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!

Why was Alchemy Effect Bonus removed?

Jump to: navigation, search

It used to say rank 1 is 45% bonus, now why is it 15%? --Miyuna 11:58, 17 January 2011 (PST)

Miyuna12:58, 17 January 2011

It has been corrected. It was wrong before.

Tellos13:47, 17 January 2011

So you are saying that my Life drain does not do 1.45 times its base damage of 900 and everytime I see 1305, I am really seeing 1035? Um. no.

Omegatronic19:12, 17 January 2011

and I just saw the life drain page was updated to account for the lower %. Seems to me when you have to have a secondary constant to modify the primary constant, the primary constant is wrong. 3 * 15% = 45% Seems like a needless over complication.

Omegatronic19:29, 17 January 2011

All alchemy skills have a secondary constant. Only adv alchemy (Life Drain, Shock, Summon Golem) has a 3x constant.

Tellos19:53, 17 January 2011

Barrier has a 3x too. which skill did you use to get the 15%? Water cannon? (which has a range to target based damage modifier)

Omegatronic20:06, 17 January 2011

If you've got a problem with it why don't you prove it wrong.

Tellos20:06, 17 January 2011

what's to prove wrong? 3x 15% = 45% that's a fact and cannot be proven wrong. my argument is that it is an over complication.

Omegatronic20:08, 17 January 2011

If you can prove that all offensive alchemy skills use a 3x multiplier, then the page will be changed back.

Tellos20:30, 17 January 2011

I can't prove that all offensive alchemy skills are 3x.

I can't prove wind blast or sand burst damage are modified by AM at all. (nor are they listed as having damage modified by AM)

heat buster is listed with a 3x. Life drain is listed with a 3x. shock is listed with a 3x. Barrier spike is listed with a 3x. Golem is listed with a 3x.

This leaves Water cannon and flame burst.

For water cannon, the range modifier is not as I have seen it. Without an agreement on that damage, any proof I offer can be argued invalid. Which leaves us with Flame burst. And, in this case, it seems to work. I also do not have a solution that works that preserves a 45% value. But, I'd argue that changing the value of AM bonus to fit one skill is over complicating all alchemy for the sake of one skill.

Omegatronic21:33, 17 January 2011

You're new here so I'll give you some tips.

1) When requesting to change a formula which is considered good you must provide:

Numeric evidence which is not weighted down by outside variables. A proposed good formula which matches 100% of the observed data If a different equation would be used for a certain circumstance you must prove that your observations are not in error AND a valid formula.

If you cannot provide these you can argue the current formula invalid to have it removed by providing non-weighted repeatable numeric evidence that shows that the formula is indeed invalid.

2) Just because you think something is right or wrong doesn't mean it is or isn't. the ONLY good argument here is observed numbers, think of it as science.

3) Formulas are intended to be as close to the real game-programed formula as possible. This is so that they can be 100% accurate. We do not take shortcuts or reorganize formula structures in trivial ways.

Tellos21:39, 17 January 2011

I am not arguing for a change, I am arguing against a change. How many Alchemy skills now use a 3x and how many use the new values? I count 5 that use the old value (new value x 3), and 2 that use the new value. One of the skills that use the new value has an error in a range modifier. Which leaves a major change to formulas based on a single skill (possibly two).

Science would not change over complicate a formula for the sake of a single exception. But would write a formula for the exception and be done with it.

I do not have a formula for flame burst, because I have not tested flame burst (except to confirm the new formula works for it). Water cannon, on the other hand, is something I tested heavily. I know for a fact the range modified damage goes above 100%, and in the water cannon discussion I offered you a method to test it to see for yourself. (rN AM and rF WC to remove AM from damage) I know it works, because I did it for the express purpose of quantifying what was prior to my testing, an unknown quantity. Heck, even in the Water cannon discussion there is a post that says range affects balance, which it does not.

Omegatronic22:19, 17 January 2011

The damage range modifier is not incorrect. You have not proven it is in any way. I have not observed an increase over max when using the skill at point blank. Note that if you were using it against skeletons or shadow monsters, these are fire aligned and as a result, water cannon does more damage to them than normal.

This is the simplest possible way.

This also reflects the games internal calculation programing.

You are argument for the change to a 3x base is invalid on the following grounds:

It is not all encompassing. The current method is all encompassing.

Only specific skills use 3x, other skills are shown to take a deduction if the alchemy master is not rank 1. (water cannon, flame burst).

Wind Alchemy does not receive a damage bonus. It receives an effect bonus equal to 1.5x the alchemy mastery value.

.15 allows all things to be defined in the simplest possible mathematical terms. Using .45 would force us to complicate equations to reduce it to .15 where it is not .45

This is the method the game programing uses.

Your argument for water cannon's damage is not supported in any way, and the math used to make it is faulty.

The pages will not be changed.

Tellos22:26, 17 January 2011

Er...i'm confused. Is this a change from the new patch or was the old data just incorrect?

Pyroblade15:00, 6 February 2011

Old data was incorrect.

Tellos15:11, 6 February 2011