March 2019 Version Update

I do! At least on weeks that I don't have time to really play time and still wanna get a seal really fast!

You can already do that if the effect lands.

That being said I feel SE may remove def-/attack- boost from light and dark shots and giving it to rdm since so many people complained about cor gets dia 4 but rdm only gets 3. And to compensate the "nerf" they may just let light/dark shot deal dmg.

I know that :D

That's why my full sentence was


I guess I could wrote "to use empy feet to boost light and dark damage as easily, as it is possible for other elements now". would be more clear what I meant :P

Let's just see if they *** up and make Dia's defense down affeced by enfeeble+. That would be a mistake, and a hilarious patch 3 days later after they realize what they had done.

I wouldn't complain... but it would make non-idris just as good in many cases. Then again, that may not be a bad thing.

Hmm not sure why you would think that, enfeebling potency+ is multiplied as a percentage.

Dia III = 15%, RDM gets +54%, so 15 * 1.54 = 23.1% defense down.

Sab is a completely separate boost effect and currently just increase's Dia's DoT and duration.

True, but the culprit there is likely due to the fact it doesn't have variable potency. I obviously can't say for certian, but I can't see any good reason it wouldn't be affected by Sabo if it had a potency multiplier, at which point Sabo'd it would be almost as effective as Tourbillion, while still stacking with other things.

And really what I'm getting at is, often times those last few percent are what really makes the difference in reducing defense, as each further % is more impactful than the last (unless you're already pDIF capped of course)... that's all I was saying. I wasn't meaning RDM would be just as effective as geo or anything, only that it would make Idris BOG/Eccliptic just as strong as Idris Bolster currently is for frailty. It's not going to move the needle much for high end zergs, but that kind of thing is pretty useful in lowman stuff.

Sab is a completely separate boost then enf bonus, and it does already effect dia 3.

Your statement confused two different things and ignored a third.

It affects the duration of Dia III, not the effect (of defense down), which was the whole point of the above post.

Saboteur increases duration and potency of enfeebling spells, but where enfeebling effect cannot be boosted, only duration is affected (such as sleep, you can't super sleep something). So what I was saying is that if dia/bio were changed such that their defense/attack multipliers were affected by Effect+, there's really no good reason to assume it couldn't also be affected by Sabo, since variable spells being affected is more the rule than the exception. This particularly raises suspicion because these two spells were specifically mentioned in the patch notes as having an incoming change. Now I'm not saying they will change the DoT component in leiu of def/attack mods, either, I simply said it was possible. You can point to poison as an example of DoT increasing with Sabo, but as for Bio/Dia not being supposed to, we can really only guess if that was really intentional or not. Even if they don't change it we won't really know what is intended. As the only examples we have right now of Debuff/DOT spells are the ones that they are making changes to. Again though I'm not saying how it will be, only how it could be.

I'm really not sure what you got so confused about, or what you're arguing about, or with whom, because I'm really not in the mood for that ***.

As for saying Sabo and Enfeebling were separate:


Feel free to burn it, I guess.

It does effect the potency of Dia III.

He said that he knows that it affects the potency of Dia III, but Dia III has static potency of def down effect. So you are saying it somehow boost def down effect?

He said this.


I replied with this


The rest is him trying to cover for not realizing that Sab's boost isn't enfeebling potency+, he also likely didn't remember that Sab's potency boost is heavily nerfed on NM's.

https://www.bg-wiki.com/bg/Saboteur

So best case scenario if SE was super generous

15 * 1.54 * 1.37 = 31% defense down.

Regular Idris Frailty is 41.8%, Dunna is 28.3% defense down.

Yeah not game breaking in the slightest, if anything it would help out the non-Idris's the most.

As for Dia itself, Enf Potency and Sab both do boost it, the potency value for Dia III is the DoT effect similar to Poison and Bio. This is something I helped identify way back when Sab was first introduced cause I was all super hyped about doubling the defense down effect of Dia III.

You dishonest little slime.

This is why people hate you.

Claiming the editor of the RDM guide doesn't understand how Saboteur works... seriously, what the ***?

I'm pretty sure everyone that read my posts with the exception of you knows exactly what I meant, since I spelled it out multiple times.

I said:


Tourbillion has a defense down of approximately 33%.

15%*1.54=23.1*1.37(25%Sabo on NM's +12 from empy)=31.64%

Had I not known, that last number would have instead been *112%

Secondly I stated MULTIPLE times that I'm aware it affects the DoT.

This was said in context of a HYPOTHETICAL wherein the defense down term were also affected by enfeebling effect+, which we don't know if Sabo would affect them at that point. I don't know, and most importantly to this rant, you don't know either.

I pointed out the reason for this too, we only have two examples of spells that have an enfeeble TIED to a DOT on RDM, and both are being adjusted. Nowhere in here did I say that it's not possible they may just remove the Dia/Bio Light/Dark shot bonuses and simply set the values to 20% and change nothing else. That is also possible. It is also possible they could make the Defense Down affected by Enfeebling+, and that NOT affect the way saboteur works on it. It's also possible that it could. Which for the third time is all I was saying.


You say this: (which is you trying to "Correct" what I was saying, by SIMPLY SAYING WHAT I SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE)


When what I had said was:

And I had ALSO said:

I wouldn't complain... but it would make non-idris just as good in many cases. Then again, that may not be a bad thing.

Non Idris Bolster Frailty = 56.60%+31.6%= 88.2% Defense Down

You then say:

So way to QUOTE ME to try to disprove me.

the highest of credentials

are you off your meds or something because you're letting saevel bait you and coming off worse than he is

Let's all take a step back here.

I love this line regardless of context.

I always hate this mentality. This is why trolls prosper because when someone sticks up for themselves people say dumb stuff like this. Why not just back the man up and fend off troll rather than feeding them?

Furthermore you kind of took what he said out of context, which is precisely the point he is standing up against. He mentioned that he edits the RDM guide as point to base his knowledge off of. Its his field of expertise, of course he'd know more about the topic than someone who isn't involved or studies said topic.

To be fair he wouldn't really be fending the troll off but rather feeding it as well.

I'm not saying I don't support Byrne for standing up for himself but a troll is going to troll as long as he can get a reaction, whether that's from the person they're targeting or someone around them.

That all said I think Byrne understands what he's talking about, and I think we can leave it at that without taking this further.

Editing a guide does not make anyone a expert about anything, not even authoring, editing. It's a stretch to try to build credibility in the reader's eyes. Didn't work, and I found it funny, so I pointed it out.

The entire argument is based on this phrase:
That would be a mistake, and a hilarious patch 3 days later after they realize what they had done.
which is implying that allowing enfeebling potency to work on dia would somehow unbalance the game. Note the word choice, hilarious implies it'd be particularly bad.

Byrne wrote an entire essay trying to redirect and defend his own knowledge instead of just saying he jumped to conclusions and it wouldn't really be that strong. He isn't defending himself in any meaningful way, he's redirecting to avoid being caught being wrong about something that isn't even relevant to begin with.

As far as the initial argument, Saevel was right and Byrne was wrong, plain and simple. However, both of them know the other knows what's being talked about and it's long past the original argument. Byrne dragged it out to ridiculous proportions because he couldn't handle that he made a little oversight in his initial post and just admit to the mistake.

I agree that it was a bit much to go straight to that, but everyone who has been on this forum for over a year knows this is far from the first time Savael has employed a straw-man argument to attempt to poison the well against his naysayers.

You entirely missed the point of that argument. He questioned whether or not I even understood how Saboteur worked. It's the big purple part in where I quoted him.

And now, you are perpetuating this shitstorm by weighing in on things you clearly didn't read all the way through.


It is entirely subjective what "Broken" means, and attempting to say "right or wrong" over an opinion is a mistake.

He assumed you didn't know how saboteur worked, because you were continuing to defend that it would be broken.

His numbers(and common sense) clearly illustrate that it wouldn't be. You're still dead set on making a giant spectacle over what was really just one poorly thought out sentence.

Or you two are reading in what you subjectively think I meant.

I guess that's also possible.

Dishonest misrepresentation is shameful, and I called him out on it. He deserved that, and I don't know why you'd bother defending it.

Again we're talking a 31.6% defense down that you have for doing low-man and solo content. It would (hypothetically) more than double the current effect of the spell.

It would, be (like I had stated before if you had bothered reading it) giving RDM a defense down nearly as potent as Tourbillion, which is an unbridled learning spell. (and would last much longer, by the way)

Again, "broken" is what you make of it.

Essentially what I was saying is, that in a huge swath of content, you could use Regular non-idris frailty 28.3%, Armor Break (25%) and dia (hypothetically 31.6%) for 84.9% defense down before Bog or Eccliptic.

It was half a sentence out of a giant post and you turned it into the whole focal point of the next post. Again, this is all because you made one poorly thought out sentence:

That would be a mistake, and a hilarious patch 3 days later after they realize what they had done.

He knew it was wrong. You probably knew it was wrong as soon as he pointed it out. But, you didn't want to have Saevel catch you being wrong so you turned it into a whole thing and both of you brought up increasingly petty and unrelated arguments.

edit: Oh god, you're still defending it what is this

/popcorn

According to my Excel spreadsheet...there is a 56.62% chance you are correct.

YOU DETESTABLE SLUG! Why are you are acting like I don't know that percentage is halved on arguments involving Saevel? I modified the very spreadsheet you are using, so I'm kind of an authority.

If you guys don't know Excel has a secret FFXI function if you hit Ctrl Alt Delete it will bring it up.

Alt + F4 works too!