Mabinogi World Wiki is brought to you by Coty C., 808idiotz, our other patrons, and contributors like you!!

Want to make the wiki better? Contribute towards getting larger projects done on our Patreon!

NOTICE: Seems like daily VIP shadow missions may be wrong occasionally!!

I'm blocking like thousands of bot accounts so if you were accidentally banned please get on the Discord and ping Kadalyn!

# Talk:Status/Archive

The balance formula for mean damage is completely wrong. If you do the calculation with a bastard sword (19-34, 35%) then the mean damage is either 6.08 or 608 depending on whether or not you divide the percentage by 100. I think the previous description is also wrong (max * balance), so I haven't changed it back at all. Thoughts? Saiyr 13:03, 5 March 2008 (PST)

- From what I remember it was kinda like alpha-blending in computer graphics: on 0% it's centered on
*minimum damage*, 100% and it's*maximum*, and any number in-between means your mean damage is a weighted average ("blend") of the two. I'm not sure how to word this though. --Kakurady 15:08, 6 March 2008 (PST) - I'd word it mathematically, like this: (((Max - Min)*Ballance) + Min). That'll put you at the percent of your attack. Following that formula, the average damage per hit of the given example of a bastard sword should be 24.25. --Jerl 02:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Something that I seem to be noticing lately is that an N+2 combo landing 6 hits with dual-wielded gladiuses on average does more damage than rank 8 smash, which is 310% damage, or equivalent to 6.2 normal hits. It should be noted that since my critical rate is around 12% for said gladiuses, the change in damage output is not from critical hits. My assumption is that the direct damage modifiers from Combat Mastery are applied after the damage multiplier for smash, not before. This means that the mean damage would be more accurate as ((((Max - min) * Balance ) + Min) + direct damage modifiers). I'm not sure if this only happens for Combat Mastery's direct damage modifier, but I'm willing to assume it is. Can someone with rank 8 and a direct damage modifying enchant test this by finding something that they can almost kill with smash and hit it with a 3-hit combo? --Jerl 22:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Does the crit rate on your weapon affect magical crit rate? Do will and luck give bonuses to magical crit rate the same as melee crit rate? Likewise, does DEX increase the balance on magical attacks? I've noticed that when RPing mage characters, they seem to prefer INT, then WILL, then DEX. Could that indicate that dex improves magical balance? Ziv 06:03, 6 April 2008 (PDT)

- (taken from Status Page-Magic Balance)This is actually a hidden stat, and not displayed on the character screen. It determines the damage range of your spells. The formula is derived from both Dex and Int. Magic balance formula: sqrt(15*int) - 30/int + (Dex-10)/4 + 10 + enchantment_balance_bonus*spell_constant.
- (taken from Status Page-Intelligence)The formula for extra damage based on Int is: Log10( Int )2 × 3.

- As for crit rate on a weapon, i presume no but i haven't done the necessary testing to back up this statement. But i do believe that crit from stats *will+luck* do add to magic crit rate.
- That formula appears wrong, because according to it I should have 100% magical balance outside of tranformation, but my hits are not constant with the same damage, which would mean it's below 100. Can someone double check on that formula? It seems more that enchant balance has no effect on magical balance, since without it the formula lands me with 94 balance, which seems right. Also, I've proven that magical balance can go up to 100% by landing constant damage while Dark Knight.

## Contents

- 1 INT Damage Bonus
- 2 INT Damage Bonus and Charges
- 3 Dark Knight Disarm
- 4 Auto Defense
- 5 Luck and finishes
- 6 eating food can add stamina only under 18 years old instead of "low age"
- 7 Luck and Repairs
- 8 taking hits in deadly
- 9 int damage bonus specifics
- 10 New int damage formula
- 11 Luck and Item Drop Rate
- 12 Int and Magical Balance
- 13 Uh.
- 14 Min > Max
- 15 missing information
- 16 Unconscious Spoiler
- 17 How weapons affect Critical and Balance
- 18 Int, powders, lughnasadh, and enchant success rate
- 19 g9 Magic damage change
- 20 Not moving but not sitting doesnt drop hunger
- 21 How do we know will increases deadly chance?
- 22 Cerberus Poisoning
- 23 Str Bonus
- 24 Status Effects
- 25 Wound rates appear to be off
- 26 Int Formula

## INT Damage Bonus

As I understand, most of this info is taken from the japanese mabinogi wiki. Well I checked a google translation, and this is the section on bonuses from INT:

- Damage magic formula related bonus by the Int-seater is the formula for 3 * * log10 (Int) log10 (Int) said.

Also, the bonus is applied to protect the enemy's defense, after PASSHIBUDIFENSU prior to applying to be included. Magic balance, 30% + (Dex-10) / 4 + sqrt () -30/Int-20 (Int * 15) will be calculated. Maximum 100, less than Int1 corrected when Int1 Magic balance is 30 + (10-Dex) / 4 + sqrt () -30/Int-20 (Int * 15) and were, 9/20 9 / 20 updates on the effects of DEX is gone. Then the formula is unknown. ※ Google calculated using the calculator function, () () will change your input.

It seems to me they're talking about the magic balance formula when they say the formula is unknown. It also looks like the damage bonus should be 3 * ( log10(INT) )^2. Methinks someone got their coefficients mixed up. Ziv 07:49, 6 April 2008 (PDT)

Since google translation garbled up the balance equation, here's a correct version: Magical Balanc = 30%+(Dex-10)/4+{sqrt(Int*15)-30/Int-20}

- Ok so I'm just gonna say that your {} brackets here are superfluous, if you've really put the order of operations correctly. Your formula is completely equivalent to the one earlier on this page. -Inemnitable 08:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Ugh... After reading many pages of the Japanese wiki, it seems that the wiki contradicts itself. Here in the master list of formulas, it lists the magic damage contribution from INT as 3*log(INT)^2.[1] And yet here it lists it as 2*log(INT)^3 [2] I don't know anymore. Ziv 01:31, 12 April 2008 (PDT)

I did the calculations for INT of 200(which is roughly what I have at age 10) and 250(which is roughly what I'd have if I aged to 21 and then leveled up to 33). For 200 I got 15.88 and for 250 I got 17.25. In this case, 50 INT is almost nothing. Not even 2 points. Did I calculate it wrong? Is this really the correct equation? At one point I thought the equation was something like 5 INT = 1 Magic Attack. What ever happened to that? -- Saphryu 11:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

- After talking to many mages, it seems to me that magical damage is 'capped' at 200 int. It takes a LOT of int to boost their damage by 1 so most of them increase their dex to increase their magic balance instead of trying to increase their damage.

To Ziv, Exponents of logarithms can be written as coefficients. Meaning, 3*log(x)^2 is the same as 2*log(x)^3 is the same as 6*log(x) is the same as log(x)^6. To Saphryu, The effects of the argument of the logarithm decrease as the argument increases. Meaning that +50 when you start with 200 is less than +50 when you start with 100 is less than +50 when you start with 0. If you look at the graph of a logarithm you'll see it start to slow much in the same way an exponential decay would. - Whyrainfalls 12:08 26 March 2009 (GMT -7)

- I basically agree with what Whyrainfalls said, except it should be written as 3*log(x^2) is the same as 2*log(x^3) is the same as 6*log(x) and NOT the way it was written. I don't have very high int, so I can't confirm anything on whether it is log-based. --Doomsday 08:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

On the last edit made Whyrainfalls it probalby is and i have a fairly hihg INT of 185 so it is close to the cap of 200 after about INT 100 it slowed down in increasing damage but alot and it took alot more INT to just add on 1 more point of damage so i think it is an log-based equation for the INT add-on for magical damage also 2*log(x^3) is not the same as 3*(log(x^2) and 6*log(x) about at the 17th place after the decimal it round to a 4 when i used 10 for x in them but 2*log(x^3) and 6*log(x) came out to be the same and sorry my calculator rounds to the 17th place i am trying to get a better one thou

## INT Damage Bonus and Charges

How does the damage bonus from int interact with multiple charges? For example, Firebolt with five charges does 6.5 charges worth of damage. Is the damage bonus from int applied once, five times, or 6.5 times? It ends up making a pretty big difference.Ziv 05:47, 17 April 2008 (PDT)

From my observations, the damage bonus only gets multiplied by 5. My r1 Firebolt, fully charged and with 320 Int, does about 930 damage average. Firebolt itself has 780 max damage, which leaves 150 damage from Int. Using the current formula, 320 Int gives ~31 damage: 30 x 5 = 150 damage. If They the damage was multiplied by 6.5, I'd be hitting closer to 1000. These are just my observations/calculations though. Sogard6 19:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

## Dark Knight Disarm

Whenever I go into Dark Knight Disarm, the status in game reads as Cancel Dark Knight. Should we change it to Cancel Dark Knight, or leave it as Dark Knight Disarm due to Cancel Dark Knight being a warning? --GN54 15:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

## Auto Defense

Anyone know how auto defense on special heavy armors works(chance to go off, protection provided, def or damage reduced%, reduced stun time, etc.)? does it stack with my shield and how does my shield's auto defense work(same deal)? Does it stack with Pal/DK/Falcon/Beast resistances? should probably consolidate that information and link it on those armors and such that have it.

## Luck and finishes

It seems to me that Luck has nothing to do with the chance of lucky finishes. Either that, or the lower the luck you have, the more of the chance. I had just rebirthed and had 0 luck due to enchants and I received more Huge Lucky Finishes than I would have before I rebirthed. The same went for my friend. She received 5 Huge Lucky Finishes with 0 Luck. Someone confirm this please. --Kevin ^{(•Talk•)} 17:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

- As mentioned in the japanese wiki, this is also unverified so I'm going to add the note next to it --Lighthalzen 05:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

## eating food can add stamina only under 18 years old instead of "low age"

as the title said

Not sure if I understand what you're trying to say. Food still gives you *stats* if you eat it after 18 years of age, just very little compared to if you were younger. If you mean that eating food at 18+ doesn't recover hunger, that isn't right. Could you please clarify? --Powder Rune 05:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

- According to his edit, it seems characters over the age of 18 do not receive Stamina healing from eating foods --Kevin (‧
_{T}a^{l}k‧) 05:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC) - This is completely untrue. I always rebirth at age 17, and I have never observed my stamina increasing when I ate food at that age, only my hunger decreasing. I assume the age limit on that is more around 14 or 15. I'll experiment with it next week, when my elf gets the free rebirth. --GN54 05:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I know that my old pets do not recover very much stamina from food, but my brand new, young pets do. I'm feeding both Large Meat which should recover both types of pets' stamina to the max. This may not tanslate to player chars, though. ---Angevon 16:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- From my experience, the age at which stamina recovery cuts off is 16. --Jerl 02:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

## Luck and Repairs

If more luck does not give higher repair rates, explain how +20 luck from lucky title gets perfect repairs from Fergus? 18:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

- A fluke. ---Angevon 19:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly the game suggests it does, and it holds true for me. Wearing the lucky title when you repair usually results in a comment on how lucky the repairs went when you repair at Fergus ie "Wow is the the power of the lucky title?". And it is repeatable so no, not a fluke. ---AMM66 6:57. 8 july 2011 (EST)

## taking hits in deadly

I'm adding this here cause i'm tired of undoing can>will edits to the line about being killed if you're hit in deadly.

It **IS** in fact possible to survive being hit while you're in deadly. it's rare, but it does happen.

I have seen my pets survive being hit in deadly, I have seen monsters do it, usually skeletons(a red one once took 5 hits with ice when i could kill it with 1 crit), and I used to do it myself often(once took more than 30 consecutive hits from the Red Golem in Ciar int4 back in G2, before i became a paladin)(i say used to because i don't get hit much any more)--Sozen Cratos Focker 04:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

## int damage bonus specifics

Does anyone know if the damage bonus for int is calculated with your exact int, or your int rounded to the nearest whole number?--Sozen Cratos Focker 06:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

## New int damage formula

My comp broke down shortly after the update so i didn't notice until now, but I'm getting more damage from int than i used to. I'm not sure if its using a new formula or if a number just changed but its definitely higher (doing 27 extra damage with ~250 int, as apposed to the 16 i used to get) i think it would help if some one more math savvy than me could figure it out.--Goldenchikle 06:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

## Luck and Item Drop Rate

I conducted a (small) test where I killed 100 (weakest) Gray Wolves with 0 luck and 100 (weakest) Gray Wolves with 119 luck. I got 12 items with 0 luck, and 11 items with 119 luck. If anyone wants to do a larger test to confirm or deconfirm these findings, be my guest. --Doomsday 21:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

- i think the scale of the test was large enough, but drop rates are probably handled differently for weakest monsters since they're segnificantly lower. If possible, this test should be done on normal monsters. Pretty hard to do since the fastest way to change luk would be to rb, and doing that would change cp quite a bit...--Sozen Cratos Focker 22:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

wich specific items? --Sozen Cratos Focker 22:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

- Here's the data I got.... it's not very conclusive on much, but it does indicate that luck does not boost item drop rate (note that lucky finishes were not counted)

- 0 Luck => Gray Wolf (Weakest, 100) => 6 Gray Wolf Scrolls, 3 Large Meats, 1 Small Blue Gem, 2 MP 10 Potions, 649 Gold
- 0 Luck in 99% Rain => Gray Wolf (Weakest, 100) => 2 Broad Sticks, 1 Vest and Pants Set, 1 Large Meat, 4 Small Blue Gems, 3 MP 10 Potions, 3 Gray Wolf Scrolls, 918 Gold
- 119 Luck => Gray Wolf (Weakest, 100) => 6 MP 10 Potions, 1 Large Meat, 2 Blue Gems, 2 Gray Wolf Scrolls, 834 Gold—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lighthalzen (talk • contribs) .
**Please always sign your comments with the button or by typing ~~~~!**- Btw, you only had one lucky finish? that absolutely insufficient data for statistical purposes.
- I heard a long time ago that it's either base critical/or base luck [but not enchant luck/weapon critical] that determines your drop rate.--Hengsheng120(talk•contribs) 11:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

## Int and Magical Balance

i been wondering for some time how much int based on the newest formula "(int-10)/4+30" would i have to have for 100% balance since when i use that formula in a calculator. Please explain how you got your answer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yumri (talk • contribs) 19:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC). **Please always sign your comments with the button or by typing ~~~~!**

- That's easy. For 100% base magical balance:

- 1. (int-10) / 4 + 30 = 100
- 2. (int-10) / 4 = 70 (100-30)
- 3. (int-10) = 280 (70*4)
- 4.
**int = 290**(280+10)

- But that's not enough; you have to factor in spell constants that're given on the status page. With a constant of 0.4 (bolt spells), you'll have to find:
- 1. ((int-10) / 4 + 30) * 0.4 = 100
- 2. (int-10) / 4 + 30 = 250 (100 / 0.4)
- 3. (int-10) / 4 = 280 (250 + 30)
- 4. (int-10) = 1120 (280 * 4)
- 5.
**int = 1130**(1120 + 10)

- That all being said, you're not really going to get to 100% magical balance unless you're steeped in +balance enchants. Qaccy 20:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

- I think you did i think you added parenthesis in the second one it should be:(Int-10)/4+30+M+E*S, not ((Int-10)/4+30+M+E)*S with M being magic mastery, E being the enchant, and S being the spell constant. in other words the constant only effects the ENCHANT balance bonuses.

- if i did it your way, with my characters average 250 int and r6 magic mastery and no balance increasing enchants it should look something like this when i use lightning:
- 1. ((250-10) / 4 + 30 + 10 + 0 ) * 0.2 = B
- 2. (240 / 4 + 40) * 0.2 = B
- 3. (60 + 40) * .2 = B
- 4. 100 * .2 = B
- 5. B = 20

- However i constantly hit my max or very close to max with my lightning (r1 with 40-150 damage) and rarely less than 80. i find it highly doubtful that i only have 20 magic balance hitting that high out of a so I'm sure the formula looks more like this:
- 1. (250-10) / 4 + 30 + 10 + 0 * 0.4 = B
- 2. 240 / 4 + 40 = B
- 3. 60 + 40 = B
- 4. B = 100

- I've been told before that you need 250 int for max magic balance, not 290, though that might just depend on the magic mastery rank, since your first formula looks right with novice magic mastery.
- Sorry is this seems kind of out of place i just felt it needed to be said.--(not-so)Anonymous 17:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

- if i did it your way, with my characters average 250 int and r6 magic mastery and no balance increasing enchants it should look something like this when i use lightning:

- The way I did it is right - the spell constant is applied as a final modifier after everything else. Doing it the second way you listed would mean that the spell constant is in effect before you even use the spell. It has to be applied at the moment you attack, therefore it gets factored in last after everything else.--Qaccy 18:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

- But that's the thing it ISN'T being factored in after everything else, it only effects enchant based balance and damage. if it wasn't for the results i was getting in game I'd be more inclined to believe you. but if what your saying is true shouldn't be able to consistently hit max damage with lightning, only only 20 balance. but i DO consistently hit max with lightning. I'd like to wait for a 3rd and hopefully 4th opinion on this before we continue though, because if what your saying is true than the formula on the page is wrong any way being "(Int-10) / 4 + 30 + (magic_mastery_correction) + (enchant_bonuses)(spell_constant)" instead of "((Int-10) / 4 + 30 + (magic_mastery_correction) + (enchant_bonuses))(spell_constant)"--(not-so)Anonymous 10:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that mean you don't have 100% balance if you are still hitting less than max? It's still possible to hit max with <80% balance with melee weapon. Either means magic balance is capped or someone's formula and/or math is wrong. Health 08:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

- I mentioned that I constantly hit my max or close to it. when I said "i rarely hit below 80" i meant its so rare that it might happen once every few weeks for me. Even with 100% balance you can still hit lower, just like you can hit higher with 80% balance. I never extensively tested it but it seems like most hits (more than 50%) give or take 0~20% of where your exact balance would hit on your damage range, i know its more complicated than that but that just seems to be where most attacks hit. some one mentioned on the status page that the formula for balance is a curve, so having 100% balance wouldn't mean you CAN'T hit lower, just that the majority of your hits would be max or close to it, which they are for me.--(not-so)Anonymous 12:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

## Uh.

In the Int sections, the part where it mentions it affects book reading success rate, the word Book links to the article for Titles. I tried to fix it to link to Category: In-Game Books, but my wiki skills aren't that good, so I just gave up and backed out. Someone else mind doing it? BladeBlade 20:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

## Min > Max

Can't seem to find this anywhere. Several weapon upgrades allow min damage > max damage (say 22-18). When this occurs, are the two simply switched (18-22), is the max raised to the min (22-22) or something else? 16:04, 24 December 2010

- Even when you get a min>max weapon, your attack will usually still be min<max because of the way str and other atk boosts are handled.--Sozen Cratos Focker 21:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- In the event that your min is greater than max, you will only deal your "max" damage.--Mystickskye 10:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

## missing information

Dexterity Modifiers are missing from this page.

## Unconscious Spoiler

Is the information in the spoiler really needed for the Status page? Isn't the status page meant to help you understand how certain stats "affect aspects of your character, including (but not limited to) appearance and general competence in skills" and not storyline? --Δκυmσ - ταłκ 22:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

- It is made necessary by the unnecessary comment about how you can't die because you're in Erin. perhaps that line should be removed and the spoiler moved to mainstream recap.--Sozen Cratos Focker 00:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

## How weapons affect Critical and Balance

I did these tests with a mace, my gladius ego, and a dagger.

**Critical**
When I have no weapons equipped, my critical hit rate is 25.3% (got 39 luck and 94 will)
When I equip my mace (which has 15 critical)I have a final of 30.3%. An increase of 5%. With the stiff enchant on it, I have 40.3%
When I equip my ego (which has 30 critical) I have a final of 45.3%. An increase of 20%.

I figured out the baseline for the final crit rate with weapons is 10%. Any weapon below 10% will decrease your final crit rate by the difference of your base, and your weapon. Any weapon above 10% will increase your final crit rate by the difference. Enchant effects are added on top last.

**Balance**
When I have no weapons equipped, my balance is at 63%
When I equip my mace (which has 35 balance) I have a final of 68%. *An increase of 5%*
When I equip my lightning wand (which has 20 balance) I have a final of 53%. *A decrease of 10%*
When I equip my ego (which has 51 balance) I have a final of 80%. *An increase of 21%* (maxed out at 80)

I figured out the baseline for the final balance rate is 30%. Any weapon below 30% will decrease your final balance rate by the difference of your base, and your weapon. Any weapon above 30% will increase your final balance rate by the difference. Enchant effects are added on top last.

- I already kinda knew this stuff, I just never got around to pointing it out. I think its not so much "baseline" as your bare hands have their own stats like a weapon. 0-8 attack rate, 10% crit, 30% balance.--(not-so)Anonymous 10:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so we know how combat weapons affect combat balance, but do we know how wands affect magic balance, considering it's a hidden stat? How would I go about finding out how my crystal lightning wand increases my magic balance? --Sephy 15:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

## Int, powders, lughnasadh, and enchant success rate

Any clue on the formula for how int effects enchanting? Say I have under 200, and want to know what my success rate would be with a certain powder either on thursday or not. --Sephy 23:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

## g9 Magic damage change

It is definately not a flat 10% increase. I know the patch changes the way magic damage is added, as well as changes how damage boosts on gear effect it. If the "new" magic damage is corrent, then I should be hitting 180*1.1 or 198 max with my r1 lightning. But I hit 202 max against enemies with 1 defence and 0% prot with +7 max on my gear and no wand and 300 int. My critical max is 458 with r1 critical which leaves some damage unnacounted for. Several people who have 500+ int are hitting even higher. I've also noted that my thunder (r9) hits ~100 max damage higher per hit than it did before the patch, criticals are boosted by even more, which suggests that there is some form of flat damage addition. I do not have the resources to measure the different boosts, however I've noted that Lighting based magic receives the highest boosts, and ice receives the lowest. Tellos 21:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

## Not moving but not sitting doesnt drop hunger

Well, I didn't do anything or move for a LONG time in a single place and I didn't gain any hunger at all. You only seem to gain hunger when sitting or moving/using skills ~kotarou3 ^{TALK}_{CONTRIBS} 06:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

- I'll have to disagree since I used to afk over night standing up and still came back with 50% hunger, unless they changed it. however I DO think doing things makes it drain faster, I've also noticed that if you do a lot while your character is at 50% hunger it can potentially drop down to 40% but will go back to 50% when you stop doing things for a while again even without eating.--(not-so)Anonymous 06:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

## How do we know will increases deadly chance?

Where did we get this information? Did someone test it, did we get it from a foreign wiki, or did someone just make it up after which we left it there cause we thought it made sense?--Sozen Cratos Focker 13:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The same place we got the information that luck increases lucky finish rates o3o? I've always assumed it did, since i definitely seemed to deadly more often on my human than my elf back when elves first came out. But i don't think anyone actually know how much it effects it... just like luck with finishes. try pissing someone off in elf/giant pvp and getting camped and see how many times you go deadly instead of just dying at 5 hp. with about 130 will my human was going deadly like every 2-3 times. sometimes i wish they would just tell us stuff like this though.--(not-so)Anonymous 05:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Old post, but it say in-game when you mouse over Will that you are better you can survive in 'dangerous situations' Ebrithil of Ruari 06:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

## Cerberus Poisoning

Is there a 2nd type of poison that the Cerberus uses? Instead of lowering hp constantly, it disables usage of potions. --κєνıи _{(»тαıĸ«)} 09:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

- Bump --κєνıи
_{(»тαıĸ«)}21:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)- I think we should add it, since its not like normal poisoning. :3 SoraHikari 20:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

## Str Bonus

Does the damage bonus related to Str affect TOTAL damage, as in: related to Magic and Range? Or is Magic and Range calculated based on the weapons damage and skill rank only, THUS one should totally ignore what their character window says when one is trying to figure out their Magic and Range damage? AND does this apply at all to Alchemy? -- ladywinter ~{talk | contribs}~ 17:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

- Str effects melee damage only and is a flat bonus to base melee damage. Tellos 19:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

## Status Effects

I can understand why charge and shock are there but why is blindness up there? this only affects monsters doesn't it? would windmill and fury of light and other similar skills count too? Wolven 21:59, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

- I believe the status effects page should be limited to real status (ones with tiles and readouts) and the special statuses should be placed in another page. Perhaps one called "states" which details the various states a character can be in. Blinded and Charging are recognized by the game coding as Class II statuses (skill induced temporary conditional) which are not the same thing. Shocked is not recognized as a status and instead is a skill auto attack effect, same with Fury of Light.

Charging is defened as: No Movement Allowed, No Item allowed, No Change Gear, When Versus long range Damage reduced by %, When Versus Long Range Stun and hitweight set to 0, No cancel on hit (Long Range), Homing Hitbox (100 distance 45 degree frontal angle), Passive movement (forward) toward taget at X Distance/second (400% of human run speed, all races) by the game coding. Which is distinctly different from normal status effects as it redefines the character state. Tellos 22:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone add a quick note on the Commerce Status saying it doesn't let you use Moon Gates? Might be a little helpful. -Angelo

## Wound rates appear to be off

I'm doing some wound calculations, and they don't seem to match what the game is giving me, wearing a 0%~0% weapon, of course. I did calculations with 122.04 DEX and 141.21 Will, and the game gives me 12%~33%. The formulas gave me 13.164%~40.452%. -Kiyobi 00:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

- The way the game calculates it is (Dex - 10) + (Will - 10) Rounded DOWN to the nearest 5, then calculated out via proportion. So it'd be 112 + 131 = 243. 130 will is +26 max wound +7.5 min wound and 110 dex is +11 max wound +5.5 min wound, so you get 13 min wound and 36 max wound, however due to you not meeting the 5 point on both dex AND will you lose 10 off each (they are both under 5) so you lose 1 point of min and 3 points of max making it 12~33%. The rule for calculating is odd, but basicaly it follows these rules:

Wound will only be calculated every 5 points in the relavent stat.

Wound will only be calculated every 10 points in dex and will combined.

A value of 5 results in half the bonuses being added.

The wound rate is modified according to these rules:

Using only the last digits:

IF Dex < 5 and Will < 5 and Dex+Will < 5 then -10 Dex and -10 Will

IF Dex/Will > 5 and Will/Dex < 5 then -10 Will/Dex (the lower one)

IF Dex+Will results in a 0, add half the bonus for the stat at or over 5 only ASSUMING the next rule does not come into effect.

IF removing the one's place values (to the nearest 5) of dex and will from the dex+will number would drop the ten's value by 1, then dex and will must also have their values lowered by the average difference, then rounded down to the nearest 10. (I.e 142 dex and 149 will would result in 291 dex+will, but removing 2+4 would drop it to 285 meaning it gets rounded down 5, so dex and will have to be penalized accordingly --> 137 dex and 142 will then rounded DOWN to the nearest TEN to 130 dex and 140 will)

Hope that helps Tellos 01:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

## Int Formula

There's a few different versions of the Int bonus for magic on the page, I think that might confuse people? We have the old version (I don't completely understand why that's still there), the current one, and the G13 one. Could that be made easier to read for people? :3 --Simpet 15:34, 1 December 2010 (PST)

- The old one is there because that is the int formula we have. The new one is there because that is the int formula we will have. The page clearly states at what generation the int formula occurs. Anyone who reads the page should not be confused unless they do so hastily, which is not the fault of the page itself. Tellos 17:36, 1 December 2010 (PST)

- [View source↑]
- [History↑]