I tried to figure out this as well. The conclusion I came to - as stupid as it sounds is this:
full damage = floor[spell damage * (base + int) * (base + potency)]
it seems utterly stupid but it also seems consistent with the actual values.
Here is what you get if you run your numbers
case a:
144.9 potency
+15% base multiplier from AA's
int mod 97.06%
NO ABILITY MOD
spell damage = 1398 (what lifetap should be with 0 potency, int bonus, etc)
base = 1.15
potency = 1.44 (note 144.9 = 144 potency in SoE book)
int = 0.9706
full damage = floor[spell damage * (base + int) * (base + potency)]
full damage = floor[1398 * (1.15 + 0.9706) * (1.15 + 1.44)]
full damage = floor[1398 * 2.1206 *2.59]
full damage = floor[7678.310892]
full damage = 7678
case b:
13% potency
+15% base from AA's
int mod 29.79%
NO ABILITY MOD
spell damage = 1398 (what lifetap should be with 0 potency, int bonus, etc)
base = 1.15
potency = 0.13
int = 0.2979
full damage = floor[spell damage * (base + int) * (base + potency)]
full damage = floor[1398 * (1.15 + 0.2979) * (1.15 + 0.13)]
full damage = floor[1398 * 1.4479 * 1.28]
full damage = floor[2590.930176]
full damage = 2590
Lófasz a kurva anyád rohadt seggébe te kibaszott dög. :14:
shit, thanks dorsan... i tried a very similar formula, but didnt add the base as 1.15 twice like that... heh, very strange formula ;/
i'm attempting to make a basic console app in c++ to accept input of your stats (int mods, potency, etc) and your "final" spell damage / spell damage range of a spell and return the floor(base) and max ability mod possibly (with your modifiers).. now i can start ;p
thanks much
Look, it makes no sense to me either. But that is the only equation I see that would work with the values we get in game.
If this is a correct equation (which I am still not 100% sure about), then my guess is it happened like this:
phase 1 (old days):
full damage = spell damage * int * base
phase 2 (introduction of potency):
full damage = spell damage * int * (base + potency)
phase 3 (int revamp):
full damage = spell damage * (base + int) * (base + potency)
Now what is interesting is that at phase 3 they changed int to work as another type of potency. So my guess is someone screwed up at that point and just used the same base for it as the potency, so instead of (1 + int) we ended up with (base + int).
That's about the only logical explanation for this I can think of.
Lófasz a kurva anyád rohadt seggébe te kibaszott dög. :14:
if you ever noticed mitigation %'s last expansion, items that added 6.3% or 1.3% or 2.5% or w/e didnt add that much. They seemed to add way more... the equation was working as intended after i showed it to SOE. It was pretty fucked up like this one, it was:
1.15 = defensive stance
mitigation mod = mitigation multipliers on defensive armor
One piece's mit = base mit of piece x (1.15 x mitigation mod)
Toon's final mit = all piece's combined mit x mitigation mod
They changed the mitigation formula this expansion, that's why you saw everyone's mit drop from like 14k down to numbers like 10k or so.
Too bad SOE isn't like CCP (Eve online) and show you the formulas on how damage is calculated.
I wonder why they still hide that info.
they do show it, i posted it for the OP. the only thing that remains a mystery is where the AA and deity base damage bonus is factored in since it does not "behave" like regular base damage.
been thinking about but want to do some testing once i get a better connection right now i'm on dial up and it's a constant lag fest with 1ooooooo ping and shit. gona do some test to see if it's maybe added directly to the spell at the second multiplier. it would explain why it does not affect the pet and seems to give a lightly higher number then it should.
they do show it? strange, i asked them and they said they were unable to release that information due to a vow of silence from contractual issues, and the devs have the same vow of silence.
your informer gonna get shot!
Orly?
i'm sure the dev not answering your question had more to do with you not knowing how to ask or what you're asking for.