Water cannon Range modifier

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.

not for Max distance. check those numbers again.

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. However, my damage range for crits was 12-22, which does not in anyway match your formula.

12 matches it, 22 doesn't. Which is why I suggested you run the tests again and this time be SURE you are at max possible range.