Jupiter's staff question

[Alkalinehoe]

Of course AGI modifies RACC lol, that's always been known. When you say things like a fact, you are implying you want people to believe you. There was no notice of "by results of my own testing...." to clarify why exactly you thought the AGI+ from the Wind Staff would increase your crit rate on RNG.

Example of you implying it as a fact:

This is incorrect. AGI affects it but I can't say if it affects it in the same way that DEX does for melee crit rate.

Many more can be found but for the sake of time, I'll leave it at that one.

You obviously do want people to believe you but got called out on your "missing" tests to back up your findings and all you could provide was "do your own tests."

[Catsby]

Of course AGI modifies RACC lol, that's always been known.

Great. My hypothesis has face validity then. DEX modifies melee acc and melee crit. AGI may easily follow a similar pattern for ranged attacks.

When you say things like a fact, you are implying you want people to believe you.

No I don't. When I say things like a fact it's because they contradict or support what's being argued.

There was no notice of "by results of my own testing...." to clarify why exactly you thought the AGI+ from the Wind Staff would increase your crit rate on RNG.

I was discussing the pattern found on that line of staves. If AGI enhances ranged crit rate (by my understanding it does) then the wind staff would by extension. not because it's special or enhances ranged crit on it's own.

Example of you implying it as a fact:

Because according to what I understand this is true.

You obviously do want people to believe you but got called out on your "missing" tests to back up your findings

I hardly got called out and my tests aren't missing they're deleted. Intentionally.

and all you could provide was "do your own tests."

That's how science works brah. I can tell you what I did and approximations of what I got but if you have a problem with any of it then it's your responsibility to experiment on your own. I don't recall saying anything was absolute (but if I did, WHOOPS!) but only that things were incorrect.

[Alkalinehoe]

Great. My hypothesis has face validity then. DEX modifies melee acc and melee crit. AGI may easily follow a similar pattern for ranged attacks.

Why does that easily follow a similar pattern? STR gives Ranged Attack and Melee Attack, by that pattern, DEX gives Melee Crit rate and Ranged Crit rate.... There's another pattern for ya.

No I don't. When I say things like a fact it's because they contradict or support what's being argued.

And the whole point of saying things like a fact against contradicting opinions is because you want people to believe your side. Really now...

I hardly got called out and my tests aren't missing they're deleted. Intentionally.

Why would you delete a 10,000 arrow sample? Was it filling up your HDD? Not to mention if you really did uncover evidence of AGI modifying ranged crit rate instead of the widely known and tested belief that DEX increases ranged crits you would think you would save this info and share it ya? This is exactly why me and noodles are suspicious of your "tests."

That's how science works brah. I can tell you what I did and approximations of what I got but if you have a problem with any of it then it's your responsibility to experiment on your own. I don't recall saying anything was absolute (but if I did, WHOOPS!) but only that things were incorrect.

But why do our tests when we have no reason to believe the current formula is incorrect? Someone walked in, claimed something different with no evidence at all (other than their word at this point), and we should go out and test it? I could walk into a the BRD forum and say MND had an effect on song MACC, how many BRDs would genuinely go test this out without any proof on my own? If you had originally posted with your parse and showed me evidence of AGI affecting crit rate, I would have tested it, but that's not what happened. It's your responsibility to use evidence to back up your facts when you are trying to present new information that is attempting to debunk old and solid evidence.

edit: plus the whole you not knowing AGI affected RACC thing makes it seem fishy. I mean, what RNG doesn't know that?

[Catsby]

Why does that easily follow a similar pattern? STR gives Ranged Attack and Melee Attack, by that pattern, DEX gives Melee Crit rate and Ranged Crit rate.... There's another pattern for ya.

No. Because attack isn't accuracy.

And the whole point of saying things like a fact against contradicting opinions is because you want people to believe your side. Really now...

Wait, what?

Why would you delete a 10,000 arrow sample? Was it filling up your HDD? Not to mention if you really did uncover evidence of AGI modifying ranged crit rate instead of the widely known and tested belief that DEX increases ranged crits you would think you would save this info and share it ya? This is exactly why me and noodles are suspicious of your "tests."

I don't remember what we were originally doing but me and a friend who just finished Gandiva went out to test something with the linkshell. I was watching him in parse when I noticed his crit rate was alarmingly low despite having RR and GH. I asked my linkshell if DEX affected ranged crit rate. They all said it did but nearly all the other Damager dealers in the parse had a % way higher.

After the testing I came here and talked about it in the other thread. People were pretty meh about it so I figured it was old news. At that point I deleted the parse files.

But why do our tests when we have no reason to believe the current formula is incorrect? Someone walked in, claimed something different with no evidence at all (other than their word at this point), and we should go out and test it? I could walk into a the BRD forum and say MND had an effect on song MACC, how many BRDs would genuinely go test this out without any proof on my own? If you had originally posted with your parse and showed me evidence of AGI affecting crit rate, I would have tested it, but that's not what happened. It's your responsibility to use evidence to back up your facts when you are trying to present new information that is attempting to debunk old and solid evidence.

Like I said. I thought it was old news.

edit: plus the whole you not knowing AGI affected RACC thing makes it seem fishy. I mean, what RNG doesn't know that?

just verifying.