Provoke (Wiki misinformation)

[Kirschy]

Someone pointed out that Wiki was claiming SE stated in some interview that 50+ WAR provoke gets some kind of enmity boost over /war. (Of course no links to the info were posted.)

I went out and tested it myself. The is false info. /war and 75 WAR provoke are the same. 1 CE, 1800 VE.

I'm fairly certian I'd get the Kaeko seal of approval on my testing method, but here was my testing setup:

Player A - Kirschy - 75WAR/37RDM (+4 Enmity merits, -4 Enmity belt)
Player B - Daxam - 75BRD/37WHM (-4 Enmity merits, +3 Enmity ring)
Player C - Kelvana - 75WHM (-4 Enmity merits)

Player C pulls a bee outside bastok with silence, and runs to the zone line.
Player B cures Player C for 0.
Player C zones. (Removed from testing.)
Player A cures Player B for 0.
Player A and B trade hate back and forth for a minute to make sure everything is working as usual. (Cure for 0 = 1 CE.)

Player B gains 2 CE over Player A.
Player A uses Provoke.
Time is measured til the bee's focus returns to Player B.
Player A casts cure on Player B once to equalize hate and confirm 1 CE was generated during provoke.

Repeated 5 times~

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/8...1027040115.png
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/6...1027040144.png

I don't mean to start a wiki-bashing, or bg-wiki vs other-wiki debate. But seriously, what comes over people to post blatently false info?

[Kaylia]

Should find out who wrote this and lynch him, it's not fun otherwise.

[Suiram]

Should find out who wrote this and lynch him, it's not fun otherwise.

Order of the Blue Gartr - View Profile: Xellith

Edit:

people use BG wiki? lawl

I mean everything you need is.. omg! on the REGULAR wiki.

[Narol]

Not particularly caring about any drama, and more just interested in FFXI wiki having correct information, I stuck a verification tag onto the line in question and left it there. Removing/strikeouting the line is a bit much and would only cause arguments.

More likely it's just people jumping to false conclusions when +enmity gear or merits are involved and not accounted for, as opposed to blatantly making things up. Never assume malice when stupidity is a viable option, to paraphrase the old adage.

Edit: I should clarify I just don't want to see something like: "Why'd you remove it?" "BG proved it wrong." "LOL BG, SE said it so it must be true!" "Where'd SE say it?" "I dunno, but SE said it so it must be true."

Edit the third: Screw it, removing the line entirely. I tend to be way too cautious when it comes to stuff like this and wind up doing awkward things like "oh yeah sticking a verification tag" -> "removing because I should've in the first place".

[Kaylia]

Order of the Blue Gartr - View Profile: Xellith

Edit:

I don't care about wiki drama, but this quote is golden in the context.

More likely it's just people jumping to false conclusions when +enmity gear or merits are involved and not accounted for, as opposed to blatantly making things up. Never assume malice when stupidity is a viable option, to paraphrase the old adage.

Pick your poison.

It's possible it was the result of a failled test, but there is a good chance it wasnt tested at all. It sound like a case of "someone told me" that was unfounded.

[Kirschy]

Not particularly caring about any drama, and more just interested in FFXI wiki having correct information, I stuck a verification tag onto the line in question and left it there. Removing/strikeouting the line is a bit much and would only cause arguments.

More likely it's just people jumping to false conclusions when +enmity gear or merits are involved and not accounted for, as opposed to blatantly making things up. Never assume malice when stupidity is a viable option, to paraphrase the old adage.

I dislike drama in general, and I do try to keep my arguments fair and insult free. But the Provoke thing realli irked me. It was passed off as fact and there was claims of an SE interview(which doesn't seem to exist.) To top it all off, no link to the information was given.

The main focus of posting this is to show there was testing to debunk the rumor. But I'd also like it if a better standard was adpoted in where people gave sources for their info (or at least included verification tags.)

If I'm in the wrong, I'd be the first to apologize, but I don't think this is the case =(.

EDIT: I use the other-wiki, I'd just wish they had better policies when info is posted~

[Narol]

It's a double-edged sword. On one hand, letting just anyone edit almost every page on the site means you're letting people who don't know anything about anything make authoratative but wrong claims about testable things. On the other, it lets people like me throw in random information due to boredom or wanting to see things that little bit more complete (most of my edits are dumb stuff like mob HP estimates). After all, who'd know borderline-useless things like how much HP Diabolos has in CoP 3-5 if I hadn't gotten bored and counted? Heh.

Hell, I actually believed the enmity thing when I first read it because it seems plausible in theory, but experience showed that my Provoke as a WAR wasn't any more effective than a PLD's or NIN's. I didn't have the means/patience/motivation to test it, though, so I just shrugged and forgot about it.

Still, nice to see someone testing things like this.

[Guitarman]

if the info was posted by xellith, its wrong information. he makes stuff up when he's bored. was in a ls with him for quite a long time. decent guy, just has a onery streak.

[Mazmaz]

Doesn't this only test for CE? When I read that line I was under the impression that they meant it generates more VE than /WAR.

[Spekkio]

provoke's CE at even 75 i believe was tested to be 1. provoke generates VE almost exclusively so that strictly precludes the possibility of a lower level war gaining less CE.

[Julian]

Lol, or rather, "lawl"

Is there anything else that needs to be said?

[Byrthnoth]

Doesn't this only test for CE? When I read that line I was under the impression that they meant it generates more VE than /WAR.

Naw, this is the test for VE.

CE Difference of 2 (Kirschy has less) -> Kirschy Provokes -> Measure time (decay of VE at 60/sec) -> Eventually Kirschy has 1 CE when all the VE decays so hate switches back to the other player

[Massimo]

It's a double-edged sword. On one hand, letting just anyone edit almost every page on the site means you're letting people who don't know anything about anything make authoratative but wrong claims about testable things. On the other, it lets people like me throw in random information due to boredom or wanting to see things that little bit more complete (most of my edits are dumb stuff like mob HP estimates). After all, who'd know borderline-useless things like how much HP Diabolos has in CoP 3-5 if I hadn't gotten bored and counted? Heh.

Hell, I actually believed the enmity thing when I first read it because it seems plausible in theory, but experience showed that my Provoke as a WAR wasn't any more effective than a PLD's or NIN's. I didn't have the means/patience/motivation to test it, though, so I just shrugged and forgot about it.

Still, nice to see someone testing things like this.

I'd recommend just using a parser, counting from the chatlog seems like a terrible waste of time.

[Ladydeathstrike]

should try having the war wearing a piece of AF
if i remeber correctly if war is wearing a piece of AF in ballista the proc rate went way up

[JigglyJam]

I had to correct some misinformation that scholar's storm spells gave -perp for the respective avatar.

[Cream Soda]

Nakie Kirschy

[Draylo]

I had to correct some misinformation that scholar's storm spells gave -perp for the respective avatar.

Probably assumed because of how it does when you have af2 horn on.

[Lahan]

A lot of the stuff I catch being wrong on Wiki turn out to be a misinterpretation of data. The one that buged me was someone said Blade:Jin adds a hit for the off hand and the off hand can crit. I am not so sure about the off hand crit part, but as we all know if you dual wield one handed weapons all your WS that are non elemental in nature will add a hit for that off hand and not show it in the animation. We can see this in dual wielding TP returns. I don't even know how to begin to test if one hit of a multi hit ws can crit let alone if the off hand hit can crit.

But you can wield one Katana and tp to 100 pop jin can clearly see all three hits are main hand.

So I bet there was some hate +merits or there was a hate + piece of gear they missed.

[Lovex]

Someone pointed out that Wiki was claiming SE stated in some interview that 50+ WAR provoke gets some kind of enmity boost over /war. (Of course no links to the info were posted.)

I went out and tested it myself. The is false info. /war and 75 WAR provoke are the same. 1 CE, 1800 VE.

I'm fairly certian I'd get the Kaeko seal of approval on my testing method, but here was my testing setup:

Player A - Kirschy - 75WAR/37RDM (+4 Enmity merits, -4 Enmity belt)
Player B - Daxam - 75BRD/37WHM (-4 Enmity merits, +3 Enmity ring)
Player C - Kelvana - 75WHM (-4 Enmity merits)

Player C pulls a bee outside bastok with silence, and runs to the zone line.
Player B cures Player C for 0.
Player C zones. (Removed from testing.)
Player A cures Player B for 0.
Player A and B trade hate back and forth for a minute to make sure everything is working as usual. (Cure for 0 = 1 CE.)

Player B gains 2 CE over Player A.
Player A uses Provoke.
Time is measured til the bee's focus returns to Player B.
Player A casts cure on Player B once to equalize hate and confirm 1 CE was generated during provoke.

Repeated 5 times~

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/8...1027040115.png
http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/6...1027040144.png

I don't mean to start a wiki-bashing, or bg-wiki vs other-wiki debate. But seriously, what comes over people to post blatently false info?

Thanks for the info Kirschy.

Wiki has always been like that.
It has alot of semi accurate information too but doesn't surprise me with the random
made up stuff.

Thankfully, we have people like you willing to go out and test it!

[Thiefami]

hehehe heheheh hehehe.. he said goads.