Magic Accuracy effect charm?

[Spekkio]

i think ele seal is more of a short circuit on the resist roll, not a static chunk of macc, so it may not be a valid test. it's an interesting thought, but i doubt if it's a good way to explore this. the best way is probably to get on rdm/bst and start charming random things wearing as much macc gear as you can but horrible chr gear to push your charm chances down.

[Yugl]

Just use Magic ACC gear that doesn't grant CHR to keep your CHR static. Wise Gear/Goliard (Not feet) are some ideas. DRK can use Magic ACC gear as well (Corslette or w/e and Relic Cape).

[Spekkio]

Just use Magic ACC gear that doesn't grant CHR to keep your CHR static. Wise Gear/Goliard (Not feet) are some ideas. DRK can use Magic ACC gear as well (Corslette or w/e and Relic Cape).

point of -chr gear was to force a more useful data set. it's easier to see a trend increasing the number of successful charms if you have 50% charm rate than 95%.

[Yugl]

point of -chr gear was to force a more useful data set. it's easier to see a trend increasing the number of successful charms if you have 50% charm rate than 95%.

If you test it using negative CHR gear then use positive CHR gear with Magic ACC, how can you say for certain the CHR isn't affecting your charm rate?

[Vryali]

I already said as much earlier, but I think it got overlooked. I've had every intention of testing it out anyway with my COR friend and RDM mule (Warlock's Roll, large amount of +macc) - so there's no need to think of crazy ways to get m.acc on a BST, just use a corsair and otherwise keep your stats/gear/mob level constant.

My other character has max Phalanx 2 merits and 300+ enhancing, so I figured with Jelly/Terra and osode/kabuto etc @ 75 combined with Phalanx 2 & a taco/defender I could easily setup windower macros in a loop to keep PhalanxII and Pro4 up on a BST while the BST just /ja Charm; wait 1; ja Release; wait 15; loop over and over in the spawn place of a slime. Simple matter then of cat log | grep Failed | wc -l and grep Charmed and compare, assuming damage taken is low enough to where you can just script windower to autocure. Then just throw a COR into the mix and have the COR keep RDM roll up, rinse and repeat.

I'm not exactly in any hurry though, halfway to 72 :3 Will be happy to post results if they're noteworthy afterword since I don't plan on doing a damn thing myself other than counting results with a shell command

Was just hoping for a short-cut in that maybe someone else had done it already :<

[Spekkio]

If you test it using negative CHR gear then use positive CHR gear with Magic ACC, how can you say for certain the CHR isn't affecting your charm rate?

i was saying the same sum of -chr for both the with and w/o macc tests.
eg test 1: -15 chr in gear, +0 macc in gear
test 2: -15 chr in gear, +15 macc in gear
that way we could get more useful trials per period of time.

[Yugl]

i was saying the same sum of -chr for both the with and w/o macc tests.
eg test 1: -15 chr in gear, +0 macc in gear
test 2: -15 chr in gear, +15 macc in gear
that way we could get more useful trials per period of time.

Just checking.

I already said as much earlier, but I think it got overlooked. I've had every intention of testing it out anyway with my COR friend and RDM mule (Warlock's Roll, large amount of +macc) - so there's no need to think of crazy ways to get m.acc on a BST, just use a corsair and otherwise keep your stats/gear/mob level constant.

My other character has max Phalanx 2 merits and 300+ enhancing, so I figured with Jelly/Terra and osode/kabuto etc @ 75 combined with Phalanx 2 & a taco/defender I could easily setup windower macros in a loop to keep PhalanxII and Pro4 up on a BST while the BST just /ja Charm; wait 1; ja Release; wait 15; loop over and over in the spawn place of a slime. Simple matter then of cat log | grep Failed | wc -l and grep Charmed and compare, assuming damage taken is low enough to where you can just script windower to autocure. Then just throw a COR into the mix and have the COR keep RDM roll up, rinse and repeat.

I'm not exactly in any hurry though, halfway to 72 :3 Will be happy to post results if they're noteworthy afterword since I don't plan on doing a damn thing myself other than counting results with a shell command

Was just hoping for a short-cut in that maybe someone else had done it already :<

Good idea. SCH also has Klimaform (8 Magic ACC?) if you want to try that with Sandstorm or some weather.

[Spekkio]

Just checking.



Good idea. SCH also has Klimaform (8 Magic ACC?) if you want to try that with Sandstorm or some weather.

also has that macc strategem, but i don't think most people merit that, plus you'd have to go sch/bst. unfortunately keeping klimaform up fulltime is impossible w/ 1 sch i think (also i've never seen a figure pegging the value of the macc.) be more effective to use a cor w/ warlock's roll but that was a good idea.

[Ultimagi]

You guys must not be Scholars...
Klimaform only affects spells casted matching your current weather effect.
Focalization only affects Black Magic, and Altruism only affects White Magic.

[Yugl]

Fuck Charm is JA.

Edit: Was thinking of spells once I saw that COR post. Alternatively, instead of less CHR, you could try less Magic ACC (Not sure of the gear that exists for that aside from the one MAB body piece) and compare that to a Magic ACC set.

[Spekkio]

i think -macc is extremely hard to find outside of morgana's body and the bitter corsette, so that's a limited option. good point on the sch ja and on klimaform.

[Kaeko]

If you guys want in depth analysis on anything MACC related, you should really cite Robonsto's blog rather than mine. Mine is more like the "I don't understand statistics" version; his is where the real meat is.

[Suiram]

Except that while your blog may be a paraphrase of collected information, it's presented in a way that reflects your desire to improve everyone's understanding of game mechanics. I started reading his blog after you linked a number of Macc tests here, but quickly became disillusioned with it. There's no doubting his deep understanding of statistics and its applications to FFXI, but rather than participate in the broader discussion, he prefers to use it as ammunition to make smug, holier-than-thou pronouncements. Not to mention that when he does stray from statistical analysis, he's as liable to err as those he scorns (I've noticed a few glaring ones regarding magic damage, but far be it from me to go admonish someone on their own blog).

In short, when robonosto wants to make an account here, participate in the broader discussion, and make himself accountable for the things he writes, I'll agree with you. Until then I'd recommend to anyone that they continue just reading your blog, or the threads that pop up here.

[CDF]

I am "robonosto." (Original forum handle, indeed.) To be brief, I don't have any great desire to improve anyone's understanding of game mechanics. Someone gleaning a take-home message is merely incidental to me. As such, I have little interest in participating in the so-called broader discussion.

Discussion about what? With respect to magic accuracy findings, you either accept the conclusions or you don't. To suggest "future directions for study" is pretty silly because virtually no one is going to go out there and collect voluminous amounts of data in contrived situations. (There is also the seeming lack of comparability when using enspell damage to estimate macc changes.) Compared to melee mechanics especially, it is too cumbersome for the most part to confirm or reject these findings in an "everyday" situation especially without a /check function for magic accuracy, lack of automation, and small samples. In fact, I have many criticisms of my own analysis (anything that lodeguy did not explicitly do); I just haven't gotten around to discussing them.

At the same time, inane hand-waving, shoulder-shrugging, and general bullshitting/laziness (I suspect your criticism of my "smug, holier-than-thou pronouncements" may be based partly on my pot shots I have taken at BG threads) does motivate me to look things up or form a counter-argument--that of course I have little interest in sharing because it is for my own idle interest--but that follows the inanity, not vice versa. Not that I would be able to find the thread because of vBulletin's awful search functions, but I am certainly not the first English-speaking player to come across lodeguy's blog. It's just that some lazy shits who alluded to his findings did not even bother to cite the blog because they gave less of a shit than I did to inform others.

If you could indulge me, I am interested to know what glaring errors I made regarding magic damage so I can fix the offending statements, though. In fact, in my first posts I expressed my hope that people would call me on any erroneous claims. Of course, this was hardly a realistic one since I put little effort into making my blog a locus for easily digestible info. Therefore, I have been operating under the premise that I can only be accountable to myself in the sense that I must establish some foundation for whatever I am going to assert (striving toward an internal standard of consistency). With all that in mind, the notion that I have to hold myself accountable to posters on a forum (not necessarily BG) just because one of them thought I actually had something interesting to say is absolutely ludicrous.

[Yugl]

Give credit where credits due. Even if they are an asshole. We wouldn't treat Thorny this way, so why should we do that for others?

[Suiram]

No, I'm sorry. As disagreeable the tone of your blog (and above post) may be, I'm absolutely wrong. If someone uses your analysis in an argument, they should certainly cite you for it. I'm not sure what compelled me to suggest otherwise.

As for the other stuff. It'd be a mistake to think that I was simply offended and protective of BG threads. I'm in no way invested in defending the remarks of others here or anywhere else (and for good reason), and to my memory none of those comments were directed at me, and looking now at your post history the one thread where we've both actively participated our discussion was perfectly amicable. I guess what I didn't (and still don't) quite understand is in disagreeing with someone or something said, why one wouldn't confront the person/topic directly, and instead choose to heap scorn from afar. Or if, as you suggest, your only aim is to satisfy your own curiosities, then why should anything put forward (correctly or incorrectly) by anyone else hold any significance whatsoever? But again, none of this means that you don't deserve adequate attribution where appropriate. So again, I apologize.

[CDF]

That is an unwarranted mea culpa. There are links on Kaeko's entry anyway if people really wanted the unabridged versions with qualifying statements (Japanese or otherwise). Indeed, to avoid all that silly 50% accuracy threshold business, Kaeko's is a much more convenient summary anyway.

Idle interest is not the best term. I am more interested in rebutting incorrect modes of thought, rather than specific claims, to the extent that I personally find them obnoxious. Sometimes I find them so obnoxious--particularly if they are simply unproductive and lead nowhere--that I feel compelled to concoct some formal statement blasting that mode of thought so that I have already thought about it fairly thoroughly when it is actually "important" that I refute it in the future. (At least where statistics is concerned, it helps.)

Normality of anything in FFXI (other than a statistical estimator)? Useless. Nonlinear regression? Useless. Exaggeration of non-trivial statements as though they are settled facts? Useless. Et cetera.

As of late, I have been using specific arguments or claim as motivating examples more "often." Even so, I am not too concerned about contacting whoever made these specific arguments or claims whether or not I agree with them (see above and last post). However, I can see how someone might actually be interested in hearing counterarguments, as I am interested in knowing where I have erred in my statements of magic damage since you wanted to throw that out there to cast doubt on my "credibility."

As for the magic accuracy data, I thought it was a real shame that this years-old information wasn't being promulgated anywhere (or incorrectly as I inferred from ffo.jp's article on magic accuracy). But I wasn't about to go out of my way to disseminate it, being more interested in seeing if there was anything else I could do with the data that lodeguy overlooked. Personally I was a bit too earnest and it turned out more to be a reiteration. Still, I thought at least one person might think it interesting or be able to apply it.

[Rasantath]

i've got 75 bst, 75 cor, and denali legs and pants (both of which have macc), omega ring, and the next week off work. (and a whm pocketaru to keep me alive)
i'll go 75cor/37bst and charm some Even Match stuff without the gear and with it plus warlocks roll and make some notes. i'll try not to wear too much CHR gear so i actually get a reasonable amount of fails in there. seems to be a concensus that around 50% charm success rate as a baseline is a good start.
i'm thinking steelsheels in the tree. how many iterations should i do? 50 a piece? i dont want this to take all day.
should i try it both with and without apollo's staff, or will that even matter?
any other gotchas?

[Nattack]

we made that shit up when we were building ffxiah's bst section, we're the ones that put it in there. not the official books.

there has been no extensive testing on Macc's effect on Charm.

if you want to see it in action, you're going to need to collect the gear and start testing.

light staff and apollo's staff however has been tested and, unless by horrible fluke, has a positive effect on charming.

apollos, important. Macc, untested. but with the gear available probably cannot yield any noticable result.

[Vryali]

i've got 75 bst, 75 cor, and denali legs and pants (both of which have macc), omega ring, and the next week off work. (and a whm pocketaru to keep me alive)
i'll go 75cor/37bst and charm some Even Match stuff without the gear and with it plus warlocks roll and make some notes. i'll try not to wear too much CHR gear so i actually get a reasonable amount of fails in there. seems to be a concensus that around 50% charm success rate as a baseline is a good start.
i'm thinking steelsheels in the tree. how many iterations should i do? 50 a piece? i dont want this to take all day.
should i try it both with and without apollo's staff, or will that even matter?
any other gotchas?

Apollo's Staff is known/accepted to raise the chances, so just make sure that either they both have it or neither does and that your CHR matches up between the two test gear sets.

COR/BST is good stuff, ideally with warlock roll there should be rather visible results, if it effects it at all. Almost 73 BST myself, so moving on up to test this if you don't get a chance yourself