Slow II

[Suiram]

I'm loling right now because I remember having this exact same debate with Raineer and Stilgar almost a year ago. They were so certain that Rasp wears off over time, and when challenged to go test for themselves, stated their intentions to do so, and then abruptly abandoned the topic and never spoke of it again.

(Edit: Nevermind I found the old topic just now, and Stilgar did eventually test it)

[Carbon]

Certainly possible, but I'll just watch next time I get hit with elemental enfeebles to see. That's just where I clearly remember watching a stat negation fade, but as you point out they have multiple ways of reducing DEX.

Same here I was thinking that it decreased slowly over time, too. Maybe partially because (2nd tier)Etudes, tons of WS including Bubble Shower and that orc arm flail move. and Absorb Spells do this. Must have missed it with the Elemental Debuffs.

[Umbra]

The stat down on elemental enfeebles definitely does not decrease over time.

I use Bio II for DoT and -str%

Bio doesn't reduce STR.

[RakEx]

What is Attack?

Bio for 1000$ please.

[Jeryhn]

A better response is:

"Why aren't you using Dia?"

[Quicklet]

The stat down on elemental enfeebles definitely does not decrease over time.

Seems fishy, because I seem to recall that it does. Proof?

[Umbra]

Seems fishy, because I seem to recall that it does. Proof?

I can't give you any proof atm since I don't have access to the game, but I can tell you it's relatively common knowledge (or should be anyway). You can test this easily enough. Go get a kuftal worm to rasp you and see for yourself.

Also, you can ask any BLM (who pays attention) that solos puddings if the effect wears off over time. I know I get annoyed with burn because the -9 INT gimps my damage the same amount for the entire duration.

[nivlakian]

The stat down on elemental enfeebles definitely does not decrease over time.

Seems fishy, because I seem to recall that it does. Proof?

Elemental Enfeeble Misconceptions


Edit:
Also, http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/viewto ... 808#242808

[Ambir]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...x-/slowoj8.jpg

I'd been looking for that graph for ages, couldn't remember where I'd found it.

One correction though, Slow II (level 1) absolutely, positively caps at 36%. It seems to cap at exactly the same MND as the Slow Cap, and as near as I can tell, Slow II (level 1) gives 6% more absolute slow than Slow I at all levels of MND.

Makes me wonder about the accuarcy of some of the other tests on the graph...

[Khamsin]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...x-/slowoj8.jpg

I'd been looking for that graph for ages, couldn't remember where I'd found it.

One correction though, Slow II (level 1) absolutely, positively caps at 36%. It seems to cap at exactly the same MND as the Slow Cap, and as near as I can tell, Slow II (level 1) gives 6% more absolute slow than Slow I at all levels of MND.

Makes me wonder about the accuarcy of some of the other tests on the graph...

So what's the point of Slow II Lv.2? Since from what you say, both Lv.2 and Lv.1 both cap at the same percentage.

[Kaelan]

So what's the point of Slow II Lv.2? Since from what you say, both Lv.2 and Lv.1 both cap at the same percentage.

I don't think that's what he meant. What I understood is that they cap at the same MND difference, but at any point, including at the cap, Slow II gives 6% more than Slow I. You're right though, both capping at the same % wouldn't make much sense

[Ambir]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a3...x-/slowoj8.jpg

I'd been looking for that graph for ages, couldn't remember where I'd found it.

One correction though, Slow II (level 1) absolutely, positively caps at 36%. It seems to cap at exactly the same MND as the Slow Cap, and as near as I can tell, Slow II (level 1) gives 6% more absolute slow than Slow I at all levels of MND.

Makes me wonder about the accuarcy of some of the other tests on the graph...

So what's the point of Slow II Lv.2? Since from what you say, both Lv.2 and Lv.1 both cap at the same percentage.

The reports I've seen have indicated that Slow II level2 gives a higher percentage slowed before the cap (even though the cap is the same 36%).
This means that either the difference in slow between Level1 and Level2 narrows as you get near the cap, or that Level2 caps significantly earlier (ie at lower MND) than Level1.

The cap for Slow and Slow II (Level1) is at around (Mob MND+81) which means that you'd need MND+95ish to cap Slow on a HNM, which isn't currently practical (if it's even possible). While Slow II level2 doesn't have a higher cap, it should give a better percentage slowed at the level of MND that you actually cast at (~+50MND in merits, or ~+30MND for HNMs).

[Celebrindor]

A better response is:

"Why aren't you using Dia?"

Not using Dia because when soloing something T rated or in that neighborhood, I'd prefer the extra swings I get from not having to recast Stoneskin so many times, not to mention the more powerful DoT that Bio II provides over Dia II. I've messed with both, find that I'm much more comfortable and able to do things while meat shield soloing on RDM/DRK with Bio II up that I can't with Dia II up.

By all means, pardon my fast typing for saying str and not attack.