So why do we have the worst Espells?

[Demon6324236]

Thats not enhancing magic gear either, the only possible choice would be the neck because other than Portus and Rancor there are not many good necks, and in a situation where you need HP, Rancor is bad, so that left Portus which is a pain to get. Earring should never have enhancing, Hollow is not bad however its not enhancing so I did not count it.

[Mageoholic]

-I also tackled it '2 pages ago,' I simply felt it was worth restating my entire line of thought for context.

-Whose observation are we basing this on, the RDMs on this forum who've been screaming that Enspell IIs are total garbage, worthless, worse than Enspell I? I'm going to stick with my parser, thanks. However, for the sake of argument, lets factor in resists and do some calculations, shall we? I'm going to stick to 1/2 resists only for the sake of napkin math:

Enspell I damage : 12,534 damage
Enspell I damage at capped magic accuracy (95%) : 12,221 damage

Now, let's solve for Enspell II magic accuracy to equal Enspell I damage:

Enspell II damage : 14,508 damage

Solve for x = magic accuracy

(305*52x)+[305*26(1-x)] = 12,221
15860x + [7930(1-x)] = 12,221
x= .54

Given that 1/4 resists and lower are going to drive the results slightly lower, I'm comfortable bumping this result up a few notches to 56%

Highest magic accuracy possible on Enspell II for Enspell I to break even = ~56%

Granted, there hasn't been any conclusive testing on the subject, but the notion that 80 Enhancing skill is going to make a 39% difference in magic accuracy is pretty ridiculous. I can tell you that in every event I've brought RDM to be useful and melee(read: not Legion, NNI), I've never parsed less then ~80% magic accuracy on my Enspell IIs. Then again, I'm sure you guys are gonna believe whatever you want to believe regardless of math or facts.

Also, how can you posit that "if damage is determined upon strike, then so must accuracy" when half this thread has been spent bitching how ridiculous it is that Enspell 2 are (seemingly) worse than Enspell I, on account of there being a 'II' in the name of the spell? I've gotta say, that's some Romney-tier flip-flopping, bravo.

~~~~~



That was largely directed at Carth, not you, so you tell me; is it fun playing the martyr? /eyeroll

Ok first off, Enhancing magic has been established to represent .9 or 1 MACC (the fractional resist rates throw a cog into precise pinpointing.) So 80 ENH Skill is worth either 72 MACC (36% Hit Rate) and 80 MACC (40% hit rate) the Average is a 38% Hit Rate.

This means your lowest possible match point is 57%.

Now Enhancing MACC is directly related to a Mobs MEVA which we know is the term for Resistance, and is effectively a C skill neutrally. AT 75 cap mobs had 1 strong element, 1 weak element, and 6 neutral elements based on their crystal association. Ie. Fire Mobs were strong in fire, weak to water, and neutral to everything else. There is no reason to assume this model has changed and I personally can attest to that conclusion.

However the variance is relatively unknown at 75 it was a B- > D system which resulted in a 30 point spread. Or a 15 point increase on either side of neutrality. (7.5% land rate.) This may have changed I do not know, but it is easier for RDM to over cap this now due to skill progression differential. (D skills progressed less than B skills post Abyssea) because of this unknown element I will continue my post using C skill as the basis for discussion (keep in mind that using the strong enspell to the mobs element will result in more MACC, and the weak enspell in less, I just leave them out because the numbers are not really known because of skewed progression.)

Lets Assume we are facing a mob of level 99 and Even Match.

RDM MACC = 399 (AVG of both .9 and 1 systems)
MOB MEVA = 373 (C rank skill)

Because the mob is Even Match our ability to effect the mob is 75% (the basis of all ACC and MACC calculations begins at 75% and either increases or decreases depending on MACC, MEVA relations)

(MACC-MEVA)/2 = 13% Land rate.

Effectively we have a land rate on a neutral mob of 89% for EN2's.
EN1's have 38% more Land rate, putting them at Cap 95%.

Now lets look at a level 107 MOB an IT to a 99
(this is kind of where we hypothesis)
Assuming the skill progression remains constant past 99, said mob now has

373 + 8*7 = 429 Skill.
RDM still 399.

MACC-MEVA = (399-429)/2 = -15% 75-15 = 60%

The Enspell 1 set up has 38% to play with. Still capped.
The Enspell 2 set up is now at 60% MACC.

Now lets look mob at level 110. An arbitrary number, but most HNM's back in the day were 10-15 levels higher than players, so lets assume similar progressions post abyssea.

MEVA = 373 + 11*7 = 450
MACC = 399

MACC-MEVA = 399-450/2 = -25.5

Enspell 2 is now at 49.5MACC
Enspell 1 is now at 75+38-25.5 = 87.5%

or if you are keeping track, 38% more accurate than Enspell II.

In the end ENII's will average the same damage as EN1's in a single handed scenario.

Unless of course that single hand weapon is a Multi Attack weapon. (EN1s win in every case.)

This is why ENII's suck for damage on anything that matters. Even if you factor in Merits, the 7.5% Caps EN1's and leaves EN2's at that magical number of 57%

38% difference is the break point, not 39%.

But ya the MACC data has been around for a long time. So long that I am shocked I had to type all that out.

Outside of regular content, the difference in damage is equal. They essentially provide the same damage, the only thing ENII's offer is the MEVA reduction, which is neglible at best.

Lyltia: RDM SCH BLM WHM NIN SMN BLU PLD
Aegis 95 Kannagi 90 Almace 90 Hvergelmir 90

Somehow I am not surprised.

I'm sorry, where was the discussion about RDM having the worst enspells in the game? I was under the impression that this was simply yet another thread where the usual suspects congregate and moan about how horrible RDM is, mostly due to their collective cluelessness about such things as game mechanics and balance and confusing the shining ideal of the Red Mage in their minds with what is actually possible in the confines of a MMORPG.

The ironing they say is delicious.

Now that that's out of the way, there will be no further need to post here. Requesting a moderator to lock to prevent further off-topic posting.

Ya because you were proven wrong, the thread is off topic. funny how you always run off from a discussion after looking like a fool.

See you on Alla!

[Mageoholic]

Thats not enhancing magic gear either, the only possible choice would be the neck because other than Portus and Rancor there are not many good necks, and in a situation where you need HP, Rancor is bad, so that left Portus which is a pain to get. Earring should never have enhancing, Hollow is not bad however its not enhancing so I did not count it.

It directly increases Enspell damage, why would you not count it?

For EN1's its a 10% increase to damage, For EN2's it is an 11% increase falling to 5% at cap.

[Vicious]

So you wrote an essay, cool. If I followed correctly, what you're saying is that RDM's melee damage is going to completely suck against anything above Even Match? And that against Even Match targets (or weaker), Enspell IIs will have an effective accuracy of higher than ~56% even when the accuracy of an Enspell I of the same element has just barely enough accuracy to reach 95%?

I'm flattered that you, of all people, spent so much time typing up such a long-winded assent of everything I've already posted in this thread. Thanks!

[Carth]

Now that that's out of the way, there will be no further need to post here.

Do you have the power to declare that? I don't think you do. While you proved your point with Single-wield Enspell IIs, you haven't proved anything else. The laughable melee in full enhancing gear idea, the incredibly situational high -PDT mobs where you blatantly dismissed Requiescat and nuking, and finally the terrible justification to your argument that was ripped straight out of 2005 to appease your want to make Enspell IIs look good.

You have absolutely no reason to be telling moderators to close this thread, because you've been most guilty of being off-topic if not more. Instead, if you don't have anything else to add, take your own advice and stop posting in this thread.

[Mageoholic]

So you wrote an essay, cool. If I followed correctly, what you're saying is that RDM's melee damage is going to completely suck against anything above Even Match? And that against Even Match targets (or weaker), Enspell IIs will have an effective accuracy of higher than ~56% even when the accuracy of an Enspell I of the same element has just barely enough accuracy to reach 95%?

I'm flattered that you, of all people, spent so much time typing up such a long-winded assent of everything I've already posted in this thread. Thanks!

I didn't mention melee damage once in terms of the discussion. Everything I wrote was in relation to enspell damage. In terms of RDM's damage, it won't suck, but it won't be optimal. There is a difference, and there is only 1 event in the game that really requires optimal...for now.

Enspell II's have an effective MACC depending on the mobs level, the higher the level the worse they fare, unless you retain your Enhancing gear throughout the conflict.

Funny you say just enough to reach 95%. Ideally you want ACC or MACC capped at 95% so just enough is exactly right. Having 80 more MACC then you need is redundant.

Also I thought you were leaving this thread because the mouth breathers didn't agree that EN2's are better than EN1's (they are not fyi.) You should hurry along and spam Embrava before the nerf hits the live servers, it would be wise to leech your LS for as much gear as you can.



Also,
Hi Carth havent seen you around the internets for some time, hope all is well!.

[Vicious]

The laughable melee in full enhancing gear idea, the incredibly situational high -PDT mobs where you blatantly dismissed Requiescat and nuking, and finally the terrible justification to your argument that was ripped straight out of 2005 to appease your want to make Enspell IIs look good.

-So, if you're fighting a target that is, for whatever reason, taking zero damage from your melee swings, but is still taking damage from your Enspell II, it's laughable to remove attack and double attack gear (ergo, not haste gear) and replace it with Enhancing skill? How much damage is attack and double attack adding when you're hitting for zero? Not sure if serious!

-I never dismissed Requiescat; I simply acknowledge the reality of having 15 points to allocate between 14 different merit WS. You can't seriously expect somebody to 5/5 Requiescat for these, as you yourself put it, "highly situational -PDT mobs" when they might have MNK, THF, DNC, DRK, BST, DRG, SAM and/or COR leveled. As for nuking in those situations, that is also, as they say, situational; your MP may be better spent elsewhere, or casting may be less than feasible due to the longer casting time.

-My terrible argument is ripped from 2005? Last time I checked, RDM got booted from any and all parties in 2005 if they drew their sword past level 20. My argument is encouraging meleeing. Again, not sure if serious?

You have absolutely no reason to be telling moderators to close this thread...

/sigh. Context is hard.

[Mageoholic]

-So, if you're fighting a target that is, for whatever reason, taking zero damage from your melee swings, but is still taking damage from your Enspell II, it's laughable to remove attack and double attack gear (ergo, not haste gear) and replace it with Enhancing skill? How much damage is attack and double attack adding when you're hitting for zero? Not sure if serious!

Yes you swap to an elemental magic set and hit it with T4 nukes....not sure if you're serious.

-I never dismissed Requiescat; I simply acknowledge the reality of having 15 points to allocate between 14 different merit WS. You can't seriously expect somebody to 5/5 Requiescat for these, as you yourself put it, "highly situational -PDT mobs" when they might have MNK, THF, DNC, DRK, BST, DRG, SAM and/or COR leveled. As for nuking in those situations, that is also, as they say, situational; your MP may be better spent elsewhere, or casting may be less than feasible due to the longer casting time.

So now Enspell II's damage outweighs a WS that ignore phsyical defense, and Nukes which also ignore physical defense. Are you for real?

What of the players like me who have DNC, BRD, RDM, PLD, BLM, WHM, SCH leveled....4 of those might see melee combat...but its ok I took the club WS too. Christ almighty.

[Vicious]

If you had ever soloed anything remotely difficult, you would realize that is not always an option!

[Doombringer]

so... you can't nuke it... and it is immune to physical dmg... and THAT is your justification for why enspell 2 doesn't need fixing?

EDIT: and also you can't be dual wielding while you're fighting it...