Deathtrooper's Deathmark

Nice video and thank you for sharing. Might I suggest you try DT under a palpatine lead? I think you will appreciate the turn meter gains you get from putting down debuffs with DT, especially against rebels. Just think, you would get to go almost twice in a row with him when using his dispell (from the heal blocks that apply) and against most rebels you will gain 60% turn meter (20% for daze on first attack, 20% for daze on second attack & 20% for stun on dazed second attack) on his basic attack. You get to move quite a bit more with him under a palp lead, which helps the death marks come out sooner. Just cant wait for krennic to get the synergy going so DT's damage goes up even more.

wow thanks for sharing, deathmark sure makes vader's basic hit harder lol

It does a percent damage based on the target's health and protection correct?

"Cesium;875408" wrote:
wow thanks for sharing, deathmark sure makes vader's basic hit harder lol

It does a percent damage based on the target's health and protection correct?

50% no matter who attacks the death mark target will die in 2 attacks

Both time EP hits Shoretrooper under deathmark it deals 25,472 damage, but when Vader hit Shoretrooper under deathmark it did 24,219 damage. When Shore hit Shore it did 25,060. When TFP hit shore under deathmark it did 26,738.

It seems to be different for each character attacking, but it also seems to be a set number for each different character. Any idea how it's calculated?

"Vertigo;875412" wrote:
Both time EP hits Shoretrooper under deathmark it deals 25,472 damage, but when Vader hit Shoretrooper under deathmark it did 24,219 damage. When Shore hit Shore it did 25,060. When TFP hit shore under deathmark it did 26,738.

It seems to be different for each character attacking, but it also seems to be a set number for each different character. Any idea how it's calculated?

Refer to my above statement

"xReDeMpx;875413" wrote:

"Vertigo;875412" wrote:
Both time EP hits Shoretrooper under deathmark it deals 25,472 damage, but when Vader hit Shoretrooper under deathmark it did 24,219 damage. When Shore hit Shore it did 25,060. When TFP hit shore under deathmark it did 26,738.

It seems to be different for each character attacking, but it also seems to be a set number for each different character. Any idea how it's calculated?

Refer to my above statement

It wasn't always the same 50% of health though, it seems like there was a small amount of randomization

"Allenb60;875419" wrote:

"xReDeMpx;875413" wrote:

"Vertigo;875412" wrote:
Both time EP hits Shoretrooper under deathmark it deals 25,472 damage, but when Vader hit Shoretrooper under deathmark it did 24,219 damage. When Shore hit Shore it did 25,060. When TFP hit shore under deathmark it did 26,738.

It seems to be different for each character attacking, but it also seems to be a set number for each different character. Any idea how it's calculated?

Refer to my above statement

It wasn't always the same 50% of health though, it seems like there was a small amount of randomization

Ok not in that regard think of it like this

Death mark makes each attack take away 50% of remaining health.

It varies because one toon will do more attack damage and death marks effect damage will be lowered but compared to a toon who does low attack damage but death mark does more damage.

"xReDeMpx;875413" wrote:

"Vertigo;875412" wrote:
Both time EP hits Shoretrooper under deathmark it deals 25,472 damage, but when Vader hit Shoretrooper under deathmark it did 24,219 damage. When Shore hit Shore it did 25,060. When TFP hit shore under deathmark it did 26,738.

It seems to be different for each character attacking, but it also seems to be a set number for each different character. Any idea how it's calculated?

Refer to my above statement

Read the numbers. They're all different. TFP attacking made it deal 26,738 damage, but when Vader hit it only did 24,219 damage. That's a difference of 2,519 damage. It's not like there was a rounding difference in the 50%, there was a noticeable difference in the amount of damage it did. If it was a set % there wouldn't be any fluctuation, but thanks for trying.

"Vertigo;875430" wrote:

"xReDeMpx;875413" wrote:

"Vertigo;875412" wrote:
Both time EP hits Shoretrooper under deathmark it deals 25,472 damage, but when Vader hit Shoretrooper under deathmark it did 24,219 damage. When Shore hit Shore it did 25,060. When TFP hit shore under deathmark it did 26,738.

It seems to be different for each character attacking, but it also seems to be a set number for each different character. Any idea how it's calculated?

Refer to my above statement

Read the numbers. They're all different. TFP attacking made it deal 26,738 damage, but when Vader hit it only did 24,219 damage. That's a difference of 2,519 damage. It's not like there was a rounding difference in the 50%, there was a noticeable difference in the amount of damage it did. If it was a set % there wouldn't be any fluctuation, but thanks for trying.

Lol ok regardless of numbers ATM death mark makes the target die in two attacks regardless of who attacks u less they kill the target before

"xReDeMpx;875427" wrote:

"Allenb60;875419" wrote:

"xReDeMpx;875413" wrote:

"Vertigo;875412" wrote:
Both time EP hits Shoretrooper under deathmark it deals 25,472 damage, but when Vader hit Shoretrooper under deathmark it did 24,219 damage. When Shore hit Shore it did 25,060. When TFP hit shore under deathmark it did 26,738.

It seems to be different for each character attacking, but it also seems to be a set number for each different character. Any idea how it's calculated?

Refer to my above statement

It wasn't always the same 50% of health though, it seems like there was a small amount of randomization

Ok not in that regard think of it like this

Death mark makes each attack take away 50% of remaining health.

It varies because one toon will do more attack damage and death marks effect damage will be lowered but compared to a toon who does low attack damage but death mark does more damage.

Thanks for the explanation, I think I get it now