Damage Formula Thread

[Nyaanyaa]

Take this data set of mine:
Lv: 9
Trait: N/A
M.Dmg: 14
MND: 34
DTR: 34
minHP: 64
maxHP: 67

For "HP=round(3%±RHP)" you have:
RHP*0.97≥63.5 because round(63.5)=64, and
RHP*1.03<67.5 because round(67.5)>67;

so you have:
RHP≥65.4639, and
RHP<65.5340.

You can therefore write:
65.4639≤RHP<65.5340, or more accurately
63.5/0.97≤RHP<67.5/1.03.

That gives you a range of all possible RHP values for that specific data set given that HP=round(3%±RHP). Then you adjust a value of your choice (I do that with MND) and just keep gathering more data and RHP ranges, then you take all the minimum RHP values and graph them, and do the same with the maximum RHP values (or rather threshold RHP since RHP must be below that value). Check if any progression that makes sense (linear, exponential, whatever) is possible given that range. If no progression is possible, the construction is proven false. If all the aforementioned constructions are proven false (I'm starting to lean to that with the data I currently have, but I don't want to jump to conclusions just yet), the formula is likely something such as:

HP=round(3%±round(RHP)/2),
HP=round(3%±round(RHP)/3), ...
HP=round(3%±floor(RHP)/2), etc.

[EasymodeX]

So, here's 100 hits of B3, copied from ACT, using the 69-471-295 setup, which had 2.50604 potency last time.

Min 520
Max 575
Value 547.5

also max/min = 1.10577... a bit less than your desired 1.1053

Np, with rounding / truncation, I expect that metric to always be a bit off, especially for smaller damage levels. 1.10577 is prettydamnclean.

I plugged in the stats into my formula and it predicts an average damage of 549.9*, with a range of 522.4-577.4.

* I used a BLM trait multiplier of 1.3, assuming the second trait replaces the first trait.

Not bad but slightly off. I'll plug your data point into my spreadsheet and re-run solver a few dozen times.

Edit: Seems like your data point helps stretch/scale the formula for high WD+DTR combinations.

With that method, you can have X hits that dont change or improve the accuracy of your test, then suddenly one magic hit outside the range will change things.
When using an average, EVERY new hit improves your test, rather than waiting out some magical hit that may come in 50 casts, 100 casts, or 1000 casts.

In terms of debating the method ...

I agree with you for an open-ended test where you're trying to measure something unknown or something with "real"/unknown variation. In this context, that is not the case. We know/assume that the expected results are 95%-105% of the average. Therefore we know what range we are looking for -- if the data set has a max/min of 1.100 or 0.987, we know to wait for the next magic hit (or two).

When using an average, every new hit can also reduce the accuracy of your test ... randomly.

When I was getting my 7th set from my impatient BLM buddy, I was actually watching the ACT parse as it happened and calculating the max/min until the ratio grew large enough to exceed 1.105. It was actually stuck on 1.100 or so for almost a whole minute until he got a new max damage 3 points higher so I could tell him to stop.


For the case of the data you posted, the result from the avg(min,max) method is 547.5 and the avg(population) is 549.97 -- I'd bet the former number is more accurate.

... and more importantly it only takes a few minutes to test per datapoint T.T

[Kevee]

-Note above about classes/jobs different scaling.

-Also note, different attacks scale differently, especially with DTR(can't confirm if for STR/DEX/VIT). You need to test every attack. It's possible it's based off of potency, but I'm not sure.

See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...3SjEzeUE#gid=0

From chocobro, which I noticed you posted in.

Also, just ran the numbers for Fester.

There is probably a massive difference in the formula for magic users.

DTR: 262
INT: 494
WD: 69 Magic Damage
Formula puts Fester(300 potency) at ~577 damage.
Mine hits for ~735-780

Maim and Mend II?

Sigh.

I'm stupid.

Completely forgot about our passive boost.

That puts it in the general realm(750).


As another data point: Highest Fester I've seen is 804, lowest is 728.
Still currently on the dummy, but that's it for now.





ALSO, is the formula supposed to represent the average, or the base from which +/- 5% is supposed to come from?

[Viridiana]

Also, just ran the numbers for Fester.

There is probably a massive difference in the formula for magic users.

DTR: 262
INT: 494
WD: 69 Magic Damage
Formula puts Fester(300 potency) at ~577 damage.
Mine hits for ~735-780

Maim and Mend II?

[Kevee]

Maim and Mend II?

Sigh.

I'm stupid.

[Viridiana]

Sigh.

I'm stupid.

Happens to the best of us.

[EasymodeX]

See: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...3SjEzeUE#gid=0

From chocobro, which I noticed you posted in.

I originally removed all the datapoints from that spreadsheet because they didn't fit my requirement of "accurate min/max" (some of the max/min metrics were under 1.10, which means it's likely that either the max is too low or the min too high). I'll go back through and re-assess and re-pull some of those datapoints that look more legit. The other problem is that the second tab doesn't use Heavy Shot, which has a higher potency and will result in clearer values. I want to avoid 100 potency attacks where possible.

As another data point: Highest Fester I've seen is 804, lowest is 728.
Still currently on the dummy, but that's it for now.

Thanks for the testing. 804/728 is 1.1044, so the max or min values are likely 1 point off. Edit: or they might not be, and at numbers that high it doesn't really matter too much.

ALSO, is the formula supposed to represent the average, or the base from which +/- 5% is supposed to come from?

Both? The formula just aims at the base value before +/- 5%, which should also be the same as the abstract average value. Although, I have revised the formula a bit since original posting. I'll continue to revise it with new data and post an update later this week.

[Kenji1134]

I believe Valk did some testing with that and came to the conclusion that relative levels do not matter.
He also came to the apparent conclusion that either every mob at every level has the same defense... or that they all have 0 defense and just have more/less HP to make them "tankier" or "squishier".

I have done parsing on lvl 1 dummies, and lvl 50 dummies, same results.
It also seems to hold for mobs as well. Relative levels mean nothing beyond requiring accuracy, and everything has a base defense of 0.

[Nyaanyaa]

Thanks, Kenji. So ΔLv affects relative accuracy? I thought I saw an increase in hits as I leveled, but wasn't sure if it was from increased acc or ΔLv. I only just the other day found out that acc=m.acc as well in this game lol, still somewhat new.

[Kenji1134]

You gain accuracy every time you gain a level, so in effect yes, ΔLv affects accuracy simply because you would have more if you were of that mob's level.
In Coil you end up fighting mobs who's levels are much higher than your's, so you need enough accuracy on your gear to bring it up to the level it "would" be if you were the mob's level... plus a bit more to overcome the mob's base evasion rate.