Dynamis Lord - Chainspell Rotation Times?

[Delekii]

People saying that doubling up stun not only doesnt help your chances, but _hinders_ them, is ridiculous. Stun does not last a set amount of time, and unless both a. your stun lasts exactly the amount of time before you recast it, and b. the second rdm is casting at exactly the same time as you, it means there is more chance that someone will stun at exactly the point at which the previous stun wears off.

For example, if it is 4 seconds between rdm/drk cs stuns as someone above mentioned, and 2 rdms are going at once, at WORST an equal number of stuns will land to what would have landed with one rdm (if both rdms are stunning at the same identical time). Going on 4 seconds, say stun wears off after 5 seconds, and your rdms are stunning at 2 second intervals, the second RDM will stun after 1 second of Dlord not being stunned, whereas with 1 rdm there would be a full 3 second interval. Ofcourse it is never this simple in terms of math as people will be slightly slow or quick on stun, etc, but overall, you can see why more is better.

At best, it will be atleast twice as good, as 2 rdms can cover twice the amount of time in which stun wears off before it is re-applied. Ofcourse, luck will play the defining roll overall in whether you get screwed or not, but if you are into increasing your chances, there is no argument whatsoever to be had for multiple stunners being anything but equally (at worst) or more (at best) efficient than a single one.

read my post with the tiamat example

Your example is somewhat illogical in that if one RDM can cast just after it wears off, so can 2. A stun which doesnt land (aka: has no effect) does just that: Has no effect. Having a second stunner certainly cannot be detrimental to the first.

[Kaylia]

Your post doesnt make more sense >_>. You're basically saying having a stun resisted on tiamat will extend his imunity for another fraction of second. But if it's true, the exact same thing could have happened with a single rdm who is chainspelling stun. All his would cancel each other


[edit]
was direct at reineer

[Delekii]

Your post doesnt make more sense >_>. You're basically saying having a stun resisted on tiamat will extend his imunity for another fraction of second. But if it's true, the exact same thing could have happened with a single rdm who is chainspelling stun. All his would cancel each other


[edit]
was direct at reineer

need to be clear on the terminology here, we arent talking about a resisted stun, we are talking about a stun that has no effect due to the mob already being stunned, other than that, I agree with your post. The mob is either stunned or isnt, and it doesnt matter which RDM reapplies or has no effect - more chances = more chances.

[Raineer]

Your post doesnt make more sense >_>. You're basically saying having a stun resisted on tiamat will extend his imunity for another fraction of second. But if it's true, the exact same thing could have happened with a single rdm who is chainspelling stun. All his would cancel each other


[edit]
was direct at reineer

not resisted, it's a side effect of the "no effect" message

[Kaylia]

Sorry about the wrong wording Yeah, I did mean "no effect". It's possible there is a short fraction of time where mobs isnt stunned anymore while being imune to stun, but it doesnt change anything to CS+stun situation

[Raineer]

I can see both of you are RDM75 from your sigs and have obviously chainstunned alot so I'll /bow to your superiority.

[nivlakian]

Another way to explain it is that there is a very short period after a mob has been stunned with "no effect" that it apparently cannot be stunned again (you will get no effect message again)

Example is on Tiamat, I've been stunner and had a BLM random stun just a split-second before she casts Firaga3. At this point she's casting and I go to stun, however I get "no effect" even though she's obviously casting.

Your example doesn't appear to be an actual example of what you said previously. At first, you said a "no effect" message extends the period of immunity, but in the example you had a stun that went off and you got a no effect afterward. It's not an example of multiple no effects being caused by one previous.

[Raineer]

Another way to explain it is that there is a very short period after a mob has been stunned with "no effect" that it apparently cannot be stunned again (you will get no effect message again)

Example is on Tiamat, I've been stunner and had a BLM random stun just a split-second before she casts Firaga3. At this point she's casting and I go to stun, however I get "no effect" even though she's obviously casting.

Your example doesn't appear to be an actual example of what you said previously. At first, you said a "no effect" message extends the period of immunity, but in the example you had a stun that went off and you got a no effect afterward. It's not an example of multiple no effects being caused by one previous.

What's the difference between " "no effect" message extends the period of immunity" and "multiple no effects being caused by one previous"?

whatever idc, enjoy wasting chainstuns and taking unnecessary damage

[Kaylia]

Your example doesn't appear to be an actual example of what you said previously. At first, you said a "no effect" message extends the period of immunity, but in the example you had a stun that went off and you got a no effect afterward. It's not an example of multiple no effects being caused by one previous.

What's the difference between " "no effect" message extends the period of immunity" and "multiple no effects being caused by one previous"?

whatever idc, enjoy wasting chainstuns and taking unnecessary damage[/quote]

In your exemple:

1- someone cast stun and it wear off
2- monster cast a spell
3- You stun it but get "no effect"

I've never seen any situation like this happen, except when both stun are really close of each other and it's impossible to tell with lag what happened first with the chat log.


What's the difference with 2 rdm chainspelling stun? Those 2 rdm are going to recast it in a fraction of seconds. The point isn't to land all the stun, it's to cover the 5-10% chance that one RDM get resisted on its 2nd stun (because his first one lasted too long)

[Alathar]

RNGs with Culverin is pretty hawt too.

Just wondering ... what kind of numbers does this put up /war? Doing DL with this tonight, get minuet x2 ... and maybe a COR. I want to know what to expect ^^;

[FFXIFlux]

It's easy enough to test, you don't need Tiamat. Get all the RDM/DRK you can together and stun the fuck out of a lesser colibri or something. By Raineer's theory if you get enough of them you'll only get 1 stun to land and the rest will all bounce with no effect for the remainder of the chainspell.

[zymurgy]

We just have one person chainspell stun, and the next person follow 45-50 seconds later. We farm DL bi-monthly and still haven't had any problems doing it this way. We usually have 3 RDM/DRKs in case the fight takes longer than 2 minutes. Many more can be CS stunners but we opt for more damage and less dead weight

[nivlakian]

Another way to explain it is that there is a very short period after a mob has been stunned with "no effect" that it apparently cannot be stunned again (you will get no effect message again)

Example is on Tiamat, I've been stunner and had a BLM random stun just a split-second before she casts Firaga3. At this point she's casting and I go to stun, however I get "no effect" even though she's obviously casting.

Your example doesn't appear to be an actual example of what you said previously. At first, you said a "no effect" message extends the period of immunity, but in the example you had a stun that went off and you got a no effect afterward. It's not an example of multiple no effects being caused by one previous.

What's the difference between " "no effect" message extends the period of immunity" and "multiple no effects being caused by one previous"?

whatever idc, enjoy wasting chainstuns and taking unnecessary damage

I'm just asking for clarification. Your example doesn't support what you said.

Your example is of stun that actually affected the mob causing a following stun to have no effect. To support what you said, your example would have to be a stun that affected the mob followed by a stun with no effect followed by a stun with no effect ie. an example of a no effect message causing a no effect message to follow it.

Also, people have done overlapping stuns on DL and have had it work. I can't really say much more than that.

[Suiram]

Once, when I was up to stun on Tiamat, we had a situation of Tiamat starts casting Firaga III > Shield Bash > I stun, no effect > Shield Bash apparently wears off > Firaga III lands. Shield Bash doesn't show in log if you have your filters set like I do to block everything but what you need to see casting, but I heard the sound. Is it possible, Raineer, that something similar happened when you got your 'no effect' on Tiamat, but just attributed it to the previous stun, since it wasn't in the log?

[Karik]

about how many blms do you people have that are in dynamis ls' that kill DL on a regular basis?

[Alathar]

It took me a while to realize this was necrobumped.

Then I realized I had read it all before.

[Nystul]

THe thing about suns on DL- there is an undetermined amount of time between when stun lands and when stun is able to proc again. If a rdm/drk with chainspell can cast stun every 2 seconds, you're looking at a 2 second potential wait between just missing the window and stunning again which gives DL time to take some sort of action.

The more red mages you put into the mix, the more potential stuns you have going off that may or may not land in that window of time just after stun wears off but before DL takes some action.

It is simply unquestionable that MORE cs stunners overlapping gives you GREATER odds of stunning every action DL takes as the stuns are likely going off all at different times. Yes, many will be "no effect" but you will have the desired effect at the desired time more often.

Give me 20 rdm/drks and I'll all but guarantee 100% stun lock for 100-110 seconds.


As for Y/Y my LS has 2 rangers move to the back of DL, and then when he summons they disengage (summoning takes a decent amount of time) and drop a shadowbind on them. DL fights really don't last more than 70 to 80 seconds at best, shadowbind sticks long enough.