User talk:Suiram

Tests

Multiple-Target Damage Reduction

In this test, I set out to confirm the damage reduction from area of effect Elemental Magic spells hitting multiple targets, as well as this term's place in the overall magic damage calculation. The test subjects were Huge Hornets in North Gustaberg. These are known to possess an INT value of 5, although I have personally verified this as well.

Initial Results

In the first phase of this test, I cast Thundaga 3 eleven times, on increasing numbers of total targets per cast. As a Hume BLM/RDM with 5 merits in INT and 5 merits in Lighting Magic Potency, I equipped myself with INT+28, MAB+8 with no staff, to bring my total INT to 105 and MAB to 1.5. This kept the dINT value at 100 throughout this phase of the test. Testing was done on a neutral day of the week, and no weather was present. For reference, the applicable subformula of the magic damage formula (using "[ ]" as shorthand for the floor function throughout) is:

[[(dINT * M) + V] * MAB] = [[(100 * 1.5) + 697] * 1.5] = [847 * 1.5] = [1270.5] = 1270

Targets	Damage	Possible Multiplier	Possible V
1	1270	1	697
2	1015	.8	527
3	952	.75	485
4	888	.7	442
5	825	.65	400
6	762	.6	358
7	697	.55	315
8	634	.5	273
9	571	.45	231
10	507	.4	188
11	507	.4	188

This suggests, as I have indicated in the third and fourth column of the table, that for two or more targets there is either a fractional decrease in total damage from an additional multiplier, or that there is a preprogrammed alternate V value for multiple targets. It also suggests that for 10 or more targets the decreased damage per target remains the same. Furthermore, if it is in fact an additional multiplier, it is calculated prior to MAB, since:

[[847 * 1.5] * .8] = [1270 * .8] = 1016

while

[[847 * .8] * 1.5] = [677 * 1.5] = 1015

the value achieved in the test.

Determining the Type of Reduction

In this phase of the test, I equipped myself with a total of 104 INT (dINT = 99) and 1.5 MAB, and cast Thundaga 3 on two hornets. If the reduced damage results from an additional multiplier, then the resulting value should be:

[[[(99 * 1.5) + 697] * .8] * 1.5] = [[845 * .8] * 1.5] = [676 * 1.5] = 1014

Whereas, if the reduced value results from a different V value for multiple targets, then by the above result, the calculation for the damage equation gives:

[[(99 * 1.5) + 527] * 1.5] = [675 * 1.5] = 1012

The result was 1014, confirming that the decrease results from an additional multiplier in the damage calculation.

Determining the Placement of the Term with Respect to the Overall Formula

The parts of the of damage formula ordering which have so far been confirmed are that the calculation of D precedes the resist term, which precedes the staff bonus term, which precedes the Day/Weather term, which precedes the MAB term, and that the Magic Burst term also precedes the MAB term. I next checked the placement of the AoE reduction term with respect to the staff bonus term, however as you will see that its relationship to the staff bonus term is implied by its relationship to the resist term, I will omit the results of my staff bonus tests in the interests of brevity. For this next test, I forced my INT to 109 (dINT = 104) and MAB again to 1.5. I then continued to gather pairs of bees and cast Thundaga 3 on them until one resisted the spell. For a 1/2 resist, the outcome if the resist term was calculated prior to the AoE reduction term would be:

[[[[(104 * 1.5) + 697] * .5] * .8] * 1.5] = [[[853 * .5] * .8] * 1.5] = [[426 * .8] * 1.5] = [340 * 1.5] = 510

while the outcome were the AoE term calculated first would be:

[[[[(104 * 1.5) + 697] * .8] * .5] * 1.5] = [[[853 * .8] * .5] * 1.5] = [[682 * .5] * 1.5] = [341 * 1.5] = 511

The result was 511, confirming that the multiple-target damage reduction is calculated prior to the resist term.

Comments

Please feel free to ask any questions or make any comments regarding this test in this subsection.

M and V data

The goal for this test was to confirm the values for M and V for all of the Black Magic damage spells. Over three separate tests I confirmed the values for every spell in this family except for the Ancient Magic series II spells. While I used the data to determine the values independently from previous figures, I will present it here simply in a collection of tables, and anyone concerned with the accuracy of the results can verify the values in the table with the formula and the screenshots of the damage in the chat log. The MAB I used was 1.5 throughout, as that would ensure that the damage would increase by at least one point per change in dINT after flooring. The relevant portion of the magic damage formula for the entire series of tests is [[dINT*M + V] * 1.5], where "[]" indicates flooring.

Test I

This was done in North Gustaberg against Huge Hornets. I varied my dINT to 100, 101, and 102 for each spell in this test. I actually tested the series II single-target spells here as well, to compare with the second test and ensure that I didn't hit the inflection point for adding INT, but they agree with the values in Test 2 below until Stone II, so I will omit them here.

TABLE I

Spell	V	M	100	101	102
Stone III	210	1.5	540	541	544
Water III	236	1.5	579	583	540
Aero III	265	1.5	622	624	627
Fire III	295	1.5	667	669	672
Blizzard III	320	1.5	705	706	709
Thunder III	345	1.5	742	744	747
Spell	V	M	100	101	102
Stone IV	381	2	871	874	877
Water IV	410	2	915	918	921
Aero IV	440	2	960	963	966
Fire IV	472	2	1008	1011	1014
Blizzard IV	506	2	1059	1062	1065
Thunder IV	541	2	1111	1114	1117

Test II

These tests were performed with Nivlakian's help against Aht Urhgan Attercops. He cast Blizzard IV or Thunder IV with fixed INT and MAB, which we used to calculate the individual spider's INT, then I adjusted my INT to achieve a dINT of 0 and 5 for each spell. Please note, the tests for single-target Aero I/II and Stone I/II were done on Windsday, so when referencing the screenshots use the lower Aero damage and the higher Stone damage.

TABLE II

Spell	V	M	0	5
Stone	10	1	15	22
Water	16	1	24	31
Aero	25	1	37	45
Fire	35	1	52	60
Blizzard	46	1	69	76
Thunder	60	1	90	97
Spell	V	M	0	5
Stone II	78	1	117	124
Water II	95	1	142	150
Aero II	113	1	169	177
Fire II	133	1	199	207
Blizzard II	155	1	232	240
Thunder II	178	1	267	274
Spell	V	M	0	5
Stonega	56	1	84	91
Waterga	74	1	111	118
Aeroga	93	1	139	147
Firaga	120	1	180	187
Blizzaga	145	1	217	225
Thundaga	172	1	258	265
Spell	V	M	0	5
Stonega II	201	1	301	309
Waterga II	232	1	348	355
Aeroga II	266	1	399	406
Firaga II	312	1	468	475
Blizzaga II	350	1	525	532
Thundaga II	392	1.5	588	598
Spell	V	M	0	5
Stonega III	434	1.5	651	661
Waterga III	480	1.5	720	730
Aeroga III	527	1.5	790	801
Firaga III	589	1.5	883	894
Blizzaga III	642	1.5	963	973
Thundaga III	697	1.5	1045	1056
Spell	V	M	0	5
Freeze	526	2	789	804
Tornado	552	2	828	843
Flood	630	2	945	960
Flare	657	2	985	1000

Test III

When analyzing the data, I noticed a problem with the recorded images for Quake and Burst, so I returned to North Gustaberg to retest those spells. I used dINT of 80 and 100 for this test.

TABLE III

Spell	V	M	80	100
Quake	577	2	1105	1165
Burst	603	2	1144	1204

Image Record

Aero4 Stone4: http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/8914/a4s4sa1.jpg

Aero1/2 Stone1/2 dINT0: http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/4813/a12s12dint0yp5.jpg

Aero1/2 Stone1/2 dINT5: http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/5862/a12s12dint5ps4.jpg

Aeroga 1/2/3 dINT0 dINT5: http://img408.imageshack.us/img408/8692/aga123dint0dint5vi1.jpg

Freeze dINT0 dINT5: http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/4497/bamdint0dint5xt7.jpg

Blizzaga 1/2/3 dINT0 dINT5: http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/2826/bga123dint0dint5nj1.jpg

Fire3 Aero3: http://img316.imageshack.us/img316/7208/f3a3dy9.jpg

Fire4 Water4: http://img316.imageshack.us/img316/8836/f4w4kl6.jpg

Fire1/2 Water1/2 dINT0: http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/8330/f12w12dint0sa2.jpg

Fire1/2 Water1/2 dINT5: http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/1888/f12w12dint5qp2.jpg

Firaga1/2/3 dINT0 dINT5: http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/8990/fga123dint0dint5hg6.jpg

Quake Burst dINT80 dINT100: http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/2333/samtamdint80dint100of2.jpg

Stonega 1/2/3 Waterga1/2/3 dINT0: http://img127.imageshack.us/img127/8796/sga123wga123dint0kl8.jpg

Stonega 1/2/3 Waterga1/2/3 dINT5: http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/3370/sga123wga123dint5gs8.jpg

Thunder3 Blizzard3: http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/7406/t3b3yc0.jpg

Thunder4 Blizzard4: http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/3755/t4b4to2.jpg

Thunder1/2 Blizzard1/2 dINT0: http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/4273/t12b12dint0ia4.jpg

Thunder1/2 Blizzard1/2 dINT5: http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/564/t12b12dint5wu3.jpg

Thundaga1/2/3 dINT0 dINT5: http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/5417/tga123dint0dint5lo0.jpg

Water3 Stone3: http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/696/w3s3gd8.jpg

Flood Tornado Flare dINT0 dINT5: http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/8493/wamaamfamdint0dint5hd7.jpg

Comments

Please feel free to ask any questions or make any comments regarding this test in this subsection.

Amir Set Bonus

Test I

This test was performed with Alexei, a 75PLD/37NIN in full Amir, and myself a 75BLM/37NIN. PLD's base INT was 54, and used a Snow Ring(+5) and Melon Pie+1 (+5) to raise his INT to 64. My base INT is 75 and I equipped Andvaranauts(-7) and an Ocean Sash (-4), lowering mine to match. The test was performed on Windsday, so there was no chance of day bonus interference in the recorded values. An Aw'aern's Thundaga III did 1106 damage to me, and 1019 to the PLD. This eliminates the likelihood of the bonus being an increase in Magic Defense Bonus, as MDB+9 should have resulted in 1014 or 1015 damage to the PLD, while MDB+8 would have been 1024 or 1025. However, the numbers would be consistent with a -8% (20/256) reduction in the Target Magic Damage Adjustment term, since floor(1106 * (236/256)) = 1019.

Test II

Proceeding on the indication in Test I that the set bonus is a 20/256 reduction in the Target Magic Damage Adjustment term, we set out to confirm this hypothesis by stacking the Amir set bonus with a known reduction in that term, Shell III (48/256). If the Amir bonus is a reduction in Target Magic Damage Adjustment, it should stack to make a 68/256 reduction, or 188/256 = 73.4% of the damage done to me. This test was performed on Iceday, and the spell used was Firaga III, so again there was no risk of day bonus altering the values. The damage dealt to me was 946, while the damage to the PLD was 694. Examining the possible equations with the known values,
floor(946 * (188/256)) = 694
floor(floor(946 * (236/256)) * (208/256)) = 708
floor(floor(946 * (208/256)) * (236/256)) = 708

Confirming our hypothesis.

Image Record

Test I: http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/7290/img20070125020623jm7.jpg

Test II: http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/2073/img20070125024928kf0.jpg

Comments

Please feel free to ask any questions or make any comments regarding this test in this subsection.

Wizard's Roll

Test

Tested Wizard's Roll bonus to MAB with BLM in party as 75BLM/37NIN with Chubbs, a 75COR/37THF. I had total of 1.5 MAB from Job Trait (32), Merits (10) and gear (Igqira Weskit 6, Yigit Turban 2). Damage from Blizzard 4 with no roll was 1056, making base damage for the spell 704. Relevant section of the magic damage formula is floor(704 * (1.5 + X)), where X is the MAB addition from Wizard's Roll expressed as a fraction of 100.

Roll	Damage	MAB
None	1056	1.50
1	1098	1.56
2	1105	1.57
3	1112	1.58
4	1112	1.58
5	1154	1.64
6	1119	1.59
7	1126	1.60
8	1133	1.61
9	1091	1.55
10	1133	1.61
11	1168	1.66

Image Record

Base, 1, 3, 9: http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/1067/wizard0139dm9.jpg

8: http://img409.imageshack.us/img409/3689/wizard8mx4.jpg

5, 6: http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/515/wizard56zw5.jpg

2, 7: http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/6391/wizard27zs8.jpg

11: http://img471.imageshack.us/img471/4972/wizard11us4.jpg

4, 10: http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/6453/wizard410vc8.jpg

Comments

Please feel free to ask any questions or make any comments regarding this test in this subsection.

When did you do the Wizard's Roll tests? Thanks.--Genosync 05:31, 12 October 2007 (CDT)

September 30, 2007, the same day I added the data here and on the Wizard's Roll page. I think the first image should have the /clock stamp. -Suiram 00:58, 13 October 2007 (CDT)