2008-11-28, 06:36 PM
Just some basic testing, not rigorous ranges.
In all cases, int = 0, BA = 50. Attacking Snails because with 0 int 4 luk, can't hit anything else.
20 matk: 32
40 matk: 68
80 matk: 142
120 matk: 220 (unconfirmed 221)
160 matk: 304
200 matk: 396
250 matk: 514 (not great data)
300 matk: 646
350 matk: 780
400 matk: 928
450 matk: 1081
500 matk: 1248
600 matk: 1594
700 matk: 1972
800 matk: 2396
900 matk: 2841
1000 matk: 3327
1100 matk: 3850
Quadratic fit gives this:
max = 0.0016824938matk^2 + 1.6475789117matk - 1.2331455842
I'll assume the 1.23 at the end is me failing to max out all damage points. Can't say what the significance of the other numbers would be, though. It's pretty sensitive to both.
It is odd but that 1.64 is very slightly more than e^0.5. The 0.00168 is about 1/980 of that.
In all cases, int = 0, BA = 50. Attacking Snails because with 0 int 4 luk, can't hit anything else.
20 matk: 32
40 matk: 68
80 matk: 142
120 matk: 220 (unconfirmed 221)
160 matk: 304
200 matk: 396
250 matk: 514 (not great data)
300 matk: 646
350 matk: 780
400 matk: 928
450 matk: 1081
500 matk: 1248
600 matk: 1594
700 matk: 1972
800 matk: 2396
900 matk: 2841
1000 matk: 3327
1100 matk: 3850
Quadratic fit gives this:
max = 0.0016824938matk^2 + 1.6475789117matk - 1.2331455842
I'll assume the 1.23 at the end is me failing to max out all damage points. Can't say what the significance of the other numbers would be, though. It's pretty sensitive to both.
It is odd but that 1.64 is very slightly more than e^0.5. The 0.00168 is about 1/980 of that.