The Hidden Truth Behind R8 Set Bonus

アイドンノウくん

• Old Player
Assumptions:
1. All players pk with R8 full set (armor, leggings, boots, wrists), excluding weapon.
2. All classes' full R8 set bonus includes +25 def lvl and +25 att lvl.

We can, therefore express the att lvl and def lvl of a player as:
Att lvl = 25 + X , where X = att lvl received from weapon, engraves, accessories, and skills.
Def lvl = 25 + Y, where T = def lvl received from weapon, engraves, accessories, and skills.

For simplicity, let's assume X and Y are both 0. Hence, everyone's att lvl and def lvl are 25. This is the number resulted from the full R8 set bonus.

Based on the nature of att lvl and def lvl, when they equal each other, they will cancel out each other. Hence, when everyone pks with full r8 set, they are actually cancelling out each other's att lvl and def lvl boost from r8 set. This leads to the conclusion where the att lvl and def lvl boost from r8 set is actually eliminated when everyone uses full r8 set. This is a very common situation, especially in mass pk.

So, the actual att lvl and def lvl boost does not come from r8 set bonus, but from weapon, engraves, and accessories.

Consider a even more general case where everyone uses at least 2 r8 gears, but not necessary 4 gears, he/she will gain +25 def lvl from the set bonus. This still means other players' +25 att lvl boost from their set will be offset by the +25 def lvl boost which everyone has.

The conclusion is that the att lvl and def lvl boost from r8 set is only effective when hitting an opponent without the same set bonus, which is very unlikely to happen in this server. Otherwise, the att lvl and def lvl boost from r8 set cancels out each other. At the end, only the att lvl and def lvl gained from gears, other than r8 set bonus is relevant.

*Since we are only interested in the att lvl and def lvl boost from r8 set bonus, it is justifiable to assume the att lvl and def lvl received from other gears is 0.

*Assumption 2 might be controversial, as some classes might have different amount of att lvl and def lvl boost.

wannabepro

• Member
Are u sure u know what "Boost"word means?

SQUISHY BARB

• Member
• Characters: SQUlSHY
i pk in dragon gear, does that mean i am doomed? x.0
SQUlSHY - Sage DPH Barb White Panda
__SQUISHY__ - Demon Mystic - alt

アイドンノウくん

• Old Player
i pk in dragon gear, does that mean i am doomed? x.0
No. The conclusion of this thread only holds when the 2 assumptions are met.

Harry

• Forum Veteran
• Faction: Outcasts☆
No-one cares about Set Bonuses. It's all about engraves, cards and R8 wep.

scatterer3

No-one cares about Set Bonuses. It's all about engraves, cards and R8 wep.

+1

But don't include cards, they're easy as hell...

Agatio

• Game Veteran
No-one cares about Set Bonuses. It's all about engraves, cards and R8 wep.
This is what he wrote:

So, the actual att lvl and def lvl boost does not come from r8 set bonus, but from weapon, engraves, and accessories.
(...)
At the end, only the att lvl and def lvl gained from gears, other than r8 set bonus is relevant.
In theory this is correct. But in practice shrinking the set bonuses (removing them entirely) would give even bigger importance to attack /defense levels of weapon, cards, accessories and engraves. Which not necessarily would be an improvement. And these set bonuses have to be there to keep the difference between dragon gear and balance between classes (att/def from set bonuses isn't the same for all classes).

Harry

• Forum Veteran
• Faction: Outcasts☆
This is what he wrote:

I meant that they should remain. No-one has ever complained about them before, to my knowledge, and as you have said removing them would mean that only the ones with good atk/def level weps. would have high atk/def levels. So, possibly the ones who donate - turning it more into PWI's economy.

cevans1290

No, the gear set bonuses all are different(Or, mostly). And there is a good bit of players with 2 parts dragon, 3 R8 for the separate bonuses - - - Assassin, for example. They can't use full R8 a lot of the time because then they lose their aps, without 2x/3x wrist and 1x/2x Chest. Few sins anymore DPH on epw, So we mix it up - Keep aps, get Defense level off R8 and some off of Dragon set.

アイドンノウくん

• Old Player
This topic is pretty much theoretical based. That's why the 2 assumptions are there. However, these assumptions can be easily met, especially for archer class, due to the large population of the class. As long as one class fights against another class with the same att lvl and def lvl r8 bonus, their att lvl and def lvl bonus from r8 set will be cancelled out.

Without any doubts, r8 set should have more superior set bonus than dragon set's; and it makes sense too. That's why the att lvl and def lvl bonus from r8 set is only effective when fighting against someone without them.

Yes, assumption 2 is controversial, and in fact, not true in reality. But, again, this thread is theoretical based, and the conclusion still holds in some circumstances, which is quite common.

Lust

• Member
• Characters: Lusted
Too many variables to account for.

Dad+Lust. I sucked on her female balls while she benchpressed me and my computer.

Ace

• Member
• Stop bothering me.
• Characters: Ace
Yes, assumption 2 is controversial, and in fact, not true in reality. But, again, this thread is theoretical based, and the conclusion still holds in some circumstances, which is quite common.
If it is just straight up untrue it's not controversial. For something to even be controversial it has to either be already something established or be something that is proposed. Assumption 2 is niether and just false. It would be like if I said to assume dogs can fly. That's not considered controversial even though most disagree with that because there is NO legitamite other side of the agruement since the assumption in itself is a logical fallacy.
so because all set bonuses attack/def level wize aren't the same and you're building your agruement on a fallacy, I don't see the relevance of the point you are really making. Set bonuses aren't all the same for balance reasons which is why the fact that they are there does matter. If I put a dragon top on my archer it' s only to purge someone before 1v1 or get chi, not in a fight because the attack levels I get do matter. So the actual attack/def level does in a sense come from set bonuses as well when looking at things from a class-to-class basis.
Last Edit: Apr 23, 2014, 06:04 pm by Ace

アイドンノウくん

• Old Player
If it is just straight up untrue it's not controversial. For something to even be controversial it has to either be already something established or be something that is proposed. Assumption 2 is niether and just false. It would be like if I said to assume dogs can fly. That's not considered controversial even though most disagree with that because there is NO legitamite other side of the agruement since the assumption in itself is a logical fallacy.
so because all set bonuses attack/def level wize aren't the same and you're building your agruement on a fallacy, I don't see the relevance of the point you are really making. Set bonuses aren't all the same for balance reasons which is why the fact that they are there does matter. If I put a dragon top on my archer it' s only to purge someone before 1v1 or get chi, not in a fight because the attack levels I get do matter. So the actual attack/def level does in a sense come from set bonuses as well when looking at things from a class-to-class basis.
Yea, I agree with your first paragraph. Assumption 2 was proven untrue, so I shouldn't have said it is controversial. However, I have to disagree with your second paragraph. I think you have missed out some points that the thread or my reply above is trying to tell. Anyways, the whole idea is based on theory, and it is not meant to be reflecting the actual situation in game. It, however, does provide some insights about the balance purposes that r8 set is intended for.

Ace

• Member
• Stop bothering me.
• Characters: Ace
Yea, I agree with your first paragraph. Assumption 2 was proven untrue, so I shouldn't have said it is controversial. However, I have to disagree with your second paragraph. I think you have missed out some points that the thread or my reply above is trying to tell. Anyways, the whole idea is based on theory, and it is not meant to be reflecting the actual situation in game. It, however, does provide some insights about the balance purposes that r8 set is intended for.
if it were merely a 1 attack level=1 defense level system where equivilent attack levels cancel out def levels, yea you would be right. It unfortunately isn't
Unless Agatio changed it this is the accepted dmg modifier for attack and defense levels

If Attack Level > Defense Level:
damage = damage dealt * (1 + (A - D)/100)

If Defense Level > Attack Level:
damage = damage dealt / (1 + 1.2 * (D - A)/100)

At first attack levels do cancel out defense levels yes, but attack levels have diminishing returns while defense levels have constant returns. So there it is for ya. Wanna calculate for the def/attack lvl stuff we got here this should work out fine.
Last Edit: Apr 24, 2014, 07:11 am by Ace

アイドンノウくん

• Old Player
if it were merely a 1 attack level=1 defense level system where equivilent attack levels cancel out def levels, yea you would be right. It unfortunately isn't
Unless Agatio changed it this is the accepted dmg modifier for attack and defense levels

If Attack Level > Defense Level:
damage = damage dealt * (1 + (A - D)/100)

If Defense Level > Attack Level:
damage = damage dealt / (1 + 1.2 * (D - A)/100)

At first attack levels do cancel out defense levels yes, but attack levels have diminishing returns while defense levels have constant returns. So there it is for ya. Wanna calculate for the def/attack lvl stuff we got here this should work out fine.
Yes. I do know about the things that you mentioned above. That's why the 2 assumptions were introduced at the very beginning of the thread; and all other factors that affect att lvl and def lvl were kept at 0, since we are only interested in the att lvl and def lvl bonus from r8 set (I am basically repeating what I said in the thread above). This thread is mainly theoretical based; so it is bound by the assumptions. Also, a lot of your concerns have been addressed in the thread.