Garuda Weapons are weaker than Mog!!

[Zyph]

Definitely want that Lance, gonna make a Critgoon

[Lux_Rayna]

I don't need to test every gear set separately to draw reasonable conclusions because the individual stats the items are comprised of have been tested.

I'm going to be honest, ive yet to see a truly comprehensive test of all stats and stat combinations. I've seen tests wehre someone raised str a lot, took notes, raised att a lot, took notes....but these kinds of tests can't really be used in the way everyone is trying to use them. They are flawed in that they

1) dont take into account individual class strengths/weaknesses/skills/etc

2) dont attempt to create a coherent gear setup that emphasies a combination of the stats in question

3) limited parser data on generally one mob, or a small set of mobs

These tests were designed, least all the tests ive seen, to find caps. That is all. For example, ive yet to see a crit rate/crit att power build as compared to a pure att power build on say..a DRG. This is what I mean by incomplete testing. I am not disputing numbers with you, I am disputing that what you are arguing against has never been tested. Low delay with different builds has never been tested in comparison to other builds. You are taking a test out of context and trying to force it to apply to everything. You can only apply a test to what it was designed for.

Math and science do not operate the way you are trying to operate. If this was a scientific community, your reasoning woudl be labeled highly flawed. And it is. I'll repeat for like the 20th time, the dev team is aware of certain things that you are not. Instead of accepting this, and looking for where your knowledge could be lacking, you cling to now-dated tests that don't even test the thing you are arguing against.

As far as the validity of Garuda weapons go, you dont really have a case until its tested, and tested properly.

[Firon]

I'm going to be honest, ive yet to see a truly comprehensive test of all stats and stat combinations. I've seen tests wehre someone raised str a lot, took notes, raised att a lot, took notes....but these kinds of tests can't really be used in the way everyone is trying to use them. They are flawed in that they

1) dont take into account individual class strengths/weaknesses/skills/etc

2) dont attempt to create a coherent gear setup that emphasies a combination of the stats in question

3) limited parser data on generally one mob, or a small set of mobs

These tests were designed, least all the tests ive seen, to find caps. That is all. For example, ive yet to see a crit rate/crit att power build as compared to a pure att power build on say..a DRG. This is what I mean by incomplete testing. I am not disputing numbers with you, I am disputing that what you are arguing against has never been tested. Low delay with different builds has never been tested in comparison to other builds. You are taking a test out of context and trying to force it to apply to everything. You can only apply a test to what it was designed for.

Math and science do not operate the way you are trying to operate. If this was a scientific community, your reasoning woudl be labeled highly flawed. And it is. I'll repeat for like the 20th time, the dev team is aware of certain things that you are not. Instead of accepting this, and looking for where your knowledge could be lacking, you cling to now-dated tests that don't even test the thing you are arguing against.

As far as the validity of Garuda weapons go, you dont really have a case until its tested, and tested properly.

Read this that cry hit power on garuda claws wont help -.- http://kanican.livejournal.com/56489.html

[Frein]

These tests were designed, least all the tests ive seen, to find caps. That is all. For example, ive yet to see a crit rate/crit att power build as compared to a pure att power build on say..a DRG. This is what I mean by incomplete testing. I am not disputing numbers with you, I am disputing that what you are arguing against has never been tested. Low delay with different builds has never been tested in comparison to other builds. You are taking a test out of context and trying to force it to apply to everything. You can only apply a test to what it was designed for.

Against L45 enemies your crit rate increases by ~1% for every +30 Crit Rate you have and the base crit rate is ~11%. Against higher level enemies it's lower and it is also assumed the potency of +Crit Rate goes down as dLevel increases. Crit rate is capped at 20%.

This means adding +Crit Rate is very inefficient as far as the rate of criticals goes.

Crit damage has a floor of 115% and a ceiling of 175%. These are placed after the actual calculation for crit damage and the formula is affected by dLevel. Against a L50 enemy your critical damage is ~120% and by dLevel = 4, your crit damage has fallen below or roughly to the 115% floor. This means when dLevel > 5, the initial points of any Critical Potency on your gear are essentially wasted. When dLevel = 8 (Ifrit), you waste the first 56 points of +Crit Potency before you get any effect.

Math and science do not operate the way you are trying to operate. If this was a scientific community, your reasoning woudl be labeled highly flawed. And it is. I'll repeat for like the 20th time, the dev team is aware of certain things that you are not. Instead of accepting this, and looking for where your knowledge could be lacking, you cling to now-dated tests that don't even test the thing you are arguing against.

The dev team clearly isn't aware of how mages work and they still struggle to make gear that mages actually want to use. The end game darklight mage items suck and every primal CNJ/WHM drop has only offensive stats. It seems obvious that whoever designs this stuff has very limited understanding of the game mechanics involved. I don't need to test the Garuda, Ifrit and Moogle wands to realize that their effect on my cures and buffs is between zero and marginal.

If you want more detailed information about stats, I recommend you read this thread and the LJ posts by Kaeko you'll find there. He has a much better understanding of the actual math and testing methods, so you better ask him if you want to question the results.

[Fionlagh]

actually, frein, i know the numbers, as do you, only because of someones elses body of work, are you seriously claiming to be an intellectual because youre able to read? lmao...

as for being a wind warrior, thats sounds cooler than being a math warrior

[Treach]

actually, frein, i know the numbers, as do you, only because of someones elses body of work, are you seriously claiming to be an intellectual because youre able to read? lmao...

as for being a wind warrior, thats sounds cooler than being a math warrior

He is claiming to be an intellectual based on the fact he can read and understand basic concepts of math compared to the rest of this community that relies on pretty flashy expanding weapons saying it has 1 higher dps.

edit, im drunk and probably going to get banned again today

[Rydin]

as for being a wind warrior, thats sounds cooler than being a math warrior

The term is Arithmetician....
And it was awesome in Tactics

[Lux_Rayna]

Read this that cry hit power on garuda claws wont help -.- http://kanican.livejournal.com/56489.html

Did you actually read that all the way through. I see tables that directly prove even a +40 crit attack power can increase the damage on your crits >_> and they didnt even test the numers beyond +70. Imagine if you were specced for crit attack power + whatever you got from Garuda? This is what I mean by faulty test analysis. The only ppl that seem to know what the test means are the testers. Everyone else draws all these erroneous assumptions based on limited tests.

You seriously took a test that kinda explored the potential for crit potency/crit attack power...showed positive results that differed depending on dlvl between mob and player, and despite the positive results you conclude something to the effect of: "it is useless". How you get this conclusion from this test I have no idea, cuz I read it and saw potential.

Even +40 had a noticeable increase...imagine if you had +70, or +200. Theoretically you could hit the crit dmg cap, whatever that is. According to this test its a 20% increase in crit damage if you have +200 crit attack power. I'll take a good 20% more dmg off a crit..yes please.

Against L45 enemies your crit rate increases by ~1% for every +30 Crit Rate you have and the base crit rate is ~11%. Against higher level enemies it's lower and it is also assumed the potency of +Crit Rate goes down as dLevel increases. Crit rate is capped at 20%.

This means adding +Crit Rate is very inefficient as far as the rate of criticals goes.

I realize this. However, what ppl fail to take into account, is that some classes (drg says hi) have skills that increase their critical rate. So if you combine those skills with gear that increases your critcal rate, and increase your crit attack power, you can be more efficient. This is not even factoring in things like traits and the like. This is what I mean by think outside the box. Ppl forget about a lot of game mechanics as soon as someone produces a test that is necessarily limited in scope. Take a DRG with one optimized build...take a DRG with another optimized build, compare the two. *That* is a test you can draw the kind of conclusions you are trying to draw about Garuda weapons.

To clarify, I am no debating the results of anyone's test. You can't debate numbers, thats just stupid. I am debating the conclusions you are trying to draw from the test, precisely because you are taking a test out of context and trying to apply it to new information and new potential setups. You need to actually *test* these setups before you can conclude anything about what you are trying to conclude. Thats really just the bottom line. There's not much room for argument here. We can speculate all we want, but the fact of the matter is there is no test to prove any of it yet.

[Shorty]

I don't think any body can say with certainty that the Garuda weapons have the same stat cap as Ifrit weapons because no extensive tests have been done on it yet. Until we can test and confirm a proper stat cap and can compare those with Moogle and Ifrit, arguing is pretty pointless...

Hell, SE could make these weapons have a hidden effect that says: improves effect from secondary weapon stat. Or I can dream right? ^_^

[Firon]

Did you actually read that all the way through. I see tables that directly prove even a +40 crit attack power can increase the damage on your crits >_> and they didnt even test the numers beyond +70. Imagine if you were specced for crit attack power + whatever you got from Garuda? This is what I mean by faulty test analysis. The only ppl that seem to know what the test means are the testers. Everyone else draws all these erroneous assumptions based on limited tests.

You seriously took a test that kinda explored the potential for crit potency/crit attack power...showed positive results that differed depending on dlvl between mob and player, and despite the positive results you conclude something to the effect of: "it is useless". How you get this conclusion from this test I have no idea, cuz I read it and saw potential.

Even +40 had a noticeable increase...imagine if you had +70, or +200. Theoretically you could hit the crit dmg cap, whatever that is. According to this test its a 20% increase in crit damage if you have +200 crit attack power. I'll take a good 20% more dmg off a crit..yes please.



I realize this. However, what ppl fail to take into account, is that some classes (drg says hi) have skills that increase their critical rate. So if you combine those skills with gear that increases your critcal rate, and increase your crit attack power, you can be more efficient. This is not even factoring in things like traits and the like. This is what I mean by think outside the box. Ppl forget about a lot of game mechanics as soon as someone produces a test that is necessarily limited in scope. Take a DRG with one optimized build...take a DRG with another optimized build, compare the two. *That* is a test you can draw the kind of conclusions you are trying to draw about Garuda weapons.

To clarify, I am no debating the results of anyone's test. You can't debate numbers, thats just stupid. I am debating the conclusions you are trying to draw from the test, precisely because you are taking a test out of context and trying to apply it to new information and new potential setups. You need to actually *test* these setups before you can conclude anything about what you are trying to conclude. Thats really just the bottom line. There's not much room for argument here. We can speculate all we want, but the fact of the matter is there is no test to prove any of it yet.

40 gives you nothing on mobs that matter did you not read. you need like 200+ crt on mobs 8 lvl higher than you for it even matter.

Lux i just think you are an idiot