To Devs: Fix Blu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tennotsukai

Yeah, I PM'd him on ffxiah and found that out, lol. I wonder why though... he's one of the best.

---

A lot of players(some are very elite/hardcore players) quit or semi-inactive everyday due to various reasons....getting bored with FFXI, need to focus real life stuff like family/jobs etc. Nothing to ask why about :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Llana_Virren

The subject of this conversation is "To Devs: Fix BLU" and the basis of the conversation was spells that are a waste of space because they do nothing.

Diaga may be relevant to Ballista, but Ballista is not relevant to the end-game no matter how tough you die-hards wish it to be.

We're not talking about weak v. strong weaponskills, and we're not talking about a problem that "transcends BLU". We're talking specifically about BLU. So create another thread if you want to talk about the dynamics of competing weaponskills.

Lastly, yes the test server in many ways mirrors or adjusts to the live server, however you're assuming that changes made to the test server after the live server imply "deficiencies" as you put it. I disagree; not everything about the live server should or needs to match the test server, and not every discrepancy is inherently a bug.

---

That's quite clearly an overstatement of what the poster asks. He's clearly not saying spells like Sudden Lunge or Amorphic Spikes are a waste of a space. He's making specific requests. His first request asks to fix a generic magic accuracy issue that happens to plague BLU but affects other classes as well. The fact that this particular issue applies to Non-BLU abilities is precisely why this issue transcends BLU. I hope I've simplified this enough for even you to understand. If that is simplified enough, that should correct your confusion regarding the magic accuracy issue.

I agree that there is never a case regarding whether adjustments "should" or "should not" be considered a bug. Such simplicity requires ethical and moral principles that do not exist. However, I am free to weigh the evidence and determine whether I consider these to be bugs or normal. SE's response confirms that. Lacking the latter and given the liberty to engage in the former, the evidence suggests this is a bug. The effects are not consistent across application (BLU and WS mix not specific to any class), the type of effect applied (Mix of debuffs, not any particular ones), the extremity of the effect (Ranging from potent DEF down to minor poison), the instrument of application (Relic weapons and simple spells affected alike), and the class of instruments (Not every WS affects and not every BLU spell affected). Finally, there are very few (If any? Can you name some?) instances where the test server has not reflected subsequent battle nerfs to the real server.

As for utility, you're ultimately ignoring the fact that I've listed many other applications other than Ballista. Whether that is because you cannot properly respond to such applications or because you overlooked them is unknown. Nevertheless, I could remove Ballista from my previous post and still yield multiple endgame applications of Diaga. Thus, the fact of the matter is that diaga had and continues to have an application.

Finally, you demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about since the changes weren't made to the test server; they were made to the real server only. So it's not the case that I'm making assumptions regarding "changes made to the test server"; these are changes to the live server that the test server hasn't mirrored. If the real server imposes boosts or nerfs, the test server should strictly follow unless SE plans to implement further changes (Hint: This would favor enhancing said magic accuracy). Not only do these anomalies plague the situation, but the degree to which magic accuracy declines further supports that notion. In short, you're wrong about the chronology and direction of this issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saevel

Ok I'll end all the BS discussion then. SE won't be doing the above proposed *fixes*, they may eventually fix the VW procs through. People can keep pretending, though I suggest you don't hold you breath.

Actually do hold your breath, that many less annoying people we have to deal with.

---

You should test Barbed Crescent extensively because a quick check of the spell against fully leveled Abyssea mobs suggests that the floored accuracy does not apply to said spell anymore. Although only one cast landed the debuff without cruor buffs, using cruor buffs (No atmas) seemed to have a consistent landing rate. The difference between no cruor buffs and cruor buffs is roughly 35mACC within Heroes zones. If that is what's necessary to land some of these spells now, that's much better than floored magic accuracy. That said, needs more testing, but the preliminary results look great for barbed crescent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yugl

You should test Barbed Crescent extensively because a quick check of the spell against fully leveled Abyssea mobs suggests that the floored accuracy does not apply to said spell anymore. Although only one cast landed the debuff without cruor buffs, using cruor buffs (No atmas) seemed to have a consistent landing rate. The difference between no cruor buffs and cruor buffs is roughly 35mACC within Heroes zones. If that is what's necessary to land some of these spells now, that's much better than floored magic accuracy. That said, needs more testing, but the preliminary results look great for barbed crescent.

---

This is interesting.

I wonder how likely it is that many of these additional effects are meant to have a reasonable magical accuracy penalty, like Barbed Crescent seems to have at the moment, but ended up floored instead.

Quote:

---

You should test Barbed Crescent extensively because a quick check of the spell against fully leveled Abyssea mobs suggests that the floored accuracy does not apply to said spell anymore. Although only one cast landed the debuff without cruor buffs, using cruor buffs (No atmas) seemed to have a consistent landing rate. The difference between no cruor buffs and cruor buffs is roughly 35mACC within Heroes zones. If that is what's necessary to land some of these spells now, that's much better than floored magic accuracy. That said, needs more testing, but the preliminary results look great for barbed crescent.

---

Link please though understand I don't trust anything from inside Abyssea, especially as crour buffs shouldn't have any effect on the proc rate of an additional effect on a WS, which is all Physical BLU spells are. Crour buffs are just HP/MP and + states not +magic acc (unless your talking atma which is different).

I wish we could get some kind of reply to this...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saevel

Link please though understand I don't trust anything from inside Abyssea, especially as crour buffs shouldn't have any effect on the proc rate of an additional effect on a WS, which is all Physical BLU spells are. Crour buffs are just HP/MP and + states not +magic acc (unless your talking atma which is different).

---

I can link to Yugl's really quick Barbed Crescent test and stumble through some of the reasoning.

I've been drinking to get through some holiday family gatherings to the extent that I'm not up to finding the original testing on this stuff. So, in addition to lacking links, this might be off on a finer point even though it conveys the general idea. I apologize to a bunch of people in advance.

The best understanding anyone has of the wonky additional effects right now is that the wonky equation just uses the ~50 magic accuracy given by the relevant base stat. There's no check for whatever baseline is normally used and I'm not sure if there is even a check for normal +magic accuracy.

Obviously, Barbed Crescent has far more than ~50 magic accuracy now for some reason, but still fairly low magic accuracy. Low, but no longer so low that seems like it must be a bug.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpankWustler

I can link to Yugl's really quick Barbed Crescent test and stumble through some of the reasoning.

I've been drinking to get through some holiday family gatherings to the extent that I'm not up to finding the original testing on this stuff. So, in addition to lacking links, this might be off on a finer point even though it conveys the general idea. I apologize to a bunch of people in advance.

The best understanding anyone has of the wonky additional effects right now is that the wonky equation just uses the ~50 magic accuracy given by the relevant base stat. There's no check for whatever baseline is normally used and I'm not sure if there is even a check for normal +magic accuracy.

Obviously, Barbed Crescent has far more than ~50 magic accuracy now for some reason, but still fairly low magic accuracy. Low, but no longer so low that seems like it must be a bug.

---

Looked over it, no where near any info to say +35 M.acc or even 50 M.acc. That's not how MA vs ME work, also physical WS effects do not get a dSTAT style magic acc, it's assumed to be 0 (thought SE could of screwed around with this and we wouldn't of noticed it). Magic acc is the skill of the weapon being used (Great Axe / Markmanship / ect..) along with any +M.acc from gear. Magic has multiple resist checks in ever decreasing duration or potency (usually the formor) being the result. If the final resist check is failed then the entire thing is considered resisted. An additional effect with a single resist state will appear to constantly not take effect on a monster several levels higher then you, this is due to MA/ME scaling. Adding a single additional resist state ups the land rate by a significant amount.

Most BLU spells that have issues landing do not in fact have anything remotely close to "floored rate", what they have is one or two resist states with a severe magic accuracy penalty.

EX single resist state, resulting MA/ME being 10% land rate with 1000 casts
100 land 100%
900 land 0%.
Visible land rate: 10%

Adding another resist state
100 land 100%
90 land 50%
810 land 0%
Visible land rate: 19%

Now lets move the MA / ME to 25% initial land rate
250 land 100%
187.5 land 50%
562.5 land 0%
visible land rate: 43.7%

In order to get a 15% swing in initial land rate you need ~30 magic accuracy. As you pass 50% it becomes profound in it's effect and you get results similar to Diss's poison and SL's stun effect. Adding second, third and fourth resist states further enhances the visible land rate.

Go try it sometimes, Mortal Ray a TW / EP monster, it'll land and they'll die. Same with 1000 needles and BC. Fight high mobs and it seems to never land, congrats the monsters native C resist skill along with the magic acc penalty just shot your initial land rate into the ground and without multiple additional resist states (Ray has at least two total) you get a very low visible land rate.

Ok just finished doing some testing on spiders outside Whitegate, the 63~65 versions. That is high enough to survive the tests but low enough that I should of had ratio under 0.5. Also I should of been way beyond capping first land rate on magic acc.

First the BC / Tourb testing. Out of 10 spiders BC didn't proc once, not even when I CA'd it. Tourb landed twice total, though when I CA'd it landed consistently.

From that I surmise that it's not that they have "floored" magic acc but that their not 100% proc rates, not even close. And that when it does proc it still must overcome MACC/MEVD with what is most likely a magic acc penalty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saevel

Link please though understand I don't trust anything from inside Abyssea, especially as crour buffs shouldn't have any effect on the proc rate of an additional effect on a WS, which is all Physical BLU spells are. Crour buffs are just HP/MP and + states not +magic acc (unless your talking atma which is different).

---

I would like a link to this since when I asked on BG, no one suggested WS do not benefit from dSTAT. I recall Nightfyre suggesting breath spells may ignore dSTAT, but why would he forget to mention BLU physical spells if that's the case? Last I checked, I could land additional effects using brew without issue despite having zero BLU magic skill. I was testing whether this is due to inherent mACC bonus or due to dSTAT. I'll do a quick test now since I those images used my old drive though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saevel

First the BC / Tourb testing. Out of 10 spiders BC didn't proc once, not even when I CA'd it.

---

These preliminary results make the "overpowered" argument quite hilarious.

SE:
"Allow accuracy reduction to land against a mob you're 34 levels higher than? Why that's absurd!"

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Final%20Fantasy%20XI%20Testings/Player/Magic/BLU%20Magic%20Accuracy%20with%20Brew/Yugl_2012.12.15_130417.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi....15_130418.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi....15_130419.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi....15_130421.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi....15_130422.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi....15_130423.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi....15_130424.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi....15_130425.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi....15_130426.png

That folder shows:
Level 83BLU against T Olyphants
0/~6 HB landing stun without brew (More than that I think, but busy at; None land)
~8/~8 HB landing stun with brew (100% lands)

This was with the test server to ensure the best scenario for the spell. So that means either mACC accompanies brew (No other test to prove this atm) or dSTAT does affect physical magic accuracy. If you have an idea for testing brew's mACC, then do suggest one since I've been looking to figure that out. Even though the sample is minor, I cannot do much more before Legion and the results are quite drastic.

Edit: Someone said the link doesn't work; let me see if I can figure this out before Legion. Use the new link for now. Navigate to Player > Magic > Blue Magic Accuracy with Brew

Quote:

---

This was with the test server to ensure the best scenario for the spell. So that means either mACC accompanies brew (No other test to prove this atm) or dSTAT does affect physical magic accuracy. If you have an idea for testing brew's mACC, then do suggest one since I've been looking to figure that out. Even though the sample is minor, I cannot do much more before Legion and the results are quite drastic.

---

Which dSTAT would be used for the physical WS then? STR, DEX, INT, MND? And if the WS has multiple WSC's which would be used?

EX: Tachi Koki is a physical WS with additional light magic damage. The magic component is resistible and subject to magic accuracy. The WS use's both MND and STR as it's WSC's, so which would be used for "MACC"? Would it use INT because it's magic, or MND because it's light magic? There has been no proof in all of FFXI that any stat effects magic accuracy of physical weaponskills with an additional effect component.

Seeing as brew adds MAB, Attack and accuracy, I'd say it was a VERY good assumption that it also adds MACC.

Next thing you'll be telling me that INT effects magic accuracy on Drain spells.

Also I believe I just squashed your

Quote:

---

You should test Barbed Crescent extensively because a quick check of the spell against fully leveled Abyssea mobs suggests that the floored accuracy does not apply to said spell anymore. Although only one cast landed the debuff without cruor buffs, using cruor buffs (No atmas) seemed to have a consistent landing rate. The difference between no cruor buffs and cruor buffs is roughly 35mACC within Heroes zones. If that is what's necessary to land some of these spells now, that's much better than floored magic accuracy. That said, needs more testing, but the preliminary results look great for barbed crescent.

---

The difference in MA between 65 and 99 is a few times greater then the +35 you were claiming. That +35 would be 17.5% on first land rate, and that's on things with a clear dstat magic accuracy (Magic WS and Spells).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saevel

Which dSTAT would be used for the physical WS then? STR, DEX, INT, MND? And if the WS has multiple WSC's which would be used?

EX: Tachi Koki is a physical WS with additional light magic damage. The magic component is resistible and subject to magic accuracy. The WS use's both MND and STR as it's WSC's, so which would be used for "MACC"? Would it use INT because it's magic, or MND because it's light magic? There has been no proof in all of FFXI that any stat effects magic accuracy of physical weaponskills with an additional effect component.

Seeing as brew adds MAB, Attack and accuracy, I'd say it was a VERY good assumption that it also adds MACC.

---

If dSTAT exists, which stat affects the magic accuracy of these spells:
No testing has occurred to differentiate, so if one exists, there isn't enough data to show which stat affects magic accuracy. Technically, BLU magical nukes can use multiple WSC, so are you suggesting dSTAT doesn't affect those as well?

There is no proof that any stat affects mACC of physical weaponskills/BLU physical spells (Added this piece since we're discussing BLU results):
No evidence exists for brews adding magic accuracy either. If brew has no mACC component, these tests prove the existence of dSTAT. If brew has mACC, this test doesn't disprove that, but doesn't prove the case either.

Thus, that is why I asked if you had a test for brew mACC. We cannot "conclude" much from these results without that component. What we can say is that either brew includes mACC or that dSTAT affects these spells.

Quote:

---

The difference in MA between 65 and 99 is a few times greater then the +35 you were claiming. That +35 would be 17.5% on first land rate, and that's on things with a clear dstat magic accuracy (Magic WS and Spells).

---

I never claimed +35 mACC, so you're not doing much with your test other than making the statement:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saevel

Right now what I keep seeing is people complaining because some minor spell is sh1t and they want all 100+ Blue Magic spells to be useful and functional. I'm sorry but that's OP, if everyone BLU had worked "the way it should" then SE would nerf the sh1t out of this job.

---

Quite laughable. As stated earlier,

Saeval and SE:
"Land accuracy reduction on a mob you're 35 levels higher than? Why that's absurd!"

Anyways, jokes aside, I landed 5/6 (roughly) with cruor buffs, which is much more than you're reporting. Neither are great samples though.

Now your just spinning in circles. You attempted to say "SE fixed BC!!!" where I proved no fix to mAcc has happened. It's been my observation that it's not a MACC/MEVD problem but it simply not procing. There is the distinct possibility that some stat effects the proc rate (completely different then MACC/MEVD), I haven't seen any evidence of this but nobody has bothered to do an in-depth study either. Your understanding of MACC/MEVD was flawed, that was obvious by your claim in regards to "crour buffs" suddenly making it land able.

Brews do give MACC, just like they give Attack, Defense, Accuracy, Evasion and Magic Attack. In all likelihood they also give magic evasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saevel

Now your just spinning in circles. You attempted to say "SE fixed BC!!!" where I proved no fix to mAcc has happened.

---

"X needs more testing" now means "X is the case"? Try harder when you spin lies. And just because you'll probably ignore the post and substitute your own reality:

Quote:

---

You should test Barbed Crescent extensively because a quick check of the spell against fully leveled Abyssea mobs suggests that the floored accuracy does not apply to said spell anymore. Although only one cast landed the debuff without cruor buffs, using cruor buffs (No atmas) seemed to have a consistent landing rate. The difference between no cruor buffs and cruor buffs is roughly 35mACC within Heroes zones. If that is what's necessary to land some of these spells now, that's much better than floored magic accuracy. That said, needs more testing, but the preliminary results look great for barbed crescent.

---

Quote:

---

It's been my observation that it's not a MACC/MEVD problem but it simply not procing.

---

Here's where your work backfires on you once again. Before I show you this, I'll clarify some of the "technical" discussion he's attempting to invoke. http://bg-wiki.com/bg/Magic_Hit_Rate

Magic hit rate has multiple stages. For simplicity sake, we'll use full effect, half effect, and no effect (This would be a spell with three resist stages). So if you need to roll a 5 to land an effect, rolling a five in one roll would be full effect, landing a 5 with the second roll a half effect, and not landing a 5 with either roll a "no effect." So lets continue.

1. We're discussing the fact that the spell seems to rarely lands in any manner. Adding resist states into the equation can only enhance the message rate via half-durations. This is because more chances to roll dice improves your overall chance of rolling a number you desire. So how does a greater chance to land a spell indicate that the issue isn't mACC relevant? That's not possible by adding resist states, but by removing resist states. So did SE eliminate resist states for BC?

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...6_05.37.14.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi..._05.37.18.png\

No. The first image displays molten burst (Transfers debuffs) so you know any previous accuracy reductions do not apply. The second image shows BC's additional effect lasting ~56s (Close enough to 1min given Stamp's miscalculation). This is clearly deviant from the normal 3min duration; thus a different resist state. So much for your resist state argument.

2. Elemental seal seems to reliably land the effect. Elemental seal doesn't seem to eliminate resist states as any mob with natural SDT (Species Damage Taken) to an element will half resist regardless of ES's application. Furthermore, ESed spells can occasionally resist. If ES eliminated every stage except the first, then resists would be impossible.:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...6_02.48.12.png (Shows landing with ES)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...9_14.39.26.png (Shows ES landing half-duration debuffs against an elemental)

3. Although I was not able to replicate the land rate using cruor buffs, I was able to land the spell occasionally; I also added a Sandspin image since that was reported as broken by Prothescar/whoever helped him test these spells:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...20Crescent.png (Sandspin or Barbed; idc, likely Sand though)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...6_04.49.07.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...6_04.49.08.png (These images combined show a full duration BC)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...6_05.04.42.png (This shows ~2min duration)

Thus, we see 1, 2, and 3min duration accuracy reductions (At least 4 states since we need a "no effect" state).

Your states argument is incorrect. Your "never lands" is descendant of your observations (Your data suggests that), but is ultimately incorrect. That said, so would be the notion that BC is fixed. The fact is that BC has multiple states and this should increase the notices of accuracy reduction when using BC.

Quote:

---

Your understanding of MACC/MEVD was flawed, that was obvious by your claim in regards to "crour buffs" suddenly making it land able.

---

My claim was what I observed, which is that I landed ~3/4 casts (However many I wrote) in a row with just cruor buffs. You taking that to mean "omg cruor buffs = land completely" is your own faulty interpretation. Furthermore, my knowledge of magic hit rate derives from BG-wiki (This should be obvious to anyone even remotely familiar with my work there). At no point did I attempt to flesh out a magic accuracy model prior to this post regarding magic hit rate. The only relevant post to that is Spankwustler, so attempting to conflate our posts as an attack, is quite pitiful. I did mention magic accuracy as related to dSTAT (Basically reworking existing dSTAT formula for these spells) and even you admit there is insufficient evidence to refute this. In short, your criticism either derives from error or blatant disregard for integrity in general.

Quote:

---

Brews do give MACC, just like they give Attack, Defense, Accuracy, Evasion and Magic Attack. In all likelihood they also give magic evasion.

---

Your prior post said brew's mACC bonus was an assumption. Do you have data to support this shift from an assumption to a statement?

Straw man, all of it.

I actually stated earlier the different resist levels, I also broke down exactly how that works, so to attempt to "educate me" is just you liking to hear your own voice.

I called you on your BS and now your going nuclear.

Quote:

---

Although I was not able to replicate the land rate using cruor buffs

---

End of Debate, your *anecdotal evidence* that BC (or any physical WS) has an MACC component of dSTAT was busted, which is what I told you earlier. I also said it had a low proc rate which is separate from the MA/ME comparison. I confirmed that by trying it on monsters that had so low ME that there was no way I would of been floored.

Saevel, you do realize that you're using something stupid that I typed five minutes before passing out drunk as motivation to furiously chew on a tree rather than back up and look at the forest, right?

I just want to make sure we're all on the same page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saevel

Straw man, all of it.

I actually stated earlier the different resist levels, I also broke down exactly how that works, so to attempt to "educate me" is just you liking to hear your own voice.

I called you on your BS and now your going nuclear.



End of Debate, your *anecdotal evidence* that BC (or any physical WS) has an MACC component of dSTAT was busted, which is what I told you earlier.

---

I clarified the resist levels for people reading the post, not you. If they don't understand the mechanic, they cannot see why your claim is utterly absurd. That is why I said "he is attempting to invoke" when only you actually discussed resist levels.
Furthermore, I never said dSTAT could affect blue magic because of barbed crescent tests. That is you strawmanning. I said dSTAT could affect blue magic because of the brew tests. In fact, I made this quite clear multiple times:

Quote:

---

Last I checked, I could land additional effects using brew without issue despite having zero BLU magic skill. I was testing whether this is due to inherent mACC bonus or due to dSTAT.

---

Quote:

---

This was with the test server to ensure the best scenario for the spell. So that means either mACC accompanies brew (No other test to prove this atm) or dSTAT does affect physical magic accuracy. If you have an idea for testing brew's mACC, then do suggest one since I've been looking to figure that out. Even though the sample is minor, I cannot do much more before Legion and the results are quite drastic.

---

Quote:

---

I also said it had a low proc rate which is separate from the MA/ME comparison. I confirmed that by trying it on monsters that had so low ME that there was no way I would of been floored.

---

Your test didn't confirm this at all. All your post did was show that reducing mEVA didn't make you land the spell once within ten casts. In fact, I did some tests that ultimately support the idea of a mACC/mEVA test and indicate that your "Procs" idea is false.

1. Elemental seal makes the effect land: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...6_02.48.12.png

2. Brew makes the effect land:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...6_22.46.29.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...6_22.46.30.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...6_22.46.34.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...6_22.46.35.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...6_22.46.36.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...6_22.46.38.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...6_22.46.41.png

The first shows Elemental Seal, an ability that enhances magic accuracy, makes the spell land. If you want to complain about ES having special properties, the brew test further supports the mACC/mEVA claim. If your claim were correct, we wouldn't see a leap in land rate using brew because the proc system you propose would prevent them from landing. However, we see clearly that, whether due to native mACC or dSTAT, 11/12 Tourbillions landed and 2/2 Barbed Crescents landed. This evidence overwhelmingly supports mACC/mEVA issues rather than your proc idea. How do we know brew isn't invoking some "unresist" trait? First, we see Tourbillion was resisted in one instance. Second, we see Dream Flower (AOE sleep) within the fourth image. Thus, the evidence highly suggests this is an mACC/mEVA calculation issue.

tho im happy to see there is a way to force it to land i almost fear being forced to come blu/blm to events for the def down... kinda like the brd/blm days for elegy

it's been a while...tourbillion still broke? anyone know?

Don't you guys have like a billion spells, and you have to pick and choose which you can cast? If a few of them suck, just swap them out for better spells.

There's a difference between a spell sucking, and a spell being broken. If Tourbillion wasn't broken, it would not suck. It's description says it gives a def down, but in practice, it's very rare to do so.

At the very least make it so Unbridled Learning or some other skill allows you to cast a spell you do not have set.
I don't play BLU, but I know people that do. They have to sacrifice a lot of their DD potential to be a better proccing job, and that's all that people want BLU for in VW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zarchery

Don't you guys have like a billion spells, and you have to pick and choose which you can cast? If a few of them suck, just swap them out for better spells.

---

It sucks because the real reason to use the spell does not really take effect. Its a problem many blue spells suffer from so far as I know, where the additional effect has a low proc rate making the spell itself near worthless in most cases. The reason people do not just switch it out is because its an UL spell, one of which should be the most useful, but is instead fairly worthless.

some blu spells(turbillion and barbed crescent being the poster boys) some weapon skills (sams def down big offender) and some of the relic weapons(but not all) also seem to have floored macc, and the sams one 100% or 300% tp just refuses to land but like 1 in 10 even tho its macc is suppose to be effected by tp.