To Devs: Fix Blu

[Yugl]

Now your just spinning in circles. You attempted to say "SE fixed BC!!!" where I proved no fix to mAcc has happened.

"X needs more testing" now means "X is the case"? Try harder when you spin lies. And just because you'll probably ignore the post and substitute your own reality:

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.

It's been my observation that it's not a MACC/MEVD problem but it simply not procing.

Here's where your work backfires on you once again. Before I show you this, I'll clarify some of the "technical" discussion he's attempting to invoke. http://bg-wiki.com/bg/Magic_Hit_Rate

Magic hit rate has multiple stages. For simplicity sake, we'll use full effect, half effect, and no effect (This would be a spell with three resist stages). So if you need to roll a 5 to land an effect, rolling a five in one roll would be full effect, landing a 5 with the second roll a half effect, and not landing a 5 with either roll a "no effect." So lets continue.

1. We're discussing the fact that the spell seems to rarely lands in any manner. Adding resist states into the equation can only enhance the message rate via half-durations. This is because more chances to roll dice improves your overall chance of rolling a number you desire. So how does a greater chance to land a spell indicate that the issue isn't mACC relevant? That's not possible by adding resist states, but by removing resist states. So did SE eliminate resist states for BC?

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...6_05.37.14.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi..._05.37.18.png\

No. The first image displays molten burst (Transfers debuffs) so you know any previous accuracy reductions do not apply. The second image shows BC's additional effect lasting ~56s (Close enough to 1min given Stamp's miscalculation). This is clearly deviant from the normal 3min duration; thus a different resist state. So much for your resist state argument.

2. Elemental seal seems to reliably land the effect. Elemental seal doesn't seem to eliminate resist states as any mob with natural SDT (Species Damage Taken) to an element will half resist regardless of ES's application. Furthermore, ESed spells can occasionally resist. If ES eliminated every stage except the first, then resists would be impossible.:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...6_02.48.12.png (Shows landing with ES)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...9_14.39.26.png (Shows ES landing half-duration debuffs against an elemental)

3. Although I was not able to replicate the land rate using cruor buffs, I was able to land the spell occasionally; I also added a Sandspin image since that was reported as broken by Prothescar/whoever helped him test these spells:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...20Crescent.png (Sandspin or Barbed; idc, likely Sand though)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...6_04.49.07.png
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...6_04.49.08.png (These images combined show a full duration BC)
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/65839275/Fi...6_05.04.42.png (This shows ~2min duration)

Thus, we see 1, 2, and 3min duration accuracy reductions (At least 4 states since we need a "no effect" state).

Your states argument is incorrect. Your "never lands" is descendant of your observations (Your data suggests that), but is ultimately incorrect. That said, so would be the notion that BC is fixed. The fact is that BC has multiple states and this should increase the notices of accuracy reduction when using BC.

Your understanding of MACC/MEVD was flawed, that was obvious by your claim in regards to "crour buffs" suddenly making it land able.

My claim was what I observed, which is that I landed ~3/4 casts (However many I wrote) in a row with just cruor buffs. You taking that to mean "omg cruor buffs = land completely" is your own faulty interpretation. Furthermore, my knowledge of magic hit rate derives from BG-wiki (This should be obvious to anyone even remotely familiar with my work there). At no point did I attempt to flesh out a magic accuracy model prior to this post regarding magic hit rate. The only relevant post to that is Spankwustler, so attempting to conflate our posts as an attack, is quite pitiful. I did mention magic accuracy as related to dSTAT (Basically reworking existing dSTAT formula for these spells) and even you admit there is insufficient evidence to refute this. In short, your criticism either derives from error or blatant disregard for integrity in general.

Brews do give MACC, just like they give Attack, Defense, Accuracy, Evasion and Magic Attack. In all likelihood they also give magic evasion.

Your prior post said brew's mACC bonus was an assumption. Do you have data to support this shift from an assumption to a statement?