Antipika said:
I'd like to know how can you be so certain really, these tests has been run using ***tier range of elemental skill (= no blm cares about accuracy, when you take in consideration 230-275 Ele skill range).
What matters is the HNM tier, 310-340 Elemental Skill range, anything below = why would I worry about getting +0.9% instead of +1% when I'm killing pudding and already capping my hit rate.
As for MaB i'm not a fan either, and if you read my previous post you should know that. Still it's a convenient way to quickly compare two build.
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-0209765201661192%3Arg9le0-4lve&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=x+INT+%3D+y+MAB&sa=Search
What matters is the HNM tier, 310-340 Elemental Skill range, anything below = why would I worry about getting +0.9% instead of +1% when I'm killing pudding and already capping my hit rate.
As for MaB i'm not a fan either, and if you read my previous post you should know that. Still it's a convenient way to quickly compare two build.
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-0209765201661192%3Arg9le0-4lve&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=x+INT+%3D+y+MAB&sa=Search
I understand that HNM nuking is what matters. But if 1 skill is 1 macc under 300, what basis do you have to assume it is 0.9 macc over 300? Where is *your* testing, what is the reasoning for your hypothesis, etc. It wouldn't follow any pattern already in the game itself.
The reason the 1 skill = 0.9 macc came about is because that's how it works for melee accuracy. 1 melee skill above 200 is 0.9 melee accuracy. So, people assumed that it would work the same way for mages. But, it doesn't. Now only people who missed the memo keep thinking 1 skill is 0.9 macc (in my opinion it would be much more probably for it to equal 0.5 macc above 300, if it isn't 1 to 1). I'll gladly eat my words if you can provide some data/testing to support your claim, but otherwise, it's just a bad rumor that's already been disproven.