Damage Formulas

[Rolina]

I know, right?  However, right now we need to look at the actual formulas.

Ah, you mean staffs/ankhs for summons, right?  I'm REALLY cautious about having staff bonuses with summons.  To me, the main source of damage is the HP dependent damage, reflecting the power of the summoned being.  You could argue that having a staff boosts your power, not that of, say, Nereid.  Ankhs still can resist it, but... from a gameplay standpoint... I'm VERY wary about adding a staff bonus for summons, it could easily make them way too powerful, since it's a multiplier effect.

So yeah... Ankhs can resist any non-physical attack, but staffs should only really boost spells.  You use the item's power for base damage, and you use the summon's power for the summons, and it'd make no sense for them to boost your physical power.  However, since there's a lot more than just psynergy out there (in fact, psynergy being cast on you isn't actually all that common), it helps if they actually resist damage from anything non-physical.

I mean... think about it.  If you get late game, and pop on that 40% boost to summon power... you just made staffs a game-breaker. 

Now, to approach it from an added damage standpoint... it doesn't seem to have much of an effect at all then.  At least nothing noticable.  Perhaps it just works on the base damage bit of the formula, and then works as it would with spells?  That'd make it a lot more balanced than power as a whole (though I'm still VERY iffy on boosting summons with staffs, period).

So, let's look at the formulas... you posted... which I think were for EPAs and Base damage.

((attack - defense)*multmod/10 + addmod) * (1 + (power - resistance + s - a)/400)

Basically, you're adding it to EPAs here?  I actually have an issue with that, to be honest.  How can Ankhs protect you from a physical attack?  And I don't see staffs really helping here...  EPAs get their power from physical might, with the ASSISTANCE of the elements... While spells are more or less pure-elemental.

(base + p*h) * (1 + (power - resistance + s - a)/200)
Base damage... and you actually throw summons in there, too.  As I said, I'm VERY wary about adding staff bonuses to summons.  They make spells really powerful, sure, but they can make summons broken if we just treat them like any old spell.  I think where summons shine is their HP Percentile damage, as I've said, but boosting it any more than the current formula worries me.  It may not be too bad early game, but late game it could make summons way more powerful than we intended.  If we do this, we'll have to be VERY careful about it.  It'll definitely need to have less of an effect than on base damage, though.

I do like your idea on tacking it onto the power/resist formulas, though.  How I'd do it... well...

EPAs I don't think really need to change.  They seem fine as is.  However, we may need to change them, depending upon how everything else tests.  I don't think Ankhs should resist them, being physical in nature, and staffs should be using Spell Damage type unleashes anyways, so there's no reason to put them in IMO.

Base Damage should be as it is now, but should be used only in very specific situations - such as via elemental items.  Just as in the game now, they're probably only used when you have a no-psynergy challenge or something.

Spell Damage, which replaces base damage psy, should have a similar thing to what you posted.

(base + 2c-t) * (1 + (power - resistance + s - a)/200)
where c is caster level, and t is target level.

Okay, crude, but so what the first formula when it was first conceived.  With this, spells will gain power as the caster grows in level, and lose it as the target grows in level.  Some enemies, I figure, should also be treated as having a staff or ankh bonus, depending on what they are.  For example, we could employ bandits and the like.  Say, you're attacked by a witch.  She'd be using a staff, so her spell would be boosted.  Maybe there's an enemy we want to have resistance to spells, but not necessarily the elements themselves.  Give them an ankh bonus.  How?  We'll figure that out when we come to it.  But we should keep it in mind.

(base + p*h) * (1 + (power - resistance - a)/200)
OR
(base + p*h) * (1 + (power - resistance - a)/200) + s

I almost changed it to include the specific formula of 2% per djinn in there, before realizing that some enemy attacks are summon-type as well. Hiya, cruel ruin! XD  Anywho, either keep staff bonuses out, or make them much less of an influence on the summon.  I'm really cautious about putting it as part of the formula alongside ankhs, since - given the last formula's endgame value of 40% boost - it could make summons become broken.  Which... you know... would be a bit OOPS thing, since they weren't exactly broken in GS to begin with!  Heck, even Iris had LOADS of risks, since it's so crippling to go into battle set up to use her.  Especially if we're going to make her non-elemental, since that'd more or less mean you've got a solid half of your djinn on standby!

I do want to know, though... will this placement of the bonuses allow it to work with non-elemental spells?  I assume that if it's non-elemental, the values are, say just defaulted to 100.  If the power/resist part of the formula is just plain ignored, then we may need to separate the two.

@Tropes:  Actually, from what I can tell, most people are like that here.  Silent Protagonist seems to be a widely hated trope.  Most people want some personality in the person they're controlling, not some mute person.  Sure, they may have had good intentions, with the whole "it's because they're supposed to be using your voice, not one of their own" reasoning they give, but then you have times where it's just rediculous.  Heck, there's this one game series called Golden Sun.  The main protagonist of the first game is silent in it, but in the second he talks as if he'd never been.  The main of the second talks freely in the first, but apparently the ending of the first game scared the crap out of him (and the green out of his cape, too!), so he was simply too scared to talk in the game he was the main in...

In other news, I love how we GS fans can make fun of the game that we love so much.  I'm so happy we're not as bad as FF7 fanboys.  My god, they scare me.

[leaf]

I guess you misunderstood me. I don't want the staff bonus to affect summons, and I don't want the ankh bonus to protect against summon type damage, either. Hence the bit of pseudo-code I put that said to make the values 0 for summons. Other than that, though, my view is that they should act as a bonus elemental power/resistance in their entirety.

The rationale is this: The only elemental physicals staff-wielders should (read as: will be able able to) be throwing around are either djinn or a psynergy they got due to a class change. Although an elemental physical is supposed to draw from a character's physical strength, it is also modified according to elemental strength, which is, for all practical purposes, the same as "magic strength." As such, it makes sense for something specifically designed to boost magic strength would also boost EPAs, albeit not by as much (as the formulas naturally dictate). By the same logic, it also makes sense for ankhs to protect against EPAs as well as pure spell damage, albeit not as much for EPAs as spell damage (again, as the formulas naturally dictate).

[Rolina]

Oh, good point.  I never thought of that.  I'm not a really heavy djinn user.  Good thing you are!  Okay, I get you then.  In that case, we should always have it in mind for whatever formulas we come up with.  Mental note taken.

And yeah, I missed the part about summons.  I'm cool with that.  We should still look at having ankhs being able to resist it, but we should wait to see how other things turn out first.  We may need it, but we may very well not need it as well.

[Rolina]

I just realized something...

We can do this easily, but we'd need a patch to pull it off.

ALL mage-type spells are multipliers.  Hear me out.

Rather than being 'added damage' with magic power/MaxPP, they are multipliers.  Quake, for instance, could have a value of 20, meaning it's base is 20% of Max PP (before other things, like staffs, come into play).  This would mean that second and third tier psynergies keep their proportional power in comparison to lower tiers as a character levels up.

It's not going to be all that easy, and we need a patch to allow us to have a # is the %age kind of thing - this will NOT work if 20 = 200%, simply because we cannot get enough variation in it.  IIRC, however, Atrius said it shouldn't be too hard to fix that with a patch.  This will actually let us make basic psynergy a LOT weaker than it would be in added damage type, and give us a lot of stuff to work with.  Of course, we could ALSO have added damage types, but I suggest making those for things like earlier unleashes for mage-type weapons.

After all, the way I imagined the Fulminous Spark line would be basically:

Fulminous Spark - single target, multiplier value 90 (90% power)
Fulminous Bolt - single target, multiplier value 185 (185% power)
Fulminous Arc - single target, multiplier value 280 (280% power)

Then we could make Fume basically act the same way, I figure.  It'd be the last things learned for those elements, and by far the most powerful single-target psys, though would be COSTLY.  And if you couldn't tell, they were made to basically be comparable to Fulminous Edge/Formina Sage.  What do you think about that idea?  I don't yet have a formula to go with them, rather, we'd need to build a new formula around this.  We still need a basis for power, though. Either Max PP, or Class PP%...

[leaf]

This is gonna be an usually short reply as I have a draft of an essay to write for tomorrow, but I'm gonna say this:

That actually sounds like quite a better idea than what you had before. Instead of setting a complicated multiplier in the damage formula that would work across all levels, you're setting it in the move itself, just throwing a single value for the scaling, keeping things fairly simple. Indeed, a simple maxPP*individual psy multiplier seems like it could actually work out, even though it would still require redoing every psynergy in the game to work with the new system.

So congrats on thinking of such a good idea, role. This seems like something we'll be able to keep under control much easier than anything mentioned so far.

I'd like to add that I still think staff/ankh bonuses should be treated as additional power/resist that can bypass the 200 cap that is applied to everything except summoning. We'll have to figure out the exact specifics as to how much boost they give later.

[Rolina]

What I had before was staggered psynergy.  EVERYTHING sounds better than that.

If we do it this way, we may not actually need spell defense.  Spell RESIST would be different, which is the ankh thing.  But this way it may be much easier to pull off, simply because it's a percentage of power you're using...

The 200 cap on elemental power/resist NEEDS TO STAY, though.  IF we can do it, I want >200 resist in an element to mean that the target will absorb the element in the amount over 200 (players can't do that, of course - it's for special types of enemies, like elementals).  Instead of elemental power, it needs to be spell power.  I'll make some formulas real quick...

For added damage for staves/ankhs:

Damage = (Max PP + Staff Mod - Ankh Mod) * Base * Elemental Adjustments * Range Modifiers
IF Damage < 1, Damage = 1

For Multiplied Damage:

Damage = ((Max PP * Base) * ((400+Staff Mod)/400) * ((400-Ankh Mod)/400)) * Elemental Adjustments * Range Modifiers
IF Damage < 1, Damage = 1

Where Base = Spell Value / 100 (thus, the spell multiplier).

We'd have been totally redoing all the spells that weren't going to be kept base damage anyways, so...

[leaf]

Well, what would you rather do? Make an attack do an extra 20% of its original damage? Or an extra 20% of its final damage? That's essentially the only distinction you're making here. By making it a part of elemental power, it actually ends up reducing the damage output more times than not, as spellcasters will probably have higher elemental power than their foe's elemental resist due to generally having more elemental power raising equipment available.

Furthermore, by making it a part of elemental power, you allow the boost to apply to elemental physicals, where generally the only available elemental physicals usable for a spellcaster would be... djinn. I've been through this before. You'd be making djinn near useless for spellcasters if you didn't give them some kind of boost.

Also, you seem to be misunderstanding me about the limit. In my setup, staff/ankh bonuses work independently of other boosts, and they're just added in at the point in the damage formula where power/resist is normally handled. A character could have a base elemental power of 165 or whatever, and be receiving a staff bonus worth 40 points of elemental power. The damage would be calculated as if they had 205 elemental power. If they used a summon to boost their elemental power, it would cap at 200, resulting in damage being dealt as if they had 240 power. The actual stats themselves are still limited to a 200 max, but the staff/ankh bonuses act as additional power/protection. Furthermore, summons do not have their power boosted or reduced by the staff/ankh bonus, which is only used for elemental physicals or normal spells.

[Rolina]

Added damage =/= added percentile.  If you have 250 PP, and you have a +20 staff, that's 270, 8% boost.  That's the first one.  The second one is basically a flat 20% boost.

Also, it seems I misunderstood what you meant by elemental power again - I forgot you added the modifier there earlier.  Could you add your version of the formula?

If we can make it so that it looks at Base EPower/EResist for the elemental absorb check, we won't have to worry about it.  But if that bit of code gives us loads of problems, then we'll probably need to use one of those two.

Personally, making it as added is basically the same as if you equipped a mace, so I'll say to do it as a multiplier.

[leaf]

Sure.

Spell Damage = ((Base * MaxPP) * (Pow + Staff - Res - Ankh)/200 * Range Modifiers) + Rnd[0,3]
Summon Damage = ((Base + HP%multiplier*oppmaxHP) * (Pow - Res)/200 * Range Modifiers) + Rnd[0,3]
Elemental Physical Damage = ((Atk - Def) * multmod + addmod) * (1 + (Pow + Staff - Res - Ankh)/400) + Rnd[0,3]

For the enemy element absorption thing... it would be something hardcoded into their files, so I don't think there's anything to worry about there.

[Rolina]

No, Atrius and I were talking about fiddling with it in a way to where if Base Resist > 200, the enemy absorbs the amount over 200.  PC base resist caps at 200, so that'd mean that Staff and Ankh would count separately.  But, if the code really hates us, it may be a better idea to put it outside of the power/resist part of the equation.  For now, though, let's assume that it likes us, and will let us do it like you did it, since you seem to be much better at this than me.

[leaf]

Well, the thing I've been trying to say this whole time is that it's not actually being counted as a part of your character's power or resistance. That's the only way it can work. You'll still be able to have >200 resistances on enemies while having this because it won't actually be a part of the character's internal power/resistance. It'll just be another value called in the formula. I know for a fact that this is possible to do. It's just a matter of doing it. The >200 resistances thing for absorption would probably be a whole lot harder to code than this would, and would act entirely independent of it.

[Rolina]

Yes, I've been agreeing with you there.  I just said if the code hates us and does what we don't expect it, we'll need to have a backup.  We SHOULDN'T run into that problem, but I always like to keep my options open, just in case.

[Rolina]

Okay, for formula editing, I've come across an issue:

We need to have a way for defense for foes resistant to spells, but not to physical blows.  In addition, a way to overcome defenses and keep psynergy a workable option.  So here's the idea:

Base damage remains... sort of.  Basically:

Offense:  Base + (Max PP * (Base/100))  (for Isaac, casting quake the level he learns it, would have these results: 12 + (20 * (12/100)) = 14)
Defense:  (Max PP + Defense) / 2 (say against a slime.  It has 0 PP and 6 Defense, which results in: (0 + 6) / 2 = 3

So the 'base damage' that would be looked at would be 11.

Let's level Isaac up a bit, say, to 39 (assume target levels) at Gallant class.  New formula is: 12 + (130 * (12/100)) = 27

Against the same enemy, the 'base damage' that would be looked at would now be 24.

Of course, this is by no means exact.  There's other things that would be affecting PP, such as what djinn are equipped.  This is basically a bare bones view.  At lower level spells, this works just fine.  But... for a Slayer's Grand Gaia at level 59...

200 + (284 * (200 / 100)) = 768

Needless to say, we'll need to scale back the stronger skills by quite a bit.  If we were to cut it in half, with a base of 100...

100 + (284 * (100 / 100)) = 384

Take into account that the defenses of enemies at that level would bring it back down to reasonable levels, and it looks a little more reasonable.  So all that would be left is to figure out the right amount of scale for everything.

For things that would have high resist but low defense, give them REALLY high Max PP, but rather low defense.  To counter the supposedly high power they'd have with spells, their magical abilities would be of lower statistical power to bring it back down to how hard we thing the enemy should hit.  It's not perfect, but without Mind and Will (or something like that) it's the best we may be able to do.

After you take into account the need for foes that resist psynergy (Dark enemies come to mind), this seems like a great way to pull it off.  I'd like your thoughts and input on this, though.

[leaf]

First things first, it's nice to see you back. =)

Now, down to business. The first thing I was going to oppose to was what we would do for bosses, who would need huge PP, but that was only until I remembered we can give them PP regen.

The next thing to consider is that you aren't really being fair in your comparisons. You compared quake at lv1 to quake at lv39 to grand gaia at lv59. That's a very weak spell at a lower level to a very strong spell at a higher level. It'd be easier to look at the whole gaia line at lv59. The formula you posted is equivalent to base*(1 + PP/100), so let's see how that plays out...
Gaia: 40*(1 + 284/100) = 153.6
Mother Gaia: 100*(1 + 284/100) = 384
Grand Gaia: 200*(1 + 284/100) = 768

Fractions would of course be rounded, probably down.

When you look at it this way, I think the problem is obvious: Your multiplier for the PP is too high. Or rather, it becomes too high as the power of the psynergy increases. While this keeps the psynergy entirely proportional with each other (a 200 power psy will be 5x as powerful as a 40 power psy), even the 40 power psy is doing ridiculous amounts of damage.

So we have to greatly reduce the impact of the PP multiplier. The main choice to make, then, is in whether the PP multiplier should be static or dynamic as you have it now.

In the case of the latter, let's change it from base*(1 + PP/100) to base*(1+ PP/1000). You get
Gaia: 40*(1 + 284/1000) = 55.36
Mother Gaia: 100*(1 + 284/1000)) = 128.4
Grand Gaia: 200*(1 + 284/1000) = 256.8

Too weak? Let's try base*(1 + PP/500).
Gaia: 40*(1 + 284/500) = 62.72
Mother Gaia: 100*(1 + 284/500) = 156.8
Grand Gaia: 200*(1 + 284/500) = 313.6

Sound more reasonable? Just for fun, let's see what it would be if we made the PP multiplier static.

Going back to your original form, but replacing the second instance of base with a constant:

base + (PP/5)
Gaia: 40 + (284/5) = 96.8
Mother Gaia: 100 + (284/5) = 156.8
Grand Gaia: 200 + (284/5) = 256.8

base + (PP*2/5)
Gaia: 40 + (284*2/5) = 153.6
Mother Gaia: 100 + (284*2/5) = 213.6
Grand Gaia: 200 + (284*2/5) = 313.6

So then, a static multiplier probably won't work very well. I'm gonna take a guess that this was what you originally tried, and thus why you replaced the constant with a second instance of base? It was a good move.

Of these, I would say that base*(1 + PP/500) is our best bet, but of course we can try more constants between 100 and 1000, too, until we find an ideal value.

That leaves just the spell defense to work out. I'm not sold on (def+PP)/2, since if we wanted to make a monster that was nearly impervious to physical blows, but very weak to psynergy, we couldn't do it; the foe would still have a very strong magic defense, even if we made its actual resists very low. Well, we would use a different constant if we used my adjusted formula for magic attack, but even then, that problem would still exist. I'm actually not convinced that magic defense is necessary at all. If the problem we had before was that base psynergy was too weak, adding a magic defense isn't gonna help to correct for that, and it adds an extra variable to test for.

The truth is we actually never needed to alter the way damage is calculated at all, at least if our only purpose was to balance base psynergy and EPAs. As long as an enemy's defense is kept high, psynergy will be more effective against that enemy than physical blows. By giving that enemy low HP, it won't take too long to kill it, either. Now, what altering the damage formula does is allow us to keep enemy defense at levels similar to what it was previously, and we don't need to reduce HP counts, either. It also has the effects of giving us more control over how much damage a foe can do with psynergy as well as making the damage dealt from psynergy feel more natural.

[JamietheFlameUser]

(Nice to see you back, Role!)

Base Damage already had the potential to be balanced. Slightly increase the power of the higher level spells to be approximately consistent with physical attacks and EPAs at that same level, and increase the Defence of most monsters. Bam! Psynergy is now more effective than physical attacks.

What we need to look at: If you were to give an EPA, learned at the same level as, for example, Dragon Fume, the same PP cost (along with appropriate power) as Dragon Fume, what would its damage output look like against an enemy with a Defence stat approximately equal to that of a jack-of-all-trades player character at that same level? The result should be a similar amount of damage. Of course, one would be more effective against certain types of enemies than the other, but the point is still the same.

Basically, spells need to be stronger than physical attacks at the level they're learned. Proportionately stronger, as well. If a spell is going to take up 15-20% of your PP at the level it's learned, it needs to be appropriately powerful. The reason I used Dragon Fume as an example is because that particular spell is NOT appropriately powerful. If it were in GS1, it would be appropriately powerful, but that is not the case in GS2.

Something I noticed about GS1, using an arena run, is that a Shine Plasma from a level 33 Magister Ivan does more damage to the primary target than a physical attack using the Kikuichimonji, the best weapon available for Ivan in GS1.

Of course, this means the things we need to look at to keep Psynergy balanced with physical attacks are the following: Strength of weapons available, Defence of enemies, Base Power of Psynergy, and enemy Resistance.

For example, a problem I found with GS2 is that enemies have higher resists compared to GS1 counterparts. Take for example the GS1 Thief battle, compared to the GS2 Briggs fight. The thieves have resists of 72 to each element. Briggs has 100 resist to each element. (Which also doesn't follow logic, unless he has res-boosting armour, his resists ought to be 85 to each element. Also, unless the thieves' weapons are vulnerable to elements, they ought to have 85 resist to each element as well. Along with 75 Elemental Power.) The result of this being that the Thieves take high damage from Psynergy, making Psynergy look stronger compared to physical attacks, which are, at that point in the game, non-elemental.

[Today]

Today at 18:00:23

Teawater: By the way, I was wondering, did anyone else notice the ".gba" ROM in the Downloads section?

[Today]

Today at 16:54:26

JamietheFlameUser: Well, that particular Briggs fight was from a long time ago. I haven't been working on my current hack the past few days because of other stuff.

[Today]

Today at 16:40:10

Luna_blade: @Saturos: Your english exams?

[Today]

Today at 16:33:40

Teawater: Can't remember exactly what shae of yellow it was, so not sure it would be too close or not.

[Today]

Today at 16:30:58

Teawater: @KoP: Wouldn't Shiny Gold be for the Sol Clan?

[Today]

Today at 15:37:37

Salanewt: Oh wait, tag doesn't work down here. But yeah, how is your hack going Jamie?

[Today]

Today at 15:37:00

Salanewt: [me] considers giving him the Sol Blade...

[Today]

Today at 15:36:00

Salanewt: Oh my. To be honest though, I'd be more likely to give Briggs stuff from later regions; him being a pirate from another continent and all.

[Today]

Today at 09:36:58

JamietheFlameUser: How not to design boss fights: give human-type bosses stats and equipment on par for what the Editor says their level is and what equipment is available where they're from. You get stuff like an actually scaled to level 21 Briggs with a Great Sword, Silver Plate, Silver Helm, Vambrace, and Leather Boots. God, that was BS.

[Today]

Today at 09:09:49

Saturos: Wow first part of exam is ower (in english) tomorow speaking part.

[Today]

Today at 07:11:35

JamietheFlameUser: Eh, I didn't know the exact chance of Curse screwing you over. Still, that 6% chance to fail to act at all could screw you over when it matters most. The obvious solution, of course, is to stick that armour on a character who doesn't do anything but spam attack moves anyway.

[Today]

Today at 07:10:52

leaf: ...assuming I'm remembering the chance of curse taking effect correctly as 25%

[Today]

Today at 07:09:50

leaf: in fact, you get two turns the majority of the time (~56%), and only completely fail to act ~6%, the remainder of the time getting one action

[Today]

Today at 07:07:49

leaf: I like that stealth armor buff. it wouldn't make sense to do that with the clerics ring available, but if you remove that, it's actually an interesting item. On average, you get ~1.5 turns per round. it's potentially very strong, but carries risks

[Today]

Today at 07:04:59

leaf: lol

[Today]

Today at 06:39:21

JamietheFlameUser: Reading the Venus Psynergy topic and 'lol'ing at Role's reaction to a very simple spell idea I'd had (and still think is awesome), where rock explodes out of the ground from a single point in a focused, cone-shaped burst. Role read me the riot act about not combining elements again. lol.

[Today]

Today at 06:17:58

JamietheFlameUser: Well, one thing I came up with that was actually potentially cool is a modification to the Stealth Armour. I gave it +1 turns, under the assumption that the Cleric's Ring would be removed. You might get 2 actions that round, or 1 action, or maybe no actions at all! RNG at its finest.

[Today]

Today at 06:15:32

Knight of Purgatory: Nice orange text kain. Maybe it should be a shiny gold

[Today]

Today at 06:03:40

leaf: I concur. There isn't much I'd consider worth salvaging from dc in terms of work done, but reading the old threads can be quite amusing

[Today]

Today at 06:01:48

JamietheFlameUser: LOL I'm looking at the DCrisis Items/Equipment section. Role and I were both so immature about it (me especially) that it's hilarious in hindsight.

View All

refresh