Can anyone help me make sense of this please?

[Motenten]

Trying for a simple explanation, but it's going to run a bit long:

Each hit of your weaponskill uses the base calculated damage.

The first hit of your weaponskill is also multiplied by the fTP value. For certain special weaponskills (eg: Stardiver, Resolution, a few more), -all- hits are multiplied by the fTP value.

It's common to refer to the total of all the hits by a combined fTP value (such as what was done above with CdC). This is merely a shorthand reference value, and I'd suggest avoiding it until you understand what it's a shorthand for and why it's used.


Calculated base damage is based on: weapon damage (and ammo, if it's a ranged weapon), fStr and WSC.

Weapon damage is easy enough (just look at the description), though you need to account for skill if using H2H, and occasional latent effects.

fStr is based on the difference between Str and the target's Vit, but is not equal to that. It's approximately 1/4 of that (or 1/2 if using a ranged weapon), with limits based on the weapon rank. The weapon rank is floor(weapon damage / 9). The fStr limit is [-weapon rank] to [weapon rank + 8].

WSC is a value that players have figured out, and you have to look it up for each weaponskill. The alpha value is an additional bit of scaling that changes with player level. If you're level 80 or higher, alpha is 0.85. So, a 100% WSC (fully merited Stardiver or whatever) is [Str * 100% * 0.85]. CdC is [Dex * 60% * 0.85].



So, a level 90 Almace has a weapon damage value of 61.

Its weapon rank is floor(61/9) = floor(6.7778) == 6

Its fStr is thus constrained to be between -6 and +14

~ I'll use an arbitrary value of +10 fStr for this example.

WSC is 60% of dex. Assuming 179 dex used during the weaponskill, final WSC value is:
floor(179 * 60%) = floor(107.4) == 107
floor(107 * 0.85) = floor(90.95) == 90


Total calculated base damage is thus: 61 + 10 + 90 = 161


Now you go back and look at how fTP affects things. An fTP of 2.25 means the first hit is multiplied by 2.25, while any remaining hits stay at the calculated base damage. (Note: gorgets get added in here, but I'm not using any for this example.)

First hit: floor(161 * 2.25) = floor(362.25) == 362
Additional hits: 161


You then look at your pDif (which may be modified by being a crit). pDif is based on cRatio; cRatio is based on Ratio; Ratio is your attack divided by the target's defense.

Attack of 600 vs defense of 500
Ratio = 600 / 500 = 1.2
[Can't be higher than 2.0 for a 1-handed weapon; can't be higher than 2.25 for a 2-handed weapon]

For every level above you the target is, reduce Ratio by 0.05 in order to get cRatio
Example target is level 103 (ie: 4 levels higher than you)
cRatio = Ratio - (4 * 0.05) = 1.2 - (4 * 0.05) = 1.2 - 0.2 = 1.0

If it's a crit, you then add 1.0 to this value.
Normal: 1.0
Crit: 2.0

pDif is quite complicated, so I won't get into the details here. For now we can assume that your pDif will approximately average out to the value of your cRatio.
pDif ~= 1.0, or 2.0 if it's a crit (for this example)

Here's a thumbnail picture (click for full size view) to show the general range that pDif can fall in based on wRatio (where wRatio is either cRatio, or cRatio+1 if the value is a crit):



It includes test data and prediction plots, which is why it looks a little messy.


Final damage:
First hit: 362, or 724 (362 * 2.0) if it's a crit
Additional hits: 161, or 322 if any are crits
[Aside: if the hit is a crit, also factor in any +crit damage effects; not going to get into that here.]

With one main hit and two additional hits (ignoring offhand), you have an average damage total between [362 + 161 + 161] = 684, and [724 + 322 + 322] = 1368, depending on how many hits managed to crit.



That largely covers the process of figuring out weaponskill damage, and should be sufficient for most basic needs.

[Trisscar]

Nicely explained, Motenten. Thanks for posting that.

[Kitkat]

I have to admit I haven't seen anything like it before, so I have no idea what it is I'm looking at. Naturally I ask for such things like "What does floor supposed to mean" and "What variable does 'a' and 'b' stand for?" No explanation or clarification seems to be forth coming.

When I linked to the WSC and Floor page on bgwiki I had hoped you would have actually read the article since it tells you exactly what they mean. In the equation you mention in original post 'a' stands for primary modifier and b stands for secondary modifiers -if- the WS has any (not all do, but there are some).

In the case of say Dancing Edge there is two modifiers Dex and Chr. Thus 'a' is your Dex multiplied by modifier percent and 'b' is your Chr multiplied by modifier percent. In the case of WS that have no secondary modifier 'b' is dropped out of that equation. At the end the 0.85 is known as an Alpha, or otherwise refereed to as level range correction on damage.

While others have stated this won't give you the exact damage on the spot you'll be doing, these are trusted formulas that give approximate damage projections based off tested data to come up with the numbers for the equation. Not going to re-explain floor since others have already done so, but felt it was needed to expand on what 'a' and 'b' stood for given the prior topic that spawned this one.

[Trisscar]

*snip*

You guys suggested I ask around and I educate myself if I was still having trouble understanding it. I did exactly that so what's your deal?

[Nala]

eh, i had said as much before but my post but deleted it because i was feeling venomous considering trisscar seems to have a reading or internet disability that prevents him/her from reading peoples responses in the blue mage thread about floor or the 2-3 links others have provided in this thread, or for the rest of the damage equation for that matter.

the deal is your question had been answered several times in this thread and the previous thread, or easily located on the regular or even bg wiki, when it comes to floor could have been goggled that as well.

[Kitkat]

You guys suggested I ask around and I educate myself if I was still having trouble understanding it. I did exactly that so what's your deal?

Probably that nothing in this thread is any different than what is on the damn links people gave you upwards of 8 times throughout that prior topic? Maybe the fact you are still saying things like "making it worth gearing for it" in your post which is similar to what you said also in prior topic? It isn't hard to click on a link, read over it and also click on other source/related links at the end of the articles to see the same damn thing everyone has posted in this tread explaining what each part of the equation means, where it comes from, how it is factored, and the order it goes in to reach the final total.

The only thing I see from your OP and several other responses is the fact you have a lack of patience in reading this source material then proceed to scrutinize it like it is something someone randomly pulled out of their ass to inconvenience you. It baffles me why someone comes in and questions information that has been worked on since around 2005 onward and has been reliable within an expected margin of error because there is still a variable that people haven't been able to pinpoint to an absolute.

Here you are asking questions like "What is this" or "what is that" and when someone gives you an answer you reply with "well why is it that way" or "how can people know that for fact." It isn't like the equations are baseless with no testing or trending with scrutiny by those willing to take the time to test it. Don't need someone coming in with the attitude that swapping gear is wasted effort when years of data and various personal experiences back up the statement. Just says to me and others who took the time to link you to the information in the first place that you've got a vendetta since the consensus inconveniences you without someone holding your hand since reading, clicking links, and understanding directions is too hard? This didn't even warrant another thread since links to the information were provided to you.

[Trisscar]

*snip nonconstructive post*

*snip nonconstructive post*

This might come to as surprise to ya'll but not everyone can learn the same things at the same rate as everyone else. Me, despite the fact I passed Math with all A's, Math was always the absolute weakest subject. So, naturally I'll need more instruction and more time to make sense of the WS equations than you would.

Since the beginning of this thread I have now came to a better understanding of the equations, although some parts of it (specifically pDIF) I don't understand yet despite the fact that Motenten explained it so well and so patiently.

Now I may have explained that it was because of the earlier thread that caused me to begin this thread but that thread isn't the subject of this thread. What is the subject of this thread is WS equations. If you aren't going to weigh in on the subject of the thread than why are you even posting here?

Edit to add: In case you haven't notice I haven't been active on the other thread. I been here 'educating myself'. But hey, it's not like you cared anything about that. Only thing you apparently care about is making yourself appear better than others.

[Nala]

lol nonconstructive, i gave you them last thread and you failed at reading. either the ability to comprehend words or translate the text into those words in your head and make something of it.