To Devs: Fix Blu

[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).

[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.

[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!"