+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Maplestory (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=15)
+--- Forum: Training Center (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=32)
+---- Forum: Magician (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=39)
+---- Thread: The new formula (/showthread.php?tid=26791)
The new formula - Kabanaw - 2010-06-20
I'm hoping we can get a glimpse of what it is sometime soon.
With the information we have now, I figured percentage wise DPM for an I/L AM using CL is
1.3*1.25*5*88*100%=71,500%. There's not much that can be done with this number unless we know the formula, so it's pretty much useless until then.
But, let's say along with the formula change they change all spells to be affected by weapon speed, like explosion.
Assuming that the current speed for chain lightning without booster is what it would be for normal speed, a regular CL would be 780 ms. The first booster would be -30 ms to 750 at fast (5), then -90 to 690 for fast(4). If one was already using an ele staff, which is a fast speed, that means booster would bring it to either faster 3 or 2. Assuming a -60 ms for each speed, that's either 630 or 570 ms.
If CL is 630 ms, it does 77,187.5% dpm. If 570 ms, 85,312.5% dpm.
So, once I know what the formula is and if spell speed is based off weapon speed, I can give a decent estimate as to how strong an AM will be now.
The new formula - shouri - 2010-06-20
Kabanaw Wrote:I'm hoping we can get a glimpse of what it is sometime soon.
With the information we have now, I figured percentage wise DPM for an I/L AM using CL is
1.3*1.25*5*88*100%=715,00%. There's not much that can be done with this number unless we know the formula, so it's pretty much useless until then.
But, let's say along with the formula change they change all spells to be affected by weapon speed, like explosion.
Assuming that the current speed for chain lightning without booster is what it would be for normal speed, a regular CL would be 780 ms. The first booster would be -30 ms to 750 at fast (5), then -90 to 690 for fast(4). If one was already using an ele staff, which is a fast speed, that means booster would bring it to either faster 3 or 2. Assuming a -60 ms for each speed, that's either 630 or 570 ms.
If CL is 630 ms, it does 77,187.5% dpm. If 570 ms, 85,312.5% dpm.
So, once I know what the formula is and if spell speed is based off weapon speed, I can give a decent estimate as to how strong an AM will be now.
I'm assuming that first % is 71,500% not 715,00%
The new formula - Kabanaw - 2010-06-20
shouri Wrote:I'm assuming that first % is 71,500% not 715,00%
Yeah, comma mishap.
The new formula - JoeTang - 2010-06-20
Speed is currently estimated at (10 + weapon speed) / 16 * normal speed rounded up to the nearest 30ms. They could change all the speeds, as well as the way they're measured with these updates for all we know. This is definitely more likely for magicians as they reduced Spell Booster to only improve speed by one rank, and they made Thunder Spear do less total % than Composition.
The new formula - Bribery - 2010-06-20
You could use this Bishop's range as an estimate:
![[Image: 127679579601.jpg]](http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/1306/127679579601.jpg)
The new formula - Kabanaw - 2010-06-20
JoeTang Wrote:Speed is currently estimated at (10 + weapon speed) / 16 * normal speed rounded up to the nearest 30ms. They could change all the speeds, as well as the way they're measured with these updates for all we know. This is definitely more likely for magicians as they reduced Spell Booster to only improve speed by one rank, and they made Thunder Spear do less total % than Composition.
Well, that's good to know. So if I estimate CL at faster(2), it's 585 ms. I wasn't far off, anyway.
fff If I could get on KMST I could test this stuff myself >:I
Edit: The only problem is, we don't know what kind of equips that bishop has. He obviously has potential gear on (385 bonus to int), but as for MA we don't know. Not to mention attack speed is crucial, and we also don't know that. That can be used for a rough estimate, but I'd rather wait for a better test.
The new formula - Russt - 2010-06-20
It appears that Magic Attack isn't shown as a value in the stat window anymore, which could be slightly annoying in terms of determining the calculation.
The new formula - Cyanne - 2010-06-20
It's possible that int doesn't contribute to magic attack anymore and that magic attack acts the same was as attack does in damage range formulas.
The new formula - hadriel - 2010-06-20
Was thinking about that too. Anybody care to upload an image of your mage, or spell out all your exact stats (true TMA, INT, LUK, DMG range etc.)?
Right now, the numbers I'm getting for the INT multiplier (assuming that it works just like other classes) is quite small... like 2.5-2.6.
On a side note, if MA really works like WA, then mages are slightly broken in a sense that we get MA from some of our EQs e.g. gloves, whereas the other classes don't...
Hadriel
The new formula - DeanNim - 2010-06-20
hadriel Wrote:Was thinking about that too. Anybody care to upload an image of your mage, or spell out all your exact stats (true TMA, INT, LUK, DMG range etc.)?
Right now, the numbers I'm getting for the INT multiplier (assuming that it works just like other classes) is quite small... like 2.5-2.6.
On a side note, if MA really works like WA, then mages are slightly broken in a sense that we get MA from some of our EQs e.g. gloves, whereas the other classes don't...
Hadriel
wat. they have WA everything
The new formula - Kabanaw - 2010-06-20
I'm pretty sure that MA and Int are seperate values now.
I think one reason for the formula change (aside from the previous one being stupid) is the % stat increases. If a high level mage with 1000 int gets a bonus of 10%, that's 100 extra MA. If one can get +25% int total, that's 250 extra MA; then add on whatever +%MA they get to that. If he already had 1000 int and then 200 MA, then first he would have 1450 MA and +10% MA would be 1595 MA, up from 1200.
The point of all those maths was to show % stat increases for mages made the formula even more broken.
The new formula - hadriel - 2010-06-20
No... you misunderstood me... I meant from clean EQs. Here's an example:
Dark Neli Shoes
+4 Int
+1 Luk
+1 MA
That's what I mean. No other classes get WA stats on their armour clean.
Hadriel
The new formula - Kabanaw - 2010-06-20
hadriel Wrote:No... you misunderstood me... I meant from clean EQs. Here's an example:
Dark Neli Shoes
+4 Int
+1 Luk
+1 MA
That's what I mean. No other classes get WA stats on their armour clean.
Hadriel
It's not like it's a lot of MA. It's one. On some equips people won't even be using end game.
The new formula - JoeTang - 2010-06-20
hadriel Wrote:No... you misunderstood me... I meant from clean EQs. Here's an example:
Dark Neli Shoes
+4 Int
+1 Luk
+1 MA
That's what I mean. No other classes get WA stats on their armour clean.
Hadriel
We don't even know the formula yet. There's absolutely no way to judge how balanced MA to INT is.
The new formula - hadriel - 2010-06-21
It's a speculation after all.
On a side note, people pay so much just for 1WA... even though 1MA might seem little, but assuming that MA becomes like WA then that's big news.
Sure I'm assuming, but the consequences might hit hard.
Hadriel
The new formula - 2147483647 - 2010-07-05
Anyone want to plug this into a TI-84, go ahead and do so.
*Critical wasn't included.
isp 1.875Y,1.875Z,1.65Y,1.65Z,Y,Z**Formulae were pulled from here and here. Credit goes to Fiel and Russt.