Dorje math (BLM advice needed)

[shieldsofwindurst]

So, if I'm understanding this correctly

Use Dorje if you have >35 MAB from gear or in place of NQ Staves.

Better yet, hope that SE made the TOAU blm relic actually useful, spam the hell out of einherjar, salvage, and assault for a year or two, and get that. As much as I've always said I'd like an option to replace my hq staves, even if it was better than NQ but worse than HQ, when SE finally delivers I have a very difficult time letting go of everything but water & earth and maybe air. Replace that with a MAB staff and a MACC staff and I pick up what, 1-2 inventory? ...meh.

[Magicide]

Don't forget that the Alkalurops (the +20MAcc Staff) also gives +10 CHR (in addition to MND and INT) making it a must-have piece for BRD.

I'm contemplating the uses for Dorje on SCH in low-resist situations like puddings. It seems like (with a SCH build that, apart from Vicious Mufflers and a Moldavite, relies on INT for maximizing damage rather than MAB) it may be marginally better than HQ staves there. My SCH max-damage nuking build only stacks something like 18 MAB w/ugga latent active, 10 w/o since I'm gimpy and don't have a Novio. Stacking 25 MAB may slightly outperform HQ staves at puddings, though I imagine I might start running into a problem with embarrassing pudding-resists.

I'd say offhand that the Dorje looks better for SCH than for BLM at first glance, since there is a spot that SCH might consider using it. Obv I'd never consider using it at HNM's, and in fact the Alkalurops may be better than Ele. Staves for SCH at HNM since resists are such a problem for SCH and in terms of pure resist builds, Alkalurops should outperform HQ Elementals.

This is all assuming no hidden stats, lol.

[fantasticdan]

Don't forget that the Alkalurops (the +20MAcc Staff) also gives +10 CHR (in addition to MND and INT) making it a must-have piece for BRD.

Huh? An hq ele staff will give you more macc than that.

[Vail]

Don't forget that the Alkalurops (the +20MAcc Staff) also gives +10 CHR (in addition to MND and INT) making it a must-have piece for BRD.

Huh? An hq ele staff will give you more macc than that.

you don't know that for sure. From what I've eye-balled on HQ staves and from the few M.acc gear I've used personally, It looks pretty clear +10 attributes with 20m.acc is pretty much gonna outperform staves

[Virtuous Saint]

Pcha, i'll pay you to do similar testing on flans, using sleeps with and without both pluto's and dark staff to shut some mother fucking morons (who think they know how much magic acc is on them) up. I have not seen a test done with HQ staves to suggest they have 15% magic acc, or even that they have 15 magic acc. Yes they have magic acc but you can't just 'know' what 15% magic acc is rofl, and to say this due to the fact that they have 15% dmg increase is just stupid. Until there is solid testing done to prove or disprove this '15% magic acc' theory please, morons keep the bullshit 'i know exactly what i am talking about' shit off your posts.

[Aikar]

Quick question: How is it evaluted that there is a 15% m.acc bonus on HQ staves on Elmental Magic. I know that it has been verified on enfeebling magic. I know there have been times when I hit wrong macro and used wrong stave and the resist rate doesn't seem appreciably higher.

It's possible that the staves have a hidden effect of increasing damage on elemental magic and accuracy on enfeebling magic but not both for both categories of magic. It wouldn't be that difficult for this to be true on a programming level and if true the new staves make a whole lot of sense.

If i missed a huge parse testing somewhere a link would be appreciated.

2003 called... welcome to FFXI! It's simple, you cast a spell without a staff, your accuracy sucks. You cast with staff, its good, you cast with incorrect element, and it fucking blows ball chunks. Common sense overrules 'mathmatics' here in proving it gives elemental magic accuracy too.... It boosts accuracy of all spells of that element.

How did the rest of you regular BG assholes miss the flame on this one? lol.

[pchan]

Pcha, i'll pay you to do similar testing on flans, using sleeps with and without both pluto's and dark staff to shut some mother fucking morons (who think they know how much magic acc is on them) up. I have not seen a test done with HQ staves to suggest they have 15% magic acc, or even that they have 15 magic acc. Yes they have magic acc but you can't just 'know' what 15% magic acc is rofl, and to say this due to the fact that they have 15% dmg increase is just stupid. Until there is solid testing done to prove or disprove this '15% magic acc' theory please, morons keep the bullshit 'i know exactly what i am talking about' shit off your posts.

Ok. First, honestly, I don't know what people mean when they say +15% magic accuracy. I do believe that there is a hidden magic accuracy stat, and that magic skill, stats are converted into it but there is no way to measure it so idk what 15% mac means. What is easy to test however is the % increase from non resisted spells. Sleep 100 times w/o staff, 100 times with staff and observe.

Now here are some decent tests I made on pudding. They resist sleep a bit (and a lot if you don't use appropriate gear). Keep in mind that I count partial resists as not resisted.


No staff, base skill=322 enfeebling, minor stat bonus (+0 INT +7MND) => 47.9% (500+ sleeps I)
HQ staff, base skill=322 enfeebling,minor stats bonus => 63% (300 sleeps I)
No staff, base skill 322 , +22 INT => 54.4% (500+)
No staff, base skill 322 , +12 mac, no stats bonus => 56.5% (500+)
No staff, base skill 322 , +11 skill ( = 333 total), no stats => 52.33% (500+)


- Notice that the HQ staff adds 15% more success (63%=47.9%+15.1%)
- Notice that 1 macc adds 0.71% so 20 macc should add 14.3%, assuming everything grows linearly. And no I don't have +20 mac gear avilable to test it. This is extrapolation. Especially if I want to keep 322 base skill.
- Notice that 2 INT add 0.59% so 10 INT should add 2.95% (extrapolation => MND and CHR work the same for related spells ...)
- Notice that 1 skill adds 0.40%
- So basically 1 mac >2 INT > 1 skill

Note : Flans have 89 INT, and I'm always below this level even with the +22 INT, being elvaan RDM/BLM with 64 INT. Keep in mind that due to the low # of sleeps the margin of error should be rather high but this should give an idea ...

So if everything is linear, you can add the accuracy from 20 mac and 10 INT and you get 14.3% +2.95%=17.25% vs 15.1% from HQ staff. Now ... there is some margin of error so don't take this test as "Alkalurops beats HQ staff 100%".

[Starr]

I was thinking the entire time that people were having these debates about this staff and the Macc for enfeebles one that staves give a STRAIGHT +10/15% chance to land/unresist when people were doing shit like calculating their total magic accuracy and adding 15% but I didn't wanna say it in case I was wrong....

[Melios]

So basically, the Dorje and Alkalurops will not replace the elemental staves?

[Maxxthepenguin]

So basically, the Dorje and Alkalurops will not replace the elemental staves?

Alkautrops very well could replace ele staves for spells that don't get enhanced potency from staves.

[Virtuous Saint]

So basically, the Dorje and Alkalurops will not replace the elemental staves?

Have to wonder if this guy just read what the other guys's tests were, right above his post.

[Suiram]

pchan brings up a good point, it's not clearly defined what people even mean when they assert "HQ staff adds 15% Macc". Depending on their definition, even if HQ staff was a 15% increase and Macc a static increase, +20 Macc could beat +15% Macc in many cases depending on overall accuracy. Although I'd imagine when people say HQ staff is 15% Macc, they just mean it to be whatever is most favorable compared to Macc+20 lol

[Virtuous Saint]

pchan brings up a good point, it's not clearly defined what people even mean when they assert "HQ staff adds 15% Macc". Depending on their definition, even if HQ staff was a 15% increase and Macc a static increase, +20 Macc could beat +15% Macc in many cases depending on overall accuracy. Although I'd imagine when people say HQ staff is 15% Macc, they just mean it to be whatever is most favorable compared to Macc+20 lol

People actually believe it is +15% magic acc aka whatever your magic acc is currently add 15% to that, rofl. I read a post where some guy was like "even if it was +7% magic acc it would still be better than +20 magic acc" he believed enfeebling skill played into calculating this also, like he said something like "at over 300+skill you will have something like 250magic acc so even +7% would outweigh +20magic acc." You gotta feel bad for some people.

Magic acc was added long, long after HQ staves; HQ staves might offer +15% land rate, but nothing about them has anything to do with magic acc. Magic acc was added, and it is something that encompasses ALL magic, not just a certain kind, and its % land rate per magic acc is different from % land rate per magic skill increase. Magic acc +20 could be more than +15% land rate, and from the tests pchan did that is exactly what it is. However i know even 300-500 is still a small test, but this offers enough accuracy to hint at which is more certainly. Either way I thank pchan for posting his tests.

[Toksyuryel]

Magic Acc was not "added", it just became available on equipment. It's not new, it's just not something that is well-tested (like enmity used to be until God sent us Kaeko). Next you'll be telling me "weapon skill accuracy" was "added" as well.

[Starr]

But does this not say that HQ staves, on ENFEEBLING MAGIC are doing nothing 85% of the time and that in a good skill/Macc set you could get your base landing rate to a good %, say 80? and then pack MND for best results? I'm talking Slow and Para only really.

[Virtuous Saint]

Magic Acc was not "added", it just became available on equipment. It's not new, it's just not something that is well-tested (like enmity used to be until God sent us Kaeko). Next you'll be telling me "weapon skill accuracy" was "added" as well.

No, i'm very sorry to tell you but it was added. Land rate is totally different from magic acc. Land rate % is what you get from skill int mnd chr ect. not magic acc. Good try tho.

[Shinryuu]

Uh, magic accuracy has been in the game since elemental seal has been in the game. Correct me if I'm wrong... but that means forever.

[Virtuous Saint]

Uh, magic accuracy has been in the game since elemental seal has been in the game. Correct me if I'm wrong... but that means forever.

No elemental seal is acc, not magic acc; it in no way states anything about magic acc, what the ability does is increase land rate by a large amount. aka % chance a spell will land is raised a large amount 50+%.

[Shinryuu]

Get off my server.

[SephYuyX]

So all melee should sub blm for ES for 100% WS ACC? THis would indeed be the best way for melee to eat meat.

I like how you have created a new term too. "Land Rate" is there a crit version of this?