| Author | Liz assailant ability fail. |
|---|
Liz assailants, when charging, decreases the target defense 20% per step.
However in the battle:
https://www.lordswm.com/warlog.php?warid=778779698
My Liz didin't charge sucessfully at the Pirate of Chuchus, dealing only 274 damage and killing itself in retaliation.
I wonder why.
I checked the Pirate's ability finding nothing indicating immunity to defense reduction, i.e. "Fullmetal". |
My Liz has 67 attack and the pirate 71 defense.
As for the damage formula.
After charging 2 steps the pirate's defense should be lowered to 43.
(8~15) * (1 + 5% x (67-43)) * 28 = 492 ~ 924.
I have +10% physical damage(Offense talent) and +8% water damage(Artifact), while it has -12% melee resistance, -15% physical resistance from "Pirate" ability and -50% water resistance from "Water shield" ability.
Final damage should be
(492 ~ 924) * (1+10%) * (1-12%) * (1-15%) + (492 ~ 924) * 8% * (1-50%) = 424 ~ 797.
There is no clue how the damage can turn out to be 274. |
I think you were unlucky, but I do not think anything wrong has happened, however a think a few things may not have been factored into your thinking quite as much as this example would show they can.
1. Liz did not move far ( I think only one diagonal square - I am assuming this to be only a 20% reduction in def, though coul dbe 30% if you take it to be a move of 1.5 (working the exact numbers could confirm I guess.)
Therefore the effective defence was 71 *0.8 = 57
If we assume it was the Liz's min damage range which with battle fury is 8 and that he has no faction resistance (would seem fair since we cannot have faction resistance for them) then the damage formula comes out as
28*8*(1+0.05(67-57)
= 336
However pirates in naval battles get a 15% reduction to physical damage, while he has a 12% and 9% melee reduction into the bargain from arts ( I presume, at any rate it is in his profile). These will have a greater effect than the extra 10% melee damage from basic offence. However, I am not 100% sure how to process the extra percentage2 (whether additive or multiplative)
If the latter I believe it comes out as
336 *(1.1*0.88*0.91*0.85)
= 251
Which is again not far off the real figure (if you did the same with a min damage of 9 you get a final value of 283 which is even closer.
This highlights just how much of a difference the charge is and how vital it is for a decent strike on a high tier creature. The same min damage with a full move of 5 (i know not possible for you in that position) would give a raw damage of 974 before defence or offence bonuses. Either way you managed to hit the wrong combo f short distance and min damage = liz fail as you say! |
Ah I missed a few things (and your entire second post as was writing mine so some dupicatation).
My gut instinct is if you take the 251 and add the 8% water damage you get
336*(1.1*0.88*0.91*0.85*1.08) which is 272 - close enough for me that with some rounding errors (I didn;t use the decimal value of difference between attack and defence after defence reduction) it seems to be about right. |
| I apologise it was 2 squares one forward one diagonal, back to the drawing board. LEts rework some calculations. |
for Lord MilesTeg:
Please check the log again. My liz walked 1 step forward and 1 step diagonally.
This should be considered 2.5 steps (-50% defense).
I counted it as 2 steps but the damage is still wrong. |
| The only thing I can think of therefore is that they must have some faction resistance...... Seems rather unfair and stealth damage reduction. Anyone got a battle link against some pirates with I dunno, something like angels with the same min and max damage so we can check it and work it out. Seems rather cheeky if it is a faction resistance thing. OTher than that I would agree with swiftgirl, you cannot make the numbers work ad get a small enough number without it. |
| No. Faction resistance can't apply here. Otherwise my other creatures' damage would all be wrong. |
I didn;t think it should, but know ones conclusions are only as good as your assumptions, therefore wanted to double chec that assumption in light of no other explanation. And as expected it is not there.
In that case I am stumped! |
| Bug. |
The pirate has Living armor ability.
Living Armor
Creatures immune to any deleterious effects on the reduction of physical and magical protection. Besides protecting 80% of magical spells fist.
Maybe this is the explanation?
I opened the combat through both sites (.com and .ru) and found that the pirate has 1 extra ability visible in the .ru combat version. |
found that the pirate has 1 extra ability visible in the .ru combat version.
Well... Damn, I wonder how many other creatures are like this? |
for PLaY LikE a PRO:
Hmm interesting, that is definitely the cause then. It sucks how creature abilities are not properly translated in .com... like seriously how much time does it take? |
More than the time required for the check and translate process..it's about knowing which particular unit has some ability that is not shown here.
May prove to be a game changer for some battle. |
for PLaY LikE a PRO:
No it's not that serious of a problem. All PvP creatures are well translated and certainly there is no problem with them... only some event creatures have this problem and it's not that hard to translate them. |
