Upcoming February blue mage nerf

[saevel]

This won't be a nerf though I'm very curious to see how this goes because some spells seem to function normally right now. It's likely the spells had either a static base magic acc value, or some had a dynamic one based on same obscure factor (dLevel or something like that). I say this because some spells that are low level seem to of scaled well with higher content (delta thrust / whirl of rage / benthic typhoon off the top of my head) while others never landed even on ridiculously low level mobs (sub 50's). Tourbillion and Barbed Crescent only landed about 5% of the time I used them on mobs so low level that I should be blowing past their resist even without skill. Possible that proc rate as somehow tied into dLevel / skill, which would of been a f*cking hilarious oversight.

[Grekumah]

The rate in which the additional effects of blue magic spells land will be increased by both blue magic skill and magic accuracy.

[Olor]

The rate in which the additional effects of blue magic spells land will be increased by both blue magic skill and magic accuracy.

This is great news. Thanks for confirming.

[dasva]

This won't be a nerf though I'm very curious to see how this goes because some spells seem to function normally right now. It's likely the spells had either a static base magic acc value, or some had a dynamic one based on same obscure factor (dLevel or something like that). I say this because some spells that are low level seem to of scaled well with higher content (delta thrust / whirl of rage / benthic typhoon off the top of my head) while others never landed even on ridiculously low level mobs (sub 50's). Tourbillion and Barbed Crescent only landed about 5% of the time I used them on mobs so low level that I should be blowing past their resist even without skill. Possible that proc rate as somehow tied into dLevel / skill, which would of been a f*cking hilarious oversight.

While it is possibly there is some dlvl factor... in fact iirc none of the macc testing was able to rule it out on any spell or type of magic it's likely that they just give certain spells (and some debuffs types too for that matter) some kind of innate extra/less macc. Notice how in magic in general some spells are just more accurate or some debuff types are. Also some probably had better dstat factors and some might not have had any at all. The spells that you listed always did have a decent to good land rate. iirc those 2 spells were given weird semi varying durations instead (kinda like para) so might not have multiple resist states

Also another thing they do that can increase the chances of at least landing a debuff is having more resist states. Minimum land rate is 5% so if it's straight up hit or miss if your macc sucks you will only see it land 5% of the time. If there is a half resist state then that same 5% hit rate would result in 9.75% chance to at least land it. If there is a 1/4 resist then it goes up to 14.26% etc. Stun/flash in particular are notorious for this and are theorized to have many resist states so while you might not get full duration the odds of it not landing at all are very low outside of immunity or near immunity

Haven't tried barbed/tourbillion recently and not sure what your gearing was but from what I remember doing it in full ilvl it tourbillion landed fairly well on lvl 50-60 mobs though in just normal 99 gear not so much. Hard to say with gearing and such but the difference between a 99 and a 60 geared good enough to land spells on mobs there should be around 250-300 macc if skill is included so would make sense that a 99 not having their 440 or so skill included would still have floored land rates but be close enough where 119 ilvl should land it though might have needed some macc pieces in that to get a good rate

[saevel]

Haven't tried barbed/tourbillion recently and not sure what your gearing was but from what I remember doing it in full ilvl it tourbillion landed fairly well on lvl 50-60 mobs though in just normal 99 gear not so much. Hard to say with gearing and such but the difference between a 99 and a 60 geared good enough to land spells on mobs there should be around 250-300 macc if skill is included so would make sense that a 99 not having their 440 or so skill included would still have floored land rates but be close enough where 119 ilvl should land it though might have needed some macc pieces in that to get a good rate

Full iLevel 119 vs level 60 and 50 Xp mobs. 20 casts each, landed twice but for the full duration. Base magic resist is a rank C skill for the mobs level plus any elemental specific resists, so just figure out what a rank C skill would be and you have a good idea of where to start. Even with a 25% full land rate, which is well under the mobs magic resist, we should still see it more often then ~5%. This wasn't to precisely nail down the proc rate or magic acc but to determine how bad it really was and if there was anything that could be done to raise it significantly. It's why I also believe the additional effect isn't a 100% proc rate but actually really f*cking low. There are several items in the game that have additional effects that proc rate vary with some stat, the elemental swords being a good example. Feather Storm and Spiral Spin both have "chance of effect varies with TP" along with several weapon skills, so it's probable that additional effects can simply not proc, which really piss's me off.

Level 75 would have ~225 base magic evasion
Level 60 would have ~190 base magic evasion
Level 50 would have ~142 base magic evasion
Level 40 would have ~114 base magic evasion

You should get a noticeable land rate as long as your within 50 or so of the magic evasion.

[dasva]

Well a lot of those numbers are pure theory only a few mobs few spells really had meva nailed down and I believe the C thing was more for players... given that back at those levels it wasn't exactly easy to land spells on EMs naked from what I remember I think it was probably a tad higher. Iirc the one they did nail down was 77 qiqirn and then only to stone I at around 290 which is more like A+. Though at low levels there isn't much of a difference but a 60 would be more like 203 then. And on top of those elemental resistances there was supposed to be specific effect resistances (not counting the resist traits) some spells seeming to have some innate greater accuracy against most things or much lower etc. So what their exact meva to those effects would be would be a tad trickier to determine would probably need an actual test.

Anyways full 119 can mean a lot of things right now. Like for example if you meant ilvl swd and say full reforged af+1 that would only be 188 macc skill and 18 macc. Assuming macc skill ~macc then that would be about 206 macc which if they spell and debuff had 0 macc nerf on it and the mob didn't have some kind of resistance to that and didn't have slightly higher resist than hit rate would be about 53%... you observed 10% but with that sample size the confidence interval is kinda huge to the point that the actual rate could've been in the low 20s. So all it would take is any one of those factors to up the mobs meva or lower your macc by about 40 which in the grand scheme of things isn't huge to the point if we go a decent bit lower we should be fine

So on that note I went out to try it myself since all I really can remember is testimonials from other blus saying it's easy to land on low level stuff and you are saying it isn't. So 191 macc skill plus another 80 macc I had lying around on some really low lvl stuff (like 30-40) in Zi'tah (which is why I didn't use Tourbillion since it kept one shotting them) 20/20 landed for full duration so doesn't look like a low proc rate to me sounds like just really bad macc that should be fixable with this update

Either way we shall see in a couple of weeks.

[larrymc]

The rate in which the additional effects of blue magic spells land will be increased by both blue magic skill and magic accuracy.

This is great news, the news that you still read the blue forums . Also thanks for the response on magic accuracy. I can't wait for the update!

[Tidis]

Well damn, that's a massive buff to BLU then, probably a good shot of additional effects working most of the time.

BLU Sudden Lunge Stun gun anyone?

[saevel]

Well a lot of those numbers are pure theory only a few mobs few spells really had meva nailed down and I believe the C thing was more for players... given that back at those levels it wasn't exactly easy to land spells on EMs naked from what I remember I think it was probably a tad higher. Iirc the one they did nail down was 77 qiqirn and then only to stone I at around 290 which is more like A+. Though at low levels there isn't much of a difference but a 60 would be more like 203 then. And on top of those elemental resistances there was supposed to be specific effect resistances (not counting the resist traits) some spells seeming to have some innate greater accuracy against most things or much lower etc. So what their exact meva to those effects would be would be a tad trickier to determine would probably need an actual test.

Anyways full 119 can mean a lot of things right now. Like for example if you meant ilvl swd and say full reforged af+1 that would only be 188 macc skill and 18 macc. Assuming macc skill ~macc then that would be about 206 macc which if they spell and debuff had 0 macc nerf on it and the mob didn't have some kind of resistance to that and didn't have slightly higher resist than hit rate would be about 53%... you observed 10% but with that sample size the confidence interval is kinda huge to the point that the actual rate could've been in the low 20s. So all it would take is any one of those factors to up the mobs meva or lower your macc by about 40 which in the grand scheme of things isn't huge to the point if we go a decent bit lower we should be fine

So on that note I went out to try it myself since all I really can remember is testimonials from other blus saying it's easy to land on low level stuff and you are saying it isn't. So 191 macc skill plus another 80 macc I had lying around on some really low lvl stuff (like 30-40) in Zi'tah (which is why I didn't use Tourbillion since it kept one shotting them) 20/20 landed for full duration so doesn't look like a low proc rate to me sounds like just really bad macc that should be fixable with this update

Either way we shall see in a couple of weeks.

The lowest I was really able to test were mobs in the ~45 range cause after that it starts one shoting them and I have other things to do. If you were able to get that kind of rate by going even lower then it's likely it simply had 0 base magic acc, which would be retarded but entirely possible for SE. Also is +magic accuracy skill counted as global +magic accuracy or does it get added to the skill component for determining base magic acc, would be the same for everything except if that skill wasn't being used in the first place.

[dasva]

The lowest I was really able to test were mobs in the ~45 range cause after that it starts one shoting them and I have other things to do. If you were able to get that kind of rate by going even lower then it's likely it simply had 0 base magic acc, which would be retarded but entirely possible for SE. Also is +magic accuracy skill counted as global +magic accuracy or does it get added to the skill component for determining base magic acc, would be the same for everything except if that skill wasn't being used in the first place.

Fairly certain macc skill works since other blus I've talked to said they first noticed getting better hit rates on low level stuff when macc skill came out because before that we didn't get enough macc to even hit lvl 30 mobs. Looking back at exact mob levels looks like they went up to 46. Given those numbers if macc skill and skill isn't counted it would have to have a very nice innate macc boost to get those hit rates. Sounds doubtful. If macc skill counts but skill doesn't assuming my observed was capped hitrate (20/20 seems likely or at the very least close to capped) then it could still have a macc boost (though given your a bit higher seems doubtful still) or up to ~-30 macc penalty built in. Hard to say exactly but sounds like the only thing it counted was macc and macc skill with possible small innate penalty and maybe a small amount of stat comparison. So if all this holds true right now even with perfect sets we are effectively casting a little under 400 macc so basically worst off than we'd be doing with a magical spell naked

Well damn, that's a massive buff to BLU then, probably a good shot of additional effects working most of the time.

BLU Sudden Lunge Stun gun anyone?

Will probably still somewhat depend on which one and against what... but the ones that already work good unless they go back and ninja them will probably become much more accurate