Talk:Water Cannon

No English description for this skill yet. I'll put it up when it pops up. --Js16 03:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Damage formula?

Does anyone know how Water Cannon's damage works? How it calculates stacked charges with the percent boost from Alchemy mastery, would it behave like Firebolt? --Bryanneo 15:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Critical Chance

Does Water Cannon ignore the target's protection for critical chance and is it base off the cylinder's stats? --Miyuna 18:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely based on the stats of the cylinder, since it gets upgrades for extra critcal. But ignoring critcal chance? I don't think it really does but I could be wrong. --Bryanneo 15:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering about that because if it doesn't ignore protection, then because you need a cylinder to cast it, it makes it one of the lowest critical hit chance in the game. Especially with high protection shadow monsters. I know there's upgrades that can give +20% more critical rate for cylinders, but you can't raise the crit much with the cylinder already low-end in the crit rate. Also other upgrades benefit the cylinder more. --Miyuna 01:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess alchemy was designed to nerf the crit skill. When you crit with alchemy skills, do you actually get a damage bonus, or is it the same as crystallized adv magic?--Sozen Cratos Focker 05:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My water cannon at r1 does alot more damage when it crits, so it's safe to say critcals do affect non adv magic alchemy crystals. --Bryanneo 14:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Does Water Cannon ignore the target's protection when it determines critical chance? If not, then it has inherently low critical %, since cylinders have low %. --Miyuna 05:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Skill Training

Two things I've noticed: First, you get the "Knock down an [awful\strong\etc.] enemy" is fulfilled bye knocking them back. This could probably go under the training method description. Second, at rank B and possibly other ranks, the condition "knock down a powerful enemy" is listed twice, for both strong and awful. The table on the wiki probably doesn't need to be changed, but I thought I should note this here anyway. --Inkster 05:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

1. "Knock back" and "knock down" are basically the same thing.

2. That's an error on Nexon's side. Training is still gained through awfuls at rB.--Price 03:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Stun

Does anyone have any numbers for stun time? It seems to me that it's a lot harder to spam only water cannon shots as opposed to icebolts, even at r9 wc when they have the same 2 sec charge time. Feels like the monsters aren't stunned as long.--Kong 05:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You should have no problems. It's a spammable attack, similar to firebolt. The key to using Water Cannon is to push them back and load it and wait til the enemy comes close so you can abuse the push back. If you push then back, reload, then shoot them and they aren't close enough to get knock back, then it defeats the whole purpose of water cannon. Starting from rank 5 (moreso at Rank 1), the knockback distance is much further, allowing you to easily spam it. --Miyuna 05:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

At r5+, if you have barely any lag, you can constantly spam the attack to keep knocking them back (after you've knocked them back once). The attack work similar to ice bolt, where, if you've knocked the opponent back once with ice and charge ice again, the next bolt will knock back the opponent.--Price 01:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Water Cannon Balance

What would the balance of Water Cannon be? --Miyuna 22:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It depends on how close you are to the target. Tellos 23:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

After going through some KR articles for water alchemy damage I stumbled upon this article https://www.mabinogi.pe.kr/bbs/zboard.php?id=tips&no=9939

To extract the important information:

({[(Distance × Base Damage)+Mana Addition+Water Damage ES+Max Damage Enchants] ×Crit multiplier ×combo card % ×protection correction}+Additional Damage ) ×number of charges×cylinder type ×cressidia ×rain casting %×elemental

Distance = 1.2 to 0.6 based on distance. Distance reforges do not increase damage Base Damage = 80% balance min max Skill water damage + (talent water alchemy dmg x 2) + reforge mine or max water alchemy dmg Mana addition = 0.3 * mana up to 1500 (will change up to 2500 in g21) Water damage ES = sum of all water alchemic damage enchants and titles Max Damage enchants =0.5 x sum of all damage enchants (example: totems, titles,battle overture, weapon pot, bone chip, max dmg ES) Crit Multiplier = sum of crit damage % Combo card = combo card % Protection = 100 - enemy protection % Additional damage = skill additional dmg x ( alchemy r1 (0.15) + water alchemy r1 (0.1) + ego % + 0.5 if tower cylinder) / 0.15 Number of charges = 5 charges =6.25 1 charge = 1 Cylinder type = tetra would be 1.3 Cressisia = + 15% dmg so 1.15 Rain casting dmg % = from RC skill and RC WC dmg reforge Elemental = will do more damage to enemies with slight fire elemental example + 11% if they have lvl 1 ele

From this I have tested that distance does not effect the extra damage from MP.

I might be wrong about this; I can't quite remember how basic Algebra works anymore, lol. I was looking at the "Normal Damage" formula which says: {[(Base Damage + Current MP * 0.3) * Charges + (Water Damage Enchants * Charges + Damage Enchants)] * Critical Modifier - Enemy Defense} * (1 - Enemy Protection)

Can't this be simplified to: {[(Base Damage + Current MP * 0.3 + Water Damage Enchants) * Charges + Damage Enchants] * Critical Modifier - Enemy Defense} * (1 - Enemy Protection)

Yes.

I kinda hate to necro this, but I'm currently looking at alchemy damage formulae and this one is a little confusing. Could it be that the 6.5 charge modifier also applies to the MP bonus? Or does the MP bonus count as Water Alchemy Damage Enchant type damage. Also along those lines does "Water Alchemy Damage" from any source apply as "Enchant" damage or is some of it added to the "Base Damage" (Specifically, comparing S-type upgrades, Cylinder Upgrades, Titles, MP Bonus, and Enchants)

My suspicion is that they all fall under "Enchant" damage and my preference is that references to enchants (on all skills) be relabeled as "Bonus Water Alchemy Damage Modifiers" or something potentially less verbose, since cylinder and special upgrades aren't really an "enchant".

Also compared to Flame Burst "Additional Damage" from skill rank does not meet the charge multiplier while flame burst's does. I just find this kind of odd, and I would have suspected the formulae to be nearly identical.

So when the move to simplify the formula came through last time, I let it go by because I had a lapse of judgment.

When we changed the first part of the formula from {[Base Damage + Current MP * 0.30) * Charges + ( Bonus Water Damage * Charges + Damage enchants)

To {[(Base Damage + Current MP * 0.3 + Bonus Water Damage) * Charges + Damage Enchants]

We neglected to remind ourselves that the reason the two separate entries for charges were added is because bonus water damage does NOT receive a 6.5x multiplier for a full charge, while the base damage and MP bonus does.

If and when we go about changing our display of the formula, we should make a differentiation between the charges for base + MP damage, and the charges for Bonus Water damage.

I believe the simplest method is to use "Charges" and "Charges' " (Charges prime) in the formula. With Charges prime going with the base + MP damage. So that Charges'= Charges except when charges is =5, in which case charges'=6.5

And as to changing the wording on water damage enchants, I'm in favor of relabeling it to "Bonus Water Damage."

Prime notation is probably not the best here. I think it might be best to follow the magic damage formula and use "charge multiplier" where it matters, and simply "charges" where there is no special modifier.

Fair enough, whatever the simplest and most clear solution is, that should be the one we use.

So I've been tinkering and field testing for several hours now, and the formula I edited it to has been working for me 100% within 10-20 points of damage. On 5-charges. But when I drop down to 1 charge. Everything goes haywire and the theoretical values I get from punching in the numbers doesn't even come close to what I'm getting for field testing. It mostly comes to the distance portion, whenever I attack at full distance (r1) I deal 83.3% of the calculated max, based on the max value observed after many trials, but at point blank I hit slightly above still, at about 104% of max damage. I stripped down most of my enchants, excluding max damage enchants, talent bonus (11 water alchemy) and god's feather title (10) and ended up with a calculated damage of 516 max for a single charge with 836 mana. My additional damage contribution was 60.7.

I'm really starting to get kind of annoyed by the way my single charge math with alchemy doesn't actually work out when my 5-charge formulas are always down to a T. I did however find where battlefield is calculated in water cannon. At least for 5-charge.

Edit: So I figured out what is going on. Depending on the number of charges you have, distance affects you differently. So, with 1 charge, you would deal 80~100% of your damage based on your distance from the target. At 5-charges, this becomes 100~120% the steps in between all differ as well, but it seems to be approximately 20% spread between full distance and right up in their face, so I want to say 2 charge would be 85~105, 3 would be 90~110, and 4 would be 95~115, but my data with charges shows 98~118%

All in all it's way more complicated than I thought it was going into it >.> but at least my calculations aren't off, because these adjustments have allowed me to pin-point my maximum damage spread based on distance for each number of charges. Only calculating for max though.

so im planning to use the goddess enchant on my beginner cylinder, does the enchant add more damage to water cannon?

Nope. Alchemy isn't affected by stats at all.

But Goddess Enchant adds max damage, which does (should?) add damage to alchemy, although not as much water alchemy damage enchants would.

Btw, that changes in the Zero update (which is after G18E10)

In that update, alchemy skills are made to scale with SP, MP, or HP depending on the skill. Current, not max.

I didn't say alchemy is affected by damage, I said it's affected by a stat. But no, damage enchants should still work, but as Ikkisuki said, water enchants would be a better choice.

Edit: I'm not sure if damage enchants work now, that is. But it should, considering some alchemy based titles give base damage, like the G9 title.

Yeah I'm not even sure if max damage enchants affect alchemy at all. Some people say it does affect the damage, some say it doesn't...

According to the formula on this article, it does.

The damage range is not 60% to 100% of listed damage. At max range it is 50%; at 0 range, it is at least 140%. So you are looking at a range of 50%~140% (at least). And unless range is properly accounted for, your additional damage / .15 is(close enough to saying) the same as saying base damage * 3. (see discussion under Alchemy Mastery)

.15^-1 is 7.6666 not 3. We can't change the alchemy mastery bonus for that since its only water cannon. Furthermore I've only observed it to do 100% damage at point blank. Care to submit some evidence?

67 / .15 * AM% = 446.67 * AM. 136 * 3 = 408. And that is close enough when you haven't accounted for the range. To see the 0 range clearly, use a new character with rF water cannon and rN Alchemy Mastery with a normal cylinder. You will hit over max damage with no explanation other than range.

Your math is off. it'd be X * (A+B) / .15

X * (.15+0)/ .15

X * .15/.15 = X

Therefore it is actually a 0% increase and a decrease in damage if you don't have r1 Alchemy mastery. I've never observed to hit over the adjusted max damage before.

r1 AM will therefore provide a 67 damage increase that is not scaled down by distance.

Use a Bear. Bears have 1 defence, 0 protection and no elemental affinity. Then you can get accurate numbers.

67 (r1 Value)/ .15 * AM% = 67 / .15 * newAM% = 446.7 * AM% (67 at r1 AM%) 136 (max damage water cannon) * 3 * newAM% = 408 * AM% (61 at r1 AM%) Without an agreement on range modifier, those numbers are close enough to be considered the same value.

You are using a bad order of operations.

A * B / C != A / C * B

For example 5 * 6 / 6 = 7 but 5 / 6 * 6 = 5

Before questioning the formula, make sure your math isn't off.

67 * .15/.15 + 137 * 1 = 204

This is significantly lower than your predicted values. This is also the amount of damage that water cannon does in such circumstances.

um dude... 5 * 6 = 30 / 6 = 5 not 7. edit: and it is what I used. and I am too tired for math. ;-)

And so long as I am critiquing the damage formula. A critical hit applied to the range modifier does not behave in the way the formula describes. currently, if we were to expand that formula to have a crit of the range based damage, the formula is more like Crit Abs(range based damage) (abs being absolute value) and that's only if it crits, so excuse my sloppy notation

Glad you see your error now.

I still am not seeing a damage increase attacking at point blank.

67 * .15 = 10.05

10.05 / .15 = 67

67 + 137 = 204

Please note that we do not accept formulas that are "close enough". The formula either is 100% right or 100% wrong.

I wasn't in error.

A * B / C != A / C * B

For example 5 * 6 / 6 = 7 but 5 / 6 * 6 = 5

is your error.

because the two are equivalent.

new formula says: 67 + 137 = 204 (sic.) 67+136=203 I say 136 * 1.45 = 197 Without accounting for range modifier properly, these two values are close enough to be within the "margin of error".

You're incorrect.

Water cannon has a 50% balance property such that "Base damage" is defined as rand(Max, Min) which is then scaled against the distance.

After all the normal damage is calculated out, then critical is applied.

Additional damage does not receive a critical bonus, it adds onto the damage.

You may have observed an oddly low critical due to this.

This is like how Magic does Base * Crit + INT Bonus (aka a 200 damage lightning bolt will crit (r1) for 425 (375+50) damage rather than 500 (200 * 2.5).)

Margin of error is only valid in statistics.

In concrete mathematics any error indicates the equation is flawed.

Your equation is flawed because: It does not use the additional damage stat, which is indeed a real stat (it is observed as existing due to the lower than predicted critical values and explains them fully)

This will become increasingly apparent to you as you observe that r1 Water Mastery has the effect of causing

(.15+.1)/.15 = 111.6666 + 136 = 247, 451 crit

Whereas you'd suggest it causes:

1.55 * 136 = 210, 527 crit.

This is not statistics, any error is not acceptable.

Afraid not. I've shot too many water crystals.

Water cannon balance is cylinder based modified by "something that is not dex" (which is probably AM). shoot off, record, and plot about 100 about shots with a rF WC and a rN AM and you'll see the truth in the matter.

the normal damage modified by range does not crit as that formula says. Again, shoot off and record all crits from a rN AM rF WC at max range until you crit a value greater than your formula says.

edit: and until you have a proper % for the range modifier your formula isn't valid. I have personally used a rN AM and rF WC to test the range values and the minimum value (max range) I hit was 50% while the maximum value was 40% (min range) because of the low balance (hundreds of shots giving a 15% balance) I have allowed that I may not have hit the maximum point blank value.

The burden of proof lies upon he who makes the claim.

Until you can provide evidence that what you're saying is true, then it is not considered true.

Any edits to the formulas without concrete evidence will be reverted.

Until you can provide real numbers, this discussion is over.

since you claim this new method is correct, where are your numbers?

edit: and to note, I do not plan on modifying the page at all. I registered to discuss the matter in a reasonable manner. Science says that to prove a theory invalid, you only have to prove it wrong once. I gave you a method to check your formula. A method I know from testing experience will invalidate the formula. (crit damage) I gave you a method to check your modifiers due to range. A method I know from testing experience will invalidate the 60%~100% range you posted. Test your formula.

I owe you a bit of an apology. We got off on the wrong foot. Which I am completely to blame for. I come in here and say your formula is wrong. A formula you obvious spent a good amount of time on. That you included a distance modifier at all was a pleasant surprise. At the time I started examining water cannon damage, the concept was foreign to the high level alchemists I talked to on Mari.

I also unintentionally misled you. I logged on my test character to test your claims some more, and discovered its WC rank was not rF as I suggested you test.

My low rank test subject had rN water cannon.

So, I dug out my notes for the testing I did. At max range, rN WC, rN AM, r6 crit, no enchants vs young brown legged fennec foxes, I had a non-crit damage range of 2-8. I'm not sure how that 8 fits with any rounding in your formula, but it's close enough to 60% to make it a non-point of interest to me. However, my damage range for crits was 12-22, which does not in anyway match your formula. At minimum range, same test subject same target, I had a non crit damage range of 7-22 and a crit range of 30-44, which does not match your range of distance modifiers.

I ranked the WC of my tester to rF and shot off a total of 300 water crystals at max range and minimum range at the same young brown legged fennec foxes as I did in my previous tests. I didn't record results tonight, as I was looking for minimums and maximums. At Maximum range, the non-crit damage fell never fell below 9, which is consistent with 60% distance modifier, however the max damage was slightly higher than what 60% would allow. Crit hits were usually within the appropriate range for your formula, though I had a few that were higher than they should be. The interesting thing here is that the crits were not substantially higher than you would expect from a normal crit on the lower damage of your formula. and certainly nowhere near as out of the norm as rN. At minimum range, I did hit values higher 100% for both non-crit and crit hits, though it was not as common as it had been at rN.

So, my question is: why doesn't your formula's crit work for rN at max range?

Normally (ie. for melee/range/magic damage), the critical modifier is calculated solely from Max Damage (rather than a random roll between min and max) and added to a non-crit roll. Since jpwiki hadn't accounted for this in their formula, and I hadn't tested it specifically with water cannon myself, I didn't see fit to change it, however it would explain the high minimum crit damage that you're seeing.

The crit formula is Max * Crit modifier + Damage. The crit damage is correct by your values. Your tests indicate an increase in damage according at point blank. Unfortunately, it doesn't give us a solid number due to the low values and game rounding.

The predicted crit values are 23.1 + (7~22) = 30.1~44.1

This is 1 higher than it should be (Due to defence) which may be caused by decimals.

Min Value is 9.45 + (3~9) = 12~18

This is indeed lower than it should be and will require more samples at different damage ranges to evaluate.

Possible multiplier range: 1.296~1.35. If you have a character with a high water cannon rank, we can pin down the exact multiplier.

To note: "doesn't give us a solid number due to the low values and game rounding" is the same rationale I used when I said "these two values are close enough to be within the 'margin of error'". Because of the fickleness of balance giving true min and max damage, a small sample of confirmation testing may not reveal any difference.

You said, "The crit formula is Max * Crit modifier + Damage." But, this is not consistent with the formula as currently written.

I plan on doing some proper testing today with my now rF test subject, to try to confirm the max distance multiplier. My gut instinct, based on my anecdotal testing from last night, tells me the number may be a hair higher than listed. (Maybe 65%) If we can agree on that number, I can get on my r1 WC/AM and do further testing to examine the AM bonus as well as minimum distance modifier. Testing today should also provide evidence to the "max * crit modifier" issue as well.

Unless someone modified the critical hit page, that is the listed formula. Damage balance has nothing to do with min and max damage other than how often they occur. For all intents and purposes the highest observed value over a large number of trials would be the "max" and the lowest would be the "min". The only reason we have these trials is to determine what the max and min are. We cannot proceed with making the formula until we have obtained the true max and min with a high degree of certainty so that the margin of error cannot persist in the true formula.

1+1=1.9 would be 100% wrong.

Try telling your math teacher its within the "margin of error" and see what s/he says.

Your "high degree of certainty" is just a "margin of error". ;-)

When we have unknown qualities, such as distance modifiers, an experimental maximum can be attributed to some other quality, such as AM modifiers. Without knowing to a "high degree of certainty" the quantity of the first, attributing a max to the second creates a greater margin of error, or a "lesser degree of certainty".

if my math teacher said, Add the results of problem one with problem two, and we had: problem one: .6 (which we round to 1) problem two: .6 (which we round to 1)

we have for problem three 1 + 1 = 2 but the reality of that is we have .6 + .6 = 1.2 which rounds to 1. 2 may have been the correct answer, but 1 is the answer that better fits reality.

That is a semantic argument that plays on the relative nature of chance with no regard to physical truth.

One can determine what is the true max and min because it is given. We do not need statistics to determine it.

If you want us to accept a formula you have to go by the guidelines.

1) The current formula on a page will NOT be changed until a wholly correct formula is available to replace it.

2) 1 example that goes against a proposed formula will render that formula completely incorrect.

3) Statistics are not allowed in damage calculation verification. Only the min and max damage may be used.

Damage Calculation verification method.

Step 1) Obtain formula

Step 2) Ascertain the min and max damage (predicted)

Step 3) Run multiple trials until the true min and max are found.

Step 4) If the true min and max do not match formula (even by 1 point) check for errors made.

Step 5) If no errors can be found, use the known information to formulate new equation that accounts for damage in 100% of situations (this can be done via simple algebra).

Known values for water cannon: Base Max, Base Min, Additional Damage Value, Alchemy Mastery Modifier, Critical Modifier.

Use these to find the unknowns.

I started my max distance testing, the 6th shot I took was a crit for 33 damage.

rN AM, rF WC, r6 crit.

Edited to avoid double post: Re: 1) The current formula on a page will NOT be changed until a wholly correct formula is available to replace it.

if the formula is shown to be wrong, which I am not claiming at this time, why does there need to be a new formula to change the page?

re: 2) my rN testing for maximum distance shows that {[(Base Damage * Distance Reduction)] * Critical Modifier - Enemy Defense} * (1 - Enemy Protection) is not correct. (removed variables which had zero influence in testing) while the rF crit result I posted shows that Max * crit modifier + damage is not correct either.

re 3) I am also fitting a balance curve to my data. With a experimentally calculated balance (requires statistics), it allows you to estimate the probability that a true max or true min was reached or in your words gives you a "A high degree of certainty" Saying, "no statistics" is well to put it bluntly, dumb.

re: Damage Calculation verification method. Before we can confirm the rest of the equation, we need to confirm to a high degree of certainty that the distance modifier is correct. Which is what I am currently testing. With about 120 points of data, I have a non-crit min of 9 and a max of 20. Peak of a balance curve seems to be at the 10-11 range, which tells me I may not have hit a true max yet. (and will keep shooting)Modifying my current max to account for the def of the target, I have 21.

This would be inconsistent with the formula, unless mabi rounds funny.

34 * .6 = 20.4 rounded to 20 for theoretical maximum.

You have to follow those guidelines, deal with it.

Damage verification needs only 2 values, so use the min and max since they are fixed.

Mabinogi rounds down after complete calculation. (1.9 + 2.9 = 4.8 -> 4)

The critical damage is not wrong, extensive testing has show it is Max * Modifier + Damage in every case (including alchemy).

What you have posted shows the following with 100% certainty:

The Damage range modification is incorrect.

The following is implied by what you've posted:

Either you made a mistake with the 1200 range max OR there is outside influence in the damage with regards to max.

We can't have this "or". Verify that you haven't made a mistake, since thats the easiest "or" to remove.

Some preliminary testing shows that the formula probably requires revision. It's possible that a bonus of 3(AM+WAM) is applied to the base damage.

Just so we are clear, which max (in the crit formula) are we talking about?

The data I collected at rN indicates it cannot be the distance adjusted max.

The data I collected at rF indicates it cannot be the base max.

rN data indicates that it is the distance adjusted max, as it should be.