Spiral Knights - Misleading Flourish damage typing

Misleading Flourish damage typing

5 replies [Last post]

Sat, 06/16/2012 - 13:54

Addisond

DISREGARD THREAD; INNACURATE

This was born of the assumption that damage bonuses were multipliers. This is not true. I'm leaving this here as reference to the conversation, should anyone be interested.

Currently, flourishes receive split damage bonuses when hitting a weak monster, but get pure damage penalties when hitting a resistant monster. I just noticed it; you guys should probably change something about flourish damage anyway... but that's another story.

Heyar's some proof:

Numbers from wiki, d28, first hits of combos.

Callahan does 131 damage against regular targets, 225 on bonus. 225/131=1.717

Callahan does 131 damage against regular targets, 38 on penalty. 38/131=.290

---

Combuster does 203 damage against regular targets, 292 on bonus. 292/203=1.438

Combuster does 203 damage against regular targets, 135 on penalty. 135/203=.665

---

FF does 203 damage against regular targets, 285 on bonus. 285/203=1.404

FF does 203 damage against regular targets, 47 on penalty. 47/203=.232

---

So the penalty for flourishes is .232 compared to the .290 from callahan. The bonus is 1.404 compared to 1.438. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure this one out.

I also tested wiki numbers at d19 in my first test; they were accurate. I noticed that damage bonuses and penalties increase by about one half over the course of that time... which seems interesting to me, though it doesn't have much to do with the suggestion.

Sat, 06/16/2012 - 14:10

The-Rawrcake

Errrr, so callahan and FF are

Edit: oh, sorry I cannot read x)

Sat, 06/16/2012 - 14:12

Juances

http://wiki.spiralknights.com/Warmaster_Rocket_Hammer

Do the math with that.

Sat, 06/16/2012 - 14:41

Addisond

Not doing the math... extensively

Seems to be the same with all pure damage swords... well, I think they should change that, it's kinda misleading. Here it is, just the first hit:

340/258=1.318

Hence, hammer is in line with FF in this respect. I still think they should either change it to split damage or make it full-blooded pure damage.

Mon, 03/04/2013 - 19:43

Zeddy

Here, let me fix that for you

Callahan does 154 damage against neutral targets, 241 on no defence. 241 - 154 = 87

Callahan does 241 damage without resist, 41 on penalty. 41/241=.17

---

Combuster does 203 damage against neutral targets, 292 on no defence against the elemental part. 292 -203 = 89

Combuster does 292 damage without resist, 135 on penalty. 135/292 = .462

---

FF does 203 damage against neutral targets, 285 on no defence. 285 - 203 = 82

FF does 285 damage without resist, 47 on penalty. 47/285=.164

As you can see, there is close to no difference between Callahan and Flourish, save for Flourish being much stronger, proportionally, to neutral targets and Callahan for some reason being defended a bit harder despite doing less damage.

Tue, 03/05/2013 - 15:32

Addisond

So you're saying that the scaling is linear? Given the amount of variation in the damage tables (OOO likes to screw with us) it's rather hard to tell, but it seems to be roughly the same numbers with bombs (linearly). Since guns are what I was comparing this against I can see how I could have gotten confuzzed. Though I've got no clue why they would make the bonuses linear, it seems kinda random to make faster weapons have higher bonuses.

Search

Misleading Flourish damage typing