Talk:Damage calculation/Archive2

Recent rewrite
The description of armor ignoring is incorrect. If it set AL to 0, then damage would get scaled up to higher than the listed damage (what the article calls base damage). Instead, AL is set to make the damage result in exactly the listed damage assuming there are no other considerations (as in, other skills in effect that would matter). Related to this, the article says against 60 AL, damage dealt will match base damage. This is not correct for all cases. In the "(60 - EAL)/40" part of the last formula given, the 60 depends on either the attributes or the level of the attacker. --Fyren 19:31, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I corrected the "armor ignoring" mistake already. From what I understand, the departure from the (60 - EAL)/40 bit based on level differences is still fairly speculative; it would be better to point out that this damage description is for two level 20 players. I agree that something must be said about attribute levels. I had already planned to do it and have an initial draft. Like the article says -- work in progress; please be patient for a little while longer. &mdash; Deldda Kcarc 19:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * For spells, the caster's level matters. The listed damage is based on the attribute rank but the damage scaling on level.  SonOfRah outlined his method well enough that anyone can reproduce his results, though testing the level effect is annoying since it requires, well, levelling.  --Fyren 20:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't searched the web too carefully -- is there an obvious link to SonOfRah's writeup? Or is it mostly apocryphal? TIA &mdash; Deldda Kcarc 20:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Here. The general formula checks out for anything I've ever tried to verify/test regarding spell and melee damage.  Since I'm lazy and it's more difficult, I never tried working with bows and staves.  --Fyren 20:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have ALWAYS hated the "assume base level is 60, player/mob level is 20, attributes are all 12" thing in any GuildWars damage explainations. It's fine to use those numbers as an illustrated example, but otherwise it really doesn't help someone who is level 11 and fighting mobs of level 14 with the main attribute set at 9.  As far as the SonOfRah article is concerned, his final equations NEVER used the number 60, 20, or 12 (except for weapon damage at attributes greater than 12), so if possible it'd be great if the GuildWiki formula can also avoid the 60 altogether.  BTW, what IS the source of the GuildWiki damage formulas?  I notice it's definitely not a direct deriviation from SonOfRah's... -PanSola 23:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Besides the stuff I mentioned (I don't think he discusses armor ignoring, but I haven't actually read the article in a while), it's basically the same, worded differently. --Fyren 01:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, if you check the math, it appears that SonOfRah and my equations are exactly equal, though we use different terms. This did surprise me as I wasn't aware of SonOfRah's work when I wrote the description. However, I was working off various descriptions of damage from forum postings on gwonline and guildwarsguru, and it is highly likely that these postings were aware of SonOfRah's writeup (though they didn't attribute it). I will now add a citation to SonOfRah's article. &mdash; Deldda Kcarc 01:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * See my posting below for a difference between your and SonOfRah's differences. I don't know about GuildWarsGuru, but the GWOnline postings are most definitely based on SonOfRah's research (which first came about as forum postings on GWOnline, and later became its own 3-page article hosted on GWOnline).  I guess you got the damage doubling for 13 levels of difference from Guru. -PanSola 01:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I took out the sentence For simplicity, let us first describe the damage calculation for the case where both attacker and target are level 20 and have 12 rank in the melee attributes Marksmanship, Hammer Mastery, Axe Mastery and Swordsmanship. because it was not obvious where the level and attributes come into play at all in that section. Later I added mention of lv20 spell and 12-attribute melee/bow in the 60 "normal" EAL sentences because that's the only condition when it's "normal".  Before my revision, it'll just seem 60 EAL is "normal" regardless of attribute points or character level. -PanSola 00:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * For one thing, SonOfRah didn't have the "Damage Bonus" additive factor in his equasions at all. Plus Deldda obviously didn't know where SonOfRah's article was, so I figure it came from a diff source.  SonOfRah's article also only use target level when calculating critical hits, whereas Deldda's formula also include it in the effect of spells.  SonOfRah uses 3*caster level as baseline for spells, while Deldda fix it at 60 (in that section Deldda didn't assume caster level is 20).  These are the major differences I noticed between Deldda's formulas and SonOfRah's, so I figure they really came from different sources.  (I also assume the first major rewrite, done by an unlogged-in IP, was Deldda) -PanSola 01:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that unlogged IP was me. Thanks for spotting the differences. I am still digesting SonOfRah's writeup, but on a cursory glance it seems to explain things in more detail than my writeup. I wish I was aware of it before I stuck my foot in my mouth. &mdash; Deldda Kcarc 01:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well at least you started doing something which started more ppl caring about this article. That in itself is a good thing, consider the sad state of the article before you came along (-:.  Anyways, I would suggest COMPLETELY avoiding the use of the number 60, unless it's inside an example (and after the formulas are already present).  Unless of course the sources you used from GuildWarsGuru really use the number 60 despite what the caster level is at. -PanSola 01:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The caster information is just wrong. I tested armor values on my User:Dragos/Mob Armor page at level 7 to figure mob AL using SonOfRah's formula. Using his formula (with the now known ALs), it synced perfectly with my damage when I hit 8. I highly doubt the mob level difference is in effect, except where your level increase modifies the baseline. --Dragos 04:45, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that area needs more research. In general, the speculation seems true, but if you look deeper you find that it is not 100% on the mark all the time. For example, my Air Ele does FULL damage against the Dragon Lich, Orb does 106 dmg. This tells me that the difference in armor level was compensated by the armor penetration. So, either the Dragon Lich has 60 AL and the difference in character levels (30-20 = 10) causes a compensation of Armor Penetration, OR the Dragon Lich has a base armor higher than 60 AL (80 I believe) and that character level difference has no effect, OR both of them factor in.
 * As it stands now, the equation says that my damage should be (assuming 60AL for dragon):
 * ND = 106 x 2^((60-45)/40 + (20-30)/13)
 * This would yield a negative number in the power and should reduce the damage, which is not the case. We need to hit the lab! :) --Karlos 06:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Considering 13*3 = 39, I believe when SonOfRah wrote the article on RPGStars, he did not factor in armor at all, thus a difference in 13 levels is verly close to a difference in 40 AL, leading to double damage. His (I assume is) later damage article on GWOnline does not have the difference in caster/target level anymore, which I assume means he later figured out what's going on.  Thus, I would view it as the Dragon Lich has higher than 60 AL (probably something like 90 AL if he's level 30), and character difference has no effect. -PanSola 06:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. It would actually be 13.33~ levels, which is just the 40 armor in the new equation that he has on the GWOnline article. So far, GWOnline has proven dead on with every spell I've cast at level 7 and 8. I've found a few interesting things so far at User:Dragos/Mob Armor --Dragos 07:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, this section is getting long and jumping all over the place (drifting off the original issue). I suggest if anyone want to continue discussing anything from here, make a new section with descriptive heading. In effect "freezing" this "thread". And don't reply "I agree" d-: -PanSola 09:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

What skills add damage before armor?
A quick search gave me nothing. If in general most effects that add damage ARE before armor, then the article should be reworded. Right now the wording seems to imply the skill description would explicitly state "before armor" if the bonus damage is such.


 * I don't think anything adds damage "after" armor as opposed to being separate damage (like vampiric, orders, conjures), but I'm not certain on that. --Fyren 01:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Belated note: besides that in the article, strength of honor is listed as after armor (and is correct), I was thinking of non-attack skills. --Fyren 17:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The game used to have skill descriptions containining the exact words "before armor" in it. It appears that Anet thought it too confusing and took them out. Perhaps this article should follow suit. &mdash; Deldda Kcarc 01:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought that was the singlar case of Deathly Chill, which wasn't a damage bonus. The revision of wording by Anet does not change whether (or which) skills add damage before armor.  I guess I'll remove references to DB if Deldda didn't beat me to it. -PanSola 01:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"Ignores Armor" vs "-40 AL"
For an attack that ignores armor, will the -40 AL (namely from Healing Signet) still cause extra damage? The Fyen's explaination of "AL is set to make the damage result in exactly the listed damage assuming there are no other considerations" really isn't helpful, since it's not obvious if Healing Signet is part of the "other" considerations or not... --PanSola 00:30, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Healing signet doesn't. I don't know for sure if there are or are not any skills that matter as far as AL is concerned.  Frenzy doesn't seem to work by giving you -40 AL, as I mentioned above, because of how it rounds.  It will double armor ignoring damage.  --Fyren 01:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleaner(?) suggestion to explain "Ignore Armor"
If we call the 2^blahblahblah part "Armor Effect", then what the games means by "ignores armor" simply means Armor Effect = 1 (or just pull that part out of the equation). No 60 to worry about, no "set armor to whatever works out" weirdness. How's that? -PanSola 02:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Different versions of SonOfRah article...
I just realized the reference link posted on the article is NOT the usual SonOfRah article I used to read. And in this alternate SonOfRah article, target level actually matters for spells!

I've added the SonOfRah article I use (which is from GWOnline) and posted a question on the forums asking which one is more updated. However, just from the difference in professionality and the thank-you list in the two articles, I am currently assuming the GWOnline article is more recent.

The fact that the GWOnline version no longer includes target level for spell damage, and Dragos's confirmation above that target level doesn't matter, serves as additional evidence. -PanSola 04:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

BTW, even the GWOnline damage article isn't 100% consistent with our results, so we should just blindingly believe everything in there. The noted example is Frenzy vs Healing Signet. Fryen has ran a test proving that Frenzy does NOT work like -40 AL, while SonOfRah considers it as a GSM of -40 AL. Thus I think SonOfRah's article is a good jumping point of figuring out damage equations, but it's not the bible on Guild Wars Damage (SonOfRah himself personally remind ppl in the disclaimer that his results might not be fully accurate). -PanSola 04:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * SonOfRah is simply wrong about Frenzy. Not only do we have Fyren's word on the matter, but nowhere in the description of Frenzy does it say anything about an AL penalty. &mdash; Deldda Kcarc 06:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

stuff about characterising zome prot spells

 * 1) It's simpler to consider Shielding Hands as negative DShift.
 * 2) Rev of Fortune and Mark of Protection do not always completely nullify damage.  Specifically, if damage is 100, max protection amount is 60, what happens is the 60 of the damage gets negated, 40 of the damage is dealt, and target gets healed for 60, which leads to net 20 gain in HP.  If damage is 200, max protection is 60, what happens is 60 gets negated, 140 goes through, 60 heal, for a final damage of 80. -PanSola 06:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The way frenzy works means there's an additional term, assuming what we have for ED is on the right track. I went back to my gargoyle assistants from before and tested out shielding hands with healing signet and frenzy.  I used a shielding hands that reduced damage by 9.  Lighting orb damage while naked was 12, as before.  As expected, with SH up, LO did 3.  With SH and frenzy, it did 6.  With SH and HS, 14.  This means that frenzy was multiplying the damage after our DShift.  --Fyren 12:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Blah, didn't realize it mattered, but I guess Rev of Fort and Mark of Prot can't be counted as DShift, they have to be the outermost term for ED. Call them DNeg? (for negation, even if it doesn't always completely nullify damage). -PanSola 19:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Things to check: X% more/less damage (and double/half) vs Y additional damage, order of operations
The X:
 * Frenzy - double damage received
 * Flurry - deals 25% less damage
 * Life Attunement - deals 30% less damage
 * Aura of the Lich - halves damage
 * Dual Shot - 25% less damage

...and probably more

The Y:
 * Executioner's Strike
 * Point Blank Shot

etc etc

The Question:

I assume X gets applied first, but is that always the case? I see something like Aura of the Lich as possibly halving the additional damage even from Executioner's Strike, but I'm not sure. -PanSola 03:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Now that I think about it, if X is applied first, then that's no different than -40 AL. As that's proved not the case for Frenzy, is X always applied scond then?  Or are the X% a different type of damage modifier than Double/Half? -PanSola 04:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * x% is applied just before armor. Base * x% * armor% + static bonus. --Dragos 07:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Easy to test. Find something that you hit for 0 and use a +dmg skill. You will get the listed bonus to hit. --Dragos 07:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, that proves the listed bonus is after armor. I don't see how you tested x% is applied before armor.  Though Frenzy is proved to be after armor (but Double could work differently from x%). -PanSola 08:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok in my own experimental article, I've made X% (which I called DMod and the current article calls DScale) concurrent with AE, while Double/Half (labeled DMult) after the rounding as proved by Fryen. Take a look at User:PanSola/Damage. I simply assumed the +Y will happen AFTER double/half, which I'd appreciate if someone test it out. Also the x% not being after the rounding is also an assumption based on what makes intuitive sense from their description (especially weapon mods), so that needs testing too.

How I think the damage actually look like is really (in order of likelihood):


 * [[[BD &times; DScale] &times; AE] &times; DMult] + DShift

or
 * [([[BD &times; DScale] &times; AE] + DShift) &times; DMult] 

or
 * [([[BD &times; AE] &times; DScale] + DShift) &times; DMult] 

or
 * [[BD &times; AE] &times; DScale] + DShift  (in this case DMult and DShift happens at the same place, so I just combined them into one factor)

Each square bracket indicates rounding to the nearest integer. Though my own experimental article does not currently have the innermost square bracket. I'm lazy -PanSola 08:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I mentioned earlier today that DMult happens after DShift, so 1 and 4 are definitely wrong. My guess would be ([BD * AE * DScale] + DShift) * DMult.  I don't think you can have a non-integer DShift, so that could be inside or outside the round.  I haven't actually tested anything with a "DScale" yet.  --Fyren 17:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, so that's a much bigger problem where the SonOfRah article on GWOnline is wrong (but then for all we know, like the case with the article hosted on RPGStar, this one can be totally updated and SonOfRah might have a newer article that already corrects all these mistakes...). You voted 3, though I'm more inclined towards 2.  It is also possible that there is ONE MORE multiplier, so that the multiplier from weapons and the multiplier from skills are separated...  I really think the +20% damage on customized weapons (as well as those +15% stanced/enchanted/HP>50 mods) are applied (and rounded) before armor). -PanSola 18:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The difference between your 2 and 3 is just rounding. Mine rounds differently from them both.  --Fyren 18:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I know. Ideally only the rounding issue should remain, cuz it's the trickiest to check...  Blah, 2 and 3 are both wrong?  How about this:
 * [([BD &times; AE &times; DScale] + DShift) &times; DMult] 
 * (one less rounding stage)? What was your test and numbers? -PanSola 19:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There's definitely rounding before DMult, like I mentioned before with the frenzy/healing signet test. It doesn't really make sense to me for there to be more than one round involving BD, AE, and DScale.  All it would do is sacrifice precision (I can't think of a reason for it to be calculated/programmed that way).  I suppose there is necessarily rounding or truncation after DMult, since aura of the lich might require it, but I don't have a PvE character anymore with aura to make testing easy.  I haven't tested anything yet regarding DScale rounding, so it's possible I'm incorrect.  Are frenzy and aura of the lich the only things that we think involve our DMult?  --Fyren 19:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Undead and minons could either be a -40AL thing or a DMult, depends on the whim of Anet (-: Also I have no hard proof that Aura is DMult as opposed to DScale.  I just assumed it's DMult because it doesn't involve percentage.

wrong usage of "Melee".
Melee is the opposite of ranged. Bow attacks are not melee, and thus it's incorrect to consider Marksmanship as a melee attribute. -PanSola 03:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well spotted. Changing "melee" to "weapon". &mdash; Deldda Kcarc 03:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Cane, Staff, and Wands are weapons too. How do your formulas account for them? -PanSola 03:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm, too sleepy to think up something atm -- do you perhaps have a suggestion for how to reword it to be unambiguous? I'm sure you know what I meant. &mdash; Deldda Kcarc 03:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

"Physical Damage" is still not right
Fiery Dragon Sword... damage still depends on Swordmanship rank, but does NOT deal physical damage. As a simple example. I vote to stick with "Melee Weapons and Bows". -PanSola 06:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * or "Weapons with their own attributes", to cover whatever Chapter 2 throws at us. BTW, pet damage depends on rank in Beast Mastery... -PanSola 06:43, 22 November 2005 (UTC)