Revamp Elemental Spells to Be More Logical and Realistic

[Byrth]

That era of dev team was notorious for bugs and slow fixes. Remember when they broke frogs? Discoid? For a while control-right would go down 9 spots while left would still go up 10 spots, etc.

That said, I don't think you're alone in suspecting it was an intentional thing that they decided to play off as a bug. More than a few people felt that way at the time.

[Rambus]

Are you really the only mage that didn't notice this adjustment?

And SE absolutely did make the change regardless of anything you said. You're incorrect and your words do not magically change the past.

Most mages immediately noticed something was changed, and the smarter ones pinned down the change. You claim that "SE did NOT make that change in the respect of change potency vs element def ..." but this runs contrary to everyone's anecdotal experiences and actual test data. Kaeko (one of FFXI's best mages, prolific tester, theorycrafter, and strategist) pinned down the adjustment after reading through posted experiences and running his own tests.

His position? "Early conclusion for this is simply that SE has FINALLY made magic users take into account elemental strengths and weaknesses. You still don't get a damage bonus for using an element the mob is weak to, but you will get the penalty for nuking/enfeebling against the mob's element."

{Click Here to View the BG Thread on the Adjustment: "Elegy nerf or HNM Buff"}

{Click Here to View Kaeko's Post and His Preliminary Conclusions}

where is your proof that is was not a bug, lolbg and ffxiah threads does not cut it.

and i explained IN DETAL why it cannot be what you described.

dyna mobs are NOT dark element ( most of them)

where is damage change in potency? not just 50% durations on enfeebling magic on anything called NM?

again :

1. dyna mobs are not dark! they are too easy to aspier if they had any dark base to them ( baring some mobs)

the old dev team made lots of mistakes, being a thf mean i am sure you remember sneak attack from the front, what makes you think this is any different?

that bug was not an experiment to potency changes vs elemental def. If it was there be varying rates ( not just 50% durations on everything that is "NM") *ok after reading it was just a bug on enfeebling magic and people thought it had to do with ele def, it didn't

there is even mobs now that take hard damage off (hard def, i do not know how to word this)

water on leech (50% water damage)
wind on ATU bird (50% wind damage)
water on pugal (50% water damage)
ice on former (50% ice damage)
ice on ghost (50% ice damage)
elemetal mob ( immune to it's element (cap 1/8 damage) and what it is strong to)
prime avatar ( immune to all element, (cap 1/8 damage) heals its element, only takes damage to what it is weak to)
etcetc

I think 1/8 is cap, people made a thread before on Ki talking about if anyone seen 1/16

how you not understand this?

Posted by Thorny View Post
My current theory is that any mob over X total resistance(level correction/mnd if applicable, inherent resistances, anything that would effect resist rate) is getting an automatic half resist at best, similar to how you can't get a full resist when nuking an elemental with it's weak element no matter how low your skills are. The distribution of mobs I have seen this take effect on makes specific elemental resistance, traits, and just plain m.acc all seem like they are not viable reasons.

Did a very easy, yet extremely eye opening test that completely backs up this idea of automatic half resist on elemental strengths.

I took my 75 RDM mule out to Qufim and Chainspell Water I'd an Acropolis (Leech Family, resistance to water).

20 water Is, ALL 29 damage (1/2 resist).

Prior to the patch, you could 'overwhelm' the innate elemental resistance of the mob if you were just that much higher level than it. For instance, I could get lucky and nuke a crab with water, and it would still do full damage. Given that 230 Ele. Skill can't land a single non-resist on a lvl30 mob now, I would say this is no longer the case!

Early conclusion for this is simply that SE has FINALLY made magic users take into account elemental strengths and weaknesses. You still don't get a damage bonus for using an element the mob is weak to, but you will get the penalty for nuking/enfeebling against the mob's element.

This would explain why you can't full duration Elegy Cerb. (strong to earth), why you get 1/2 resists on ES Sleep on bombs and bats, and why brothers ENM gives you the same 1/2 resist (taurus dark strength).

(To back this up, if someone wants to take a BRD/BLM and ES lullaby a bat, I can bank on that duration being full due to the fact bats have no light resist)

to think that happened only after the patch is WONG! i leveled blm back in 2004-2005 and that 50% damage to leeches and so on existed.

and STILL EXISTS

the thing in 2009 was ONLY ON enfeebling magic ! it was a bug where everything was 50% on NM as far as i understand.

kk after reading some of it was just a huge enfeebling magic bug, there is NO proof yet about damage being effected so that kills your view on "SE already tried to change potencies based on element def"

[Eeek]

You missed something:

"I took my 75 RDM mule out to Qufim and Chainspell Water I'd an Acropolis (Leech Family, resistance to water).

20 water Is, ALL 29 damage (1/2 resist).

Prior to the patch, you could 'overwhelm' the innate elemental resistance of the mob if you were just that much higher level than it. For instance, I could get lucky and nuke a crab with water, and it would still do full damage. Given that 230 Ele. Skill can't land a single non-resist on a lvl30 mob now, I would say this is no longer the case!"

75RDM versus a low level leech. Chainspell Water I. 1/2 resist on every single Water I.

So yes, that change most certainly affected nukes as well as enfeebling magic. I don't know why you keep talking about Dynamis mobs (most of them aren't resistant to dark anyways!), and I don't know why you keep citing yourself. If I were you, I'd pick a more reliable source.

And no, I can't 'prove' that this adjustment was intentional. I can only suspect that it was intentional. Unlike obvious bugs like the aforementioned Sneak Attack bug, this 'bug' was not immediately corrected or even acknowledged until SE received a mountain of complains via emails and GM calls as well as likely saw an outburst of anger on several FFXI forums. This is why I suspect that the adjustment was intentional and was only rolled back after an overwhelmingly negative player response.

Now, why is this important? Well, several posters in this thread have suggested similar adjustments, and it's only fair to cite a previous bug/intentional adjustment along the same lines as these suggestions that actually made it into the game and met an overwhelmingly negative response.

Everyone has a right to make suggestions, but any suggestions can and should be met with opposing arguments and viewpoints. It's not rude. It's not trolling. It's legitimate discourse - especially considering that discussions on this forum can have massive ramifications in FFXI.

Bad ideas and information can and will be challenged.

[Rambus]

You did not read my post so I will try again to present it so you do not miss it

found my own documtation of those element defense in place before 2009:

http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.htm...04924694605069

Posted: 2005-01-31 16:55:50 | Edited: Jan 31 2005 5:58pm | Quote | Reply to Post | Edit Post
RambustheRDMtaru
***
1,019 posts
Score: Default
By: danieljai

Is this still being test on mobs only in Qufim Island? The common knowledge of resistance (as far as i kno) always underlies on specific mob families' own elemental resistance, and the INT difference between the mob and the caster (hence high lvl players have better chance not getting fully resisted).

Unless no one had spotted this for the entire time, or this case only happens in Qufim... i don't recall seeing a constant half resistance of mobs, on most of the other places i'd been for the past month regardless of lvl.

Maybe during some patch, SE had add a Job Trait for specific mobs or mob-families... (something like Resist Water; Resist Thunder... etc..)?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
about the ressit thunder etc, those treats will be random right? like any other trait that i know of it is kind of random how much this happenes. these defenses are 100%, it happenes even to east sarutabarua on pugs there ES + water III 260 ish dammge. in qufin iland they are storng enough where they live though my sc's. I can test mb tests as well they are 1/2ed.I got fraps pictures of the logs to prove this. though i am not shure how to go about showing them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
some of my mb data

SC axe kick --> dark harvest MB thunderga
Giant
MB 279
crab
MB 505


SC slice --> barracuda dive MB water III
subject giant
MB 715
subject pug
MB 353 did this one 2 times same outcome both times

next 3 tests where on ice day
SC starbust --> axe kick MB blizzaga II
subject Giant
954
subject crab
953
subject pug
864
Now same sc but no ice day
subject crab
868 x2
subject giant
873
subject worm
839
subject pug
861
It may shudest the negitvie defense that ginats and crabs seem to have kick in the day effect more. i seen on meny accions of my 170 day play time that the weather impacts spells more then the day does. i never seen the day kick in 2 times in a row.and it does seem pugs and giants take mroe dammge tehn anything else i tested on.
my stats int 74+28, +33 on the ice ones each test was done with the apporate HQ staff
i did not do meny repeated casts only beacuse i done this meny times before just dont remember the exact numbers. the day theory is new and needs to be tested more

eeek that 50% damage on leech was in the game for a long long time, and still exists.

you are not reading my posts since i adressed that already

[Removed by Moderator according to the FINAL FANTASY XI FORUM Guidelines.]

need to reread this:

Are you really the only mage that didn't notice this adjustment?

And SE absolutely did make the change regardless of anything you said. You're incorrect and your words do not magically change the past.

Most mages immediately noticed something was changed, and the smarter ones pinned down the change. You claim that "SE did NOT make that change in the respect of change potency vs element def ..." but this runs contrary to everyone's anecdotal experiences and actual test data. Kaeko (one of FFXI's best mages, prolific tester, theorycrafter, and strategist) pinned down the adjustment after reading through posted experiences and running his own tests.

His position? "Early conclusion for this is simply that SE has FINALLY made magic users take into account elemental strengths and weaknesses. You still don't get a damage bonus for using an element the mob is weak to, but you will get the penalty for nuking/enfeebling against the mob's element."

{Click Here to View the BG Thread on the Adjustment: "Elegy nerf or HNM Buff"}

{Click Here to View Kaeko's Post and His Preliminary Conclusions}

where is your proof that is was not a bug, lolbg and ffxiah threads does not cut it.

and i explained IN DETAL why it cannot be what you described.

dyna mobs are NOT dark element ( most of them)

where is damage change in potency? not just 50% durations on enfeebling magic on anything called NM?

again :

1. dyna mobs are not dark! they are too easy to aspier if they had any dark base to them ( baring some mobs)

the old dev team made lots of mistakes, being a thf mean i am sure you remember sneak attack from the front, what makes you think this is any different?

that bug was not an experiment to potency changes vs elemental def. If it was there be varying rates ( not just 50% durations on everything that is "NM") *ok after reading it was just a bug on enfeebling magic and people thought it had to do with ele def, it didn't

there is even mobs now that take hard damage off (hard def, i do not know how to word this)

water on leech (50% water damage)
wind on ATU bird (50% wind damage)
water on pugal (50% water damage)
ice on former (50% ice damage)
ice on ghost (50% ice damage)
elemetal mob ( immune to it's element (cap 1/8 damage) and what it is strong to)
prime avatar ( immune to all element, (cap 1/8 damage) heals its element, only takes damage to what it is weak to)
etcetc

I think 1/8 is cap, people made a thread before on Ki talking about if anyone seen 1/16

how you not understand this?

Posted by Thorny View Post
My current theory is that any mob over X total resistance(level correction/mnd if applicable, inherent resistances, anything that would effect resist rate) is getting an automatic half resist at best, similar to how you can't get a full resist when nuking an elemental with it's weak element no matter how low your skills are. The distribution of mobs I have seen this take effect on makes specific elemental resistance, traits, and just plain m.acc all seem like they are not viable reasons.

Did a very easy, yet extremely eye opening test that completely backs up this idea of automatic half resist on elemental strengths.

I took my 75 RDM mule out to Qufim and Chainspell Water I'd an Acropolis (Leech Family, resistance to water).

20 water Is, ALL 29 damage (1/2 resist).

Prior to the patch, you could 'overwhelm' the innate elemental resistance of the mob if you were just that much higher level than it. For instance, I could get lucky and nuke a crab with water, and it would still do full damage. Given that 230 Ele. Skill can't land a single non-resist on a lvl30 mob now, I would say this is no longer the case!

Early conclusion for this is simply that SE has FINALLY made magic users take into account elemental strengths and weaknesses. You still don't get a damage bonus for using an element the mob is weak to, but you will get the penalty for nuking/enfeebling against the mob's element.

This would explain why you can't full duration Elegy Cerb. (strong to earth), why you get 1/2 resists on ES Sleep on bombs and bats, and why brothers ENM gives you the same 1/2 resist (taurus dark strength).

(To back this up, if someone wants to take a BRD/BLM and ES lullaby a bat, I can bank on that duration being full due to the fact bats have no light resist)

to think that happened only after the patch is WONG! i leveled blm back in 2004-2005 and that 50% damage to leeches and so on existed.

and STILL EXISTS

the thing in 2009 was ONLY ON enfeebling magic ! it was a bug where everything was 50% on NM as far as i understand.

kk after reading some of it was just a huge enfeebling magic bug, there is NO proof yet about damage being effected so that kills your view on "SE already tried to change potencies based on element def"

and:

1. dyna mobs are not dark! they are too easy to aspier if they had any dark base to them ( baring some mobs)

the old dev team made lots of mistakes, being a thf mean i am sure you remember sneak attack from the front, what makes you think this is any different?

that bug was not an experiment to potency changes vs elemental def. If it was there be varying rates ( not just 50% durations on everything that is "NM")

there is even mobs now that take hard damage off (hard def, i do not know how to word this)

water on leech (50% water damage)
wind on ATU bird (50% wind damage)
water on pugal (50% water damage)
ice on former (50% ice damage)
ice on ghost (50% ice damage)
elemetal mob ( immune to it's element (cap 1/8 damage) and what it is strong to)
prime avatar ( immune to all element, (cap 1/8 damage) heals its element, only takes damage to what it is weak to)
etcetc

I think 1/8 is cap, people made a thread before on Ki talking about if anyone seen 1/16

and:
http://killingifrit.com/forums/topic...age-reduction/
and:
http://killingifrit.com/forums/topic/173101-116-resist/

why are you ignoring what I said? if you didn't you would not of made the last post you did.

that damage reduction was in the game way before 2009 and i even have proof of me documented it in 2005, and still exists today.

It was an enfeebling magic bug, nothing more.

[Rambus]

for those that do not want to click the thread there is this too:

Posted: 2005-01-31 14:19:37 | Edited: Jan 31 2005 4:02pm | Quote | Reply to Post
RambustheRDMtaru

1,019 posts
Score: Default here is my thory for weakness
just like there seems to be 2 types of defense there should be 2 types of weaknesses.

For defence that i reached i found the 2 defences act like this. One that gives you a less of a chance for landing for full like a sort of magic evade for an element since elemental seal can get pass this. or this just might be a lv factor.In any case this statment is basted on the water on crabs and stone on worm situation. second is an absule defense like thunder on giants where elemntal seal DOES NOT help here or mbs still 1/2ed every time. lv 1 sc's to thier strong element seems to be less
so here is what i thory for weaknesses
1. like the magic evade statment for the first type of defense the first type of weakness is just landing casts for full more
2. second type would be a netivage defense like the light negitave defense giants seem to have with ice spells cabs are said to have this too.

I did not know i was 4-7 years ahead of my time (Kaeko 2009-2005 is where 4 years comes from), I say this because that is the evidence of the documentation on forum, i was aware of it's existence way before that.

[Eeek]

... you are not reading my posts since i adressed that already

...

[Removed by Moderator according to the FINAL FANTASY XI FORUM Guidelines.]...

where is your proof that is was not a bug, lolbg and ffxiah threads does not cut it.

I'm not reading most of your links for two reasons:

1) You're fixated on unrelated tangents.

2) [Removed by Moderator according to the FINAL FANTASY XI FORUM Guidelines.]

I stated several times that I have no proof that SE's adjustment to magic resistances was intentional. I've stated several times that I suspect it was intentional. There's a big difference between proof and suspicion, which I have already acknowledged on several occasions.

[Removed by Moderator according to the FINAL FANTASY XI FORUM Guidelines.]

Due to my personal experience with you as well as reading many of your KI posts over the years, I apologize, but all of your claims will be met by me as highly dubious until a respected member of the community agrees with you or I believe you made a sensible, well-founded argument.

That's just the way it is, and I'm sorry if it upsets you.

[Byrth]

He's right that some monsters take reduced damage from certain elements. It's entirely possible that leeches take 50% damage from water all the time. The difference was that the damage reduction like that suddenly started applying to enfeebling magic duration.

[Rambus]

I'm not reading most of your links for two reasons:

1) You're fixated on unrelated tangents.

"I do not want to read in why i am wrong"

that is the traslation of this, it is very rude and i presented proof countless times on how magic damage down (the static 50% or 1/2 damage existed way before your Kaeko quote.

it is not an option to say "SE's adjustment to magic resistances was intentional" it is wrong information. you where using an enbeeling magic bug to try make such a claim. then you said magic damage was invoulded but i properly counted that.

[Removed by Moderator according to the FINAL FANTASY XI FORUM Guidelines.]

[blowfin]

He's right that some monsters take reduced damage from certain elements. It's entirely possible that leeches take 50% damage from water all the time.

As a BST who`s used Yuly enough to know. I can tell you that the resist rate isn`t static on ladybugs. It`s elemental resist the same way we can stack it. Sometimes you`ll get tier V`s hitting for 30 damage, sometimes they`ll hit for 500. I don`t use the leech frequently enough to be able to say either way, but I suspect it works the same as Yuly. You`ll see the same kind of resistance on Funguars, just it`s dark instead.

[SNK]

GMs always say that, if SE posted something on official site i like to see it because dyna mobs most of them have no affiliation with darkness, if they did you would not be able to aspir them. (baring formers/dogs/ heca pets off top of my head)

so i think your viewpoint in "SE tried potency changes vs element def" is false.

He's not lying Rambus. He has no reason to either. There was a ninja-adjustment done & yes SE did ignore it until a huge mess of players called GMs and spammed them telling them it was fucked up. It wasn't until a little later that SE did ninja-fix it pretty quietly.