Minimum damage and Maximum damage values will now display separately in an item's tooltip (i.e. "+2-4 Damage" will now display as "+2 Minimum Damage” and “+2 Maximum Damage")

Isn't that counter-intuitive?

I simply don't get how this is meant to be logical and make sense. Every time I look at it, i think to myself, "Add the two to get the actual maximum".

Have I misunderstood this calculation entirely? Or do you all agree that the tooltip is confusing?

Maybe someone can post calculations that explain why this way makes more sense.


I still need a conclusive answer (or confirmation) to the below:

An item with 10 - 12 damage gets a modifier of +2 min / +2 max (or +2-4 as per the pre 1.0.3 tooltip).

Does this item scale to 12 - 14 damage ?

If the same item gets +3 min / +3 max (in this case, old tooltip listed +3-6?), does it scale to 13 - 16 or 13 - 15 ?

How does one explain what the old tooltip did? i.e. what does the 6 mean in +3-6 as per above?

  • 1
    To use your example, an item with 10-12 that gets a +2/+2 modifier would increase to 12-15. If it received a bonus of +3/+3, it would increase to 13-17. Jun 23 '12 at 13:34

If an items does 10 - 15 base-damage and you put in a gem that adds +2 min / +2 max the new damage range is 12 - 17 damage.

Before the patch, the calculation was exactly the same, but +2-4 damage is much more confusing (in my opinion). The new wording just clarifies what really happens.

Explanation of the old tool-tip: the damage modifiers of rubies (and +X min or +X max) on a weapon are calculated before other damage modifiers (like elemental damage for example). Within this, the +X min get applied first, taking our example weapon from above to 12 - 15 damage after this, the +X max gets added, resulting in said 12 - 17 damage.

If we get another weapon with a very small damage range like 10 - 11 damage it works the same - but after the +X min is applied, we get 12 - 11 damage which doesn't make sense. As a result, the max-damage is raised to 13 and then the +X max gets added, resulting in 12 - 15 damage. We ended up with +2 min / +4 max.

Now, if we take a weapon with 10 - 10 damage (no range), we theoretically end up with 12 - 15 damage again, which is +2 min / +5 max (or +2-5 damage) but this doesn't happen in game as there's always a damage-range, so this possibility was excluded from display.

Conclusion: the old tool-tip showed the theoretical maximum effect a ruby could have, which doesn't really happen in-game. Even my second example only happens rarely (only if you put a high ruby in a low-level weapon) so the new tool-tip is much more exact.

  • aha! then I did misunderstand the previous calculation. So then how on earth did the old one explain the number 4?
    – ericosg
    Jun 21 '12 at 7:09
  • please see my edit for clearification. the olt tooltip is teh maximum effect a gem can theoretically have. this is still true but happens rarely (and never with full effect since there are no weapons with zero damage range).
    – oezi
    Jun 21 '12 at 7:33
  • it's a bit confusing, can you fix it up a bit? thanks
    – ericosg
    Jun 21 '12 at 7:52
  • wow, that's very enlightening! I had no idea that a close range value can benefit such a way. I will mark soon once nobody else dis-confirms your post :)
    – ericosg
    Jun 21 '12 at 10:13
  • 1
    @BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft They chose the new wording because the old weird edge case with low-damage range weapons still applies. +Min effects are still applied before +Max effects, with all the attendant wierdnesses. Jun 23 '12 at 13:31

Here are some screenshots validating the damage increase and how the two different tool-tips can be interpreted.

Before applying gem:

before applying gem

If we applied a ruby on it, which says +8-16 damage, or when applied it says +8 min +8 max, this weapon would scale from 23-34 damage, to 31-42 damage.

But when applying a larger gem, such as a flawless square ruby, which says +14-28 damage, or when applied +14 min, +14 max, it now scales to 37-54 damage.



See after applying gem:

after applying gem

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.