The "Walking Dead" Party

[themell]

As for throwing vs light weapons, I base it off of this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=18&t=8027

So you are theorycrafting. Enjoy your lizards, they are cool. Nothing you've said makes me want to try it (quite the opposite in fact).

I'm not sure how he managed to get 25 shurikens when there's only 20 in the game.

You're not sure because you are wrong. But that's what happens when you just borrow things you read in threads and pose them as facts

theorycrafting? that's hard math.

Dps of 30d3 + strength for shuriken/throwing_axe vs 36d3+strength for two sickle swords. Go ahead, prove it wrong. Not only that, you have backstabs and the +5 accuracy from the sickle swords.

3 melee barbarian + 1 magic alchemist

vs

1 throw barbarian, 1 heavy alchemist, 1 magic alchemist, and 1 magic farmer? wtf is that kind of build. Why would have you have two magic users? Everyone knows magic is weak in the end game.

So you are theorycrafting.

what? Your first post in this thread says you're theorycrafting. Of course, the problem I see here is that you're not "theorycrafting". You played the game and "felt" what builds were good, but you didn't do the research or calculate the math behind it. You think Alchemist are overpowered because they'll generate a ton of crystal flowers, but you never did the math to find out how many crystal flowers you'll generate in a normal game. You think throwing weapons are overpowered, but you never did the math to figure out the actual DPS. (PS. the nice user who calculated the DPS for throwing axes was off though, since throwing axe cooldown is 5 seconds, not 4 seconds. Also, you will never run around with dual throwing axes, unless you feel like only have 5 throwing axes in each arm).

The actual math for throwing vs sickle (assume same strength, crit chance, and accuracy):

sickle sword (15-47 dmg+ strength)
15d3 + strength

sickle sword with 5x light weapon
30d3 + strength

sickle sword, 5x light weapon, + dual wield (dual wield light has only 60% of the original power)
30d3 * .6 = 18d3 + strength, for one weapon, but we have two so that's
=(18d3 + strength) x2

throwing axe (9-27 dmg + strength)
9d3 + strength

throwing axe with 5x throwing
18d3 + strength

throwing axe with dual wield
(18d3 + strength) x2

Same DPS for both throwing axe and sickle sword. HOWEVER, you're not putting throwing axes in both arms because there's not enough in the game. You put throwing axe in one, and shuriken on the other. Dematto is the one that did the math earlier, so he can check out the math here to see if it's right.


Anyway, I'm out. I already beat this game awhile back. The only reason why I posted was because there were so many bad builds out there

[Dematto]

Sickle Swords win on damage. Putting them on the minobarb in the editor, with 5/5 light and 5/5 throwing, Sickle Swords have 1 more max damage than the throwing axes.
That's before the accuracy, which might be as much as a 10% damage boost, or the faster cooldown. It gives up ranged attacking, but yeah. They definitely look like the current king.

[Dr.Disaster]

theorycrafting? that's hard math.

Dps of 30d3 + strength for shuriken/throwing_axe vs 36d3+strength for two sickle swords. Go ahead, prove it wrong. Not only that, you have backstabs and the +5 accuracy from the sickle swords.

When the player finally get's the 2nd sickle sword he is up against the Lindwurm. Not much time left to put your setup to use.

Manovering around your target to get one backstab in is hard enough to do in LoG 2 and thus time consuming. Getting two(!) backstabs in in a row is pretty much impossible on a difficulty other than Easy.

[minmay]

Manovering around your target to get one backstab in is hard enough to do in LoG 2 and thus time consuming. Getting two(!) backstabs in in a row is pretty much impossible on a difficulty other than Easy.

I've only played Grimrock 2 on hard and I've found that I nearly always want to position monsters by turning away from them anyway - it gives much more control over their positioning than any other method. And it trivially sets up backstabs for every monster that it works on except brown wargs and giant snakes (since they can turn while moving). Of the monsters it doesn't work on (of which there are very few), ice guardians and medusas have high-cooldown attacks that you can intentionally trigger and use to backstab them, and you probably wanted to trigger them anyway to control their position. I will acknowledge that Shrakk Torr and mosquito swarms (on a solo character w/o fireburst) are potentially dangerous and not really backstabbable without invisibility. That leaves slimes, skeleton archers, fire elementals (which die in 1 hit anyway), the Lindworm (which is easily backstabbable anyway because of its multi-tile behaviour), and the Island Master, none of which are really significant dangers imo.

edit: I guess it also doesn't work on crabs or eyctopodes but crabs are slow and easily controlled for other reasons, and eyctopodes will intentionally turn their back on you at full health so they're pretty easy to backstab!

[Azel]

I'm convinced themell and GJIG are the same person

Bad advice, but it is a single player game.

[Dr.Disaster]

Manovering around your target to get one backstab in is hard enough to do in LoG 2 and thus time consuming. Getting two(!) backstabs in in a row is pretty much impossible on a difficulty other than Easy.

I've only played Grimrock 2 on hard and I've found that I nearly always want to position monsters by turning away from them anyway - it gives much more control over their positioning than any other method. And it trivially sets up backstabs for every monster that it works on except brown wargs and giant snakes (since they can turn while moving). Of the monsters it doesn't work on (of which there are very few), ice guardians and medusas have high-cooldown attacks that you can intentionally trigger and use to backstab them, and you probably wanted to trigger them anyway to control their position. I will acknowledge that Shrakk Torr and mosquito swarms (on a solo character w/o fireburst) are potentially dangerous and not really backstabbable without invisibility. That leaves slimes, skeleton archers, fire elementals (which die in 1 hit anyway), the Lindworm (which is easily backstabbable anyway because of its multi-tile behaviour), and the Island Master, none of which are really significant dangers imo.

edit: I guess it also doesn't work on crabs or eyctopodes but crabs are slow and easily controlled for other reasons, and eyctopodes will intentionally turn their back on you at full health so they're pretty easy to backstab!

I phrased "hard enough to do" badly.
Sure you can pre-position and wait for the monster to make it's turn so you can strafe into his back and stab away.
Yet this method requires patience and thus time to do so when doing this any dps theorycraft relying on backstab blows itself up here.

[themell]

Manovering around your target to get one backstab in is hard enough to do in LoG 2 and thus time consuming. Getting two(!) backstabs in in a row is pretty much impossible on a difficulty other than Easy.

I've only played Grimrock 2 on hard and I've found that I nearly always want to position monsters by turning away from them anyway - it gives much more control over their positioning than any other method. And it trivially sets up backstabs for every monster that it works on except brown wargs and giant snakes (since they can turn while moving). Of the monsters it doesn't work on (of which there are very few), ice guardians and medusas have high-cooldown attacks that you can intentionally trigger and use to backstab them, and you probably wanted to trigger them anyway to control their position. I will acknowledge that Shrakk Torr and mosquito swarms (on a solo character w/o fireburst) are potentially dangerous and not really backstabbable without invisibility. That leaves slimes, skeleton archers, fire elementals (which die in 1 hit anyway), the Lindworm (which is easily backstabbable anyway because of its multi-tile behaviour), and the Island Master, none of which are really significant dangers imo.

edit: I guess it also doesn't work on crabs or eyctopodes but crabs are slow and easily controlled for other reasons, and eyctopodes will intentionally turn their back on you at full health so they're pretty easy to backstab!

I phrased "hard enough to do" badly.
Sure you can pre-position and wait for the monster to make it's turn so you can strafe into his back and stab away.
Yet this method requires patience and thus time to do so when doing this any dps theorycraft relying on backstab blows itself up here.

use invisibility. It's almost always a guaranteed kill. It makes a lot of fights trivially easy ... even on hard difficulty ... even if you're ambushed.

[Dr.Disaster]

It's known that LoG 2 Invisibility is OP. When cheesing your way thru the game with it there is no need to do any dps math; just cast Invisibility, whack a mob and repeat ad infinitum.

Why do you think i did not use magic in my last 2 hard play-thru's?

[Azel]

Invisibility = Invincibility? And here I almost thought "magic is weak"

[minmay]

Yes, invisibility pretty much makes everything without see invisible harmless. And the only monsters with see invisible are the wardens, uggardians, island master, ice guardians, goromorgs, lindworm, and air elementals. 4 of which don't actually appear in the game.
I'd be careful about arbitrarily declaring certain things cheesy and forbidding their use, though, in the context of this argument that's moving the goalposts. "My strategy is the best". "Actually this one is better". "Oh that one doesn't count, it's too cheesy, my strategy is the best non-cheesy one".

I phrased "hard enough to do" badly.
Sure you can pre-position and wait for the monster to make it's turn so you can strafe into his back and stab away.
Yet this method requires patience and thus time to do so when doing this any dps theorycraft relying on backstab blows itself up here.

I'm not making a "pure DPS" argument here - yes, you can get the maximum number of attacks by standing directly in front of a monster and letting it hit you, but I submit that's just about the worst possible strategy to use. Turning away from a monster and allowing it to move is both the fastest and most precise method of manipulating a monster's position, so from the perspective of actually winning fights in the absence of invisibility, I find I want to do it against every monster it's applicable against, which is almost all monsters.