Quote:
Originally Posted by
Arcon
You lack serious reading comprehension. I've told you twice now why that argument is wrong. I told you that we know about the limit and we're not begging to change it (for that matter, we're not begging for anything). We're giving ideas on how to bypass those restrictions. Ideas that would work. For example, if they'd implement equipping gear from sack or satchel, we'd instantly have 240 active inventory, with no change at all to the hardware limits.
Except for the fact that you don't know whether it's even possible for gear to be equipped from the satchel, you're parroting what someone else said, and even Sarick has told you that you have misunderstood other parts of his posts. You've argued with him more than you have me. You don't know if it would work, but you're assuming it does, and SE for some reason just isn't getting with the program and fixing it. Perhaps it would require recoding a large part of the game? Did you ever think of that? No, of course not. So no, you didn't "tell me twice how I'm wrong," you spewed the same opinion at me twice, insisting it's possible when you really have no more of a clue than I do. There's a difference though, I'm talking about things people CAN do until this problem gets fixed, if it's even possible to fix, whereas you are trying to pass your idea off as a fact as if SE just isn't doing it for whatever reason when it's very easy to fix.
Quote:
That's wrong on several issues. First of all, you have no idea what diminishing returns are. It means the bonus will get less the more you put in. Very few things in this game have diminishing returns, what you mean is diminishing utility, and even that doesn't apply here. What you're talking about are just caps, and they're something else altogether. Stoneskin caps, but the gear I listed for Stoneskin wasn't MND gear, it was gear that enhances Stoneskin past the cap. INT you mention Abyssea, but who cares about that? Do you have any idea how much INT is needed to cap dINT on a VW mob? We have no idea how much it will be on a Legion mob.
Example of diminishing returns with completely random numbers since I don't remember the exact INT formula for damage at the moment.
Every 2 INT boosts damage by 10 points. This lasts until 150 INT. At 150 INT, you now require 4 points of INT to boost damage by 10 points.
Example of a cap using random numbers, which might be right, but I'm not 100% sure:
Stack MND until you hit 150 MND for Stoneskin. Once you have 150MND, you will never have a more powerful Stoneskin. It will never absorb even more damage regardless of whether you add 500 more MND or not at this point.
Thanks, I know the difference between the two just fine.
Quote:
For other stats, while giving static returns they actually offer increased utility. Haste, for example, gets better the more you have, up to a cap. DT gets better the more you have, up to a cap (that's almost impossible to reach for PDT and without Shell for MDT, where the duality of those two sets comes into play again). Phalanx gets better the more you have, uncapped, and gets even better if combined with higher MDT and PDT. In fact, looking at the list I don't see any stat that goes above a cap or that offers diminishing returns. And here's the thing, even if they did offer diminishing returns it's still an approvement, even if smaller for the amount you put in.
I was not talking about every single stat, obviously. For someone talking about someone else lacking reading comprehension, you sure don't seem to be a paragon of it.
Quote:
Selective reading much? That only applies to my two different MDT sets (and btw, check them out when you get a chance, they're not very different). All other gear my PLD can use in pretty much every situation. And guess what, situations where Shell gets dispelled are quite frequent in endgame content. Most dangerous mobs have some form of AoE dispel, whether from a TP move or spell.
Cool story. I had no clue Shell ever gets dispelled. Thank you for letting me in on that. I guess maybe when I get into endgame someday, since I've never done it, I might be as awesome as you and have gear pouring out of every orifice.
Quote:
Like what? Point me to it. Seriously. Because for almost all of my jobs new items that were released were situational sidegrades (even including some AF3). If anything, SE released even more situational gear recently. All those new Stoneskin enhancing items, for example, then items that increase Stoneskin casting time and Enhancing Magic casting time, Utsusemi casting time, Aquaveil casting time, etc. I think you get my point. SE has been shoving sidegrades up our ass since the beginning of time. It's true that AF3 have replaced some old items, but they have very rarely consolidated more items into less. Hell, why do you think people still use augmented sky gear for certain purposes?
That's the thing, situational gear is SITUATIONAL. That doesn't mean you need that situational gear for every situation.
Quote:
You are hilarious. You were the one accusing us of being unable to manage our inventory which borders on insulting. I never complained about your playstyle. I even told you specifically before that I don't have anything against people who don't swap gear at all, because it seemed back then already that you were trying to put this on me. Just stop it. All we did was make suggestions (which you don't seem to understand) that hurt absolutely no one (not even you) but would help a lot of people (including you) which is a legitimate use of these forums. Then you came in and started mouthing off about how we're being excessive and we should stop begging and whining, which we never did. I have no idea why you started posting in here.
No. Just no. You implied you don't have problems with people who don't gear swap, like me. However, I do, I just do not take it to an obsessive level. I have no problems with people who have some idea of what they're talking about (Sarick's posts actually back up why he thinks the way he does, FYI) brainstorming about a fix. What I have a problem with is people armchair-programming as if they know the code and the limitations of the game. SE has already stated 80 is the limit for inventory. YOU have no way of knowing whether or not what Sarick is suggesting is possible. What is actually hilarious is that between arguing with me while pretending that you know that gear could really be equipped from the satchel and sack is that you are also arguing back and forth with the person whose idea you are claiming as some joint-idea that you actually had any part of coming up with. Please just stop.