+Weapon Skill > +Magic Accuracy

[Sechs]

Sorry if I dare to open a new thread, but I think it would be helpfu to condensate reports and tests into a specific thread for the topic.

A few SE quotes now, assuming they are right and not lieing.

Magic accuracy will now increase when wielding a weapon with a displayed item level in the main hand.
* This bonus will not display in the item help text, but still applies.

I find the second sentence peculiar.
I think they refer to the fact that some weapons which previously had specific +Macc bonus (Soothsayer Staff, Atinian Staff, Lebrahig +1 etc) do not have it anymore.

Magic accuracy has been deleted from the help text only. Theattrbiute itself has been increased

The way this sentence is written, and in combination with the previous one, kinda suggest that you still have the previous +macc value AND an additional value coming from the skill>macc conversion.

Altough personally this seems strange and I kinda think they just removed +macc and adjusted the conversion formula so that the final amount of +macc you get is equal/superior to the one you could get before the patch.


So far I've seen people supposing there's a conversion ration from the +skill value present into the weapon itself.
What if instead it's something different, what if your overall skill (the one from the weapon + your natural one + possible merits or other sources of + skill) is the one that actually gets converted?
This would mean that you'd get more macc from a weapon on which you have higher natural skill compared to the one for which you have low skill or no skill at all.
Would make sense in theory, wouldn't it? But it's lolSE we're talking of so... /shrugs


Anybody tested anything so far? I know it's too early, but I'm curious.

[Malithar]

I was Rdm on a delve Shark tonight. In the past, below 25% I'd CS nuke just cause 1k Thunder Is and 1.5k Thunder IIs made it feel useful and they rarely resisted. Tonight however (still using Soothsayer), I was getting 1/8th resisted a ton. Looking at the log right now, I've got 31 casts of Thunder I/II with Bolstered Indi-Focus and Gain-Int. Break down was..

11 1/8 resisted
6 1/4 resisted
7 1/2 resisted
7 full damage

However, when enfeebling on the base NMs and shark, I didn't experience any issues with Macc. Maybe because my enfeebling gear is loaded with Macc which counters any difference in the staff now, while my MAB gear has very little Macc.

I don't know if this lends much credit to the total skill theory above, but considering I only 144 staff skill from /Blm, it would explain the issue.

[Sechs]

Macc should be equal/superior to before, so either there's a (genuine) bias in your eyeballing, or maybe there was something different (no landed impact? No geo debuffs for -meva? no mab/int buffs/geomacc on your rdm?) in the setup of your alliance.
Or... something "big" changed and now the way macc is calculated for debuffs is different from the way macc is calculated for spells?

Ungh... honestly I'm just leaning for the bias.


SE's claims (of equal/higher macc from before) were pretty clear. It would disappoint me very much to find out they didn't say the truth, but in the end I guess I wouldn't be that surprised either.

[Malithar]

Ungh... honestly I'm just leaning for the bias.

I don't blame you. However, that was directly from the log. We only take one Geo to Shark, their bubbles are Indi-Focus and Geo-Frailty, and they Bolster at 30%. That's been the case in the past, and it was the case today (saw the Bolster animation myself), and I maintained Gain-Int, even have it wearing off after the fight in the log. Outside of that, I can't comment. No one really maintains Impact I don't think. It's used, but not maintained, due to him wiping debuffs constantly, specifically the last 25%, when I was nuking. I didn't pay attention to weather/day, but neither of those would of had that sort of an effect on resists.

[Sechs]

I don't blame you.

It's more like I'm kinda *hoping* this is the case
Having SE fail again would sadden my day :'(

[Damane]

It's more like I'm kinda *hoping* this is the case
Having SE fail again would sadden my day :'(

wouldnt this be testable on normal high level mobs with a job that has alot weapons but has differnt base skills on them? (dont use any macc gear) for example a rdm useing a soothsayer staff and then a sword that has the same equevalent skill + like burmenkah? 300 skill lvls difference should be quiet noticeable when nukeing almost naked withaout any macc gear

[Sechs]

I'm pretty confident a job like RDM would likely be the a nice way to test this (but how? Naked with just weapon? And where would you find a target level high enough so you can spam spells and see differences and survive at the same time? I can only think about Naakuals)

I think it's rather a matter of the timesink required to perform all these tests =/

[Byrthnoth]

From FFXIAH:

I was able to land any Dark Magic spell on any mob in Ceizak or Yahse on Run/drk using a Crobaci +1 (iLevel 113). My Dark Magic skill is capped at 150 when /drk, so the macc boost seems to be (from eyeballing) quite large.

That says to me "Subjob spells are now viable against anything but top tier endgame content" - as long as he wasn't testing with Stun.

[Yeager]

I'll share some of what I experienced last night.

I don't normally use my BRD, but last night's Legion event we were sort of short handed on BRD so I brought it.

Initially, I used Soothsayer Staff as a main weapon as BRD/WHM, and just from eyeballing, I was getting some occasional Elegy resists on some of the bigger NMs. Sometimes it would take 2-3 tries for Elegy to land.

However, after our 2nd Legion run, I decided to go grab my Iziikoh <sp?> (Dagger from Shark) and used that as a main weapon, and had ZERO resists. Everything I casted was landing, even on the Botulus Rex and Ig-Alima type NMs. It made a HUGE difference.

Another thing of note. My Staff skill is only around 220 or so, whereas my Dagger skill is capped. I'm not sure if that is a factor in the new Mag. Acc. formula or not, but just from eyeballing it seemed to make a difference. If anyone has an idea on how I could test this please let me know what I can do and I'll gladly give it a shot. If it does turn out that having capped Staff skill is a factor in increasing Mag. Accuracy, then {Skill} {Up} {Party} anyone?

[Darkmagi]

Hilarious if they just killed staff nuking for rdm..

[cdgreg]

Oh man don't tell me I have to skill staff. Then again , it does make some sense that your skill with the weapon could impact more than just melee hits.

[Sechs]

I'll share some of what I experienced last night.
[cut]

With the premise that your test is not really a test because of the eyeballing plus extremely limited number of attempts.

Anyway, if for a moment we want to consider your input significative, given your current conditions (uncapped Staff skill) it would be hard to understand if the lower macc on Staff depended on the lower skill on the Soothsayer (i.e. macc conversion is based only on the skill found on the weapon itself) or your whole proficiency with that certain weapon category is what matters (i.e. Izhiikoh had higher macc not or rather not only because it has higher skill on itself, but because you also have capped dagger proficiency).


Now that I think about it I don't really think my Staff skill is capped either altough I should be close to cap. Someone kill Jormy for me, I need a Mercurial Staff!!!
I don't know how to feel about this change.
On one hand it excites me, on the other hand I'm scared it might bring up some bizarre combination of Job/Weapon to exploit the conversion thing. I mean, a mage job getting more macc from a weapon meant from DD rather than from a Staff meant for macc sounds like an unwanted sideconsequence that they didn't foresee or couldn't care less to fix, rather than something specifically working as they originally intended.

[Damane]

With the premise that your test is not really a test because of the eyeballing plus extremely limited number of attempts.

Anyway, if for a moment we want to consider your input significative, given your current conditions (uncapped Staff skill) it would be hard to understand if the lower macc on Staff depended on the lower skill on the Soothsayer (i.e. macc conversion is based only on the skill found on the weapon itself) or your whole proficiency with that certain weapon category is what matters (i.e. Izhiikoh had higher macc not or rather not only because it has higher skill on itself, but because you also have capped dagger proficiency).


Now that I think about it I don't really think my Staff skill is capped either altough I should be close to cap. Someone kill Jormy for me, I need a Mercurial Staff!!!
I don't know how to feel about this change.
On one hand it excites me, on the other hand I'm scared it might bring up some bizarre combination of Job/Weapon to exploit the conversion thing. I mean, a mage job getting more macc from a weapon meant from DD rather than from a Staff meant for macc sounds like an unwanted sideconsequence that they didn't foresee or couldn't care less to fix, rather than something specifically working as they originally intended.

its not a sideconsequence it makes sense and is very logical, why should a rdm brd etc be forced to use a stave to land spells when their inherit most used weapons are something different. Baseing the magic accuracy bonus of the weapons on the total weapon skill you have from that weapon makes absolutly sense. sch whm blm geo have all high staff and club skills, so they are not in danger on looseing any m.acc, on top of that they have the magic base skills to pull ahead on anything magic related compared to DDs with no native magic skills.

[Fwahm]

Simplest test would to go to Hurkan or Yumcax on a RDM with both Soothsayer staff and a Haluchuinic sword. If you go with a sub that doesn't have Staff Skill, then if the MACC is based on your weapon skill as well as your weapon, then the difference in stick rate should be enormous.

If it's true, it kind of screws Red Mage over again, since there are currently no Adoulin daggers or swords with casting stats on them (magic damage, MAB, INT, or MND, mostly).

[Byrthnoth]

Murgleis and Carnwenhan incoming!!!

[Sechs]

when their inherit most used weapons are something different

I don't get this part (pardon me, not english ML here!). What did you mean?
That the BRD most used weapon would normally be a dagger?
There's only a 10 skill difference between BRD proficiency in dagger and staff (C+ and B- respectively if I recall) and honestly when have you ever seen a BRD use daggers before Felibre's Dague was released?
Back in the old days it always was elemental staves, or the ToAU staff. In abyssea days I guess it was Felibre but mainly because you didn't really need ele staves' accuracy boost to stick stuff on mobs, so a lot of people didn't even bother to swap.

First things first, I didn't say I don't like the change, I'm actually excited by it.
I only said I find it a bit strange (maybe it's just a matter of habit?) and that I'm scared it might bring up some bizarre setups.

I mean while I understand (I think?) what you're trying to say about weapon categories, the difference we've been having in FFXI all over these last 10+ years is that there are weapons with stats inclined magic stuff (wether it's accuracy, INT/MND/CHR, mab or anything else) and weapons with stats inclined towards physical (phys acc, attack, STR/DEX, Crit, blahblah).
Combining "Magic Accuracy" with "Weapon Skill" (a stat that tipically gives physical accuracy and physical attack) is cool and potentially allows to save inventory slots, but it doesn't address everything else.
For BRD it's just a lack of CHR but Soothsayer didn't have any CHR so it's no real difference. But think about Mages, for example RDM.
You could choose to nuke with a staff that has magic-focused bonuses but with a severe lack of Macc, or with a maccfocused weapon (a Buram'enkah?) but with a complete lack of magic-focused stats (Mab, Magic damage, etc).

[dasva]

I really can't see them using your actual skill in a weapon. Aside from the fact nothing they said even implies that it's just dumb. Hmmm guess while various things are broken I can try some testing I've been meaning to do

[Sechs]

Aside from the fact nothing they said even implies that it's just dumb.

I don't think that really means anything Dasva.
I mean, would it be the first time they change something without implying it?
Or take the latest patch notes, couple of things they implied aren't true at all appearently. So yeah, that doesn't really say anything.

I don't think it's dumb, I think it does make sense in a way.
It just feels very strange to me, in ways I cannot explain with words, but maybe it's just a matter of habits, dunno, it just feels very strange.
The Skill>MAcc is fantastic for hybrid jobs or similar situations (DRK, NIN etc). Not really sure it was the right way to go for full mage jobs though. Time will tell?

[dasva]

While I agree they sometimes misword things a little they haven't flat out done something this far away from what they said in a long time. Hell even when they used to it would just be something they didn't mention at all.

And by dumb I mean the already obvious gimp it would be to mages. And the fact it would give the weapons highly variable macc but fairly static amounts of acc. And well what would be the point of adding that extra complication and calculation? And what about magical ws that already check skill? Check it twice now?

[NynJa]

Test a freshly burned mage with next to no magic skill but capped melee skill and check resist rates?

Its POSSIBLE se fked up and removed magic skill as part of the macc formula lol