Thread: Strange calculations of the damage

1. Strange calculations of the damage

Hi!

Part 1 - the Unstopable charge and the Mounted Marksman

Please look at this picture: You can see, that the damage is reduced by 15 due to the effect of the debuff "Slippery Ice"(-15%).
And we have the maximum damage equal to 85.
OK. Next step.

Let's take the "Unstopable charge" on 3.
We should take maximum damage equal to 88. Yes?

No. For some reason we get 87. Only +2, not +3. Why?

But if we look on the Knights with the same situation, we can see, that we get +3.  In this case, there is no rounding and it is not clear why this happens. Most likely a bug. Please correct.

Part 2 - the combination of the buffs and debuffs.

Debuff "Slippery Ice"(-15%) + buff "Specialized weapon" (+5%).
If we are talking about the Mounted Marksman, then we should get 100*(1-0.15+0.05)=100*0.9=90 damage.
Yes, we get 90. Next step.
Debuff "Slippery Ice"(-15%) + buff "Specialized weapon" (+5%) + buff "Weather: Hurricane" (+20%).
If we are talking about the Mounted Marksman, then we should get 100*(1-0.15+0.05+0.2)=100*1.1=110 damage.
But we get 107. Why?

Next step. With Boris + "Unstopable charge".
Debuff "Slippery Ice"(-15%) + buff "Specialized weapon" (+5%) + buff "Weather: Hurricane" (+20%) + abilitie "Astute strategist" (+50%).
If we are talking about the Mounted Marksman, then we should get 100*(1-0.15+0.05+0.2+0.5)+3=100*1.6+3=163 damage.
But we get 152. Why?

Error correction and understanding of the mechanics of calculating damage is very important for those who create various calculators.  Reply With Quote

2.  Reply With Quote

3. Originally Posted by Helmchen_ Thank you. But the questions raised in the threads, though similar, but are not identical. Especially 'part 1'.  Reply With Quote

4. Originally Posted by Adalon Thank you. But the questions raised in the threads, though similar, but are not identical. Especially 'part 1'.
As the author of the battle simulator https://en.tsomaps.com/adv-calc/, I join the author's questions. The topic at the link above is very interesting, but there is no final answer.  Reply With Quote

5. Originally Posted by Adalon Thank you. But the questions raised in the threads, though similar, but are not identical. Especially 'part 1'.
It is adding the charge bonus before subtracting the debuff and then rounding down, that's why.

MM: (100+3) - .15(103) = 103 - 15.45 = 87.55 or 87

K: (70+3) - .15(73) = 73 - 10.95 = 62.05 or 62  Reply With Quote

6. Originally Posted by lumpy It is adding the charge bonus before subtracting the debuff and then rounding down, that's why.

MM: (100+3) - .15(103) = 103 - 15.45 = 87.55 or 87

K: (70+3) - .15(73) = 73 - 10.95 = 62.05 or 62
This is contrary to the mechanics described by the developers.
https://forum.thesettlersonline.net/...Halloween-2018

"How it was described:

(120 + 10) * (1 + 0.1 + 0.1) = 156

How it works now:

120 + 10 + (120 * (0.1 + 0.1)) = 154"

"First, the relative bonuses are applied to the base value, and then the absolute bonuses are applied"

So, you are wrong.

P.S.

Any comments from BB?  Reply With Quote

7. Originally Posted by Adalon So, you are wrong.

P.S.

Any comments from BB?
1. Well, obviously that isn't how it is working or the numbers would be different, wouldn't they?

2. I don't recall saying that what I described is what should be happening, only that it clearly IS what is happening.

3. Stow the attitude. Obviously you have no clue what is going on at all, because if you did, you wouldn't be here making a topic about this, would you??  Reply With Quote

8. Originally Posted by Adalon This is contrary to the mechanics described by the developers.
https://forum.thesettlersonline.net/...Halloween-2018

"How it was described:

(120 + 10) * (1 + 0.1 + 0.1) = 156

How it works now:

120 + 10 + (120 * (0.1 + 0.1)) = 154"

"First, the relative bonuses are applied to the base value, and then the absolute bonuses are applied"

So, you are wrong.

P.S.

Any comments from BB?
Hi everybody.

If "First, the relative bonuses are applied to the base value, and then the absolute bonuses are applied"
is really the good description then everything is fine :
Base value = 120
Apply the relative bonuses +10% and +10% : 120 + 10 % of 120 + 10 % of 120 = 120*1.2 =144
Finally, apply the absolute bonus 10 : 144 + 10 = 154

There are a lot of bugs but here is a great exception -- this is working like it should.   Reply With Quote

9. Originally Posted by OngDongTre Hi everybody.

If "First, the relative bonuses are applied to the base value, and then the absolute bonuses are applied"
is really the good description then everything is fine :
Base value = 120
Apply the relative bonuses +10% and +10% : 120 + 10 % of 120 + 10 % of 120 = 120*1.2 =144
Finally, apply the absolute bonus 10 : 144 + 10 = 154

There are a lot of bugs but here is a great exception -- this is working like it should. You are right. Buffs are calculated as described. But not DeBuffs. Read BBAlex' post in the thread, Helmchen has linked in #2.  Reply With Quote