Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Johnzin

Combat Art Calculation

Recommended Posts

I am so confused how certain combat arts that are based on your stats add damage, such as sublime heaven and ruptured sky. It seems like vengeance doesn't follow same calculation too.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Johnzin said:

I am so confused how certain combat arts that are based on your stats add damage, such as sublime heaven and ruptured sky. It seems like vengeance doesn't follow same calculation too.

 

 

This confused me too, to the point that in my ironman run I had to assume Ingrid using her combat art would be a one-hit kill and baited her out to player-phase her.

For that matter, the crest descriptions are similarly useless. "Occasionally increases attack damage" is the vaguest skill description I've seen in a while. How occasionally, and by how much, game?

Edited by Alastor15243

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

For that matter, the crest descriptions are similarly useless. "Occasionally increases attack damage" is the vaguest skill description I've seen in a while. How occasionally, and by how much, game?

This page will answer that:

https://serenesforest.net/three-houses/characters/crests/

Click on "Activation rates", and there you go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Combat arts that add damage based on a stat add damage equal to (stat * 30%), rounded down. Vengeance I haven't tested myself but based on a picture I've seen posted in the Maddening thread it appears to just add (missing HP) to damage dealt (which is unusually potent for Vengeance compared to other games).

Agreed that it's a bit disappointing the game can't just tell you these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Combat arts that add damage based on a stat add damage equal to (stat * 30%), rounded down. Vengeance I haven't tested myself but based on a picture I've seen posted in the Maddening thread it appears to just add (missing HP) to damage dealt (which is unusually potent for Vengeance compared to other games).

Agreed that it's a bit disappointing the game can't just tell you these things.

Seems to be a running theme with JRPGs in general. I've been frustrated about potions that heal "a significant amount of HP" and similar bullshit throughout my entire gaming career. Fire Emblem is rather decent about this with most stats, though even in this series, there is an annoying lack of clear numbers for some things. The lack of an easy way to check Crit Avoid is my main peeve with Three Houses when it comes to this.

Edited by Elephantus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Elephantus said:

Seems to be a running theme with JRPGs in general. I've been frustrated about potions that heal "a significant amount of HP" and similar bullshit throughout my entire gaming career. Fire Emblem is rather decent about this with most stats, though even in this series, there is an annoying lack of clear numbers for some things. The lack of an easy way to check Crit Avoid is my main peeve with Three Houses when it comes to this.

I know I'm going off topic here, but as a fan of the Tales series, I know all about that (special mention to Vesperia for having TWO characters' best non-Fell Arm weapons require sidequests that span practically the whole game, and in one of those cases, the sidequest chain begins loooooong before you even meet the character it's for! And that ain't even getting into the part where some of the secret missions also fall into Guide Dang It territory, or the fact that one even requires an item that's very easy to miss to complete). Getting back to this game, returning lost items is a headache - sure, some of them have hints that are clear enough to hint at whom they belong to, but the majority only give you laughably vague hints to work with. Especially hints along the lines of "likes to train a lot", of which several variants show up on, and every item with such a description belongs to a different character. Now, the roster does shed some light on this, but It's still a huge pain in the ass since if I'm returning lost items, odds are it's because I'm trying to recruit someone, and the roster only gives info on those that are either in your class or were recruited, which means I'm likely using a guide to find out which lost items go to which characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Alastor15243 said:

This confused me too, to the point that in my ironman run I had to assume Ingrid using her combat art would be a one-hit kill and baited her out to player-phase her.

For that matter, the crest descriptions are similarly useless. "Occasionally increases attack damage" is the vaguest skill description I've seen in a while. How occasionally, and by how much, game?

I really disagree but I understand your sentiment.

I think too many things in modern games are explained and handed to the player, and while this is fine for skills and combat arts because they are clearly supposed to be disconnected from the story, Crests are story-specific and are a subject of a lot of research and discussion. I think it would detract from the narrative about them if we knew exactly what they did all the time - why is Hanneman researching Crests if we know exactly what they do and how often they will work?

It's a minor thing but I think they're more interesting as a concept in this way. I'm not normally one for story being paramount in games but in this specific instance I like it better this way.

I'm also sick of new games handholding the player and giving them information without having them work for it. 3H does the opposite a lot (like in the greenhouse, a lot of modern games would just give you a handy-dandy list instead of having you actually garden and figure it out for yourself) and it works great for me.

Edited by De Geso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, De Geso said:

I really disagree but I understand your sentiment.

I think too many things in modern games are explained and handed to the player, and while this is fine for skills and combat arts because they are clearly supposed to be disconnected from the story, Crests are story-specific and are a subject of a lot of research and discussion. I think it would detract from the narrative about them if we knew exactly what they did all the time - why is Hanneman researching Crests if we know exactly what they do and how often they will work?

It's a minor thing but I think they're more interesting as a concept in this way. I'm not normally one for story being paramount in games but in this specific instance I like it better this way.

I'm also sick of new games handholding the player and giving them information without having them work for it. 3H does the opposite a lot (like in the greenhouse, a lot of modern games would just give you a handy-dandy list instead of having you actually garden and figure it out for yourself) and it works great for me.

Strategy games are a lot like puzzle games. You're supposed to establish the rules of the challenge, and make it the answer that the player needs to find out on their own.

Imagine if, instead of crest descriptions being vague, the mt for all relics in this game was listed as "???", as was the attack power of anyone using one. True, exactly how powerful they are doesn't make sense to be common knowledge in-story, given they're one-of-a-kind weapons that still have various mysteries about their performance, but one, the player already has way, way more information about the statistics of combat than any human being could possibly know, and two, now you're just making the player either fumble in the dark and hope for the best, eventually win through trial and error, or approach the encounter assuming that all legendary weapons are a one-hit kill and try to find a way to beat them without ever getting hit by them. And only the last one of those options actually demonstrates any skill whatsoever on the part of the player.

Edited by Alastor15243

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

Strategy games are a lot like puzzle games. You're supposed to establish the rules of the challenge, and make it the answer that the player needs to find out on their own.

Imagine if, instead of crest descriptions being vague, the mt for all relics in this game was listed as "???", as was the attack power of anyone using one. True, exactly how powerful they are doesn't make sense to be common knowledge in-story, given they're one-of-a-kind weapons that still have various mysteries about their performance, but one, the player already has way, way more information about the statistics of combat than any human being could possibly know, and two, now you're just making the player either fumble in the dark and hope for the best, eventually win through trial and error, or approach the encounter assuming that all legendary weapons are a one-hit kill and try to find a way to beat them without ever getting hit by them. And only the last one of those options actually demonstrates any skill whatsoever on the part of the player.

The examples are at odds with one another, though. For that matter, your example is nothing like the way Crests work or are described and to say as much is disingenuous.

Weapon might is known because it directly affects the outcome of the battle every time, regardless of the battle. Skill and Crest activation is different because most battles are not affected by skills and Crests, and none of these are something the player can manipulate in a meaningful way.

If Ferdinand's crest prevents counters a percentage of the time, it doesn't matter how often that happens - as long as it has a chance of happening, and as long as that is known information, the player can plan around it. The player knows that it has a chance to happen, so they know they should probably engage Ferdinand on player phase rather than risk him getting a free enemy phase attack on his units. Similarly, if players know that Felix's Crest gives him a chance to do additional damage, they know they would do well to attack him from a position that doesn't allow him to counter a unit who would be killed by the damage boost. The rules are established in these scenarios (and in all scenarios with Crests).

The only thing unknown about Crests is the rate at which they activate, but knowing the exact probability is meaningless - even if you didn't know Luna's PROC rate, you'd still be a poor tactician for relying on Luna to activate, whether it's skill%, luck%, etc - you're also a poor tactician if you find yourself in a situation where a critical is your only solution, and knowing exactly how often you will critical does not make the strategy better nor does it make the game poorly designed for not telling you your critical chance.

If all Crest descriptions were, "something may happen when this unit fights," I would agree with you and your comparison would be apt, but that isn't how things are, so I don't and it is not.

Edited by De Geso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, De Geso said:

The only thing unknown about Crests is the rate at which they activate, but knowing the exact probability is meaningless - even if you didn't know Luna's PROC rate, you'd still be a poor tactician for relying on Luna to activate, whether it's skill%, luck%, etc - you're also a poor tactician if you find yourself in a situation where a critical is your only solution, and knowing exactly how often you will critical does not make the strategy better nor does it make the game poorly designed for not telling you your critical chance.

No, it's not just how frequent. It's how much. If you're fighting Lysithea and you've never seen her magic crest activate before, how are you supposed to know it adds 5 damage? It just says it increases damage. So I can't even account for the worst-case scenario until I see it activate myself. You might have a point if it were just activation rate, but half of crests don't actually describe what their effect is. They use vague, useless language like "increases damage" or "increases healing". To my knowledge the only damage-boosting crest that actually says what its effects are is Dimitri's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Alastor15243 said:

No, it's not just how frequent. It's how much. If you're fighting Lysithea and you've never seen her magic crest activate before, how are you supposed to know it adds 5 damage? It just says it increases damage. So I can't even account for the worst-case scenario until I see it activate myself. You might have a point if it were just activation rate, but half of crests don't actually describe what their effect is. They use vague, useless language like "increases damage" or "increases healing". To my knowledge the only damage-boosting crest that actually says what its effects are is Dimitri's.

"Half of Crests don't actually describe what their effect is." That's untrue - they don't give you exact information about what they do, but they don't have to to be functional as a part of the map's "puzzle." This is discounting the fact that fighting enemies with Crests is pretty infrequent to begin with, so the main concern is whether the Crests on your side should be relied on or if they should be thought of as a nice bonus that sometimes helps the player out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, De Geso said:

"Half of Crests don't actually describe what their effect is." That's untrue - they don't give you exact information about what they do, but they don't have to to be functional as a part of the map's "puzzle."

How isn't it true, and why are the puzzles still functional without the information? Would a single one of Conquest's maps have been improved by making the effects of a skill more vague?

Edited by Alastor15243

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alastor15243 said:

How isn't it true, and why are the puzzles still valid without the information? Would a single one of Conquest's maps have been improved by making the effects of a skill more vague?

You are aware that there is a chance that your unit will take more damage, and the skillful player will be able to account for this without needing to know the exact number by which the damage will increase. It doesn't explicitly lay out what the Crest does, no, but it doesn't have to.

It wouldn't have been made worse by the change you are proposing - if we didn't know that Luna reduced def and res by 30% and it instead only said "chance to reduce def and res," a player still knows that there is a chance they will have to rely on a different strategy besides tanking with a high defense unit. Similarly, knowing that def will be reduced by 30% is only important if you need to calculate the exact amount of damage you need to be able to take in order to survive, and in all the scenarios in Conquest when an enemy has Luna as a skill (of which there are only a small handful), Luna is not a significant factor because the unit is best disposed of with effective damage on player phase, including C24 Hinoka. It changes how you approach the challenge to such a degree that the exact amount of additional damage you will take is irrelevant.

However, all that aside, that is not comparable to Crests. A better question would have been, "If Hinoka had a Crest would that make her a worse or better designed boss," and the answer would be that the quality is largely unaffected - as long as you know the unit in question has a Crest, you can play around the presence of that Crest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, De Geso said:

I'm also sick of new games handholding the player and giving them information without having them work for it. 3H does the opposite a lot (like in the greenhouse, a lot of modern games would just give you a handy-dandy list instead of having you actually garden and figure it out for yourself) and it works great for me. 

Even so, I feel like it doesn't do it perfectly, because Three Houses, like so many other games with similar mechanics, doesn't use an idea that I've had floating around in my head for years yet have never seen implemented in any game: a journal.

I imagine it working something like this: At the beginning, you get no more information than you do in the game as it is. However, once you plant something and harvest it the next week, your journal then records the results. If you plant the same seeds and get different items, those are added to the journal as well. Mixed two different seeds and you got a higher yield as a result? Great, into the journal it goes.

This approach would keep the mystery in the beginning and prevent the issue of everything just being handed to the player, while also giving those players who put some effort into the mechanic the information they need to increase their effectiveness - and all without checking anything online.

I'm sure there's some RPG out there somewhere that does this, but I have yet to come across one and it annoys me because this idea would make so many things so much better.

Edited by Elephantus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Elephantus said:

Even so, I feel like it doesn't do it perfectly, because Three Houses, like so many other games with similar mechanics, doesn't use an idea that I've had floating around in my head for years yet have never seen implemented in any game: a journal.

I imagine it working something like this: At the beginning, you get no more information than you do in the game as it is. However, once you plant something and harvest it the next week, your journal then recommends the possible results. If you plant the same seeds and get different items, those are added to the journal as well. Mixed two different seeds and you got a higher yield as a result? Great, into the journal it goes.

This approach would keep the mystery in the beginning and prevent the issue of everything just being handed to the player, while also giving those players who put some effort into the mechanic the information they need to increase their effectiveness - and all without checking anything online.

I'm sure there's some RPG out there somewhere that does this, but I have yet to come across one and it annoys me because this idea would make so many things so much better.

I agree, it would be convenient if the game tracked that for you, but a part of me is nostalgic for times when you had to do that sort of thing yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, De Geso said:

I agree, it would be convenient if the game tracked that for you, but a part of me is nostalgic for times when you had to do that sort of thing yourself.

I get that, but as someone who tracks lots of things on his phone while gaming because the game doesn't, I can't say I'd miss it.

I really do get your sentiment though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, De Geso said:

It wouldn't have been made worse by the change you are proposing - if we didn't know that Luna reduced def and res by 30% and it instead only said "chance to reduce def and res," a player still knows that there is a chance they will have to rely on a different strategy besides tanking with a high defense unit. Similarly, knowing that def will be reduced by 30% is only important if you need to calculate the exact amount of damage you need to be able to take in order to survive, and in all the scenarios in Conquest when an enemy has Luna as a skill (of which there are only a small handful), Luna is not a significant factor because the unit is best disposed of with effective damage on player phase, including C24 Hinoka. It changes how you approach the challenge to such a degree that the exact amount of additional damage you will take is irrelevant.

 

As a rebuttal, I present Robin's recruitment battle during my Ironman run. Not knowing yet how mediocre the amiibo units were, I wanted to get Robin as soon as possible to have fun using him. That map is actually pretty damned nasty on ironman. The map uses a stubborn AI often found in late game Conquest maps, and has a powerful great knight with Luna and a shrine maiden with a hexing rod. These two factors combined presented an extremely nasty worst-case scenario for anyone who approached the Great Knight, and given low deployment and (if I recall correctly) wary fighter on the great Knight, player-phase assaulting him without ending at least one turn with somebody in the range of both the great Knight and hexing rod was impossible. Somebody had to take the worst case scenario hit, which means I had to know what that was, or waste a rescue charge flying over the river to assassinate the shrine maiden and pray I didn't miss.

I wound up having to do the latter anyway because the AI was far more clever and cautious than I anticipated, making a frontal assault basically impossible with the information I had about what it would take to get him to move. But the point is that the only reason I even attempted the battle was because I knew I had trained a unit tough enough to survive that hex-luna worst case scenario, which I only knew because I knew exactly what Luna and the hexing rod did. If I didn't know that, I would be risking a total party wipe of all four of my units due to a change that replaced calculated risk assessment with blind risk assessment.

Edited by Alastor15243

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...