- Archer Guide
- →
- Formulas
- →
- Formula Discussion
- →
- Possible Min and Max Formulas
| Welcome to Archer Guide. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Possible Min and Max Formulas; One of the many | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: May 6 2008, 06:20 PM (613 Views) | |
| Technolink | May 6 2008, 06:20 PM Post #1 |
The Overlord
  ![]](http://209.85.12.237/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
So I've gone through about 10 major could-be-the-real-thing formulas so far, many were quite strange, others ridiculously simple. The one that I settled on is inbetween. Here's my big problem. It seems that the lower levels experienced less of a level difference reduction then the higher levels. In Sap's range, he's 35, the monster 45, yet it only knocks off about 7~10 points off the range. Meanwhile my 87 range, it knocks close to 250 points. So, here's the equation I decided on. The big factor is what w def is multiplied by. I tried this formula with .5 awhile ago and it didn't work, so I dumped it, but on a review (show all work FTW, 8 white pages of math here, although the TI-89 helps) I found that a w def * .6 works great. This w def *.6 agrees with everything we've covered too. We said its closer to .6 for the min damage, and on the level 109 range vs a 105 jr newt, the monster def was .5507. If I take it that that wasn't his absolute min, and that 894 would be (only 45 points lower) everything works fine. So, long awaited, my formula for min! min = min damage mlvl = monster's level lvl = your level w def = monster's w def  Why does it work? Well first of all, it satisfies all of our current ranges (remember, Sap showed awhile ago that it is hard to obtain your absolute min, and this underestimates everytime, which is perfect) Observed | Formula (mins) 27 | 23 457 | 441 931 | 894 2 | 1.95 -| 3 | 2.94---> Roundoff (we've confirmed maple normal rounds damages, but rounds against you in damage ranges) 1 | 1.26--| 7 | 5 []Lower level monsters experience almost no level difference reduction (200- a small number will divide the deduction by a large number, causing it to be small) []This goes along with our w def readings of about .55~.6 []The deduction becomes 0 when the level is equal automatically []The max level for monsters in MS is 200, so that part makes sense ---The deduction becomes undefined when the level is 200, which makes sense because all level 200 monsters are unhittable []As you close the gap with the monster, your range gets higher as it should. []Agrees with our .6*wdef for min range (and .5 for max) Why it might not work: Monsters over lvl 250? (may have their own formula) Also, because we've settled that m def on your max range is closer to .5, this formula would work for max predictions: min = min damage mlvl = monster's level lvl = your level w def = monster's w def  Observed | Formula (maxs) 293 | 310 1195 | 1207 1993 | 2020 7 | 6.82 --| 8 | 7.83 --> Round up 6 | 6 ------| 100 | 102 The roundup is justified in my lower level damages, where I am POSITIVE I reached the absolute min/max. How's that huh? =] |
 "Drawing" by Kev | |
 |
 
|
| spiritrival | May 6 2008, 06:26 PM Post #2 |
Erk
|
When you say min*diff do you mean the difference in levels? |
| |
|
|
|
| Technolink | May 6 2008, 06:30 PM Post #3 |
|
The Overlord
|
I do, I'll make that more clear. |
|
"Drawing" by Kev | |
|
|
|
| spiritrival | May 6 2008, 07:14 PM Post #4 |
|
Erk
|
For max, you need it slightly higher. 7 | 6.82 8 | 7.83 Maple always rounds down, so you're off by 1 there >.< |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Technolink | May 6 2008, 07:22 PM Post #5 |
|
The Overlord
|
Those two are 0 def ranges (orange mushies). Because they are 0 def by my pseudo formula there is no way to decrease them, except by changing the 200, which wouldn't make sense. I'm assuming they round off here, like we know that maple rounds normally for % multiplication. Like if you have a range of 1323, and you us 91% strafe, your max non-crit will actually be 1204 (1203.94). Maple rounds against you for damage stat in window. So 10.99 in the window is 10. I got two people in my guild to test and their ranges fell nicely inside .58 min and .5 max I have a feeling min is .6 though, and we just aren't seeing the true min. |
|
"Drawing" by Kev | |
|
|
|
| spiritrival | May 6 2008, 07:30 PM Post #6 |
|
Erk
|
Alright then. Yeah, the fact that we can't mathematically prove the true min and max without a formula, makes it hard to find a formula. >.> |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Technolink | May 6 2008, 07:51 PM Post #7 |
|
The Overlord
|
PARADOXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX |
|
"Drawing" by Kev | |
|
|
|
| Russt | May 6 2008, 08:16 PM Post #8 |
|
Formula Specialist
|
Nice Techno. It's a formula that makes sense, something I could see Nexon implementing, not too complex, not too bizarre, yet not imbalanced. I'd count on a .6 minimum multiplier, though. Just one thing though: are you 100% sure that, testing on orange mushrooms, your damage was reduced from the stat window? |
 "Ultimate knowledge is only an experiment away" - Magatian alchemist motto Maple Formula Sheet | Hits Per Kill Calculator | Lost in Phantom Forest? | Knuckle Combo %DPS Chart | Archer/Slinger %DPS Comparison | Archer > Hunter > Ranger Build Spoiler Maze | |
|
|
|
| Technolink | May 6 2008, 08:18 PM Post #9 |
|
The Overlord
|
.5 and .6 make sense, I'll redo my calcs later. This only took me 2 days and like 6 hours. Can you guys continue to test? I'm studying for AP exams lately. |
|
"Drawing" by Kev | |
|
|
|
| hyperfell | May 6 2008, 08:55 PM Post #10 |
101 Khaini Sniper
|
A bit off topic... but does Iron Arrow or Pierce neglect monster wdef? |
| |
|
|
|
| spiritrival | May 6 2008, 09:08 PM Post #11 |
|
Erk
|
Most likely not. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Technolink | May 6 2008, 09:14 PM Post #12 |
|
The Overlord
|
I was acutally just testing that. I know Iron Arrow does, but Peirce is rumored to ignore, now we can test though! Also, on a related note, I found out that all (bowmen at least) attack skills do w def FIRST, then apply their % So strafe, ab, and ds all recieve the same base w def reduction. If I do 1000 damage, then 200 goes to w def, my new base is 800. So strafe does 800*4, ds 800*2.6, etc etc I really think this is the formula (with the .5 and .6), its looking really nice ingame so far. |
|
"Drawing" by Kev | |
|
|
|
| spiritrival | May 6 2008, 09:23 PM Post #13 |
|
Erk
|
Wouldn't that technically mean Strafe gets more Def reduction then? I've been thinking about that the past few days. 1000 * 4 = 4000 800 * 4 = 3200 Strafe has an 800 reduction, for minimum damage. 1000 * 2.6 = 2600 800 * 2.6 = 2080 Double Shot has a 520 reduction, for minimum damage. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| Technolink | May 6 2008, 09:27 PM Post #14 |
|
The Overlord
|
Its not because of the more shots, its because its a higher percent damage. If Peirce does have w def applied, that would make w def apply the most to it is the point I'm getting to. Its not base*800%-wdef formula Its (base - wdef formula)*800% |
|
"Drawing" by Kev | |
|
|
|
| spiritrival | May 6 2008, 09:28 PM Post #15 |
|
Erk
|
Ah, yes. It's the higher damage percent. I knew I was wrong somewhere, well, I was technically right, but for the wrong reason. |
|
| |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Formula Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 2:42 AM Nov 26
|
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards
