The current battle system mainly calculate everything from Your Rank vs Mob Rank

[Lerris]

Wait, wait, so you're saying that if everything else is kept constant except for rank difference, that it doesn't mean that "rank is the determining factor"????

Yes it does.


Gaining a rank is so much more significant to your dmg and accuracy and defense than getting new gear or gaining physical levels. It marginalizes gear way too much.

Then you need more tests using different gear and stats in order to demonstrate that they are overshadowed by rank. That is the missing element in the proposed demonstrations. That is what would help to move the premise from likelihood to proven. You've presented evidence that rank is a factor. You haven't presented evidence that it overshadows all other factors. What happens when you use different weapons but keep rank and stats the same? How about when you change strength but keep weapon, rank and other stats the same?

You can't test only one variable and conclude that it is more significant than the other variables involved. You need to test all the variables separately.

[Kurokikaze]

The thing is that you don't.

If you test with the weakest and strongest weapon in the game but your results dont scale normally there is a problem. And this is the case.

Someone else also tested 1 spell with the only thing changing being INT. Results = spells that don't ignore level difference saw no major increase on mobs that mattered.

You guys keep asking for these tests but they've already been done. Log in and do them yourself.

[Physic]

Wait, wait, so you're saying that if everything else is kept constant except for rank difference, that it doesn't mean that "rank is the determining factor"????

Yes it does.


Gaining a rank is so much more significant to your dmg and accuracy and defense than getting new gear or gaining physical levels. It marginalizes gear way too much.

This may be a valid point, but i would like some real values, as in what relationship you are saying it has, ie level gives you +15 damage weapon gives you 2, or better yet, an equation.

because on mobs my level i saw a 100% increase in damage per swing going from 20 to 120 attack with my weapon, versus a monster 16 levels higher than me i also saw a 100% increase in effectiveness. While im not sugegesting 100 attack will double your effectiveness in every case, I am saying that the weapon was a very noticeable boost to my damage. in fights in the range of -4 to +16 dlevel. and even in the 20-30 range versus strong mob types i saw a large % increase in damage.
this is just attack im looking at.

if you want your gear to be effective, it looks like it is. I have noticed gladiators taking way less damage than my pug, even at the same levels, why is this so, if gear has little effect?

[Shiyo]

On NM's my weathered bow and warped arrows have the exact same acc and do the exact same damage as my crab bow and silver arrows.

[Randis]

Obviously it is because NMs have a very thick skin.
It is like if you step on lego ( the pain will kill you) but if some elephant steps on lego he will not even notice…

[Rentahamster]

This may be a valid point, but i would like some real values, as in what relationship you are saying it has, ie level gives you +15 damage weapon gives you 2, or better yet, an equation.

For the millionth time, it's glaringly obvious how large a role dlvl serves in the dmg and acc calculations. That is why the difficulty is so drastically different between star levels on leves. You mistakenly put too many stars so the mobs are 15+ ranks higher than you and it takes forever to kill one while they do lots of damage to you. Lower the stars so that they are only 7 ranks higher than you, and proceed to slaughter them, if not OHKO.

You want math? Here you go.

http://ffxiv.zam.com/forum.html?foru...07363078848581

1. Effect of (DELTA)PlayerRank/MobRank: 48 VS 55,56,57,58,59

• Conclusion:Scourge's HITAVG & CRITAVG increases due to a function in direct proportion when the (DELTA)PlayerRank/MobRank increases. Further, there seems to be a point where the rank difference dramatically changes damage. This was observed on the Rank 59 mob.
• Data Citation: See spreadsheet. Normally the DMG change a mere 1-4%, but between mob ranks 58 and 59, the DMG changed a whopping 16-20%! This may be due to the mob stats not being set consistently, not necessarily the damage formula.
• Discussion: The scaling is consistent and matches my Phantom Dart test exactly. Damages scales exponentially, such that the closer the player rank is to the mob rank, the less damage changes when mob rank changes. Apparently from this data, the (DELTA) Mob/Player Rank dramatically affects the damage inconsistently, not on a smooth curve. These conclusions are the same as in my Phantom Dart experiment.

You get nowhere near the same sorts of damage bonuses by just equipping better gear or boosting your stats more.

if you want your gear to be effective, it looks like it is. I have noticed gladiators taking way less damage than my pug, even at the same levels, why is this so, if gear has little effect?

That because glad gear (full plate armor) has % dmg reduction properties, glads usually have more VIT than pgls, glads reduce their dmg by using a shield, and glads have dmg reduction skills like rampart, sentinel, and are probably using defender, as well.

Again, hardly anyone is saying that gear and stats have absolutely no effect. They do, but the main point of this entire thread is that gear and stats are far overshadowed by dlvl, and that the way to make gear and stats more important to the player is by decreasing the influence dlvl has on those damage and accuracy equations.

[Kaeko]

I'm not sure if I should post here...

I was heavily involved in determining game mechanics in XI, notably the entire enmity system, the Magic Crit formula, interpreting the MACC vs. skill formula, the SCH helix formula, the Modus Veritas formula, the elemental resist formula, the Atonement damage formula, etc. etc. Basically, I lot of what I've said (in some cases unopposed) in XI became dogma. I also did a number of complex "proof of concept" solos outlining various glitches or pathing errors in XI - for example the Bhaflau Remnant solo and essentially the entire strategy known as "pinning" that people still use to solo VNMs in XI.

That's my "resume" (or self congratulatory rubbish, your pick). Now here are my thoughts on this argument regarding dLVL and stat balance:

Take this from someone that did a lot of this in XI and still does a lot of this in real life. There are different levels of testing and validation. Some are more convincing then others, but they are all validation nonetheless. A simple observation is a "low level" of proof, where as a fully controlled test with large trial size has a high level of proof. Not every single test has to be high quality to be useful - aka you don't need a test that gives you a full blown formula to prove a concept.

The advantage of a high quality test or experiment is you can use it to sway people to your conclusions easier. Think of this like a 2 way scale, with each side of the argument being one end. Low quality tests like observations give little weight where as high quality tests with formulas and controls give great weight. And you use the evidence on both sides to ideally reach your conclusion as to which side is correct.

So in this argument regarding dLVL, I see 2 things. First I see some low-level observational evidence that dLVL matters ALOT. Observation with some/minimal numbers involved and no formulae. On the other side I see people arguing against dLVL mattering that much (ie nothing's wrong) using the argument "where's the exact formula?" (ie "only the highest level of evidence will convince me!"). When in doubt, the burden of proof is on the person that makes the claim, so people saying dLVL matters need evidence, but HOW MUCH is really the question. This is an individual thing as to how much evidence you need to see to be convinced.

Now personally I think it's ridiculous that someone would say the formula, whatever it is, isn't skewed towards dLVL. I think the observational evidence is rather overwhelming and I have yet to talk to anyone with at least 1 50 DoW/M job that doesn't feel the same way. And I think if I sat down and talked to someone about it for 10 minutes I could convince 95% of you guys at least. But you will never convince everyone. Some people can't be convinced - you just try your best argument and if they won't believe it then move on. Who knows they may be right. As evidence (or lack there of) on both sides comes to light, the popular belief eventually leans towards the true correct answer anyways.

Basically:
(1) Kurokikaze - if your goal is to convince everyone on this forum dLVL matters too much you will never win.
(2) Physic - believe what you want to believe (I mean this with no condescending tone)
(3) People on the fence about this argument - if you don't think dLVL alone trumps all stats, level to 50 and start fighting random stuff from 1-70 and make up your own mind. You probably won't need to make it to 50 to realize. Hopefully this will convince you. If not, PM me and I'll gladly give you my 10 minute spiel on why I (and many others) feel so confident about this.

Have fun.

[Lerris]

You want math? Here you go.

Thank you.

[Rentahamster]

Excellent first post. Welcome to the boards, Kaeko! I was wondering if you'd ever show up here, heh heh

[Teknoman]

As long the new battle system is engaging, fun to use in a party, and takes full advantage of stat allocation, i'll be happy. I mean looking at the way stats effect combat has to be part of designing a new battle system right?