Mabinogi World Wiki is brought to you by Coty C., 808idiotz, our other patrons, and contributors like you!!
Keep this wiki going by contributing to our Patreon!

Repair Cost & Dura Loss

Repair Cost & Dura Loss

Once somebody does get their hands on one to update the images etc, please do not forget to find out the repair costs as well.

It may also be a good idea to find out how strong the durability loss reduction is, and how it stacks with HW and VIP (currently the 2 stack additively), since that factors directly into effective repair costs. The current 100% repair events are a great time to test big number dura losses, if anyone can actually make a pair fast enough. Shearing would probably be the best controlled experiment, since it would bypass the RNG elements of dura loss.

Callback (talk)06:57, 24 April 2015

Repair cost is done. Not sure how to precisely check durability loss set effect (clean client).

Neofrost (talk)21:21, 26 April 2015

It has recently come to my attention that Bash has a fixed value durability loss of 0.030 base (before blessing etc), rather than RNG, so that's a good skill to test with.

packet capture/logging is one possibility, if you don't want to do the work of using Bash a large number times per test to get a result.


Info needed: Do you have VIP while doing this test?

Things to test/verify:

Dura loss of normal dual swords bash

Dura loss of blessed normal dual swords bash

Dura loss of CRK swords bash

Dura loss of blessed CRK swords bash


If you don't want to pcap, then just record the number of bashes required to drain one point of durability (starting from having just lost a point until you lose a second one) and we can get a decent enough estimate to work with.

Avoid double bashing for now, since I don't know exactly how that works yet. 1 use per skill load for the sake of testing durability loss.

I can help you on the math if you need once you have the data.

Callback (talk)06:21, 27 April 2015

Alright, here's the results:

VIP: Yes

1h bash - not blessed - 22 pts

1h bash - blessed - 11 pts

dual wield bash - both unblessed - no buff - both 22 pts

dual wield bash - both blessed - no buff - both 11 pts

dual wield bash - one blessed - with buff - 7pts & 15pts (order doesn't matter)

dual wield bash - both blessed - with buff - both 7 pts

Neofrost (talk)19:07, 27 April 2015

I would also like to point out that the none of the set effects have icons or appear in the stat menu.

Neofrost (talk)10:30, 28 April 2015
 

well there's misinformation on the wiki then.

VIP unblessed 22 is ok, that's 25% dura loss reduced by VIP. Cool to know it truncates instead of rounding up. VIP blessed is 11? THat means VIP and blessing are a *multiplicitive* bonus, not additive. The durability page on the wiki is wrong. VIP (25%) and Blessing (50%) combine for a total 62.5% reduction, not 75% as the page claims.

Now for the set effect: 15 points unblessed means 50% total reduction, meaning a 1/3 reduction is the set effect. Apply that to blessed, and we expect a total ~75% reduction. At 30 base dura per bash, your result confirms this.


The set effect is 1/3 durability loss reduction, but all bonuses stack *multiplicitively*. All 3 bonuses together total 75% reduction, while non-VIP can expect around a 2/3 reduction.


The remaining question is: Does this apply to your armor, or just the weapon? Do we know if the dura loss every tick is affected by blessing effects? If so, document what that does to a robe, and then we can update with the set's final effects.


Thank you for testing that.

Callback (talk)15:33, 28 April 2015
 
 
 

I'm not sure if we're allowed to talk about Packet Logging at all... It may or may not be borderline modding or Mining.png, which the wiki doesn't condone.

Infodude575 (talk)10:48, 27 April 2015

I would say reading an openly broadcast communication is about the least offensive thing you could do as far as obtaining those values. I intentionally did not suggest reading from the more obvious and easily accessed source for exactly that reason. Maybe it was going too far to mention the logging tutorial and tools therein? I deleted the mention just in case; so Neofrost, if you already know how to use generic pcap tools great, if you want the easier-to-use mabi-specific ones, it's pretty easy to find them on your own, or just do the repeated bash test and count the number needed, as stated above. Estimates shouldn't be too far off with just that.

Callback (talk)13:05, 27 April 2015
 

Just going to leave this here, this is based on testing my friends and I did:

  • CRK Bash Enhance multiplies Bash damage by 1.1. At rank 1 bash, this is 460% * 1.1 = 506%.
  • CRK Critical Enhance adds 7% critical to all attacks. So, at rank 1 critical, with no other modifiers, your crits do an additional 157% of your maximum damage.
  • CRK Durability Loss Decreases cuts durability loss of ALL items by 50%. (Not sure if this point is wholly accurate, blessed + VIP + CRKs resulted in a 50% cut over just blessed + VIP, but that could be impacted by how the modifiers are applied. Someone should test unblessed and without VIP to be sure)
Your friendly Server Status Script admin, Xcelled19420:36, 14 June 2015

Unless it's 50% overriding VIP, it's only a 33% reduction (2/3*3/4=1/2, and half is what VIP users lose with it unblessed, 1/4 blessed.). Need non-VIP to test. The above testing already shows that it is not a 50% cut over normal swords with the same, at least on a VIP account.

Callback (talk)23:09, 14 June 2015

I gathered explicit numbers that showed 6-7 loss with VIP+Bless and 3-4 with VIP+Bless+crk.

Your friendly Server Status Script admin, Xcelled19404:18, 15 June 2015

Tested without VIP. Results:

  • Blessing cut: 50%
  • VIP Cut: ~25%
  • CRK Set Cut: 30%

Final dura is calculated by multiplying them all together, eg 16 * .5 * .75 * 7 = 4.2.

This data was gathered using bash, which has a fixed dura loss, as mentioned elsewhere.

The numbers worked out such that the 30% of the crk was close enough to 50% to be confusing on previous tests.

Your friendly Server Status Script admin, Xcelled19422:56, 19 June 2015

30 is indeed correct. Likewise from the above values, truncation lead me to believe it was a fuller 33%, but after finding non-VIP who owned a pair to test, 30% is the correct number.

Callback (talk)10:52, 24 June 2015