Great thread John, it's defintely useful to revisit this. I'll certainly see what I can do to contribute when I'm back in the game.
Some of the problems have been caused by people changing information on Wikipedia that was (roughly) accurate and putting in incorrect info. For example, I know that Entropedia used to say that Feffoids did 65%/35% (close to what Jimmy B has found), as I copied that info into my own spreadsheet, but at some point someone must have changed that to 50%/50%. I think it would be worthwhile to keep a 'master list' somewhere on
EF, with links to the research, as a back-up to the Entropedia info.
That 'master list' should also contain notes about the mobs where we are confident that the info we have is correct, and those where we think the info is wrong, or is completely missing.
The notion about mobs doing integer values rather than %s of each type looks sound, and explains the differences that Witte noted between maturitires, but we shouldn't allow that to distract us. It looks like the %s should still work as a rough guide, in the main (hopefully Jimmy B's Feffoid testing will bear that out). It's going to be much more useful to find a rough answer on Osseocollum, for example, than it is to work out the exact damage values on every single maturity of Longu.
I think it's correct to assume that in most cases the variation between maturities will be small, and that all maturities will do the same damage types, but it's already been proved
here that this isn't always the case (Attacker Generation 1s do different damage types to higher generations). I think we can consider this to be an exceptional case, but there may be others so we shouldn't rule out the possibility.
Great work on the testing and discussion so far.