FFXI Terminology

[Prothescar]

To that degree I could see it being beneficial, however only to a certain extent. There would be no need to totally rewrite and replace terms such as fTP, WSC, etc. rather than just replacing them in the specific instances where they're necessary, such as breaths.

[FailureMidgard]

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.

Huh? The only argument you are making now is that fTP should stick to WSes and not be applied to spells where it's not an fTP at all. OKAY. It's almost like saying we shouldn't count MAB as fTP...no shit?

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.

Just sometimes, you see a 'q' in a word, thus I propose we take it out of the alphabet, for giving it the same status as 'e' seems wrong. Seriously? Yes I realize the logical fallacy I am making, but the argument you are making is ridiculous. My "just sometimes" is still A COMPLETELY VALID FUNCTION. There is NO need to call it a caveat (and by no need, I mean it is not a caveat) when it, in every single way, fits the definition of a function. I am sorry for using the words "just sometimes" though to express something that can vary, kinda like a 'q' being in a word. "Yes son, q is a letter, I realize that most words don't have it, but sometimes you come across a word that actually does, like 'quiet' for example." A function has a very specific definition, and f(x)=2 is a function. It is not a one-to-one or onto function, but it is a function nonetheless.

What we call fTP in regards to WSes today is a function of TP, in every definition of the word function. I really dunno shit about BLU, so I can't comment on that, but it's hardly a reason to complain about 100% accurate terminology in how WSes function.

To that degree I could see it being beneficial, however only to a certain extent. There would be no need to totally rewrite and replace terms such as fTP, WSC, etc. rather than just replacing them in the specific instances where they're necessary, such as breaths.

This makes perfect sense to me...if it's confusing the way it's being worded/worked/usedincorrectly in breaths at the moment, then fix the problem rather than trying to fix something that is quite decidedly not a problem.

[Prothescar]

The only reason I see it as an issue for breaths is thus: breaths do not have a function that could be derived as fTP like spells or weaponskills do. Their damage is derived only from HP and caster's level, which monster correlation adds a positive or negative multiplier to the final damage. Instead of saying that there's a 1.0 fTP for every breath and it's increased or decreased by 0.25 depending on monster family, it's far more logical to say that breaths are simply multiplied by 1.25 if in positive correlation and .75 under negative.

[Yugl]

Huh? The only argument you are making now is that fTP should stick to WSes and not be applied to spells where it's not an fTP at all. OKAY. It's almost like saying we shouldn't count MAB as fTP...no shit?

You're out of the loop on this one, so I don't understand why you responded to it. It concerns thunder breath and the question of fTP applying to breath spells as it does to magic nukes. It's not a strawman as you suggest because it ended in a serious debate (Somehow). Thus, while it seems trivial to you to say "should stick to WS", I ended up having to defend that point in a huge debate. It's one of the underlying reasons for this terminology changes as well.

Just sometimes, you see a 'q' in a word, thus I propose we take it out of the alphabet, for giving it the same status as 'e' seems wrong. Seriously? Yes I realize the logical fallacy I am making, but the argument you are making is ridiculous. My "just sometimes" is still A COMPLETELY VALID FUNCTION. There is NO need to call it a caveat (and by no need, I mean it is not a caveat) when it, in every single way, fits the definition of a function. I am sorry for using the words "just sometimes" though to express something that can vary, kinda like a 'q' being in a word. "Yes son, q is a letter, I realize that most words don't have it, but sometimes you come across a word that actually does, like 'quiet' for example." A function has a very specific definition, and f(x)=2 is a function. It is not a one-to-one or onto function, but it is a function nonetheless.

What we call fTP in regards to WSes today is a function of TP, in every definition of the word function. I really dunno shit about BLU, so I can't comment on that, but it's hardly a reason to complain about 100% accurate terminology in how WSes function.

I said it was a function in my previous posts. Why are you continuing this argument? The caveat is whether it causes variance (Read: a difference)in the fTP, not whether it is still a function. For some WS, no amount of TP will change that base value.

This makes perfect sense to me...if it's confusing the way it's being worded/worked/usedincorrectly in breaths at the moment, then fix the problem rather than trying to fix something that is quite decidedly not a problem.

That's my entire point. I don't see how you're finding things to attack in my post when your arguments mirror what I am saying.

The only reason I see it as an issue for breaths is thus: breaths do not have a function that could be derived as fTP like spells or weaponskills do. Their damage is derived only from HP and caster's level, which monster correlation adds a positive or negative multiplier to the final damage. Instead of saying that there's a 1.0 fTP for every breath and it's increased or decreased by 0.25 depending on monster family, it's far more logical to say that breaths are simply multiplied by 1.25 if in positive correlation and .75 under negative.

I'm for scrapping fTP on nukes and breaths in favor of a term called "Monster Bonus" or something that will hint at correlation as a component of its bonus. It was a ridiculous term to begin with.

[Prothescar]

Keeping fTP on at least BLU magical spells would be appropriate, as there's some evidence to suggest that BLU spells do have actual fTP, but it isn't concrete.

Azure Lore adds 350TP, and magical spell fTP is increased under its effects. While it could just be a straight damage multiplier while under Azure Lore, it could also support fTP actually being a variable.

[Mojo]

Are people actually confused by this term, or is this a mostly trivial discussion about nomenclature?

[Yugl]

Well that can be left to testing. I've heard of Azure lore having bonuses for certain magical spells, but based on old tests, those were constant bonuses rather than dependent on TP. Again, it most testing will flesh that out.

@Mojo: The latter.

[FailureMidgard]

You're out of the loop on this one, so I don't understand why you responded to it. It concerns thunder breath and the question of fTP applying to breath spells as it does to magic nukes. It's not a strawman as you suggest because it ended in a serious debate (Somehow). Thus, while it seems trivial to you to say "should stick to WS", I ended up having to defend that point in a huge debate. It's one of the underlying reasons for this terminology changes as well.

Well my bad then, the problem isn't in the term then, it's the fact people argued with you because they are too dumb and/or a different term didn't exist for BLU stuff.

I said it was a function in my previous posts. Why are you continuing this argument? The caveat is whether it causes variance (Read: a difference)in the fTP, not whether it is still a function. For some WS, no amount of TP will change that base value.

This is not relevant to whether fTP is well named. It is, a function of TP. As such, fTP is a pretty solid name. Regardless of whether sometimes it changes and sometimes it doesn't, it remains a function of TP. Why do I keep bringing it up? Because you haven't once responded to the overall idea I am trying to illustrate, and instead nitpick this. Tell me why it's relevant to the discussion at hand (aka, function of TP is a poor name for it). This ball is in your court at the moment, not mine. You are saying you understand what I'm saying, but then bring up the point of it not varying with TP as an argument against calling it a function of TP.


Anyway, maybe we kinda agree, I'm still missing your point on how it matters if damage varies with TP on every WS or not. fTP is an accurate and solid name for what it represents in the weaponskill formula currently. The BLU magical spells...ya, sounds like someone got lazy and let a term carry over that shouldn't, but that's not fTP's fault, and isn't a reason to change the name of fTP in regards to WSes. It should be fixed in the BLU shit alone.

[Prothescar]

Azure Lore gives a static amount of TP, so it would be a static bonus regardless. Technically, spell forumlas are all derived from Magical Weaponskill formulas to begin with. It still makes sense to use the same variables. Since adding/subtracting monster correlation for physical spells is done on the fTP part, it makes it easier to know how to apply it to magical nukes if the terms are named the same, and since the magical nukes have a reasonable enough way to explain fTP and have a variance in their damage multipliers unlike breaths, so fTP still makes sense for them.

[Septimus]

Meanwhile in 1905...

"Newtonian Physics covers 99% of all easily observable phenomena, I see no need for you to work on your 'Relativity.' The luminiferous aether explains everything if you just ignore the inconsistencies and our pesky inability to find it."

[Motenten]

Well, what are you defining? Having it spelled out in actual words makes it a bit easier to see how well the shorthand form corresponds.


The term 'fTP' is primarily used to indicate a multiplier value that may be different at different TP values, and may also be influenced by gear (gorgets and elemental belts). This multiplier is applied to your total base damage (weapon + fStr + WSC).

Each hit in a weaponskill will have one of two different multipliers. Traditionally there was the calculated multiplier for the first hit (including gear influences), and then a multiplier of 1.0 for each additional hit. We now have some weaponskills where the calculated multiplier applies to all hits.

Because of the way these multipliers function, the term is also used as a sort of 'cumulative multiplier' -- what you'd get if you added all of the hits together and treated it as a single hit. This can be further extended to probability values for double attacks and such -- the multiplier times the probability of the event happening can be added to the cumulative multiplier for purposes of general comparison.

So what we call fTP can probably be best described as either a "primary weaponskill damage multiplier" (if referring to the first hit), a "secondary weaponskill damage multiplier" (for all additional hits; this may be the same as the primary, or it may be 1.0) or a "cumulative weaponskill damage multiplier" (sum of the multiplier values for all hits).

The "primary weaponskill damage multiplier" is a (piecewise) function that varies with TP [f(x) = f(tp) + gear]. The endpoints of the piecewise function do not have to be different, so you can end up with f(tp) being a constant value.

Since the f(tp) function is congruent with the primary damage multiplier (either a 1:1 correspondance, or offset slightly by gear), it seems entirely reasonable to call the overall multiplier "fTP". The secondary damage multiplier is either the same as the primary, or 1.0, so doesn't really need its own unique term. The only caveat I'd make is to distinguish between the primary multiplier and the cumulative multiplier in some manner, since the same term is often used for those two distinct applications of the value.

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.

I always guessed WSC stood for WeaponSkill Constant, but no idea if that's the true base for the term.

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

I wouldn't mind redefining "pDif" because it's such a vague and unhelpful term. I think it's used to refer to three distinct elements in damage calculations, and gets even more confusing when you try to define its various limits. Plus I have no idea what the term itself is supposed to stand for.

[Prothescar]

iirc all of the terms we use to describe variables were poorly translated from a poorly translated JP translation which in its original form could have been questionable, so it's possible that WSC has no real significant meaning.

[Kohan]

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.

If what you know isn't efficient nor accurate due to a variety of flaws, you are capable of learning new terms, and should.

For those who feel the terminology is too entrenched to replace, remember: FFXI may be around for years yet, and every wiki is editable. There is no reason to be afraid of change, nor is there reason to believe it won't take hold.

The mathematicians who already knew it won't forget the old style, can still search by it, and will be able to learn the new; the people who didn't understand the system then may have an easier time doing so now, and this could have the after-effect of further educating the player base, even if only by a small number. Of course, in learning, any increase in understanding is a positive.

I would personally support more transparent and logical terminology.

[Masamune]

If there were weird terms i got hard time understand, it's indeed WSC and pDIF.

If it were just me, i d just rename WSc into WSM aka WS Modifiers... and pDIF into RSEUFSL (Random Shit Eluding Us For So Long...) or whatever sound the most representative of a randomized function.

[Yugl]

Poll added now.

[Raelia]

Too vague. I'm for renaming terms, but against trying to reinvent the whole descriptor set for a WS and other things.

[cdgreg]

Needs option 3: I don't care, just tell me what to equip

[kamugi]

If what you know isn't efficient nor accurate due to a variety of flaws, you are capable of learning new terms, and should.

It's efficient and accurate. You just need to know what to change based on the WS in question for the formula, which is exactly what the new system would spell out, in a longer more complex way that isn't needed.

[Yugl]

The new system isn't just fTP for WS, I remind you. That said, it's literally one additional label on the fTP WS issue.

[Yugl]

Reminder that the poll closes in roughly 5dys. I know that some might have missed it in the hype of the update, but now that stuff has settled and we're back to arguing over whether events are good or not, I might as well remind people of this poll.