[X] My Assistant

It seems you just put in the Xtals' cost to bring them to level, not the cost of feeding them ... that would make the break-even point even farther in the future (if your other estimates are correct).

And before you tell me that you don't have to buy feed 'cause you drop enough, that just means you use it instead of selling it. Any ledger-maintaining clerk could tell you that a possible income becoming not possible because of the need to feed your monsters, is just the same as a direct cost; you must put it in too.

Sorry (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

High PL monsters, about PL 750 or above, are fed crystals for level-ups, not for morale.
It is much cheaper to use Happy Pills because they need more than 10,000 crystals at a time.

This brief explanation is insufficient and I can't make you understand this due to my poor English, but you'll understand it if you have a higher PL monster.

Sorry.

High PL monsters, about PL 750 or above, are fed crystals for level-ups, not for morale.
It is much cheaper to use Happy Pills because they need more than 10,000 crystals at a time.

This brief explanation is insufficient and I can't make you understand this due to my poor English, but you'll understand it if you have a higher PL monster.

Sorry.

I wasn't clear enough, it seems (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/heh.gif) When I say "feeding them" I meant the cost in consumed Chow, or Edibles or Cuisine, not Xtals; after all, it is the "Hunger bar" that get fed food (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Keeping their Morale bar in the green, now, I'd call that "Maintenance" or "Fueling" or perhaps "Recharging" (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/happy.gif)

But whether you use Pills or Xtals for that, it's immaterial (except for the increasing PL) : in terms of cost, you still have to account for what you use. Otherwise your Break-Even estimates are simply under-estimated (and you don't even know by how much).

I had made some estimates myself back then when I started my Lab, but I was just interested in ballpark estimates of what PL to reach before switching from Xtals to Pills.
The rough result was that using Xtals was more convenient up to PL 300 more or less, after that Pills (and increasingly so the higher the PL, so you see, I know what you're saying (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

But here we are talking of matching costs with (avg.estimated) recoveries, to see where the BE point is : therefore you have to put ALL the costs you have sustained to keep the monster alive and kicking during the time from its creation until the Break.Even has been reached, not just the cost of reaching the intended PL, otherwise your calculation is simply off.

As for me, I feed Xtals to all until they reach above PL200 (to get the second strike) but below 250 (to avoid having to feed them Edibles), then start them on Pills.

I don't claim for this strategy to be optimal, it's just my personal strategy and I like it (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

Assimilator and Base Proficiency

I did some simulations about Assimilator and proficiency.


0) EXP settings

- "Dawn of a New Day" bonus everyday
- PFUDOR difficulty
- stamina < 80
- Goldstar (+100%) and 7 cookies (+140%)
- Adept Learner 300 and Thinking Cap 4 (+300% +100%)
- Forum posting bonus (+100%)


1) start a mage at level 400

- If the assimilator level is 15 or higher, it is easy to achieve 1.1 base factor.
- However, it decreases slowly after level 450.
- To keep 1.1 factor, the assimilator level needs to be above 20.

[attachmentid=137759]


2) start a mage at level 450

- Give up or pour your credits into training Assimilator.

[attachmentid=137760]

This post has been edited by sssss2: Jan 17 2020, 12:29

Tried shrining a few coupons, because I was curious what "tier" they are, as their tier is not written anywhere in the wiki. Here are the results:
Gold coupon: Legendary Hallowed Katalox Staff of Heimdall
Gold coupon: Magnificent Hallowed Redwood Staff of Focus
Platinum coupon: Magnificent Arctic Katalox Staff of the Demon-Fiend

I've got the feeling that Cold Coupon is Tier 7, and Platinum Coupon is Tier 8.
Does anyone confirm this, have more info or more coupons to shrine?

I'm planning on adding the related info in the wiki, for reference.

I've got the feeling that Cold Coupon is Tier 7, and Platinum Coupon is Tier 8.
Does anyone confirm this, have more info or more coupons to shrine?

Equipment/Drops

- Inserted a new level 7 trophy tier between the tier 6 and 7 trophies. Old tier 7 is now tier 8, old tier 8 is now tier 9.

- Difficulty now more significantly affects the tier bonus at higher arenas. The 101+ arenas get +1 tier at Nightmare and above, and the three highest arenas get an additional +1 tier (+2 total) at IWBTH and above.

- Toplist Tickets were renamed to Coupons to avoid confusion with the Golden Lottery Ticket. Gold Coupons and below were bumped up one tier. (So, Gold is now the newly added Tier 7.)

https://ehwiki.org/wiki/Toplists#Coupons

https://ehwiki.org/wiki/Toplists#Coupons

That tier info isn't located where one would expect to find it (in the trophies page), jeez.
Fixing that.

That tier info isn't located where one would expect to find it (in the trophies page), jeez.
Fixing that.

ah, you copy/pasted the whole table, uh? i thought you were adding rows to the existing one to integrate infos, but probably it works too

Fitting the coupons inside the already existing trophy table would have been quite crude and ugly, and we wouldn't be able to see the evolution of their tiers easily.

https://ehwiki.org/wiki/Toplists#Coupons

That tier info isn't located where one would expect to find it (in the trophies page), jeez.
Fixing that.

I personally think that the Toplists page is the right place for that info : they are rewards for toplist placement afterall. And there is also a link from there to the Trophies page.

It would have been better to just add a phrase about them with a backlink to Toplists#Coupons, imo, instead of copy-pasting.

That way, should ever the table need to be edit and/or changed in any way, there would be only one instance of it; no risk of changing one and leave the other as it is.

Or even worse, different edits possibly by different people, ending up with to differnet version of the same thing (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

Finished conducting research regarding the exact calculation of Bleeding Wound, with the help of lestion.
It was needed, since the formulae and the way how things were written in the wiki were quite unclear and incomplete.
Now the proc has absolutely no secret for us anymore.

Here are my conclusions:

Bleeding wound is unaffected by physical mitigation.
Bleeding wound's base power is proportional to the power of the attack that dealt it.
=> The base power is proportional to the character's Attack Base Damage, not the weapon's ADB.
=> Equipment forging or Butcher will increase Bleeding Wound accordingly
=> Vital Strikes inflicts a dot with a very high base power, since the attack itself is very powerful
=> A critical hit won't affect the base power of Bleeding Wound
The dot is always equal to "base power*number of stacks"
=> Any new proc is susceptible to affect the base power
=> Proccing with a shortsword's regular attack will overwrite Vital Strike's base power and effectively lower the dot's damage output
A Longsword's proc is 50% stronger than a shortsword's.
Formula to calculate the base power of bleeding wound:
Character's Attack Base Damage * Equipment DOT % * 0,44 * damage multipliers

You can find all my data in there:
[www.mediafire.com] https://www.mediafire.com/file/3tu19zxbq1ff..._test.xlsx/file

I'll mention that the only thing that changed between the setups was the weapon (and the removal of the shield for the Longsword).

Today was quite fun. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


Other conclusion, related to the subject:
8% of my base damage output per stack seems quite low, stated just like that, but actually it's certainly way more powerful than a rapier's Penetrated Armor against an Imperil'ed monster. And then more than one stack utterly defeats a rapier against the said Imperil'ed monster.
Against a non-Imperiled monster, things are a bit more though to compare. At best (and I'd really like to emphasize this), a rapier can deal a stack of PA that reduces a monster's PMit from 80% to 60% (80%PMit * 0.75 = 60%PMit), to be counted for the next attack. In the meanwhile, a shortsword's Bleeding Wound will deal two/three dots of 8% each, amounting to an average total of 20% of an attack's unmitigated power. And then the rapier will have the upper hand on every subsequent hit.

Overall and contrarily to the popular belief, both weapons are rather balanced regarding their procs. It's just that a rapier will shine when you're taking long to kill a single monster, otherwise it's rather the shortsword that will be better, especially when you use Imperil. The only issue with the shortsword is that the attack speed bonus will prevent the dot from occuring every once in a while, but this is balanced with the higher ADB of the weapon as well as its very slightly higher crit chance (due to higher STR PAB).

TL;DR
Rapiers being better is only a myth. They are certainly better when hitting the same non-Imperil'ed monster multiple times, but the shortsword is actually not far behind. And then against Imperil'ed monsters, the rapier stands zero chance against the shortsword. Overall both weapons are very viable: it all depends on your playstyle. For Imperil 1H, both are rather on the same level, with the shortsword having the upper hand when the amount of continuous hacking at the same non-Imperil'ed monster is limited.

PS:
Lestion edited the wiki with the accurate mechanics of Bleeding Wound. There is absolutely no room for uncertainty anymore.
https://ehwiki.org/wiki/Equipment_Procs

This post has been edited by decondelite: Jan 26 2020, 18:03

Rapiers being better is only a myth. They are certainly better when hitting the same non-Imperil'ed monster multiple times

from how i read it, a shortsword needs imperil to be comparable to a rapier, right?

wouldn't this mean that actually "rapier ~ shortsword + imperil", hence "rapier > shortsword (alone)" ?

This post has been edited by Scremaz: Jan 26 2020, 17:51

You've got it slightly wrong.

It's more like whether it's a rapier or a shortsword, playing without Imperil will deal shit damage anyway, and it'll be even worse when it's a shortsword instead of a rapier in that case. Stated that way, it doesn't sound exactly the same, isn't it?
But then, when using Imperil, the shortsword is way better than the rapier in SG arenas, both being rather equal on regular monsters, with a slight advantage for the shortsword for those who leave very little monsters not Imperil'ed.

Hence why I said that in the end, it all depends on your playstyle: do you want to play one-hand (with the other on the dong) and be very slow, do you want to slaughter SGs very fast, or do you want to just be fast in your regular gameplay with the help of Imperil?

... makes me wonder how much a peerless ethereal shortsword costs

... makes me wonder how much a peerless ethereal shortsword costs

The last times we've seen one in the auctions, one went in the hands of morineko for 40MC and another one in the hands of ssss2 for 21MC:
https://forums.e-hentai.org/index.php?showtopic=225645
https://forums.e-hentai.org/index.php?showtopic=232143

Though seriously, Ethereal is perfectly useless for a shortsword, aside from being able to choose the two elements at will with an IW9.

Formula to calculate the base power of bleeding wound:
Character's Attack Base Damage * Equipment DOT % * 0,44 * damage multipliers

Small correction to make... I was wrong about changing the modifier from 0.4 to 0.44 - the original 0.4 was correct.

... I just forgot about one more modifier we both had, on top of DD, Overwhelming Strikes and Heartseeker - the 10% from Godslayer. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Returned the wiki to normal on that count.

Some wiki additions today based on research. Some of these things were probably already known, but they were not noted anyway, so I'm recording my changes here for posterity and to discuss questions about how they were discovered.

- Unlike the other two debuffs, stuns cannot be refreshed or overwritten in any way. Even with a crit.
-- Easily observed - just try to hit a stunned monster with a club. Crits always apply weapon effects, but you will notice there is no line in the combat log to say the monster has been stunned, and the remaining duration is unaffected. You can also try using Shield Bash against stunned targets, the same will happen.
Credit: mega-wifeacc

- Penetrated Armor is applied after the damage is, for the turn on which it was applied.
-- First, I recorded a string of hits against a schoolgirl, recording the damage and the turns on which PA was applied (as well as any buff changes).
-- Then, I took the median of all hits at 3 stacks, and checked they fell within the 0.8x-1.2x random roll for damage. (This got me a pretty good confirmation that the random roll range is the same for physical damage - it was previously only noted for spells).
-- I calculated from my ADB what my average, minimum, and maximum damage values should be. The average was very close to my recorded median, backing up my data a little more and confirming I was using the right calculation for expected damage values.
--- The damage calculation also includes scaling the monster's pmit, which is why I used a schoolgirl (since their PAB values are known), by the way.
-- From this, I was able to calculate the minimum and maximum for how much damage a hit (or crit) should do against the schoolgirl, at each level of PA.
-- The first hit on which PA was applied fell within the range of the damage for 0 PA stacks, but outside the damage range for 1 PA stack. (The same applied to the turns on which stacks 2 and 3 were applied).

I was prepared to do a lot more data recording for that, but it turned out to be completely unnecessary, and confirmed the damage formula is still accurate. (I was scratching my head for a while though, til I remembered Godslayer's 10% - which is why I noticed my error with the Bleeding Wound formula...)

- The maximum duration for the bleed from Vital Strike is recorded at 9 turns on the wiki, but can sometimes be 10 turns.
-- The reason for this is a little complicated to explain if you don't understand the game time model.
-- Debuff durations tick down exactly on game ticks (ie, game time = 1, 2, 3 etc, whole numbers).
-- If you have exactly 0% attack speed, you will always see debuffs at their max duration minus one turn, because you reach a whole number during your turn (ie, your attacks will be exactly 1 step each time).
-- If you have higher attack speed (ie, your attacks might increment the counter by say, 0.66) but you pass over a whole number game time (0.66+0.66 = 1.32, passing 1) it will decrease the duration, too.
-- The only time you will see the full duration of a debuff is when your turn starts and ends without passing over a whole game tick. This means you can start at game-time x.00 and end at x.99 and see the full duration.
Credit: mega-wifeacc

regarding stun: back then, stun used to have ticks too, even if i don't really know what the effect of a 1x stun vs. a 3x stun is. at a point, this was changed. so whatever thing about refresh-ability of stun may either be intentional or a bug.

Probably intentional, to prevent any stun-lock cheesing.

Probably intentional, to prevent any stun-lock cheesing.

This would be my guess too, and probably also the origin of why monsters get a free attack when stuns expire