# Talk:Damage

## Contents

## Problem with damage formula[edit source]

I have an Unreal Phoenix Blaster with Crimson Armor which shows 27 damage while with the formula yields 28 damage, something is obviously wrong here. The formula : 23*(15/100+1)*(1+(2+2+2)/100) =23*1.15*1.06 =26.45*1.06 =28.037 which rounds to 28. The 23 base damage, 15 percent modifier and 6 percent damage should all be right by the code, there must be something wrong with the formula or a bug in the code itself. 101.165.197.162 09:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

## Damage Calculation Section is Incorrect[edit source]

The calculation listed for damage is incorrect. The correct calculation appears to be:

Step 1: Apply weapon modifier Step 2: Round to the nearest integer Step 3: Apply all other mods, added up Step 4: Round to the nearest integer

Example (using stated formula): 14% damage from Beetle Armor (attack version), 17% from Ruthless Vampire Knives, no beetles active, 20% from Menacing accessories, 37% from accessory effects.

29 base damage * 1.17 * 1.57 * 1.14 = 60.73 damage, rounds to 61

I have this setup active and the in-game tooltip for V Knives shows 58 damage

Using the default modifier for Ruthless (18% damage instead of 17%) would yield 61.25 damage and still round to 61

Example (using my formula): Ruthless = 18% damage

29 * 1.18 = 34.22 (17% is closer so that is what is displayed)

round to 34

34 * 1.71 = 58.14, rounds to 58 (exactly what the game displays)

The currently-stated formula has two errors: It misses the rounding after the weapon mod is first and singly applied, and it allows multiplicative effects between armor and accessories (which do not exist)

It also has a third error, which is that it leaves no room in the equation for buffs like Well Fed and Tipsy, which are neither armor-based nor from accessories.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.43.205 (talk) at 04:46, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

**.. this calculation above is still incorrect**- Lets look at other Example:

- 1.)Mythical Razorblade Typhoon (60+15%), Spectre Mask Armor (+20%):

- 60 * 1.15 * 1.2 = 69*1.2 = 82.8

- In game it has 82 damage, 60+1.15=69 (no rounding here, to get independent from). I think there will be no rounding at the end. It only takes/shows the first part of the number.

- 2.)Godly Bubble Gun (70+14%), Spectre Mask Armor (+20%), Menacing Avenger Emblem (12% and 4%), Menacing Sorcerer Emblem (15% and 4%), Menacing Celestial (15% and 4%):

- 70 * 1.14 * (1+0.2+0.16+0.19+0.19)=70 * 1.14 * (1.64)=138.852

- In game it has 139 damage but there were no rounding at the Typhoon (1.)). So I also think weapon get rounded first.

- round(70 * 1.14) * (1.74) = round(79.8) * 1.74 = 80 * 1.74 = 139.2

- 139 fits!

- Conclusion:

- round(weapon base damage * weapon modifier) * (1+sum of armor+sum of accessories + sum accessories bonuses) = result

- round_down(result) = damage in game

- Also tested with well fed, Clairvoyance and Magic Power. These were also added in the multiplier, so it is (1+sum of armor+sum of accessories + sum accessories bonuses + sum of bonuses from potions, food, furniture, .. ) . Tested some other examples, could not find any errors anymore but can't say it is for 100% true but nearly. So in short:

**round_down(***round(weapon base damage * (1 + modifier)) * (1 + sum of bonuses)*) = damage shown in game

- Example:

- Ruthless Rainbow Rod (72 base+ 18%), Spectre Mask Armor (+20%), Celestial Emblem (15%), Avenger Emblem (12%), Sorcerer Emblem (15%), Destroyer Emblem (10%), Celestial Stone (10%), all Menacing (5*4%), Well Fed (5%), Clairvoyance (5%), Magic Power (20%)

- round_down( round(72 * (1+0.18)) * (1+0.2+0.15+0.12+0.15+0.1+0.1+5*0.04+0.05+0.05+0.2) ) = round_down( round(84.96)*(2.32)) = round_down( 197.2) = 197

- (only Equipment, without potion, fed and clair: round_down( round(84.96)*(2.02)) = round_down( 171.7) = 171) -DyingElk (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

- Recheck your calulations. your calculation in the vampire knive has 1.57 in it when it should be 1.37 that you stated above. similar mistakes are in the other calculation -Michelangelo42 (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

- OK. i see what you did. you added the 37% for damage effects with the 20% from the menacing. this messes up your calculations. for example 1.40*100=140 but 1.20*1.20*100=144. also what were the assesories for the sets? i would like to hep you out and prefrm some tests. please put the list on my user page thank you. (talk) 16:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

- sratch what i said up top. please give me a list of the items and accessories and there prefixes either below this comment or put them on my user page User:Michelangelo in the comment section. Michelangelo42 (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

**tested again to get better examples**

1.)Godly Flairon (+15% damage) without anything else:

66*1.15=75.9

76 shown in game -> some rounding is going on

2.)wearing Beetle Armor (Scale Mail, added together +14%)

75.9*1.14=86.526

76*1.14=86.64

86 shown in game -> the rounding only appears after applying weapon modifier

3.)I tested the outgoing damage with Beetle Shell (added together +11%) and Destroyer Emblem (+10%) on a Mimic with 30 defense

round(66*1.15)*(1+0.11+0.10) = (76)*(1.21) = 91.96 (91 shown in game)

During some testing I observed +-15% damage distribution (probably uniform)

So the minimal damage to Mimic would be:

91.96*0.85-15 = 63.166 without rounding or

91.00*0.85-15 = 62.35 with rounding down

I observed a damage of 62 -> so there is a rounding down at the end (the damage of a weapon is equal to the shown number in game)

The damage itself is also rounded but at least one.

I will change the wiki page soon. DyingElk (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

- Update: +-15% only true for Flairon!! Some values for other weapons would be good. DyingElk (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

## Summon damage[edit source]

in this text, it is said that minion can crit. whereas in the different summoning summoning items, it is said that they just cannot. is it different depen,ding on the type of minion? are there some that just can? when i look at damage values from mine, its just unrelaible, buit doesnt seem to extend all the way to the double. plus this should be even more obvious given how armor work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.69.241.244 (talk) at 00:15, 11 July 2014 UTC

- I brought this question here. Apparently the latter is correct; minions can
__not__crit. This also matches how Well Fed provides crit to ranged, melee and magic damage, but not to minion damage. NoseOfCthulhu (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

## Additional Calculations[edit source]

I have found this page very useful and would appreciate it if it were to be further expanded to include a formula to calculate DPS which includes every single factor including buffs, ammo damage, critical hits and whatever else. To do this I suggest DPS=60/UseTime*((1-CritChance)*(Attack-Defense/2)+CritChance*(2*Attack-Defense/2)) However the resulting Damage can never be less than one and the damage reduction from defense is always rounded up. Since the probability of getting a crit and not getting a crit always sums to 1, the damage for each can be multiplied the probability of it happening. The Excell version of the calculation is DPS=IF(UseTime=0,0,60/UseTime)*((1-CritChance)*MAX(Attack-ROUNDUP(Defense/2),1)+CritChance*MAX(2*Attack-ROUNDUP(Defense/2),1)) But this still has to be made to include stuff like poison, multiple shots per use, secondary attacks and the entire use time calculation which is not yet on the wiki. Note I can keep the probabilities from multiplying by the use time each as: AX - AY = A(X - Y) 101.165.70.177 09:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

## Emblems missing from summon buffs[edit source]

Summoner buff chart does not include the summoner emblem but it does include the avenger and destroyer emblems, let's fix that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.87.157.15 (talk) at 02:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

## critical hit chance % increase vs. damage % increase[edit source]

By doing simple maths and agains targets with no defense, both damage % increase and critical hit chance%, increase the average damage output by the same ammount But agains targets with defense (pretty much all enemies), a critical hit chance gives lower average damage output. Shouldn't this be noted in the main article?--EstebanLB (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

## Question about ranged dmg[edit source]

What does (1+Arrow/Bullet/Rocket) in step 3 mean? In numbers? Ter56585 (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

It means the special type of damage is mutiplied with other ranged damage, for example, you have a bow with 50 damage (no prefix), with Ranger's Emblem, Wrath Potion, Shroomite Headgear, Magic Quiver and Archery Potion. Then, first you caculate the damage increasing: 50*(1+15%+10%)=62.5, round down, 62. Next, the arrow damage: 62*(1+15%+10%)=77.5, round down, 77. Finally, that archery potion's boost: 77*1.2=92.4, round down, 92. You'll have 92 final damage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.203.135 (talk) at 04:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

## Piercing damage?[edit source]

I see occasional references throughout the wiki to piercing damage having special behavior, apparently conferring invulnerability frames. It would be great if someone who properly understands what's going on there could explain it. That would also be a good context for a table of piercing weapons and their relevant characteristics (number of pierces/ricochets, range, damage). --MentalMouse42 (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

- Any weapon/projectile that has the capability to damage an enemy and keep going afterwards is considered to have "piercing" damage. The only thing that separates piercing and normal damage is that, when struck by a piercing blow, enemies will briefly become immune to all other piercing blows (in order to stop them from getting hit by the same thing multiple times). This tends to limit the effectiveness of multi-shot piercing weapons, like the Poison Staff, as only one of the many shots will connect before the enemy gains temporary immunity. If applicable, a weapon's piercing properties are usually listed on the page, but the info could definitely be made a bit more accessible. – KM100
^{(talk)}02:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)