General

@mewmeister: i do too, but i wasn't sure where that would lead me, so i chose a different career xD

@ilostmygummy: yes it does, i am not sure though about: stars (although a thief i know says it does) and potential bonuses to w.attk (like +10w.attk and such)

@GazimoEnthra: i haven't tested it myself, and unless you had a spear with both that i could use, i couldn't tell you from my own experience. however, from extractions and other methods, it seems and has been said enough that it does, and i trust the guys that said so. and well, in my opinion, 30% > 8% unless you don't boss at all.

i do can say that % attack an % boss stack from experience.

@chewkup: i know, pisses me off how @dadenong was talking like he knew math, but when proven otherwise he just dissappeared, worst part is, everyone i ever argued with about this topic, once i prove them wrong, they never admit their mistake, or say they now know, they just... dissappear!

@gamemage3: if you are saying that %damage is better because it applies to the damage, while %attack only applies to the attack, and therefore is less, go read the thread before saying so, because in simple terms, they are exactly the same. and the small difference between the two isn't that.

@punieman: i am not an "i told you so" person, i just want to correct them, if i correct them, next time less people will repeat the mistakes, and it will be easier to make the general public know, not to mention i love math (to a degree of course hahaha) and i do it for fun, however, can you imagine being behind a glass (suspended) while people went on for 8 pages speaking of something that, obvious for someone that knew, they didn't know, dear god, once tha chains and the glass dissappeared, i released all my (NERD)rage.

[quote=darkspawn980]that's basically it, attack gets rounded down, damage doesnt, the most you can lose with %attack is one point of attack, with %damage, it's one point of damage. i can copypaste my machlear example, but you can try it with any numbers you want.

and what you said, %attack stack with other %attack, but %damage can't stack wih other % damage, however, 30%boss damage can stack with %damage. i am not sure about this, but if you have 2 %damage lines, the line with the smallest multiplier is the only one that works, i think it was like that.

well, a quick edit:

let's say you have 250 w.attk and 3%attack, that would be a total of:
250*1.03= 257.5

so 257.5 is a 3%increase of 250.

however, that number gets rounded down to 257.0

257.0 isn't a 3% increase of 250, it's missing 0.5 to be. so calculting
257 is actually 2.8% of 250

so you are getting a 2.8% increase of attack instead of 3%, this varies depending on how much attack you have[/quote]

This explains why going from a 8% damage wand to a 8% + 4% damage one lowered my damage so much -_-
Are you SURE that % damage and %boss damage stack? Because I'm cubing for 30% boss soon and want to know if having a 8% damage line on there as well will screw up everything or not.

It was always obvious % damage was better unless % attack applied to everything, even buffs. Assume att = damage. Assume 10% attack and 10% total damage, which is better? if we have a 10 weapon att buff, its only 1.1(att) + 10, but with total damage, its 1.1(att+10).

[quote=chouminghan]lol im too lazy to read other ppl's posts to see if they have this but. if u have a skill that boost att, it cancels the att% of ur equip.
wen u wear a att% weapon, it make ur att range red ( meaning it will be written in read instead of black). so basically, att% acts like a buff.
buff cancels buff if they give u the same stats. so dragon blood cancels att% or rage etc.[/quote]

i am not lazy, so i can tell you, buffs and %attack stack, and the proof is in the huge wall of text above you, want me to nitpick the math and show it to you?

EDIT: why the something does everyone DC after i correct them!

[quote=punieman]My brain just fell in love with darkspawn980 for his explanations. Nerd explanation ftw. Btw, if you post your big wall of text, I will read it and then my brain will have an o-gasm.[/quote]

aaand dadenong just DC'd, so i guess i won't be hearing from him in a while, sigh~...

@ above, yea, i know what you mean, but hey, i am used by now, it happens. also, punieman, i got a lil' gift for you, the copypasta from the past thread, i am sure anyone that (dares to) read (this to the end) will understand that i am right (and will se the NERDRAGE I HAD when i wrote it)
hahaha, but yea, this is a copy paste, so it's not adressed at anyone in particular, ok, here goes, BRACE FOR WALL OF TEXT!

~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~

Hello, i am currently suspended, so i asked this user to do me the favor of posting this for me, i will finish my suspension today at 21 BT, so if you want to argue with me, keep posting, i'll deal with it after that time, not gonna use this user as a messenger.

HOWEVER, the reason it is posting this in the first place, is because you guys have no idea how much RAGE you have given me, you know what i see in this thread? a bunch of formulas, with nothing to back them up, absolutely NOTHING! i don't see screenshots, i don't see examples, all i see is an user putting a formula he could very well have just pulled out of his behind, and then another user calling it wrong, what does the first user do, prove his work is correct? put an example? NO! all he does is call the first one an idiot, and call it a day, and such attitude is making me write this.

thisis MATH, there is either RIGHT, or WRONG, guess what, it's easier to be wrong than right, so how about you people back your statements with something else than "NO U?"
this is my opinion on most (READ: MOST) of the people that have posted in this thread, i have noticed some of you try to explain a bit more, nice, i'll take it from here, but let me warn everyone at this point, if you are going to quote something i said and tell me i am wrong, PLEASE, PROVIDE A REASON WHY, if not, you don't have a point, just an opinion. but enough of my ranting, let's get [i]MATHEMATICAL[/i]

so TS is saying that %attack and %Totaldamage(to which i will refer as %damage from no w on) are the same. i have to say,i have no way of determining if it is true or not at the current time. we would need a field sample, and unfortunately, i am not fit for such a thing, however, i hear you guys keep saying %attack doesn't stack with buffs like apples and such, i say that is wrong, but unlike you, i provide evidence, now, i will provide this in the most dumbed down way possible, screenshots, all the formulas, and i'll get there step by step so let's start.

we first need to make sure his formula's are correct, here is the formula for damage he used:

Max damage = Weapon Multiplier * (4*mainStat + secondaryStat) * (Attack/100)

simple enough to prove, i am a warrior, i have access to warrior weapons, and i am a DrK, so i have access to +60w.attk from buffs (this will be adressed later on.) i have currently these stats:
[url=http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff223/Darkspawn980/NERDRAGE/MapleStory2011-02-2511-57-04-72.jpg]PICTURE[/url]
STR:1225
DEX:106
W.ATTK: 44 not counting the weapon, and +9 blessings of the fairy, so 53 total
weapon multiplier: 1.49
the weapon multiplier was gotten from here:
http://ayumilovemaple.wordpress.com/maplestory_calculator_formula/

is it correct? let's test it. i have a variety of polearms i will use for testing purposes.
98 attack 3rd unwelcome
102 attack zedbug
106 attack zedbug
all without potential or increases to str or dex, only raw attack. so let's use the previous formula on all weapons to calculate top damage, here's the formula again:
Max damage = Weapon Multiplier * (4*mainStat + secondaryStat) * (Attack/100)
[b]98 attack 3rd unwelcome[/b]
Max damage = 1.49 * (4*1225 + 106) * ([98+53]/100)
Max damage = 1.49 * (4900 + 106) * (151/100)
Max damage = 1.49 * (5006) * (1.51)
Max damage = (7458.94)*(1.51)
[url=http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff223/Darkspawn980/NERDRAGE/MapleStory2011-02-2511-57-04-72.jpg]Max damage = 11262.9994[/url]

[b]102 attack zedbug[/b]
Max damage = 1.49 * (4*1225 + 106) * ([102+53]/100)
Max damage = 1.49 * (4900 + 106) * (155/100)
Max damage = 1.49 * (5006) * (1.55)
Max damage = (7458.94)*(1.55)
[url=http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff223/Darkspawn980/NERDRAGE/MapleStory2011-02-2512-00-14-97.jpg]Max damage = 11561.357[/url]

[b]106 attack zedbug[/b]
Max damage = 1.49 * (4*1225 + 106) * ([106+53]/100)
Max damage = 1.49 * (4900 + 106) * (159/100)
Max damage = 1.49 * (5006) * (1.59)
Max damage = (7458.94)*(1.59)
[url=http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff223/Darkspawn980/NERDRAGE/MapleStory2011-02-2512-03-22-75.jpg]Max damage = 11859.7146[/url]

dear lord... can you see that? IT MATCHES, this proves that the TS formula is right, however, he forgot to say a little something, [b]the final result gets rounded to the nearest digit[/b] as can be seen from the previous examples.
this is extremely important because all of you guys seem to forget that decimals exist, maple doesn't show them, so they have to be rounded somewhere, as can be seen from my previous examples, it seems to be rounded AFTER all the calculations, if you think i am wrong, or think it happens at some other point, BY ALL MEANS, SAY SO, BUT PROVIDE EVIDENCE TOO.
now! time to get serious and add 6% attack to the equation! and for that, my trusty machlear, stats are 6% attack, 3% total damage, and 111 w.attk so let's grab the previous formula again:
Max damage = Weapon Multiplier * (4*mainStat + secondaryStat) * (Attack/100)
so... attack 6% eh...? that means 1.06multiplier, so new formula!
Max damage = Weapon Multiplier * (4*mainStat + secondaryStat) * (Attack*1.06/100)
let's see what happens then!
Max damage = 1.49 * (4*1225 + 106) * ([111+53]*1.06/100)
Max damage = (7458.94)*(164*1.06/100)
Max damage = (7458.94)*([b]173.84[/b]/100
Max damage = (7458.94)*(1.7384)
[url=http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff223/Darkspawn980/NERDRAGE/MapleStory2011-02-2512-20-41-11.jpg]Max damage = 12966.621296 (rounds up to 12967)[/url]

oh cool, it mat-wait, no, it doesn't match! i was as stumped as you guys, but then this came to me, we have %attack, and %total damage, what if attack was calculated and rounded before even getting into the damage formula? (bold part)
i followed this train of thought, which led me here:
total attack: 53+111
total attack: 164
now, let's add the potential
total attack: 164*1.06
total attack: 173.84 this rounded up gives: 174 w.attk, let's try with this number instead

Max damage = (7458.94)*([b]174[/b]/100
Max damage = (7458.94)*(1.74)
[url=http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff223/Darkspawn980/NERDRAGE/MapleStory2011-02-2512-20-41-11.jpg]Max damage = 12978.5556 (rounds to 12979)[/url]
great, now we went further away from what we wanted, so that can't be the answer, let's try instead rounding DOWN
total attack: 164*1.06
total attack: 173.84 rounds down to 173 attack, and let's replace it in the formula from before:
Max damage = (7458.94)*([b]173[/b]/100
Max damage = (7458.94)*(1.73)
[url=http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff223/Darkspawn980/NERDRAGE/MapleStory2011-02-2512-20-41-11.jpg]Max damage = 12903.9662 which gets round up to 12904[/url]

LOOK AT THAT, PERFECT MATCH! however, that was a lot of "implyings" we can't have that at math, you don't imply at math, in such cases such as this one, we must try different approaches! unfortunately, i only have one machlear. luckily for you, i did this testing already, so i know the following is correct, and i will prove so next, this is what i say is correct:
[b]Buffs to w.attk do get multiplied by %attack potential
%attack potential is not calculated in the damage formula, but before, in a separate one
Attack is rounded down (floored) before being put in the damage formula
result from the damage formula gets rounded to the nearest digit [/b]
i will now procceed to prove these all at the same time, i will cast my beholder's hex, which is +35 w.attk and dragon's blood, which is +25 attack, giving a total of +60attack, this is the result:
17678 maximum damage
that's what we aim for, now, as i said, let's calculate attack first:
53 from equips plus blessing
25 from dragon's blood
35 from hex
111 from the machlear
total of 224 w.attk, but we still need to add the 1.06 multiplier and round down, before we can put it in our damage formula, so here goes:
224*1.06
237.44 ->round down-> 237
so 237 is our new value to be placed in the attack field, note, buffs were also put under the potential of 6%, so, again the same-o formula:
Max damage = Weapon Multiplier * (4*mainStat + secondaryStat) * (Attack/100)
we already calculated potential, so we don't need againwe replace and...
Max damage = 1.49 * (4*1225 + 106) * (237/100)
Max damage = (7458.94)*(2.37)
[url=http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff223/Darkspawn980/NERDRAGE/MapleStory2011-02-2512-37-47-10.jpg]Max damage = 17677.6878 which gets rounded to the nearest number 17678[/url]

so there you go, i have proven with this humongous wall of text that:
[b]attack is calculated and rounded down before being put in the damage formula
bonuses from skills are also affected by %attack
damage formula is correct
result from damage formula gets rounded to the nearest number
%damage doesn't show on the stats window, since if it did, all these calculations would have been wrong with the machlear, and numbers would have been higher.[/b]

now, for the easiest part, %damage, according to everybody, and i have no proof of it being that way, or way of contradicting it, the only defense monsters have is PDR, if such is the case, the math here is simple and has been said enough, just multiply what you have in the status window by your %damage increase, and then by the monster PDR.
so 100 damage, with 30%totaldamage on a monster with 50% pdr would look as:
(100)(1.3)(0.5)
simple as that.

now the reason why %attack is worse than %total damage, is that, even though both provide the same bonus, the way the damage formula works, by flooring attack decimals, takes a small amount of the %attack away, while %total damage, doesn't get rounded down. if the game didn't round/floor numbers, they would be the exact same.

do note though, i am not rich, i can't afford to ask a level 200 to cast echo of the hero on me, and i havent tested how dark aura works yet (which eventually i will do), these calculations don't have those skills factored, another one is even tough it proves that skills that increase w.attk like hex and blood DO get increased by %attack potential, items that increase attack haven't been tested, i see no reason why they wouldn't work the same way, but this is math, can't assume things.

thank you VERY much for posting this on my behalf kyuubi

~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~

god, the NERDRAGE hahaha xD

[quote=dadenong][/quote]

sorry to call you out like this, but i need to make sure you understand i am right, the more people that know the truth, the easier it is to pass it later on. if you still think i am wrong, please, tell me where, but back it up, i can't test words.

and this thread changed topics quite unexpectedly o.O

@ above: define "they"

[quote=L1feblood]Thats pretty fail though. At least you should test out the changes you made before you go live .... Its not like its indirectly related...[/quote]

i know, and i am torn, because on one side, i don't like glitches and stuff, they get me nervous (has been playing legit since almost day 1)

however... i owe a guy 6 bil ._.

[quote=L1feblood]Why is there no SC yet? Is it tea time at Nexon? >.>[/quote]

nah man, they are gonna wait until everyone gets 1 Bil, then lolololrollback!

[quote=L1feblood]Depends on what you do for a living :O

About stars, last time i checked (Pre BB) it didnt take stars into account, idk about now. Aint got % att or % dmg on my claw =[[/quote]

oh, preBB it didn't count stars or apples or anything, but apparently the formula was changed post BB to what i have up there.
and of course it depends on what you do for a living xD you don't need to really know about weather and it's effects on planes unless you are going to fly one, for example.

@FrothyFrog: lol, i actually prefer %magic, because my range looks blue, however, it doesn't help me at all xD

[quote=L1feblood]Not skipping Maths classes can be beneficial sometimes o_O

Show your teacher those 2 formulas, if he/she says that its not the same, then you can blame your teacher o_O[/quote]

math is everywhere, i swear, it's one, if not the most important thing you can learn in school
physics is awesome, but most of the tyme you won't get to apply it, biology is nice to know, so is chemistry.

[quote=FrothyFrog]@ShinkuDragon Thanks for explaining it out, but is %att applied to the attack you get from skills, attack pots, BoF and such?

ive heard from a sin that it doesn't apply to the stars he has[/quote]

i can guarantee it stacks with buffs, i haven't tested with apples, but someone i know and is really good at math too (mancartia) says it does, i can't answer about stars, but i think it does too.

however, if we go into black aura and echo, it's a different math, which i "know" but haven't tested, and as such can't really say "this is the way it is"

[quote=mewmeister]I nearly laughed my *rear end* off when they said that; I could've sworn commutitivity is one of the first things you learn when you learn addition and multiplication. Fact is that you usually have to un-learn it if/when you start to learn about sets other than just numbers (such as matrices).

Sounds like last time someone utterly misunderstood distributivity.[/quote]

if by someone, you mean half of the people that posted in the first 7 pages, anf then 1 per following page until page 15, then yes "[b]SOMEONE[/b]" should go remember them.

heck, i had to link to wikipedia, and even so people were still doing it wrong

@punieman: i am not sure, it was posted in a way a kindergartner could understand it, you see, i was suspended, so i had to watch the poopstorm of terrible math and wrong stats for 7 pages, 7 horrible pages, before i could post it, only reason i can repost it is because i saved it (with all my rage) so that i could copy paste it after being un-suspended

[quote=myrdrex]Thank God, someone that has a knowledgeable, mathematically correct explanation. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Poor math skills is a pet peeve of mine, it's refreshing to see someone get it right for a change.

I bet you'd even be one of the few people that understands why grouping with a HS mule and using HS nets you around 20% more total XP (give or take a few percent) per kill than solo training, regardless of party size! (As opposed to everyone saying "It's a 50% boost!, so I'm on 3X now during a 2X event thanks to HS!&quot[/quote]

no problem, and i read about that a while ago in the unmentionable forums, they know much more than i do over there, but i am happy to say the %attack thing is mine.

on your scenario, it is a 150% boost, however, what happens is that, say you are in a full party, you kill a monster, you get 110% exp, then the bonus exp from being in a party comes, and you get 10% more, and then all the others in the party get 10% or something like that, the result is, the 150% gets divided around the party, a single person will not get 150%.

next time they say that though, tell them to kill a monster, then to kill a monster with HS, and ask them if it was 150% the new exp.

@dadenong: OH REALLY? solve this with your formula, and my formula then:
weapon multiplier: 1.49 (polearm multiplier)
Str: 1000
dex:100
weapon attack: 100

solve it, and tell me the results, come on, i dare you, use both formulas, i guarantee you will get the same result. or i eat my watch

[quote=darkspawn980]ok, basically, this is the damage formula:

(weapon multiplier)*(attack)*(4*mainstat + secondary stat)/100

basically, 3% damage would leave the above formula like this:

1.03*(weapon multiplier)*(attack)*(4*mainstat + secondary stat)/100

while 3%attack would leave it like this:

(weapon multiplier)*(attack*1.03)*(4*mainstat + secondary stat)/100

as you can see, the formula is the exact same because it's just a huge multiplication, however, what makes %attack worse, is this: (attack*1.03) the result gets rounded down, therefore, if you have 100 attack, and multiply that by 1.03, you get 103 attack, no rounding required, however, if you had 103.99 attack as a result (this when counting more attack or odd numbers like 256 attack and such) the result would be rounded down to 103 attack, making you lose 0.99 attack in that example.

this means that %attack can make you lose as much as 1 w.attk total, not more.

@above, yes, the maximum difference would be 1 point in attack, which honestly, isn't that much, and it's really hard to lost .90 attack, most of the time you will lose half a w.attk point or less. however, the difference betweent he two is that attack gets rounded before being applied to the formula, if it weren't for that, they would be the exact same.[/quote]

Thank God, someone that has a knowledgeable, mathematically correct explanation. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Poor math skills is a pet peeve of mine, it's refreshing to see someone get it right for a change.

I bet you'd even be one of the few people that understands why grouping with a HS mule and using HS nets you around 20% more total XP (give or take a few percent) per kill than solo training, regardless of party size! (As opposed to everyone saying "It's a 50% boost!, so I'm on 3X now during a 2X event thanks to HS!&quot

@dadenong
ARE YOU *insert something here* KIDDING ME?

how is the first different from the second!
1.03*(weapon multiplier)*(attack)*(4*mainstat + secondary stat)/100
(weapon multiplier)*(attack)*(4*mainstat + secondary stat)/100*1.03
except for the fact that what you have could be multiplying the division!

@icedemon9:
it was deleted because until i posted the huge-ass explanation in page 8, it was a flamefest of massive proportions, i finished the whole topic, i posted screens, i posted math, i backed up all my claims with data from the game and screenshots, which this guy doesn't even try to provide! it annoys me, i am this close to posting the gigantic wall of text i posted back then, and call it a day

@mrcheese2: although i apprecciate you saying that, don't, if i were wrong, you would be placing your faith without knowing, as weird as it sounds because i know i am right.

want me to post the wall of text dadenong? and if you want, i demand you either apologize after it for calling me wrong without proof, or prove my mathematics wrong. none of that lolhe'srightsoijustwontpostthereagain

@the next 2 posters, thank you!, good llord, i swear i will go into nerdrage again if someone posts 1.03(A*B*C)=1.03A*1.03B*1.03C
which is what happened the last time

There was a thread about this but sadly....i cant find it. oh well. yeah, the DrK w/ the purple weapon is right. Dmg% and atk% are slightly different by .99 W.atk

[quote=dadenong]Lol this is funny how people try get technical. Its simple, %atk and total dmg% are no were nesr the same depending on your range.
Using the info above a atk 1% on an 100 atk wep would give 1 atk= maybe 15-20 damage maybe less i think it is.
Total damage 1% would give someone with a range of 10000 would give 100 dmg. The whole thing depends on your range or your weapons atk. The atk bonuses would maybe come closer together but anyone with an atk range of over 3k would benefit more from total damage % majorly[/quote]

sigh, prove it please, could you show me how. i know what i am talking about, and i don't like when people say what their "common sense" tells them, and i certainly don't want to repaste my huge wall of text.

@bryk1979: yea, noticed after i replied, and sorry, but i can't understand your grammar o.O

but the best answer is: don't worry, it's almost the same
i am ust doing the math for the people that want to know beyond the "this is better because i said so"

@above: no problem man

OMG, TOO MUCH NUMBERS, IT'S ONLY 9:40 AM TO ME X.x

BTW, thanks everybody

[quote=darkspawn980]that doesn't answer which is better, nor gives a reasoning to it and you meant 10100[/quote]

yes i know i messed up and put 11,000 VS 10,100 i had edited befor you posted,

it dose brake it down very simple so every one can look at there stats and see wht one is better for them.

[quote=bryk1979]OMG every one makes this sound so hard

%atk- ok if you have 100atk total 1% is extra 1atk
%total damg- if you nomaly do 10,000 1% will make you hit 11,000[/quote]

that doesn't answer which is better, nor gives a reasoning to it and you meant 10100

OMG every one makes this sound so hard

%atk- ok if you have 100atk total 1% is extra 1atk
%total damg- if you nomaly do 10,000 1% will make you hit 10,100

@KhristianKid: yup, i like to know and figure the "magic" behind my lil' polearm-swinging character

any more questions while i am awake?

@osiel66: do so, i can guarantee, there isn't, it's only those 3 i mentioned.

well, and magic% which is the same as attack% but for magic attack

[quote=darkspawn980]no, there is no dmg% potential, it's only attack%, totaldamage% and bossdamage%

i say damage% to not have to write the whole thing every time[/quote]

There is. I'm completely sure i've seen potentials with just the word "damage x%"
I have to go now but ill look for some screenshots later today

[quote=osiel66]I didnt ask about attack.

It's Dmg% and Total Dmg%

Two different potentials.[/quote]

no, there is no dmg% potential, it's only attack%, totaldamage% and bossdamage%

i say damage% to not have to write the whole thing every time

[quote=darkspawn980]ok, basically, this is the damage formula:

(weapon multiplier)*(attack)*(4*mainstat + secondary stat)/100

basically, 3% damage would leave the above formula like this:

1.03*(weapon multiplier)*(attack)*(4*mainstat + secondary stat)/100

while 3%attack would leave it like this:

(weapon multiplier)*(attack*1.03)*(4*mainstat + secondary stat)/100

as you can see, the formula is the exact same because it's just a huge multiplication, however, what makes %attack worse, is this: (attack*1.03) the result gets rounded down, therefore, if you have 100 attack, and multiply that by 1.03, you get 103 attack, no rounding required, however, if you had 103.99 attack as a result (this when counting more attack or odd numbers like 256 attack and such) the result would be rounded down to 103 attack, making you lose 0.99 attack in that example.

this means that %attack can make you lose as much as 1 w.attk total, not more.

@above, yes, the maximum difference would be 1 point in attack, which honestly, isn't that much, and it's really hard to lost .90 attack, most of the time you will lose half a w.attk point or less. however, the difference betweent he two is that attack gets rounded before being applied to the formula, if it weren't for that, they would be the exact same.[/quote]

I didnt ask about attack.

It's Dmg% and Total Dmg%

Two different potentials. I've seen them before. And yes I'm sure of it.

[quote=Azama]Total don't stack?
But % Damage do stack?

@DarkSpawn please continue[/quote]

that's basically it, attack gets rounded down, damage doesnt, the most you can lose with %attack is one point of attack, with %damage, it's one point of damage. i can copypaste my machlear example, but you can try it with any numbers you want.

and what you said, %attack stack with other %attack, but %damage can't stack wih other % damage, however, 30%boss damage can stack with %damage. i am not sure about this, but if you have 2 %damage lines, the line with the smallest multiplier is the only one that works, i think it was like that.

well, a quick edit:

let's say you have 250 w.attk and 3%attack, that would be a total of:
250*1.03= 257.5

so 257.5 is a 3%increase of 250.

however, that number gets rounded down to 257.0

257.0 isn't a 3% increase of 250, it's missing 0.5 to be. so calculting
257 is actually 2.8% of 250

so you are getting a 2.8% increase of attack instead of 3%, this varies depending on how much attack you have

Remove my comment /since I see the answer.

Care to explain to someone who not good with # and %? remember this is a PG game so yeah -.-

[quote=osiel66]You seem to be knowledgeable of this topic. What is the difference between %Damage and %Total Damage? I'm curious[/quote]

ok, basically, this is the damage formula:

(weapon multiplier)*(attack)*(4*mainstat + secondary stat)/100

basically, 3% damage would leave the above formula like this:

1.03*(weapon multiplier)*(attack)*(4*mainstat + secondary stat)/100

while 3%attack would leave it like this:

(weapon multiplier)*(attack*1.03)*(4*mainstat + secondary stat)/100

as you can see, the formula is the exact same because it's just a huge multiplication, however, what makes %attack worse, is this: (attack*1.03) the result gets rounded down, therefore, if you have 100 attack, and multiply that by 1.03, you get 103 attack, no rounding required, however, if you had 103.99 attack as a result (this when counting more attack or odd numbers like 256 attack and such) the result would be rounded down to 103 attack, making you lose 0.99 attack in that example.

this means that %attack can make you lose as much as 1 w.attk total, not more.

@above, yes, the maximum difference would be 1 point in attack, which honestly, isn't that much, and it's really hard to lost .90 attack, most of the time you will lose half a w.attk point or less. however, the difference betweent he two is that attack gets rounded before being applied to the formula, if it weren't for that, they would be the exact same.

[quote=darkspawn980][b]OK, STOP EVERYBODY, I MEAN IT, I HAVE THE ANSWER, LAST TIME THREAD BECAME A POOPSTORM.[/b]

they are the same for all classes that don't have shadow partner, HOWEVER, due to how the damage formula works, %damage is SLIGHTLY better than %attack, but it's so slight, that you shouldn't even bother.

if you are a thief with shadow partner, %damage is what you want, because it will be applied twice in your shadow.[/quote]

You seem to be knowledgeable of this topic. What is the difference between %Damage and %Total Damage? I'm curious

[b]OK, STOP EVERYBODY, I MEAN IT, I HAVE THE ANSWER, LAST TIME THREAD BECAME A POOPSTORM.[/b]

they are the same for all classes that don't have shadow partner, HOWEVER, due to how the damage formula works, %damage is SLIGHTLY better than %attack, but it's so slight, that you shouldn't even bother.

if you are a thief with shadow partner, %damage is what you want, because it will be applied twice in your shadow.

also, not to be mean, but please don't listen to any of the 2 above me, especially the first poster, second poster is on the right track, but has the wrong numbers, if you wish i can explain slowly and with pictures.