Item Search
     
BG-Wiki Search

View Poll Results: Update/Change FFXI mechanics terminology?

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    17 48.57%
  • No

    18 51.43%
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 45

Thread: FFXI Terminology     submit to reddit submit to twitter

  1. #1
    An exploitable mess of a card game
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,258
    BG Level
    9
    FFXIV Character
    Gouka Mekkyaku
    FFXIV Server
    Gilgamesh
    FFXI Server
    Diabolos

    FFXI Terminology

    Straightforward, the proposal is to change the terms used for FFXI mechanics. I've brought this up with a few people and I've received a range of responses from "It's too late to change" to "Terminology is just terminology, fix it if it's wrong" on this matter. I've decided to bring this to the crowds since that is who benefits the most from this change.

    We've progressed a bit since the first known mechanics. In the process of learning, we've developed terms that may have worked at one point, but are now obsolete. We have also generalized terms well beyond their application. Some terms simply make no sense given their role. The biggest problem is the term fTP, which currently applies the base dmg of the first hit of a WS, the gradation of fTP increment as TP increases, and BLU magical spells. Byrthnoth expressed this in another thread, but I'll replicate the idea here: The idea of fTP, in its current use, makes no sense given that some applications of "fTP" involve WS where the fTP slot does not vary with TP. I offer that it gives us a way of more natural way of thinking about the mechanics. For example, we could say the following:

    EX: Tachi: Fudo
    Base Multiplier: 3.75
    fTP 100%: +0 to Base multiplier
    fTP 200%: +1 to Base multiplier
    fTP 300%: +2 to Base multiplier

    EX: Victory Smite
    Base Multiplier: 2.25
    fTP 100%: +10% Critical Hit Rate
    fTP 200%: +25% Critical Hit Rate
    fTP 300%: +45% Critical Hit Rate

    We could even break these down into formulas of their own assuming a linear progression, but looking at VS, this is less desirable:

    EX: Tachi: Fudo
    Base Multiplier: 3.75
    fTP Type: Bonus to Base Multiplier
    fTP Formula: [(TP-100)/100]

    EX: Victory Smite
    Base Multiplier: 2.25
    fTP Type: Critical Hit Rate Bonus
    fTP Formula: (100-200) (TP*0.15 - 5); (200-300) (TP*0.15)

    If we do pull forward with this arrangement, I suggest having terms that 1) Are representative of their role 2) Constant in definition across all formulas. Point 2 is of particular concern if you think about it in a mathematical sense. If we say X in one equation and X in another equation, we expect X to remain the same regardless of the equation. Otherwise, it makes little sense to relate with the term 'X' in the first place.

    That said, I bring this up for other opinions on the issue.

    Edit: Fixed the spelling for one word. Don't BG during assault.

  2. #2

    'x' generally means an independent variable that is specifically not the same even within one equation. 'y' or 'f(x)' is generally a dependent variable that is quite different from one equation to the next. Universal constants are the only thing that well, remains constant (e, pi, i, etc). I think you're nitpicking a lot here and using "mathematical sense" I don't think is correct in the least. fTP is not a constant, it is a variable that does change. It is exactly like 'x'. fSTR and fTP and D are your variables, you plug them in and get the damage of your weaponskill. They should not be the same in every formula because they are not constants. Furthermore, your 2nd scenario is just in every way more complicated than the current method with WSes such as VS as you have listed, or Gekko, or plenty of others.

    When you go to make a general equation for WS dmg with what you have listed, it becomes bulky. Really, you're nitpicking over the name "fTP" because your scenario still has the exact same concept, minus the name, plus some new unnecessary complications. If you just want a name that's more "representative of the role", I can see that, but the rest of the proposal has no real basis in math. I have no idea what you feel a better name is, but ya.

  3. #3
    An exploitable mess of a card game
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,258
    BG Level
    9
    FFXIV Character
    Gouka Mekkyaku
    FFXIV Server
    Gilgamesh
    FFXI Server
    Diabolos

    I don't get where we disagree. Your first paragraph summarizes what I was saying in the OP.

    Edit: Though I will say that fTP, in some cases, remains the same. That it does means it is still a variable as you say, but it is not a function of TP since TP does not necessarily change fTP for certain WS. The issue shouldn't be specific to fTP, but it is the most vivid example I can think of. I take your point on the 'x' variance though.

  4. #4

    Quote Originally Posted by Yugl View Post
    I don't get where we disagree. Your first paragraph summarizes what I was saying in the OP.

    Edit: Though I will say that fTP, in some cases, remains the same. That it does means it is still a variable as you say, but it is not a function of TP since TP does not necessarily change fTP for certain WS. The issue shouldn't be specific to fTP, but it is the most vivid example I can think of.
    I agree it's not a simple function of TP, but as I said, it is a variable, so regardless what you call it (let's say 'X'), it will not be the same every time you see it.
    [fSTR+D]*X is sufficient, and X will not be the same (though your first post implied it should be if we call it X).
    Anyway, you could call it a function of TP + some other variable(s) if you wanted to:
    f(TP, base, slope1, slope2).
    For VS, this is f(TP, 0, 0).
    For Fudo, it's f(TP, 1,1).

    The main point I disagree with you is:

    If we do pull forward with this arrangement, I suggest having terms that 1) Are representative of their role 2) Constant in definition across all formulas. Point 2 is of particular concern if you think about it in a mathematical sense. If we say X in one equation and X in another equation, we expect X to remain the same regardless of the equation. Otherwise, it makes little sense to relate with the term 'X' in the first place.
    This is just completely wrong, which is what I was trying to say. The earlier listings for the WSes (with the new equations you'd need for WS dmg) I think are just going to be bulkier and worse than they are currently.

  5. #5
    An exploitable mess of a card game
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,258
    BG Level
    9
    FFXIV Character
    Gouka Mekkyaku
    FFXIV Server
    Gilgamesh
    FFXI Server
    Diabolos

    Oh ok, that's reasonable. Would you argue for the change but ignoring those suggestions or just tanking the idea all together?

  6. #6
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    21,105
    BG Level
    10
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi
    Blog Entries
    1

    TP Modifier types:
    • fTP
    • WS Accuracy
    • WS Attack
    • Defense Ignored
    • Critical Hit Rate
    • Additional Effect duration
    • Additional Effect accuracy
    • Additional Effect probability (I bet it is the same as accuracy and the only difference is our translators)
    • Aftermath Duration/Potency/Type
    • AoE range

    Every WS has a TP dependence, or some part of it that is a "function of TP." We've known this forever just by reading WS descriptions, so naming the damage multiplier "fTP" in the first place was shortsighted. That said, I think the term is too entrenched to change at this point.

  7. #7

    Quote Originally Posted by Byrthnoth View Post
    TP Modifier types:
    • fTP
    • WS Accuracy
    • WS Attack
    • Defense Ignored
    • Critical Hit Rate
    • Additional Effect duration
    • Additional Effect accuracy
    • Additional Effect probability (I bet it is the same as accuracy and the only difference is our translators)
    • Aftermath Duration/Potency/Type
    • AoE range

    Every WS has a TP dependence, or some part of it that is a "function of TP." We've known this forever just by reading WS descriptions, so naming the damage multiplier "fTP" in the first place was shortsighted. That said, I think the term is too entrenched to change at this point.
    So it's a mistake to say that a car's position is a function of time because other things are also functions of time? I'm not following this logic. You need to call it something. I guess we can go with "Arbitrary WS Mod #1" or AWSM1? I mean, there's other things that are just % WS mods also (some atmas, overwhelm, pdif, elemental staves, etc) that you need to differentiate from. Calling this the WS mod that is TP based seems to be the most accurate and descriptive way to go about it. Even if it doesn't -vary- with TP, it's still loosely TP based (BTW, f(x)=2 is still a valid function, and it is 100% okay to call it f(x) or a function of x).


    To Yugl - I won't argue that fTP is the best name the variable could have ever. But at 2am I can't think up a better one, so I'm not sure how to respond to your last post. It is a TP based WS mod. So TPm or TPM or TPWSM or something is the best I could come up with, but really, fTP just sounds better at this point (which of course is a circular argument - of course it sounds better after however many years of using it).

  8. #8
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    21,105
    BG Level
    10
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi
    Blog Entries
    1

    At the time, it should have been "First Hit Damage Multiplier" and the "fTP" of a WS should have been the 100/200/300TP anchor points in whatever dimension varies with TP. It is too late to change, though.

  9. #9
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,066
    BG Level
    6
    FFXI Server
    Diabolos

    fTP is simply a multiplier applied somewhere in the pDif stages, but now it's confounded by certain merit WS that carry their fTP across all hits instead of classically just the first, so really what is required is a proper terminology for the always-1.0 'secondary hits' of older weaponskills.

    They can't be defined as a forced quad-attack (e.g. Guillotine) or quint- (Penta) or octo- (Asuran) and such because Double and Triple attack can still function on the WS (except Asuran, for other reasons) to add additional 1.0 hits that are interchangeable in mechanics. They're currently defined as '1.0 fTP' when really they're fTP-irrelevant, just gaining base damage from WSC and being regulated on crit potential from their parent WS. This is not to say they should be stripped of the fTP definition, however, because it makes them logically compatible and thus additive with the fTP defined of the Primary hit.

    So now you end up with three WS types that can have changing fTP:
    Single hit WS with scaling fTP (Y/G/K, Spiral Hell, Spinning Slash)
    Multihit WS with scaling fTP on the first hit only followed by 1.0 secondaries (Insurgency)
    Multihit WS with scaling fTP on all hits (Reso, Entropy)

    The middle example provides an exacerbation of the issue in that one hit can scale with TP while the secondaries don't, meanwhile both multihit types throw wrenches in Yugi's attempt to form fTP into a base+multiplier*(TP/100-1) arrangement when you would still have to spend the same effort defining between them; not to mention the real-world problem of failing to account for missed primary hits vs secondary hits with inequal fTPs by lumping them all together.

    There's other issues with WS that have different scaling from 100-200tp than from 200-300tp, particularly Spiral Hell in my experience which is a very nice and extreme example. Spiral Hell's scaling may not even be linear!

    A function can just ignore it's input variable by being something like f(x)=0x+y or f(x)=y*(x/x), meaning it doesn't change in relation to x and simply outputs y, so any argument that 'fTP' is a misnomer for not always being a varying function of TP is actually incorrect. fTP is just fine as a term even for an unchanging multiplier relative to TP.

    So it is my opinion that, while entrenched, the term fTP applies logically to all of these major types and variations of WSes while referring to a consistent operation, a multiplier to the pDif of the hit that may vary with TP, across all of them as well. fTP can refer to the value of a primary, secondary, or all hits of a WS while carrying the implication that these hits carry the WSC and other bonuses attributed to the WS, which is important.

    You'll just wind up inventing at least three even more contrived terms trying to replace it.

  10. #10
    Masamune
    Guest

    Honestly, i use Yugl's 2nd scenario in my dmg calc, it's the most programmatically "clean" way in my opinion.

    On other hand, i use this scenario ONLY in the table gathering each WS's characteristics... That means when the searching function in f(TP) calculations go in that datatable, it gets the fTP values and fTP Type as Yugl defined, but the f(TP) formula depends entirely on the TYPE("damage varies with tp", "Accu varies with tp", "Crit varies with tp", etc...).

    For the recent WSs calculations whose f(TP) carries on each hit, this has no impact on the definition in the OP neither on f(TP) formula, but it has on the damage calculations which will need an additional mini-table with those new WS's names... a comparison, then you applies f(TP) result or 1 to additional hits' damage... all the rest remains unchanged.

    ie for me the term fTPxxx (fTPbase, fTPtype, fTP100, fTP200, fTP300 or fTPformula) points at constants specific to each WS, while f(TP) represents the actual f(TP) calculations that will be plugged in damage calcs.

    In my opinion, main confusions that can happen with fTP terminology is within the damage calculations, whether one is speaking about:
    - the f(TP) "damage varies with TP" applied directly on result of (BaseDMG+WSmods)*pDIF
    or:
    - the f(TP) "Accuracy varies with TP" or "CriticalRate varies with TP" applied on total damage calculations (and also "fTP carries on all hits")

  11. #11
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1,066
    BG Level
    6
    FFXI Server
    Diabolos

    Quote Originally Posted by Masamune View Post
    - the f(TP) "Accuracy varies with TP" or "CriticalRate varies with TP" applied on total damage calculations
    This would be entirely a confusion of terms. A "Critical Hit Rate Varies With TP" weaponskill still has an fTP, as currently defined, unrelated to the variation in bonus crit rate. Trying to define the crit rate bonus as its 'fTP' is just downright mucking it up when, as I stated above, fTP is already defined as specifically that multiplier of pDif that may be constant across all TP values.

    As it stands, every WS has an fTP, even if 1.0 for a single or all hits. Trying to redefine fTP to include crit bonuses and whatnot is just going to confuse things even worse, as this would be trying to condense incompatible units into the same variable.

    Masa's agreement with reducing each WS to an equation works for his spreadsheet, but like his pDif calculations and whatnot is entirely unsuitable for direct human use, since I think most of us don't handle floating point math too well... When you explain to the average gimpy moron in a hurry that their WS hits with a 3.0 fTP and a gorget/belt combo adds 0.1 each, they can process that effectively to 'oh, so it's 3.2 instead of 3.0' and understand where the increase in damage comes from. If you throw a formula at them instead they'll probably work it out the first time, but then they ask how it affects their other WS and you now throw them an entirely different formula (say, all-hits-same-fTP WS instead of 1.0 secondaries); they'll just blow you off go back to TPing in full pink.

    Indeed, humans can process a supplementary boolean of 'This fTP affects all hits' or 'Just the first' much easier than they can recognize four iterations of a linear equation versus one iteration and three constants added to do the same. Reducing everything to hard mathematics just makes it usable only by mathematicians.

  12. #12
    An exploitable mess of a card game
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,258
    BG Level
    9
    FFXIV Character
    Gouka Mekkyaku
    FFXIV Server
    Gilgamesh
    FFXI Server
    Diabolos

    I think your argument against Masamune is actually a positive argument for making the change. As it stands, fTP is already "mucking it up" because the dependent variable is critical hit rate, not the multiplier. It is true that any function can be a constant (f(x)=1, for example); however, that's a product of the fact that you can plot almost any X and Y against each other. The question with respect to f(TP) is whether it makes more sense to use f(TP) to describe what changes as the TP changes or the base damage on the first hit (+ changes that ensue on DMG varies with TP WS).

    I appreciate the discussion of how this will impact other users, which is why I brought this into the advanced rather than math section (Also, it is subjective, so that is enough to throw it out of the math section). I think most of us agree that the second example (fTP equations), helpful for spreadsheets as it is, will confuse the hell out of regular players. If it were to be included, I would probably write this as a note or "fTP equation" of some sort rather than being part of the main information. That said, changing to the first example might be less confusing since fTP would solely align with the description of the WS. Currently, it plays a dual role as the base multiplier and the WS description. The exception being that sometimes the base multiplier changes with your TP. It's the fact that the system works off an exception that makes it more confusing for people in my opinion.

    Further question: Since the debate is not solely about fTP, do people have other terms they want to change?

  13. #13

    Quote Originally Posted by Yugl View Post
    Further question: Since the debate is not solely about fTP, do people have other terms they want to change?
    Not that I play this game anymore, but I never understood WSC...why is it a C? My only guess is some Japanese carry-over.

    Also, in response to the rest of your post, the critical hit rate is not a variable, TP is still the variable in all cases, and the critical hit rate is the dependent function (h(x)).
    And I still say mathematically this way works fine, but you seem to dislike the idea that a constant function can exist. Again, I see no issue with changing the name if fTP is that misleading, but it is in all regards a function of TP, so it is not misnamed, just there are other functions of TP as well. When you have a math equation and call it f(x), it never implies that is the only function of x in the world. Trying to treat it like some universal constant will not work because well, it's not constant. Even amongst "damage varies with TP" WSes, the fTP "equation" changes...Gekko vs Fudo for example.

  14. #14
    An exploitable mess of a card game
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,258
    BG Level
    9
    FFXIV Character
    Gouka Mekkyaku
    FFXIV Server
    Gilgamesh
    FFXI Server
    Diabolos

    WSC was another one brought up among various people I discussed this with. I have no clue either.

    I don't think I've said critical hit rate is an independent variable; if so, disregard that part of the post. In fact, I absolutely agree that it is a dependent variable based on TP. That's why the idea of f(TP) works so well (intuitively) for describing that function rather than the base multiplier (EX: 2.25 for VS). I tried to point it out in my previous post, but perhaps I was not clear: I agree that fTP works even if it is a constant value. There's no logical contradiction involved. I just think that the proposed revision in example (1) more neatly describes the WS for people. We've gotten far using the terms we have, so there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with how we have been naming terms. If it were a necessity or blatant error, I would have foregone the thread and revised everything so that it's clearer. I guess the issue is what makes it f(TP) anymore than f(CHR) or f(MoonPhase) if we allow for constants? The only benefit to the f(TP) is that in some occasions, specifically WS that vary damage based on TP, TP can affect the fTP whereas the other two never do.

    I should have mentioned this earlier, but I've presented the idea because it's going to affect the construction of BG-Wiki pages (At least). It works as it is, but, like theories, we should replace terminology full of caveats and exceptions with terminology that captures everything precisely and without exception.

  15. #15
    Impossiblu
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,362
    BG Level
    9
    FFXIV Character
    Prothescar Centursa
    FFXIV Server
    Balmung
    FFXI Server
    Valefor

    Don't see the point in completely changing perfectly servicable terms after using the old ones without issue for so long...


    Remember that time I tried to say breaths don't have fTP

  16. #16
    Sea Torques
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    532
    BG Level
    5
    FFXI Server
    Asura

    I'm against relearning something with new words to represent old ideas that I already know and understand as they are. I much prefer the entire current system to anything anyone could ever come up with it because it's what I have grown accustom to using.

  17. #17

    Quote Originally Posted by Yugl View Post
    WSC was another one brought up among various people I discussed this with. I have no clue either.

    I don't think I've said critical hit rate is an independent variable; if so, disregard that part of the post. In fact, I absolutely agree that it is a dependent variable based on TP. That's why the idea of f(TP) works so well (intuitively) for describing that function rather than the base multiplier (EX: 2.25 for VS). I tried to point it out in my previous post, but perhaps I was not clear: I agree that fTP works even if it is a constant value. There's no logical contradiction involved. I just think that the proposed revision in example (1) more neatly describes the WS for people. We've gotten far using the terms we have, so there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with how we have been naming terms. If it were a necessity or blatant error, I would have foregone the thread and revised everything so that it's clearer. I guess the issue is what makes it f(TP) anymore than f(CHR) or f(MoonPhase) if we allow for constants? The only benefit to the f(TP) is that in some occasions, specifically WS that vary damage based on TP, TP can affect the fTP whereas the other two never do.

    I should have mentioned this earlier, but I've presented the idea because it's going to affect the construction of BG-Wiki pages (At least). It works as it is, but, like theories, we should replace terminology full of caveats and exceptions with terminology that captures everything precisely and without exception.
    You're still missing my point. First off, the "base multiplier" is simply the equivalent of a y-intercept. Why are you wanting to separate the y-intercept from the rest of the function? We agree there is some multiplier currently known as fTP. I am saying this multiplier is -always- a function of TP, even if it is sometimes a constant function. If you have a piecewise function that's constant in some area and a curve elsewhere...you don't just throw out the constant portion because it doesn't vary with x. It's a function. Period. The term fTP captures everything without exceptions. You can leave the fTP term in, then for each WS, you can say what the fTP function is, be that fTP = 3, or some piecewise breakdown, or in some vary rare cases (Fudo I guess?) linear. Speaking of, I recall it always being assumed that fTP was linear from 100 to 200, then linear again from 200 to 300...has this been rechecked/proven in the past 6 years, or no? It seems like a poor way to program it, to me.

    fTP is a multiplier that is a function of TP, always, just sometimes it's a constant. And really, if I were writing some sort of program, I would have it as a function that required 2 inputs (WS and TP value) and would then output the proper modified based on those 2 statistics. multiplier = fTP(Victory Smite, 150). It's clean, it's simple, it's modular and quite concisely accomplishes it's goal.

  18. #18
    An exploitable mess of a card game
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,258
    BG Level
    9
    FFXIV Character
    Gouka Mekkyaku
    FFXIV Server
    Gilgamesh
    FFXI Server
    Diabolos

    To answer the "why" portion: It's an issue of neatness. It's nothing technical. That "just sometimes" you mention is what I'm trying to avoid in this proposal. However, it seems only a few people really want this change, so I doubt it's going to happen anyways.

    As for the 100-200;200-300TP distinction, it looks like some WS are following a single linear progression (Damage varies with TP; Player detected). However, some values such as VS critical hit rate seem piecewise linear and those values are official from SE.
    Don't see the point in completely changing perfectly servicable terms after using the old ones without issue for so long...


    Remember that time I tried to say breaths don't have fTP
    Yes, and as far as the term is used (i.e. in so far as they affect BLU nukes), I maintain my stance on that. As a general point though, fTP is a ridiculous name for either nukes or breaths. The only reason one would compare the two is because of the placement in the formula. Yet, TP never affects them. The fact that such a debate arose gives reason to believe that some terms, even if not fTP for WS, aren't "perfectly serviceable" despite the fact that there is no road from denotation to meaning; thus denotation is free to be arbitrary.

    Edit: Correction to the 100/200TP distinction. Looking at SE's JP post on VS, I think the values listed from BG wiki are incorrect. Did they update the values after the JP post showing the values?

    Edit2: BLU magic as in magical damage, not physical obviously.

  19. #19
    Impossiblu
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    10,362
    BG Level
    9
    FFXIV Character
    Prothescar Centursa
    FFXIV Server
    Balmung
    FFXI Server
    Valefor

    It's perfectly serviceable, you can perform maths with the variable names that we already have in place; a new, convoluted system that says the same thing in a whole lot more words (something you seem to have a penchant for) is redundant.

    And no, HP divisor and level divisor (in the case of Thunder Breath, add HP multiplier and correlation bonus, Correlation Multiplier) are far more effective ways of expressing breath variables. Breaths do not function the same way as spells or weaponskills, where fTP as a blanket term is widely recognizable.

    Also some nukes can technically be affected by TP, we simply don't have the means to incorporate TP into a nuke outside of a single 2 Hour ability.

  20. #20
    An exploitable mess of a card game
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,258
    BG Level
    9
    FFXIV Character
    Gouka Mekkyaku
    FFXIV Server
    Gilgamesh
    FFXI Server
    Diabolos

    See, that caveat for thunder breath a great example of where current terminology breaks down and where revision is necessary. Again, no one is saying that current terms as not functional (I've made that plainly clear). It's an issue of precision and flushing out caveats.

Similar Threads

  1. FFXI Model viewer (where is a link)
    By mako in forum FFXI: Everything
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2004-12-08, 19:05
  2. FFXI Problems HELP PC
    By ChOkOmArU in forum FFXI: Everything
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2004-11-19, 16:46
  3. FFXI Websites??
    By Avvesione in forum FFXI: Everything
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 2004-11-17, 16:39
  4. FFXI matrix spoof
    By Mara in forum FFXI: Everything
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2004-11-16, 21:00
  5. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2004-09-17, 13:51
  6. When in rome..... you cant FFXI
    By in forum FFXI: Everything
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 2004-07-26, 21:11