, your note is currently very unclear :( I'm not sure I understand it correctly at all. At this point, unless you clarify the exact mechanics, I'm not inclined to change my guide. Nothing personal -- I'm just not disposed to rely on information presented in such an unclear form. IN 10:26, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify your Evasion noteEdit

Let's face the facts: if I cannot decypher its hidden meaning, the chances are 99.9% of the readers won't be able to do it, either :) Refer to Talk:Evasion, I've left a note there. IN 10:58, March 29, 2010 (UTC)

Referred by IN Edit

Would you know w/c attack talents could take advantage of backstab-centric talents (shadow striking, exploit weakness, feast of the fallen and lacerate)? Besides flicker?

Additonally, would you know the numbers behind weak points and find vitals?

No attack talents can backstab (except for flicker, ofcourse). --User:Thc 18:11, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
Find vitals is bugged and does nothing, right now. Weak points, according to IN, adds 10% damage--User:Thc 18:11, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Find Vitals Edit

I just wanted to clarify your edit to the article. It sources the information the find vitals does nothing as "(the entry in abi_base points to the wrong passive ability)." My question is, if it's pointing at the wrong passive ability which one is it pointing at? Given that I have no idea what abi_base is or even what points means in this context it certainly sounds like Find Vitals is doing the wrong thing, like adding the benefits of a different ability, based on that description.Tetracycloide 22:43, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Find vitals points to the Fade Burst passive bonus which adds 5 to the property "spirit bonus damage". I'll update. --User:Thc 06:31, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
20 instead of 22 in the ability ID field. Nice. These guys never cease to shock me. Do they have QA at BioWare? Currently, it seems they just compile the code and ship it as is... No testing, no quality control, nothing... IN 10:56, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
As someone that works as a black-box tester it doesn't suprise me at all. To the play tester it's really hard to tell from the front end that something like this isn't working right. To the coder and/or the white-box tester it's really hard to tell that it should be 22 and not 20 since they're both valid values that look really really similar in what is probably thousands, if not, tens or hundreds of thousands of lines of code to review. This kind of thing is really hard to catch to be honest. I mean it seems easy from our end because, as players, we're not really testing the software. We're just playing the game. As such we get to pick and choose what we look into more closely based on what might be useful to us. Would we have even noticed if the error was on a passive ability that did something useless anyway?Tetracycloide 15:25, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
That's all well and good, but these guys have been working with essentially the same format for what, 10+ years?? They should at LEAST have some sort of automated routine to check for resource conflicts. I mean, even DAO:Modmanager does and that's developed by one person. But heck, what do I know, I'm not a programmer. --User:Thc 17:30, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
In my experience automated routines do more harm than good in the long run. It's often tons of work to keep them completely up to date with the code changes. Hell, it wouldn't suprise me if an automated routine created 5 years ago and designed to check this stuff was the root of the problem. I think we can all agree, though, that given the frequency and severity of the bugs in awakening a release date delay was certainly warrented. I'd be a happier consumer if the silverite mine hadn't deleted my voice of velvet and rose's thorn, for example, even if it meant waiting another year for a release.Tetracycloide 20:20, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
Look, I really like BioWare, and I really like DA:O and, with some minor reservations, DAA. Of course, I understand that it's a relatively small company with an awful lot of projects, so their human resources are spread pretty thin. However, both DA:O and DAA are unbelievably buggy. Ridiculously buggy. There is a ton of features (especially in combat mechanics and item properties department) that either do not work as intended or do not work at all. I wouldn't call these bugs minor, either. Crossbows being attribute-less is not a minor bug. Haste/Swift Salve slowing down ranged attacks is not a minor bug. +X% healing received practically not working is not a minor bug. Hostility modifiers doing nothing is not a minor bug. And so forth. Currently, you have a bunch of absolutely useless items which were clearly designed as very powerful ones. ~20% (!!!) of the abilities are bugged in some way. Mind you, I'm not the type to go to the BioWare Social forums and begin bitching there about how BioWare sucks. But it's surely a very, ahem, awkward situation. IN 10:54, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Spirit Warrior DPS Calculation in Awakening Edit


I think you might be missing a few things in your Spirit Warrior DW DPS calculation.

If you get the fix for the less than 0.5-reset-to-1.0 speed bug... You can use Blood Thirst to get an additional 10% Crit Chance (w/o the speed reset penalty). And you can use 2 more weapon runes to increase your crit chance and damage. You also forgot that Hirol's Gauntlets adds +3% Crit Chance.

Together this adds 23% Crit Chance w/o changing any equipment. So you should be able to get 530 dps with your build.

With some optimized DLC equipment - you can reach 100%+ Crit Chance. And maybe push pass the Rouge Vigilance/Velvet DPS of 550. Dont forget Vigilance also can be built to have +3% Crit Chance.

Crit Hit%

Dual Weap Expert = 2.5 Find Vitals = 10.0 Blood Thirst = 10.0 Precise Striking = 20.0 6 Runes = 30.0 Hirols Gauntlet = 3.0 Cadash Stompers = 2.0 Shadow Belt = 3.0 High Rgd House Dace = 7.0 Voice of Velvet = 5.0 The Veshialle = 5.0

Total = 97.5 (talk) 11:18, November 8, 2010 (UTC)Anonymous

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.