[Erasmus]

Ok no more specualting on the amount INT affects damage. We need to use a systematic, scientific method to come up with hard numbers. In order to do that, I think we should start with finding the Base dmg of a spell ( similar to DMG stat posted on a weapon). In order for there to be aodified damage there has to be a base damage. Obviously this would be key in finding a formula for spells damage. Also, Int effect can be determined using the same spell on the same level monsters, with different INT values. All tests must be done with more than 3-4 spells. For more accurate results, maybe 10 fights using same spell (anything more is a little too tedious for a game and I dont think it will greatly change the results). Also need to use at least 3 different amounts of int ( 0 for control, a middle value, and the most you can currently have). These tests cannot be tested on stuff FAR below your level, because a damage cap could taint your results. High too weak should be good. Discount all resists, because that results in a tainted avg damage. Also every set of 10 need to be tested with different spells ( same for 10 then switched). I dont want to discount different spells having different equations, because III tier spells have a lower resistance check so obviously something could be different with damage as well. I highly doubt that the spells in each tier has a different equation but its possible that each tier does. With all other equations in the game, like EXP chain, time, skill caps, etc... there seems to be a change in equations at certain key levels. So equations based on level arent out of the question either. I will begin testing tonight, and I ask others to post thier results too. Please record all relevant stats ( level, int, skill, magic attck up.. not with a latent effect like the sorc ring, spell, tier, and amount of beer consumed before the test). Thanks, hopefully Ill post some results tomorrow and begin formulating a formula ( need somethgn to do at work right?).


Erasmus- Carbuncle
54BLM/27RDM

[cavill]

All i gotta say to this is, split your damn writing into paragraphs because its really hard to read a mess of words.

[AtraposBLM]

next time I exp my black mage I'll record results on IT's.

As for high too weaks...I'll try them too.

[Taga]

Why not try on decent challenge/even match? They can be soloed easily as a black mage.

[almighty_boof]

This may be a stupid thing to say, but what about using Burn? Doesn't that lower the mobs INT? If you don't find any results in your own INT, why don't you try lowering the mobs INT? I'm sure you'll fine a result with high INT, but I think you should also check out Burn and see if the monster INT affects the DMG. Also try to get a DRK with Absorb-INT. See if that works.^_^

[AtraposBLM]

well, when you try to do testing, you try to only change one variable at a time. Testing the effects of burn is totally reasonable...but it would have to be testing independantly of the actual int testing.


As for testing EP/DC mobs...I guess, but it'd be much less time-effective. So far, my secondary set of testing has been done on Cockatrice's in Onzozo - con EP high defense (will anything above Too Weak ever con as anything but HD? grrrr). The problem with testing on harder mobs is that with this testing, we don't care about resists...resist testing could only be done on IT's, but as for int damage...notice that the most damage you ever do to a TooWeak is close to the max damage you do on an EXP mob (within the normal damage variations). Damage caps make testing on TW's just as effective as higher con mobs. Maybe that changes with the IV line of spells, but so far, Aero III generally does 450-500 unresisted damage whether its on an IT or a TW.

[Taga]

I figured you want mobs with higher HP to maximize the accuracy of the test. An even match takes me around 20 minutes to kill but this is around 30 or so casts of one spell. Compared to a too weak mob which will last 5-6 casts. Common sense 101 - more repitition = more accuracy

[Erasmus]

I tried out burn. Didnt have optimal mobs since i was camping to get my coffer in garlaige. I went outside to kill skinks and stuff. I wont post damage numbers because they dont make a bit of difference at this point. Also, these numbers are dmg cap not raw damage because as unless resisted, there was no variation in dmg as the mobs were too low.

Basically what I did was take off all gear. Casted fire multiple times.It was the same dmg every time on the same mob. Then I casted burn, then fire some more. Result was an increase in damage by exactly 5 ( fire was hitting for 102-108 depending on mob lvl, then 107-113 after burn). I did the same test with +19 int. Same results... increase by 5 in dmg.

So burn DOES affect dmg.. not that anyone had any doubts but heres 100% proof. From being rasped, shocked, drowned, choked.. never been burned though ,I can guess that burn lowers int by 6 ( every elemental debuff cast on me seems to do this... correct me if youve seen different cuz im not 100% sure). So then I found a new mob, of the same type and level ( same initial fire cast with no burn) and equipped enough equipment to add 6 int. Damage increase was exactly the same as burn. Which means that in the equation, mob and player int is taken into consideration

I also tested +5 int intervals. Again using same mobs and fire. Damage with every interval was +4,+3,+4,+3 ( increase from last interval not from base). This indicated that it scaled geometrically with fire I ( + or - not a % or multiple). Also indicates that its a rounded off fraction. Which means it divided by SOMETHING... not sure if its another stat or a constant, but its definately not player int/mob int or vise versa since +0 int with burn yeilded +5 and +19 int yielded +5(from burn).

Tried this with blizzard. In the interval test, 5 int each time gave diminished result, unlike fire. Each interval yielded +10, +7, +3, +2. Tried on multiple mobs of the same type... same results. This means that not all nukes rely on the same equation.

At this point it was 6 am and time to go to bed. Tonight I will test burn on blizzard since it has diminished results. Purpose of this next test is to determine if monsters int and players int are independant in the equation. If +6 int on me = burn on the mob, and the same increase in damage is noted with +0 int with burn, and +19 int with burn, then they are independant. If it gives diminished results, as adding another 5 int tends to do with blizzard, then they are dependant.

Also, I would like to rephrase the optimal mob. I stated in the first post that it would be best on high too weak monsters. I dont think this is the case. If level could possibly be a factor in the equation, then Even match is the only way to get untainted numbers, for raw damage. Damage cap will more than likely be hit on anything less, so too weak is better than decent challenge, because DC can still do some good dmg to a blm, and that means we cant play around with the lower lvl spells. As far as more repetition on the same mob goes, you can determine the level of a mob by dmg done with +0 int. Same level and mob type is jsut as good as same mob.

All results recorded were from same mob type at same level and done at least 20 times.

[Arguile]

You ever hear that song "too much time on my hands".

I think some of you have it.

[AtraposBLM]

...we're trying to reduce the time spent farming so that we can optimize gear...

do you really want to spend 180,000 gil to gain +1-2 damage?

[evilution]

180,000 gil is pocket change.

You want more damage do what I did and buy all of the elemental staff's.

Want even more? Buy the HQ versions.

[AtraposBLM]

then kindly state how you make enough gil to make 180,000 gil pocket change. Keep in mind that just about all BCNM battles in midgardsormr have almost no profit margin (save a few lucky bc60 runs) and it's nearly impossible to do HNM's without knowing people...and people won't take you unless you have the uber gear...which you can't afford without doing HNMs...

I'm currently at ~152,000 gil. I have another ~400,000 gil coming to me from 5 bc60 runs. That puts me within 2 sets of avatar runs to get Ice Staff. Even then, 180,000 gil is a significant portion of my total funds. If I had to, I'd farm at 10k/hour to make the money neccessary (if getting +2 int is worth that much time), but spending 18 hours to get 180,000 gil is A) not pocket change for me and B) not worth spending on +2 damage.

[Erasmus]

besides what else am i gonna do at work, where, yes, I have too much time on my hands. Also, waiting behind gate #3 in garlaige for a coffer to pop can get mighty boring. I didnt get a chance to test other spells above or below fire last night.. wife wouldnt let me play

[Taga]

if the guy wants to be mediocre, more power to him.

[almighty_boof]

I don't think we have "too much time on our hands" I think that this game is addicting and it is sucking us into it's neverending vortex of constant play. This game is way too fumch fun and when you have done almost all of the things in the game, I think it is a very kind gesture when people are finding out statistics for LOWER LEVEL characters so they don't have to spend a whoping 180k. I'm sorry but that is in no means pocket change. Think of all the other things you could have spent it on for a measly 2 DMG? I'm glad that they figured out those statistics. It saves me a lot of time and money. Why are you insulting them anyways? What the hell are you getting out of it?! =P