[X] My Assistant

Can we get the analogous previous version formula? I presume it would have been similar to:

round(90?? + $base_value * $quality_factor * clamp($wear_factor, 0.1, 1.0)

It was this:

CODE

round( 500 + $base_value * $quality_factor * max(0.1, $wear_factor) )

In the previous patch the base value used to range between 1.0-1.3 for normal equipment, and 2.7-3.5 for rare equipment. Quality factor was unchanged.

Your clamp would be technically correct as the 1.0 involved would be 100% durability (I think).

This post has been edited by Nezu: Mar 15 2021, 04:54

I'm pretty sure Nezu is posting the formula for the buy price and BlueWaterSplash is looking at the sell price.

IIRC the difference is a factor of 5.

Thanks sigo8, you perfectly answered an important question that had been bothering me!

Thanks for showing me the crude axe. The most important thing to know is that it is condition 1/203 (1%) and sells for 102 credits.

As a wild guess, perhaps the base cost of every equipment is 100 (nice number) and that axe was worth 2 credits in that state?

The initial condition is 800 and the starting price is 5,420 credits.

The minimum price was 632 credits...the minimum value of 632 credits is reached when the condition of the equipment is 80, that is, 10%.

I wonder if we could generalize the equipment sell cost to be the starting price x condition % + 90 100 credits?

I just realized I made a small math error, so indeed the base global equipment sell price was a nice number of 100 credits, not 90 credits.

5420 credits - 100 credits = 5320 credits at 100% condition. At 10% condition this would become 532 credits + 100 credits = 632 credits. Bingo!

So now what's left to wonder is what the $base_value are. Well, according to Nezu this part of the formula is actually simpler now (just 1 or 4) whereas I'm not sure what determined the exact value within the ranges of 1~1.3 or 2.7~3.5 in the prior game version.

And then we can figure out various $quality_factor and try to relate them to observed PXP0.

I'm pretty sure Nezu is posting the formula for the buy price and BlueWaterSplash is looking at the sell price.

IIRC the difference is a factor of 5.

It's just a generic 'equipment value' formula. This was given while we were rebalancing sale value of equipments, for what it's worth.

Well, according to Nezu this part of the formula is actually simpler now (just 1 or 4)...

I should hope it's right, because it's not actually according to me, it's Word of God. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

@BlueWaterSplash

Just to let you know that the current patch has changed equipment prices. The value of my Peerless Shortsword dropped from 5,420 to 4,432 credits.

And, I don't think I intend to repeat those tests. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/heh.gif)

I should have posted this a month ago, but laziness overwhelmed me. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/heh.gif)

Comparison between different sword combinations for DW-shade set.

(IMG:[imgur.com] https://imgur.com/6mx1Qtk.jpg)

Arena chosen: 150 rounds
Equipment forge: Club Slaughter, Rapier Balance, Rapier Slaughter and Shortsword Slaughter (full forge); Shade Fleet Set (forge level 50)
Hath Perks: Dæmon Duality V and Innate Arcana V (Spirit Shield, Protection, Spark of Life and Haste)(slot 5 not assigned) (no other "game perk" more)
Supportive Spells in continuous use: Regen and Heartseeker
Deprecating Spell in continuous use: Imperil
Shock Spike Shield
Use of Featherweight Shard and Infusion on swords

To avoid variations due to the type of element and also the day of the week, I tried to use infusions in order to always have the same elements in the swords, that is, 2 Holy + 1 Fire + 1 Elec.

Although the statistics of the sets are not exactly from the same time I performed the tests, the numbers have not changed significantly. The test dates, for the same set, are not continuous because in some cases I had to retake the test due to connection problems or inconsistent results (very different from the others).

Links of my equipment can be found in my signature.

[ 1 ] Club Slaughter (Main Hand) + Rapier Balance (Off Hand)

(IMG:[imgur.com] https://imgur.com/hbdrjmw.jpg)

[ 2 ] Club Slaughter (Main Hand) + Rapier Slaughter (Off Hand)

(IMG:[imgur.com] https://imgur.com/8r9rnMj.jpg)

[ 3 ] Club Slaughter (Main Hand) + Shortsword Slaughter (Off Hand)

(IMG:[imgur.com] https://imgur.com/neSPSUw.jpg)

[ 4 ] Shortsword Slaughter (Main Hand) + Rapier Balance (Off Hand)

(IMG:[imgur.com] https://imgur.com/qBrEciU.jpg)

[ 5 ] Shortsword Slaughter (Main Hand) + Rapier Slaughter (Off Hand)

(IMG:[imgur.com] https://imgur.com/a6SHcYu.jpg)

[ 6 ] Rapier Slaughter (Main Hand) + Shortsword Slaughter (Off Hand)

(IMG:[imgur.com] https://imgur.com/uX6apiS.jpg)

[ 7 ] Rapier Slaughter (Main Hand) + Rapier Balance (Off Hand)

(IMG:[imgur.com] https://imgur.com/Fnc4EL0.jpg)

Simple conclusions:

Comparing the results of [1], [2] and [3]
Even with a higher ADB of the set [3], the absence of Penetrated Armor made a negative difference of more than 300 turns. Between sets [1] and [2], the first has the advantage of having more Offhand Strike on hit, crit chance and crit damage, compensating for the lack of ADB (this also applies in comparison to the set [3]). This highlights the importance of using a Rapier Balance as an Off Hand weapon.

Comparing the results of [4], [5] and [6]
Comparing sets [4] and [5], the situation is similar to what was observed between sets [1] and [2]. Even the turn difference was very close (121 between [4] and [5]; 125 between [1] and [2]).
The comparison between the sets [5] and [6] was made to see what would happen if the swords were to be inverted. The observed difference was not very large. The set [6] was worse mainly because using a Rapier Slaughter as the Main Hand produces a weaker attack.

Comparison between [1] and [4]
In the past, when I purchased my Shortsword Slaughter, I thought it would be superior to a Club when used as a Main Hand for the DW style. This thought came from the comparison based on the 1H style, where Bleeding Wound is much more efficient and useful than Stun. However, seeing in practice, for the DW style the exact opposite occurs. And the difference was big (365 turns; the same occurred between [2] and [5] with 361 turns).

About the set [7]
I decided to test the use of two Rapiers, and from the results you can see that they were terrible. This set lacked attack power.

Note 1: The most important of these tests is the comparison between the results, not the absolute result itself. My results do not serve as a parameter to define the limits of each set, because there are players with better playing techniques than I do, and therefore their results would be better (less turns) if they performed the same tests (but I believe the conclusions would be the same).

Note 2: The main differences between these tests and the old ones are: {A} now I have Innate Arcana (before I triggered manually all spells, which obviously made me lose more time and have to pay more attention when the effect of some of them ended); {B} I upgraded from 25 to 50 in my Shade Fleet set; {C} in the results tables, I changed the way of representing time, because only now have I learned how to format the excel cell correctly (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/heh.gif) (aiming at calculating the average time, which I used to do manually). It took me a while to realize where the error was. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

Comparison between [1] and [4]
In the past, when I purchased my Shortsword Slaughter, I thought it would be superior to a Club when used as a Main Hand for the DW style. This thought came from the comparison based on the 1H style, where Bleeding Wound is much more efficient and useful than Stun. However, seeing in practice, for the DW style the exact opposite occurs. And the difference was big (365 turns; the same occurred between [2] and [5] with 361 turns).

Yeah, the stun is a real luxury for DW because stunned monsters can't parry. Club is less useful for 1H because 1) overwhelming strikes, 2) monsters can't parry counters, and 3) 1H is already getting stuns from counters as well.

-- skip all -- (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/heh.gif)

Impressive piece of research !!

Kudoz and thanks alot, Basara. There's a lot of time in this, and a lot to study; thank you again (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/wub.gif)

It appears that Shortsword of Slaughter + Rapier of Slaughter was overall better than Rapier of Slaughter + Shortsword of Slaughter by 5072/4992 turns = 1.6% while your adb was only 13386/13267 = 0.9% more.

This is a slightly strange result to me, especially considering that at least for regular attacking, I expected Rapier of Slaughter + Shortsword of Slaughter to perform better. 13267*(1+0.96*0.5) = 19635 > 19343 = 13386*(1+0.89*0.5) so about 1.5% more damaging with the reverse setup.

My only explanation is that it is because you used DwD for testing, which is not a normal arena, and probably most important is how damaging your Frenzy Blows is.

Your two rapiers result could have been worse. Compared to Shortsword of Slaughter + Rapier of Balance there is 12695/12054 = 5.3% adb difference, yet the turns result is roughly comparable 5214/4871 turns = 7%. The bad thing about two rapiers is that you can only inflict one ailment, and if you get a crit then I think your second ailment is wasted. Or would a crit inflict two stacks of penetrated armor?

I think there might be very minor methodology issues regarding your use of 2 Holy + 1 Fire + 1 Elec but you did the best you could with the equipment you own. I think any errors in the results will be very, very tiny. There might also be some errors because only your Balance rapier has overpower, but again practically speaking it's not feasible to do better with limited resources.

Your two rapiers result could have been worse. Compared to Shortsword of Slaughter + Rapier of Balance there is 12695/12054 = 5.3% adb difference, yet the turns result is roughly comparable 5214/4871 turns = 7%. The bad thing about two rapiers is that you can only inflict one ailment, and if you get a crit then I think your second ailment is wasted. Or would a crit inflict two stacks of penetrated armor?

As far as I know, off-hand strike triggers weapon procs separately, so it should be possible to apply 2 stacks of penetrated armor at once... though I'm not sure about the exact implementation, so I'm not very certain about that either way.

...So I checked it, and it really blows big haha. A critical hit using two rapiers will only inflict 1 stack of Penetrated Armor. Only 1 message comes up in the log, and indeed only 1 stack is inflicted.

Even worse, it does not appear to be possible to inflict 2 stacks of Penetrated Armor at once, even after many tries, via luck and getting each rapier's PA chance stat to trigger instead of via a global crit.

I presume, but did not test, that the chances of inflicting 1 stack of Penetrated Armor should at least go up when wielding 2 rapiers, due to both rapiers having a PA chance stat.

Considering how terrible this is, it's remarkable that 2 rapiers performed as decently as they did, roughly comparable to their combined adb. It is a testament to PA being the a very powerful ailment, especially when targeting enemies individually. (Bleeding Wound can function almost as well as PA but only if you spread attack so everyone bleeds simultaneously, which DW usually won't do).

useless test:

CODE

mACC    |mEvaded |mHit   |mEvaded chance
--------|--------|-------|---------------
190.0%  |26      |1823   |1.43%
191.8%  |19      |1952   |0.97%
192.6%  |13      |2023   |0.64%
193.9%  |8       |1998   |0.40%
194.0%  |6       |2007   |0.30%
194.5%  |9       |2062   |0.44%
194.7%  |54      |56000  |0.15%
194.8%  |0       |62963  |0.00%
194.9%  |0       |61436  |0.00%
195.0%  |0       |53842  |0.00%

edit: add more test datas
test samples before 194.7% are small so the chance have no specific meanings, they just means: can be evaded
and the samples after 194.7% are large enough that I think monsters can no longer evade you spells if you have over 194.8% macc.
strange number. wiki says 200%, before the test I thought it would be 195% because of my battle data when I first became mage
maybe someone can test the physical evaded chance as well

useless test #2:
0% cast speed bonus, no haste, cast 36 x Arcane Focus (and other actions are all item use which cost 0 action time), cost total 64 tick time ( from the scroll expire time )
so the Arcane Focus action time should be 64/36 = 1.778 tick, strange number too, but anyway much bigger than the wiki said. The Heartseeker should have similar time cost maybe
edit: tested in Isekai, LV.385, 424 sup.prof. as Nezu said, there's a cast speed bonus from proficiency factor, the AF case speed should be 2x

This post has been edited by what_is_name: Jun 21 2021, 17:32

useless test #2:
so the Arcane Focus action time should be 64/36 = 1.778 tick.

In Isekai, I've noticed that Arcane Focus cost much tick. It's very dangerous in tower rush if I cast AF brainlessly. To make sure the safety, I only cast AF when most mobs have died.

useless test #2:
0% cast speed bonus, no haste, cast 36 x Arcane Focus (and other actions are all item use which cost 0 action time), cost total 64 tick time ( from the scroll expire time )
so the Arcane Focus action time should be 64/36 = 1.778 tick, strange number too, but anyway much bigger than the wiki said. The Heartseeker should have similar time cost maybe

Nah, it's just 2x, there's a cast speed bonus from proficiency factor. Do you have somewhere around 475 supportive prof?

Nah, it's just 2x, there's a cast speed bonus from proficiency factor. Do you have somewhere around 475 supportive prof?

oh that make sense. more or less, it's a Isekai test and I have about 1.1x level supportive prof there

oh that make sense. more or less, it's a Isekai test and I have about 1.1x level supportive prof there

The cast speed bonus formula uses a slightly different factor to the counter-mitigation & counter-resist formulas - instead of being relative to monster level, it's relative to each spell's proficiency floor and ceiling.

For example, Arcane Focus is castable with 0 prof, and the ceiling is thought to be 980 (uncertain) - so the formula is as follows:

CODE

spell_speed_bonus = min(0.25 * ( your_prof - 0 ) / (980 - 0), 0.25)

The cast speed bonus formula uses a slightly different factor to the counter-mitigation & counter-resist formulas - instead of being relative to monster level, it's relative to each spell's proficiency floor and ceiling.

For example, Arcane Focus is castable with 0 prof, and the ceiling is thought to be 980 (uncertain) - so the formula is as follows:

CODE

spell_speed_bonus = min(0.25 * ( your_prof - 0 ) / (980 - 0), 0.25)

good to know that. I'm 424 sup prof when doing the test, so the Arcane Focus action time should be

CODE

2 x (1-min(0.25 * ( 424 - 0 ) / (980 - 0), 0.25)) ≈ 1.784

as my test sample is small, that's close enough

This post has been edited by what_is_name: Jun 6 2021, 04:33

useless test:

CODE

mACC    |mEvaded |mHit   |mEvaded chance
--------|--------|-------|---------------
190.0%  |26      |1823   |1.43%
191.8%  |19      |1952   |0.97%
192.6%  |13      |2023   |0.64%
193.9%  |8       |1998   |0.40%
194.0%  |6       |2007   |0.30%
194.5%  |9       |2062   |0.44%
194.7%  |54      |56000  |0.15%
194.8%  |0       |62963  |0.00%
194.9%  |0       |61436  |0.00%
195.0%  |0       |53842  |0.00%

test samples before 194.7% are small so the chance have no specific meanings, they just means: can be evaded
and the samples after 194.7% are large enough that I think monsters can no longer evade you spells if you have over 194.8% macc.

edit to add more test datas. no any spells evaded by monster in my test when macc over 194.8%

further detailed test between 194.7% and 194.8% macc, calculating macc by

CODE

mAcc = 80 + WIS*0.04 + SUM(Equips_mAcc) + Prof_mAcc

here are the results in Persistent and Isekai:

CODE

Persistent, lv.419
WIS = 981
SUM(Equips_mAcc) = 53.17
ProfMAcc = Cloth.Prof*0.05 + Staff.Prof*0(unslotted)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Clo.Prof |mAcc     |mEvaded |mHit  | mAcc on Character Statistics
---------|---------|--------|------|------------------------------
446.032  |194.7116 |2       |6293  |194.7%
446.243  |194.7221 |3       |1865  |
446.327  |194.7263 |3       |3486  |
446.377  |194.7288 |3       |2677  |
446.431  |194.7315 |2       |1638  |
446.478  |194.7339 |1       |1590  |
446.509  |194.7354 |5       |1302  |
446.539  |194.7369 |0       |1257  |
446.566  |194.7383 |0       |1258  |
446.589  |194.7394 |0       |1232  |
446.606  |194.7403 |0       |1004  |
---------|---------|--------|------|------------------------------
446.656  |194.7428 |0       |6316  |194.7%→194.8%
---------|---------|--------|------|------------------------------
446.866  |194.7533 |0       |3534  |194.8%
446.927  |194.7563 |0       |2677  |
446.978  |194.7589 |0       |1923  |
447.031  |194.7615 |0       |1621  |
447.079  |194.7639 |0       |1704  |
447.124  |194.7662 |0       |1332  |
447.154  |194.7677 |0       |1295  |
447.185  |194.7692 |0       |1373  |
447.211  |194.7705 |0       |1256  |
447.234  |194.7717 |0       |1015  |

CODE

Isekai, lv.389
WIS = 917
SUM(Equips_mAcc) = 49.24
ProfMAcc = Cloth.Prof*0.05 + Staff.Prof*0.02 = C/S.Prof*0.07(Staff.Prof=Cloth.Prof)
------------------------------------------------------------------
C/S.Prof |mAcc     |mEvaded |mHit  | mAcc on Character Statistics
---------|---------|--------|------|------------------------------
411.685  |194.7380 |1       |998   |194.7%
411.693  |194.7385 |2       |1221  |
411.705  |194.7394 |5       |1323  |
411.717  |194.7402 |1       |1232  |
411.731  |194.7412 |6       |1288  |
411.745  |194.7422 |1       |1550  |
411.767  |194.7437 |4       |1604  |
411.789  |194.7452 |1       |1793  |
411.814  |194.7470 |1       |2026  |
411.838  |194.7487 |2       |846   |
411.844  |194.7491 |0       |3700  |
411.870  |194.7509 |0       |3147  |
411.890  |194.7523 |0       |3915  |
411.917  |194.7542 |0       |2391  |
411.939  |194.7557 |0       |4004  |
411.986  |194.7590 |0       |2584  |
412.005  |194.7604 |0       |1221  |
412.016  |194.7611 |0       |1315  |
---------|---------|--------|------|------------------------------
412.029  |194.7620 |0       |1268  |194.7%→194.8%
---------|---------|--------|------|------------------------------
412.042  |194.7629 |0       |1275  |194.8%
412.056  |194.7639 |0       |1602  |
412.078  |194.7655 |0       |1575  |
412.100  |194.7670 |0       |1805  |
412.124  |194.7687 |0       |1975  |
412.148  |194.7704 |0       |2427  |
412.170  |194.7719 |0       |4231  |

seems the calculated macc are not that exactly match the value on character stats
but at least both results show the critical value that monster can evade the spells is before 194.8%
and the result seems not related to other stats beside total macc, at least not that different between my Persistent and Isekai Persona when testing.

well but anyway still useless data, no mages care about macc as everyone have 200%+macc (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

@Basara Nekki, You da MVP (^o^)b
Btw, I use Shortsword+Rapier (Both Slaughter) and found it quicker and easier to clear arena when I use the Shortsword in my Main Hand than when I use Rapier in my Main Hand ((IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/happy.gif)")

Btw, I use Shortsword+Rapier (Both Slaughter) and found it quicker and easier to clear arena when I use the Shortsword in my Main Hand than when I use Rapier in my Main Hand ((IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/happy.gif)")

That's because of your level. When you'll be higher with higher defenses (say, above 350-400) the situation will reverse.