Holy Flame damage bonus ...
#21
fs_robotussin
Posted 17 February 2010 - 22:02
#22
fs_deljzc
Posted 18 February 2010 - 01:02
If any of the other formulas were true, there would be monsters I would NOT have one-hit and I would have gone through Imps every 500 stamina.
I know specifically when I was doing the Undead in the 390's somewhere I was using only DD and HF and the formula working was 6000 * 1.2 * 1.3 = 9360. No other "enhancements" were throwing off the numbers.
#23
Posted 18 February 2010 - 05:48
I hunt ever other day so I'll have to gather some more data on Friday. I guess what I am going to have to do is check each creatures armor and see what kind of damage I do, for 10-15 creatures. That will hopefully give me a much tighter grouping.
If anyone has any other data that they have gathered I would be very interested in seeing it.
#24
fs_deljzc
Posted 18 February 2010 - 15:02
I mean, you will know immediately on your first hit of an Undead Creature which formula is in the right ballpark.
#25
fs_robotussin
Posted 18 February 2010 - 15:06
#26
fs_deljzc
Posted 18 February 2010 - 15:11
i dont use CA, but i do use #2 and i rarely 2 hit
Because you are overcalculation and use more base damage than you need. You should look and see how much overkill you are using in those instances (from combat, not helper).
Edit:
There is a big difference in the required damage (as listed in your Bio when you start hunting) between our formulas.
In your case robotussin, the last undead I found for you was level 618, Necral Horror. If we round to a required 1-hit damage of 15,500 damage to kill it (that's a different debate on how to calculate that number).
Formula #2 = 11,300 damage listed in bio before DD + HF level 150
Formula #3 = 10,350 damage listed in bio before DD + HF level 150
That's a pretty substantial difference in required damage.
#27
Posted 18 February 2010 - 15:36
#28
fs_robotussin
Posted 18 February 2010 - 16:04
#29
fs_robotussin
Posted 18 February 2010 - 17:45
https://spreadsheets... ... 0R0E&hl=en
AVERAGE RESULT WITH DD, CA175, HF150 WAS 23580 DAMAGE!
(ANY COMBATS WHERE PS/CH ACTIVATED WERE TOSSED FROM RESULTS)
REMEMBER THAT THIS CRITTER AVERAGES 1700 ARMOR AND THAT IS THE NUMBER I APPLY TO ALL FORMULAS. I WILL PLUG THESE NUMBERS INTO EACH OF THE FORMULAS THAT BalianRW POSTED ON PAGE 2 OF THIS THREAD (I WILL MAKE ADJUSTMENTS FOR MY BUFF LEVELS). MY DAMAGE IN BIO WAS 11231. WHEN YOU TAKE AWAY 1700, YOU ARE LEFT WITH 9531, WHICH DEVIATES BY JUST OVER 2% OF THE 9792 RESULT FROM MY TESTING (RIGHT IN LINE WITH THE COMBAT RNG).
HERE WE GO:
1) DD, CA, and HF %bonuses added then multiplied by damage
(11231)* (1 + 0.2 + 0.44 + 0.3) -1700= 20088
2) DD and CA % bonuses added then multiplied by damage then apply HF after armor
([11231 * (1 + 0.2 + 0.44)] - 1700) * 1.3 = 21735
3) DD, CA, and HF % bonuses multiplied sequentially
(11231 * 1.2 * 1.44 * 1.3)-1700 = 23530
4) DD and CA %bonuses multiplied sequentially then HF bonus applied after armor.
[(11231 * 1.2 * 1.44) - 1700] * 1.3 = 23020
WELL, MY RESULTS ARE INCONCLUSIVE... ALL OF THESE FALL IN RANGE OF THE RNG
#3 IS CLOSEST, BUT I THINK WE NEED A LARGER SAMPLE FROM A CRITTER WITH A MUCH HIGHER ARMOR QUOTIENT
PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU FIND ANY DISCREPANCIES IN MY POST, I WILL EDIT!!!
#30
fs_tangtop
Posted 18 February 2010 - 18:28
Jiang Shi - level 553 - 3500 armor
Harbinger of Storms - level 538 - 3400 armor
Elven Shade (Champion) - level 428 - 5190 armor
Eternal Tormented - level 397 - 3530 armor
Dar GromSol City Guard - level 391 - 3380 armor
Semerkhet (Elite) - level 370 - 10150 armor
Dagoresh (Elite) - level 350 - 9670 armor
Mortugus (Elite) - level 185 - 4000 armor
#31
fs_deljzc
Posted 18 February 2010 - 19:12
OK, HERE ARE SOME RESULTS:
https://spreadsheets... ... 0R0E&hl=en
AVERAGE RESULT WITH DD, CA175, HF150 WAS 23580 DAMAGE!
(ANY COMBATS WHERE PS/CH ACTIVATED WERE TOSSED FROM RESULTS)
REMEMBER THAT THIS CRITTER AVERAGES 1700 ARMOR AND THAT IS THE NUMBER I APPLY TO ALL FORMULAS. I WILL PLUG THESE NUMBERS INTO EACH OF THE FORMULAS THAT BalianRW POSTED ON PAGE 2 OF THIS THREAD (I WILL MAKE ADJUSTMENTS FOR MY BUFF LEVELS). MY DAMAGE IN BIO WAS 11231. WHEN YOU TAKE AWAY 1700, YOU ARE LEFT WITH 9531, WHICH DEVIATES BY JUST OVER 2% OF THE 9792 RESULT FROM MY TESTING (RIGHT IN LINE WITH THE COMBAT RNG).
HERE WE GO:
1) DD, CA, and HF %bonuses added then multiplied by damage
(11231)* (1 + 0.2 + 0.44 + 0.3) -1700= 20088
2) DD and CA % bonuses added then multiplied by damage then apply HF after armor
([11231 * (1 + 0.2 + 0.44)] - 1700) * 1.3 = 21735
3) DD, CA, and HF % bonuses multiplied sequentially
(11231 * 1.2 * 1.44 * 1.3)-1700 = 23530
4) DD and CA %bonuses multiplied sequentially then HF bonus applied after armor.
[(11231 * 1.2 * 1.44) - 1700] * 1.3 = 23020
WELL, MY RESULTS ARE INCONCLUSIVE... ALL OF THESE FALL IN RANGE OF THE RNG![]()
#3 IS CLOSEST, BUT I THINK WE NEED A LARGER SAMPLE FROM A CRITTER WITH A MUCH HIGHER ARMOR QUOTIENT
PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU FIND ANY DISCREPANCIES IN MY POST, I WILL EDIT!!!
I think it actually confirmed #3 pretty strongly.
It certainly isn't #1 or #2. The numbers are too far away for that.
Thank you for the data though and taking the time to do it.
#32
fs_robotussin
Posted 18 February 2010 - 19:31
i will repeat with a much higher armor creature when i have the time, and hopefully something will emerge as a firm conclusion
#33
Posted 18 February 2010 - 20:19
http://balianrw.99k.... ... alysis.xls
First we will use Column C (damage with no buffs) as the control. From that we can see that the damage varies from the calculated expected by between -1.3% to +9.11% (In reality this top number is an outlier as it is almost 3% higher than the next highest value, but we will keep it anyway). Also, you will notice that the standard deviations for each column and each option type are all between 2.5% and 4%.
Of particular interest is Column G. That is the only one where both DD and CA was present. If we look at the results in that column we notice that for options 1 and 2 (where the % bonus for DD and CA are added together before being multiplied by the damage) every single damage was above (and in most cases well above) the calculation expectation. For Option 1 (column G) every single data point is outside the -1.3% to +9.11% Deviation range established by the control (column C). Additionally slightly over 1/2 of the results from Option 2 comparison are also outside that range. This seems to suggest that applying HF AFTER armor may be the correct calculation. But we will discuss that more below.
If we continue on down the spreadsheet to Options 3 and 4, we notice that for both options the Deviations are for the most part with in the range established by the control. We also, notice that for Option 3, several of the Deviations extend below the minimum established by the control, especially in the cases where HF was used. Similarly with options 1 and 2 above, the option where HF is applied after armor is subtracted (i.e. Option 4) seems to behave more like the control. Option 4 has less than 19% of it's entries outside the controls range (compared to 39%, 27% and 32% for Options 1, 2, & 3 respectively), and all of those are by a much smaller amount than many of those from the other 3 options.
From all of this, I have come to the conclusion that Option #4 is actually the correct calculation to use. Additionally it appears that the damage (due to random effects of the game) can range from between -4% (or maybe even -5%) to +10%.
A set of data taken against one of the Undead that has high armor could help further distinguish which of Option #3 and Option #4 are truly correct, but based on this data I am absolutely convinced that the effects of DD and CA are sequentially multiplied rather than having the bonus % added together first.
#34
fs_robotussin
Posted 18 February 2010 - 20:46
i wonder when that bonus gets applied... maybe someone without the holy shrine can tell us?
EDIT: the guildmate i mentioned posted right below me
#35
Posted 18 February 2010 - 21:37
#36
fs_robotussin
Posted 18 February 2010 - 21:52
i made the same test for HF & Holy (less accurated than for Greenskin), but all the results showed that Holy is applied when the combat starts (so 100% Holy + DD = profile damage * 1.25) and HF after armor check.
that is exactly how i thought it worked (HF after armor check), but it seems to be applying the bonus to the entire damage stat, not just after armor... hmmmm
#37
Posted 18 February 2010 - 22:03
http://balianrw.99k.... ... alysis.xls
That that fixed the skew in the Control so that it is now roughly +/- 5%. It's hard to tell with the bonus being so small in comparison with the DD bonus, but I think that it is sequentially multiplied with DD (i.e. Dmg * (1+Holy) * (1+DD)).
I also ran a test to see what if CA was applied after armor and while a case with DD and CA only would be helpful in determing this, it appears that CA is applied before armor just like DD.
Also, redoing these calculations with the Holy Enhancement factored in, I am convinced of the following:
1)Buff effects are sequentially multiplied rather than having their % bonuses added together (i.e. option 4).
2) Holy (and other Enhancements), DD, and CA are applied before armor
3) Holy Flame is applied after armor.
4) There is approximately a +/- 5% random variance from the calculation.
#38
fs_coyotik
Posted 18 February 2010 - 22:11
#39
fs_tangtop
Posted 18 February 2010 - 22:16
But remember there was a code change a while back (can't exactly remember the reason for it), but a side effect of the change (before it was fixed), is that DD and CA were not applied to the stat bonuses form berserk, rage, fury, etc. This has since been fixed, but given that something changed in the code then, we cannot guarantee that things still work as they used to. I like the testing that people are doing and would like to see more. I would love to have time to put into gathering stats too, but things are far too busy unfortunately.I'm quite sure that HF is applied to whatever is left from the total damage AFTER monster armor is substracted from that. It most certainly worked that way a long time ago, before DD and CA existed - and from programmers' perspective, it is very unlikely that Hoof would have changed that just because he added damage-increasing buffs.
#40
fs_coyotik
Posted 18 February 2010 - 22:23
This has since been fixed
And you wouldn't believe how much persistent nagging of support it cost me to get it fixed...
but given that something changed in the code then, we cannot guarantee that things still work as they used to.
That's true... the research above, however, doesn't seem to indicate any change (#3 and #4 were quite close to the measured number).
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

