Spellcast Help Thread (Link your XML using Pastebin.com for help!)

[Byrthnoth]

Well, that fails! Why doesn't it just send the equip command anyway?

[Yugl]

If the change, X > Y > X, occurs rapidly, then spellcast believes that you still have X equipped. In the case of R > Y > X, the spellcast would believe that you still have R equipped, but that would initiate a change to X.

Edit: Spellcast probably just doesn't send command because that might amount to unequipping the item? Similar to how manually equipping an already equipped item unequips the item.

[Esvedium]

Well, that fails! Why doesn't it just send the equip command anyway?

My guess is to reduce lag. You could, however, put <command when="precast">input /equip hands "Charis Bangles +2"</command> in your reverse rule and not have a set for it. (I don't remember if you can have "when" statements in <command> or not).

[Motenten]

What's your aftercast delay for weaponskills, Byrth? Default, or modified?

[Byrthnoth]

Default of .4 seconds for JAs, .2 seconds for spells.

[Haborym]

Quick questions, will this handle my aftermath PDT/MDT sets correctly?

<!--- Bravura Aftermath --->
<elseif spell="Netherspikes">
<cancelspell />
	<if EquipMain="Bravura">
		<if BuffActive="Aftermath">
			<if advanced='"$PDT"="PDT"'>
				<var cmd="set PDT AM-PDT" />
				<var cmd="set MDT AM-MDT" />
			</if>
		</if>
		<elseif advanced='"$PDT"="AM-PDT"'>
			<var cmd="set PDT PDT" />
			<var cmd="set MDT MDT" />
		</elseif>
        </if>
</elseif>

[Yugl]

Any reason to not combine EquipMain=Bravura and Buffactive="Aftermath" into a single line?

[Haborym]

Not really, I just want to to check weapon before it checks for aftermath. I only want it to change when I have Bravura equipped and not when I have Ukon, or anything else equipped. I was just trying to think of a nice way to handle it, if there is a better way to go about it I can change it.

[Ceal]

My previous experience with this shows that it sometimes works and sometimes doesn't as it's too fast for spellcast to recognize if i have a buff on me. How can I make autoexec work for this? Halp!

<action type="castdelay" delay="0.2" />
<if spell="Mercy Stroke" buffactive="Sneak Attack">
	<action type="equip" when="precast" set="MS">
		<hands>Raider's Armlets +2</hands>
		<waist>Pipilaka Belt</waist>
	</action>
</if>
<else>
	<action type="equip" when="precast" set="MS" />
</else>
</if>

[Yugl]

@Habo: Looks fine then
@Ceal: AE only takes action upon gaining a buff, so unless you want the armlets/belt to equip whenever you use SA, AE won't help. What you can do is make a set (Use any name you want for the set; I'll use SAUP for the purpose of this explanation) and say

<if buffactive="Sneak Attack">
<equip when="precast" set="MS|SAUP" />
</if>
<else>
<equip when="precast" set="MS" />
</else>

Also, make sure you have a castdelay at some point because sometimes precast gear won't change in time for the WS.

[Syco]

My guess is to reduce lag. You could, however, put <command when="precast">input /equip hands "Charis Bangles +2"</command> in your reverse rule and not have a set for it. (I don't remember if you can have "when" statements in <command> or not).

Probably best to do

<command when="precast">input /equip hands; input /equip hands "Charis Bangles +2"</command>

so you definitely don't unequip accidentally if you previously had Bangles+2 on.

I only +1'd my bangles yesterday, so haven't encountered this before - thanks for the heads up! I'll probably wake up in the middle of the night with an elaborate fix that won't end up working, but I'll update if I do and it does.

[Motenten]

warning: long and meandering

@Motenten: The benefits of groups is that you can avoid overdetermination, but also have an instant access to a full rework. The latter, since it's easier to explain, simply means that you can change all sets, TP/WS/Magic or w/e, at the flip of one trigger spell rather than having to go through each one-by-one. To understand the former benefit, consider a situation in which you need more evasion. In your version, you just change the evasion level. Now consider a different scenario in which you need more accuracy; your version would say to change the accuracy level. What if we need more accuracy and evasion though? At best, you could overlay evasion on accuracy or accuracy on evasion, but neither of the sets would recognize each other. Thus, you could end up killing accuracy, killing evasion, or just end up with a bizarre chimera mix. If using a group, you can at least make the NM set acknowledge the need for more attack or more accuracy within your TP-Weapon-EVA set.

Another benefit is that it accommodates for how people tend to think and receive advice. People in the random questions sections get the most out of their question when they're told "Use X for NMs and Y for normal mobs." If you tell them use X when at capped attack or R when not at capped attack, they tend to follow up with tons of questions about when they're at capped attack and when they're not. Since most of my XMLs are for public use rather than private use, I tend to make them such that they're user friendly and are consistent with how players understand the game.

While I did a complete rethink to try to make my approach simpler and more closely approach yours, you're saying that it needs to be more specifically refined. When I had it more precisely defined you said it didn't blend well. Meanwhile your own approach is only mildly well defined and doesn't address the blending at all.

Simply flipping a switch and saying that you're fighting an "NM" does not give you any insight into how you should build. Perhaps you need more evasion, but that doesn't imply you need more accuracy, and whether you define that set in the Normal or NM group doesn't change that.

While it's usually answered that way in a generalized fashion in the RQT, that's because those answers tend to try to address the issue in a very generalized fashion; they have to apply to a broad majority of situations. The XML, on the other hand, has to address the issue of what's needed in a very specific fashion: what particular mob you're about to fight right now.

To address the blending issue: OK, do you want some combo of Acc/Att, Acc/Eva, Att/Eva, Acc/PDT, PDT/Eva or Att/PDT, and how much haste are you willing to give up in each case (ie: possibly multiple tiers of acc or eva)? And while multiple tiers -could- be answered as normal vs NM, how do you address normal Eva needs combined with NM-level Acc needs, or any other such combination?

Your Normal vs NM split is just sort of dodging the question while giving the illusion that it's matching the answers people might see on the forum. I just don't think that that approach gives any tangible benefit.


General free-form thoughts of the basis for my design decisions (and going through this has made me revise some of how I set things up):


If you're going to answer the question, you have to define and answer certain sub-elements:
1) When given one primary focus, how do you determine what the secondary focus should be?
2) When given any single focus, how do you determine the degree of focus?
3) How do you make it feasible to adjust any focus property dynamically? (eg: a mnk with Focus active doesn't need nearly as much acc, so may downgrade the acc gear used; but in some instances may want to keep max acc gear regardless)
4) How do you address the role that the player is going to be in (eg: tank or DD?), and how it might fluctuate based on whether Utsusemi (or S/TE) is up?

Basically, what is the design spec? What are the XMLs expected to do under varying circumstances, and how, exectly, does your design solve the problems?


Essentially, my approach in building the rules is based around the role that the player is trying to fill, and what they may need at any given time to address any shortfalls in that role. It is focused more on the player themselves than on the target. You add accuracy because you're not hitting often enough, not because the target is evasive. You add evasion because you're getting hit too often, not because the target is accurate.

That way all the questions that the player needs to answer revolve around what they know about themselves, not what they may or may not know about the target. Likewise, there's no arbitrary predefined target being used as a placebo answer.


1) When given one primary focus, how do you determine what the secondary focus should be?

When on offense:
- First, do you need accuracy? If you only need 'some' accuracy then the secondary focus remains on +dmg (haste/att/etc). If you need a lot of accuracy, then the secondary focus is mostly irrelevant.
- If you don't need accuracy, then do you need more attack? If you're capping attack then you need to switch focus elsewhere; otherwise just use 'normal' gear choices.
- As an alternative (as long as you don't need acc), you may wish to switch to a more specialized build such as dex/crit.

Each of these choices is pretty orthogonal, each predicated on either a lack of or a saturation of some stat. There's no special secondary focus given to defense stats; if you need them in the short term you trigger the PhysicalDefense or MagicalDefense switches. If you need them in the long term, you switch to one of the defense modes.

When on defense:
- First, how are you defending? Are you trying to avoid hits (evasion)? Are you trying to block hits (shield)? Are you trying to counter hits (counter)? Or are you just taking the hits and making do the best you can (blood)?

- If using Counter, secondary focus will be accuracy, and perhaps a bit of evasion. That's the only reason (for a mnk anyway) to switch explicitly to a counter defense mode; otherwise you'd still be in offense. Anyone subbing /mnk for Counterstance may need to make slightly more specialized choices.
- If using any of the other three (Shield, Blood or Evasion), secondary focus is somewhat undefined. Any of acc, att or haste are viable options (if you want PDT for filler, go for the full PhysicalDefense mode).
- Ah, but we already have a means of determining that secondary stat: what is your offense mode set for?

Further, how does it interact with the PhysicalDefense modes? Those are defined as Evasion and PDT, and completely override TP gear. Initial thought was to include Shield, but PhysicalDefense is more of an emergency switch, and if you're using Shield it should be part of TankMode.

While they provide similar functions, it's more like TankMode evasion is tier 1, while PhysicalDefense evasion is tier 2. TankMode allows you to blend other stats with evasion (acc, att, haste, etc), while PhysicalDefense doesn't care about anything but survivability.

The only unanswered combo is Shield TankMode with PDT as a secondary focus. Which, in essence, brings it back into the PhysicalDefense option set.


2) When given any single focus, how do you determine the degree of focus?
- Essentially two or three tiers are given for most of the focus stats: basic/moderate/high acc; normal/capped att; basic/full evasion; basic/full PDT; only one level of shield.


3) How do you make it feasible to adjust any focus property dynamically?
- In this simplified model there is no direct means of doing that, however rules can be build to account for it. An Attack Down debuff may move you from HighAtt to Normal. Aggressor/Focus may move you from LightAcc to Normal (but probably shouldn't move from HeavyAcc to LightAcc). Etc.
- Question 4 is really a subset of question 3, so.. Fighting role is -not- adjusted dynamically based on Utsusemi/Third Eye. There are plenty of circumstances where you don't want to switch to a defensive mode simply because Utsu is down, and some circumstances where you want to stay in defensive mode even if Utsu is up. Regardless, it's a simple single toggle to move between more defensive roles and more offensive roles without involving the emergency full-defense modes.


Now, how to construct sets to account for all these options?

Single sets:

PhysDefEvasion
PhysDefPDT
PhysDefShield

MagDefNeutral
MagDef[element]


TP Modes/styles

Base:
TP-$Style, where $Style may be things like H2H vs Staff, or Sword vs Greatsword vs DualWield

TP-$Style-Melee-Normal
TP-$Style-Melee-Acc1
TP-$Style-Melee-Acc2
TP-$Style-Melee-CapAtt
TP-$Style-Melee-Crit

TP-$Style-Tank-Evasion
TP-$Style-Tank-Blood
TP-$Style-Tank-Shield
TP-$Style-Tank-Counter

It's impractical to get Acc2 levels of acc combined with primary tank focus gear; likewise for a crit/dex build to be viable while also wearing tank gear. Those can thus be collapsed out. CapAtt does not seem likely while in tank mode, so combining it with Normal. Arguments against such are welcome.

$TankModifier can be:
Normal, CapAtt, Crit >> Normal
Acc1, Acc2 >> Acc

That can be expanded to
TP-$Style-Tank-Evasion-Normal
TP-$Style-Tank-Evasion-Acc


And final variable definition:

$TankModifier = (Normal|Acc)

If TPMode=TankMode
ModeModifier = $TankMode-$TankModifier
else
ModeModifier = $MeleeMode


TP-$Style-$TPMode-$ModeModifier


That will give most jobs 4-6 tank sets and 5 melee sets per $Style. Some $Styles can be fully collapsed out (eg: TP-Club-* while using club for procs), while others can keep the melee splits but ignore (at least parts of) the tanking side (eg: TP-Greatsword).



Am continuing to revise. Am happier with this approach, as it seems to fit better with several different combat styles.

[Syco]

I like the look of that, Mote. Some thoughts on practical implementation:

I'd suggest considering including the TankModifier in the TPMode though, and thus just use two buttons:
- a TPMode Cycle (Melee>TankNormal>TankAcc>Melee)
- a ModeModifier Cycle (If TPMode=Melee, Normal > Acc1 > Acc2 > CapAtt > Crit > Normal; If TPMode=Tank, Evasion > Blood > Shield > Counter > Evasion)

I'm undecided if it's worth spending an extra button on having a TankModifier, though that's probably 'cos I'm likely to use Ctrl-Tab for TPMode Cycle forward and Ctrl-Shift-Tab back, so there's no issue with cycling through Melee if I want to go from TankAcc to TankNormal. On second thought, it might well be worth implementing a TankModifier button for general use - I dunno how the rest of the community set their stuff up.

It's fairly solid in my mind that it'd be unnecessary to have separate MeleeMode and TankMode cycles: you'll preset the variable to your most likely mode when initialising your .xml anyway, so when you TPMode switch you'll get what you expect. Using one trigger spell for both (with a simple <if> check for TPMode) makes sense too, particularly with the previously discussed shortage of potential triggers.

I'm encouraged by the thought you and Yugl are obviously putting into this: thanks, and keep it up! <3

[Landsoul]

pretty sure this code is not correct at all.
If my HP goes 20% or lower equip reraise set, else equip tp set.

    <if hppgt="21">
    <equip set="5-hit">
    </if>
    <else hpplt="20">
    <equip set="reraise">
    </else>

[Motenten]

pretty sure this code is not correct at all.
If my HP goes 20% or lower equip reraise set, else equip tp set.

    <if hppgt="21">
    <equip set="5-hit">
    </if>
    <else hpplt="20">
    <equip set="reraise">
    </else>

You'll never equip anything if you're at 20% or 21% HP. You want:

<if HPPGT="20">
    <equip set="5-hit" />
</if>
<else>
    <equip set="reraise" />
</else>

[Syco]

pretty sure this code is not correct at all.
If my HP goes 20% or lower equip reraise set, else equip tp set.

Fix'd {but inb4'd}. Note this'll only change your gear if you perform an action while under 21% HP.

Spoiler: show

    <if hppgt="20">
    <equip set="5-hit">
    </if>
    <else>
    <equip set="reraise">
    </else>

To automate it, put the following in AutoExec:

<register silent="true" event="lowhp">Libra</register>

And the following in SpellCast, along with the fixed code from above:

<if Spell="Libra">
    <cancelspell />
</if>

If you happen to want to implement this on Scholar too and you're likely to use Libra, change "Libra" to "Sange" (or some other spell you don't use) in both places.

[Yugl]

I've looked through once and I'll most likely be giving a second read tomorrow to make sure I'm in the right mind (Kind of sick now) as I go through that. The one question I want to bring back up when looking at these constructions is the idea of naturalness. Namely, how do people tend to construct/think about their gear sets and if they're forced to think about gear sets in a new manner, can they adapt easily? It might be the case that we end up putting this under a new thread where we might garner more opinions on this since it's only Yugl/Syco/Motenten in this discussion so far, but again, I'll give it a second read tomorrow to make sure I'm looking at the issue properly.

[Ikonic]

Is there something wrong with this such that autoexec won't recognize anything after wait 10? Do I need to instead put this in a txt file and call it?

Placed in autoexec.xml:
<register event="login_Ikonic">autoexec register zone_* wait 10; input /ma Thundaga IV</register>

[Syco]

Is there something wrong with this such that autoexec won't recognize anything after wait 10? Do I need to instead put this in a txt file and call it?

Placed in autoexec.xml:
<register event="login_Ikonic">autoexec register zone_*; wait 10; input /ma Thundaga IV</register>

I stuck a semicolon between the autoexec register call and the wait command - that might work. Otherwise you'd be best to script it as you suggested.

[Byrthnoth]

Someone said my name three times and looked in a mirror, so the conditions for me joining a spellcast debate have been met.

Before I go any further, I think it's worthwhile to discuss the limitations of spellcast users (us). All these variable-adjusting-decisions we make are based on our ability to eyeball things like evasion rate and hit rate. Because of that, the resolution of our sets does not need to be greater than our ability to eyeball.
Limitation Example 1: Lets say I can tell when something has a 40% hit rate vs. 20% on me, but not when it has a 30% hit rate vs. 20%. Therefore, my hybrid evasion set is going to be pretty worthless unless it adds at least 40 evasion.
Limitation Example 2: Lets say I'm getting hit a lot. More than half the time, which I can definitely tell. I can either swap to an evasion set that puts 65 evasion on or change my weapon (outside of spellcast, like food) and use the Hybrid Evasion set. If the second option is preferable, I don't need a 65 evasion set (or anything more than 40) because rather than changing a variable I should be heading to the equipment menu and swapping my weapon.

Okay, other things:
* All I really need is an Abyssea group and an outside group. I have never made a change in the NM sections, nor have I ever switched from NM to not. I think Motenten is right about it being quasi-useless.

* However, I also see no value in the accuracy tier suggestion for Dancer. The real answer is most often just changing your food, which isn't a decision people leave up to spellcast. Dancer doesn't get much leeway in the Acc gear department unless they make major sacrifices. Neck, waist, and ammo are essentially the only slots we can responsibly swap, but I don't have Mantis Eye/Lucky Coin or Phasmida Belt and can't eyeball when my hit rate is 90% vs. 95%. For the same reason, a WS Acc set is kind of worthless for me. My WS gear always has more Acc (some) than my TP gear (none) anyway. If I'm uncapped in TP, I'm changing my food.

* Evasion Tiers? Okay, but I kind of already do that. There's the hybrid evasion set (Evasion TP) and FullEvasion. Anything more specific than that is beyond my ability to eyeball, which is really the limiting factor here. By the time I'd have collected a significant sample size with a parser, I'd have already died or swapping gear wouldn't matter because I can obviously survive quite a while without it.

* I think the idea of a Tank/Meleemode is creative and ultimately ideal, but most of the proposed submodes are irrelevant. Of the proposed modes, I would not even make the italicized ones due to lack of gear to justify it:
TP-$Style-Melee-Normal
TP-$Style-Melee-Acc1
TP-$Style-Melee-Acc2
TP-$Style-Melee-CapAtt
TP-$Style-Melee-Crit

TP-$Style-Tank-Evasion
TP-$Style-Tank-Blood
TP-$Style-Tank-Shield
TP-$Style-Tank-Counter

So it boils down to a TP set, an Acc TP set (which I don't have the gear for), an Evasion set, and a PDT set. I would add a DelayCap set for when I have double marches, which is the only time I free up enough slots for any of the italicized options to be relevant. All of those already exist in my spellcast.

You guys can mess around with this if you want to for the sake of standardization (and I'll adapt my spellcast), but it isn't going to improve the user experience in any way and you need to keep in mind the limitations on users.