2009-01-26, 10:33 PM
Ah, that makes sense. The way we went about the def formula (since we had no place to base it on except Sap seeing the wdef*.6 and *.5) we got around 15 solid ranges (sample size well over 100 on each). Then I just started to guess and check formulas. My origonal formulsa (with the crazy (mlevel-level)/(200-mlevel)) worked because I did the vast majority of my testing on newts (making it /95, close to our 100). That just shows that a formula is never truely complete.
Anyways, the biggest problem with a mdef formula in the past was we didn't have a base formula. Now with Sap's Spell Damage formula it may be easier to find some hard data for the mdef reductions, then go for the guess/check method.
I guess it's just me, but I'm so anal about proving my data xD. If I go on my old harddrive, all my origonal screenshots for damage are probably still there (I macroed my strafe button with scroll lock for training ease... and lag =p).
Maybe if I get a chance this week I'll draw up some preliminary data using claw on some monsters.
Anyways, the biggest problem with a mdef formula in the past was we didn't have a base formula. Now with Sap's Spell Damage formula it may be easier to find some hard data for the mdef reductions, then go for the guess/check method.
I guess it's just me, but I'm so anal about proving my data xD. If I go on my old harddrive, all my origonal screenshots for damage are probably still there (I macroed my strafe button with scroll lock for training ease... and lag =p).
Maybe if I get a chance this week I'll draw up some preliminary data using claw on some monsters.