Combat formula seems to be straight up broken

[Rebs]

The intention behind this change is to reduce the reliance on stats in combat significantly, while still maintaing a decent incentive to increase stats.

Seems to be working as intended.

I just realised I might need to draw it for you too, sorry.

Let's keep it civil..

[bmjclark]

IIRC there is a steeper curve after 2x stat difference. Its just the new, steeper curve won't cross the old curve until like 16x stats or something really high. I dont think its actually broken.

That being said, someone with 9000 UA hits someone with 900 UA significantly harder than someone with 900 UA hits them and I'm pretty sure UA in general does a lot more to increase how much you open on the target than it does to decrease how much they open on you

[xzo]

glad someone have done a proper research, it felt that way in pvp that people with 300 stats were making very similar openings to people at 1k stats, while I was around 900-1k

please fix for w13 as this is making stat-gains literally POINTLESS

[MagicManICT]

@Nightdawg: maybe plotting out where you think it should be on an actual graph might be more helpful? I try to stay out of this "works fine" vs "needs fixed" for pvp as I just can't get into that part of the game. I worked it out earlier in the world, and the values for increasing stats and deck adjustments really aren't what they appear to be.

My man, you do realise 90 vs 990(1000) is the same as 900 vs 9900, right?

No, it isn't, because of the exponential factor in there.

[HasseKebab]

My man, you do realise 90 vs 990(1000) is the same as 900 vs 9900, right?

No, it isn't, because of the exponential factor in there.

No its literally the same when it comes to combat maths

[Nightdawg]

My man, you do realise 90 vs 990(1000) is the same as 900 vs 9900, right?

No, it isn't, because of the exponential factor in there.

Dude you're a mod, go in valhalla and test it, you think I'm just talking shit out of my ass without actually testing it?

[Nightdawg]

IIRC there is a steeper curve after 2x stat difference. Its just the new, steeper curve won't cross the old curve until like 16x stats or something really high. I dont think its actually broken.

That being said, someone with 9000 UA hits someone with 900 UA significantly harder than someone with 900 UA hits them and I'm pretty sure UA in general does a lot more to increase how much you open on the target than it does to decrease how much they open on you

Yeah, it doesn't work properly the other way around either, it uses the old formula just as you said.

5/5 KITO with 9906 UA vs 925 UA Chin Up opens just 40 red (like the old formula), when it should open 50 red.

Something somewhere got broken really bad.

[bmjclark]

IIRC there is a steeper curve after 2x stat difference. Its just the new, steeper curve won't cross the old curve until like 16x stats or something really high. I dont think its actually broken.

That being said, someone with 9000 UA hits someone with 900 UA significantly harder than someone with 900 UA hits them and I'm pretty sure UA in general does a lot more to increase how much you open on the target than it does to decrease how much they open on you

Yeah, it doesn't work properly the other way around either, it uses the old formula just as you said.

5/5 KITO with 9906 UA vs 925 UA Chin Up opens just 40 red (like the old formula), when it should open 50 red.

Something somewhere got broken really bad.

No, the new formula only starts showing more extreme results when compared to the old formula for outstating the person beyond 16x (iirc, it was a long time ago). Just because the curve increases more dramatically doesn't mean that it passes the old one quickly

Essentially because 900 is only 10x 90, someone with 900 UA would hit someone with 90 UA for less than they would have before this change. Heres a beautiful MS paint graph to kind of illustrate what I'm saying, with yellow being the new curve and red being the old



EDIT: just to note, I'm not really saying the current way it works beyond 2x their stats is good or bad, just that its not actually bugged

[Nightdawg]

No, the new formula only starts showing more extreme results for outstating the person beyond 16x (iirc, it was a long time ago). Just because the curve increases more dramatically doesn't mean that it passes the old one quickly

Essentially because 900 is only 10x 90, someone with 900 UA would hit someone with 90 UA for less than they would have before this change. Heres a beautiful MS paint graph to kind of illustrate what I'm saying, with yellow being the new curve and red being the old



EDIT: just to note, I'm not really saying the current way it works beyond 2x their stats is good or bad, just that its not actually bugged

Yes, I'm not saying you're calling it good or bad, I'm strictly talking about the formula, but the thing is:

The gains from Melee and Unarmed combat beyond the factor 2 range increase more steeply than before to compensate somewhat, using a cube root instead of a fourth root as was historically the case.

So this is literally what that quote says:


But it's not like that, it's broken.

So the graph is supposed to be like this:

But it's not, it's just like you posted it, which is clearly not intended.

[Mashadar]

If the delta was used directly, then there would be a sharp difference between two combatants with a delta of 2 and combatants with a delta of 2.01. To prevent that, the actual formula might be something like (delta/2)^(1/3)*20 to provide a smooth transition.

No idea what happens in the reverse case of delta<0.5. The formula might get accidentally applied twice, resulting in a ninth square root or something like that.