Nashira Turban Vs Elite Beret

I just landed Paralyze on a Ul'hpemde as 75WAR/37RDM in sea.

or would 37 not be low enough to prove anything on them?

will put pic up in a sec once I upload it.

Lol and yall call me a troll LMAO

I'm still waiting on # 5 for this extensive testing on enfeebling magic skill

37 is easily enough to disprove. To a 37RDM's Enfeebling Magic Skill, Ul'hpemde are IT+++++++++++ etc so using a tier-based system, you shouldn't be able to land a damn thing.

Well this is how this thread has gone, and another recent one people might remember (Prudence Torques were involved)... always seems to happen this way!

That's definitely RL card lol...

Well easiest way to test this is for the op to cast in nothing but nash head then E.Beret on about 100 mobs each and see what the difference is on IT mobs.

Still waiting on those links....

100 mobs each? Try 1000 or 10000. At 100 mobs each, each cast success/failure influences the final result by 1%. That is far too much for something which is going to produce an accuracy difference of roughly 1% over time.

@Nightfyre: Why does that have to be your mule and not your main? :(

http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/wiki/Magic_Accuracy

Just sayin

well with my lowly enfeeb skill as 75WAR/37RDM I was able to do this.




edit, image isn't loading for me, 1 sec to fix

double edit, maybe this link will work.
http://www.imagestoring.net/show.php/6679_paratest.bmp.html

AWWWW did I hurt your wittle fweelings....I don't know you in rl so if I don't know you or anything about your RL how can I pull RL card you guys are way bigger trolls than me you guys perfected the ***....

RL card is basically the internet version of ad hominem; attacking the person instead of the argument, normally with reference to a clearly failing social/real life because it is absolutely impossible to be successful in games and successful in real life as well.

RL card is nothing. It's just a bait, either you bite the bait or you let it float.

Yawn....still waiting on those links with the extensive testing on enfeebeling magic skill proving its the exact same thing as macc....

Uploaded it to my photobucket since that site doesn't seem to like being directly linked to, if you don't mind ;x if you object for whatever (strange) reason I can always take it down.

That's clear evidence of a WAR/RDM landing Paralyze on a mob that as per your theory would be impossible to land enfeebles on because of lack of Enfeebling Skill.

Got any proof about your magic skill tiers?

I don't mind, I would have used photobucket, but forgot my account info again since I rarely use it.

http://kanican.livejournal.com/34049.html
http://robonosto.blogspot.com/2008/12/give-me-data-or-give-me.html

Thats not true you can sub /Blu and still land a stun off a headbutt every now and then....what you needed to do is get a firend to come 75 rdm and have you sub /rdm and you both see who gets resisted more, from your pict you actually got resisted the 1st time if that was in fact the 1st time and not the 100th

Wait..

A job with higher skill is going to resist less?

...No way.

EDIT: That in no way "proves" the existence of "Tiers" in Enfeebling Magic.

Ok links incoming:

Orignial JP testing on magic accuracy

Robonosto's analysis of the Lodeguy's data

Kaeko's analysis and summary of it all, probably the most reader friendly version (ignore the fact it's in his SCH guide)

About 40-45,000 samples went into testing bind (raw data available some where in the thread)

There are more, but that's about 4-5 hours worth of read if you go through it all.

Edit beaten by Raen.

... nobody is claiming that a 37rdm is going to have the same land rate as a 75rdm. That would both be stupid and be basically saying Enfeebling Magic (and by extension Magic Accuracy) do nothing.

You claimed there were tiers in Enfeebling Magic success, dictated by skill. You needed to add Enfeebling Magic skill to break through these tiers and then Magic Accuracy would increase the land rate within that tier.

IE, your theory says that the above screenshot is an impossibility (and in fact you wrote a mocking post when I pointed out that a RDM6 will eventually Paralyze any susceptible mob in the game). The screenshot is real, proving that tiers do not exist.

You said that Enfeebling Magic added Magic Accuracy and also the tier breaky thing and Magic Accuracy just added Magic Accuracy.

With the non-existence of "tier breaking", you acknowledge that they are directly equivalent.

EDIT: I actually found those links from one of your old BG forum posts when I googled it :p

I actually went 1/3 on para, it was because I had warlock's tabard +1 and enfeebling torque in my inventory.

For the sake of evidence.

The Tests done by Lodeguy Original Japanese page English version show that 1 magic accuracy = 0.5% magic hit rate below 50% hit rate, 1.0% increase after 50% magic hit rate.
it also shows 1 skill = 1 magic accuracy and for stats such as INT = 1 magic accuracy until total int is >targetINT+10. Each additional point of INT after that gives 0.5 magic accuracy. It is unknown if any amount of stats after that limit can give 0.5 magic accuracy. It is assumed the same goes for MND vs TargetMND and CHR vs TargetCHR.

Now stfu

funny how you'r grasping at straws...just like that crap you posted about Elemental skill and not enfeebeling skill

The testing started with elemental and moved to enfeebling, skill and macc were proved to behave in the same way for both enfeebling and elemental.

The turning point for INT seems to vary though

I'm grasping at straws? The process of thought regarding that test goes as follows:

1. for years, the relationship between (any) Magic Skill and Magic Accuracy was thought to be 1 Skill => 0.9 Macc.

2. These tests showed fairly conclusively that 1 Elemental skill => 1 Macc.

3. By extrapolation, 1 Enfeebling Skill is thought to give 1 Macc.

Amusing 4. In the slight possibility that you're correct and it's only 0.9, that only weakens your stance on how good Enfeebling Magic Skill is compared to Magic Accuracy.

You're (wrongly) asserting that elemental and enfeebling magic have different mechanics after failing to present any evidence whatsoever when the burden of proof is on you and you say Raenryong is grasping at straws?
PlasticSurgeon/Wardrobe makes everything better! At least until I have to use my RSE2 feet :( Setanta's Ledelsens and Llwydd's Clogs wruuuu

and lol @ us being the trolls here. Trolls don't present data and valid arguments. They make wild accusations, fail to present any support for their arguments, pull the RL card and whatever else they can use to bait people... hey, that sounds familiar...

Pchan's testing proved that elemental and enfeebling did act the same when it came to macc. But even before that testing it was pretty safe to assume that 1 of any skill = 1 macc.

Damn straight they do.

Levelling RDM on Hume was painful.

Levelling RDM on Cat?



Much better.