Talk:Throwin' Down the Gauntlet

At level 78 of the basement, I lost 1,475 hit points. I suppose DA might help you, though.--Starwed 18:33, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

(Try singing your posts please) I would say that DA certainly helps as I hit level 105 yesterday and the most HP I was hit for was 900 something. --J12601 16:32, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

I just got through losing 1083 HP, basement level 47. Most annoying level yet. --Annamonster 01:43, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

(As lightgreycat.) Lost 1,871 hit points at level 92. Didn't read this talk page in advance, so I didn't maximize DA, but rather, muscle/HP. Effects did not include either astral or ghostly shell. I was wearing a stainless skullcap, bat-ass jacket, stainless shilly, pilgrim shield, can-can skirt, bejeweled pledge pin, copper alpha of sincerity, and plexi pinky ring. And I have Tao, but not Hero. Buffed stats were 1605/1090/2150. Level 27 disco bandit. --Greycat 20:21, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

As every value might help, at level 7 I lost 77 health. I should also point out but nobody has mentioned yet that if you fail you'll get a beat up for 4 turns instead of 3. --Golianor 02:35, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, im at level 66, and i didn't even survive it with 1800HP. And it doesn't even tell me how much HP i lost... Is it possible there's more to this adventure than just hp? --Misanthrope 06:43, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm at level 161 and I can't pass it with over 4500 HP. This tells me that this is likely a damage absorption test and not simply an HP test since I've been trying to maximize HP without paying any attention to damage absorption.--Yiab 18:38, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

Just wondering, but does Damage Reduction Work here?--RPGMarker35 19:44, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

• Not sure. I'd assume so, but once it starts dealing 5000+ damage, DR becomes a bit of a moot point. --TechSmurf 19:47, 29 July 2007 (CDT)

At basement level 253, I took 4,788 damage with 800 DA + whatever an Antique Shield gives you. This leads me to believe that one of either Grimdel or I is doing something wrong. (Since I was at a lower level, with more DA, and took more damage than him.) Perhaps you forgot to take Tao into consideration?--SketchySolid 14:19, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

At level 258, 4,883 damage under the same conditions.--SketchySolid 14:33, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Data

Here's my "corrected/new" data collection from my last basement level run:

• lvl DA hp
• === == ==
• 127 865 1685
• 142 865 1928
• 146 865 2037
• 157 865 2173
• 222 835 3447 <- forgot twinkly powder
• 272 865 4724
• 342 995 4264 <- upgraded armor
• 348 995 4250
• 364 995 4632
• 396 995 4880
• 416 995 5400
• 439 995 5967
• 478 995 6537

--Grimdel 18:03, 24 August 2007 (CDT)

Formula

Going by just Grimdel's (old/bad) data, I think the base damage is about 5*level^1.4. According to the DA formula, 510 means you absorb 61.4% of the base damage. Calculating the base damage and dividing by L^1.4 gives

4.95, 4.85, 4.92, 4.744

I'm not too sure about this, though, and it would be nice to have data over a larger range of levels and DA, from multiple characters. --Starwed 03:27, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

Everything spaded about the basement so far scales as L^1.4. So it's a good starting point. But 10% variability is larger than seen elsewhere in the basement, so I'm wondering if there is something extra here. --Starwed 18:58, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

• running the "above corrected/new" numbers through this little piece of code:

   percent_absorbed = 10.*(sqrt(DA*0.1)-1.);
   coefficient = (hp_drained/(percent_absorbed*0.01))/pow(lvl, 1.4);

gives:

2.302, 2.253, 2.898, 2.206, 2.198, 2.222, 1.346, 1.310, 1.340, 1.255, 1.296, 1.328, 1.292

The numbers suggest a very rough estimate of:

• HP Drain = DA% *1.789*level^1.4 +/- 5%

A larger dataset is definately needed. However, if you notice the trend in the :calculations, I would guess the formula is closer to the form:

• HP Drain = DA% * C0*(level (operator) C1)^1.4

On the other hand, it seems coincidental that the MP test uses a coeficient of 1.67 and the coefficient here is 1.789 and I see two possible patterns - 1) "67" "789" and 2) a larger dataset might reveal that the coeficient is probably the same for both tests.

--Grimdel 18:03, 24 August 2007 (CDT)