Slow, Hojo, and Slow II

[Shaard]

I read up somewhere that most HNM do not have more than 70-80 MND (tested with the banish line of spells). But don't quote me on that, I can't find the thread where I read it up again...

[Joyo]

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/1828/slowbb4.jpg

Slow% is capped at 370/1024 or dMND=75. (~36.1%) It appears that regardless of the amount of Slow II merits you have, this cap does not change.

shouldnt the graph from slow II lvl1 be capped at the same point where slow II lvl2 caps?
with capped MND all 3 lvls of slow II should be equal no?


thanks a lot for the testing and sorry to hear you got hacked kirschy

[Crisco]

I believe someone stated previously that SlowII@1 caps at ~33% while SlowII@2 increases the cap by 3% to ~36%. It would make sense then that @3 merits it should increase another 3%? Is it possible, considering no one has posted here yet with any data beyond +45 MND?

[Spekkio]

snippy image

[quote:1hhtabk6]Slow% is capped at 370/1024 or dMND=75. (~36.1%) It appears that regardless of the amount of Slow II merits you have, this cap does not change.

shouldnt the graph from slow II lvl1 be capped at the same point where slow II lvl2 caps?
with capped MND all 3 lvls of slow II should be equal no?


thanks a lot for the testing and sorry to hear you got hacked kirschy[/quote:1hhtabk6]
the trouble is that we seem to have 2 conflicting sets of data. one that states that slow2 has a fixed cap for any level of merits (and i trust kirschy's rigor in testing) while older tests seem to imply that increasing the tier of slow2 increases the cap. this is getting very confusing...

[Zoot]

That isn't necessarily what it implies. Both tests came to the same conclusion, just that Kirschy hadn't posted the potency gained from each merit because he hadn't had the time to test it before his character was hacked. The tests come to nearly the same conclusion.

What the older tests show is that there is a base increase of ~3% from each merit into the base percent of the spell. This is an increase to the soft cap, but both tests show that the hard cap is ~37, or 36.1, which is nearly the same. There are very few differences, and only the possibility of Slow II level 3 reaching anywhere above 36.1% on Kirchy's tests would show any variation, because the prior number was just an estimate and this one uses a formula.

Edit: wait, I didn't read the latest update lol. What that shows is what I thought, it's possible that the old tests were wrong and within the same spectrum it's entirely probable that kirschy's data was completely right, but uncomplete, and that the old data is right as well. But that can be tested. What's important though is that the increase in base potency, that being just the 3% and not any increase from MND, from additional merits really has nothing to do with the hard cap, and doesn't change the differences in the tests.

[Rheya]

Hmmm. This is the data set that I used to create the graph. I didn't do the testing...just made it easier to see versus its original table format.

I just noticed that all the Slow II (lvl 3) casts were against Gravity's recast timer. Would Fast Cast be screwing things up here?

This data is from 2006.

Test Recast Spell Total Caster MND Total Target MND MND Difference Original Recast Slowed Recast Recast Difference Percent Slow Reduction
Slow I Utsusemi: Ni 62 58 4 45 51 6 13.33%
Slow I Utsusemi: Ni 84 58 26 45 53 8 17.78%
Slow I Utsusemi: Ni 92 58 34 45 54 9 20.00%
Slow I Utsusemi: Ni 96 58 38 45 54 9 20.00%
Slow I Utsusemi: Ni 107 58 49 45 55 10 22.22%
Slow I Utsusemi: Ni 117 58 59 45 56 11 24.44%
Hojo: Ni Gravity 58 67 -9 54 64 10 18.52%
Hojo: Ni Gravity 64 67 -3 54 64 10 18.52%
Slow II (LVL 1) Gravity 67 129 -62 54 61 7 12.96%
Slow II (LVL 1) Gravity 88 129 -41 54 63 9 16.67%
Slow II (LVL 1) Gravity 96 129 -33 54 64 10 18.52%
Slow II (LVL 1) Gravity 100 129 -29 54 64 10 18.52%
Slow II (LVL 1) Gravity 111 129 -18 54 65 11 20.37%
Slow II (LVL 1) Gravity 67 75 -8 54 66 12 22.22%
Slow II (LVL 1) Gravity 121 129 -8 54 66 12 22.22%
Slow II (LVL 1) Utsusemi: Ni 67 71 -4 45 55 10 22.22%
Slow II (LVL 1) Utsusemi: Ni 67 64 3 45 55 10 22.22%
Slow II (LVL 1) Gravity 136 129 7 54 67 13 24.07%
Slow II (LVL 1) Utsusemi: Ni 67 58 9 45 56 11 24.44%
Slow II (LVL 1) Gravity 88 75 13 54 67 13 24.07%
Slow II (LVL 1) Utsusemi: Ni 67 49 18 45 56 11 24.44%
Slow II (LVL 1) Gravity 96 75 21 54 68 14 25.93%
Slow II (LVL 1) Gravity 100 75 25 54 68 14 25.93%
Slow II (LVL 1) Utsusemi: Ni 89 58 31 45 57 12 26.67%
Slow II (LVL 1) Gravity 111 75 36 54 69 15 27.78%
Slow II (LVL 1) Utsusemi: Ni 97 58 39 45 58 13 28.89%
Slow II (LVL 1) Utsusemi: Ni 67 28 39 45 58 13 28.89%
Slow II (LVL 1) Utsusemi: Ni 101 58 43 45 58 13 28.89%
Slow II (LVL 1) Gravity 121 75 46 54 70 16 29.63%
Slow II (LVL 1) Utsusemi: Ni 112 58 54 45 59 14 31.11%
Slow II (LVL 1) Gravity 133 75 58 54 71 17 31.48%
Slow II (LVL 1) Utsusemi: Ni 88 28 60 45 59 14 31.11%
Slow II (LVL 1) Utsusemi: Ni 90 28 62 45 59 14 31.11%
Slow II (LVL 1) Utsusemi: Ni 91 28 63 45 59 14 31.11%
Slow II (LVL 1) Utsusemi: Ni 122 58 64 45 60 15 33.33%
Slow II (LVL 1) Utsusemi: Ni 92 28 64 45 60 15 33.33%
Slow II (LVL 1) Utsusemi: Ni 93 28 65 45 60 15 33.33%
Slow II (LVL 1) Utsusemi: Ni 95 28 67 45 60 15 33.33%
Slow II (LVL 1) Utsusemi: Ni 96 28 68 45 60 15 33.33%
Slow II (LVL 1) Utsusemi: Ni 100 28 72 45 60 15 33.33%
Slow II (LVL 1) Utsusemi: Ni 111 28 83 45 60 15 33.33%
Slow II (LVL 1) Utsusemi: Ni 121 28 93 45 60 15 33.33%
Slow II (LVL 1) Utsusemi: Ni 136 28 108 45 60 15 33.33%
Slow II (LVL 2) Utsusemi: Ni 67 28 39 45 58 13 28.89%
Slow II (LVL 2) Utsusemi: Ni 88 28 60 45 60 15 33.33%
Slow II (LVL 2) Utsusemi: Ni 96 28 68 45 60 15 33.33%
Slow II (LVL 2) Utsusemi: Ni 111 28 83 45 61 16 35.56%
Slow II (LVL 2) Utsusemi: Ni 124 28 96 45 61 16 35.56%
Slow II (LVL 2) Utsusemi: Ni 136 28 108 45 61 16 35.56%
Slow II (LVL 3) Gravity 67 129 -62 54 62 8 14.81%
Slow II (LVL 3) Gravity 88 129 -41 54 64 10 18.52%
Slow II (LVL 3) Gravity 96 129 -33 54 65 11 20.37%
Slow II (LVL 3) Gravity 100 129 -29 54 65 11 20.37%
Slow II (LVL 3) Gravity 111 129 -18 54 66 12 22.22%
Slow II (LVL 3) Gravity 67 75 -8 54 67 13 24.07%
Slow II (LVL 3) Gravity 121 129 -8 54 67 13 24.07%
Slow II (LVL 3) Gravity 88 75 13 54 68 14 25.93%
Slow II (LVL 3) Gravity 96 75 21 54 69 15 27.78%
Slow II (LVL 3) Gravity 100 75 25 54 69 15 27.78%
Slow II (LVL 3) Gravity 111 75 36 54 70 16 29.63%
Slow II (LVL 3) Gravity 121 75 46 54 71 17 31.48%

[InDaButt]

You people and your god damn numbers.

[SamanosukeShiva]

whats the maximum slow % a mob can get? with slow, elegy and whatnot

[Vail]

whats the maximum slow % a mob can get? with slow, elegy and whatnot

88.0% (elegy +2 and Slow II) no other effect I know of slows a monster down more then that.

[Vaxx]

whats the maximum slow % a mob can get? with slow, elegy and whatnot

88.0% (elegy +2 and Slow II) no other effect I know of slows a monster down more then that.

138% with SV?

[Zilong]

A while ago there was a discussion on newbie forum saying how SV elegy doesnt actually double the potency.

[fantasticdan]

Instrument doesn't increase elegy potency either, so assuming the numbers in the OP are correct, it would be 86.1% slow. Unless the effects are calculated independently instead of additively.

[Virtuous Saint]

A while ago there was a discussion on newbie forum saying how SV elegy doesnt actually double the potency.

Actually someone said that on one of these forums also. I highly doubt it doubles effect of elegy2, that would mean a 100% slow. That would be very noticeable on anything in the game, if it even goes to 100%. Although I do not have brd or have I tested it.

[pchan]

I read up somewhere that most HNM do not have more than 70-80 MND (tested with the banish line of spells). But don't quote me on that, I can't find the thread where I read it up again...

I seriously doubt this, considering Flans, which are level 79-80 have 89 INT.

[Isiolia]

I seriously doubt this, considering Flans, which are level 79-80 have 89 INT.

I was under the impression that Flans were known to have high INT, relatively speaking. Though I would still assume more INT on many HNMs, certainly.

[UnknownGamer]

There's some confusion and contradiction here so I thought it's time to clarify some groundwork.

Premise: SE programmed a whole number base recast time for each spell - e.g., Reraise is exactly 60s, Utsusemi: Ni is exactly 45s, Barfira is exactly 10s, Cure exactly 5s. Recast numbers for both spells and abilities are congruent to an hours:minutes:seconds system, not a 1/2^n system.

Observation: Haste cuts off a percentage of these recasts, but also rounds down the value to a whole number of seconds before sending the recast value to your game client.
Here's a simple way to see this. First take off all haste and fast cast, cast Cure on yourself and verify that base recast is a clean 5 seconds, with the 5 appearing in the window for about a second. Then add something with a tiny bit of haste - 1% to 5% will do - and see that recast is now a clean 4 seconds that displays again for about a second. So 4.95s-4:75s is rounded down to 4s.
This means that observations are hardened against game lag. You can lag all you want but when the server confirms to the client that you've finished casting Cure, you'll see the recast as 5s (or 4s with haste) even if you lagged well past your recast. And that recast value will display there for a whole second if your cursor was over the spell as you finished casting.

Premise: Haste and Slow amounts are NOT limited to whole number percentages, i.e. 1/100. We've seen plenty of evidence of a 1/256 to 1/1024 system, but for now I think its good to assume we don't know how precise the internal recast calculations are.

So I took that empirical data from Releena that someone here linked to: http://releenaseraph.livejournal.com/97427.html

and naturally ignored the tables of whole percentage recasts. Imported raw field data into Excel and calculated the minimum and maximum Slow values possible, to 2 decimal points percentage to be safe against improper rounding, since we all know Excel otherwise rounds normally.

Since we know about the game rounding down as well as starting with whole number base recasts, the minimum Slow is simply (Slowrecast / Baserecast) - 1. Any bit less and the Slowrecast would have been 1 second lower. The maximum Slow is just under the case of the minimum Slow required for Slowrecast to be 1 second higher. ( (Slowrecast + 1) / Baserecast) - 1. Of course if it were exactly this, we'd see Slowrecast + 1, so the maximum has to be less than this calculated figure. The way I've presented it, I took .01% from the Max because that is the last digit of precision displayed.

Now, there is a secondary premise I make. Notice how sometimes the base recast is 54s. No spell has that as a base recast, it was derived from a 60s spell under the influence of Fast Cast III. Given how Haste/Slow are believed to operate on 1/2^n, it IS a loose end to assume that Fast Cast III results in exactly 10% recast reduction, or that the 54s value is exact. For the time being, until there's a reason to use a figure for FC III that is not exactly 10%, I'll take it as accurate enough for the calculation purposes here.

Here's what I got out of Releena's figures:

http://img170.imageshack.us/img170/1...encyrc6.th.gif

I put the formulas for the first row up at top for your reference, doing that normally messes up the sorting function so take care. Anyway, the beauty of having this in an Excel sheet is that I can sort it by any criteria without damaging the data. In that table I had it sorted first by type of Slow, and then by potency of delta-MND.

Unfortunately, Releena's data is not sufficient to answer the question of whether Slow II has different caps according to different merit levels, when potency is capped. There is absolutely no info there regarding Slow II level 2 past 70 delta-MND. I'll write more when I crunch others' raw data with the method I've just described.

[solsovly]

Instrument doesn't increase elegy potency either, so assuming the numbers in the OP are correct, it would be 86.1% slow. Unless the effects are calculated independently instead of additively.

Instruments and soul voice do double the potency of elegy. However, there is a 50% elegy cap. (which you hit without the horn or sv). This was tested using battlefield elegy.

[Capo]

isnt massacre elegy 100% slow? i know its mob only but still

[Xanthe]

isnt massacre elegy 100% slow? i know its mob only but still

Yes. Was stated earlier in the thread.

[Tsuko_Asura]

Instrument doesn't increase elegy potency either, so assuming the numbers in the OP are correct, it would be 86.1% slow. Unless the effects are calculated independently instead of additively.

Instruments and soul voice do double the potency of elegy. However, there is a 50% elegy cap. (which you hit without the horn or sv). This was tested using battlefield elegy.

Then I'm confused, what's the point of the enhancement on the instrument then?

Duration?