Final Form Magian Weapons

[Hanyoko]

Turning attention for the moment away from general melee theory and over to the staves, has there been any add'l info gathered regarding the "Elemental Affinity: Magic Accuracy +x" stat on the Stage 4 and completed Teiwaz? I know testing m.acc is problematic, but I wouldn't think it would be that hard to eyeball and see if resist rates approximated an elemental staff or if they approximated a staff with plain old m.acc +3.

Also, just to make sure I'm not mangling this, is the current hypothesis that elemental staves have the same hidden effects on them that the Teiwaz lists out, right? So, say, a Thunder staff would have:

Thunder Affinity: Magic Damage +1 (equivalent to 1.10 dmg coefficient)
Thunder Affinity: Magic Accuracy +1

While a Jupiter's staff would have:

Thunder Affinity: Magic Damage +2 (equivalent to 1.15 dmg coefficient)
Thunder Affinity: Magic Accuracy +2

While the Magian weapons can be upgraded to have +1 to one stat and +3 to the other, where Magic Damage +3 has been confirmed to be a 1.20 dmg coefficient?

I apologize for repeating what's already been said but wanted to make sure I was reading it right before crapping in my pants unnecessarily. Because, um, holy shit.

Thunder staff :: Thunder Affinity +1
Jupiter staff :: Thunder Affinity +2

Affinity means~
10/15% bonus to thunder based spells
-2/-3 to thunder based avatar perp
-some % to earth based spells
+some perp to earth based avatars

Teiwaz removes the "whole" that a flat affinity plus does and singles out specific aspects and boosts them. Therefore a Teiwaz with damage+3 only has acc+1 and nothing for avatar perp.

All in a nice rainbow effect of staves with the same name!.....
Several posts up was a link to the test data.

Now that I did my part to make this thread even less readable, here's a corroborating account of what magic damage +3 actually does (fire Teiwaz)

[mdkuser]

Simple Example

Take a weapon with no multi-hit capability. Assuming perfect accuracy, the multi-hit distribution is: (p0, p1, p2) = (0, 1, 0). If you need 5 hits to reach 100+ TP, then it will take 5 attack rounds exactly.

Now include imperfect accuracy. Assume capped hit rate, so 95% accuracy. Now the new multi-hit distribution is: (p0', p1', p2') = (0.05, 0.95, 0).

Renormalize this to r1 = p1' / (1-p0') = 0.95/(1-0.05) = 0.95/0.95 = 1. Now the renormalized distribution is: (r0, r1, r2) = (0, 1, 0). It takes 5 renormalized attack rounds to get 100+ TP. (Note: r0 = 0 because misses are taken into account by the renormalization.)

The number of actual attack rounds is: 5/(1-p0') = 5/(1-0.05) = 5/0.95 = 5.26.

Hmm that's an interesting interpretation of the maths. I ended up with the same results with a different interpretation if you're intrested, which is why I said "you don't divide by 1-p0 but by (1-p0)^??" in the previous page.

For your example, the hits distribution is (0.05;0.95;0) for 0, 1 and 2 hits. Now to find the average number of rounds needed to reach 100 TP I insert an undetermined number of misses in between hits:

N1 misses > 1 hit > N2 misses > 1 hit > ....> N5 misses > 1hit > 100TP.

The probability for this event to happen is

p0^(N1+N2+N3+N4+N5)*p1^5

It leades to 5+N1+N2+N3+N4+N5 rounds ( can go to infinity but with small probability).

So the average number of rounds is the sum of all basic events's probabilities:

sum of: (5+N1+...+N5)*p0^(N1+...+N5)*p1^5

which is equal to ( after a bit of algebra)

5*p1^5/(1-p0)^6=5*0.95^5/0.95^6=5.26 as well.

so whenever you get 100 TP in 5 non missed steps you get to divide by (1-p0)^6, if you get 100TP in 4 steps, you divide by (1-p0)^5 etc... which lead me to this formula:

Spoiler: show

with a hit distribution (p0,p1,p2), the average number of rounds needed to reach 100 TP is
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/d.../round6hit.jpg

the first group in the equation corresponds to 3-step ( 2-2-2, 1-2-2 or 2-1-2 or 2-2-1), the second group corresponds to 4-steps and the thrid to 5-steps ( 1-1-1-1-1 or 1-1-1-1-2).

Got similar formulas for 5 hit builds, and 7 hit builds with possible tripple attacks ( love halleberd, fortitude axe)

[Byrthnoth]

I guess I misinterpreted your post xD Just saw "Quadruple attack suppression" and assumed what I assumed.

This would be an interesting way for the Virtue weapons to work, as it would be the only type of multi-hit that interacts synergistically with Double Attack. So not only do you not lose potential attacks with Double Attack, but you actually gain a little more than you'd expect.

For instance, compare 12 and 22% Double Attack. Normally you'd expect a 1.22/1.12 =~ 9% increase in attack rounds. With Fortitude Axe under the model where Fort can proc on either swing of a double attack but only once, you'd get about a 10-11% boost.

1.22/1.12 = 8.9% increase
1.82423/1.65 = 10.55% increase

[pchan]

I let kparser do the tabulation, and it recognizes misses as those of a given attack round, so hit rate (accuracy) need not be considered. I did consider this probability model:

50% virtue proc rate
1: .4400
2: .4472
3: .1128 (quadruples suppressed)

55% virtue proc rate
1: .39600
2: .47992
3: .12408 (quadruples suppressed)

So, the observed triple attack proportion (133/1425 = .0933) alone is much lower than would be predicted by either..

Are you sure ? Without accounting for the accuracy, and only considering swings, the number of swings per round would be 1+X2+min(Y1+Y2,1)

with X2 being the oat and Y1, Y2 the DA on normal and oat swing
if P(X2=1)=0.55, P(Y1=1)=0.12, P(Y2=1)=0.5*0.12 I find

1*0.55*(0.12+0.55*0.12-0.12*0.55*0.12) chance for tripple attack, which is 9.8%.

[midguardian]

so whenever you get 100 TP in 5 non missed steps you get to divide by (1-p0)^6, if you get 100TP in 4 steps, you divide by (1-p0)^5 etc... which lead me to this formula:

Spoiler: show

with a hit distribution (p0,p1,p2), the average number of rounds needed to reach 100 TP is
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/d.../round6hit.jpg

the first group in the equation corresponds to 3-step ( 2-2-2, 1-2-2 or 2-1-2 or 2-2-1), the second group corresponds to 4-steps and the thrid to 5-steps ( 1-1-1-1-1 or 1-1-1-1-2).

Got similar formulas for 5 hit builds, and 7 hit builds with possible tripple attacks ( love halleberd, fortitude axe)

There are certainly plenty of ways to get the correct result.

If you replace pn/(1-p0) -> rn in your formula, you're left with the same formula you'd get if you assumed perfect accuracy... but with an extra factor of (1-p0) in the denominator.

If you can do the calculation for the case of 100% accuracy, you've done the hard part. Now you can do the exact same calculation, but plug in a renormalized hit distribution, and you'll have a result that takes into account less than perfect accuracy/zanshin. But you have to divide by a factor of 1-p0. How you interpret that last factor is a matter of preference.

I just don't want anyone to think they have to start from scratch or use a simulation in order to include the affects of accuracy.

[Yugl]

There are certainly plenty of ways to get the correct result.

If you replace pn/(1-p0) -> rn in your formula, you're left with the same formula you'd get if you assumed perfect accuracy... but with an extra factor of (1-p0) in the denominator.

If you can do the calculation for the case of 100% accuracy, you've done the hard part. Now you can do the exact same calculation, but plug in a renormalized hit distribution, and you'll have a result that takes into account less than perfect accuracy/zanshin. But you have to divide by a factor of 1-p0. How you interpret that last factor is a matter of preference.

I just don't want anyone to think they have to start from scratch or use a simulation in order to include the affects of accuracy.

Don't believe this guy; he's fake numbers.

[CDF]

Are you sure ? Without accounting for the accuracy, and only considering swings, the number of swings per round would be 1+X2+min(Y1+Y2,1)

with X2 being the oat and Y1, Y2 the DA on normal and oat swing
if P(X2=1)=0.55, P(Y1=1)=0.12, P(Y2=1)=0.5*0.12 I find

1*0.55*(0.12+0.55*0.12-0.12*0.55*0.12) chance for tripple attack, which is 9.8%.

Your statement allows two DA opportunities even if the OAT hasn't occurred, but caps the total realized DAs at 1. My prior view conditions the number of DA opportunities on whether OAT occurs (two DA possible if OAT occurs, one DA possible if OAT doesn't occur), but capping total realized DAs at 1.

[Virg]

Haven´t checked the thread forever but has anybody finished OAT Axe yet and if so has any testing been done with it yet? Currently working on it and curious if it´s worth finishing it or just stick to Maneater.

[Malacite]

(OAT Base Weapon Damage * Proc Rate distribution (1.4 for these weapons) + Other Base Weapon Damage)/(Delay*Dual Wield/60) = DPS

Wait, what? I'm probably screwing up the numbers here, but ...


Well, standard DPS is :


(DMG * 60) / Delay = DPS


The DW is a bit confusing there (trying to remember order of steps for one thing, you multiply the delay last right?) as you say Dual Wield, but do you mean the Dual Wield amount (45% in my example with all 3 DW gears) or would it be 55% ? My example is for Isatu (D34 232 OAT) + Perdu with latent (D32 227)


Argh, this is why I hated Algebra . _ . I'm more of a social studies person.

[Yugl]

Without knowing anything about this, it would seem he's saying you do the following

(Base DMG of weapon*1.4)+(Base Weapon DMG)
(Delay*Dual Wield)/(60)

That should change to:

[(Base DMG of weapon)*(1.4)+(Base DMG of weapon 2)]*(60)
(Delay*Dual Wield)

[pchan]

(D34 232 OAT) + Perdu with latent (D32 227)

((1.4*34+32)/[ (1-dualwield)*( 232+227 ) ] )*60

For nin, dualwield would be = 0.40 I think.

But keep in mind that dps doesn't accoutn for WS frequency, it only gives an idea of how good the melee dot is.

[pchan]

Without knowing anything about this, it would seem he's saying you do the following

(Base DMG of weapon*1.4)+(Base Weapon DMG)
(Delay*Dual Wield)/(60)

That should change to:

[(Base DMG of weapon)*(1.4)+(Base DMG of weapon 2)]*(60)
(Delay*Dual Wield)

You do realise that those are the same ¿

[barber2006]

So without acc/att/str/dex modifiers from some of the magian katanas it would look like this?:


Mozu/Isatu

34*1.4+43*60
459*35%

5436
160.65

33.83



Kuina/Isatu

34*1.4+36*60
433*35%

5016
151.55

33.09


Isatu/perdu

34*1.4+32*60
422*35%

4776
147.7

32.33


Adding in Str4/att12, I'm sure the 33.09 of Kuina/Isatu would trump mozu/isatu. But then again, on WS the 43 base damage katana would win over str4/att kuina? Is Jin 2 hits with main and one with sub not counting double attacks? Seems daunting to figure out which combo is 'best'. ;/

[Yugl]

You do realise that those are the same ¿

Yes, that's why I said it changes that to that (Simplified it for him).

[Malacite]

((1.4*34+32)/[ (1-dualwield)*( 232+227 ) ] )*60

For nin, dualwield would be = 0.40 I think.

But keep in mind that dps doesn't accoutn for WS frequency, it only gives an idea of how good the melee dot is.

That's fine, I'm just looking to see how high the DoT could get for a NIN with full on DW (Suppa, AF Body & Relic Pants for -45% delay)


Kinda scares me that NIN will likely get DW5, which if it's any higher than another 5% will be nasty :O

[Tomino]

Could I ask for a general opinion on the "Fenrir/Diabolos perp. cost:-4" Staff ?
Looks nice enough for me to spend time on its trials, unless I'm completely forgetting about something...

[Oulanbator]

...

You're doing it backwards. You should remove the delay reduction from the total delay. You're currently considering the delay reduction as the delay.

In your first example, with Mozu/Izatu, delay is
Total delay: 227 + 232 = 459

DW delay: 459 -(459*35/100) = 459-160 = 299
or
DW delay: 459 * 0.65 / 100 = 299

(the two are the same. First one is [delay - (35% of delay)] and second one is [ delay * 0.65] ( 0.65 is like 100%-35%))


and the dps is
dmg / delay * 60 -> regular hit weapons
((dmg + dmg) * 0.4 + dmg * 0.6)/delay * 60 -> OAT weapons
so

Mozu/Izatu
Mozu 43 / 299 * 60 = 8. 6
Izatu ((34 + 34) * 0.4 + 34*0.6) / 299 * 60 = 9.55

So a total dps of 18.15

[Khajit]

Any opinions on the dex4 acc+8 katana? I'm considering it since that would enable nins to wear Tiercel Necklace if they dont already have capped haste i'm hoping.
It's basically 7 dmg vs 1% haste and come crit% in theory.

[Fistalis]

Turning attention for the moment away from general melee theory and over to the staves, has there been any add'l info gathered regarding the "Elemental Affinity: Magic Accuracy +x" stat on the Stage 4 and completed Teiwaz? I know testing m.acc is problematic, but I wouldn't think it would be that hard to eyeball and see if resist rates approximated an elemental staff or if they approximated a staff with plain old m.acc +3.

Also, just to make sure I'm not mangling this, is the current hypothesis that elemental staves have the same hidden effects on them that the Teiwaz lists out, right? So, say, a Thunder staff would have:

Thunder Affinity: Magic Damage +1 (equivalent to 1.10 dmg coefficient)
Thunder Affinity: Magic Accuracy +1

While a Jupiter's staff would have:

Thunder Affinity: Magic Damage +2 (equivalent to 1.15 dmg coefficient)
Thunder Affinity: Magic Accuracy +2

While the Magian weapons can be upgraded to have +1 to one stat and +3 to the other, where Magic Damage +3 has been confirmed to be a 1.20 dmg coefficient?

I apologize for repeating what's already been said but wanted to make sure I was reading it right before crapping in my pants unnecessarily. Because, um, holy shit.

Correct this is my current theory which i have posted to wiki forums. This conclusion is based off the fact that The staff prior to finished staff is simply elemental affinty+1 and has all hidden effects of a NQ staff.

[CDF]

The damage hypothesis has already been tested and it's considered +20% damage.

It may help to comb Japanese forums for any info on OAT and magic accuracy +3. I haven't found anything yet (just blind Google searching). Sure, it should be easy to tell the difference between +3 and +40 (really doubt it's just +3), but I think people are more interested in seeing if there is an improvement over an HQ staff.