To Devs: Fix Blu

[Afania]

Yeah, I PM'd him on ffxiah and found that out, lol. I wonder why though... he's one of the best.

A lot of players(some are very elite/hardcore players) quit or semi-inactive everyday due to various reasons....getting bored with FFXI, need to focus real life stuff like family/jobs etc. Nothing to ask why about

[Yugl]

The subject of this conversation is "To Devs: Fix BLU" and the basis of the conversation was spells that are a waste of space because they do nothing.

Diaga may be relevant to Ballista, but Ballista is not relevant to the end-game no matter how tough you die-hards wish it to be.

We're not talking about weak v. strong weaponskills, and we're not talking about a problem that "transcends BLU". We're talking specifically about BLU. So create another thread if you want to talk about the dynamics of competing weaponskills.

Lastly, yes the test server in many ways mirrors or adjusts to the live server, however you're assuming that changes made to the test server after the live server imply "deficiencies" as you put it. I disagree; not everything about the live server should or needs to match the test server, and not every discrepancy is inherently a bug.

That's quite clearly an overstatement of what the poster asks. He's clearly not saying spells like Sudden Lunge or Amorphic Spikes are a waste of a space. He's making specific requests. His first request asks to fix a generic magic accuracy issue that happens to plague BLU but affects other classes as well. The fact that this particular issue applies to Non-BLU abilities is precisely why this issue transcends BLU. I hope I've simplified this enough for even you to understand. If that is simplified enough, that should correct your confusion regarding the magic accuracy issue.

I agree that there is never a case regarding whether adjustments "should" or "should not" be considered a bug. Such simplicity requires ethical and moral principles that do not exist. However, I am free to weigh the evidence and determine whether I consider these to be bugs or normal. SE's response confirms that. Lacking the latter and given the liberty to engage in the former, the evidence suggests this is a bug. The effects are not consistent across application (BLU and WS mix not specific to any class), the type of effect applied (Mix of debuffs, not any particular ones), the extremity of the effect (Ranging from potent DEF down to minor poison), the instrument of application (Relic weapons and simple spells affected alike), and the class of instruments (Not every WS affects and not every BLU spell affected). Finally, there are very few (If any? Can you name some?) instances where the test server has not reflected subsequent battle nerfs to the real server.

As for utility, you're ultimately ignoring the fact that I've listed many other applications other than Ballista. Whether that is because you cannot properly respond to such applications or because you overlooked them is unknown. Nevertheless, I could remove Ballista from my previous post and still yield multiple endgame applications of Diaga. Thus, the fact of the matter is that diaga had and continues to have an application.

Finally, you demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about since the changes weren't made to the test server; they were made to the real server only. So it's not the case that I'm making assumptions regarding "changes made to the test server"; these are changes to the live server that the test server hasn't mirrored. If the real server imposes boosts or nerfs, the test server should strictly follow unless SE plans to implement further changes (Hint: This would favor enhancing said magic accuracy). Not only do these anomalies plague the situation, but the degree to which magic accuracy declines further supports that notion. In short, you're wrong about the chronology and direction of this issue.

Ok I'll end all the BS discussion then. SE won't be doing the above proposed *fixes*, they may eventually fix the VW procs through. People can keep pretending, though I suggest you don't hold you breath.

Actually do hold your breath, that many less annoying people we have to deal with.

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.

[SpankWustler]

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.

This is interesting.

I wonder how likely it is that many of these additional effects are meant to have a reasonable magical accuracy penalty, like Barbed Crescent seems to have at the moment, but ended up floored instead.

[saevel]

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.

Link please though understand I don't trust anything from inside Abyssea, especially as crour buffs shouldn't have any effect on the proc rate of an additional effect on a WS, which is all Physical BLU spells are. Crour buffs are just HP/MP and + states not +magic acc (unless your talking atma which is different).

[Tennotsukai]

I wish we could get some kind of reply to this...

[SpankWustler]

Link please though understand I don't trust anything from inside Abyssea, especially as crour buffs shouldn't have any effect on the proc rate of an additional effect on a WS, which is all Physical BLU spells are. Crour buffs are just HP/MP and + states not +magic acc (unless your talking atma which is different).

I can link to Yugl's really quick Barbed Crescent test and stumble through some of the reasoning.

I've been drinking to get through some holiday family gatherings to the extent that I'm not up to finding the original testing on this stuff. So, in addition to lacking links, this might be off on a finer point even though it conveys the general idea. I apologize to a bunch of people in advance.

The best understanding anyone has of the wonky additional effects right now is that the wonky equation just uses the ~50 magic accuracy given by the relevant base stat. There's no check for whatever baseline is normally used and I'm not sure if there is even a check for normal +magic accuracy.

Obviously, Barbed Crescent has far more than ~50 magic accuracy now for some reason, but still fairly low magic accuracy. Low, but no longer so low that seems like it must be a bug.

[saevel]

I can link to Yugl's really quick Barbed Crescent test and stumble through some of the reasoning.

I've been drinking to get through some holiday family gatherings to the extent that I'm not up to finding the original testing on this stuff. So, in addition to lacking links, this might be off on a finer point even though it conveys the general idea. I apologize to a bunch of people in advance.

The best understanding anyone has of the wonky additional effects right now is that the wonky equation just uses the ~50 magic accuracy given by the relevant base stat. There's no check for whatever baseline is normally used and I'm not sure if there is even a check for normal +magic accuracy.

Obviously, Barbed Crescent has far more than ~50 magic accuracy now for some reason, but still fairly low magic accuracy. Low, but no longer so low that seems like it must be a bug.

Looked over it, no where near any info to say +35 M.acc or even 50 M.acc. That's not how MA vs ME work, also physical WS effects do not get a dSTAT style magic acc, it's assumed to be 0 (thought SE could of screwed around with this and we wouldn't of noticed it). Magic acc is the skill of the weapon being used (Great Axe / Markmanship / ect..) along with any +M.acc from gear. Magic has multiple resist checks in ever decreasing duration or potency (usually the formor) being the result. If the final resist check is failed then the entire thing is considered resisted. An additional effect with a single resist state will appear to constantly not take effect on a monster several levels higher then you, this is due to MA/ME scaling. Adding a single additional resist state ups the land rate by a significant amount.

Most BLU spells that have issues landing do not in fact have anything remotely close to "floored rate", what they have is one or two resist states with a severe magic accuracy penalty.

EX single resist state, resulting MA/ME being 10% land rate with 1000 casts
100 land 100%
900 land 0%.
Visible land rate: 10%

Adding another resist state
100 land 100%
90 land 50%
810 land 0%
Visible land rate: 19%

Now lets move the MA / ME to 25% initial land rate
250 land 100%
187.5 land 50%
562.5 land 0%
visible land rate: 43.7%

In order to get a 15% swing in initial land rate you need ~30 magic accuracy. As you pass 50% it becomes profound in it's effect and you get results similar to Diss's poison and SL's stun effect. Adding second, third and fourth resist states further enhances the visible land rate.

Go try it sometimes, Mortal Ray a TW / EP monster, it'll land and they'll die. Same with 1000 needles and BC. Fight high mobs and it seems to never land, congrats the monsters native C resist skill along with the magic acc penalty just shot your initial land rate into the ground and without multiple additional resist states (Ray has at least two total) you get a very low visible land rate.

[saevel]

Ok just finished doing some testing on spiders outside Whitegate, the 63~65 versions. That is high enough to survive the tests but low enough that I should of had ratio under 0.5. Also I should of been way beyond capping first land rate on magic acc.

First the BC / Tourb testing. Out of 10 spiders BC didn't proc once, not even when I CA'd it. Tourb landed twice total, though when I CA'd it landed consistently.

From that I surmise that it's not that they have "floored" magic acc but that their not 100% proc rates, not even close. And that when it does proc it still must overcome MACC/MEVD with what is most likely a magic acc penalty.

[Yugl]

Link please though understand I don't trust anything from inside Abyssea, especially as crour buffs shouldn't have any effect on the proc rate of an additional effect on a WS, which is all Physical BLU spells are. Crour buffs are just HP/MP and + states not +magic acc (unless your talking atma which is different).

I would like a link to this since when I asked on BG, no one suggested WS do not benefit from dSTAT. I recall Nightfyre suggesting breath spells may ignore dSTAT, but why would he forget to mention BLU physical spells if that's the case? 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. I'll do a quick test now since I those images used my old drive though.

First the BC / Tourb testing. Out of 10 spiders BC didn't proc once, not even when I CA'd it.

These preliminary results make the "overpowered" argument quite hilarious.

SE:
"Allow accuracy reduction to land against a mob you're 34 levels higher than? Why that's absurd!"

[Yugl]

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Final%20Fantasy%20XI%20Testings/Player/Magic/BLU%20Magic%20Accuracy%20with%20Brew/Yugl_2012.12.15_130417.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi....15_130418.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi....15_130419.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi....15_130421.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi....15_130422.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi....15_130423.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi....15_130424.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi....15_130425.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi....15_130426.png

That folder shows:
Level 83BLU against T Olyphants
0/~6 HB landing stun without brew (More than that I think, but busy at; None land)
~8/~8 HB landing stun with brew (100% lands)

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.

Edit: Someone said the link doesn't work; let me see if I can figure this out before Legion. Use the new link for now. Navigate to Player > Magic > Blue Magic Accuracy with Brew