Talk: Formation Attributes

PC 2 Unknown Formation

just got 2 new formation in PC 1.Eremurus Rain (An ancient formation, effect are determined by placement, lowering all my stat significantly, not tried) 2.The Slayer (Improves attack and defense of the lead ranks, and mystic attack and defense of back rank, defense down very significant, not tried)

just got after finishing the fallen quest. picture coming soon..my internet connection is so slow even writing this requires 10x refresh and back...

--Lordalexandrite 11:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have Porcelain Chain and Mystic Seal some time ago but I can't remember when I got it. Porcelain Chain increases ATK and MYS but reduces DEF and MDEF to zero. Mystic Seal increases DEF and MDEF but reduces ATK and MYS to zero.

--Mizstik 01:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

PC vs Xbox360 Version

There are significant differences of formation requirements and character formation attributes between the PC version and Xbox version. Currently, the wiki lists the formation info for Xbox version only.

In the PC version, formation requirements have been reduced: Chisel III no longer requires 5x Qusiti. It only needs 3x Qusiti max.

Character formation attributes have also been reduced in accordance. Heroes no longer have all the formation attributes and leaders have reduced attributes as well:

Hematea, McGrady, Violet -> Mirror Shield II

Hematea, David/Emmy/Rush, Violet -> Mirror Shield I

Hematea, Glenys, Violet -> Mirror Shield I

Formating Options

Time for some opinions, please. This is a really complicated mechanic to explain, and I have no idea if I've done a decent job. How does it look to you? Too many headings? Too many links? Not enough links? More detail? Less detail? Just can't work out what the hell I'm going on about?
Ferret37 01:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC).

I think you explained pretty well, since it's you can't simply explain in few words, I'd say just change Mechanics to Example will be good enough Sarmu 01:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you think it'd be possible to put on the attribute that each character has on the character's page? We could also add an extra variable in the infoboxes where we can list them... I think it'd be rather helpful and then people can browse the character's pages while getting all the information that they need. Andrealinia970 12:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, definitely needs to be on character pages, and I think the infobox is the right place. I'll have a look at that, and at working out everyone else's attributes, if I ever get all the formations finished.

Ferret37 14:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC).

I've added them to the templates. Which layou do you prefer, Rush Sykes or Kate?
Merthos 15:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the Kate version, bullet points make it easier to read.

Andrealinia970 18:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the Kate version looks cleaner.
Ferret37 19:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC).

Some opinion!

I think there's something go wrong here. I try put Torgal and Baulson in Raider's Fork but it's still the same,not upgrade to Raider's Fork III. I try with some formation as well,but no result! Can you double check it? Blackrose28

Just double checked, Torgal and Baulson on their own in Raiders' Fork definitely upgrade to level III. At least, they do on the 360 version. I'm going to guess that you're playing the PC version, and you've discovered another difference between the versions that we didn't know about? Ferret37 20:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah,that's right! And that mean in PC,everything about formation is different. So it need some more research. Blackrose28

Well, if you find anything out, please let us know - even if it's a single combination that did something, it's somewhere to start. Thanks! Ferret37 08:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Just did some testing on the Princer's Grip/Talon's Clutch/Claw's Grasp for the PC. It seems that this formation requires Yama to be in the formation. Rush, Baulson, Blocter gives Talon's Clutch.. adding Emma brings it to Clutch 2, David makes it Clutch 3. However replacing Emma with Gaou changes the formation to Claw's Grasp. I suspect that Glaw's Grasp might require a formation with all 5 Yama to get level 3.

More testing done... Ballista 3 requires at least 3x Slovani.

This is great information, exactly what we need. Can I ask for the results of some specific tests on Pincers' Grip? I'm interested in the following combinations:

Rush, David

Rush, Blocter

Rush, Baulson

Blocter, Baulson

Rush, David, Emma

Rush, David, Blocter

Rush, David, Baulson

Baulson, Blocter, Gaou

Should only take a couple of minutes, and your time would be much appreciated. Thanks for the contributions so far!

Ferret37 12:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I only have Pincer's Grip and Talon's Clutch but not yet the other. And I don't have Gaou yet. Here's some testing so far:

Rush,David: Pincer's Grip II

Rush,Blocter: Pincer's Grip III

Rush,Baulson: Pincer's Grip II

Blocter, Baulson : Pincer's Grip II

Rush, David, Emma : Pincer's Grip II

Rush, David, Blocter : Pincer's Grip III

Rush, David, Baulson : Pincer's Grip III Blackrose28

Awesome, thanks. That was really quick, I should be able to work out Pincers' Grip completely from that. Give me a few minutes and I'll be back asking for more! Ferret37 12:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Just one question? How can you work without your copy PC version? If you don't have,I could share you mine. (not exacly mine,but consider it mine!) Blackrose28

Yep, got Pincers' Grip and a bit of Talons' Grasp from that. The next step will probably involve some extra hiring - Eupert and Raymone are tier 1 generic soldiers.

Rush, Blocter, Eupert

Rush, Blocter, Raymone

Rush, David, Blocter, Eupert

Rush, David, Baulson, Eupert

Rush, David, Eupert, Raymore

Rush, David, Blocter, Raymone, Eupert

Rush, David, Blocter, Baulson, Raymone

Um, I'm not really sure I understand your question. I've been working from the 360 version, and when the PC version came out I decided not to get it as I'm not planning another playthrough for a while. Is that what you meant? Ferret37 14:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You probably already considered this and this is too much for my brain, but is there any possibility that leader/soldier's formation attribute changed? Sarmu 14:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's what I meant: I don't have Claws' Grasp,cause I play it the first time. And if you already played it,you could,I mean,cheat in PC version to have all the formation you need to test. I could do that,but I don't want to ruin my game in my first playtime by cheating. So I suggest I could,or someone could share you the PC version so you can work with full speed. Are we clear? (Sorry if my English was that bad,it's not my native lang).

Now some result:

Rush, Blocter, Eupert : Pincer's Grip III

Rush, Blocter, Raymone : Talon's Clutch

Rush, David, Blocter, Eupert : Talon's Clutch

Rush, David, Baulson, Eupert : Talon's Clutch

Rush, David, Eupert, Raymore : Talon's Clutch

Rush, David, Blocter, Raymone, Eupert : Talon's Clutch II

Rush, David, Blocter, Baulson, Raymone : Talon's Clutch III Blackrose28

Hmm, that's not quite what I was expecting, but it's almost enough to get Talons' Clutch finished. Just need one more:

Rush, David, Blocter, Emma, Raymone

Sarmu - Yeah, that was a worry at first, but the more results I see, the more it looks like they haven't changed. And yes, it's making my head hurt a bit too.

Blackrose - Ah, I see what you mean. It would be much faster if I had the PC version, and I could pick it up from work easily enough, but while there's still so much to do that I don't need it for, I'll carry on with what I've got. Thanks for the offer though.

Ferret37 15:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Rush, David, Blocter, Emma, Raymone: Talon's Clutch III

Uhm,you know,in my country,it's midnight now. I have work tomorrow so I have to sleep. That's why I suggest you could have your own testing tool (smile). See you tomorrow. Blackrose28

Yeah, you could be right. I can't get all the rest of them done this way - apart from it taking forever, it would make my head explode. It's harder to think of the right questions to ask than it is to work out what the answers mean. Thanks for all your help, Pincers' Grip and Talons' Clutch are now complete!

Ferret37 16:02, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already went to sleep,but suddenly I remember: In all result I've tested, I've used Emmy instead of Emma. What a mistake! So,I just want to inform you. Finnaly,good night! Blackrose28

Not a problem, they have the same attributes so the results are still good. Cheers! Ferret37 23:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

--More scoop from the one who initially posted the findings on Claw's Grasp... I'm almost certain that its an all Yama formation. Since I got Zolean, and now the union costs of Blocter, Baulson, Gaou and Zolean... and I have Claw's Gtasp II. Duke of Ghor would probably seal the deal right there. In other developments it looks like Chisel is Qisti formation. Currently have Pagus, Maddox, Leshau and the other one, with Rush in that union, I have Chisel II. This makes me wonder the requirements of Maddock changed to.. but then again I haven't got the Maddock formation so I will update once I get it. On a sidenote: does anyone on the PC gotten guild rank 2 by killing sledgehammer. I have been trying to get Slegehammer to spawn for the past 4 hours and no luck.

Yeah, it's got to be Yama based - the Yama requirements for Pincers' Grip and Talons' Clutch are confirmed now. You know you can use generic Yama soldiers for this kind of thing too, right? They don't have to be leaders.

As for Sledgehammer, he's pretty annoying to spawn on the 360 version too (it took me way more than 4 hours - I had to keep going back at different points in the story). The info on his page is accurate, so just keep trying, he'll turn up eventually.

Ferret37 12:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

-- I think another question is, now that we know the formation requirements have changed (as we can see from Claw's Grasp), did the character formation attributes change as well? Or perhaps it is a combination of both. I can't even get Avalanche I or Pegasus I.

No, I'm confident the attributes are still the same. The results above are consistent with the values I was expecting, even down to generic soldiers. If attributes had changed as well as requirements, we'd have got a string of nonsensical or contradictory results and wouldn't have been able to pin down the formations that we did.

I don't know what you've tried so far, but Pegasus could be based on Physical instead of Speed. Avalanche should be Mystic, but the other reuirements could be anything. Have you tried swapping out male/female?

Ferret37 14:03, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

-- Back again. My apologies for being away. Was too engrossed in just trying to speed through the game and get the new game plus option. Some information on that. ALL your components are transferred to the new game, along with all maps, orbs (arts), monster dailies and formations. A certain percentage of your gold is also tranferred. Not alot though. When you load up the new game,. you're given the option of whether you want to play in hard mode. Not really sure about hard mode yet, the monsters seem abit tougher. But once I got a full party going (ie. the 4 generals)... it seems like easy mode again.

-- I'll do more formation testing later on. I'm interested to see how all the purple ones work now. I believe with the leader limit removed, the developers put more requirements on the formations since with the old requirements you could easily fulfil them if you had 5 unique leaders in one union.

More PC version tests

I've been digging around trying to make heads or tails of these formations, and I think I hammered out the full requirements for a few. I put them on the talk page for each since I'm not 100% sure they're right. If you find a mistake, feel free to change em, or if you're sure they're right go ahead and put the stats on the main page. The ones I finished/semi finished are Talk:Scatterswarm Formation, Talk:Goblet Formation, Talk:Catapult Formation, Talk:Mystic Mountain Formation, and Talk:Cascade Formation.

I also found something strange while fiddling around. Occasionally when changing between a hero character (with all 5 attributes) and a character with less attributes it would actually upgrade a formation rather than downgrade it. For example, Pagus-Leshau-Megeleus-Rush-David made a Wroth Volcano 2, while Pagus-Leshau-Megeleus-Rush-McGrady made Wroth Volcano 3.

It kept giving me headaches until I thought of one possible reason. In the 360 version, some formations had the additional requirement of a Union Leader without the Special Attribute. Now, this is obviously not usable in the PC version, since even a soldier can be a unit leader now. What if they added a maximum number characters with the Special Attribute to some formations? It makes sense for some of the problems I was running into with the 6th level of a few of the formations I played with. Or it could just be that I was missing something; probably something really obvious. Dunno. It's 1 AM, I can't be expected to think clearly! AvatarAndy 05:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

About the special leaders: The position of the leader without the special does not matter, you only have to have him anywhere in the unit. Maybe this explains your observations?- Merthos 14:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Could very well be, I never played the 360 version so I was never 100% clear on what exactly the Leader without Special meant. So instead of Max 3 Specials it would require 2 Leaders without specials. I need to try a few more things out to check this. AvatarAndy 17:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried the Wroth Volcano formation using a soldier with the Mystic Attribute, and it did not up upgrade to WV 3, just stayed at WV 2 (which it filled the requirements for). So it definitely has to be the Leader without Special requirement and not a max number of specials. See, I knew trying to think at 1AM was a bad idea! =D AvatarAndy 01:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So as not to clutter this page, any more updates will be put on my talk page. Feel free to take a peek and make any corrections for stuff I missed! AvatarAndy 04:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Leader Roberto is listed on this Page with: Leaders WITHOUT the Special Attribute but he is also listed on the Page http://lastremnant.wikia.com/wiki/Special_Leaders_List. Since i dont have him yet, anyone who knows correct one of the Pages, or i will do it when i get him and have this checked.--Arandur80 20:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The Leader Lukorra is not a Primary Leader such all other ones here. You cant talk to him to raise his Stats. I think he should be removed.

PC version bonus values

I hate to open another can of worms for you all, but I was going to try to figure out the % for one of the PC only formations. So, I went to see the mechanics of how a simple formation (Cup of Cel), gave out the bonuses. I just couldn't get the numbers to add up, until I realized that the PC version seems to have different bonus values. Instead of 105%,110%,115%. It seems like 104%,108%,110%. Am I missing something on how the bonuses are given? Seattlebrian 05:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

PC probably uses the following values: +3%, +8%, +10%, +15% which are applied across the board when handling STR/INT/SPD increments. Perhaps it is the same for Formation related adjustment. Without being able to see the hidden changes it is really hard to say as I don't recall seeing any direct change to party member stats when formation has an effect like +5% SPD or -10% STR. I could be wrong though and I'll look into sometime. Mikeyakame 05:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about the Atk, Def, Mys, M.Def stats. I have no idea how to see the changes to STR/INT/SPD, or how anyone got those values for formations. Seattlebrian 06:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I just checked the XBOX values and they match yours, so it's not a case of a PC/XBOX difference. I have absolutely no idea where the numbers originate from (i assume either a strategy guide or a japanese site), but before we start mass editing them i'd prefer to find that out. Drake178 05:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The Original stats bonus values is done by ferret and it's based on the values in BrandyGuide, therefore it wasn't actually properly tested, obviously brandy guide has lots of errors so i'm not too surprised by this result Sarmu 00:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)