Magic Accuracy and INT

[pchan]

This thread is about the relation between magic acc and INT.

Summary :

1 INT= 1 mac if dINT<=15
1 INT=0.5 mac if dINT>15

Tested on enfeebling magic.

what's new ? Previously it was assumed that the threshold was dint=10 ; also confirms that the formulae are the same for enfeebling magic (previous tests were done with elemental magic).

Method

*I used the fact that Om'hmpende don't attack you if you hit them for zero at my advantage to spam spells on them. If you don't know what I mean, check this thread

*I used bind as it tends to wear off after less than 20 sec, and has a low MP cost.

*You only have access to the "resist" rate and not the "landing" rate, since you can't see on the log if the spell half resisted or just didn't resist. It's not a problem though, if p is the landing rate, then (1-p)^2 is the resist rate, so the test give (1-p)^2 with a confident interval [a,b], which in turn give p with a confident interval [1-sqrt(b),1-sqrt(a)].

* the hitrates above 50% are done with BLM and the hitrates below 50% are done with PUP/RDM.

* targets are even match om'hpende, they have 58 INT.

results

Their magic evasion seem very low, to the point that a gearless BLM has about 50% landing rate (=you fully resist only 25% of the time). I will present the data in the folloing format :

Test:skill,magic accuracy,int:resist/total= estimated landing rate @ [confidence interval]

For the persons not used to the terminology, the confident interval is the interval in which you are 95% certain that the landing rate will be. The estimated landing rate is 1-sqrt(resist/total).

target's int is 58

first tests are done on BL75/RNG1

Test1:skill=246,mac=0,int=55:1865/7457=49.99%@[49.02,50.98]
Test2:skill=246,mac=0,int=98:287/7418=80.33%@[79.24,81.48]
Test3:skill=246,mac=0,int=68:711/5054=62.49%@[61.24,63.79]
Test4:skill=246,mac=0,int=73:482/4896=68.62%@[67.32,69.98]
Test5:skill=246,mac=0,int=78:462/5639=71.38%@[70.15,72.66]

last tests are done on PUP75/RDM37

Test6:skill=142,mac=8,int=73:3024/3829=11.13%@[10.41,11.86]
Test7:skill=142,mac=8,int=67:3605/4265=8.06%@[7.47,8.65]
Test8:skill=142,mac=8,int=81:4709/6348=13.87%@[13.25,14.5]

interpretation

If you assume that magic hit rate can only take integer values, test 1 gives 50%. Which means your magic accuracy is matching the magic evasion of the mob. Magic evasion should therefore be 243.

Test 2-5 show what happens past 50% hit rate. The difference between test1 and 3 is ~ 13% and int went from dint=-3 to dint=+10, so 13 int variation ; this confirms that 1 int=1mac.

Test 4 and 5 show what happens between dint=10 and dint=20. The difference clearly shows that going from dint=10 to dint=15 is 5%. This is a surprise because we thought the 1int=1mac formula stopped at dint=10. Test 5 shows that going from dint=15 to 20 is only about 3%, so it seems the formula 1int=0.5 mac starts past dint=15.

Finally, the difference between test 2 and test 5 (dint = 30 > 40 ) gives about 10% hitrate, so the formula 2int=1mac seems to hold until dint=40.

Tests 6,7 and 8 confirm that this relation still happens under 50% hit rate, which I've seen contested on various forums (by idiots).

[xsack]

Wow you should win an award for most free time in your "life" lol get a job or a gf ffs!

[ikariiiii]

i have no idea what you just said man, but it touch a brotha's heart

[Byrthnoth]

If you assume that magic hit rate can only take integer values, test 1 gives 50%. Which means your magic accuracy is matching the magic evasion of the mob. Magic evasion should therefore be 243.

How are you calculating Magic Evasion?

Also, why do you think 50% is MAcc = MEva? It seems like an unnecessary point to define. The only reason we have a concept of Evasion = Accuracy = 75% is because of /check, which we can't use for magic.

Repeating the test at multiple INTs with +10 skill would be very interesting. Also, this is one thing that I really hope you used a bot for.

[Klutz]

Wow you should win an award for most free time in your "life" lol get a job or a gf ffs!

Seriously alot of people may not like Pchan but stfu. I don't see you contributing any useful information or any at all except your 'GTFO loozer lolz" shit.

Until you can contribute useful shit, shut the fuck up, and leave other people alone.

[Neoex]

Wow you should win an award for most free time in your "life" lol get a job or a gf ffs!

uh xsack you realize this is an advanced final fantasy xi discussion forum? What are you expecting people to post? pictures of mansions, hot babes, and fast cars?

your an idiot.

inb4: playin with tits in the club

[pchan]

How are you calculating Magic Evasion?

Also, why do you think 50% is MAcc = MEva? It seems like an unnecessary point to define. The only reason we have a concept of Evasion = Accuracy = 75% is because of /check, which we can't use for magic.

Repeating the test at multiple INTs with +10 skill would be very interesting. Also, this is one thing that I really hope you used a bot for.

The magic evasion has been established in previous tests from various people to be the point where magic hit rate reaches 50%. This is the point where +1 magic accuracy goes from +0.5% increase in hit rate, to +1%.

Repeating the test at multiple INTs with +10 skill would be very interesting

That would be useless since the effect of skill and magic accuracy on hitrate is already well documented.

[Vodou]

How are you calculating Magic Evasion?

Also, why do you think 50% is MAcc = MEva? It seems like an unnecessary point to define. The only reason we have a concept of Evasion = Accuracy = 75% is because of /check, which we can't use for magic.

Repeating the test at multiple INTs with +10 skill would be very interesting. Also, this is one thing that I really hope you used a bot for.

How was Evasion = Accuracy = 75% determined? I mean, how do we know it's not .75 evasion = accuracy = 75% or 2.00 evasion=accuracy=75%?

I'm assuming the proof was based upon a fixed evasion down method, but I've never seen it discussed.


Also, am I thinking about this right?

MEva is the same as elemental resistance? Or am I mixing up concepts?

[Tagus]

And nothing of value was... gained? I fail to see the implications of this.

[Taruking]

I keep seeing ppl running test on INT/m.acc etc on regular mobs. Statistically there are 2 common mistakes in the design of these tests.

1) Wrong test object - the result may not apply to HNMs which are the main object of interest for most career RDMs (although I am not surprised it also works on HNM since this is a game and not a rl situation)

2) The result fails to make significant impact - enfeebling skill gears cover both INT and MND based spells and RDM already have access to wide range of gear. The two most important endgame enfeebling magic are slow and paralyze, both are MND based. The relationship between INT and m.acc in the context of elemental nuke resistance is more relevant.

[Spekkio]

sliding the point of inflection for int's accuracy changing is quite relevant as it changes the threshold at which we switch between stat and skill for given targets. also, getting an assurance of the relationship between stats and skills on enfeebles gives us higher confidence that our enfeeble gear choices are correct. it may not dramatically change how we do things, but it removes a bit of doubt which is clearly a good thing.

[Nightfyre]

And nothing of value was... gained? I fail to see the implications of this.

INT has marginally more value in resist sets than previously thought due to the exchange into MACC being 1:1 until dINT > 15 rather than dINT > 10. Other than that, I suppose it might alter super-optimized enfeebling sets somewhat.

[pchan]

I keep seeing ppl running test on INT/m.acc etc on regular mobs. Statistically there are 2 common mistakes in the design of these tests.

1) Wrong test object - the result may not apply to HNMs which are the main object of interest for most career RDMs (although I am not surprised it also works on HNM since this is a game and not a rl situation)

There is no reason that this doesn't apply to HnM. And saying that carreer rdm only care about HnMs is the most stupid thing I've heard on this forum. Nothing worth your time drops there. Stop the bullshit, hnm=2004.

2) The result fails to make significant impact - enfeebling skill gears cover both INT and MND based spells and RDM already have access to wide range of gear. The two most important endgame enfeebling magic are slow and paralyze, both are MND based. The relationship between INT and m.acc in the context of elemental nuke resistance is more relevant.

I don't care if you are too stubborn to take the maximum out of your gear for a given situation. Go back to nuking fafnir in your 320/120 build if it make you wet.

MEva is the same as elemental resistance? Or am I mixing up concepts?

1 point of fire resistance increases your own magic evasion to fire spells by 1, yes.

[xsack]

Seriously alot of people may not like Pchan but stfu. I don't see you contributing any useful information or any at all except your 'GTFO loozer lolz" shit.

Until you can contribute useful shit, shut the fuck up, and leave other people alone.

And your post is usefull how?

[pchan]

can we ban Mr 5 post?

[BerenTebogo]

And your post is usefull how?

I swear to everything that is good in this world if you make me defend a Pchan topic I will rape you with a bat.

Get out or get banned. Those are your two choices.

[Klutz]

And your post is usefull how?

It's useful in the fact Mr. Troll that pointing out the strikingly obvious that you are doing nothing but trolling, which is a ban-worthy offense should be pointed out. And I hope you do. Ass wipe. Go Q_Q somewhere else.

[Tagus]

INT has marginally more value in resist sets than previously thought due to the exchange into MACC being 1:1 until dINT > 15 rather than dINT > 10. Other than that, I suppose it might alter super-optimized enfeebling sets somewhat.

Gotcha. I'd be inclined to call "variance" on this, but I'll leave it to the pros. Good luck, Pchan!

[BerenTebogo]

The applications I can dream up for this are just things like landing bind and gravity more reliably on mobs like JoT, Suzaku, Seiryu, etc.

I don't think anyone here has the numbers for their INT but it might be a contributing factor? If I'm mistaken in the possible applications then yes, this is just semantics.

Edit: More importantly, for arguments sake lets assume this is a ground-breaking revelation that will change how all RDM enfeeble. Where do you make the trade-offs?
Hat 15 skill vs 4int from morri or 7 from maat's
Grip 2MACC vs 1INT
Range 2MACC vs 2 int
Neck 7 skill vs 5 int
Ear1 3 skill vs 2 int
Ear2 INT, yay
Body 15 skill vs 10/11 int or 8int 5MACC(?)
Hands 5 MACC or 6 int
Ring1 3MACC 3int or 5 int
Ring2 4 MACC or 5 int (here maybe?)
Back 5 skill or 5 int
Belt Witch sash or peni rope anyways so irrelevant
Legs Morri anyways
Feet 4int 2macc or 5 int

Who knows, lol

[Yugl]

And nothing of value was... gained? I fail to see the implications of this.

If I'm looking at this correctly, and others can confirm the testing procedure was not flawed, then it should indicate what gear choices are better for certain mobs give their INT. For instance, if the enemy's INT is 60, you know that after 75 INT, you're gaining less magic ACC from INT.

My question, however, is two fold and concerns the nature of the spells themselves. Are these spells affected by INT in any manner? Last I checked, I recall people saying INT did not affect the potency of said spells; so, does this mean the dINT test is only for magic ACC comparison purposes (i.e. determining whether Demon Helm or Elite Beret will provide more magic ACC) or is there a potency effect to calculate as well?