Where is my elemental affinity pieces?

[Mageoholic]

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.)

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.

[Greatguardian]

Attack is not a static damage increase...

[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.

[Greatguardian]

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.

[Mageoholic]

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.

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.

[Greatguardian]

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.

[Mageoholic]

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.)

[Greatguardian]

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.

[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.

[Greatguardian]

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.