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!

Flame Burst Damage Query (non-elemental cylinder)

Flame Burst Damage Query (non-elemental cylinder)

Could someone please explain how the additional damage formula works?

During a test to find out my flame burst's damage [R1 Flame burst & R1 AM] I found that I had 52 max damage with a single charge, 104 max damage with two charges and 260 max damage with 5 charges.*


With the formulas for damage currently listed as:

Normal Damage: [(Base Damage * Charges) + (Fire Damage Enchants * Charges + Damage Enchants)] * Critical Modifier - Enemy Defense} * (1 - Enemy Protection)

Additional Damage: Additional Damage * (Alchemy Mastery Bonus + Fire Alchemy Mastery Bonus) / .15

Final Damage: (Normal Damage + Additional Damage) * Cylinder Modifier * Elemental Modifier


Normal damage should be: [42 * 1 + (0 * 1 + 0)] * 1(?) - 0 * (1 - 0) = 42

Additional damage should be: 10 * (1.15 + 0) / .15 = 76.666 (This doesn't sound right am I misinterpreting it?)

Resulting in Final Damage: 42 + 76.666 * 1 * 1 = 118.666 (Far off from what I got)


However instead I had 52 damage with one charge, 104 with two charges, and 260 with five charges. There does not appear to be a fixed additional damage equation separate from normal damage. Alchemy mastery (R1) appears to give an additional 10 damage that is multiplied along with base damage through charges from my observation.


From JPWiki's article, the equation for additional damage from my understanding should be: Additional Damage(10) * [Times Alchemy Mastery was ranked (15)]/15...?


The additional damage formula on JPWiki appears to assume R1 AM and gives the formula as a method of finding additional damage for ranks below rank 1 AM.


Critical modifier is also a bit vague to me and I would like to know what defines that.

Any clarification would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.


  • This was done naked with an NPC cylinder on Provocation Basic barrier spikes [0 Def\Prot], I also tested the barrier spikes themselves prior to testing to confirm that they indeed had no damage reduction.
Professor Cirno04:31, 18 January 2011

Alchemy Mastery Bonus should be interpreted as .15, not 1.15. Where 1.15 is appropriate, (1 + Alchemy Mastery Bonus) is used in the formulas (on other alchemy skills).

As far as the formula is concerned, I couldn't find a specific formula so I assumed it worked the same as Water Cannon, since that's the only other skill with an extra damage parameter. Your data would seem to show the Additional Damage also being multiplied by the charge count, however, so some revision may be needed.

From generalization with other damage types (melee/range/magic), Critical *should* be added as Critical Modifier * Max Damage, however jpwiki had it listed as a single modifier (fine for predicting max damage), presumably interpreted as (1 + Critical Modifier) (so r1 would be 250%). Without any testing data to back it up, I didn't see fit to modify what they had.

Inemnitable04:44, 18 January 2011
 

Alright I think I understand now, thanks for the prompt reply.

Professor Cirno04:52, 18 January 2011
 

I've done some testing of my own and it confirms that the extra damage is indeed multiplied by the charge count. After I get a chance later to determine whether it bypasses defense and protection or not, I will modify the formula accordingly.

Inemnitable05:38, 18 January 2011
 

Additional Damage does bypass defense and protection. In a 100% duel against a player with 24 def and 8% prot, rF Flame Burst with r1 AM hit 3 damage on non-crit (should hit 1 if no bypass).

Inemnitable07:57, 18 January 2011
 

Is the additional damage multiplied by critical damage?

Tellos09:58, 18 January 2011
 

I haven't tested this. Need to get levels before G13 comes so it'll probably be a few days before I get enough time to test it properly.

Inemnitable10:28, 18 January 2011
 

Thanks a lot again, I appreciate the efforts you've put in to researching this, if I can find the time I'll attempt to do more testing on this.


From the looks of it so far, you appear to be correct in that it is very similar to water cannon's formula.

Professor Cirno15:44, 18 January 2011