H2H base dmg

[Vilurum]

eh, ~-3acc hit, 7atk, and a mostly worthless attribute isn't what I'd classify as "significant".

Faith Torque: MNK also gets base DMG from that +skill.
Justice Torque: said attribute happens to be STR, which never hurts (esp. factoring in STR-whoring WS'ing SAMs).
Love Torque: said attribute happens to be DEX on the piece with dagger skill (read: THF), which again never hurts.

Though I still think the others (or the above, for other jobs; DRGs aren't as interested in DEX after all) edge out PCC, I'd agree with your assessment that the difference is not huge.

 

[Bajaratt]

Faith Torque: MNK also gets base DMG from that +skill.

No, they don't. With capped hand to hand merits and faith torque, monk has 299 skill, and it is only every 10 skill that they get another base damage increase. Monk gets teased, they're 1 point away from another point of base damage but they don't get it.

 

[Vilurum]

It weakens the argument considerably, but doesn't entirely invalidate it. It's not as good for career MNKs, but it *is* helpful to non-career MNKs who have their combat skill merits tied up elsewhere. With either 0 or 4 H2H merits (rare to see any number other than 0, 4, or 8 in that category), the torque *does* allow them to break a new tier.

Granted, why a Faith Torque would be going to someone who had MNK that far down on their list of things to merit combat skill for, is beyond me. But the DMG increase would nevertheless kick in, in such a situation.

But otherwise, yes, I'll amend my previous assertion - for most MNKs, with a reasonable assumption of 8 H2H merits, the torque doesn't shine for them any more than the other torques (aside from the other two that I already noted) shine for other jobs. In other words, edges out PCC but not *that* hugely.

EDIT: Also, Wiki contradicts your math, and says that base DMG is skill * 0.11 plus 3 (and then you presumably take the floor of that, although it doesn't clearly state it).

http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/Category:Hand-to-Hand

The end results are, however, similar, although in practice it's more like 9 skill per 1 DMG, and occasionally (every 11th tier to be exact) 10 skill. It's true, regardless, that the torque doesn't allow for breaking a new tier even so. My own math, plugging in that formula:

276-281 skill: 33 DMG
282-290 skill: 34 DMG (3 merits, or 0 merits + torque, to reach tier)
291-299 skill: 35 DMG (8 merits, or 4 merits + torque, to reach tier)

The next tiers, theoretically, come at 300, 310, 319, 328...

 

[Skaw]

Also, Wiki contradicts your math, and says that base DMG is skill * 0.11 plus 3 (and then you presumably take the floor of that, although it doesn't clearly state it).

http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/Category:Hand-to-Hand

The end results are, however, similar, although in practice it's more like 9 skill per 1 DMG, and occasionally (every 11th tier to be exact) 10 skill. It's true, regardless, that the torque doesn't allow for breaking a new tier even so. My own math, plugging in that formula:

276-281 skill: 33 DMG
282-290 skill: 34 DMG (3 merits, or 0 merits + torque, to reach tier)
291-299 skill: 35 DMG (8 merits, or 4 merits + torque, to reach tier)

Wiki is wrong, I'm sure people edit it to the correct formula, but then some jackass edits it back like they did when I put in that Khimaira are both Beast and Arcana, due to having intimidated 13 in the mission as Beastmaster without Arcane Circle, Beast Trousers, or Tatami shield.

What you're looking at is two maximum damage Critical Hits on two damage-type neutral mobs(to blunt and slash atleast.) One from Destroyers with 292 skill, the other from a Woodville's Axe.

292 skill under the listed formula with Destroyers would result in 53 damage. That isn't the case. The actual formula is Skill/10 + 3. OR Skill * .1 + 3, whichever tickles your fancy.

 

[Bajaratt]

Exactly, lolwiki.

 

[Vilurum]

Exactly, lolwiki.

Indeed, and it seems your edit to lolwiki got reverted with a comment to look at the numbers on the discussion page for that entry. So how about you take it up with them instead of with us?

 

[Bajaratt]

Which is exactly why wiki is so lol. It's funny how many people treat it like it's the greatest source of information out there.

 

[Vilurum]

EDIT: Adding Wiki page links for where I got these numbers.

Ok then, how about some math:

pDIF cap for crits = 3.0
http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/Level_Correction_Function_and_pDIF

fSTR cap = Weapon Rank +8
http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/STR_-_VIT_Difference_Function

Normal Weapon: Weapon Rank = [DMG / 9]
H2H Weapon: Weapon Rank = [(Weapon's +DMG + 3) / 9]
http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/Weapon_Rank

Woodville's Axe: Weapon Rank = [50 / 9] = 5, fSTR cap = 13
Destroyers: Weapon Rank = [(18 + 3) / 9] = 2, fSTR cap = 10

Base (melee) damage = DMG + fSTR
http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/Base_Damage

Woodville's Axe: 50 + 13 = 63 base damage
Destroyers (0.11 version, 292 skill): 53 + 10 = 63 base damage
Destroyers (0.10 version, 292 skill): 50 + 10 = 60 base damage

Damage = Base damage * pDIF
http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/Calculating_Physical_Damage

Woodville's Axe: 63 * 3 = 189
Destroyers (0.11 version): 63 * 3 = 189
Destroyers (0.10 version): 60 * 3 = 180

Of course, all *these* formulas are from Wiki too, so you can still use your lolwiki argument, but it seems to me that unless H2H Weapon Rank includes H2H base damage, that there's no way the 0.10 formula can result in Skaw's numbers.

Which leaves us with two possibilities:
1. Wiki actually happens to be right.
2. Wiki is wrong *not only* in its H2H base DMG formula, but also in its H2H Weapon Rank formula.

Personally, I'm leaning more towards you being imperfect, though I'd be interested in seeing a statistical test to see whether that 3 base damage comes from a higher DMG or a higher fSTR (which means a higher Weapon Rank).

 

[Bajaratt]

The entire thing is based on an assumption that unarmed hand to hand not having a "weapon rank," which is obviously wrong since there are still caps to fSTR and fSTR2 when you're unarmed. Hand to hand is the most complex combat skill in the game, by far; they're assuming that it works just like normal weapons when it doesn't.

 

[Vilurum]

On the contrary, the cap to fSTR with no weapon rank would simply be 0 + 8.

I'm certainly open to the possibility of alternative formulas (more open, it seems than you are to the validity of these), but I'm also a believer in Occam's (sp) Razor. Therefore, how about you come up with some alternative formulas which still work for that double 189-crit data, and then come up with a testable boundary condition under which there would be different results between your alternative formulas and the existing formulas, and then test that.

Because really, if the existing formulas work for the one sample case I *have* been given in this topic, why should I believe that they don't work and that "something else" (not, I might add, provided for my inspection) is correct instead, unless given an example that disproves the existing stuff?

I frankly find it a much more likely possibility that you could simply be wrong and not want to admit it. Let's face it, you're a knowledgeable and somewhat arrogant poster, and well geared, and the job's at 75 and you consider yourself knowledgeable about its mechanics and melee mechanics. And you're arguing with someone with no 75 melees, so it would naturally not be very good for the ego to lose the argument.

I won't discount the possibility that you could be right, and I'd like to think you're not quite so full of yourself that you're already discounting the possibility that you could be wrong. But I hope you don't mind my asking you to actually *prove* that you're right. You don't have to get statistics yourself if you happen to have a link to someone else's test for me to pore over.

 

[Skaw]

2. Wiki is wrong *not only* in its H2H base DMG formula, but also in its H2H Weapon Rank formula.

Welcome to the world of player assumed formulae. They are in no way the actual calculations used by the games, but shrewdly created, reversed engineered processes based almost entirely on observations. They are in no way gospel.

Also, do you even realize what level those mobs were? fSTR had hit the cieling long ago. Both are 50 weapon damage.

I'll get two other screenshots. BST/MNK with 8 merits is a nice, clean 130 skill. Surely, it should match a 16 Damage weapon. Just have to find one first.


Barehand 130 skill vs. Bone Axe.

 

[Vilurum]

Skaw, sweetie, the fSTR ceiling differs based on weapon rank, and I was assuming it was already at the ceiling. That was my point - 3 higher DMG was compensated for by 3 lower fSTR ceiling and the end result was the same. Go back and reread the math.

You're right, it's an assumption. It is, as I just pointed out, an assumption that works in this case. And barring some better idea on your part, or an example *for which the assumptions you're discrediting don't work*, why should I believe that the assumption is wrong? You're not even offering an alternative formula, or any evidence whatsoever that the wiki formulas are wrong.

Your argument is based solely on "well wiki *could* be wrong" - which is quite true but does not remotely resemble a mathematical (dis)proof.

 

[Skaw]

You're not even offering an alternative formula, or any evidence whatsoever that the wiki formulas are wrong.

Are you really that ignorant?

 

[Vilurum]

Are you really that ignorant?

Apparently so. Seeing as I plugged in the numbers you cited into the wiki formulas and they worked. Which does not 100% prove that the wiki formulas work in *every* situation (a "there exists" is not logically equivalent to a "for all"), but it does 100% prove that the wiki formulas work in *that* situation.

What I am asking you to do is come up with a single counterexample, of numbers from the game, for which the wiki formulas do *not* work. And it might help if you actually referred to the wiki formulas, notably in regards to base damage, fSTR, and weapon rank. Because your continued insistence seems to imply that you still haven't read the math and you're assuming fSTR would be the same in both cases, and thus the only thing that would change *effective* damage would be the DMG stat. (Which is not, at least according to the disputed formulas, the case.)

The existence of a counterexample to a claim, means the claim is not 100% true. (This is basic logic - "for all" implies "there exists", and the contrapositive "there does not exist" implies "this is not the case for all".)

EDIT: Bolded for emphasis.

 

[Vilurum]

Ah, didn't catch your planned test. Well, here are my predicted results:

Bone Axe Weapon Rank: [16 / 9] = 1
H2H Barehanded Weapon Rank: 0

Bone Axe fSTR cap: 1 + 8 = 9
H2H Barehanded fSTR cap: 0 + 8 = 8

Bone Axe DMG: 16
H2H Barehanded DMG (130 skill, 0.10 formula): 16
H2H Barehanded DMG (130 skill, 0.11 formula): 17

Bone Axe Base Damage: 16 (DMG) + 9 (fSTR) = 25
H2H Barehanded Base Damage (0.10 formula): 16 (DMG) + 8 (fSTR) = 24
H2H Barehanded Base Damage (0.11 formula): 17 (DMG) + 8 (fSTR) = 25

Bone Axe Crit Damage: 25 (Base) * 3.0 (pDIF) = 75
H2H Barehanded Crit Damage (0.10 formula): 24 (Base) * 3.0 (pDIF) = 72
H2H Barehanded Crit Damage (0.11 formula): 25 (Base) * 3.0 (pDIF) = 75

So assuming wiki's right (including the 0.11 bit), you should see max crits for 75 damage with both.

 

[CmdrFly]

Moved the discussion about H2H dmg out of the Sea Torques thread.

 

[Skaw]

Sorry for the delay, but theres reasoning behind it.

Correct, 75 damage for both.

However.. I did this test based off what Bajaratt had said.

You're looking at two maximum critical damages. The top, unarmed, the bottom, armed(with +0 damage.) Shock and awe, they're the same. Surely, that shouldn't have happened. The armed(bottom) should've been noticably higher. Either it needs an additional damage from a weapon(which I will test shortly,) or unarmed hand to hand is not rankless. In the latter case, hand to hand base damage is not Skill * .11 + 3.

Uncropped image of Unarmed
Uncropped image of Armed(Fruit Punches)

Linked due to crappy board layout being able to get busted by large images.

 

[Vilurum]

Thanks for the split, I was thinking of suggesting that.

In regards to Skaw's second test...

129 unarmed, 129 armed +0 DMG, in a nutshell. I'd assume this was on MNK main (and thus the aforementioned 292 skill). And for my usual set of numbers:

Unarmed H2H Weapon Rank: 0
Armed +0 H2H Weapon Rank: [(0 + 3) / 9] = 0

Unarmed H2H fSTR cap: 0 (Weapon Rank) + 8 = 8
Armed +0 H2H fSTR cap: 0 (Weapon Rank) + 8 = 8

Point being, they're the same. Also, since it's DMG +0, they'll be the same on the DMG front too (DMG = DMG +0, duh), so no point in duplicating everything below on account of that.

H2H DMG (0.10 formula, 292 skill): 29 + 3 = 32
H2H DMG (0.11 formula, 292 skill): 32 + 3 = 35

Base Damage (0.10 formula, 292 skill): 32 (DMG) + 8 (fSTR) = 40
Base Damage (0.11 formula, 292 skill): 35 (DMG) + 8 (fSTR) = 43

Capped Crit Damage (0.10 formula, 292 skill): 40 (Base) * 3.0 (pDIF) = 120
Capped Crit Damage (0.11 formula, 292 skill): 43 (Base) * 3.0 (pDIF) = 129

And you got 129's. The numbers up above show why (assuming wiki formulas are correct) you would have gotten the same result unarmed, and armed +0. You need at least +6 DMG in order for it to up the Weapon Rank by 1, by those formulas.

For the record, if you want your 0.10 formula to work for the damage numbers you're citing, you're gonna need to come up with a different Weapon Rank formula as well, that returns a higher result for H2H than the current one.

Again, like I said, I'm open to the possibility of *both* formulas being wrong, but I'll need an alternative Weapon Rank formula in addition to the already-provided alternative DMG formula. And, of course, I'll need someone to come up with a boundary condition where the alternative formulas and the wiki formulas would give different results.

 

[Skaw]

Ok, I was under the assumption that armed hand to hand weapon ranking was utilizing full damage, not just the additional provided by the weapon.

 

[Vilurum]

I'd just been reading "has no rank" as "evaluates to Weapon Rank 0" (with, admittedly, rather unclear wording), which (see previous math) works perfectly fine for all the numbers we've seen so far. I'm suggesting that you come up with a new formula because you *haven't* demonstrated any flaw in the current one.

Try a +5 weapon compared to a +6 weapon (or a +14 compared to +15 if that's easier to find). That should result in an increase of *six* damage: 3 from +1 DMG, and 3 from breaking a new Weapon Rank tier (which means fSTR caps 1 point higher).