Judgment Blade, Girg Souls, & Crit

• ironwoman wrote on 2016-07-10 21:51

  Quote from Rydian;1296727:

  Right, it's not protection.
  It's protection.
  
  The difference between the two is phrasing and honestly seems pedantic. Which is where the confusion comes from. All in favor of changing it to "damage reduction" everywhere?
  
  That said... Where are these numbers coming from? Again, serious question. The original numbers. You know, so if there's an actual source that's legit we can go fill it out for monsters.

  
  
  Even though it is just a change of word or two, the difference is not minuscule. It seems to me most people don't realize the difference between the two despite the years since the Enlightenment update, as well as having the KR sources.
  
  As for the numbers, I honestly don't get what more you want. I provided the tests that the KR players did when the patch came out in live server. It even shows how you need higher crit for magic damage because of how magic protection and protection works. Also, the region with higher player base, with higher percentage of competitive players, is saying the exact thing I'm saying, so I still don't know why you're casting doubt.
  
  If you're still really doubtful of this case (which you really shouldn't be by now), go attack a White Dragon. White Dragon has 180 protection, which means 390% crit needed to get max crit on this thing according to fallacious consensus of many in Mabinogi. You'll see that as long as you have 190% crit (if you somehow don't have it, it's easily attainable by catering + titles + crit gears, though none of the above is required to get over 230), you'll be having 30% crit chance.
  
  The term "effective protection" or "damage reduction" doesn't matter to me, but people really need to start grasping this concept.
  
  

  Quote from Lukshad;1296733:

  I honestly agree with changing *protection* to 'damage reduction'. Having two separate with the same name is confusing, and even if you call it 'effective protection' it's still confusing and/or easily missed as opposed to 'damage reduction'.
  
  So if I've read all of this correctly, we're doing 'damage reduction' x's 2 and subtracting that from our critical chance? So the player base actually has a much shorter ceiling to aim for than what we've thought all of these years?
  
  If so, that's pretty kickass.
  
  P.S. How do you italicize words here? D:

  
  
  Correct. Well accomplished Mabinogi players in terms of combat contents will know this while the many still might believe the old outdated formula.
• Lukshad wrote on 2016-07-11 00:04
  Yup, I totally didn't know about this before you typed it all out. And you're completely right, as far as I know, most people still believe the old formula. I don't blame them at all however, I believe it's because there wasn't an outbreak of information when it was discovered. If there was, this thread wouldn't exist right now. Between the lack of information sharing, and word of mouth explanations of the old formula, everyone is still aiming for more and more crit when it's obviously moot after a much lower point.
  
  

  [Image: http://puu.sh/pXk5h/e1ddef7908.png]

  
  
  We, or someone that knows how to make adjustments anyways, should really include the magic defense and protection scores on the monster tables also because of the crit chance on magic point you brought up.
  
  

  [Image: http://puu.sh/pXkcO/0525970570.png]

  
  
  They really are different. I've noticed that in my own personal character screen, but I never thought about mobs'.
  
  P.S. I read Rydian's post, and it didn't feel like he was doubting you. It sounded more like he wanted something more concrete to look at before he made adjustments is all.
• Rydian wrote on 2016-07-13 19:57

  Quote from ironwoman;1296737:

  Even though it is just a change of word or two, the difference is not minuscule. It seems to me most people don't realize the difference between the two despite the years since the Enlightenment update, as well as having the KR sources.

  Because it appears to have the same name so people think nothing changed.
  
  

  Quote from ironwoman;1296737:

  As for the numbers, I honestly don't get what more you want.

  Protection -> Damage Reduction, right?
  1 -> 2
  Using number 1 to figure out number 2.
  
  ... where is number 1 coming from? Where are the initial protection values on monsters coming from? Is there a legit source we've been skimming over (say, race and it doesn't actually change per SM difficulty), is it people relying on the old testing, is it leaks, etc?
  
  If we're going to fill this crap in we need to know where to pull from.
  
  

  Quote from ironwoman;1296737:

  The term "effective protection" or "damage reduction" doesn't matter to me, but people really need to start grasping this concept.

  "I know this so I don't need clarification but other people need to know this"
  
  Which is why they need clarification that it's two separate things.
• ironwoman wrote on 2016-07-14 00:25

  Quote from Rydian;1296770:

  Because it appears to have the same name so people think nothing changed.
  
  Protection -> Damage Reduction, right?
  1 -> 2
  Using number 1 to figure out number 2.
  
  ... where is number 1 coming from? Where are the initial protection values on monsters coming from? Is there a legit source we've been skimming over (say, race and it doesn't actually change per SM difficulty), is it people relying on the old testing, is it leaks, etc?
  
  If we're going to fill this crap in we need to know where to pull from.

  
  
  It's a series of test to figure out, and also there was a guy in Inven (another notable Korean hub) that did some file digging and put out values, as well as people already knowing what the original protection (before the Enlightenment) was.
  
  If you're talking about updating the Wiki, the best way to go about it is testing if you can crit with the assumed values and change the protection according to that, instead of the old % value that we have atm.
  
  

  Quote from Rydian;1296770:

  "I know this so I don't need clarification but other people need to know this"
  
  Which is why they need clarification that it's two separate things.

  
  
  What I meant to say was it doesn't matter to me which term is used as long as we are clearly able to tell that Protection =/= Effective Protection/Damage reduction. I personally damage reduction more, since I think it's a clearer and more straight forward term, but all up to the community.
• Rydian wrote on 2016-07-16 19:42
  I'd say like at least half the monsters don't have the values known.
  Going to propose some changes to the way things are listed on the wiki.
  
  EDIT: Proposal here.
  http://forums.mabi.world/thread/Enemy_defense%2Fprotection.
• Lukshad wrote on 2016-07-19 18:32
  Thread not found? D:
• Rydian wrote on 2016-07-19 21:32
  Fixed the link, misplaced period... somehow.