Conclusive jug testingFollow

ty, I see your point.
I was thinking the low damage would be a non crit, and the high woudl have a crit, but the numbers aren't working out that way.
I don't think its a guarenteed. crit.. but I'm not really sure.
and actually 1 point of base damage difference probably woudl about to a 12 point difference in damage in the case of foot kick.. which lines up w/ the low damage * 1.05 would be 12 less than the max damage I have....

looks like it is a 1 vit diffeence.

I added a few edit notes on previous post at same time as you responding... leaf dagger seems to be the only ranged ready move.

I'll need to double check INT for pet magical ws's... I just remember being very frustrated testing all the different stats and MAB was the only help in damage... and you could only get 680 damage on CW from Shasra... normal is 280 iirc. tp didn't affect damage for it either.

Edited, Feb 12th 2013 5:51pm by Xilk

So, ignoring crit defense bonus / attack bonus because I'm not sure which pet has how much. 99 Bluffalo have -14% and I think WAR pets have +8%, so crit pDIFs should probably be divided by 0.86 for non-WARs and 0.94 for WARs:
Hobs : 104 base damage vs. EM Bluffalo; 1~1.778 pDIF (non-crit); 2~2.88 pDIF (crit without correction)
Crude: 107 base damage vs. EM Bluffalo; 0.69~1.196 pDIF (non-crit); 1.467~2.196 (crit without correction)
Lucky: 103 base damage vs. EM Bluffalo; 0.786~1.32 pDIF (non-crit); 1.631~2.417 (crit without correction)

So Crude < Lucky < Hobs for Attack, and Lucky < Hobs < Crude for base damage (including fSTR).

We don't know how pDIF maps onto Attack for pets/Avatars, so you won't be able to tell their exact Attack. However, if you added 50 Attack to Crude and suddenly he had the same pDIF max/min as Lucky, then you could say that Lucky has 50 more Attack than Crude without the boost. You can quantify them relative to each other.

If Hobs has a base damage of 104, then 4.0 pDIF is 416 damage.

I've been collecting some data w/ varying str from EM bluffalo. I do not have them all yet, but so far it makes me think that the Base damage estimates Figster generated (assuming pets work much like players) is rather accurate. I think he floored it incorrectly though. iirc, you don't floor the inverse of a function which has a flooring in the original.
Here is a small table of data showing base damage of a few pets.

 
Pet		str+0	str+20	str+50	str+130 
Lucky Lulush	103	108	114	134 
Discreet Louise	106	110	117	134 
Crude Raphie	107	111	118	134 
Bugeyed Broncha	104	108	115	134 
Dipper Yuly	99	101	110	132 
 

... That is, making a table of possible D and STR value vs EM bluffalo, the most likely option for lulush is 108 D and 85 str, imo. There is another option of 109 base damage, but the level 0 tests support a 108 base damage. Options for ~96 damage and lower all work, but the str values get very very large. I don't believe those are correct though.
I believe the stat such as str, and dex will be similar to what player stats would be for different races and jobs, w/out a subjob. 73 is what I have for Yuly (taru thf at 99 would have 69 str) so far, and 93 for Raphie which is a bit higher than expected.

134 for a base damage cap confuses me a bit. I suspected it would match the caps seen vs level 0 mobs.. more like 128~131 (from level 0 mob tests), if they existed at all. I suspected there would not be a cap, however, my last sample showed the same upper limit for raphie as for lulush, louise, and broncha. The numbers should have been slightly higher. I estimated Raphie w/ +130 str to have a base damage of 137 if not capped.... also my lulush estimate would put 108 D and 205 str at 130 base damage, but this sample went up to 134.

Edit: Updated Table.


Edited, Feb 15th 2013 12:51pm by Xilk

Hmm... I guess in that situation I would say that you need more data, but the base damage is *probably* 110. It might be worth starring those values in the table. I get the relationship between +STR and D to be almost totally linear.

The first three values of Discreet Louise, Bugeyed Broncha, and Crude Raphie line up well for a lot of different VIT values. I cannot get the fourth to fit into the fSTR equation, but it is high by about 3-4 base damage, so it can't be capping. I do agree it is suspicious that many of them have 134 base damage in the +130 STR case, but if it is a cap then I think it's weird that they hit it so soon.

However, we have to keep in mind that these equations were developed at the level 75 cap using weapons that had fSTRs caps of about 19 max. +130 STR is way out of the range that they possibly could have tested, and would not have been relevant to player calculations at level 75. Perhaps fSTR has another slope change after dSTAT=100. This is still almost untestable with melee weapons. Apocalypse 99 should be able to test up to delta STR = 100, but even it can't test above that. I guess the justification for making a slope change that only monsters can see would basically be to enhance their ability to one-shot low level players. Even then, +130 STR is something like Kirin vs. a level 5 player at 75 (assuming his STR is similar to his INT). There's just no reason to have a dramatic change in the upper limits of an equation that will never be reached.

Lucky's values do work with the equations, and work for:
D108, 91 STR
D109, 87 STR
D110, 83 STR
D111, 79 STR
D112, 75 STR
D113, 71 STR
D114, 67 STR

Yuly is a new kind of strange. Its fSTR curve is finally very nonlinear, but I also can't seem to fit it.

I'm not seeing it. Your damage range for non-crits was 158 to 248, which is a pDif range of 1.519 to 2.385. 1.519 implies a cRatio of 1.96 (max); 2.385 implies a cRatio of 1.90 (min).

264 to 356 range for crits is 2.356 to 3.173 (after removing CAB), which is a 2.73 to 2.80 crit ratio.. a bit less than 1.0 more than the non-crit cRatio.



The spike looks clearly 111 to me.

Average non-spike frequency is 4. Therefore subtract 4 from all the spike candidates.

110: 2
111: 11
112: 14
113: 21
114: 8
115: 17
116: 0

A 5% spread starting at 110.0 would go to 115.5.
A 5% spread starting at 111.0 would go to 116.55.

You'd expect approximately 18% of the values to fall within each whole number increment, and 9% to fall in the last ~0.5 increment. For this sample set, that would be about 13 per whole number increment, and 6 on the final 0.5.

If base was 110, then we end up with an excess of values on 115: 17, where we expect 6.
If base was 111, then we end up with a deficit of values on 116: 0, where we expect 6.

The difference from expectation is closer for the 111 base, being off by 6 rather than 11. Combined with the severe lack of values on the 110 whole number increment (2, where we expect 13), and 111 becomes a near certain candidate.

That still leaves a bit of uncertainty about the deficiency of the last increment, however I've seen similar deficiencies in a number of other samples where we knew exactly what the base damage was, so the anomaly is not entirely inconsistant with what we know (though still strange in its own way).

I feel SE would sh*t many brix if they saw that.

Hey Xilk and Bookmarku,

Recently Windower v4 came out with a Lua interface and I've been making some addons for it. One of the addons (battlemod) analyzes the incoming "action packets" that are sent basically for any battle-related interaction between players/NPCs and reconstructs the chat log. Tonight Vlor pointed out to me that Gauge wasn't working with it. I don't really have time to fix that part, but I did take a brief look at the data before logging and think I know how I'll do it.

Anyway, I know that you guys were interested in how Gauge works and there's a mysterious number sent with the Gauge packet. When I investigated the mysterious number sent with the /check packet, I realized that it was actually level. I don't know what the one sent with the gauge packet is, but it's probably something. Each level of "Gauge" has its own unique message in the .dats (id=210~214 in dialog4.xml in the addons/libs/resources folder), so logically it wouldn't be related to that. It might be related to some kind of sub-state within each gauge level, or it could be something totally different like monster charm resistance.

Either way, I made an addon that will print out the mysterious "param" and the message id# to the console. Give it a whirl if you feel like gauging some stuff!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/pgb4oxb7bctsu17/gauge.zip

My only data point with it was attempting to gauge a Bumblebee in West Sarutabaruta. I got message 214 ("you can totally charm this, brah!" of course) and the param value was 3. Bumblebees are thought to a level of -1, so 3 probably is not level. It is possible that it is monster CHR, for all I know, although that sounds low to me.

If I may just take a moment to gush over how fantastic Battlemod is... *-*
There are so many reasons to love this addon.
Being able to filter pets, but still have my own damage shown... Filter out all the Kraken Club spam, but still see WS damage...
It's so wonderful. :D

It's great how your actions (like WS, Curing Waltz) pop up as they happen, instead of having a big ol' delay. And the colored names make it very easy to read, too.

OK, ANYWAY!

Thanks for the heads-up on the hidden Gauge packet, though I'm still trying to figure out how to activate your lil' gauge.lua...
Very interesting!

Well, that is very handy...

So from trying this out, and having read your info as well, the Param indicates your likelihood of mischarming? And the difference between a Mandragora and a Lizard is what we'd expect, haha. Maybe it's even close to the actual mischarm percentage.

Down in Rala Waterways, BST/DNC:
Level 102 Depthswalker Crab, CHR 124, Param 52, message 212
Level 101 Chalybeous Slime, CHR 124, Param 70, message 212

So we're seeing the Resist Charm trait, ya? :)

Maybe you've already received reports, but Battlemod is telling me that level 101 mobs are EM, and level 103 mobs are T. Thanks! <3

I posted some more on this over on BG:
http://www.bluegartr.com/threads/108197-Random-Facts-Thread-Abilities?p=5687902&viewfull=1#post5687902

We need to determine the CHR of these monsters. This could be kind of a big break as far as MAcc testing goes, I guess!