MACC Debate (From Random Thread)

[Kaeko]

Question about MACC. I found this on OldWiki under "Magic Accuracy"

Magic Accuracy - FFXIclopedia, the Final Fantasy XI wiki - Characters, items, jobs, and more

It's mostly stuff I'm familiar with (Lodeguy's data set), but I found this bit, which I have never seen before.

* When calculating the landing rate of a spell (without considering partial resists), the game first calculates your total amount of magic accuracy :

M=Magic skill + M1 + M2

where M2 is your total magic accuracy from gear/merits and M1 is the contribution of your stats to magic accuracy :

M1=(caster's stat) - (target's stat) if (caster's stat) - (target's stat)<10
M1=10+((caster's stat) - (target's stat)-10)/2 if (caster's stat) - (target's stat)>=10.

* This number M is then checked against the target's magic evasion (meva) and we have the following

landing rate(%) = 50 + X*(M-meva)

where X=0.5 if meva>M and X=1 if M> meva.

The value of meva is then easily determined by checking you current landing rate. The meva of level 77 (65 INT) Qiqirn Poulterer in Alzadaal Undersea Ruins has been determined to be comprised between 290 and 292 using this method. This means that cap accuracy will happen with ~340 magic accuracy. Using the same method, VT Heraldic Imp in Caedarva Mire have been determined to have a meva for the spell sleep of around 390.

exemple 1 : If my landing rate is 40%, the target's meva is 20 points above the value of my magic accuracy.

exemple 2 : (Useful for testing) If my landing rate is 47% with +/- 5% error, the target's meva is between M-2 and M+16 where M is my magic accuracy.

I'm not interested in starting a lolOldWiki debate. I just want to know where this comes from and if it can be verified (or if it has a source I would just like to see it) - particular the part where the writer claims to have tested a range of MEVA for the Qiqirn RNG mob.

[Kaeko]

@Kaeko: I remember Wizerd doing some tests with very inadequate sample sizes on qiqirn in alzadaal, while it was proposed that some new sushi gave m.acc. I'm sure you could find them if you could figure out the godawful search function, not 100% sure that's where that data came from though.

Yea I couldn't find anything related to a Qiqirn mob through search on multiple forums. I've seen Aura Statues, Colibri, Steelshells, and Puddings, but never Qiqirn...

I'm also interested in how the article makes no mention of LVL correction, which clearly exists based on Lodeguy's data. I already know most of the stuff I quoted cannot be correct given previous data, but my point isn't to make fun of anyone but to see if I can find the data set it's based on.

[pchan]

if you didn't see edit, wiki history says pchan posted all of it :/ so in all likelihood it has 0 basis in fact and no documented tests

What's your basis ?

[pchan]

Question about MACC. I found this on OldWiki under "Magic Accuracy"

Magic Accuracy - FFXIclopedia, the Final Fantasy XI wiki - Characters, items, jobs, and more

It's mostly stuff I'm familiar with (Lodeguy's data set), but I found this bit, which I have never seen before.



I'm not interested in starting a lolOldWiki debate. I just want to know where this comes from and if it can be verified (or if it has a source I would just like to see it) - particular the part where the writer claims to have tested a range of MEVA for the Qiqirn RNG mob.

There was a discussion with lodeguy and I on this very forum, and the formula he stipulated perfectly matches the data (mine has 38k sample size on qiqirns with variuous magic accuracy).

http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/77237...ccuracy-2.html

[pchan]

He posted the link when he was staying that stacking INT is the best way to reduce magic damage.

And no I didn't say that. Learn2read, stop trolling. The very formula you two are mentionning is just the mathematical representation of very old now result about magic accuracy. You 2 are just 2 years late. +1 int is +1 mac under dint=10 and 1mac=1skill=+0.5% or 1% depending on if you are above or under 50% hitrate. This is fact.

[mdkuser]

if you didn't see edit, wiki history says pchan posted all of it :/ so in all likelihood it has 0 basis in fact and no documented tests

he has a sample of 40,000 so I think its more acuracte than whatever you say w/o any proof. Your the one with zero sample size here..

[Argettio]

You 2 are just 2 years late. +1 int is +1 mac under dint=10 and 1mac=1skill=+0.5% or 1% depending on if you are above or under 50% hitrate. This is fact.

I know that, I agree with that, I gear based on that, I post based on that.

My disagreement with you was over level correction on magic (which does exist) and about you being able to get a meaningful resist rate from stacking INT (due to the level correction being 'against' you when you are fighting most serious mobs)

I am just saying although you are right in theory about INT being a means to resist incoming magic attacks... In practice you can't stack enough to do what you describe.

I am not sure which part of that is considered trolling?

[pchan]

I know that, I agree with that, I gear based on that, I post based on that.

My disagreement with you was over level correction on magic (which does exist) and about you being able to get a meaningful resist rate from stacking INT (due to the level correction being 'against' you when you are fighting most serious mobs)

Level correction : If it does anything , it's modifying the magic evasion, not the effect on INT on resists.

And I added my test results to the wiki.

[mdkuser]

other things not known yet about magic acc/evasion, is if +1 elemental resits is equal to +1 Magic eva, for example.

[Thorny]

he has a sample of 40,000 so I think its more acuracte than whatever you say w/o any proof. Your the one with zero sample size here..

I could make up numbers too, most of his conclusions disagree with the data posted by people with credibility. Everyone at this forum considers Pchan a joke, making up numbers and doing a dozen wiki edits on a subject then directing others to the wiki edit he did himself to prove his points is laughable at best.

[pchan]

I could make up numbers too, most of his conclusions disagree with the data posted by people with credibility. Everyone at this forum considers Pchan a joke, making up numbers and doing a dozen wiki edits on a subject then directing others to the wiki edit he did himself to prove his points is laughable at best.

lol. 2009 and still negating the facts. Do you still think that HQ staves are +15% and that 1skill=0.9 past 200. BG is full is full of retards like you that spam this bullshit all around even though it's been disproven countless of times.

[mdkuser]

I could make up numbers too, most of his conclusions disagree with the data posted by people with credibility. Everyone at this forum considers Pchan a joke, making up numbers and doing a dozen wiki edits on a subject then directing others to the wiki edit he did himself to prove his points is laughable at best.

do you have anything to add to that wiki post to prove taht its wrong? no. your the joke here I think. Pchan argues a lot on those forums but at least back ups his claims, which you arent doing.

Just look what you posted above LOL; gogo eyballing and claims w/o any proof: your death blossom claim is stupid and without proof to back it up. pchan dested them to be what he told they are: minus Magic evasion, and quantified it to be -10. your the biggest joke atm.

[Thorny]

do you have anything to add to that wiki post to prove taht its wrong? no. your the joke here I think. Pchan argues a lot on those forums but at least back ups his claims, which you arent doing.

Just look what you posted above LOL; gogo eyballing and claims w/o any proof: your death blossom claim is stupid and without proof to back it up. pchan dested them to be what he told they are: minus Magic evasion, and quantified it to be -10. your the biggest joke atm.

I said I was eyeballing, and it served the purpose(answered the guy's question), regardless of quantity possibly being a bit off. Every time Pchan tries to post math about something he makes a complete and total fool of himself, nobody will ever take him seriously. His wiki edit is clearly wrong based on the data people with credibility have used to prove that there is a level correction for magic land rate.

[Kaeko]

There was a discussion with lodeguy and I on this very forum, and the formula he stipulated perfectly matches the data (mine has 38k sample size on qiqirns with variuous magic accuracy).

http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/77237...ccuracy-2.html

Read the thread. Robonosto does indeed post there (under his BG name CDF). But I do have a major critique...

Robonosto (CDF) says...

Very loosely speaking, landing rate could follow

rate = .50 + X([magic accuracy] - [magic evasion])

where

if ([magic accuracy] - [magic evasion]) < 0, then X = 1.0
if ([magic accuracy] - [magic evasion]) > 0, then X = 0.5

Here, "magic accuracy" is defined as any positive contribution (equipment bonuses, etc.) and "magic evasion" is defined as any negative contribution (equipment penalties, level penalty, elemental resistance, etc.)

Even if this is really how it is, if you're sitting below 50% rate on something (this you will never know without gathering a sample) there are probably more pressing issues than whether you can clear 50% or not. Likewise, poor melee hit rate and whether 2 macc -> 1% hit rate.

He begins with "loosely" suggesting a model. He has no basis to prove such a model, and I doubt he would even suggest this model as many more than an idea thrown out in the midst of a conversation. In particular, I would vehemently oppose that all magic spells have the same base .50 accuracy.

It is widely accepted that various tiers of the same elemental nuke have different landing rates. This model contradicts this by assuming all spells to have the same initial land rate. If we further consider moves that almost never resist like Dispel and this idea is debunked even more.

I feel like you took something suggested in midst of a conversation and are now misrepresenting it as fact on another site. I'm not suggest malice or anything like that, just maybe being too hasty to formulate a full model.

As far as the data set, thank you for showing it. I haven't had the chance to really look deeply at it yet though.

[Uzor]

Pchan's and Mdk's math computations aren't exactly wrong. Pchan's theories people doesn't always agree with, but please do point me to mathematic calculation he has done that is faulty.

I mean, I don't know about you, but "Bring a bard" isn't math. Nor is a PUP in full Usukane, unless phrases are some newly invented math, in which case you deserve a Nobel price.

Edit: I am well aware that what looks good on paper doesn't always work in practice. However, that does not mean that the calculations are wrong. Hell, even the relativity theory looks good on paper, but it doesn't work in every situation in reality. Doesn't mean the calculations are wrong.

[pchan]

Read the thread. Robonosto does indeed post there (under his BG name CDF). But I do have a major critique...

Robonosto (CDF) says...

It's his model and it fits my 40K data.

He begins with "loosely" suggesting a model. He has no basis to prove such a model, and I doubt he would even suggest this model as many more than an idea thrown out in the midst of a conversation. In particular, I would vehemently oppose that all magic spells have the same base .50 accuracy.

The model is 100% accurate as you can try to reach the required 391 magic accuracy, wether it being with straight skill, straight magic accuracy, int or any combination of those (look for alkalurops for instance). You will ALWAYS find 50% landing rate.

It is widely accepted that various tiers of the same elemental nuke have different landing rates.

This model contradicts this by assuming all spells to have the same initial land rate

. If we further consider moves that almost never resist like Dispel and this idea is debunked even more.

You don't debunk any theory. You are actually confirming them. Last I checked, there are some shiny little icon under your equipement screen. Guess what ... a normal player can fully resist fire spells yet not resist any other spell. How is this done ? elemental resist. The same is applied to monsters as well obviously, and what they do is a straight increase to their magic evasion to the corresponding element. I'm not inventing anything, this is what enspell decription is about. There are also some hidden ones since the spells "barsleep and "barpetrify" do exist as well as plenty of others.


Also, while I personally doubt that sleepI and sleep II can have different magic evasions, I don't think it would be hard to implement. Same with different nuke tiers.

[pchan]

His wiki edit is clearly wrong based on the data people with credibility have used to prove that there is a level correction for magic land rate.

Where the fuck did I deny level correction for magic resistance.

[Thorny]

The model is 100% accurate as you can try to reach the required 391 magic accuracy, wether it being with straight skill, straight magic accuracy, int or any combination of those (look for alkalurops for instance). You will ALWAYS find 50% landing rate.

Except you need to add an invisible magic accuracy number to account for varying inherent accuracy between spells..

You don't debunk any theory. You are actually confirming them. Last I checked, there are some shiny little icon under your equipement screen. Guess what ... a normal player can fully resist fire spells yet not resist any other spell. How is this done ? elemental resist. The same is applied to monsters as well obviously, and what they do is a straight increase to their magic evasion to the corresponding element. There are also some hidden ones since the spells "barsleep and "barpetrify" do exist as well as plenty of others.

So dispel never resists because monsters have no dark resistance? What about sleep then?

Also, while I personally doubt sleepI and sleep II to have different magic evasions, I don't think it would be hard to implement. Same with different nuke tiers.

It doesn't matter how it's implemented, you're claiming a consistant model when spells have independant stick rates.

[Thorny]

Where the fuck did I deny level correction for magic resistance.

Your model insists a set magic accuracy will always be a set hitrate(which you said clearly in your last post). Stop backpedaling and trying to hide your ineptitude, it's pitiful.

[pchan]

Except you need to add an invisible magic accuracy number to account for varying inherent accuracy between spells..

barfire, barstone

So dispel never resists because monsters have no dark resistance? What about sleep then?

barpetrify vs barstone
dark carol vs barsleep

It doesn't matter how it's implemented, you're claiming a consistant model when spells have independant stick rates.

No I don't claim that different spells have the same sticking rate. I said the opposite. If you want to sleep an imp 50% of the time you need 390 mac, if you want to nuke it 50% of the time you need less. Hell aside from Magic evasion varying from spell to spell, you also have magic accuracy varying from spell to spell. See rdm and sch merit.