Difference between revisions of "Talk:Animal Kung-Foolery"

Revision as of 15:02, 16 March 2013

Some hit messages: You perform a flying duck elbow, and do 123 damage. You perform a squirrel nibble followed by a chipmunk crunch, and do 115 damage. You perform a tortoise twister, and do 118 damage. You perform a snarling frog wallop, and do 110 damage. You perform an aardvark scissor kick, and do 120 damage.

-- Some etremely limited "testing" (nothing reliable) suggest that this is autohit, damage may be something like base weapon damage + 10*SP, didn't seem to go up with level/strength (as much as normal attack did). --XKiv 10:41, 25 February 2012 (PST)

Someone should probably spade this. I think Cris confirmed that it is autohit, but everything else is wrong. --hoyifung04 07:27, 12 November 2012 (PST)

From my uses I can tell it always hits like a spell, is based on the Strength stat alone and the power of the weapons has a contribution proportional to its power, however I dunno how skill points affect it. Patojonas 08:46, 12 November 2012 (PST)

I don't think weapon power has anything to do with the damage, actually. A bat (5 power) and the umr staff (666 power) do the same damage for kung-foolery. --Satan Hammer Time, 10 March 2013 (CDT)

After weeks of work on these, this is what I got: link to spreadsheet.
These values were obtained with 2 level 57 alts, in the The Farthest Reaches of Insanity, since all foes scale. Damages to crawling mist weren't considered due to its weaknesses.
Values from both alts with same STR and offense power are equal and fit well on the graphics, proving only STR and offense values matter.
Adding 10 levels to one of the alts didn't change the ranges significantly (1-2 point difference can be accounted to math roundings and/or possible effects of the foe's scaling mechanic).
Some of the regressions were better fitter by polinomial functions instead of a linear fit, however both options had and R squared above 0.99 so the simplest fit was picked.
Please note that the formula I reached might be off in non scaling foes weaker than you, mainly because foe deffence is accounted and there's no way for me to figure that out.

In the end, I arrived to the following formula: Round { 4 + (SP*0.05 + 0.217)*STR ± 0.1*Offense }

There's an option to download the file if you're having trouble seeing the graphics, let me know if you think I made a mistake somewhere. Patojonas 16:02, 16 March 2013 (PDT)