I would expect the hate generated by Warcry to depend on how many people it hits, like the hate for bard songs. --Valyana 10:38, 29 June 2007 (CDT)
- Its generally accepted that Warcry has the same amount of hate attached to it as a Provoke. I've seen it hit 2 people and cause a mob to turn as much as I've seen it turn after hitting 6. The enmity spike is most likely attributed to the fact that it is hitting the user, and not because it is hitting everyone else. --TC 11:14, 29 June 2007 (CDT)
Similarly to the theory I posted on the Talk:Last_Resort page, it seems Warcry gives a bonus of 13/256 (5.078125%) attack, not 5.25%.
Numbers (still DRK73/WAR36, still no gear equipped) :
Attack with a Scythe : 369.
Attack with Warcry : 387.
369*(1+12/256)=386.296875. Too low.
369*1.0525=388.3725 => The 5.25% increase listed at the moment is too high.
If you've got numbers to prove this wrong or back it up, please post them. --AshmadaLakshmi 10:10, 6 August 2007 (CDT)
im not sure what the exact amount is, but i do know that as a ninja, my warcry is gives less atk then when a war uses it (about 8~15 or so less i think) possibly based on the atk, or str of the user? or maybe just less effect if subbed? --rOg \ TaLk 06:39, 20 August 2007 (CDT)
I just tested the "lesser effect when subbed" theory, and it appears to be correct:
WAR37/DRK18, naked with a Dagger (only weapon I had under 37) :
Attack without buffs : 151.
Attack with Warcry : 159.
DRK73/WAR36, without a weapon (I have a low H2H skill, helps to get Attack low enough) and with a few +Attack gear:
Attack without buffs : 151.
Attack with Warcry : 158.
Subjob isn't the only way to explain the discrepancy, and my numbers are too low to prove much, but it is intriguing.
Can you please provide numbers the next time you experience the phenomenon ?--AshmadaLakshmi 12:44, 21 August 2007 (CDT)
it would appear to be based on war level.
nin/war 386 without warcry 407 with warcry 407/386= 5.44% increase
war/sam 419 without warcry 456 with warcry 456/419= 8.83% increase
Sure took me a while to notice your new data, but yes, that pretty much proves it's tied to level. I just ran quick tests of my own (still in pursuit of precise numbers) : SAM75/WAR37 : Atk in TP gear : 428. Atk with Warcry : 451.
SAM75/WAR37 : Atk by switching some gear around : 452. Atk with Warcry : 476.
DRK75/WAR37 : Atk in TP gear : 472. Atk with Warcry : 497.
Between those numbers and the old numbers (those for WAR37 only), +5% doesn't fit (too low), +13/256 is too low as well, but 14/256 fits perfectly. Tested 27/512 just in case, it's too low as well ; while 29/512 is too high.
So, it gives +14/256th at WAR37.
At WAR75, the only number that fits your data is 23/256. 45/512 is too low, 47/512 too high.
At WAR36, using my old numbers, it seems to be 13/256, but 25/512 fits as well.
We still lack data to deduce the exact level progression formula, but I'll edit the 37 and 75 values in the main page. --AshmadaLakshmi 14:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Could someone test the following formula on other war (or /war) levels than 36, 37, 75 and 76 please ? WarCryAttackBoost% = [Floor((Level-1)*25%)+5]/256 Masamunai 17:10, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
That formula would suggest 24/256 increase at level 80. Tested as war/sam with 478 attack, had 522 after.
478 * 23/256 = 520.94 = 520
478 * 24/256 = 522.81 = 522
So it predicted the level 80 effect right. Jathem 05:08, August 2, 2010 (UTC)
It was stated on japanese wiki years ago this ability was actually modified by INT. Could someone verify? --Seraphus 06:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Normally, it's the one trying to prove the theory to provide tests, but this is easy enough to disprove (well, when I say easy... it did require some tweaking to get the exact same Atk on both jobs) :
BLM75/WAR37, INT62+50 : Base Atk : 259. With Warcry : 273.
SAM75/WAR37, INT52+0 : Base Atk : 259. With Warcry : 273.
I think a difference of 60 INT is sufficient to deduce it isn't modified by INT. (I also tested other Atk values, but while they confirms INT has no effect, they never matched exactly on both jobs, 318 vs 319 and so on)--AshmadaLakshmi 15:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)