Damage Formulas
Should the damage formulas be evaluated? I think that the current display masks the effectiveness against varying defense. For example, Meiling's two attacks:
- 3 x ((ATK x 1.5) - (T.DEF / 2))
- 2 x ((ATK x 2.25) - (T.DEF / 4))
You can reduce these to
- ATK x 4.5 - DEF x 1.5
- ATK x 4.5 - DEF x 0.5
If you look at it this way instead, it is clear that Meiling's Brilliant Light Gem is strictly inferior to Mountain Breaker. The only way for the former attack to do more damage than the latter is if the target has low defense AND a SPI below 100. When I was playing the game, I simply always used MB over BLG because it always seemed to do more damage, and looking at the damage formula it's clear why.
Is there any advantage in having (up to) 3 multipliers for two stats instead of just the multipliers for the stats?
Also, another thing I've noticed. Many damage formula reference "ATT". Is that just a typo of "ATK" or what?
-- Qazmlpok 04:47, December 31, 2009 (UTC)