Item Search
     
BG-Wiki Search
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 267
  1. #1
    An exploitable mess of a card game
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,252
    BG Level
    9
    FFXIV Character
    Gouka Mekkyaku
    FFXIV Server
    Gilgamesh
    FFXI Server
    Diabolos

    Random Facts Thread: Magic

    Random Facts Thread: Now with easier searches.

  2. #2
    An exploitable mess of a card game
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,252
    BG Level
    9
    FFXIV Character
    Gouka Mekkyaku
    FFXIV Server
    Gilgamesh
    FFXI Server
    Diabolos

    May need more tests, but this at least rules out the old formula:
    - Fun background story on how I found this value
    - The expected values via math
    - The test results
    - Overall point: Thunder Breath's formula is 27/40HP. The existing (HP/1.4823) value is incorrect.

    Background and development of the formula: Boring for most people. I'm just someone interested in how people come to create, reject, or test ideas, so if anyone shares that interest, this would be for you. Otherwise, feel free to skip this spoiler.
    Spoiler: show

    My first thought about Thunder Breath's formula (Originally thought to be HP/1.4823 here) was that it was obviously seemed irregular. Not only that, but from a programming perspective (I've never programmed, so this is my imaginary "What programmers do" intuition speaking) it seems quite random. At first we have these clean fractional values and suddenly we get this funky bitch?

    During the fTP argument within the BLU thread, I proposed an idea for how we can think about BLU nukes and breaths as being the same formula. My reasoning for this is that breath spells only come off as a "separate" formula because of convention. This left me only loosely tied to the idea of breath spells being a different formula. The introduction of new spells ignoring MAB further severed that tie. Finally, there were striking similarities between the nuke formula and breath spells. For example, they both have a level component. HP can be considered a form of WSC% (Even if we do not think of it as such conventionally), so they have that in common too. Mathematically, the effects that affect BLU nuke fTP also affect breaths in the same manner (They are mathematically identical). It seemed to me that from a programming perspective (Like if I were running spellcast), it would be much easier to roll with a grand BLU spell formula and define breath spells as normal nukes with 1fTP, having TM=0, varying fLV formula, and ignoring certain multipliers. This would be consistent with all the findings we've had thus far and gives a very nice and technical "definition" of breath spells apart from "BLU nuke affected by HP and is magical." Given how clean this looked from a programming, consistency (among BLU spells), and terminology perspective, I came up with a uniting formula within this post.

    I began applying this to existing formulas found on BG by dividing the HP values by 0.85 (Alpha) and took note of which ones had level modifiers (Just in case, but that turns out not to be an issue in the end). The following values followed:
    Poison Breath: 2/17 (LV Mod)
    Mag Cloud: 10/51 (LV Mod)
    Heca Wave: 5/17 (LV Mod)
    Radiant Breath: 4/17 (LV Mod)
    Hip Press: 20/51
    BB: 5/34 (LV Mod)
    Frost Breath: 20/51 (LV Mod)
    Heat Breath: 10/17
    Wind Breath: 5/17

    This left 17, 51, and (Outlier) 34 as existing fractions prior to alpha. My first test was for a fLV other than (LV*0) because I noticed some values were repeated but with an additional (or removed) level modifier. I used SS+Final sting and did a breath for zero damage. I also remembered that Prothescar did a breath attack on a demon for 25% damage bonus due to monster correlation. That meant that for the formula I posted earlier to work, I would need a fTP at or at least close to 1.

    I had the following components at this point:
    - I want the ((fLV+%WSC)fTP) to be equal or close to 1/1.4823 since that's our current approximation
    - fLV=0 and fTP~1
    - I could say alpha does or does not apply, but for consistency sake, I decided to assume alpha existed
    - Given these constrictions, I would want a MOD% that, when added with these constrictions, is approximately equal to 1/1.4823
    - In total, this meant looking at the issue as (0.85*(X/Y))fTP = 1/1.4823

    I then dusted off Excel and decided to set up columns such that I could look through and find fTPs close to or equal to 1 (I also converted them to fractions since finding a 256 base would be an easy lead).

    - I rewrote the above as fTP=[1/1.4823]/[(0.85*(X/Y)] and looked for instances where fTP would be close to or equal to one. I then converted these values to fractions to see if they could follow the 256/1024 system
    - The fTPs close to 1 using Y=17 and Y=51 were insufficient for a 256 system
    - Y=34 yielded exactly 1fTP at X=27. This was alarming considering that this was an anomaly among previous denominators and Thunder Breath itself has an odd formula issue

    Thus, with fTP=1, (0.85*(27/34)) became the new formula to compare with 1/1.4823. Of course, this was based on the flawed assumption that you do not floor before applying alpha which is false (Flooring makes the value exactly the same as 1/1.4283 within the upcoming tests). If you multiply this out though, you get (27/40HP) which is consistent with BB's (1/8 = 5/40) and nets you the correct value within the upcoming test. So much for breaths having alpha!


    The math comparison: Proposed (27/40HP) v Existing (1/1.4823)
    - You get a difference in values at 1550HP and 1560HP
    - Proposed formula: (27/40)*(1550) = 1046.25 = 1046 DMG expected
    - Existing formula: (1550/1.4823) = 1045.672266 = 1045 DMG expected
    - Actual damage: 1046 damage

    - Proposed formula: (27/40)*(1560) = 1053 DMG expected
    - Expected formula: (1560/1.4823) = 1052.418539 = 1052 DMG expected
    - Actual values: 1053 damage

    Pictures
    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...226071855.png/
    http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images...226073435.png/

    In short: Thunder Breath's formula is (27/40)*(HP)

  3. #3
    Claustrum. Really?
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    3,801
    BG Level
    7
    FFXIV Character
    Kaith Laqueus
    FFXIV Server
    Ragnarok
    FFXI Server
    Asura

    I think this belongs here, especially since it doesn't function how you'd expect (least not imo)

    Absorb Attribute overwrites BRD songs if you steal a song from a mob. Had a stolen Minuet overwrite a Troub'ed March in Dynamis Xarc the other day which was pretty disappointing as I was expecting it to just add a 3rd song.

  4. #4
    An exploitable mess of a card game
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,252
    BG Level
    9
    FFXIV Character
    Gouka Mekkyaku
    FFXIV Server
    Gilgamesh
    FFXI Server
    Diabolos

    Would it be possible to check what happens if you have two BRDs?

  5. #5
    Claustrum. Really?
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    3,801
    BG Level
    7
    FFXIV Character
    Kaith Laqueus
    FFXIV Server
    Ragnarok
    FFXI Server
    Asura

    I'm at work at the moment but I'll check after LS events tonight. I suspect it will overwrite whatever song on you has the lowest duration remaining.

    The only possible reason I can think of is it's a safeguard for Empy Harp coding in some way and having a third song on you would allow you to keep 3 songs up permanently like how you only need to sing the original songs with Empy Harp and can then keep them up with whatever instrument.

  6. #6
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    16,853
    BG Level
    9
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi
    Blog Entries
    1

    I got inspired by Slycer's pretty, new MB page and tested some MB damage stuff last night/today.

    Apparently there's a +40% limit on MB damage from equipment/atmas/merits. Job Trait surpasses this cap and they all sum into the same term, but the other three sources combine to cap at +40% MB damage. In conclusion, I really don't understand SE. This is like when they capped Waltz potency at 30%. Why would you bother?

    Also, Chelona Trousers and AF2+2 hands are pretty great during MB. That is all!

  7. #7
    An exploitable mess of a card game
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,252
    BG Level
    9
    FFXIV Character
    Gouka Mekkyaku
    FFXIV Server
    Gilgamesh
    FFXI Server
    Diabolos

    Someone speculated that Spirit damage and Breath damage were the same, but:



    Used 1590 HP. Looks like a 45% reduction for breath damage. That could be 1/2 resist and 1.1 bonus (Depends on how order of operations works), but looking at Zantetsuken damage, that should be 1.3 multiplier. I couldn't find reports of the damage bonus atonement receives.

    Edit: Could also mean Atonement is the odd one out since atonement is atonement is weird as hell.

    Also, need this explained:

  8. #8
    Banned.

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,590
    BG Level
    7

    So I did asome stun tests on the TEST server. I was level 50 DRK / 25 SMN and spammed stun 2 nights in a row on Om'hpende and I actually got 1 "resist" message.

    casted 711 stun, successful 710, resist 1 (parser)

    I had to actually go to the parser's log and confirm the "resist" message.

    Going by the logic that stun follows normal resistance mechanics (partial resists, caps)

    with no partial resist, the chance to "resist" are 0.05= 1/20
    with 1 partial resist, the chance to "resist" are 0.05^2= 1/400
    with 2 partial resist, the chance to "resist" are 0.05^3= 1/8000

    So it's safe to say that stun has 2 resist states.

  9. #9
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    16,853
    BG Level
    9
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi
    Blog Entries
    1

    You can say it's not 1/20, but you need more data to say it's not 1/8000.

  10. #10
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    16,853
    BG Level
    9
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi
    Blog Entries
    1

    Sentinel's Scherzo seems to only work on single-hit monster TP moves. We've been using Scherzo in Legion instead of PD lately, but I've noticed myself taking >75% damage with it up from the Naraka's 4-sword "attack", Damnation, and Ig-Alima's 4-punch combo. Even though these things show up in the log as a single damage number, Scherzo is individually applied to each hit. That's probably always true, considering the testing for it relied on single-hit monster TP moves.

    This unfortunately limits the utility of Scherzo. I was hoping to rely on it to circumvent SE's broken damage mechanics, but no such luck.

  11. #11
    Chram
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,526
    BG Level
    7
    FFXI Server
    Fenrir

    While the delay between spell casts is known, I'm not sure it's ever been quantified (or I haven't seen it if it was). Was doing some testing regarding spellcasting for the purposes of analyzing the effect on magic procs in dynamis. Found that the minimum time between the ending of one spell cast and the start of the next is roughly 3 seconds. This has a significant effect on the maximum rate of casting spells.

    Here's the writeup of my little experiment (was in reply to a poster on OF):

    Did some testing.

    First, basic testing agrees with Yinnyth. I was able to consistently get 12 threnodies per minute once I got the recast timing down.

    So next I tried to figure out why.

    FRAPS analysis of casting time.

    I don't have a perfect brd gear set; missing 6% in cast time, and don't have Minstrel's Ring. End up at 40% total.

    Changed subjob to /rdm for the extra fast cast to see how it would affect things. That puts me at 55% fast cast.

    After adjusting to the slightly different timing, I was able to get 14 spells cast per minute.

    14 spells per minute is 4.28 seconds per spell. Can figure the 0.28 is human error, in that I can't cast the next spell at the perfect recast moment, and it's a 4 second recast on a 1 second spellcasting time (after fast cast is applied). That's a 3 second casting delay.

    To test this effect further, I retried using Minuets. Nominal cast time is 8 seconds.

    With /rdm and fast cast gear, time between start of Min4 and Min5 is 7.233 seconds. Actual cast time should have been 3.6 seconds. Difference is 3.6 seconds; with allowance for human error, we still get the 3 second delay.

    Tried again with /whm and no fast cast. Time between start of Min4 and Min5 is 11.367 seconds. Subtracting the nominal cast time leaves a 3.367 second window, for 3 seconds plus human error.


    Overall conclusion: Minimum delay after the completion of one spell before you can cast another is 3 seconds. Using the fastest casting spells available, plus accounting for human error, lowest realistic time per spell cast is 4 seconds, allowing for 15 spells cast per minute.

  12. #12
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    16,853
    BG Level
    9
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi
    Blog Entries
    1

    Just as a test of principle, did you try seeing how many songs you could get off during Nightingale? If it has 0 casting time, you'd predict ~19 songs including JA delay, yeah?

    Also, we don't know whether the casting time sources are additive or multiplicative. If they were multiplicative it would just subtract a little from your margins that you attribute to human error.



    I've noticed sometimes I melee between spell casts even if I'm essentially spamming the spells. What about this?:
    1) The first JA Delay tests spammed JAs while meleeing and used the melee hits as a measure of the delay added by the JAs. Furthermore, they showed that the delay for melee hits following a JA usage (2 seconds, soft delay) was different from the delay for further JAs following a JA usage (1 second, hard delay).
    2) Your test Casts spells and takes the next time when you can cast a spell as a measure of the delay added by spells. It doesn't use meleeing or JA usage to measure this.
    3) It's possible that casting spells gives the same set of delays as using a JA, but there is a third category of delay specific to spell casting that wasn't tested in the original tests.

  13. #13
    Chram
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,526
    BG Level
    7
    FFXI Server
    Fenrir

    Quite possible, yes. I didn't do the melee testing because I wasn't trying to see the effect of the delay on melee, I was trying to see the effect of the delay on the next spell; essentially similar to trying to find the hard delay of 1 second on consecutive JA uses. Finding the effect on swing delay would be useful for blu/rdm/etc melee, though.

    Hadn't tested with Nightingale. Will try that...

    I currently have 5/5 Nightingale merits, which means instant cast on all spells for the duration. Disabled Spellcast, and just kept as much song recast delay and haste gear on as possible.

    First attempt: 16 songs with several mistakes.
    Second attempt: 17 songs with a couple small errors, but possibly sloppy timing.
    Third attempt: 17 songs with a couple large errors. Should have easily hit 18.

    Third attempt was FRAPSed. Analyzed to find minimum delay between casts. When performing the test, I found I could start casting the next spell at the moment just at/before the point where the character starts shifting from the 'ready' stance back to the 'idle' stance. ('ready': spell finished casting, arms held out to the sides away from the body, body angled relative to the target; 'idle': standing, arms straight down, facing target straight on; this is on a Taru character)

    If I started from one of the 'mistake' casts, where I was fully idle before starting the next song, the point where the character starts returning to idle stance after the cast (and thus when I could start the next spell following) is right at 3 seconds (up to maybe 3.13 seconds) after the initial cast.

    Done perfectly, I could maybe see it hitting 19. Not sure about 20, but I would definitely consider it the limit. Inter-spell delay definitely seems to be 3 seconds.

  14. #14
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    16,853
    BG Level
    9
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi
    Blog Entries
    1

    Cool, and now that I think about it I don't believe what I proposed earlier is possible. I know I've done JA -> Spell a lot quicker than 3 seconds apart. If anything, I feel like there might not be a limit there at all. In the past I know I've had JA usage show up in my chat log after my spell casting starts (with the JA).

  15. #15
    An exploitable mess of a card game
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    13,252
    BG Level
    9
    FFXIV Character
    Gouka Mekkyaku
    FFXIV Server
    Gilgamesh
    FFXI Server
    Diabolos

    http://www.bluegartr.com/threads/104...=1#post5043156

    For the record, likely be additive. I cannot understand why SE would make elemental cast reduction additive and not songs. Then again, SE does weird stuff.

  16. #16
    Chram
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,526
    BG Level
    7
    FFXI Server
    Fenrir

    Quote Originally Posted by Byrthnoth View Post
    Cool, and now that I think about it I don't believe what I proposed earlier is possible. I know I've done JA -> Spell a lot quicker than 3 seconds apart. If anything, I feel like there might not be a limit there at all. In the past I know I've had JA usage show up in my chat log after my spell casting starts (with the JA).
    Yeah, JA->Spell can be done near-instantly. A quick bit of testing indicates that the 1 second hard cap on JAs applies, but that's fast enough to almost never be an issue.

    Spell->JA has a notable delay, though. Did another Nightingale test for this. Used a trigger to have Spellcast execute the command sequence:

    input /ma "Valor Minuet V" motenten; wait 1.0; input /ja pianissimo motenten

    Then tested at waits of: 1.0, 2.0, 2.5 and 3.0. Pianissimo failed in all cases except for the 3.0. So that's another indication of the 3 second inter-spell delay, and that the delay also applies to JAs.

  17. #17
    Chram
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    2,526
    BG Level
    7
    FFXI Server
    Fenrir

    As a followup on the effectiveness of magic procs in Dynamis, ran a test on it. May not be the best thread for it, but meh..

    Dynamis magic proc test.

    Setup:

    Thf/dnc - main DD
    Rdm/whm - magic proc'ing (me) (so no benefit or penalty for Light/Dark Arts from /sch on any of the spells), and only used Composure for recasting buffs, cancelling it before trying to cast any enfeebles (so no penalty on casting time).
    Thf/dnc - secondary DD who joined us for a short time. No effect on test numbers.

    Most of the test was as a duo.

    Area: Dynamis - Buburimu. Fought: dhalmels, ravens, mandys, rabbits, scorpions, ravens, mandys; in that order.

    Spells for procs:
    Gravity, Gravity II, Blind, Slow, Paralyze, Silence, Poison, Bind, Blind II, Slow II, Paralyze II, Addle, Break; in roughly that order of priority.
    Also: Sleep, Sleep II, but need special considerations there since I also used them outside magic proc time.

    Only used Dia III on proc'd mobs, and did not attempt to use Dia as a proc spell at all.

    Also used nukes on a few mobs at the end. Of 3 mobs, 2 were proc'd immediately with Bliz 4 and Bliz 3; used Bliz 4 on the third, but it did not proc; ran out of time.

    I proc'd 46 mobs. Excluding the 2 proc'd with nukes at the end, 44.

    Total number of successful enfeebles: 453

    Total number of successful sleeps: 118
    Estimated sleeps outside of magic proc times: 10-15. Will use 107 as number for sleeps.

    Total proc spells cast: 560 (matches total result if I exclude mobs fought after time rollovers)

    Proc rate: 44/560 = 7.9%

    95% confidence interval: 5.89% - 10.4%. Best overall estimate: 8.01% (Adjusted Wald calculations).

    Tentative conclusion: magic enfeebles have an 8% proc rate.


    Other stuff:

    Total farming time: 1 hr, 45 minutes
    Overall average enfeeble cast rate: 5.33 per minute.
    Spent most of my time trying to cast enfeebles, with occasional breaks to rebuff. Light rate of mis-casts due to inter-spell delays.
    Estimated non-proc casts: 275
    Overall average casts per minute: 7.95

    Total number of mobs killed was about 75% as many as when we go mnk+thf. Since his thf is a good bit weaker than mine, might have come close to matching the number of mobs killed had he been rdm while I went thf. Main limiter for this setup is still the proc rate, though.


    Re: Nukes -- 2 out of 3 procs give a confidence interval on nuke proc rates of between 20% and 94%. Obviously not practical as a real estimate, however the lower end is well above the upper limit of the confidence interval for enfeebles. Would be worth doing another test solely with nukes.

  18. #18
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    16,853
    BG Level
    9
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi
    Blog Entries
    1

    Avatar BPs also proc magic weaknesses and the proc rate felt substantially higher than 8%. Anyway, though, good to know!

  19. #19
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    16,853
    BG Level
    9
    FFXI Server
    Lakshmi
    Blog Entries
    1

    I did some Aspir testing and think the formula for 300+ is likely (Dark Magic Skill)*0.4

    That makes Aspir II (Dark Magic Skill)*0.6, although I suspect it's actually Aspir potency (the formula above) floored and *1.5.

    Next up is Drain, which is somewhat annoying. I would like to give it a prettier formula, but the prettier formulas don't fit as well so I'm just going to use this for now.

  20. #20
    BG Content
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    3,295
    BG Level
    7
    FFXIV Character
    Slycer Ilerion
    FFXIV Server
    Excalibur
    FFXI Server
    Fenrir

    You probably shouldn't use the 303 skill data in construction of the formula:

    Drain (303 skill) | 60 | 170 | 321 | 247.5

    That data represents a significant departure from the min = 0.5 max formula - there's no way to tell from that whether the max is something higher (up to 340?), min is lower (down to 160?) or some combination of a higher max/lower min. The other possibility is that some range of dark magic has a different function for determining minimum potency, but that's highly unlikely. Granted something in the range of 321 makes sense as it's 320 at 300 skill, but I'm just suggesting that it's probably off slightly (wouldn't be surprised if it was actually 1 or 2 higher).

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 14 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast

Quick Reply Quick Reply

  • Decrease Size
    Increase Size
  • Remove Text Formatting
  • Insert Link Insert Image Insert Video
  • Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
  • Insert NSFW Tag
  • Insert Spoiler Tag

Similar Threads

  1. Random Facts Thread: Abilities
    By Yugl in forum FFXI: Mathy Parts Redux
    Replies: 189
    Last Post: 2017-12-17, 09:01
  2. Random Facts Thread: Other
    By Yugl in forum FFXI: Mathy Parts Redux
    Replies: 467
    Last Post: 2017-12-01, 21:53
  3. Random Facts Thread: Traits and Stats (Player and Monster)
    By Yugl in forum FFXI: Mathy Parts Redux
    Replies: 463
    Last Post: 2017-11-02, 00:21
  4. Random Facts Thread
    By Yugl in forum FFXI: Mathy Parts Redux
    Replies: 157
    Last Post: 2011-12-08, 19:49