Validity of an AV strategy?

[FailureMidgard]

Ya, I meant soonest possible initial tick, not latest. Anyway, my whole point was that people keep thinking that Helix damage = base damage * 2^number of scholars. There is variance based on the number of ticks that actually happen during the duration before the helix wears off.

This method still has merit though, if you can do it once, spam some tier 1 nukes while wiping to eliminate regen, hold it for 10 minutes and repeat.

It is base dmg * 2^x, with the assumption your goal is to just have 1 tick...and again, with the lowest roll on duration, we have a ~90% chance for the tick to occur. If you go up to a 55 second duration, you have a 100% chance for the duration to be greater than 3 seconds. It isn't some small chance like you seem to be trying to make it out to be.

[Ultimagi]

I said it varies based on number of ticks that procure before it wears off. That kind of implies more than 1. Anyway, let's just ignore any situation besides 1 tick. With 60 seconds duration, you should be able to get 8 Modus Veritas on and still guarantee your 1 tick. Applying 9 or 10 Modus Veritas will probably still procure that 1 tick. That's what needs to be tested.

[Devek]

I still wouldn't be surprised if there was a max damage per attack coded somewhere in there too...

[LinktheDeme]

When I used to play I had a crazy conspiracy theory that 2, 18 people alliances with a thief, 3 rdm, drg, the rest war/sam with GAxes with mighty strikes, king's justice, icarus wing and pre 300 tp could take down AV. I did the math assuming 800-1000 damage wses i think and it came out with something like a 15k hp leniancy for the second alliance to engage assuming no benediction could kill AV.

[Cog]

i guess the only question i have is whether MV works in an alliance situation for more than 6 SCH. this is a possibility for getting around the final patch damage reduction, the reason straight melee strategy is not viable anymore Q_Q;
taking 25-50% of AV's HP would go a long way towards victory especially if it is done while using BLMs and SATA spike DD.

[Syntex]

People can datamine for the new gobbie bag items, the new unreleased ninja san spells before T2 merits were released and loads of other stuff like dat files for Vulcans ring with it not being in the game.

Why can't people datamine AV's scripted AI to why he does or does not use a 2 hour?

If it isn't possible mind explaining why on a basic level without all the programming jargon attached with it?

[Silenka]

Because mob behavior is serverside not PC-side? Pretty sure, else people would be haxxoring to put stuff on wiki non-stop.

[Syntex]

I know what that means in a vague sense but whats the difference that allows you to see some but not others?

[Holloway]

If this theory does actually work, SE will just nerf it. They want us to figure out his trick.

[Silenka]

I know what that means in a vague sense but whats the difference that allows you to see some but not others?

Anything PC-side is stored on your own PC and not transmitted to other people, therefore, only you see it. Dat mining is possible because those huge updates SE makes you download contain those files that are stored on your own PC, and are thus readable by a .dat display program. You're pulling the info straight from your own computer. Stuff that is stored on your own PC includes macros (unless you save them to the server), character models/graphical effects for spells, etc. The game is constantly pulling from these files in order to display them to you.

Server-side is stuff that only SE has access to, it's stored on THEIR giant motherfucking PC basically, and it is in a state of constant transmit from them to us, the users. This includes character information, your inventory, your stats, mob positions/behavior/AI, gil counts, etc. Users can't pull this stuff from SE's PC any more than they can pull info from each other's PCs. That's why we can't just look in our own files for AV's behavior patterns, because it's simply not there.

Sorry for the long-winded explanation that probably has some obvious stuff in it.

[edit] awesome 666th post!

[Spekkio]

it's akin to asking "well if i can take apart my TV and see how it works, why can't i see how the camera that filmed it works?" the camera is creating content and sending it to you. your television is a slave to that and does nothing more than decode and display it. by examining the data fed to us, we can create guesses about the camera (if it's in HD, the camera technology is at least somewhat different from normal definition, etc.) but there's no way we can reconstruct the mechanics of the camera based solely on what our TV gets.