Tachi's Guide to Paladin (post 1.22b)

[GreyJorildyn]

Actually that is exactly what she typed. If that's not what "she's saying" then someone has problems expressing their ideas lol

[Molly_Millions]

Actually that is exactly what she typed. If that's not what "she's saying" then someone has problems expressing their ideas lol

The fact of the matter is that there are some assumptions made in that test. The only thing is, how important are they at the end of the day? Probably not too important if you're just trying to determine if VIT is better than DEF, but it's when you compare a def/vit build to an hp build that those assumptions must be looked into in more detail. You know what we say in the software test world about assumptions? Don't assume, because you'll make an ass out of you and me. In other words, if we want definitive answers, we must look into them in further detail.

I'm sorry you have poor reading comprehension skills, but I fully grasped the argument that Sasagawa was trying to make.

[GreyJorildyn]

Sounds like you're the one making assumptions now!

[Molly_Millions]

Sounds like you're the one making assumptions now!

show me where I made one

[MoarLegion]

Hey, children, stay on topic. We have enough bickering on these forums anyway.

[Sasagawa]

Thanks Molly

Im sorry my typing in between work activities did not express my ideas thoroughly enough.

so let me re iterate

I am not discrediting the formula or the methods used I am simply saying that in the raw data a lot of assumptions have been made so it is possible we should not unanimously take the formula at face value.

Also back to my point about not having time to do my own analysis, basically I would have to spend considerable time researching the in game code either directly in programming language or through parser logs.

SO being honest I don't have the time to do this or the inclination.

However I have had a look at the data collected, read how it has been collected and followed the analysis.

In my scientific opinion I believe too much is unknown for us to unanimously say that the last part of the formula is 100% correct.

Additionally,

I was having a discussion last night with my LS and we came onto this topic.

Thats when I thought about it and I believe that the improvements we have seen to our characters represent a different set of maths.

What i mean by this is that the battle reforms, physical level removals, job reforms and new gear introduced are all focused around our characters.

I point this out because mobs still use the old developers maths, have the same old skills and physical levels as well as use the same old abilities and magic etc.

It is therefore reasonable to hypothesize that these two sets of maths do not relate very well and there may well be a conversion calculator that unifies the two sets of equations. This is actually supported by the fact mobs regardless of type do the same damage based on their level values, which has been suggested in the data.

May I also say that the new battles and dungeon bosses seem to also have a different set of maths.

For example its widely believed ifrit is high 50s but if you go out and fight a high 50 toad or goblin its a lot easier and less hard hitting than ifrit. so that being said in terms of old developer maths I would likely suggest that ifrit may infact be high 60s or early 70s.

The problem is that our stats as characters have drastically changed whereas the open world and guild leve mobs have not. and therefore how you balance between them is most likely whats driving some of the differences in def/vit argument (other peoples findings)

Additionally that is also why HP is possibly the best stat at the minute because it does not rely on any of the background maths and is character focused.

I am really hoping in 2.0 the background maths in this game has been considered and certain aspects resolved.

at which point a lot of the data may need to be re evaluated and retested.

So all of that being said

Unanimously saying x stat is better than y stat is a little presumptuous.

[Aceofspades]

Yes, discredit a test that has deep analysis and solid procedural testing and then say you can't be bothered to do your own tests to prove or disprove it. /facepalm

You want to believe there is something more to it... too many people on this forum feel that way and it's a pipe dream. The game isn't as complicated when broken down into simple charts and no matter how much wishing you do, that doesn't make the data wrong and you right.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.... one second , gota get my breath back, MUHUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

YOU of all people have no place in saying this. This is not "data" these are charts of calculations based on assumed number values given to effects of a dynamic that is NOT supported by raw data. I do see the value in the chart as it shows a great promise but when it comes to being factual , ALMOST, dose not count.

[Aceofspades]

No your reading the formula wrong: Physical Damage Taken = [ "Damage Taken at 0VIT/0DEF" ] - [dLVL modifier] * { [ DEF ] + 0.67 [ VIT ] }

says in any situation from a pure physical dmg taken perspective (ignoring the HP gain from VIT and the magic dmg reduction from VIT AND the shield dmg reduction from VIT... lol u get the point here)

if you have 2 pieces of gear you take the higher of the 2, DEF or VIT(.67)

ex:
when shopping materia with this formula in mind an 18 VIT materia blocks the same as a 12 DEF materia.

stacking 1 or the other doesn't change the formula they do not rely on each other at all they are purely seperate parts of the formula.

This is where I dont belive you can say with any surtainty to be 100% correct, and I am speaking from personal experiance.
If One was to sacrafice DEF for vit in the proportions you offerd (if 3 vit = 2 def then said sacrafice would be somthing like 30 def for 60 vit) you would still see an increase in damage taken. The only stipulation to this is if the number of def already superseeds that of the vit in a (roughly estimated) 2:1 ratio 2being def 1 being vit. I say that because If you were to stack strickly def or vit and none of the other you would see very poor damage reduction. However if you were to stack def/vit in a 2:1 ratio then you would see damage reduction fall roughly 50-70 percent more then previous. Without parses I can not show you the raw data to support this but anyone can confirm these claims.

Keep in mind if you wish to test this, the higher the lvl of the mob being used to test the higher the number values must be to accurately test , example: lvl 1-10 mobs can be influienced by stat changes as low as 1-10 values, but 40-50 mobs would require higher values, roughly 10-20 to see much of a differance.

Personally I belive the relationship between the two is kinda a "gate master, key holder" relation ship. both possess definsive abilities but without one the other is not nearly at its full potential. I belive, and my own experiances colaberate, that vit unlocks def stat's potential. You would want a 2:1 ratio (seems to work great for me) to keep the def you have at full potential. Soo if you stack too heavy on either side you will not see ideal gains in damage reduction , vit is a stat that is harder to obtain but thankfully you only need half the vit you would need in comaprison to def. Keep in mind, you can go a little heavy on the vit side because most buffs and foods that increase def , do little or nothing for vit, soo if you have 1000 def with buffs you should have 500 vit with buffs, Idealy.

[Aceofspades]

I would also like to add that everything in relation to testing stats is all theorized and can not be put into a factual realm untill the mathatics or game mechanics for this game are revealed. That being said, one can attain for them selves the effects of one stat over another. Personal biased, as well as a whole realm of diffrent personal elements will likely factor into any individual test. I will say this, if it works for you , go with it. I am in no way trying to discredit anyone, however to claim something as factual simply because a chart exists that "proves" it, is in FACT wrong. the only person that can claim one or the other ideals to be correct would be the developers, and I dont see that happening anytime soon.

[Deathgiver]

.......
May I also say that the new battles and dungeon bosses seem to also have a different set of maths.

For example its widely believed ifrit is high 50s but if you go out and fight a high 50 toad or goblin its a lot easier and less hard hitting than ifrit. so that being said in terms of old developer maths I would likely suggest that ifrit may infact be high 60s or early 70s.

.....

Actually it's really easy to determine a mobs level for the dLvl calculations, just look at the xp you receive for defeating them.