Yeah, a problem with libra would make much more sense than breaking the hate cap. From what I've read elsewhere, it seems to be reporting 100% hate as the person who is the target of the mob. Having enmity sufficient to be target of the mob does not mean you are at hate cap, just means you have more enmity. I forget the numbers for enmity cap off the top of my head, but if this is correct a person with 1ce/0ve will be reported as 100% enmity if nobody else in the party has any enmity generated towards the mob. A person with 1ce/1ve will report at 100% if the only other enmity someone has is 1ce/0ve.
Any reference to enmity after this point will be TE for simplicity.
It seems to me that the game is finding the person with current highest hate in the party, then comparing everyone else to that person. So if you use libra, first a calculation is performed to find person with highest enmity is found that enmity level is registered as highest in party and displayed as 100%. Then a second series of calculations are performed on everyone else's enmity level, they are found and compared to the first person's level in percent form compared to the highest person in party (the first calculation).
If you take a snapshot of enmity levels of everyone else in the party after the person with highest enmity is determined, you can get this error to occur. If a person does an action to pull their enmity above the person who was determined to have the highest level of hate before the second calculation is performed you will register as higher than the person who had hate when the initial calculation was performed.
For example: Player A is found with highest enmity and their enmity is X. Player B has enmity on the mob and their enmity is Y where X > Y.
Under normal circumstances the process for libra is find greatest enmity level, compare all other enmity levels to that level. Player A displayed at 100% or X/X. Player B is Y/X. Normally this will display a percentage less than 100% because A is higher on enmity than Player B.
But if Player B performs an action that bring their enmity level above that of Player A before Player B's enmity is registered and their enmity ratio is calculated (ie weaponskill, flash, any action with sufficient enmity really), enmity Y will become greater than X and you will receive a percentage that is above 100% (Y>X and calculation is Y/X).
Again this is only in relation to highest person in party, not hate cap. Just seems that the ja is laggy when it registers the second series of calculations. Not really sure how you'd go about testing this for sure, maybe someone else can look into this?
If the hate cap was breakable, wouldn't it be easily demonstrable with Atonement?
The reason for the rumor of the hate cap being broken occurred is because people assumed the percentages were displaying Player A's enmity over hate cap (X/hatecap) as opposed to what libra displays which is player's hate level over highest enmity level (X/X, Y/X, Z/X).
An interesting thing to try would be to have a scholar and another player in a party both accrue enmity on a mob. Then have someone outside the party pull enmity on the mob while the first party still has claim. The have the scholar use libra on the mob. This would tell you how the enmity is being reported to libra. If enmity for one of the people in the party was 100% then libra is only gathering enmity levels of people with claim. If neither of the enmity levels were 100% libra is gathering all enmity levels on the mob, but only displaying those who have claim.
1.: Get a PLD and SCH in the same group with another job that can accrue hate fast on a level 1 mob without killing it.
2.: Go fight a level one mob and have both the PLD and the other person cap their VE/CE.
3.: Use Libra
4.: Use Divine Emblem and then Flash (while the other person continue to accrue VE.)
If the hate cap is broken, the PLD will maintain aggro. Who knows what Libra will say.
PLD friend of mine just said he did 800 dmg with Atonement on a fomor in the aqueducts. He's still 75. If I'm not mistaken, 750 was supposed to be the cap.
So...
If I had to guess I would say this might have something to do with it, regarding WSC from the WSC thread:
Originally Posted by Rena