MACC Debate (From Random Thread)

[pchan]

Your model insists a set magic accuracy will always be a set hitrate(which you said clearly in your last post). Stop backpedaling and trying to hide your ineptitude, it's pitiful.

learn 2 read

[mdkuser]

about dispel etc, well, there is no resist dispel trait, but there is resist sleep for example. so its safe to assume there is not just one magic evasion but multiples. the Magic evasion one the wiki formula is obviously the mob's evasion against the spell you are gonna use.

idk how many resist-traits there are? one for each job? and there could be more. also when I was doing dynamis people were doing barpetrify with barstone, and parparalyze with barblizzard etc, so two types of magic evasion could apply to one type of magic accuracy. The wiki edit is obviously not complete and any data is welcome. Im really interested in a quantification on how much bar spells, resists stats etc affect magic evasion.

[Uzor]

Additionally, Dispel, unlike, say, Thunder or Sleep, have no partial resists. It either dispels or it doesn't. Thunder can do full damage, 1/2, 1/4 etc. As Dispel do not have this behavior it has a naturally higher accuracy. I would not be surprised if it also had a sort of innate accuracy boost like Freeze II.

[Thorny]

a bunch of bullshit about barspells in response to dispel and sleep having drastically different acc

no shit, barspells change resist rates, that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that different spells have severely different accuracy..

[Valisk]

icwutdid

[Uzor]

ITT: People not understanding innate elemental affiliation.

And I do not see how spells having different resist rates would change how INT, MND and +spell acc/-magic eva would works. Perhaps you have difficulties reading, but that set magic accuracy in the formula is not Pchan's. That's Lodeguy's.

[Thorny]

ITT: People not understanding innate elemental affiliation.

And I do not see how spells having different resist rates would change how INT, MND and +spell acc/-magic eva would works. Perhaps you have difficulties reading, but that set magic accuracy in the formula is not Pchan's.

I understand what innate elemental affiliation is, it's just not relevant to what I(or anyone else) have been saying. Posting an entire model without even mentioning that spells have different innate accuracy bonuses/penalties or level correction is incredibly flawed and misleading.

[Uzor]

then don't blame that on Pchan. Its not his model. As was mentioned before, Pchan said nothing about a set magic accuracy. Lodeguy did. Perhaps if you'd get your head out of your ass and overcame your hatred for Pchan and actually thought clearly for a second you'd see that mentioned.

[Thorny]

then don't blame that on Pchan. Its not his model. As was mentioned before, Pchan said nothing about a set magic accuracy. Lodeguy did. Perhaps if you'd get your head out of your ass and overcame your hatred for Pchan and actually thought clearly for a second you'd see that mentioned.

Pchan posted it in a public place and referred back to it on these forums as if it was fact, to prove his flawed points elsewhere.

[Uzor]

Pchan posted it in a public place and referred back to it on these forums as if it was fact, to prove his flawed points elsewhere.

If you can, please do show me where to back up your claims. I don't stalk Pchan's posts. First person to bring it up in this thread wasn't Pchan.

And if he did, did it ever occur to you that perhaps he put it on the Wiki to help others as it is a commonly occuring question that wasn't on the Wiki, and instead of explaining it every time it is asked, it would be easier to just link them to the Wiki?

No, I'm sorry. That would be retarded. How could I even think something that stupid.

[pchan]

no shit, barspells change resist rates, that has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that different spells have severely different accuracy..

barspells change magic evasion which in turn changes resists rates. I thought it was common knowledge.

[Thorny]

barspells change magic evasion which in turn changes resists rates. I thought it was common knowledge.

HURR FUCKING DURR

That has absolutely nothing to do with different tiers of the same spell having different inherent accuracy despite being cast in the same gear vs the same target using the same element ... which is the entire point of this argument in the first place.

SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT BARSPELLS AND READ, YOU'RE WORSE THAN THE PEOPLE SPAMMING FOR BARFIRA IN DYNAMIS

[pchan]

HURR FUCKING DURR

That has absolutely nothing to do with different tiers of the same spell having different inherent accuracy despite being cast in the same gear vs the same target using the same element ... which is the entire point of this argument in the first place.

SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT BARSPELLS AND READ, YOU'RE WORSE THAN THE PEOPLE SPAMMING FOR BARFIRA IN DYNAMIS

You are the one that needs to shut the fuck up. I've explained that it's possible to have different accuracy for different spells (elemental grips, rdm merit) and different magic evasion for different spells.

For exemple paralyze I and II. Paralyze II (or freeze II) adds magic accuracy to a specific tier of the spell. I don't see how this contradict the magic accuracy vs magic eva model.

[Thorny]

You are the one that needs to shut the fuck up. I've explained that it's possible to have different accuracy for different spells (elemental grips, rdm merit) and different magic evasion for different spells.

You still fail to grasp the concept. With identical gear and effects applied, different tiered nukes have been proven to have different accuracy. There is no confirmable outside factor besides the tier itself, which means that in all likelihood spells have individual base accuracy in addition to what's gained from skill/gear/merits/etc.

[pchan]

You still fail to grasp the concept. With identical gear and effects applied, different tiered nukes have been proven to have different accuracy. There is no confirmable outside factor besides the tier itself, which means that in all likelihood spells have individual base accuracy in addition to what's gained from skill/gear/merits/etc.

Can you stop aggreing with what I said just one post above ? thanks.

Pchan cast paralyze I

Pchan has 300 magic accuracy total from gear
Pchan has 15 magic accuracy from merit

result 315


pchan casts paralyze II

Pchan has 300 mac
pchan has 15 mac from merit
pchan has 10 additional mac because he merited 5/5 paralyze II

result pchan has 325 magic accuracy for paralyze II and 315 mac for paralyze I. How the fuck is that contradciting anything I said. If you add a "check" in the code for paralyze II why wouldn't you be a able to do so for "stone I" and "stone II" ?

if the mob has 300 magic evasion to paralyze spells, you will get 65% landing rate for para I and 75% for para II. End of the story.

[Kaeko]

I believe that there is some misunderstanding as to what I meant but different spells having different base landing rates. I will try to clarify this using an example:

Thunder 1, 2, 3, 4, and Burst II.

They have the same element (so you cannot use a "thunder resist argument).

They are of the same type (Elemental Magic)

They lack a resist trait, and if there was one, it was certainly apply to all 4.

It is well established that given the same gear, same mob - that thunder 1 is less accurate than thunder 4. There is data also suggesting that Thunder 4 is innately more accurate than Burst II w/o multiple merits.

How is this explained in the model suggested? You use the idea of "different MEVAs for different types of spells", but is it really a better explanation to say "every mob has a different MEVA for thunder 1 over thunder 4" or is it more simple to say "thunder 1 has a lower base land rate than thunder 4"? This is really sort of a semantics argument because either works (you can apply it at either the MACC calc step or the MEVA calc step in your "model").

Also, I looked over the "40k data set" and without even looking into details, I noticed that you use Sleep, Stone, Silence, and Para. I assume that the conclusions you have reached were based on the Stone data since Sleep, Silence, and para are very difficult to test with since even if the spell "lands", it could be a 1/2 resist or worse. So your data collection of Sleep Silence and Para has huge systematic errors in judging "what is a full land". This was discussed in much earlier threads and almost universally accepted as a Systematic error (and we threw out a couple of data sets that looked good on the surface because of this).

I have a lot of other critique even before delving into your actual data set. At this point, I think this topic may be worthy of its own thread so I may attempt to start one.

I should also mention that I am in NO WAY attacking any person - I rarely do this and even proofread myself just to make sure I don't come off this way. I only attack theories and ideas. Please do not see my attempt to bring your data/whatever to scrutiny as some sort of personal attack. I do not know who you are - you could be some guy with no 75 jobs or some guy that's considered a god on your server. I don't know - and I don't care because I'd treat you the same either way. All "theories" are only accepted eventually because they withstand multiple attempts to debunk them. If a study cannot withstand multiple attempts at heavy scrutiny, then it is not a worthy theory. This is true for games, and most certainly real life; so when you see me trying to debunk "your" theory, I'm attacking the idea, not the person.

[Kaeko]

(MACC debate related)

I'm also extremely confused by this graph on Wiki you posted:

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/ff.../Stone-QQP.jpg

The "95% intervals" seem to be derived from your "theory" points. 95% confidence intervals are supposed to be derived from DATA POINTS, not your theory or "the line I'm looking for". Please forgive if I'm misunderstanding how you're deriving the idea that "my data fits", but I just don't understand how you can produce confidence intervals at points of data that do not actually exist (only "theory points").

[pchan]

Thunder 1, 2, 3, 4, and Burst II.

They have the same element (so you cannot use a "thunder resist argument).

They are of the same type (Elemental Magic)

They lack a resist trait, and if there was one, it was certainly apply to all 4.

It is well established that given the same gear, same mob - that thunder 1 is less accurate than thunder 4. There is data also suggesting that Thunder 4 is innately more accurate than Burst II w/o multiple merits.

Considering you can cap accuracy with Burst II and Thunder IV, It's either +hidden magic accuracy or +magic evasion on the mobs. And I recall reading in an old update note that they ajusted the resistance to different tiers. This could be easily done by adding a line of code : "if you cast a tier I remove x amount of meva, if you cast a tier II you remove y amount etc..".


If you consider the spell dispel that was mentionned above, which has not 100% landing rate unlike what has been suggested, it's pretty evident that different mobs have different resistant against it. For instance if you do salvage and try to dispel skelettons BLM while being undergeared you will see occasional resists but you will rarely see it on other mobs. Considering that you use the same gear for each mob, the only explanation is that skelettons/imps have natural resistance to darkness or dispel itself ( probably : a line in the code that checks that if you cast a dark spell on the mob you add some magic evasion).

The existence of the spells "barpetrify" "barsilence" or job trait such as "resist gravity" etc is strong evidence that the check is done spell by spell.

Also, I looked over the "40k data set" and without even looking into details, I noticed that you use Sleep, Stone, Silence, and Para. I assume that the conclusions you have reached were based on the Stone data since Sleep, Silence, and para are very difficult to test
with since even if the spell "lands", it could be a 1/2 resist or worse. So your data collection of Sleep Silence and Para has huge systematic errors in judging "what is a full land".

I did not test paralyze/silence much, I did check sleep extensively, and took into account partial resists by waiting 30 sec to see if sleep I was resisted. If that's what you meant by systematic error, then no, I did not do that mistake. That would only apply to sleep anyway as silence and paralyze are both random duration between 0 et 120 seconds. And no I didn't test the distribution between those values.

[pchan]

(MACC debate related)

I'm also extremely confused by this graph on Wiki you posted:

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/ff.../Stone-QQP.jpg

The "95% intervals" seem to be derived from your "theory" points. 95% confidence intervals are supposed to be derived from DATA POINTS, not your theory or "the line I'm looking for". Please forgive if I'm misunderstanding how you're deriving the idea that "my data fits", but I just don't understand how you can produce confidence intervals at points of data that do not actually exist (only "theory points").

The data are in blue on the graph, each data point has at least 1K sample size which gives around +/- 3% error, hence the confident interval.

[Kaeko]

Considering you can cap accuracy with Burst II and Thunder IV, It's either +hidden magic accuracy or +magic evasion on the mobs. And I recall reading in an old update note that they ajusted the resistance to different tiers. This could be easily done by adding a line of code : "if you cast a tier I remove x amount of meva, if you cast a tier II you remove y amount etc..".


If you consider the spell dispel that was mentionned above, which has not 100% landing rate unlike what has been suggested, it's pretty evident that different mobs have different resistant against it. For instance if you do salvage and try to dispel skelettons BLM while being undergeared you will see occasional resists but you will rarely see it on other mobs. Considering that you use the same gear for each mob, the only explanation is that skelettons/imps have natural resistance to darkness or dispel itself ( probably : a line in the code that checks that if you cast a dark spell on the mob you add some magic evasion).

The existence of the spells "barpetrify" "barsilence" or job trait such as "resist gravity" etc is strong evidence that the check is done spell by spell.



I did not test paralyze/silence much, I did check sleep extensively, and took into account partial resists by waiting 30 sec to see if sleep I was resisted. If that's what you meant by systematic error, then no, I did not do that mistake. That would only apply to sleep anyway as silence and paralyze are both random duration between 0 et 120 seconds. And no I didn't test the distribution between those values.

Looking at the Enfeeble data, the trial numbers are small so I won't worry so much about it since you seem to focus on Stone most.

For the stone tests, could you just go over what you actually did? Like testing procedure. I have the raw data but some of it is rather confusing. Stuff like gear, did you check the mob's level before nuking (75-77 range for ruins - did you only nuke 1 level of them or no check?).