Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Tactical Processor effects confirmed.Follow

#1 Aug 04 2011 at 10:10 PM Rating: Excellent
10 posts
So it's not the newest thing, but hey, we now have this to work with:
Camate wrote:
Prepare to have your minds blown as we have…yes…information about what the Tactical Processor does!

This attachment is a bit different than the standard attachment that, for example, gives XX% increase in attack, defense, etc. The automaton periodically checks the information around the automaton and decides its next move (if HP took a hit, it will cure, if TP has been saved up, it will perform a WS, etc.).

When using the Tactical Processor the frequency of these checks is increased and allows the automaton to respond to variations in its environment quicker and more precisely.

However, every time it performs a check, the overload value increases, so as the frequency of checks increases it will increase the possibility of an overload.

Epic sauce? Anti-climatic? Let us know!

Personally, I think that effect is sort of meh seeing as we couldn't even perceive any notable/consistent differences in AI with it on, but it's relieving to know what it finally does.

On the other hand though, maybe it would be good for making my automaton use a weapon skill before ~130% TP more frequently, though I'm not sure just how much that helps in the long run.

By the way, is this function of the automaton checking various conditions possibly also the difference among the various animators?

Edited, Aug 5th 2011 12:26am by PBlackII
#2 Aug 04 2011 at 10:40 PM Rating: Default
Seems sort of redundant, as to me they are just reiterating what it says in the item description.
____________________________
~Itege~Cerberus~
90PUP/90DRG/90NIN/90DRK
LordFaramir wrote:
Ya know, you're really similiar to me, whether you like that or not :p, but you need a catgirl display picture.

#3 Aug 04 2011 at 10:42 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
**
312 posts
i dont know whether to congratulate you on an interesting troll or tell you to wait a couple of days for a real friday thread :)
____________________________
99war 99mnk 96whm 99blm 90rdm 99thf 85pld 99bst 99brd 99drg
99blu 99pup 60sch 99dnc 99nin 99sam
50/50 glavoid shells
50/50 itz scales
6/75 orthrus claws
#4 Aug 04 2011 at 10:47 PM Rating: Decent
10 posts
What? This came from Camate and I didn't see any other threads in particular explaining this attachment. So I'm not sure how I'm trolling. Really though, this isn't too shocking, it explains why it's so difficult to test.
#5 Aug 04 2011 at 11:58 PM Rating: Excellent
itege wrote:
Seems sort of redundant, as to me they are just reiterating what it says in the item description.


well whoop the doodle doo we are back to square one.
____________________________
#6 Aug 05 2011 at 2:23 AM Rating: Excellent
**
275 posts
Ok no, actually, I think I can wrap my head around this. Have you ever noticed how, for example, if the automaton has a maneuver up to use a job ability, and also has tp, or is a mage frame, it will never use the weaponskill and the job ability back to back but will have a chunk of time between the two?

Well, think of it like three concurrent timers- One where it takes in the situation and makes a decision, one where it acts using weaponskills or job abilities as tp/maneuvers allow, and the global spell casting timer. I'll call them I, A, and M, respectively.

So every time I comes up, the automaton gauges the current situation, and whether M is up or not, locking in what action it will perform next time A occurs. Now, if in the interval between I and A, something changes, the automaton would, in theory, act on out of date information.

The exact ramifications of this, though, are hard to tell, but if my understanding is right, we've had a hard time testing the tactical processor because we've not been looking at the right factors. We've been looking at the automaton to do things more quickly, when, perhaps, we should be looking for the automaton to reassess the situation more often, and thus make less incorrect decisions based on out of date information. The question is, then, how can we test to show that the tactical processor would be doing anything. I have a few ideas, but they're hard to pull off.

One possible test would be to take advantage of the soulsoother's much maligned na-spell priority. If I'm right, if you were to, say, take a poison potion in the interval between I and A, the automaton would still cure you. This would, obviously, take a lot of poison potions to get right, and very good timing. But, if someone were to go at it enough, they might be able to see how far apart I and A are without the tactical processor, then repeat the experiment with the processor attached, and compare the difference.

The other thing, depending on if my idea about this is correct and a possible exception to the rule, is that this might explain why valoredge shield bashes so infrequently, and so often too late. It may be that the mob has to be readying a TP move when I occurs, to trigger a shield bash the next time A comes up. Now, depending on just how the fine details of this go, it could be that the tactical processor may well have at least one valid purpose, that of improving valoredge's shield bash use timing.

Now, this is still subject to some unknowns. Are I and A completely separate timers, or a set cycle? If they are one cycle, does the tactical processor shorten the overall I to A to I again sequence, or merely the distance between I to A, possibly lengthening the distance to the next I.
Or, if they are on separate timers, does this mean that the automaton performs multiple I checks per A cycle?

Personally, I find all these questions interesting, if perhaps mostly academic.

EDIT: The delay between ranged attacks by sharpshot would work like this as well, functionally replacing M when using sharpshot instead of a mage frame. So at each I it checks if it has maneuvers for a job ability attachment, if it has tp for a weaponskill, or if it's ranged attack cooldown is available. A few simple tests then would determine what the priority is, in that case.

Edited, Aug 5th 2011 4:27am by VonCrown
#7 Aug 05 2011 at 3:41 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
275 posts
That's kind of how I'm looking at it, VonCrown.

If that's how the Automaton determines its next action, perhaps that is also why it seems to wait a considerable amount of time after 100% TP before using a weaponskill. This is merely conjecture, but what if it waits until it's in an idle stance before running the Check Function? Auto-Attack might not be on a timer, but more of an on-rails thing where it just attacks at a frequency. A higher attack frequency might be interrupting it from performing a Check Function, hence it waits a touch longer to perform a WS.
#8 Aug 05 2011 at 4:36 AM Rating: Decent
10 posts
I completely agree with VonCrown. I think the easiest way to test the theory is this:

Use soulsoother frame equipped with flashbulb and have a poison potion ready. Use the poison potion, deploy on the mob, and record the difference in time from the use of flashbulb and the use of poisona. That interval of time would be the frequency the automaton checks conditions.

That or instead of soulsoother for poisona, use eraser attachment on a melee frame so that way we test two JA timers.

Edited, Aug 5th 2011 6:40am by PBlackII
#9 Aug 05 2011 at 5:09 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
275 posts
PBlackII wrote:
I completely agree with VonCrown. I think the easiest way to test the theory is this:

Use soulsoother frame equipped with flashbulb and have a poison potion ready. Use the poison potion, deploy on the mob, and record the difference in time from the use of flashbulb and the use of poisona. That interval of time would be the frequency the automaton checks conditions.

That or instead of soulsoother for poisona, use eraser attachment on a melee frame so that way we test two JA timers.

Edited, Aug 5th 2011 6:40am by PBlackII


I don't think it would be that simple though. The automaton can do multiple tasks per check it seems, or it's checking far more frequently than we think. My guess is that it works by queueing tasks based on the feedback when it checks and follows until it reasseses again. This seems most likely if the true function of the attachment is to have it check more frequently.
#10 Aug 05 2011 at 6:04 AM Rating: Decent
10 posts
I just tested the eraser/flashbulb and the time of use between the two was consistently around 5 seconds with and without the Tactical Processor/Ice Maneuvers. This does not appear to affect back to back usage job ability attachments, so I think it confirms Aeria's suspicions that it does multiple tasks per check.

Perhaps looking at automaton job ability attachments isn't the right approach either, instead look at what we know what it should affect according to Camate's post: cure according to hp assessment, or weapon skills according to TP; the latter would be easier to test due to tactical switch.

I will see how fast it will use the same weapon skill in a row, I feel like it won't generate much results, but hey, it's something.

Edited, Aug 5th 2011 8:10am by PBlackII
#11 Aug 05 2011 at 7:06 AM Rating: Good
*
173 posts
Again, please link, people.

____________________________
PUP90
Selka - Bismarck server
#12 Aug 05 2011 at 8:15 AM Rating: Decent
PBlackII wrote:
I just tested the eraser/flashbulb and the time of use between the two was consistently around 5 seconds with and without the Tactical Processor/Ice Maneuvers. This does not appear to affect back to back usage job ability attachments, so I think it confirms Aeria's suspicions that it does multiple tasks per check.

Perhaps looking at automaton job ability attachments isn't the right approach either, instead look at what we know what it should affect according to Camate's post: cure according to hp assessment, or weapon skills according to TP; the latter would be easier to test due to tactical switch.

I will see how fast it will use the same weapon skill in a row, I feel like it won't generate much results, but hey, it's something.

Edited, Aug 5th 2011 8:10am by PBlackII


Flashbulb a bad thing to test it with, the automaton automatically uses it within seconds of a light maneuver going up or it's timer coming up. Tact should effect conditional abilities like eraser. Where it doesn't activate unless you have a status effect.

Shield bash would be the best thing to test it with in my opinion becuase it only effects decision making. And there's only a handful of things it has to decide, when to weapon skill, what spell to use within the combination of maneuvers, and when to use by condition only Job abilities.(Eraser, shield bash)

So you guys should be testing things like shield bash, eraser, etc. See if responds to a shield bashable tp move or -ga spell quicker then it normally would etc.

PS Yes black I know you also tested eraser.
____________________________
If cookies were milk and milk was cookies. Would Oreo's still be america's favorite brand of milk?
#13 Aug 05 2011 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
10 posts
Right, no complaints there; as for now, I'm tired. I did this if it's worth anything to anybody—not enough to satisfy me with any answer with details to this thing.

So basically what I did was get automaton past 100% TP, deployed (and stayed close to it), waited for it to use a weapon skill, immediately use tactical switch, and then record the amount of time it took for it to use a weapon skill again. My rationale is that within every check, the automaton will see if it has enough TP to use a weaponskill; each time it uses a weapon skill, it checked to see if it met the conditions to be able to do so. Ice maneuvers with the tactical processor equipped would decrease the difference in time between weapon skill use.

I recorded two numbers: the difference in time from when both weapon skills were readied, and the difference in time that both were used (as you can see, they aren't more than a second in difference). It appears though that without maneuvers, the difference in time is usually 8 seconds, while with any amount of maneuvers, it's around 5 seconds. Again, this is not conclusive data, need more numbers to verify.

The mob I did this on were defoliate trees in Bhaflau Thickets because I needed something that would not die within a couple weapons skills and melee, but not cause the automaton too much harm.

Also, I did not do 3 maneuvers to the extent of the others, for it was getting similar results as with one or two ice maneuvers and caused me frustration with one overload consuming so much time. Somebody with Kenkonken or something can test that.

Finally, this is data I collected, this isn't conclusive at all to me though; somebody else please do something similar to help get better data:

No Tactical Processor Equipped
Readies
· 6 seconds
· 8 seconds
· 5 seconds
· 8 seconds
· 6 seconds
· 9 seconds
· 11 seconds
· 8 seconds
· 8 seconds
· 11 seconds

Uses
· 5 seconds
· 8 seconds
· 6 seconds
· 8 seconds
· 6 seconds
· 8 seconds
· 11 seconds
· 8 seconds
· 8 seconds
· 11 seconds

Tactical Processor Equipped 0 Ice Maneuvers
Readies
· 8 seconds
· 8 seconds
· 6 seconds
· 5 seconds
· 14 seconds
· 8 seconds
· 11 seconds
· 5 seconds
· 16 seconds
· 10 seconds

Uses
· 7 seconds
· 8 seconds
· 7 seconds
· 5 seconds
· 13 seconds
· 7 seconds
· 11 seconds
· 5 seconds
· 16 seconds
· 11 seconds

Tactical Processor Equipped 1 Ice Maneuver
Readies
· 7 seconds
· 5 seconds
· 5 seconds
· 9 seconds
· 4 seconds
· 11 seconds
· 5 seconds
· 15 seconds
· 5 seconds
· 5 seconds

Uses
· 8 seconds
· 5 seconds
· 6 seconds
· 10 seconds
· 5 seconds
· 12 seconds
· 5 seconds
· 14 seconds
· 5 seconds
· 5 seconds

Tactical Processor Equipped 2 Ice Maneuvers
Readies
· 5 seconds
· 10 seconds
· 6 seconds
· 10 seconds
· 5 seconds
· 5 seconds
· 6 seconds
· 11 seconds
· 10 seconds
· 7 seconds

Uses
· 5 seconds
· 9 seconds
· 7 seconds
· 11 seconds
· 5 seconds
· 6 seconds
· 5 seconds
· 11 seconds
· 9 seconds
· 6 seconds
#14 Aug 05 2011 at 9:45 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
275 posts
I thought of some things we need to consider.

1) Does the introduction of a maneuver force the automaton to reasses the situation on the spot vs waiting for its natural check timer?

2) Does the check function work at all times or only during Deploy / attacking?

3) Does Tactical Processor raise the burden floor or raise the amount of burden of each maneuver?

As far as Shield Bash goes, I believe that it's actually programmed to react, as the automaton wouldn't know when a mob would use a move and thus wouldn't be able to queue it.

Edited, Aug 5th 2011 11:46am by AeriaAllslove
#15 Aug 05 2011 at 10:56 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,263 posts
Truth be told, i wouldnt be suprised if the only thing that worked was the overload increases aspect.

It wouldn't suprise me in the least if the other half that is supposed to decrease reaction time did nothing at the moment, similar to using a scanner on a black mage frame...
#16 Aug 05 2011 at 1:43 PM Rating: Good
**
490 posts
Assume the tactical processor is just like a faster processor for your computer. Faster tics in exchange for potential for overheating. The auto makes decisions on set intervals where an 'if' statment would be required. (Shield bash comes to mind) Let's slow everything way down and assume the autos standard processor tic is every second (its probably every few microseconds realistically.) Say a mob uses a tp move at 3.5 seconds, the bash will occur at 4, after the move goes off. Tactical processor could shorten the tic time, just like higher end processors do, allowing it to make faster decisions, and now bash at 3.7 or 3.6, possibly stunning the move.

More tics per second would create less 'down time' where burden can decay, making overloading easier.

It would probably only apply to times decisions need to be made, curing, weaponskilling, bashing... and now, a possibly easy way to test it, dispelling. Can we clock how long it takes to dispel a buff (once used by the mob) with and without the processor equipped? The resulting time might be impossible to calculate by eye or with the log. It also might be hard because monsters may use the tp move closer to, or further from the auto's set tic. It could use the move at 3.1 or 3.6, and the auto would still only dispel on its 4 tic, creating a natural variance. The tactical processor should shorten the average of that variance.

(Posting from phone, apologies for any grammar/autocorrect/nonsensical stuffs)
#17 Aug 05 2011 at 4:27 PM Rating: Good
**
275 posts
I think my poison potion test was a bit misunderstood, it's already been pretty well confirmed that the tactical processor doesn't actually reduce the forced interval between job abilities/spells. What I meant is, using the example tested with flashbulb, see if without a tactical processor, if you use a poison potion very quickly before you expect a spell/ability, it might still use the spell/ability it had previously planned, if you used the poison potion in the interval between when it checks, I, and when it acts, A. What I meant to look for was how soon before the spell do you have to use a poison potion for it to -not- cast poisona, but rather a different spell, while you are poisoned, because it hasn't 'noticed' the poison yet at the moment it casts. If we could roughly work out the longest interval between using a poison potion and having a non-poisona spell/action taken, we could figure out the length of the delay between the automaton deciding what to do, and doing it. Then, one would add the tactical processor, and repeat.

Think of it less like the automaton doing things more often, and more of reducing the delay between when it checks and decides and when it acts, causing it to act 'appropriately' more often.
#18 Aug 05 2011 at 5:39 PM Rating: Good
**
610 posts
So Von, Basically you're proposing that the reason the automaton casts poisona over cure when you're in dire need of a cure, is because the automaton already decided to use the spell poisona before your HP fell into the red? The decision was just waiting on the cast timer for the next spell.

I guess the counter to this is that if the tactical processor was equipped, it might have re-assess that you needed a cure instead of a poisona before it cast poisona right?
#19 Aug 05 2011 at 6:33 PM Rating: Good
**
490 posts
Jayheart wrote:
So Von, Basically you're proposing that the reason the automaton casts poisona over cure when you're in dire need of a cure, is because the automaton already decided to use the spell poisona before your HP fell into the red?


From a programming standpoint, there needs to be a timer the auto uses to check on variables. This is almost MANDATORY in games for AI. Generally in AI programming, a programmer will us some kind of timed loop to check/react. It's probably the same for autos. It's probably the same for mobs. The timer itself is unknown in this case. We know job timers, but we don't know at what intervals the auto gets it's on status update. Probably 10-40 times a second or so (for a ballpark estimate.. really, it could be 2, for terribly slow updates, or 100+ for a well-informed machine. I'd guess at least 10+ a second, which would still allow JAs to appear to hit at exactly 30 seconds, ect..)

It most likely checks all of these and more at every interval.

(in no particular priority order)

Do I have enough TP to use a WS?
Is my master injured enough to require curing?
Am I injured enough to require curing?
Does my master require a status removal?
Do I require a status removal?
Do I have any job abilities that I can use, and are the required maneuvers up?

After whatever has the top priority is decided, it then queues that action and performs it either instantly, or at it's next interval.

The Tactical Processor (since it's well... a processor) probably shortens those intervals. This is probably why people have sometimes observed more occasional (but not constant) stunning of TP moves, or more occasional WSing as soon as it reaches 100tp, ect, ect..

Because of the nature of when that processing interval tics, it's never going to be constant, like I said in my above example.

Based on the arbitrary number 4 again, it could reach 100% TP at 3.1, 3.6, 3.8 and wouldn't WS until 4. If that tact processor (arbitrary) reduced it by .2, you would then see it more consistently (but not constantly, as it could > 100% at 3.1 and not go off for another .7 (instead of) .9) go off sooner.
#20 Aug 06 2011 at 6:14 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
275 posts
I took Sharpshot out last night after work just to see if I could eyeball any changes in Machinette's behavior equipped with Tactical Processor rather than without it.

Observations:
1) Whenever I threw up a Light Maneuver, Flashbulb would go off before my animation completed, rather than wait a few seconds for it to happen.

2) Likewise, whenever I gave a Wind Maneuver (and the JA timer was ready) for Barrage Turbine, Mach wasted no time in using it (As in, Wind Man, Deploy, Barraged right away), again instead of waiting a few seconds.

3) Buffoon's Collar and Cirque Farsetto +1 combined seems to cover the burden accumulation penalty enough where you can still operate Maneuvers normally. Even using two winds back to back, I never Overloaded all night.

4) Mach was more prone to WS as soon as TP was 100% rather than wait a few swings for 120, 130, etc. Enemy HP varied each time. Without TacPro installed, Mach liked to wait until about 1/2 HP, even when TP was over 100% and appropriate Maneuvers were present.

This small test reminds me of another Tactical Processor test I saw some time ago, before we were told what it does (though I can't seem to find the thread any more). The Tester at the time determined that Eraser and other JAs seemed to go off sooner.

With this small amount of data, I can hypothesize the following:

1) Without TacPro, Check Function (CF) happens at already short intervals.

2) With TacPro, CF happens even faster.

3) I believe the CF occurs at all times, even when not Deployed. This is evidenced by still being able to Overload easily with TacPro while Retrieved / Not-Attacking (Pre Overload-supression gear). The Automaton may simply be checking HP, MP, TP, and possibly WSs to be ready to act when Deployed.

4) CF adds a negligible amount of Non-Elemental burden per check. However, quickly repeated CFs when TacPro is equipped can be too much too fast, especially with repeated same-element Maneuvering.

5) The introduction of a Maneuver forces the Automaton to run CF with the new Maneuver in consideration. This is evidenced with Maneuver-dependent Job Ability attachments firing upon use of the Maneuver if the JA timer is ready.

6) TacPro may prioritize Maneuver-dependent Job Ability attachments above other considerations. As mentioned above, my Flashbulb attachment fired almost immediately with TacPro vs. the few seconds it usually takes without it.

----------

Obviously, there is still much more testing to be done, but from what I can tell, Tactical Processor does seem to be doing its job. I'll be playing with the Stormwaker series this afternoon to see if I can get some data about it's spell casting behavior.
#21 Aug 06 2011 at 3:07 PM Rating: Good
Late to thread but let me throw this out to see if i'm in line with current thinking after this bit of info from SE.

Essentially, Tact. Pro.(TP) takes the flowchart-ish AI of the automaton and shortens the time between each step. And in classic SE style, to balance the TP having a mildly beneficial effect, its use sharply raises the chance of overload if you don't have items to help manage it?

If my take is correct on what you guys are saying, even knowing what it does wont have me equipping it anytime soon.
____________________________
[ffxisig]10000[/ffxisig]
----------------------------------
One of my server's brightest minds... wrote:
Not to make too extreme a comparison, but Rog is like Nelson Mandella...


Quite possibly the DUMBEST thing i've ever read.
#22 Aug 06 2011 at 5:19 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
**
275 posts
spiritreaverdiablos the Irrelevant wrote:
Late to thread but let me throw this out to see if i'm in line with current thinking after this bit of info from SE.

Essentially, Tact. Pro.(TP) takes the flowchart-ish AI of the automaton and shortens the time between each step. And in classic SE style, to balance the TP having a mildly beneficial effect, its use sharply raises the chance of overload if you don't have items to help manage it?

If my take is correct on what you guys are saying, even knowing what it does wont have me equipping it anytime soon.


Not so much reducing the time between steps in a flow chart, rather how often it re-draws the flow chart based on new data. I'm still thinking of how to play with the Stormwaker to figure out how it will affect spell casting.

Edited, Aug 6th 2011 7:19pm by AeriaAllslove
#23 Aug 06 2011 at 7:08 PM Rating: Decent
**
490 posts
Their description was pretty cut and dry. The auto updates itself with relevant info every so often. Tactical Processor reduces that interval. Fin.

Now, let's find a way to actually test it and find a use for it.

Brainstorm testing ideas.
#24 Aug 06 2011 at 8:57 PM Rating: Good
AeriaAllslove wrote:
spiritreaverdiablos the Irrelevant wrote:
Late to thread but let me throw this out to see if i'm in line with current thinking after this bit of info from SE.

Essentially, Tact. Pro.(TP) takes the flowchart-ish AI of the automaton and shortens the time between each step. And in classic SE style, to balance the TP having a mildly beneficial effect, its use sharply raises the chance of overload if you don't have items to help manage it?

If my take is correct on what you guys are saying, even knowing what it does wont have me equipping it anytime soon.


Not so much reducing the time between steps in a flow chart, rather how often it re-draws the flow chart based on new data. I'm still thinking of how to play with the Stormwaker to figure out how it will affect spell casting.

Edited, Aug 6th 2011 7:19pm by AeriaAllslove


Ok that's pretty interesting and i can see how tests run before had a hard time puzzling out its exact function. Still think i'll skip it for now, but still nice SE finally gave answer to the questions of what it does and how.
____________________________
[ffxisig]10000[/ffxisig]
----------------------------------
One of my server's brightest minds... wrote:
Not to make too extreme a comparison, but Rog is like Nelson Mandella...


Quite possibly the DUMBEST thing i've ever read.
#25 Aug 08 2011 at 10:40 AM Rating: Good
***
1,263 posts
johnnykrysys wrote:
Their description was pretty cut and dry. The auto updates itself with relevant info every so often. Tactical Processor reduces that interval. Fin.

Now, let's find a way to actually test it and find a use for it.

Brainstorm testing ideas.



Except people tried to test it for 6 years and found nothing. Nowing what it does now doesn't exactly make it easier to test. That fact no one has been able to parse a difference in 6 years already means there is no 'use' for it.

I am a firm believer that this attachment does nothing of use...not saying its broken, just that you will never see a noticable/parseable difference.
#26 Aug 08 2011 at 1:03 PM Rating: Excellent
**
480 posts
Exactly. One of the first things people tried was seeing if Shield bash reacted more quickly and could actually stun TP moves, instead of doing it way later. It didn't increase its performance in a noticeable way, so if TP really reduces check times... It's not enough to be noticed, thus not enough to be worthwile.
____________________________
Frejan - Ragnarok
SCH 99 PUP 99 WAR 99 RDM 49 NIN 49 SAM 49
Windurst Rank 10, ZM+CoP: The Last Verse, ToAU: Eternal Mercenary, WotG Champion of the Dawn.
#27 Aug 08 2011 at 6:13 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
***
2,869 posts
spiritreaverdiablos the Irrelevant wrote:
even knowing what it does wont have me equipping it anytime soon.

dustinfoley wrote:
That fact no one has been able to parse a difference in 6 years already means there is no 'use' for it.

I am a firm believer that this attachment does nothing of use...not saying its broken, just that you will never see a noticable/parseable difference.

TaimMeich wrote:
Exactly. One of the first things people tried was seeing if Shield bash reacted more quickly and could actually stun TP moves, instead of doing it way later. It didn't increase its performance in a noticeable way, so if TP really reduces check times... It's not enough to be noticed, thus not enough to be worthwile.


Yes, yes, yes.

It's still a waste of a slot.
____________________________
Anza: Titan 2004-2011 / Capuchin: Phoenix 2011-???
#28 Aug 08 2011 at 8:30 PM Rating: Decent
Hmmm disappointing. At the end of teh day this attachment could be useless. But I am extremely disappointed in this discussion. Some random tests on conjecture based on the vague information square has provided us and we are ready to just shelve this discussion again?

I tested it based on this theory and noticed no concrete proof it effected performance.
Community: The attachment useless.

Several people tested it in hopes of it making shield bash better. It doesn't in any noticeable way or cause it to react early enough to help.
Community: The attachment useless.

Parser picking up nothing. I see no difference. The attachment useless.

So this attachment returns to it's obscurity it's always known. But really this is quite a disappointing turn of events. Let's make a leap of faith for the sake of argument that since square specifically answer this question the attachment is in fact working and does effect something. Then let's look at the general response in an effort to understand it again. All I see is several people who are attempting but coming up with no results followed by people who just don't give a **** dismissing the whole subject entirely.

This attachment has development an ambiguity all it's own that is akin to the "Secret strategy" to properly take down Absolute virtue. It may a fruitless venture to understand the exact workings of this attatchment but square threw us a bone, no a whole leg. And I feel like we only bit it once and lost interest.
____________________________
If cookies were milk and milk was cookies. Would Oreo's still be america's favorite brand of milk?
#29 Aug 08 2011 at 11:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
***
2,869 posts
Laxedrane the Irrelevant wrote:
It may a fruitless venture to understand the exact workings of this attatchment but square threw us a bone, no a whole leg. And I feel like we only bit it once and lost interest.


We didn't bite once, we've been gnawing on this bone since 2006 and never found anything useful. We didn't need S-E's new vague clue to realize the attachment just isn't very good, we've known that for a long time. I've been over Tactical Processor for years now.

I am already comfortable with my standard setups of 12 USEFUL attachments, and I simply don't believe that this information is going to reveal some amazingly well hidden secret that makes TacPro worth equipping. If someone proves that wrong, great! I'm not wasting my own time on the attachment any more though, and frankly I don't expect anyone will find anything terribly useful even with this new information.
____________________________
Anza: Titan 2004-2011 / Capuchin: Phoenix 2011-???
#30 Aug 09 2011 at 5:06 AM Rating: Good
***
1,263 posts
I am with anza. If in 6 years we had noticed anything of value it would be one thing.

As is, its basically the new generation of pups repeating what the last generation already tried for endless months, coming to the same conclusions. Its almost as bad as xiozen on the official forums claiming different animators 'affect performance'.

With no parseable difference observed by anyone ever, its not like we will magically notice 6 years later "oh hey, tactical processor actually shoots fairies from the eyes of our automatons while it ws's!"
#31 Aug 09 2011 at 8:14 AM Rating: Decent
dustinfoley wrote:
I am with anza. If in 6 years we had noticed anything of value it would be one thing.

As is, its basically the new generation of pups repeating what the last generation already tried for endless months, coming to the same conclusions. Its almost as bad as xiozen on the official forums claiming different animators 'affect performance'.

With no parseable difference observed by anyone ever, its not like we will magically notice 6 years later "oh hey, tactical processor actually shoots fairies from the eyes of our automatons while it ws's!"



Now this is a statement that's driving me nuts. How do you expect find a noticeable difference on something that's suppose to gauge statistical performance on something that is suppose to effect reactionary?
____________________________
If cookies were milk and milk was cookies. Would Oreo's still be america's favorite brand of milk?
#32 Aug 09 2011 at 8:15 AM Rating: Excellent
dustinfoley wrote:
I am with anza. If in 6 years we had noticed anything of value it would be one thing.

As is, its basically the new generation of pups repeating what the last generation already tried for endless months, coming to the same conclusions. Its almost as bad as xiozen on the official forums claiming different animators 'affect performance'.

With no parseable difference observed by anyone ever, its not like we will magically notice 6 years later "oh hey, tactical processor actually shoots fairies from the eyes of our automatons while it ws's!"


i lol'd a bit.
____________________________
#33 Aug 09 2011 at 8:34 AM Rating: Excellent
***
1,263 posts
Laxedrane the Irrelevant wrote:

Now this is a statement that's driving me nuts. How do you expect find a noticeable difference on something that's suppose to gauge statistical performance on something that is suppose to effect reactionary?



1) Understand what it does and what your saying.
How to guage statistical performance on reactionary behavior. Step 1, what reaction do you want to monitor? Step 2, take lots of data points. Step 3, see if there is any difference in said reaction with / without the attachment, and again with ice maneuvers up.

a) Does it use shield bash more often - no
b) does it use shield bash sooner - no
c) does it ws closer to 100% tp - no
d) does it cure status ailments faster - no
e) does it cast spells more often - no
f) does it stop casting spells that are healing the mob - no
g) does it change spell useage at all (aka cure 4 instead of cure 6) - no
h) does it range attack more often / melee attack faster - no
i) does it use strobe when it loses agro - no, it uses it every time the timer is up and an maneuver is applied
j) does it decrease the time inbetween multiple ja (aka how long between a cast, use of stoneskin, use eraser) - no

2) If it has no noticable affect on anything, why use it?

If you can take 2 hours + of parse data and see no improvement to pets DD, MP efficency, or chance to stun with shield bash... i mean these were all done, multiple times, by many many people. No one saw anything (minus the faeries shooting from the eyes)
#34 Aug 09 2011 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
**
275 posts
At this point, I'm thinking the best we could do to get any sort of test out of it would be to get two pups, have them build identical setups, save for one of them having TacPro and one of them not (masters naked/identically geared, to remove any variance in performance/burden stats could cause), and parse general violence. Ideally, using the same maneuvers.

Mid-post edit: The above would also want to avoid attachments that don't have consistant effects- i.e. turbo charger good, coiler bad. A miniscule difference in luck might obscure the real data (of course, large sample sizes are good too)

All in all, I don't there's a 'magic functionality' like people are expecting, but I do think it causes a subtle beneficial change to the AI, one that's very hard to parse or find specific indicators for. Supposedly, it should make the automaton perform less 'wrong decisions', where it would act differently based on the situation at hand. But since there isn't a giant red blinking light saying 'Your auto was just a giant dumbass' (and since it won't affect the number one source of automaton dumbassery anyways, na spell priority), it's hard to tell when your automaton would have done something differently, if it had/didn't have a tactical processor equipped.

It could also be that the check intervals are so small by default that lessening them has little to no actual impact.

Edited, Aug 9th 2011 12:07pm by VonCrown
#35 Aug 09 2011 at 10:40 AM Rating: Good
dustinfoley wrote:
Laxedrane the Irrelevant wrote:

Now this is a statement that's driving me nuts. How do you expect find a noticeable difference on something that's suppose to gauge statistical performance on something that is suppose to effect reactionary?



1) Understand what it does and what your saying.
How to guage statistical performance on reactionary behavior. Step 1, what reaction do you want to monitor? Step 2, take lots of data points. Step 3, see if there is any difference in said reaction with / without the attachment, and again with ice maneuvers up.

a) Does it use shield bash more often - no
b) does it use shield bash sooner - no
c) does it ws closer to 100% tp - no
d) does it cure status ailments faster - no
e) does it cast spells more often - no
f) does it stop casting spells that are healing the mob - no
g) does it change spell useage at all (aka cure 4 instead of cure 6) - no
h) does it range attack more often / melee attack faster - no
i) does it use strobe when it loses agro - no, it uses it every time the timer is up and an maneuver is applied
j) does it decrease the time inbetween multiple ja (aka how long between a cast, use of stoneskin, use eraser) - no

2) If it has no noticable affect on anything, why use it?

If you can take 2 hours + of parse data and see no improvement to pets DD, MP efficency, or chance to stun with shield bash... i mean these were all done, multiple times, by many many people. No one saw anything (minus the faeries shooting from the eyes)



I think you are vastly missing the point yourself. I am not saying OMG EVERYONE GO OUT AND USE IT IT MUST DO SOMETHING. I am saying you guys shouldn't give up on testing it becuase all of your "Usual tests" yield nothing. Square isn't perfect, they don't release everything to be useful or to be as situationally useful as they would hope. But I am pretty confident with the constant yammering about this from the community that when they say it does something it actually does something. And no one been able to figure that out yet.

There is a disease that I forgot it's name but essentially all it does it cause excruciating pain for it's victims. It does nothing else detrimental but this. It's been around forever and people went to their doctors and they had tests done. They found nothing, none of the tests of that time knew how to look for this disease so all the tests of the time came up negative. They chalked it up to being a psychological problem, a need for attention, a need to get out of something, depression(Which can cause body aches). It wasn't until finally a group of doctors took these people at their word and started looking into how to detect this disease. Now we have accurate tests to detect it and treatments for this disease.

Now I know we aren't trying to make a medical miracle here but do you really see what you guys are doing here. Fine you don't want to test it anymore then that's your choice don't. However not only are you guys actively posting here telling people that it's a lost cause give up I've been trying for 6 years or tried and fail over that many, why do these guys that are new to pup think they can do any better. You guys are actively discouraging people from looking into this. Yeah warn people that this is a problem no one been able to solve and it's been a problem for 6 years. But why are we telling people that it's hopeless to test this? And why are you discouraging me from encouraging them?
Personally I don't think we will ever know what this thing does if you guys keep acting the way you are.
____________________________
If cookies were milk and milk was cookies. Would Oreo's still be america's favorite brand of milk?
#36 Aug 09 2011 at 12:57 PM Rating: Good
Sage
***
2,869 posts
Laxedrane the Irrelevant wrote:
Yeah warn people that this is a problem no one been able to solve and it's been a problem for 6 years. But why are we telling people that it's hopeless to test this? And why are you discouraging me from encouraging them?


I'm not discouraging testing (though I'm certainly not wasting my own time on it, been there done that), but I AM discouraging spreading misinformation and irrational optimism. PUP tends to attract a lot of that at times, especially based on theories that never seem to have hard data to back them up. We already know it doesn't affect timers for Flashbulb/Strobe/Economizer, Shield Bash timing, spell recast, spell priorities, etc. - we've known those things for YEARS from actual testing. If someone wants to do more testing on a crappy attachment, be my guest. All I ask is that any test be accompanied by legitimate data and a clear description of the testing method.

TacPro likely does SOMETHING (assuming it's not been broken all along), but that something is so impractical and of such little benefit that it might as well not exist. Maybe the puppet closes a skillchain 0.3 seconds sooner? Maybe full Stormwaker frame calculates what hp% the mob is at a second or two sooner to decide/pre-load the next spell to be cast (since casting enfeebles/nukes for SW is largely determined by mop hp%)? Whatever it does, it's not going to be game-changing. If it was, someone would have noticed it already by now. I'm willing to bet that whatever the effect is, it's not beneficial enough take up one of my 12 attachment slots from other worthy choices.

Edited, Aug 9th 2011 2:58pm by Anza
____________________________
Anza: Titan 2004-2011 / Capuchin: Phoenix 2011-???
#37 Aug 09 2011 at 2:24 PM Rating: Good
Anza wrote:
Laxedrane the Irrelevant wrote:
Yeah warn people that this is a problem no one been able to solve and it's been a problem for 6 years. But why are we telling people that it's hopeless to test this? And why are you discouraging me from encouraging them?


I'm not discouraging testing (though I'm certainly not wasting my own time on it, been there done that), but I AM discouraging spreading misinformation and irrational optimism. PUP tends to attract a lot of that at times, especially based on theories that never seem to have hard data to back them up. We already know it doesn't affect timers for Flashbulb/Strobe/Economizer, Shield Bash timing, spell recast, spell priorities, etc. - we've known those things for YEARS from actual testing. If someone wants to do more testing on a crappy attachment, be my guest. All I ask is that any test be accompanied by legitimate data and a clear description of the testing method.

TacPro likely does SOMETHING (assuming it's not been broken all along), but that something is so impractical and of such little benefit that it might as well not exist. Maybe the puppet closes a skillchain 0.3 seconds sooner? Maybe full Stormwaker frame calculates what hp% the mob is at a second or two sooner to decide/pre-load the next spell to be cast (since casting enfeebles/nukes for SW is largely determined by mop hp%)? Whatever it does, it's not going to be game-changing. If it was, someone would have noticed it already by now. I'm willing to bet that whatever the effect is, it's not beneficial enough take up one of my 12 attachment slots from other worthy choices.

Edited, Aug 9th 2011 2:58pm by Anza


What misinformation have I given out? The only thing I have offered since this topic was made beside encouragement was my opinion of what they meant and what should be tested. And I have conceded in multiple posts that at the end of the day it's properly not gonna be all that useful so how I am being irrationally optimistic. Simply becuase even if the end result proves it isn't a useful attachment but I think we should finding out what it does anyways?
____________________________
If cookies were milk and milk was cookies. Would Oreo's still be america's favorite brand of milk?
#38 Aug 09 2011 at 6:20 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
***
2,869 posts
Laxedrane the Irrelevant wrote:
What misinformation have I given out?


To clear up any misunderstanding, I'm not saying you did give any misinformation. My comment is more directed at other people who might be reading S-E's comments and getting overexcited (PUP does seem more prone to such reaction than other jobs). Also, I never said it's hopeless to test. Just that I don't feel it's worth my own time considering the many hours of testing the community has already done in years past. I think everyone here understands not to expect something amazing, but please feel free to test if you want.

To me, I view spending time worrying about TacPro in the same light as doing weapon/gear DoT testing comparisons for lv40 gear in today's FFXI - you can certainly get some accurate data, but the end result isn't going to be that relevant to a high level PUP with better options.

To anyone out there, if you ARE set on playing with TacPro, I'd look toward full Stormwaker or maybe even Harelquin. TacPro was around long before Soulsoother/Spiritreaver heads, and SW/Harle are the frames most reliant on hidden AI timers. It also wouldn't shock me if S-E broke TacPro's potential uses during one of the many stealth SW AI changes back in the old days.

And that's about all the time I need to spend thinking about TacPro. No hard feelings though Laxedrane, I certainly have nothing personal against you - please don't think I'm trying to jump on you or anything.


____________________________
Anza: Titan 2004-2011 / Capuchin: Phoenix 2011-???
#39 Aug 09 2011 at 6:58 PM Rating: Decent
***
1,263 posts
Laxedrane the Irrelevant wrote:

But I am pretty confident with the constant yammering about this from the community that when they say it does something it actually does something. And no one been able to figure that out yet.


Just like how trolls on the official forums keep yammering that different animators have different hidden affects with no proof or parses? My bet is if it affects anything its harlequin only and that's why no one has ever seen it.


Quote:
There is a disease that ...
There are 2, fibromyalga and CFS, neither has a way to diagnose, treat, or cure it. The diagnosis is "do you have chronic pain in 11/18 body parts for at least the last 3 months?" The treatment is even more of a joke...

Physical therapy
Exercise and fitness program
Stress-relief methods, including light massage and relaxation techniques

Quote:
However not only are you guys actively posting here telling people that it's a lost cause give up I've been trying for 6 years or tried and fail over that many, why do these guys that are new to pup think they can do any better. You guys are actively discouraging people from looking into this. Yeah warn people that this is a problem no one been able to solve and it's been a problem for 6 years. But why are we telling people that it's hopeless to test this? And why are you discouraging me from encouraging them?
Personally I don't think we will ever know what this thing does if you guys keep acting the way you are


Its not that i am discouraging people from testing it, i am just saying many, far smarter people then me have tried for years and come up empty. If after 6 years NO ONE has noticed a single **** thing about it, chances are that whatever it does is so tiny and insignificant, that it doesn't merit the time spent testing it (for me), or eventually equipping it.

I spent a good 2 weeks testing animators and came up empty when trolls on the OF said that there was a noticeable performance increase with different animators. They even said it stacked with tactical processor so I spent even more time with that as well. I have 15+ pages of data from the different reactionary test i performed with no statistically significant different in anything.

If you want to (or want to encourage others to) test it, by all means go ahead, I will be more then happy to tell you everything I (or others) have tested so far and come up empty on.
#40 Aug 09 2011 at 7:17 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
**
275 posts
dustinfoley wrote:
I have 15+ pages of data from the different reactionary test i performed ... I will be more then happy to tell you everything I (or others) have tested so far and come up empty on.


Proceed.

Edited, Aug 9th 2011 9:18pm by AeriaAllslove

itege wrote:
I don't think we need a 15 page dump of information that can roughly be summed up by digging through these forums.
(from below)

How about PM it to me then?

Edited, Aug 9th 2011 9:23pm by AeriaAllslove
#41 Aug 09 2011 at 7:21 PM Rating: Default
I don't think we need a 15 page dump of information that can roughly be summed up by digging through these forums.
____________________________
~Itege~Cerberus~
90PUP/90DRG/90NIN/90DRK
LordFaramir wrote:
Ya know, you're really similiar to me, whether you like that or not :p, but you need a catgirl display picture.

#42 Aug 09 2011 at 9:53 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
**
947 posts
Anza wrote:

To anyone out there, if you ARE set on playing with TacPro, I'd look toward full Stormwaker or maybe even Harelquin. TacPro was around long before Soulsoother/Spiritreaver heads, and SW/Harle are the frames most reliant on hidden AI timers. It also wouldn't shock me if S-E broke TacPro's potential uses during one of the many stealth SW AI changes back in the old days.


I was going to say just that, but noticed you mentioned it before I could. Perhaps it did something back when it was first added, and they broke it right after before anyone figured out what it did. Since SE didn't even seem to know what the **** thing does, it doesn't appear broken to them.

I can see the devs talking. "Do you guys know what the tactical processor does?" Everyone shakes their head no.

Someone replies, "Just read the text, it's fairly obvious, it tells you exactly what it does! No one reads the text these days! For years people have said that sidewinder does 5 times damage, but clearly, the text says it does quadruple damage! Read people!"

Someone chimes in, "Oh, isn't it like the Nanban Kariginu that gives +accuracy and +evasion when you eat a pamama?"

Someone else chimes in, "No, it's more like the Avengers increasing accuracy as your hp decreases."

...Right.

(For anyone missing it, SE stated that those are hidden effects of those items, and in testing, no one has been able to find an accuracy bonus from either. Sidewinder I just threw in because I'm feeling catty, and it took them YEARS to fix the text on that, which I found funny.)
#43 Aug 10 2011 at 4:31 PM Rating: Good
Sage
Avatar
**
293 posts
Is this our quarterly flame thread?
____________________________
Career 99 PUP/WAR, and welcome my shiny new 99 DRK complete with empy smasher.
#44 Aug 10 2011 at 5:39 PM Rating: Good
I kind of miss the daily flame threads. You made me nostalgia D:
____________________________
~Itege~Cerberus~
90PUP/90DRG/90NIN/90DRK
LordFaramir wrote:
Ya know, you're really similiar to me, whether you like that or not :p, but you need a catgirl display picture.

#45 Aug 10 2011 at 6:13 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
***
2,869 posts
itege wrote:
I kind of miss the daily flame threads. You made me nostalgia D:


Ah, the days of Nateypoo yelling at people making theories without testing or checking already compiled data. I was kinda remembering that myself while reading this thread in the past few days :)
____________________________
Anza: Titan 2004-2011 / Capuchin: Phoenix 2011-???
#46 Aug 10 2011 at 7:45 PM Rating: Decent
Anza wrote:
itege wrote:
I kind of miss the daily flame threads. You made me nostalgia D:


Ah, the days of Nateypoo yelling at people making theories without testing or checking already compiled data. I was kinda remembering that myself while reading this thread in the past few days :)


http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?fjob=18&mid=1180983781125697207&howmany=50

Ah the good ol' days.
____________________________
~Itege~Cerberus~
90PUP/90DRG/90NIN/90DRK
LordFaramir wrote:
Ya know, you're really similiar to me, whether you like that or not :p, but you need a catgirl display picture.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 17 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (17)