Random Facts Thread: Magic

[Byrthnoth]

Do you know the INT of the hippogryphs? That might give you some idea about what the INT floor is and whether stacking INT matters in a practical sense.

[Fwahm]

Just checked; level 123 Quarrelling Hippogryphs have 251 INT.

Based on my earlier samples, I would guess that dINT starts giving MACC starting at -50.

[dasva]

Just checked; level 123 Quarrelling Hippogryphs have 251 INT.

Based on my earlier samples, I would guess that dINT starts giving MACC starting at -50.

There was some old jp blog work on it in this thread. Unfortunately the jp blog link is all moon runes and goes to the first page but I used to read them and try to figure out what they were doing and they had some cool testing going on. Like using automaton for much faster macc/meva testing

https://www.bluegartr.com/threads/10...nt#post6818652

[Fwahm]

Some misc. magic testing.

Level 123 Quarrelling Hippogryphs have 249 INT, contrary to my previous statement.

Negative dINT has it's own M values for magic, and are not mirrors of positive dINT. For example, at low negative dINTs, Stone II's M value is 1.5.

Negative dINT cannot bring spell power to below 0 no matter how low it is. For example, let's say you have -100 spell power because your dINT is so low; MDMG +200 would bring your spell power to 200, not 100.

[CDF]

Observations using Idris + combined skill 900+ ... there seem to be caps on Gravity and Malaise effects resulting in a lesser effect than shown on the BGWiki table of Geomancy effects.

First, it is known that PC movement speed was adjusted in a previous version update as a +25% increase (4.0 base to 5.0 base?), but I guess the "idle" or "stationary" (LOL) mob movement speed stayed the same, so according to the addon Targetinfo, standard mob speed is displayed as -20% when mobs are stationary.

Using Targetinfo for movement speed data, it seems that regular Indi-Gravity or Geo-Gravity brings mob speed from -20% to -44% so the movement speed reduction seems to be 1 - (1-0.44)/(1-0.20) = .3 or 30%

Under Ecliptic Attrition, mob speed goes from -20% to -50%, which corresponds to movement speed reduction 1 - (1-0.50)/(1-0.20) = 0.375 or 37.5% (so consistent with +25% EA increase)

Under Blaze of Glory, mob speed goes from -20% to -56%, which corresponds to movement speed reduction 1 - (1-0.56)/(1-0.20) = 0.45 or 45% (so consistent with +50% BoG increase)

Under both Blaze of Glory and Ecliptic Attrition, mob speed goes from -20% to -60%, which corresponds to movement speed reduction 1 - (1-0.60)/(1-0.20) = 0.50 or 50%. This is only a 66.66% increase in movement speed reduction (50% versus 30%), not consistent with the expected BoG + EA bonus of +75% (52.5% movement speed down)

Using Indi/Geo-Gravity under Bolster gives the same result of -60% movement speed, so the movement speed reduction is capped at 50% it seems.

Now Indi/Geo-Malaise.

There seems to be a cap of -50 magic defense reduction (or at least I haven't reliably encountered the conditions where this is exceeded).

Bolster > Geo-Malaise > Aero V => 25888. Drop bubble, 12944 (so 25888/12944 = 2). Next Aero V, 13266 (??? why is damage varying). Reapply bubble, 26037 Aero V (26037/13266 = 1.963)

Went to Reisenjima and targeted level 121 Snaggletoothed Tigers (to see if there is any zone effect)

13079 Fire V without JA but with Geo-Malaise

BoG + EA > Geo-Malaise => 26529 Fire V (26529/13079 = 2.03)

I took care to avoid weather/day effects and no magical crits either.

Main motivation here was to use Indi/Geo-Gravity results and extrapolate them to other debuffs for the purpose of determining Geomancy resistance on NMs but having a cap on Gravity effect and minimum magic defense make this extrapolation more difficult (since you have to know what is the base effect observable versus resistance).

If these observed max values (-50% movement speed for Gravity assuming I interpreted Targetinfo data correctly, and -50 MDB for Malaise) hold up then can determine resistance values more easily (at least for these 2)


Edit: I see there is a magic defense minimum that was addressed by Byrth on the OF. Also it would make sense that NMs, which are not unknown to have magic defense bonus, would seem to get a dmg multiplier greater than 2 if the Malaise effect is not capped (just that the magic defense minimum is 50 so you will never see this occur with regular mobs with no magic defense bonus).

https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/t...l=1#post521854

If the magic defense minimum is 50 then the max damage increase from Malaise would be predicted to be 2.8x (140 magic defense versus 50 magic defense after max Malaise debuff of -90 magic defense)

However, I have seen Bolster + Malaise result in damage increase > 3x (on Zerde) with Wildfire spam (doesn't vary with TP so unresisted dmg is constant) so will look into this further if there hasn't been any further testing on this.

[Byrthnoth]

I tested Indi-Gravity stuff in Eastern Altepa. I couldn't get targetinfo to work properly so I think I used:
//eval print(windower.ffxi.get_mob_by_target('t').speed)

I don't remember testing for bolster, so it is possible that the potency does indeed cap out at -2.0. Some monsters (like manticores and probably tigers) do have natively enhanced movement speed (5.0 base?) and I am not sure how targetinfo handles it.

My observation was that Indi-Gravity had the same absolute movement speed impact on antica (base of 4.0) and manticores (base of 8.0 or something silly), so if it took antica down to 3.3, it took manticores down to 7.3.

Also, I had completely forgotten about the MDB floor. Good to know it is somewhere!

[CDF]

Yes, it does seem that for Indi/Geo-Gravity, the movement speed reduction is absolute, not percentage-based if going off targetinfo (hope it's the same result as returning windower.ffxi.get_mob_by_target('t').speed)

So the cap seems to be a flat -2.0. Official forums data on Indi-Gravity with % change (https://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/t...eebling-Spells) prob just based on the standard movement speed of 4.0

Again, with Geomancy+10 and combined skill 900+.

From the above results with targetinfo, for mobs having -20% "stationary" speed (corresponds to 4.0)

• regular Gravity results in -44% (corresponds to 2.8, or -1.2).
• Blaze of Glory + Gravity results in -56% (corresponds to 2.2, or -1.8).
• Blaze of Glory + Ecliptic Attrition + Gravity results in -60% (corresponds to 2.0, or -2.0).
• Bolster + Gravity results in -60% also (corresponds to 2.0, or -2.0).

Agitated Chapuli have 60% "stationary" speed (corresponds to 8.0, or max speed)

• regular Gravity results in +36% (corresponds to 6.8, or -1.2).
• Blaze of Glory + Gravity results in +24% (corresponds to 6.2, or -1.8).
• Blaze of Glory + Ecliptic Attrition + Gravity results in +20% (corresponds to 6.0, or -2.0).
• Bolster + Gravity results in +20% also (corresponds to 6.0, or -2.0).

This all assumes that targetinfo data reflects actual movement speed.

Interestingly, targetinfo shows that Chapuli move at "+300%" (corresponds to 20.0 speed) and "-20%" mobs move at 100% speed (corresponds to 10.0). If you take this at face value, mobs seem to move at 2.5x their "stationary" (...) speed.

Of course you can outrun regular mobs with Flee (8.0) so not sure what to make of all this

[Byrthnoth]

Yeah, targetinfo has some reason for behaving as it does but I found it more harm than help when testing the gravity geomancy. The correct command (I was wrong earlier) would have been `//eval print(windower.ffxi.get_mob_by_target('t').movemen t_speed)`. - not sure why it's breaking up the word movement

Anyway, okay. I'll add a -2.0 cap to the geomancy pages.

It is interesting in principle that there is an overall potency cap that is substantially under what you can reach by combining abilities and gear.

[CDF]

Tried some Fire V on Magic Pots (again Geomancy+10 skill 900+) in sky and it seems pots have something like +12.5% MDB as opposed to 50% (since we know that base magic defense reduction is -45 for Malaise), since Fire V under Bolster seems to give the same results as under BoG/EA (so hitting the minimum magic defense rating of 50)

If it was +50% MDB (assuming the calculation is correct, that base Malaise is really -45 magic defense), you'd definitely see some separation in BoG/EA damage versus Bolster damage

The +50% MDB was "known" for pots (it's listed in that rank resistance text dump from a few years back) so I dunno what's going on

Again the damage variation is annoying and don't know what's causing that. Magic Pot level obtained from /check

Level			Bolster	EOA/BG
74		5732		
74		5640		
73		5681		
76		5671		
73		5732		
73		5691		
73		5650		
74		12635	1	
73		12726	1	
73		12794	1	
73		12909	1	
74		12635	1	
74		12772	1	
74		9565		
76		9429		
74		9429		
74		9429		
73		9445		
75		9446		
73		12726		1
74		12703		1
75		12635		1
75		12635		1

Might do a Reive later to see what's up with this

[Byrthnoth]

Do you happen to be using Orpheus' Sash?

[CDF]

I avoided using Orpheus. I had the same thing happen on Tiny Mandies too.

Tried a few casts on Ingrid in Sinister Reign (Ingrid known to be WHM and also never casts Shell or does anything to reduce magic damage (?)):

Fire V: 7921
Geo-Malaise + Fire V: 12789
Blaze of Glory + Geo-Malaise + Ecliptic Attrition + Fire V: 19184
Next Fire V without bubble: 7993

So not sure why Fire V bubble-less damage changed from 7921 to 7993 but 19184 is ~2.4x 7993 and 12789 is ~1.6x 7993, so this is consistent with Ingrid having +20 Magic Defense Bonus, -45 magic defense down from standard Malaise, and the global capped -50 magic defense down (or floored magic defense rating of 50)

Repeated Fire V with Bolster on next run:

8093 (base)
7950 (next cast) (???)
19252 (Bolster + Geo-Malaise)
8022 (Bolster off + no bubble)
12835 (Bolster off + Geo Malaise)
19252 (Bolster Off + Blaze of Glory + Ecliptic Attrition)

So I have no idea why Fire V damage is varying among the 8093, 7950, 8022 (+/- 71 or 72 damage). Again Bolster result is the same as combining BoG + EA


Going back to Zerde. The other day I observed multiple 26278 Wildfires before Malaise (yeah slow to put up lol), then multiple 80672 after Malaise applied (indicating consistent effect of Wildfire before/after). 80672/26278 = 3.07 approx, which seems impossible unless the magic defense floor is "broken" in that situation (or some other factor I don't recognize is in effect, even though everything else is held constant AFAIK)

Also found that Ramuh is unaffected by Malaise (...) in Avatar ambuscade this month

[CDF]

Got some Stone V damage data off Alexander HTBF VE (avoiding inter-mob variability). For some reason Alexander dmg dropped slightly (INT change) mid-fight, which is why I have columns #6 and #7

			MD-	Damage	Multiple observed	Multiple expected	Damage	Multiple observed
Base			0	3827	-			-			3786	-
Malaise			-45	5468	1.428795401		1.428571429		5409	1.428684628
Malaise + EA		-56	6044	1.579304939		1.595744681		5979	1.579239303
BoG + Malaise		-67	6917	1.807420956		1.807228916		6843	1.807448494
BoG + Malaise + EA	-78	7974	2.08361641		2.083333333		7889	2.08372953
Bolster + Malaise	-90	9569	2.500391952		2.5

It appears that Alexander has 50 MDB (at least for VE difficulty) so still looking for an explanation for that Wildfire multiplier

[CDF]

Based on Indi-Gravity results above, Shinryu HTBF Geomancy nerf values seem to be as follows (from targetinfo data)

Very Difficult: -90% (from -20% to -22%, or -0.1)
Difficult: -75% (from -20 to -26%, or -0.3)
Normal: -50% (from -20% to -32%, or -0.6)
Easy: -33% (from -20% to -36%, or -0.8). Under Bolster, movement speed goes from -20% to -52%, or -1.6 (2x movement speed reduction as expected)
Very Easy: none (from -20% to -44%, or -1.2)

VE Shinryu itself doesn't seem to have any magic defense bonus in its base form since Bolster + Malaise caused 2x damage increase (the other possibility is 80 MDB but that's unlikely b/c magic damage was 'normal', i.e, 9k tier V nukes without Malaise), but annoying to collect data to confirm Malaise outside of Bolster due to different stances and Mighty Guard

Again the "hope" is that Indi-Gravity observations would extend to other debuffs when it comes to ascertaining nerf %

[Spicyryan]

Based on Indi-Gravity results above, Shinryu HTBF Geomancy nerf values seem to be as follows (from targetinfo data)

Very Difficult: -90% (from -20% to -22%, or -0.1)
Difficult: -75% (from -20 to -26%, or -0.3)
Normal: -50% (from -20% to -32%, or -0.6)
Easy: -33% (from -20% to -36%, or -0.8). Under Bolster, movement speed goes from -20% to -52%, or -1.6 (2x movement speed reduction as expected)
Very Easy: none (from -20% to -44%, or -1.2)

VE Shinryu itself doesn't seem to have any magic defense bonus in its base form since Bolster + Malaise caused 2x damage increase (the other possibility is 80 MDB but that's unlikely b/c magic damage was 'normal', i.e, 9k tier V nukes without Malaise), but annoying to collect data to confirm Malaise outside of Bolster due to different stances and Mighty Guard

Again the "hope" is that Indi-Gravity observations would extend to other debuffs when it comes to ascertaining nerf %

I'll add this to the wiki. TY for the testing.

[CDF]

I was looking at the "nuke wall" on Cloud of Darkness and I could only get -60% and -30% cuts on Magic Burst nukes (-60% within about 1 second and -30% after that 1 second (it seems) but still within the ~5-second time frame of the damage reduction)

This seems to contrast with the maximum of -40% and -20% on Abyssdiver (a level 119 Unity NM) as discussed in the following video:


FFXI Nuke Wall (Dec 9, 2022): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PW7wuobIB0A


I don't know if these -60%/-30% damage cuts apply to other NMs.

Also I cannot seem to avoid nerfing my own damage on the second MB nuke, after realizing that I was at risk of nerfing the damage of the first MB nuke with a closing Immanence + helix, so it would seem that timing would help. See this video on a SCH solo of VD Cloud of Darkness (The Orb's Radiance HTBF) for an example of full-damage Fire V and Fire IV MBs in a given MB window:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vfE-Y8ApPE

(Kaggra intentionally nerfing damage of Immanence + Stone and Immanence + Pyrohelix and timing Fire IV so it doesn't get nerfed by the previous Fire V)

The MB Fire V (36856) is followed by a too-fast MB Fire IV (20492) at 1:46, max damage of MB Fire IV being 29275

20492/29275 = .70

(I also observed an apparently unaffected 22429 Fire III at 4:44 while skimming the video)

[Byrthnoth]

I know we have had scholars skillchaining in low macc gear since at least Reisenjima T3s for this reason.

I didn't expect the weird and apparently variable decreases in damage. I thought it would be a normal 1/2, 1/4, etc.

[CDF]

40295 Magic Burst! Fire V > Abyssdiver

40295 Magic Burst! Fire V > Abyssdiver

40295 Magic Burst! Fire V > Abyssdiver
24884 Magic Burst! Fire IV > Abyssdiver

31105 Magic Burst! Fire IV > Abyssdiver

31105 Magic Burst! Fire IV > Abyssdiver
32236 Magic Burst! Fire V > Abyssdiver

40295 Magic Burst! Fire V > Abyssdiver

I was able to obtain -20% damage reduction on Abyssdiver (24484/31105 = .8 and 32236/40295 = .8) in that observed window of the last ~4 seconds of damage reduction (versus the first second, as I wasn't able to get a quick cast to process)

Also waiting about 1 more second for the damage-reduction window to close allows for full damage again. I noticed the assertion that successive nukes can prolong the window, but I have never observed this happen, and it would have been obvious on Cloud of Darkness, where I would have a full-damage nuke (MB Fire IV) even with 2-3 MBs preceding it, including the first MB (e.g., MB Fire V/MB Fire V/MB Fire IV/MB Fire IV in the same damage-reduction window where the last MB Fire IV isn't affected).

Perhaps the maximum damage reduction is related to resistance rank, i.e., -60%/-30% for high resistance, -40%/-20% for low resistance.

In regard to Rayke testing, it wasn't stated that the timing of spells was considered: https://www.bluegartr.com/threads/12...=1#post6573982.

No mention of damage reduction attenuation on the Rayke article at wiki.ffo.jp either: https://wiki.ffo.jp/html/28988.html

It would be funny if the first observation of -60% (without Rayke) with Meteor Strike on Ironbeak Inguza was just due to timing (within the 1st second as opposed to the last 4 seconds). I wonder how they got it because of the global JA delay/cooldown.

Original dev team comments on "accumulative magic resistance" from June 9, 2006: http://www.playonline.com/pcd/topics...75/detail.html

Currently, a large number of players can team up to overpower the enemy in certain battles by hitting the enemy repeatedly with only elemental magic. This tactic has had an unbalancing effect on the game, and we decided a change was needed.

However, altering the effects of powerful magic spells would have a negative effect on black mages and other magic users. Rather than altering magic effects or strengthening monsters, we determined that the adjustment to solve this issue should be as small as possible in scope and affect other gameplay mechanics as little as possible.

Therefore, for the next update we have decided to implement an accumulative magic resistance effect for all monsters whose strength reads "impossible to gauge."

We have also made several other adjustments to minimize the effect of this change on black mages and other magic users. For example, a party fighting a notorious monster with one to two black mages will probably not notice the difference.

However, we have decided to give Bahamut in the quest "The Wyrmking Descends" and Diabolos in the quest "Waking Dreams" a stronger accumulative magic resistance than other notorious monsters.

-Types of Affected Magic Damage
When a notorious monster is repeatedly hit by the following types of magic, it will accumulatively build magic resistance:

Black magic (elemental), white magic (divine), ninjutsu, magical blood pact abilities, magical blue magic, magical weapon skills (e.g., Spirits Within and Red Lotus Blade), and certain job abilities (e.g., Chi Blast and Mijin Gakure)

-Resistance Fluctuation
When a monster with accumulative magic resistance is hit by a magic attack, the amount of damage it receives will decrease in accordance with that monster's resistance. At the same time, its resistance will increase.

The monster's resistance will increase in accordance with the amount of damage incurred, but each monster has a maximum resistance level.

In addition, the monster's resistance will decrease with time if it is not hit by any repeated magic attacks.

So accumulative magic resistance is activated on the first nuke (BTW it seems that Cure nukes on undead may not count?), but pretty much any MB nuke these days will cause the "maximum resistance level" to be met. As for the statement that "the monster's resistance will decrease with time if it is not hit by any repeated magic attacks," perhaps only 1 or 2 nukers "will probably not notice the difference" as far as this "decrease with time," assuming there is more to this time decay other than the first second versus the last four seconds.

In the context of setting up a MB window with Immanence skillchains (or with magic WS), it could be that if you do sub-threshold damage by intentionally making the closing Immanence spell (or magic WS) low damage so as not to exceed the threshold that triggers the "maximum resistance level" (and corresponding 5-second window of resistance), the window of resistance remains very short ("the monster's resistance will decrease with time if it is not hit by any repeated magic attacks." as described in the dev notes) so that you won't likely encounter a noticeable damage nerf until after the first MB nuke (i.e., you won't see the second Immanence spell damage being nerfed due to the forced magic cooldown timer)

But this 5-second window, that could be triggered by the first MB nuke (max damage reduction in the 1st second followed by 50% of the max damage reduction in the next 4 seconds), associated with maximum "accumulative magic resistance" cannot be extended even with "repeated magic attacks."

The fact that they said that Bahamut and Diabolos have a stronger accumulative magic resistance could mean that they set accumulative magic resistance on a case-by-case basis versus linking it to resistance rank

[Argisto]

I have a bunch of links ready to share regarding accumulative magic resistance testing I have come across but then I realized I don't have enough posts on this forum to do so :/

[Ragns]

I have a bunch of links ready to share regarding accumulative magic resistance testing I have come across but then I realized I don't have enough posts on this forum to do so :/

Try again now?

[Argisto]

Try again now?

Much appreciated ^.^

-Two Man Cell-, Testing by Bun Part 1
-Findings of different NM's with differing maximum accumulative magic resistance values ranging between 20, 40 and 60%
-Two Man Cell-, Testing by Bun Part 2
-Findings regarding the incremental increase of accumulative magic resistance depending on the damage of the spell that initiated it
五月蜂(FF11攻略ブログ), cdragon.exblog.jp
-Findings that Quick Draw does not initiate accumulative magic resistance
赤の裁縫師, FF11のまったりブログです
-Some observations regarding differing types of magic that do/do not initiate accumulative magic resistance
前門の現実、後門の三角頭, …ラムザ お前は何を手に入れた？
-More observations about what does/does not trigger accumulative magic resistance

JPwiki's Accumulative Magic Resistance page is largely devoid of any real info and has remained largely unchanged since its creation in 2006.

Personally, I think that accumulative magic resistance is set on a per-NM basis the same way resistance ranks are. This seems to be the case if you take into account that they introduced a specific accumulative resistance to Death on Zerde in the Mar. 10, 2017 (JST) Version Update.