Welcome to Gaia! ::

Gale, Shinon needs to move tonight.

Sorry about that, turn taken. Work's been crazy. ******** these dice, man.

I'm trying to figure out what crack I've been on recently, because none of my numbers are coming out right at the moment.

On the critical issue: Currently, the skill says "double total damage inflicted", which would make Vaida's first calculation correct, which is:


However, I'm more partial to critical working the same way that double damage is calculated for when, say, an arrow hits a flying unit, which is:


The difference in the two is that the first one will be the amount of the enemy's defense less damage than the second calculation.

I intended critical to be the second calculation, but my wording was wrong and I think that's how the first calculation came to be. However, I'll leave what's fair up to popular opinion, so long as they leave the current situation of game 4 out of their determination.

Why, though? Because that's not what I had intended. Plus, critical is double damage (not in the actual FE games- it's x3 in them)... and I have no clue what "bonus damage" is referring to.

Alternatively, I could also alter it to incorporate that triple damage tradition and bring some middle ground in the damage output.


But I'd like to settle this soon since we need to know how to proceed in game 4, and I hadn't realized there was a problem.

I think for simplicity's sake we go with the second one. It's easier to have the same equation for essentially the same effect and I think it's less confusing too. The only difference is the die used.

The problem I have with the first equation is the enemy getting buffed just because the ally used the skill. All of the other skills don't increase enemy stats except for Gamble, but that's luck based.

If this changes the outcome of game 4, I'd like Seth to bottleneck the junction with Pavise because the last thing we need is three barbarians hitting that fort when Jaren's already been a pain in the ******** a**.
scratch that, you will die, see below

Personally, I'm game for any formula that isn't how it's currently worded. Running the numbers with the current formula, Critical's effectiveness pays off less the more Mihira's base STR is nullified. For instance, for a hypothetical enemy with zero defense, Mihira has a chance of doing a whopping maximum of 30 damage with Critical [(8+7)*2], compared to the measly 17 at standard [10+7]. Compare this with what actually happened, and we end up with 12 maximum for Critical [((8+7)-9)*2 = 6*2] and 8 for standard [10-2]. For hypothetical outcomes, it doesn't make sense to do only four more damage for gambling on a Critical because you shoved a lance in an armor knight's face and he ate said hypothetical max outcome. And as that defense goes up, that benefit gets smaller and smaller -- +6 damage when the DEF cancels out STR, and on from there. 6.25% vs 10% for optimal outcomes.

So I'm game for the formula being optimized, because the risk doesn't seem worth the payout when there's only a one in four chance of activating Critical, and only two of those results even give you anything above what you could do with a standard attack. But I won't say to what I prefer, as that wouldn't be fair to the current situation.

And Vika and Jaren just got to have a hardcore boss-style battle dialogue. Hell yeah!



Seth, with three Gambles and barbarians cancelling out your DEF with their STR, you have a 44% chance of dying unprotected with that Pavise roll of 6. Except you're poisoned, so that's more of a 56% chance. If you camp on the fort previously occupied by The Myrmidon Formerly Known as Jaren, you keep them from doing so, and you drop to a 22.5% chance of death. Do that.