INT Affect Gravity? |
||
|
INT affect Gravity?
Cerberus.Eugene said: » However, iirc it was based on the idea that casting -any- amount dd on certain monsters would break bind instantly and consistently, and this failed to fluctuate on any amount of int that was feasibly available at the time. I think the author assumed that there might be tiers (which is not unheard of in casting), and since there were no discernible tiers, it was unlikely that int played a significant role in potency. I dont think so. I guess noone wants to look dumb here cause theres no thread on bg called BIND FOR DUMBIES but you sir are making ***up more than I do usually
A funny thing goes along with level differences and thats stuff like differences in stat and how much skill gear you can substitute with potency gear  I see not Int in this equation. :P On a serious note, Int will add Macc, but I do not think it affect potency. how much -int gear is there
too bad you cant use myffxigearkicksass to look for worst sets Bismarck.Josiahkf said: » Phoenix.Fondue said: » I guess noone wants to look dumb here cause theres no thread on bg called BIND FOR DUMBIES but you sir are making ***up more than I do usually A funny thing goes along with level differences and thats stuff like differences in stat and how much skill gear you can substitute with potency gear I really doubt INT increases it's potency. Paralyze and Slow were designed to get potent as *** yeah in some cases but bind isn't a mess with your brain enfeeble, it just locks your feet I think Bind functions like break and sleep. ***caps and that's it, INT wont make a mob sleep longer or sta *stay breaked. holy *** a huge *** month just jumped my, hit submit by accident lol To be honest, that's probably the most accurate theory so far man. Thanks for offering it. how do you explain 1 nuke breaking bind sometimes and 3 nukes not breaking it sometimes?
also I really dont think sleep/(break? havent ever cast it) apply, are you saying paralyze should work the same as repose? Phoenix.Fondue said: » how do you explain 1 nuke breaking bind sometimes and 3 nukes not breaking it sometimes? Well, sleep aside. His theory does work with Break. Break doesn't always wear either. But yeah, valid point. EDIT with your edit: Break works very similarly to bind. It's really hard to know for sure considering how mobs for gravity, and subsequently bind were given hard diminishing returns with use.
The problem with saying there's an independent cap on bind is that someone would likely have found it by now. I'm assuming there hasb't because if there was someone would have posted it on wiki? Could be mob specific. Who knows, there's still no math. If there is cool. well this thread is going nowhere
Asura.Mekaider said: » Phoenix.Fondue said: » how do you explain 1 nuke breaking bind sometimes and 3 nukes not breaking it sometimes? Well, sleep aside. His theory does work with Break. Break doesn't always wear either. But yeah, valid point. EDIT with your edit: Break works very similarly to bind. but not really, break apparently has a 30 second static unresisted duration if nothing touches it I was referring to repose having a static duration, paralyze/slow's potency being highly effected by mnd thus totally different
sleep having a static duration, blind being effected by int thus totally different someone go cast bind on 100 different level 1 mobs and see if it has a static duration lol Why hasn't anyone? They're waiting for you fondue
Phoenix.Fondue said: » well this thread is going nowhere Asura.Mekaider said: » Phoenix.Fondue said: » how do you explain 1 nuke breaking bind sometimes and 3 nukes not breaking it sometimes? Well, sleep aside. His theory does work with Break. Break doesn't always wear either. But yeah, valid point. EDIT with your edit: Break works very similarly to bind. but not really, break apparently has a 30 second static unresisted duration if nothing touches it I meant in the respect of damage dealt to the random breaks. Thought that was obvious. my account is unusable atm
Asura.Mekaider said: » I meant in the respect of damage dealt to the random breaks. Thought that was obvious. like i said i never used it but that one feature alone means it could potentially have a completely different formula Don't toau(or wotg?) mobs generate diminishing returns on bind while sky mobs don't?
or is it the nms just flat out resist? Dunno, it's been a while. Bismarck.Josiahkf said: » Phoenix.Fondue said: » its not unreasonable to think a spell thats 8 years old has different mechanics than a spell released last year possible it does but I would doubt it I dont mean the overall duration, I have no idea if it fluctuates that way I mean the damage it takes to break bind on a monster, I guess its very possible its just random number generating but I really dont think thats the case though I have no evidence to show you to back that up im not sure if this would be testable in ballista or what for ease Cerberus.Eugene said: » Don't toau(or wotg?) mobs generate diminishing returns on bind while sky mobs don't? or is it the nms just flat out resist? Dunno, it's been a while. grav worked that way for a while i knew
do players in ballista start resisting enfeebles after repeated casts?
well im going to bed, entirely possible im wrong I just think something else is at work for bind "potency"-(damage sustained while still being bound) besides pure enfeebling skill&macc and a RNG
edit D; to what josiah just said I really dont think thats an accurate depiction at all for what I'm trying to get at, you could have been wearing +45 int in gear that would put you about even with that mob or possibly mob vs player spell mechanics are completely different for that like when anythign casts break on you and then hits you your petrification doesnt wear so its the same "spell" but its not the same spell at all in the way it functions Iirc, sky monsters (and anything) build a resistance to Gravity and not to Bind.
Regardless, poke around these pages and their references for most of the testing that I've found about MAcc and such. |
||
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||
