[Pre-BB] MapleStory Formula Compilation

Yeah, I hadn't used my BM much in the past 5 months, but I realized yesterday that I was doing well over 3k damage with PKB, even though my max damage is in the 2600s (lol half-stripped). The PKB formula can't be right.

I was more talking about the KB rates than the damage, but both seem to be lacking on the first post.

Yeah, I hadn't used my BM much in the past 5 months, but I realized yesterday that I was doing well over 3k damage with PKB, even though my max damage is in the 2600s (lol half-stripped). The PKB formula can't be right.

I'm fairly sure this is what it is:

(DEX * 3.4 [* 0.1 * 0.9] + STR) * Weapon Attack / 150

Updated with that and sin punching. Any confirmation on SSKick/Blank/Grenade? Fiel still says it's just normal damage without bullets, but it doesn't seem so...

I'm fairly sure this is what it is:

(DEX * 3.4 [* 0.1 * 0.9] + STR) * Weapon Attack / 150

Updated with that and sin punching. Any confirmation on SSKick/Blank/Grenade? Fiel still says it's just normal damage without bullets, but it doesn't seem so...

There is no way it's just normal damage without Bullets. My Blank Shot should hit well over 2k if that was the case. I don't think I've ever seen it hit 1.5 even.

Is it possible that it's 2/3 of that? That would follow the /150 trend.

Is it possible that it's 2/3 of that? That would follow the /150 trend.

Possibly. I'll test it in an hour or so.

I don't think the data will show that it can go either way. Your Base Damage removed(using your Formula) will usually be bigger than the amount that would be added to a Mob's Def(if using my formula). So using your formula assuming you have a Base Max of 20,000 and the difference in Lv's equals 10%, then losing 2,000 Damage on top of a mob's Def is still a bigger reduction, then lets say using my formula and Anego getting +300(10% of 3,000) to her W.def before you divided her W.def in Half(* 0.5). I think the Lv bonus a Mob gets isn't supposed to make it impossible to deal a decent amount of damage, but to remove a tiny bit more damage than normal until your the same Lv or greater. Using the formula you've constructed I've always seen that it removes too much from damage, and that's when I thought that it boosts Mob Def instead. So if you were to try my formula on Anego with 3,000 W.def and see what you get, I think, aside from a Def boost spell it should give a more accurate range.

Sorry, skimmed over your original formula.

I don't know about magic, but your formula doesn't work for melee classes.

Taking some of my old testing data it seems your formula may not work (unless I'm missing something).

Your formula
Min: Base - ((mLevel - pLevel)/100+1)*mW.def*0.6
Max: Base - ((mLevel-pLevel)/100+1)*mW.def*0.5

Current formula (me+Stereo)
Min: Base(1-(mlevel - pLevel)/100) - mW.def*0.6
Max: Base(1-(mlevel - pLevel)/100) - mW.def*0.5

Data: (me at 87 vs a newt)
MLevel = 105
pLevel = 87
mW.def = 750
min = 1099
max = 1952

Observed Damage
This was one of my largest sample sizes for all of my damage tests.
456-1218

Your formula:
1099 - ((105-87)/100+1)*750*.6 = 568
1952 - ((105-87)/100+1)*750*.5 = 1509.5

Current formula:
1099*(1-(105-87)/100) - 750*.6 = 451.2
1952*(1-(105-87)/100) - 750*.5 = 1225.6

568~1510 - yours
451~1225 - current
456~1218 - observed

Unless I'm doing something wrong your current formula seems to be off.

However, I do like the idea of giving more def to the monster instead of lowering our attack. I also like your reasoning with Anego, but literally that is the ONE exception in the current formula. Every other boss and monster fits snuggly in the range provided.

As for magic wdef reduction, i'm not so sure.

I've only tryed it with magic classes so far... but I do have a 'Very' low level warrior that I will test it on. I guess I over rated the thought that one formula would fit all (like in most games) since it works perfectly for magic. I'll hack down a few mobs and either apologize for my overzelousnes, or once again try to promote my formula (I'd take a guess that the odds are favoring the former and not the Later).

I'm sure there can be two fomulas, perhaps you could post your raw data here and we can all take a crack at it?

When I was figuring out what ended up being the M.def formula I posted, I didn't do it like you all. I took your formula and changes you made and used it, saw it wasn't equaling the visual data, then from observations I reordered the formula until the visual data was within the hypothesized ranges. Aside from the formula, the reordered versions, and the tested ranges, there is no written data, but when it comes the formula when used with magic damage, and mob M.def the ranges are right.

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.

*does the necro post rain dance*

It's a sticky, so I think it's okay in this case.

Anyway, I was revising my damage calculator a bit and I became interested in the nature of the damage reduction formula. I don't think the one you have adequately describes the process that the game goes through. It may work for lower test values, but it doesn't work for all values.

Using *ahem* slightly dubious methods, I've determined that 1%/level worth of difference is absolutely correct - at 0 wdef. However, at extremely high levels of wdef, this is not the case.

I attacked a level 200 monster with a level 145 Night Lord. I set its evasion to 0 so accuracy would not be allowed to play a part of this.

The raw damage range I'm using for testing (I can give more specific stats if need be, but I don't see them as relevant to this issue at the moment) is 12622~25244 with critical Triple Throw hits.

At 0 wdef, the maximum observed critical over a few minutes of sampling constantly was roughly 11400, which is almost exactly 45% of 25244. At level 100, I did nothing but 1s. At level 101, I saw quite a few crits of 251, but no more. That's .99% or essentially 1% of 25244. This is why I believe the formula is correct in this respect.

However, when I upped the mob to 9000 wdef, the maximum critical I observed was 8678. The original formula projected 1~1, which is obviously wrong. The formula that Stereo/Technolink created projected 279~6859.

Max crits of 1 occur at level 110. Even at 111, it's very rare and the damage is very low, but damage can occur in excess of 1. The Stereo/Technolink formula projects this to occur 100% at 117.

The formula projects 2679~8859 for 5000 wdef. I witnessed 2735~8817. I spent almost 30 minutes throwing for this test. So it's pretty close. However, it projected 1~1 for normal hits and I observed a hit of 114 at level 111. I'd say it's still a bit off at this level.

It projects 1~1 regular damage and 1~514 for crit damage for a level 106 against 2000 wdef. I did not see anything other than 1 in 15 minutes of throwing. Crit or normal. Tester's note: Most boring 15 minutes of my life, hands down.

It looks like there's a more complicated relationship between wdef and level difference than we currently account for. I don't know if the formula changes at certain points, such as 2000 wdef, 5000 wdef, and 7000 wdef (arbitrary examples, but you get the idea), or if the formula is incomplete.

Given that there's still a big question mark on Anego, neither would particularly surprise me at the moment. If you have any numbers that would make the relationship clearer to you, let me know. And before you ask, no, I didn't save this post for months while adding to it.

Monster wdef is not something I studied much cause it is a pain without certain private server functions.

The 1% is most useful on bosses or high def mobs in terms of estimating how much damage you can gain by leveling up.


Did you try 2000 def @ 145? Russt indicated that monster wdef may be capped somehow, resulting in invalid results for other ranges.

Also (well it won't work for a hermit) it's generally easier to test this kind of thing with steady damage output, ex. 1000 dex 1000 atk warrior, or similar with str for bowman/bandit, as it creates a constant range (in 1000+1000 case, 10000~10000). When I did observations it seemed to just be subtracting the percentage first, then applying the def as normal (0.5-0.6*def)

LazyBui, someone (I forget who) suggested that the maximum allowed defense is 2000. That would explain why Anego calculates at 2000 and why our new boss with 8000 defense doesn't reduce our damage to 4-digit numbers. To (somewhat) test this, I went to Bodyguard A, who has 3600 defense, and I saw no difference in my damage than I see with Anego. Whenever Bodyguard B is fixed, I can test my damage on Grandpa to be sure. Anyway, the point of this paragraph is that you probably shouldn't test damage with monsters that have more than 2k defense.

Next, crits. I'm positive that the crit +% multiplier is applied after defense, not before. In fact, I think we concluded that defense is applied to your base range before any % modifiers are done. So if you can only hit 1's with non-crits, then there's no way you can hit any higher than 1 with crits.

Lastly, why did you test with a Nightlord? Are you trying to make this hard on yourself? They have the most unstable range in the game. You should use a Bowmaster or a Marksman for the 90% Mastery. Also, since all % multipliers are applied after defense, it would probably save you some time to just not add any points to crit and not cast SE, so you don't have to deal with crits and can just compare your visible damage to the damage range on your stat screen, since Strafe is at 100% per arrow.

The only reason I picked crits is because I find it easier to pick out high and low numbers from the mass. It's very difficult for me to process more than one thing at a time mentally, I have to go in a sequential, logical order and using crits as a basis reduces the amount of collision, so to speak. I can simply ignore yellow numbers and focus solely on the pink ones. They're larger too, for that matter.

I also wuv Night Lords.

I didn't try 2000 wdef at 145. This type of testing isn't entirely fun and I'd already done it for well over 60 minutes by that point. Also, I figured that impurities would be easier to find at the lower end of the spectrum.

EDIT: The 2000 wdef cap also sounds plausible. Perhaps 1999, because that's the client limitation for the player as well. If that's the case, it should be added to the opening post.

LazyBui, someone (I forget who) suggested that the maximum allowed defense is 2000. That would explain why Anego calculates at 2000 and why our new boss with 8000 defense doesn't reduce our damage to 4-digit numbers. To (somewhat) test this, I went to Bodyguard A, who has 3600 defense, and I saw no difference in my damage than I see with Anego. Whenever Bodyguard B is fixed, I can test my damage on Grandpa to be sure. Anyway, the point of this paragraph is that you probably shouldn't test damage with monsters that have more than 2k defense.

Next, crits. I'm positive that the crit +% multiplier is applied after defense, not before. In fact, I think we concluded that defense is applied to your base range before any % modifiers are done. So if you can only hit 1's with non-crits, then there's no way you can hit any higher than 1 with crits.

Lastly, why did you test with a Nightlord? Are you trying to make this hard on yourself? They have the most unstable range in the game. You should use a Bowmaster or a Marksman for the 90% Mastery. Also, since all % multipliers are applied after defense, it would probably save you some time to just not add any points to crit and not cast SE, so you don't have to deal with crits and can just compare your visible damage to the damage range on your stat screen, since Strafe is at 100% per arrow.

He tested a Night Lord because he has a Night Lord, not a Bow Master.

We've always known that defense is applied to base range before skill modifiers.

Next, crits. I'm positive that the crit +% multiplier is applied after defense, not before. In fact, I think we concluded that defense is applied to your base range before any % modifiers are done. So if you can only hit 1's with non-crits, then there's no way you can hit any higher than 1 with crits.

I never really thought about that, I guess it makes sense to be after (since it appears to be added to the skill%, which is definitely after defense) I figured out the 1% thing using normal hits.


Meaning L7 would have 250% of 0.5-.6*def when it crits. Or 1.25-1.5 x def. If that assumes 2000 is a cap, and 11400 is defenseless, that would be 2500-3000 or 8400-8900 (but increasingly unlikely as it requires both max base and min defense reduced) which fits both 9000 and 5000 wdef observations.

Yeah, Hermit is not the easiest class to test this on.

He tested a Night Lord because he has a Night Lord, not a Bow Master.

If you paid attention to his post, he clearly has control over a lot of things, and that suggests that he was doing this on his own private server where he could make whatever class he wants at whatever level he wants. He even said "set defense to 0" and "level 200 monster", both of which can't be done (or hit, in the case of 200 monsters) in a normal server.

I didn't even know that our own def was capped at 1999, but if it is that would definitely fix the Anego discrepancies that the Stero-Technolink hypothesis predicts (@bui, hyphen for multi-person theories, not slashes xD =P). I'm interested in that cap, as it doesn't seem as technical as the others. The meso cap is a 32 bit signed integer (did they expect us to have negative mesos O_o?), the watk/stat cap on an item is a byte, and the rest are all digit related.

Also, the easiest way to test would be a bowmaster with no points in crits (you could strafe or hurricane, or even add SP to strafe (is that possible? on a PS?)).

Unless you can edit mastery values, which I don't think you can.

You can edit mastery values through the wz files. It seems to be a bit of a pain to adjust frequently between trials, though.

@Bui/Kaida - 1999, 2000, same thing. 1 defense is half a point of damage, undetectable by this kind of manual testing. I thought it might be 1999, actually; just that Anego's defense was cited to act like 2000, so that's where that came from.

Level 200 monsters aren't inherently unhittable. All the ones we have are tagged invincible and have 999 avoid.