Mob Damage Studies - Circa 2008

[Jimmy B]

Originally Posted by JohnCapital

Very, very nice Jimmy.


Seems the dmg section of Wiki will need to be altered.

A quick fix could be to take current % dmg we're used to (even though we know they're wrong) and apply them to the max damages we know. Adjust to whole numbers and there ya go.

It's a start anyway. Then we can get on with the process of verifying and adjusting:

• Dmg amounts
• Dmg distribution
• Armor decay

Let the fun begin.

(BTW, I get the feeling we can get a lot of info about Exas and Trox during the next few days. )

Yeah, its quite complicated for wiki. I think we should still have the summary page with average percentages for each mob. Then maybe a breakdown by maturity. I'm not sure we'll get enough people testing to do all the mobs though.

[JohnCapital]

Originally Posted by Jimmy B

Yeah, its quite complicated for wiki. I think we should still have the summary page with average percentages for each mob. Then maybe a breakdown by maturity. I'm not sure we'll get enough people testing to do all the mobs though.

Your idea sounds plausible and the most likely way to transfer the info. In the end it shouldn't be too hard. Maybe we'll spot a few trends in maturities that will help. (maybe?)

I just still can't get over how we all know our weapons and armor work on solid round numbers, but w/ mob dmg we all thought in terms of % dmg type.

wtf were we thinking?

[Traf Rellik]

Is it possible to annotate the untested/unupdated wiki results with an asterisk, and that way see which entries have been validated?

Just a thought.

Good luck, +rep coming for this excellent effort (an effort that I will gladly contribute to after my return from my vacation -- to the extent I can).

[Jimmy B]

Originally Posted by JohnCapital

I just still can't get over how we all know our weapons and armor work on solid round numbers, but w/ mob dmg we all thought in terms of % dmg type.

wtf were we thinking?

Yeah true, especially since its been known for some time (as Sound's post shows). Its amazing what great bits of knowledge get lost in time.

[Kolobok]

Here are some results of the test that I've done with atrax young in Scilla.

1) No armor: max dmg taken 36.9, min dmg taken 18.7. This confirms the wiki data of 37 maximum possible damage.

2) Decay test in fully repaired Gnome, no plates.

1st hit: dmg taken 15.3; armor decay (thigh guards) 0.750 pec.
2nd hit: dmg taken 19.3; armor decay (shin guards) 0.870 pec.

Decay was measured with the bottles of sweat.

Assuming that this armor decay is 4 cut + impact, it is possible to estimate the impact percentage of atrax young. My calculations show that it is about 26.5%, or in integers 10 impact out of total damage of 37.

3) How to separate cut and stab? I put on gnome+5a that does no protection against stab and tried to measure again the maximum and minimum damage taken. Now big surprise:

Gnome+5a (protection: 18 impact, 8 cut, 0 stab): min dmg taken - 1.0; max dmg taken 11.5 (didn't test max dmg long enough though, but got also 11.3 and 11.4).

I think it can only mean that atrax young doesn't do any stab or that percentages of damages in each hit can vary.

No conclusions at this moment, hope someone will check it and see whether I didn't do any obvious mistakes.

[Ion]

I'd like to know what argos are doing.... Argo hunters killing me now through Jag+5B's ... before I could take on 3-4 at a time now one kills me in 3 hits... and avarage hit to me is about 30-60 (if that's what MA meant by averaging out the hits then... it feels like when i first tried to kill one lol)...
or someting is bugged.

My hp is only 152 atm. so go figure. hits kind of dont add up when i die in 3 hits and yep. highest they have hit me is 60 damage with minimum being 1 (rare) but rest 30-60... and well not sure what's going on yet with them... an dyes i have my footguards..




the rest of the argos only do 1 damage to me...

[Jimmy B]

Originally Posted by Kolobok

2) Decay test in fully repaired Gnome, no plates.

1st hit: dmg taken 15.3; armor decay (thigh guards) 0.750 pec.
2nd hit: dmg taken 19.3; armor decay (shin guards) 0.870 pec.

Decay was measured with the bottles of sweat.

Assuming that this armor decay is 4 cut + impact, it is possible to estimate the impact percentage of atrax young. My calculations show that it is about 26.5%, or in integers 10 impact out of total damage of 37.

Just confirming the math here.

0.750 decay is 11.15 dmg. Then 7.15/(11.15+15.3)=27.0%
0.870 decay is 12.6 dmg. Then 8.6/(12.6+19.3)=27.0%

37*0.27= 10 Impact.

Originally Posted by Kolobok

3) How to separate cut and stab? I put on gnome+5a that does no protection against stab and tried to measure again the maximum and minimum damage taken. Now big surprise:

Gnome+5a (protection: 18 impact, 8 cut, 0 stab): min dmg taken - 1.0; max dmg taken 11.5 (didn't test max dmg long enough though, but got also 11.3 and 11.4).

Full damage is offered to both armor and plates. So you can protect 11 Impact and 4 Cut from the Gnome. And another 7 Impact, 4 Cut from the plates.

So I'd expect you to protect 8 Cut (4 Cut on both) and 17 Impact (10 Impact on Gnome, 7 on plates) for a max hit. That's 25 protection. So you should take a max of 12.0. Which is in line with your data.

(It may feel odd but this is an expected result - although the mob hits you for only 10 impact, you absorb it with both the armor and the plates so you actually protect 17 Impact, the extra is effectively deducted of the other damage types that aren't protected against)

On a min hit you're protecting 10 Impact (5 on both) and therefor at least 7.5 Cut. Thus the plates and the armor are taking at least 3.75 Cut each. Since the actual number must be either whole or end in 0.5, they must be taking at least 4 dmg each. So we can deduce on a min hit its doing at least 4 Cut damage.

So we know Atrax Young does 10 Impact, at least 8 Cut.

We'll have to think up a few more tests to figure out the rest. I can't think of an obvious way to do it (unless you happen to have Thunderbird or Vindicator) but I'll have a think.

[Oleg]

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.

[Witte]

Originally Posted by Jimmy B

Yeah, its quite complicated for wiki. I think we should still have the summary page with average percentages for each mob. Then maybe a breakdown by maturity. I'm not sure we'll get enough people testing to do all the mobs though.

What I can do is add damagetype columns to the maturity chart, and fill them with the currect damage times percentage data. Only drawback is when certain percentages are found to be false, each maturity needs te be edited.

[Jimmy B]

Originally Posted by Oleg

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.

Perhaps there's some way we can have a data lock on verified data entries on wiki? Or is that too complicated to work?

Originally Posted by Oleg

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.

We have a list of ones we think may be significantly wrong on wiki on the armor decay thread:

Daikiba, Atrox, Formidon, SEG, Warrior, Feffoid, Longu are the ones mentioned so far, but I dare say there's more.

Originally Posted by Oleg

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.

Yes, absolutely. I'd say in general the main thing is to get the exact form for maybe two maturities of each mob and then move onto the next mob. The rough percentages are more important than the exact numbers for all. We can fill in the gaps later when we've got indicative percentages for all mobs.

Originally Posted by Oleg

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.

Interesting, what's the story with the Attackers?

Originally Posted by Witte

What I can do is add damagetype columns to the maturity chart, and fill them with the currect damage times percentage data. Only drawback is when certain percentages are found to be false, each maturity needs te be edited.

I'd say leave em blank until filled in.

The only difficulty I see that causing is in the way pa