A DPS Simulator 2 - SimFF

[Hustensaft]

Is this a consequence of level being a higher level

Base damage is tied to Level, not to strength.

Strength simple is a Multiplier that is 1.0 at the global Level base value.
Dragoon STR should put that to somewhere around 1.35-1.4
Base damage at 50 could've been ~20
Base damage at 60 might be ~22

Then there's also the that if we assume that STR is a Multiplier starting at base - 277 is a result of your 247 "base" at 50 + 30 spent stat Points, whereas 277 at 60 is a result of your "base" at 60 + ~20-25 Points. You might also want to compare that to either +30 or + 35 if we assume that STR scaling changes.

[pandabearcat]

Do you guys have confirmation of any of the theories you have or are yall pulling numbers out of your butts?

[Hustensaft]

Do you guys have confirmation of any of the theories you have or are yall pulling numbers out of your butts?

Well that's the fun part - you can't confirm anything in this game.

[Judge_Xero]

Do you guys have confirmation of any of the theories you have or are yall pulling numbers out of your butts?

No confirmation here, but I may try leveling a class from 1-20 and plot the base stats and min/max damage using a broken weapon, just to see what is actually going on there.

I'm not too sure how useful that would be though, without having data on the effects of each stat at any given level.

[pandabearcat]

Take all the data (all the data)...plug into neural network...profit. It is guaranteed (over enough iterations, and a good enough data set) to find the function, or an identical function.

Don't do the work when a computer can do it for you, is my motto.

A possible idea is a place for users to submit their ACT logs (oops, I mean "hand compiled buckets of numbers"), which will then feed the data into a network for processing...utilize the masses' hunger for bigger epeen to collect data.

Unsure if ACT collects attribute data or not though.

[SunnyHirose]

ACT does indeed.

[Kenji1134]

Oh god, full ACT logs from a week's worth of raiding from every raider on every server...

I can feel that neural network having a stroke already. =P

But yeah, I understand that there is a Mathematica package which is good for modeling arbitrary equations from data. Sadly I am a MATLAB guy, not a Mathematica guy,

[Viridiana]

ACT does indeed.

Wait, it does? I must be blind. @_@

[pandabearcat]

It isn't too hard to do enough samples for testing a neural network.

Assuming we just want to do a simple static test, all we need are...

1. Any random combination of gear that gives a set of stats.
2. Do one known potency attack (lets do w/o damage modifiers for now).
3. Do that enough times to get an average output - alternatively, feed all into the network if we want randomness to be a part of it.
4. Repeat 1-3 with other potencies and random sets of gear.
5. As an addendum, for now separate crits and noncrits and focus on getting a good formula for noncrits.

Ideally all this data is collected on a level 50 training dummy with no other modifiers, because I am almost certain enemy level/defense modifies damage.

The neural network can be exceedingly simple - input layer with X inputs (corresponding to all stats + potency + level if desired), one hidden layer with some number, lets say X*2 nodes, and one output node being the experimental observed potency.

Really though not sure why this wasn't done years ago =P Much easier to do than trying to find a regression line in a spreadsheet - and guaranteed to be accurate.

EDIT: update on the sim, I'm on vacation until end of next week. Too much irl stuff (performance reviews lol) and need to take my cousin to college. If you haven't noticed already I've sort of lost my motivation for now, so hopefully I will have it back after a break.

[Viridiana]

Ideally all this data is collected on a level 50 training dummy with no other modifiers, because I am almost certain enemy level/defense modifies damage.

The level 1 critters outside Gridania still calculate the same as the dummies outside Idyllshire, though, so I kinda doubt that.