Where is my elemental affinity pieces?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ManaKing

Double Fire Magians, right?

---

Without Almace that would be his best setup.

Just got done a small parse down in Boyada Tree fight the VT Puks and IT Crawlers at the bottom. From what I can tell, @550 attack (no food) their low evasion (neutral defense), but at 568 attack their low evasion low defense. I used a Yellow Curry Bun to get 633 attack. As crawlers are PLD mobs, these represent a good target to test melee builds against.

Overall 168779 damage
Melee was 90479, 53.6%
742/66 hit/miss with a 91.83% accuracy rate. Average 105, but that doesn't matter much due to the ODD from Almace (17 low -> cocoon before I could dispel it, 276 high -> ODD)

Crit rate was 18.73%

18097 Damage from enspells, 29.47 average on 614 strikes (I think Kparse missed some of them as I didn't swing without enspell up).

57895 Damage from WS's
35 CDC's with 718 Low (missed first hit most likely) and 2415 high (DA + crits)
Average was 1654.14

2308 Damage from spells, mostly from 2 Blizzard IV's I did for 1039 average. I only did Blizzard IV when I was flashed.

Offense detail for CDC, You can see it's spread. CDC is a WS that needs to crit to get high numbers, double attack's don't hurt either.

Quote:

---

Chant du Cygne
718: 1
1173: 1
1194: 1
1219: 1
1257: 1
1261: 1
1305: 1
1323: 1
1374: 1
+ 1429: 2
1518: 1
1545: 1
1554: 1
1597: 1
1630: 1
1640: 1
^ 1644: 1
1689: 1
1736: 1
1745: 1
1756: 1
1762: 1
1780: 1
1781: 1
1850: 1
1867: 1
1881: 1
1930: 1
1975: 1
2082: 1
2122: 1
2356: 1
2358: 1
2415: 1

---

Indeed, that adds a rather sizeable bonus to my attack indeed. If i ate some attack food like pizza id be around 700 or greater, i really wonder when i had that 700ish attack.

633 Attack is pretty low. What are we trying to demonstrate here? The crawlers have at least 440-450 defense based on your assessment, which means that you're not capping ratio until 900~ attack.

Critical hits become more important the lower your Ratio is, so that's a fair assessment when you're looking at 1.33~ ratio before level correction and probably closer to 0.93~ after it (IT at 99 implies a level 107~ monster). Kinda a no-brainer that CdC is going to suck on non-crits when you're below 1.0 cRatio =/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ophannus

Could have sworn atmas affected enspell damage, whenever I solo VNMs with MM/Beyond/Ultimate, my enblizzard 1's do like 35-40ish.

---

Atmas affect enspell damage, yes. Used it a lot when AoEing for KI farm runs for emp weapons. (Twilight Knife Aeolian Edge with Atma of Gales, Enaero is also boosted.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimson_Slasher

Indeed, that adds a rather sizeable bonus to my attack indeed. If i ate some attack food like pizza id be around 700 or greater, i really wonder when i had that 700ish attack.

---

Most likely inside Abyssea or when if you ate Bison Steak or other big attack food. Pizza isn't really attack food, its a compromise between sushi and the heavy meats. You should really be looking into Bison Steak or Yellow Curry Buns, Steak for when you know your not gonna die much and Curry buns for short events / good chance of death. For extremely high chance of death I'd stick to mithkabobs.

RDM has always been weak in the attack field, back at 75. Enspells help out as their a direct +boost to damage.

742 hits for 90479 regular melee damage.

614 enspell hits for 18097, 128 not recorded, I'd bet that they happened during gear swap times. If we adjust the damage to account for the non-recorded hits (128 * 29.47) we get, 742 hits for 21866 damage.

90479 + 21866 = 112,345 total melee damage. Enspells were giving a 24.1% boost to melee damage and ended up being 19.46% of total melee damage. (21866/90479 = 24.1. 21866/112345 = 19.46). No matter how you cut it, that is a significant boost, on the same level as Berserk. Enspells also shine more when the monster's have higher defense and -PDT. Cast in point was in Dyna vs statues, I hit for 20~40 damage but enspell's hit for 30.

Now 57895 was from Ws, so when we all it all together we get 170240 total damage.
90479/170240 = 53.1% from pure melee damage
21866/170240 = 12.8% from enspell melee damage
112345/170240 = 65.99% damage from melee damage (enspells are a component of melee damage)
57895/170240 = 34% damage from WS. WS was CDC vs high defense targets

The point of all this is to demonstrate where your damage is coming from and what you need to focus on. Those monsters had in the ballpark of 450~500 defense which is what we can expect to see from level 107 monsters now. I was surprised to see CDC hit as high as it did (no Bravers + Stalwarts), after seeing then /check neutral defense at 550 attack I was expecting a lot lower CDC's on average, looks like Temper + Crit's are sufficient to retain a 1500+ average. I'm not sure how good DB would perform, might be a good time to invest 5/5 in Req if your not planning on getting Almace. Req should still beat DB providing you can get enough MND in gear slots, and seeing as RDM has a metric fck ton of MND available, it shouldn't be hard.

Ive actually got all the items needed for a badalire+2, but have been too busy skilling, and doing other things to actually bother to make one, and Req. Left me feeling quite underwhelmed... As it stands in abyssea i hit upwards of 3k average on DB, outside i havent tried in a while, again, i been doing other things, i actually went out of my way to gear up for that screenshot.

Quote:

---

No matter how you cut it, that is a significant boost, on the same level as Berserk.

---

Except Berserk counts on WS's. Berserk stacks with other ATK+ or DEF- buffs/debuffs. Its nothing like berserk at all. Enspells is like adding on average 20% ATK to your TP melee hits only which represents about 60% of a RDM's DMG. Enspells really only give you about 12%-15%.

Where as Berserk gives you a straight up 17% (factoring in the recast/usage difference.) It applies on WS's and therefor is attributed on 100% of melee damage dealt, not a fraction of a fraction.

Apart from having CDC do you really know anything about melee? Attack being akin to haste, and now Enspells being berserk....or do you just think you are cool because you have CDC and can hit 4K in abyssea. My Extenerators average 1.5K outside of abyssea on RDM, with a 40D dagger. Either your CDC build is shit, or CDC isn't worth getting at all.

(then again you prolly go full dex like a gimp twat don't you.? also why waste time meleeing statues as RDM nuke them in 1-2 shots, and move on.)

back to the topic at hand, any buff applied via enspell should be available to the backline as well. Limiting the job to a specific role is bad news.

Nope 1.5k ish average sounds about right assuming /nin and low cratio. I can't see exenterator averaging that much against the same target on Rdm.

12%-15% and 17% overall damage increase sound pretty much on the same level to me. That IS what you did say correct mageholic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mageoholic

Except Berserk counts on WS's. Berserk stacks with other ATK+ or DEF- buffs/debuffs. Its nothing like berserk at all. Enspells is like adding on average 20% ATK to your TP melee hits only which represents about 60% of a RDM's DMG. Enspells really only give you about 12%-15%.

Where as Berserk gives you a straight up 17% (factoring in the recast/usage difference.) It applies on WS's and therefor is attributed on 100% of melee damage dealt, not a fraction of a fraction.

Apart from having CDC do you really know anything about melee? Attack being akin to haste, and now Enspells being berserk....or do you just think you are cool because you have CDC and can hit 4K in abyssea. My Extenerators average 1.5K outside of abyssea on RDM, with a 40D dagger. Either your CDC build is shit, or CDC isn't worth getting at all.

(then again you prolly go full dex like a gimp twat don't you.? also why waste time meleeing statues as RDM nuke them in 1-2 shots, and move on.)

back to the topic at hand, any buff applied via enspell should be available to the backline as well. Limiting the job to a specific role is bad news.

---

Don't encourage him by comparing static damage/hit increases to Attack. You can't do that

Also, +17% Attack is not a +17% to damage dealt.

I'm seeing just a lot of really bad math in this thread and I don't know where to start. It would help to know what's trying to be presented in the first place. All I'm seeing are huge walls of parse data from a <1.0 cRatio scenario and I have no idea what sort of conclusion is trying to be reached from it.

Well you can technically, used to be about 110 ATK for enspell of 21DMG, Id wager it is somewhat similar, depending on how mobs scaled. Was about a 5.5ATK per Endamage multiplier, at least that what I got it to (seemed pretty concrete) at least when I cared about mathing up RDM back in the day.

in this case 30DMG enspell would need about 150ATK+ to match, however, against attack the damage output is actually 33% less, meaning you would only need to match a 20DMG enspell, technically which is 110, and exactly where an Average berserk now sits. This number may or may not represent a static damage increase, it is merely the attack ratio that enspell represents at 80% MACC (the highest average I was able to get without MACC gear VS colibri back at 75 cap. and no I am not going to test it again, because I just don't care. Berserk wins out, nearly every time, unless mob is immune or resistant to physical damage, or my cratio is so bad I shouldn't waste my time meleeing.)

Quote:

---

12%-15% and 17% overall damage increase sound pretty much on the same level to me. That IS what you did say correct mageholic?

---

No I was saying enspells in this case represent a similar 12-15% ATK increase. (see above reply). It is more like a 20% increase, but is ineffective on WS's. Berserk is still higher than this value, is effective on WS's and stacks with Dia III, Angon, Box Step, and other defense down, abilities, it also stacks with other ATK+ options.

Enspells are limited to enhancing magic buffs and +endamage options (or +Elemental Damage, not MAB). In this regard Berserk will always trump Enspells. It is not even a contest. (not to mention them limiting an sambas on the mob, which can decrease a RDM, or DD's offense output further.)

Its just a stroke of luck that his DMG % happened to fall into that number (at the low end mind you meaning he would likely see berserk provide a 14-16% increase). Close in solo, not so close when you are being buffed by outside sources.

Attack is not a static damage increase...

That may be true, but TEEEEEEECHNICALLY enspells do still stack with dia III and the others too. It doesnt work on weaponskills, its true, but having an enspell does not stop dia from working, or the reverse ofcourse. Not that there is any situation where a redmage would have to choose between berserk and enspells, but i can imagine enspells have a rather potent effect(comparatively.) Although both depend on skill and gear for comparison, the more attack the redmage in question is rocking, the more potent berserk is, however enspells have a more uniform output across all 5 races.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimson_Slasher

That may be true, but TEEEEEEECHNICALLY enspells do still stack with dia III and the others too. It doesnt work on weaponskills, its true, but having an enspell does not stop dia from working, or the reverse ofcourse. Not that there is any situation where a redmage would have to choose between berserk and enspells, but i can imagine enspells have a rather potent effect(comparatively.) Although both depend on skill and gear for comparison, the more attack the redmage in question is rocking, the more potent berserk is, however enspells have a more uniform output across all 5 races.

---

Christ on a pogo stick, this is why you don't make comparisons between independent static and dynamic damage increases. Dia III and Enspells function completely independently of one another. You can't just "equate" the two as if Enspells are worth some X amount of attack.

Protip: The more attack you have, the less effective Berserk is at increasing your damage.... Good god, this is DD 101.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greatguardian

Attack is not a static damage increase...

---

Go test it then, go find yourself a nice little shit ass mob, and test it. I gaurantee you if you sit there for a few hours you will find that spot where Enspells damage has an equal representation with Attack increase. Then go find another mob. Then another. Get a whole bunch it doesn't make a difference. Enspells add a static increase to damage, and Attack does as well outside the random multiplier, which you can easily correct for and find the average contribution to damage from attack.

You need to understand what the terms average, and effectively mean.

Quote:

---

Protip: The more attack you have, the less effective Berserk is at increasing your damage.... Good god, this is DD 101.

---

Protip it is still more effective than enspells.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mageoholic

Go test it then, go find yourself a nice little shit ass mob, and test it. I gaurantee you if you sit there for a few hours you will find that spot where Enspells damage has an equal representation with Attack increase. Then go find another mob. Then another. Get a whole bunch it doesn't make a difference. Enspells add a static increase to damage, and Attack does as well outside the random multiplier, which you can easily correct for and find the average contribution to damage from attack.

You need to understand what the terms average, and effectively mean.



Protip it is still more effective than enspells.

---

Testing on monsters where you're sitting at/near cRatio cap isn't going to do anything meaningful for you. In case you missed the memo, Attack is pretty well understood already. The exact formulae for predicting average pDif are certainly under scrutiny, but that's less a practical matter and more a matter of scientists wanting to science at each other some more.

Adding 50 Attack is not a static damage increase. It is dynamic, and depends entirely on your existing Attack and Ratio values. You can't say "110" attack equates to anything static because 110 attack can have extremely varied effects based on your situation. Enspells add a static damage per hit. Base damage per hit itself is also dynamic, but is not a sole function of Attack - another reason why you cannot directly relate the two in a simple 1:1 static correlation.

Parsing really doesn't mean jack shit for any of this. I'm not sure why Saevel posted any parses to begin with, and I'm sure as hell not sure why you're asking me to go out and whack a mole as if that will actually prove anything. You are trying to draw a static equivalency between two dynamic and independent traits and I'm telling you that you just can't do that. You can't assign a singular value of Attack to be equivalent to any singular value of Enspell damage for all situations.

And yes, Berserk does a fuckton more for you than Enspells. Never said otherwise. I was addressing the fact that saying "Hey Berserk does more for you when you have more attack!" is completely, 100% wrong.

Berserk is most effective at low attack and becomes progressively weaker at higher attack values until it eventually becomes worthless when you are at 2.0 Ratio (1-hander) before Berserk.

Themoreyouknow.jpg.

Quote:

---

Berserk is most effective at low attack and becomes progressively weaker at higher attack values until it eventually becomes worthless when you are at 2.0 Ratio (1-hander) before Berserk.

---

Which is on nothing of relevance in the game (including Abyssea). We discuss the game here, and we have one clown meleeing in 637 attack saying look how good I am, this is why enspells are better than berserk. When they are not. The only thing he showed was that /NIN is probably the best pure attacker.

And considering that argument is pointless anyway (berserk and enspells stack). I was clearing up misconception of the posters parse on that specific mob. In that particular case Berserk would have been the better overall buff. It is not comparable unless you are monkeying around on shit with a capped Cratio. But I forget where I am, I suppose this is the kid zone where we need to spell out every little detail.

Why the fuck would you use berserk when you are capped already...that should go without saying.

(and more over who gives a shit the buffs work at the same time RDM benefits from both.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mageoholic

Which is on nothing of relevance in the game (including Abyssea). We discuss the game here, and we have one clown meleeing in 637 attack saying look how good I am, this is why enspells are better than berserk. When they are not. The only thing he showed was that /NIN is probably the best pure attacker.

And considering that argument is pointless anyway (berserk and enspells stack). I was clearing up misconception of the posters parse on that specific mob. In that particular case Berserk would have been the better overall buff. It is not comparable unless you are monkeying around on shit with a capped Cratio. But I forget where I am, I suppose this is the kid zone where we need to spell out every little detail.

Why the fuck would you use berserk when you are capped already...that should go without saying.

(and more over who gives a shit the buffs work at the same time RDM benefits from both.)

---

You wanted to prove Saevel wrong. That's fine. I think his entire post was meaningless hogwash too.

The way you went about it, however, was flat out wrong. You didn't need to try and equate attack to enspells in order to show that Berserk is (generally) significantly more potent than Enspells. This isn't always going to be the case, of course, but as a rule of thumb it's fine.

However, you decided to try and prove your point using straight up wrongfax and I don't let that shit fly no matter who's posting it or why. You don't really think I have >3,000 posts on this miserable forum because I enjoy avid discussion with the local fauna, do you?

Facts are facts. Math is Math. Wrong is Wrong. I don't care what point you were trying to prove. You can prove it just fine without making shit up.

While attack grants lesser returns at higher values, % increases are greater at higher values. 25% of 100 is 25, 25% of 1000 is 250, i ment nothing more or less than that, simply meaning higher attack makes the bonus granted by berserk greater. I left out how it effects mobs because every type of mob with different defenses makes that too complicated to bother with. Sorry if it was interperited otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crimson_Slasher

While attack grants lesser returns at higher values, % increases are greater at higher values. 25% of 100 is 25, 25% of 1000 is 250, i ment nothing more or less than that, simply meaning higher attack makes the bonus granted by berserk greater. I left out how it effects mobs because every type of mob with different defenses makes that too complicated to bother with. Sorry if it was interperited otherwise.

---

I know exactly what you meant. Doesn't change the outcome at all.

Enspells are a component as melee damage just like crits are and should be treated as such. Just because kparser lists it as "other" doesn't make it a separate damage source. If you miss a melee hit then you've missed your enspell, if you proc a DA / TA then you also proc additional enspells on those hits, and the faster you hit the faster your enspell procs.

My melee DPS went up 24% from enspells for a total damage increase of 12.8%. This is vs VT~IT mobs @633 attack with Dia III (744 pseudo attack) with CDC and ODD. Pretty much the best melee setup you can get nowadays. On someone doing DB or Req spam, or with lessor attack gear / food, or vs a monster with higher defense / pdt, enspells will be a bigger component. As an example, in Dyna vs statues, Enspells easily double my melee damage due to their -PDT effect. Vs things like Fungars and Leaches it's a 30~33% increase in melee DPS due to those monsters higher defense.

Lesson from this don't ignore enspells, build a 500 enhancing magic set. It doesn't help that enspells don't show up properly on parsers, they'll always been distributed amongst everyone hitting the monster. Also if your blink or change gear then the enspell damage isn't recorded for those swings.

Quote:

---

You wanted to prove Saevel wrong. That's fine. I think his entire post was meaningless hogwash too.

---

I don't need to prove him wrong, anyone here should know that Berserk and Enspell are not in the same league. Enspells are absent on nearly a third of damage output. Any bloke can prove him wrong. However on average Adding 5.5ATK per enspell damage will result in the same net increase to damage. In this case on average (it means middle of the road, not constant.) Berserk will push your cratio higher than required to do this.

In his specific case he would need to increase his attack by about 15% (17% from Berserk done Warcry on top) to match benefit of enspells (12.8% DMG). This will match his enspell damage contribution, including increased WS damage. ON AVERAGE.

Can it be more or less than 15% sure it can, but in the wonderful world of averages it will always approach a similar amount. You can tout the high/low shtick as much as you want. Average damage is the only thing that matters, especially from a job that is always going to be seeing a wide varyation in attack ratios. Unlike some of the big boys RDM will fluctuate on every mob pulled....which is why you calculate shit with averages.

Enspells damage was 12.8%, to get the same increase with attack you would need to raise a 50 damage weapon to 56.4, which is like going from 650ATK to about 750ATK.

If you want to play internet cop, at least understand how damage calculations are used, and what the term average means.

But... how bout that elemental affinity eh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mageoholic

I don't need to prove him wrong, anyone here should know that Berserk and Enspell are not in the same league. Enspells are absent on nearly a third of damage output. Any bloke can prove him wrong. However on average Adding 5.5ATK per enspell damage will result in the same net increase to damage. In this case on average (it means middle of the road, not constant.) Berserk will push your cratio higher than required to do this.

In his specific case he would need to increase his attack by about 15% (17% from Berserk done Warcry on top) to match benefit of enspells (12.8% DMG). This will match his enspell damage contribution, including increased WS damage. ON AVERAGE.

Can it be more or less than 15% sure it can, but in the wonderful world of averages it will always approach a similar amount. You can tout the high/low shtick as much as you want. Average damage is the only thing that matters, especially from a job that is always going to be seeing a wide varyation in attack ratios. Unlike some of the big boys RDM will fluctuate on every mob pulled....which is why you calculate shit with averages.

Enspells damage was 12.8%, to get the same increase with attack you would need to raise a 50 damage weapon to 56.4, which is like going from 650ATK to about 750ATK.

If you want to play internet cop, at least understand how damage calculations are used, and what the term average means.

---

Your averages imply people attacking similar targets with similar gear with similar buffs in order for them to be remotely approaching an equality. That is not how averages work. That is taking an "average" case, solving for that case, and then claiming that your solution is the average solution. It is not. It is simply the static solution for the average case, which is entirely different.

Going from 650 Attack to 750 Attack? Those numbers are so god damned meaningless, do you even realize it? Changing attack means absolutely nothing in a vacuum. The important number is a change in cRatio. I am telling you straight up that you cannot equate %-damage increase to static number Attack increases because static number Attack increases do not correlate to %-cRatio increases.

You are making far too many assumptions about your target and your party. This is, of course, the fatal flaw of taking damage calculations from a job whose melee damage roles are almost never used. However, anyone with experience predicting damage increases on DD jobs that, you know, actually get used in various situations will know right away that shit is way more situational than you're allowing for.

Enspells are a static damage/hit increase. The %-viability of Enspells are dependent on the damage/hit you're getting in any particular situation. Hit for 0 damage? Enspells are a BAJILLION INFINITY TIMES A GOOGLEPLEX increase in damage. Hit for 2,100 damage per hit? Enspells are a 1% increase in damage. And no, contrary to what you or Saevel may try to imply, there is no "static" or "average" damage per hit that you can generalize to all situations.

In case you haven't absorbed it yet, the problem with both of your case studies is generalization. Finding some solution for X-gear and X-monster works for X-gear and X-monster. We know exactly how potent Enspells are if you're a Red Mage with 633 attack fighting IT crawlers in The Boyahda Tree. The problem, though, is that means jack shit to anyone fighting anything else with any other gear. You can't just plug those numbers in elsewhere and say it's "close enough".

Equivalencies drawn between Enspells and Attack can only be expressed in terms of a function with a great deal of variables, and any static equivalency has to be solved for on a case-by-case basis as you fill those variables in. Pretending that you can just throw in some static numbers and apply it to everything or the "average" thing is intellectually dishonest. Maybe you're both used to doing math on the sidelines against exp-level targets with 0 buffs because no one "lets" you fight anything else, but those of us who hit things with plenty of jobs on a regular basis know just how much any of those variables can change.

Quote:

---

Your averages imply people attacking similar targets with similar gear with similar buffs in order for them to be remotely approaching an equality.

---

You are being retarded. If you are going to fight X mob a bunch of times (in this particular case not likely), but in the case of say Legion NM's or what not, eventually you will find an average of your damage. Hell you can accomplish this in one fight, technically (granted the next it may change.) Parsers do this for you so you do not have to.

Quote:

---

Enspells are a static damage/hit increase. The %-viability of Enspells are dependent on the damage/hit you're getting in any particular situation. Hit for 0 damage? Enspells are a BAJILLION INFINITY TIMES A GOOGLEPLEX increase in damage.

---

You try and pass enspells off as a static increase, I can tell you right now Enspells are not a static increase, they are as variable as ATK is. Saevel gave us his average Enspell damage (29.something). Enspells are checked against MDB, Resistance, and MDT. They can fluctuate wildly. Or even when capped have a 5% randomizer that can make them 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 damage. They are not a slap on static increase to damage at all.

The only benefit a RDM gets is that it can cap the MACC on them a lot easier (mostly through skill) then it can with ATK.

Everything in this game can be compared to something else. Enspells Damage to Haste damage increase, ATK vs ACC, ATK vs Haste, and even Enspell vs Attack. The only thing you need is variables.

Everything is based on averages, because everything in this game caps at less than 100%, your ATK will always have a random multiplier, even at a capped Cratio, just as your Enspells have a random multiplier with capped MACC.

If you believe that anything in this game is cut and dry you are fooling your self, It is how we figured out the average Skill/INT required to floor resist rates on Sky NM's. Repetition of the same content inevitably leads to more accurate averages, and thus more precise gearing options. When you find the variables from one target in a specific level range you can then apply the same variables to other targets in that level range. Will it be an exact replica of the data, no, but it is a solid starting point.

Which is why I can say with confidence a mob that is 6-7 levels higher will require 110 or so ATK to make up for the damages from enspells, this value has been consistent since CoP. Granted some targets (Crabs for example) may require more due to the nature of the job (PLD), and the traits and stats that go with it. But these are marginal changes at best and can be determined rather quickly through a few parses.

You lecture about learning game functions then you should take your own advice, the only way to understand gearing options is through a comparative study, which often comes down to comparing average (your most consistent) damage output (or healing out put, or potency output) to determine what fits best where.

Want to know what the function to determine Enspells and ATK is.

AVG Enspell damage = X% of Total Damage
AVG Weapon damage = Y% of Total Damage
AVG ATK Required by Cratio for X% AVG Weapon Damage Increase

Done that is all you need. Need to raise your Cratio by 25% to match X then you find out what the ATK value needed to match that is. Presto you have now determined the amount of ATK required to match your Average Enspell damage.

Not rocket science. Can do it in a single parse, but as I said becomes more accurate with the more parses you do. It is quite simple really, if you know anything about how damage is actually calculated. Or stats in general.

Holy fucking shit, parsing. What is with your hardon for parsing? Parsing collects raw data, it doesn't anaylze data or provide any sort of conclusions for you one way or another. The conclusions we have right now were reached from an aggregate of hundreds, even thousands of hours of parses. A single parse is not going to mean jack shit in the face of that much data. You can predict damage and damage increases with extremely high accuracy without going out and whacking moles for an hour.

All your findings have bearing on is shitty little EXP mobs with easily generalized job/race traits that don't emphasize defense. Congratulations, you have found a meaningless correlation. Apply that to NMs? To monsters with higher defense? Lower defense? Apply that to someone using a different sword? Different gear? Someone with different fSTR levels? Can't do it. You straight up can't generalize such a narrow correlation.

I haven't seen jack shit but a bunch of parse nonsense from either of you, let alone any real math, so here's some for you:

Average Enspell damage with 500 skill = [30 * (Macc) + 15 * (1-Macc/4) + 7 * (1-Macc/4) + 3 * (1-Macc/4) + 1 * (1-Macc/4) ] * Aggregate Monster MDT

Average damage per hit = Weapon damage * (average crit pDif * Crit rate * Crit damage + average non-crit pDif * [1 - crit rate])

Average Non-crit pDif = {
if 0 ≤ cRatio < 0.3 → pDIF = 1.0585 × cRatio ^ 2 + 0.3391 × cRatio + 0.0239
if 0.3 ≤ cRatio < 1.3 → pDIF = -0.12311 + cRatio × 1.129179
if 1.3 ≤ cRatio < 1.5 → pDIF = 0.7486 × cRatio ^ 2 - 1.5814 × cRatio + 2.1349
if 1.5 ≤ cRatio → pDIF = 1.129573 × cRatio - 0.24878 }

Average crit pDif = {
if 0 ≤ cRatio < 1.63 → pDIF = 0.948491 + cRatio × 1.045043
if 1.63 ≤ cRatio → pDIF = -0.7153 * cRatio ^ 2 + 3.4303 × cRatio - 1.0385 }

Average increase in damage from Enspells = (Average Enspell damage + Average Damage per hit) / Average Damage per hit

Average increase in damage from Enspells = ([30 * (Macc) + 15 * (1-Macc/4) + 7 * (1-Macc/4) + 3 * (1-Macc/4) + 1 * (1-Macc/4) ] * Monster MDT + [Weapon Damage+fStr * ( {
if 0 ≤ cRatio < 0.3 → pDIF = 1.0585 × cRatio ^ 2 + 0.3391 × cRatio + 0.0239
if 0.3 ≤ cRatio < 1.3 → pDIF = -0.12311 + cRatio × 1.129179
if 1.3 ≤ cRatio < 1.5 → pDIF = 0.7486 × cRatio ^ 2 - 1.5814 × cRatio + 2.1349
if 1.5 ≤ cRatio → pDIF = 1.129573 × cRatio - 0.24878 } ] * {1- crit rate} + Crit rate * Crit damage * {
if 0 ≤ cRatio < 1.63 → pDIF = 0.948491 + cRatio × 1.045043
if 1.63 ≤ cRatio → pDIF = -0.7153 * cRatio ^ 2 + 3.4303 × cRatio - 1.0385 }) /
[Weapon Damage+fStr * ( {
if 0 ≤ cRatio < 0.3 → pDIF = 1.0585 × cRatio ^ 2 + 0.3391 × cRatio + 0.0239
if 0.3 ≤ cRatio < 1.3 → pDIF = -0.12311 + cRatio × 1.129179
if 1.3 ≤ cRatio < 1.5 → pDIF = 0.7486 × cRatio ^ 2 - 1.5814 × cRatio + 2.1349
if 1.5 ≤ cRatio → pDIF = 1.129573 × cRatio - 0.24878 } * {1-crit rate} + Crit rate * Crit damage * {if 0 ≤ cRatio < 1.63 → pDIF = 0.948491 + cRatio × 1.045043
if 1.63 ≤ cRatio → pDIF = -0.7153 * cRatio ^ 2 + 3.4303 × cRatio - 1.0385 } ) ]

ENSPELLS ARE TOTALLY EQUIVALENT TO EXACTLY 110 ATTACK THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME D:

EDIT: SORRY, I FORGOT CRITICALS LOL LET ME FIX IT

EDIT 2: OKAY FIXED

EDIT 3: BTW cRATIO NEVER INCREASES THE DAMAGE VALUE OF YOUR WEAPON. JUST SAYING.

Geez guys, will you get your pro-melee discussions out of my mage discussions.

/end joke

You guys done yet? I'm sure you both mastered debate, just like the rest of the people on the internet. Honestly, I really hope everyone has a firm grasp on enspells, because we are all posting on RDM forums.

Elemental Affinity was the topic? It increases all damage related to the particular Element. This includes Spell damage, Enspell Damage, Spikes Damage, and Elemental Weapon Skill Damage. RDM has decent coverage in these areas and it would be an area that we could improve on across the board if we had access to Elemental Affinity outside of Aby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ManaKing

Honestly, I really hope everyone has a firm grasp on enspells, because we are all posting on RDM forums.

---

You can say that, but I wonder how many people on these forums even understand what I posted let alone why it works. And all that is is a formula for the average %-damage increase that Enspells give you. Not exactly super complicated shit. I mean, all the RDMs here understand how Enspells work right?

On topic? It'd be coolz to get real Affinity boosting spells. That seems more up Scholar's alley tbh, but it'd be nice nonetheless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ManaKing

Geez guys, will you get your pro-melee discussions out of my mage discussions.

/end joke

You guys done yet? I'm sure you both mastered debate, just like the rest of the people on the internet. Honestly, I really hope everyone has a firm grasp on enspells, because we are all posting on RDM forums.

Elemental Affinity was the topic? It increases all damage related to the particular Element. This includes Spell damage, Enspell Damage, Spikes Damage, and Elemental Weapon Skill Damage. RDM has decent coverage in these areas and it would be an area that we could improve on across the board if we had access to Elemental Affinity outside of Aby.

---

I would love something like this. Currently using something that's kinda similar, the Magic Acc +8 chakram. My only concern is that it would create yet another 8 items we'd have to carry around.

Could hope for just oooooone more trial that grants said elemental affinity to elemental path magian weapons for the matching element. Course it would have to be balanced, i mean people like me dualing str shamshirs would make off like a bandit with fire spells. But thats kinda what people are looking at and would like, a blu with a dex shamshir getting a bonus affinity with say charged whisker for example, and while that rdm would be limited in element spells it could cast at max potency, it could just manage to swap out its non weapon slot gear to MAB gear and fire off a quick matching element nuke or two. Not that this idea is new by any means but would be fun, though unbalanced as a lot of jobs cant make use of this as well as we can (WAR, MNK, WHM(Kinda) THF, PLD(Kinda) BST, BRD, SAM, DRG, COR? PUP, DNC?)

Why the hell would I want to trade 8 staves for 8 swords (much less 8 of each.) More over why would I want to get stuck nuking with Fire, because my special Sashmir increases fire damage, when Blizzard or Thunder would still likely out damage it, even if I cast in a neutral sword.

The only way to make affinity viable and not cost TP is to put it in a slot that doesn't reset TP when changed out. Thats it. Or apply it to a spell. Such as an Enspell, or Enspell II (or Enspell III).

Liek OMG learn basic game mechanics noob.

(also your page of "math", ya my parser tells me exactly what my median damage was, for enspells, melee hits, and weapon skills, why waste time doing needles math when you can spend an hour finding your median values. Furthermore. 20*1.12 = 22.4, 40*1.12 = 44.8, 200*1.12 = 224 3 different weapon damages all increased by 12%, imagine that... one thing to copy paste calculations another thing to actually apply them. If you went that far why didn't you just finish comparing using the posters numbers.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mageoholic

Why the hell would I want to trade 8 staves for 8 swords (much less 8 of each.)

---

Yeah, the only way this should be on a weapon is if it is a Sword with Darkness Affinity (for Sanguine Blade, which Red Mage doesn't even get natively), Dagger with Wind Affinity (for Aeolian Edge), or Daggers that do zero damage with affinity to boost enspells (which is a very different playstyle that few people are even aware of).

Personally, I'm in favor of 1-2 shields that have a sizable but roughly half of the affinity of a staff, or enspells that a sizable but roughly half of the affinity of a staff (actually, both would be ideal, since then you could be equal to a staff user as another option).

Why shields? Honestly I think it is insulting how weak non-Paladin shields are... You are giving up dual wield so they should be as powerful as that, there is no balance in having weak shields. Becoming more powerful with magic but still being able to melee with a weapon that was actually designed for combat would be a good, balanced trade off, if not in the numbers, at least as a gesture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Economizer

Yeah, the only way this should be on a weapon is if it is a Sword with Darkness Affinity (for Sanguine Blade, which Red Mage doesn't even get natively), Dagger with Wind Affinity (for Aeolian Edge), or Daggers that do zero damage with affinity to boost enspells (which is a very different playstyle that few people are even aware of).

Personally, I'm in favor of 1-2 shields that have a sizable but roughly half of the affinity of a staff, or enspells that a sizable but roughly half of the affinity of a staff (actually, both would be ideal, since then you could be equal to a staff user as another option).

Why shields? Honestly I think it is insulting how weak non-Paladin shields are... You are giving up dual wield so they should be as powerful as that, there is no balance in having weak shields. Becoming more powerful with magic but still being able to melee with a weapon that was actually designed for combat would be a good, balanced trade off, if not in the numbers, at least as a gesture.

---

Unfortunately the trade off of losing DW isn't worth it, ~ever~. Your giving up 42.8% melee damage to use that shield. Refer to my above numbers to see how much of our damage is from melee to get an idea of how much you'd be gimping yourself. The only situation I ever see using a shield is when we have to go /DRK for utility reasons, you'd still be gimping yourself but at least there is a solid reason to it.

If you want a slot to put such a buff in then make it the ranged / ammo slot. It's incredibly underutilized for RDM's right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mageoholic

Why the hell would I want to trade 8 staves for 8 swords (much less 8 of each.) More over why would I want to get stuck nuking with Fire, because my special Sashmir increases fire damage, when Blizzard or Thunder would still likely out damage it, even if I cast in a neutral sword.

The only way to make affinity viable and not cost TP is to put it in a slot that doesn't reset TP when changed out. Thats it. Or apply it to a spell. Such as an Enspell, or Enspell II (or Enspell III).

Liek OMG learn basic game mechanics noob.

(also your page of "math", ya my parser tells me exactly what my median damage was, for enspells, melee hits, and weapon skills, why waste time doing needles math when you can spend an hour finding your median values. Furthermore. 20*1.12 = 22.4, 40*1.12 = 44.8, 200*1.12 = 224 3 different weapon damages all increased by 12%, imagine that... one thing to copy paste calculations another thing to actually apply them. If you went that far why didn't you just finish comparing using the posters numbers.)

---

So when you multiply 3 numbers by 1.12, they all increase by 12%. Fancy that. Now I wonder what relevance this has considering Attack has no effect on Base Damage. Or did you skim over that part?

The point of posting the complete formula was to demonstrate that, while I can just plug in Saevel's numbers, I can also plug in any number I want for any situation and it's going to be a hell of a lot more useful than drawing single-scenario generalizations.

Example, using a level 107 monster with 450 Defense and 0 MDT/PDT/MDB:

Player weapon damage = 61, fStr we'll assume is maybe 3? Floor crit rate would be 15% if using a Rancor Collar so we'll roll with that, 0% crit damage. 500 skill for Enspells. Player attack is 633. Let's also assume that both weapons have the same D rating just to make it simple.

This means:

Average Enspell damage = [ 30 * (.95) + 15 * (.0125) + 7 * (.0125) + 3 * (.0125) + 1 * (.0125) ] * 1.0 = 28.825

Ratio = 633/450 = 1.40

cRatio = 1.40 - (0.05 * 8) = 1.0

Average Damage per hit = (61 + 3) * ( 1.9935 * .15 + 1.0060 * .85)

Average Damage increase on melee hits from Enspells = (28.825 + [64 * (1.9935 * .15 + 1.0060 * .85) ] / (64 * [1.9935 * .15 + 1.0060 * .85] )

Average Damage increase on melee hits from Enspells = 102.689 / 73.864 = 39%~

Imply a 50/50 WS/TP damage ratio and you get a 19.5%~ increase in total damage from Enspells.

Not only did that take about 2 minutes, but it's significantly more accurate and applicable than any number of hours you spend in the boyahda tree or anywhere else whacking moles. Since these numbers don't match Saevel's observations, it's most likely that he either had a higher fStr value or a lower MAcc value than I used when running them.

Let's step outside the box for a moment and pretend that Saevel had the same gear/weapons/etc but was using Berserk instead of Enspells. Let's see how this might have affected his damage.

Ratio w/o Berserk = 633/450 = 1.40

Ratio w/Berserk = 791/450 = 1.75

cRatio w/o Berserk = 1.0

cRatio w/Berserk = 1.35

Since changes in Attack do not affect WS frequency, frequency of strikes, or number of strikes, we can safely compare damage per strike for both TP and WS phases to reach a conclusion.

Damage per hit w/o Berserk was already calculated: 73.864, and is valid 40% of the time.

Damage per hit w/Berserk = 64 * (2.3592 * .15 + 1.3643 * .85) = 96.866, and is valid 60% of the time

Average damage per hit in TP phase is now 96.866 * .6 + 73.864 * .4 = 87.6653

That's a (87.6653/73.864 = 1.187) 18.7% increase in TP phase damage.

Weaponskill Damage = (Damage + WSC) * pDif * fTP

Using CDC, assuming the same Attack values and a 160DEX WS set and +15% Crit rate on WS, you get:

Average Weaponskill w/o Berserk = (64 + (160 * .6 * .85) ) * [1.9935 * .3 + 1.0060 * .7] * 4.25 = 805.8323 Ouch!

Average Weaponskill w/Berserk = (64 + (160 *.6 * .85) ) * [2.3592 * .3 + 1.3643 * .7] * 4.25 = 1028.9220

Average WS damage total becomes 1028.922 * .6 + 805.8323 * .4 = 939.6861

Average WS damage increase = 939.6861/805.8323 = 16.6%~

Assume a 50/50 WS/TP ratio and you get an ( 8.8 + 9.35 ) 18.15% increase in total damage from Berserk.

Wow. Well, that was unexpected. Looks like Enspells (19.5%) contributed more damage than Berserk would alone (18.15%) in this particular scenario. You're welcome to refute my numbers if you think I made a mistake somewhere.

Note: I do not even give a single fuck about your and Saevel's little pissing contest about Berserk and Enspells. The fact that you're wrong overall is actually mildly surprising. It doesn't much matter, however. Numbers are neutral. They aren't going to change due to personal preference.

Note 2: If these numbers don't match Saevel's observations, obvious reasons would be a lack of Double Attack in the WS averages (Hi, Temper!), but that would not change the proportion of the damage increase from Berserk and is thus irrelevant.

Changes in Saevel's Crit rate and fStr would affect the numbers, but as they were not provided I just slapped some in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saevel

Unfortunately the trade off of losing DW isn't worth it, ~ever~.

---

This is a massive problem, coupled with shield options that suck on top of it. The closest thing I've seen to a "solution" is SE pushing Fencer, but that doesn't stack up.

I think the biggest insult to this is that most shields have terrible stat boosts, particularly compared to what you could get from offhanding another weapon. So not only do you lose out on a huge amount of damage, but you also lose out on a huge potential stat boost!

SE has said things to the effect of them viewing Paladin as a very powerful job even when using a shield however, so I think this will make it very hard to convince them of making shields better for damage. Somehow I think their solution would be a stance job ability that virtually eliminates blocking for extra damage or something, but that would still be a trait tied to some traditional damage job, which defeats the purpose because you'd just sub Ninja for Dual Wield anyway.

An unlikely bit of a patch to this, I suppose, could be a new shield category for low defense shields that primarily give offensive stat boosts. It would have a low block rate and a low damage absorb rate, but in exchange it would add another hit to weapon skills like Dual Wield does. Perhaps under Fencer it could boost double attack rate or something. Unlikely, but it would be a start.

Still, we could get the other side of the fix, which is better shields. I think a potent and universal affinity shield (or it could just list stats like Magic Damage +X%, Magic Accuracy +Y, Perpetration Cost -Z) would be a strong option, as would shields that boost TP Bonus, weapon skill damage, and double/triple/quadruple attack rate, or shields that greatly increase accuracy, attack, or even a shield with an insanely large amount of Store TP on it. And if there ever came to be a new offensive shield category, these could all be set as those.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saevel

If you want a slot to put such a buff in then make it the ranged / ammo slot. It's incredibly underutilized for RDM's right now.

---

The problem with this is that you'd just stack it with a staff unless it only worked on WS and enspells. I think one of the other posters thinks that stacking is a good idea, but SE would never allow anything more then a small amount if it did stack and even then it would be on incredibly hard to obtain gear. As it is now the closest thing currently is day/weather gear, and you either rely on permaweather or a Scholar to use those.

I think an affinity shield is probably the best bet for more magic affinity gear for now... we might see other slots get magic affinity in the future, but the balance issues (when stacking with a staff) are bigger then something crazy like a new shield category.

Quote:

---

This is a massive problem, coupled with shield options that suck on top of it. The closest thing I've seen to a "solution" is SE pushing Fencer, but that doesn't stack up.

---

Main problem with shields is they're a defensive utility that only PLDs are really able to take advantage of. From the RDM perspective, in a party setting, it's unlikely we'll be holding a mob's attention for any appreciable amount of time, but then we get the double whammy of low shield skill hindering our actual chance to block.

This is something I've talked on before, and as I said in an earlier post in the thread, I'd really like to avoid situations where there's one super shield, basically invalidating the existence of all others for the job (Genbu's is close enough to that for us at the moment). Such also carries the risk of SE depositing it on some absurdly annoying NM with a low drop rate and no other incentive for people to want to kill it because gearing melee RDMs is hardly a community priority at present for collective reasons done to death here.

Basically, my thought was to change the Shield Mastery trait. It can still retain the TP gained on blocks, but it would also gain a property similar to MNK's Kick Attacks where the size of the shield can determine how often you "attack" with it and for how hard it would hit. Basically a latent Shield Bash minus the Stun (unless SE was feeling nice and allowed that to remain). From there, anyone with Shield Mastery would also have a chance to block physical attacks for anyone they're standing in front of. In RDM's case, this would allow us to put Stoneskin, Blink, Phalanx, and Spikes spells to better use despite the earlier mentioned scenario of rarely being the mob's priority.

DW would still be the superior offensive option, but shields would gain a greater utility with a slight damage bump on top. It's also something everyone can pretty much take advantage of instead of hoping for that rare drop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mageoholic

Why the hell would I want to trade 8 staves for 8 swords (much less 8 of each.) More over why would I want to get stuck nuking with Fire, because my special Sashmir increases fire damage, when Blizzard or Thunder would still likely out damage it, even if I cast in a neutral sword.

---

You know, that IS a stupid question, why WOULD you do that? Gosh i didnt think of that, man how dumb am I? God forbid youd like to keep your TP and magic burst off a light skillchain you open with your STR shamshir you already have. /sarcasm.

I never said you should make one for each element, im saying it would be a nice bonus because if you're already swinging it, wouldnt it be cool if it had an additional utility? It having a NQ elemental staff affinity wouldnt damage the affinity magian staffs, and, stay with me here, YOU ARE ALREADY SWINGING/WIELDING IT. So even if thunder IV would beat fire IV (and ill have to check that with a NQ staff outside abyssea) why not just grin and go "Oh thankyou, i can fire off a semi-powerful nuke of an element im already using, hell i can even pop spontaniety and do it, and whats more! i basically get a Thunder IV at the cost of a Fire IV!" Making 8(16 for dual wield?) of the swords would be up to you. (Not sure why you would need light or dark affinity swords for spells on rdm where you would be dual weilding other than magic accurady but whatever.) But wouldnt it be nice to have something that is primarily for your melee, but atleast throws you a bone while you do it?

I can imagine a blu being told their dual dex shamshirs they made for whatever reason (Charged whisker?) would give them a nice boost to lighting spells on top of that would make their day! But like I also said, less than half the jobs in the game making these weapons would be able to benefit from it due to the way SE has segregated the jobs onto separate weapon classes.

But if YOU want to make 16 swords for nuking, show up to all events /nin or /dnc and nuke in swords with inventory issues, well thats your right, course if that were the case you could just get the ele staffs/grips/obis and sub sch if you planned specifically to nuke. Over-react more, think less, i forgot thats how the forums here work.

Quote:

---

Not only did that take about 2 minutes, but it's significantly more accurate and applicable than any number of hours you spend in the boyahda tree or anywhere else whacking moles. Since these numbers don't match Saevel's observations, it's most likely that he either had a higher fStr value or a lower MAcc value than I used when running them.

---

So arbitrary numbers gave you arbitrary data and you are passing it off as factual information. 7% is quite the stretch in difference, not to mention your max WS (assumed) is only 66% of his average WS landed. So two things are relevant your numbers are either grossly off, or Saevels parser is ineffective and must not be recording/displaying LOG data properly. (or he made it up but that is a lot of work to make a point that is redundant.)

But congratulations you figured out the expected total damage of an arbitrary situation. Bravo.

The only numbers you need are your weapon D, your average pdif, and your average enspell damage that is it. None of the other variables are a factor as they provide the same bonus to both sides of the equation (thus cancel each other out.) (thus crit rate, is a number not needed, nor is fSTR) we already know the total damage each aspect applied.

To get a 12,98% increase (his enspell contribution) with an assumed 1.0 Cratio (looks like less but w/e)

Max Pdif = .4+1.0*1.2 = 1.6
Min Pdif = -.5+1.0*1.2 = .7
Avg Pdif = 1.6+.7/2 = 1.15

AVG WD = 61*1.15 = 70.15D
Increase by 12.98% = 70.15*12.98 = 79.25
Effective increase = 79.25/61 = 1.29 (29%).

In order to achieve this value we need an average Pdif of 1.29


(.1= -.4 +.5 to cancel min/max from the equation)
Cratio = (1.29*2)/1.12+.1) = 1.20 Cratio

Level Correction (lvldif*.05) = 1.20 + .4 = 1.6
% change = 1.6/1.4 = 1.14
1.14*633 = 721.62 (722req)

Check.
722/450 = 1.60
1.6 - .4 = 1.20
(1.20*1.12 + .4) + (1.20*1.12 -.5)/2 = 1.294
61*1.294 = 78.93
(considering the amount of decimals dropped i am happy with a .3 difference, better than your 7 and 33% differences I think).

Done. and done. to match the value that enspells added you would need to add 89ATK Berserk adds 94 (effectively the amount is actually 158 but uptime/downtime should be factored in). 15 more attack which will affect your damage output marginally more.

(edit, I dunno why I thought berserk was an effective 17% it is only an effective 15%, I must have included all of the benefits of the +10 from Attack bonus. 643*1.15/633 = 16.8% my mistake.)

THIS IS AN AVERAGE. something you can only calculate having known quantities.

It doesn't matter either because Enspells and Berserk stack. This applies to every weapon, and can be done to check the average increase in any equipment change vs attack.

(it is nice to see someone who know how to calculate expected total damage however, but when dealing with RNG that is FFXI's combat system, average is more accurate than total, thus parses are the most useful tools we have.)

(currious at the 20 ATK change however from 75 cap, the new levels of enspell damage/macc must have closed the gap on ATK required, then again I did use 1.0, which is likely less by a bit considering the wonky array of WS numbers he has oh well.)

You need to learn the difference between expected and average.

Last Post on the subject, I return you to your silly swords discussion, when enspells are clearly the better choice, (provided its no limited to 1 hand weapons.)

Gee Willickers, drawing expectations of DPS that ignore Double Attack and non-floored Critical hit rate are ... off when the target has Temper and possibly a non-floored dDex? Who knew.

I already accounted for those things. They change the numbers for both With and Without Enspells/Berserk by an equal proportion, so they have a net 0 effect on the %-difference between the average damages - which is the only important number in this situation. Trying to find fault with the static WS damage numbers because he's using at least 25% more DA than I was running is silly.

But for fun, let's poke holes in your numbers:

1) Your max pDif is wrong. Max non-crit pDif for 1.0 cRatio is 1.129 + .485 = 1.504, not 1.6

2) Your pDif Average is wrong. You can't just average the min and max pDif because you assume a regular distribution where there isn't one. pDif non-crit average for 1.0 cRatio is -0.12311 + 1.129179 = 1.006

3) You are multiplying Attack by Weapon Damage. You can't do that. Damage on any given hit is represented by [Weapon Damage + fStr] * pDif.

4) You're solving backwards incorrectly, because you still assume a regular distribution on the pDif curve where one does not exist.

5) Reiterating that the reason my numbers did not match Saevel's exactly was due to Temper, fStr, and non-floored Crits. These don't change the expected proportions much/at-all, only the numbers themselves.

You need to learn not to over-simplify equations and make faulty assumptions when performing your work. Average pDif is not the same as (Max pDif + Min pDif) / 2.

Edit: Also, completely ignoring crits is borderline retarded. Same with fStr. fStr adds to base weapon damage. Crit rate adjusts your average pDif, because total average pDif is actually equal to (Average Crit pDif * Crit Rate * Crit Damage + Average Non-Crit pDif * [1 - Crit Rate] ). Both of these affect your average damage/hit. Enspells always add 28.825 average damage with capped MAcc, which means their %-effectiveness is determined entirely off of your average damage/hit before they're applied.

You grossly oversimplified the whole process in order to get the results that you wanted.

Edit 2: To show how much DA probably adjusted his WS numbers, we'll look at what DA actually does on WS: namely, increases fTP some % of the time.

Assuming he has 25% DA (Brutal, temper, w/e), that means that there's a 37.5% chance for 1 DA and an 6.25% chance for two DAs. If you don't know how I arrived at those numbers, we'll look a little closer.

With a 25% chance to DA on two hits of the WS, there is a 0.75 * 0.75 = 56.25% chance that he will not DA at all. The chance to DA twice is 0.25 * 0.25 = 6.25%. The remaining 37.5% must be single DAs.

What this means is that average fTP changes from 4.25 to:

4.25 * .5625 + 5.25 * .375 + 6.25 * .0625 = 4.75

4.75 / 4.25 = 1.1176, or a 12%~ increase in average WS damage from 25% DA.

All things considered, he probably had a non-0 dDex and additional DA/TA gear. More information would make the scenario more accurate. Things like DA and Haste are independent of per-hit damage, though, so it's a non-issue in this situation. The only relevant values we're missing are fStr and Crit rate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Economizer

Stuff I mostly agree with but removed to save space.

---

Giving RDM native Fencer, then making it actually worth a damn (+10/15/20/25/30 crit hit or damage) would be a good start. It wouldn't compete with the 30% DWIII+Suppa reduction but it would get a way forward.

Another idea, something I doubt SE will ever do, is to alter it so that if your wielding a 1H weapon without an off hand weapon (grips excluded), that it's treated like a 2H weapon. Program wise this shouldn't be hard to do and wouldn't unbalance the game in the slightest. It only ends up being additional attack / accuracy, but combined with the above fencer modification would make single wielding swords actually somewhat useful.