|
(0001586)
|
|
Zamolxis
|
2011-03-02 21:20
(edited on: 2013-06-10 13:04) |
|
Wraiths did do as little as 1 damage (as seen on screenshot and report summary). But they should do more. ;) [EDIT: disregard this line; I see now you were referring to OH3]
Let's take it in order:
> 1st, Wraiths should be immune to Curse, but that's 0000180 :p
> 2nd, as per Tribute to Strategists, Curse should reduce Base Damage to (minimum damage - 1). For Wraiths, which have Damage 3 - 5, that is (3 - 1) = 2.
Note: The "down to a minimum of 1" doesn't refer to the minimum (base or total) damage for all creatures, but to the minimum value we can get by applying the (minimum damage - 1) formula. So it basically means that if creature's minimum damage is 1 (e.g.: Peasants), Curse should not reduce it to 0.
> 3rd: a Wraith's Total Damage should be Base Damage * (1 + bonuses) * (1 - reduction a) * (1 - reduction b) * ..., so, if you take the map I specified, with Dread Knight Defense 19 vs Wraith Attack 8, you get Total Damage = 2 * (1 + 0) * (1 - 0.025*(19-8)) = 2 * 1 * (1 - 0.275) = 2 * 0.725 = 1.45
> 4th: a Wraith's Total Damage of 1.45 still needs to be multiplied with the number of Wraiths in stack, that is 5 in the screenshot above, so they should inflict 5 * 1.45 = [7.25] = 7 Damage to my Dread Knight.
Note: Tribute to Strategists mentions that "damage is rounded down", however it doesn't specifically say if it's the Total Damage per creature in stack (1.45 above), or per stack as a whole (7.25). I incline to believe it's the latter, but even if it's the former, Wraiths should still inflict 5 Damage to my Dread Knight, but that was not the case.
|
|
2011-03-01_CurseOnWraiths.jpg (33,491) 2011-03-01 20:24