Damage Formula Thread

[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.