Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Lower ranks of Cancel Affinity function incorrectly #28

Closed
winsomniak opened this issue Jan 7, 2018 · 2 comments
Closed

Lower ranks of Cancel Affinity function incorrectly #28

winsomniak opened this issue Jan 7, 2018 · 2 comments
Assignees

Comments

@winsomniak
Copy link
Owner

Reported via email, confirmed by myself

This one is pretty old but potentially challenging. I put it off because it deals specifically with lower ranking abilities, which aren't a huge priority for most people.

Details

When Cancel Affinity 3 is in effect against a Triangle Adept 3 or Gem Weapon user, who would normally have a 40% bonus against an enemy due to the combined 20% of the weapon triangle advantage bonus and the 20% adept bonus, the calculator applies a -40% penalty, resulting in a 0% bonus, as if a unit had no triangle advantage at all. This is the correct result.

However, when Cancel Affinity 3 is in effect against a Triangle Adept 1 or Triangle Adept 2 user, who would normally have a 30/35% bonus against an enemy due to the combined 20% of the weapon triangle advantage bonus and the 10/15% adept bonus, the calculator still applies a -40% penalty. This results in a -10/-5% penalty, where it should be a 10/5% bonus.

Cancel Affinity 3 reverses the adept bonuses of enemy units, meaning that the 20% weapon triangle advantage bonus and a 10% adept bonus would become a 20% weapon triangle advantage bonus and a -10% penalty, resulting in a 10% bonus. Please fix this error so I can see exactly how well Triangle Adept 1 or Triangle Adept 2 users actually perform against Cancel Affinity 3 users.

This was referenced Jan 7, 2018
@winsomniak
Copy link
Owner Author

We tested this one right?

@Lorenzooone
Copy link
Collaborator

Yup. It's been fixed!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants