Here is repost of my thoughts http://forums.elementalgame.com/393270
Basically why not to try to do what MoM did once, it actually worked -
By MumbaCraft Posted August 27, 2010 2:21:34 AM
I think it's clear the combat is quite volatile. Let's suppose we have 4 def 4 attack guy fighting the same guy. I suppose each attack or defence roll will get 0-4 result, (if it's 1-4 result will be simmilar but with lower damage potential)
Next will go some statistics: chance to hit for 5 - 4%, 4 - 8%, 3-12%, 2-16%, 1-20%, 0 - the rest(40%), As you can see it's almost a linear increase
Let's look at another guy, 7 att / 2 def
7-4%(1/24), 6-8%(2/24), 5-12%(3/24) 4-12%(3/24) 3-12%(3/24) 2-12%(3/24) 1-12%(3/24) 0-24%(6/24) - Here we can see a linear dispersion for the most part.
That's to put it blunt is a very bad mathematic formula for damae calculation, since it tends to create spikes (ie high chance of a very high or very low damage) and limits any potential tactics. Hero can be oneshoted especially with high attack.
Now let's look what happens if elemental will adopt MoM formula, but let's say not 30% to hit chance but 50%. (to those who does not know each rank in attack has 50% chance to hit) now chance to do max damage is only 0.2%. We are getting typicall bell curve here with 2.5 damage as an average. I do think it's a much better damage calculation formula since it creates predictable result but still allows variation.
And frankly I don't think it's that hard to change dmg formula.
UPD: what it mean - for example guy has 7 attack, thus he makes 7 times to hit test (so in case of 50% to hit chance) 3.5 damage on average, same goes to defense calculation. BTW MoM had to 30% to hit chance, this allowed for an interesting mechanics when one thing is to increase attack, which is useful for low attack mooks, but for powerful ones another +3 was not so great, but +1 to hit (+10%) was really cool