To Devs: Fix Blu

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?