Why does an RDM cap Ice Magic merits?Follow

You can actually spam it for more than 10 sets if for some reason you need to.

/macro set #
/macro book #

Chain books together and go to town.

I am utterly perplexed as to how someone could essentially have no time to play the game but manage to not only enjoy it, but also be so vocal about it.

i would love to see your data to support that claim.

Clearly one macro isn't enough. But FC fits onto a single macro, and you can separate potency sets into various macros. Paralyze and Slow, for instance, use virtually the same set. It wasn't hard to form habits to hit FC, hit spell, hit potency, hit idle.

As SE expanded the macro system, I expanded the complexity of my macros, adding the page changes to streamline multiple macro hits, and making bars specific to events and situations. The habit forming part with each major update still only took a week or two at most.

Windower, and especially Spellcast, obviously reduces macro complexity while increasing gear swap potential. But vanilla macros can replicate a lot of the same "tricks", and personal experience taught me that just because it's hard for one person, doesn't mean it's abstractly hard.

I don't have to have a pocket BRD to know that my 1/5 Slow II with a proper MND build and elegy is gonna beat the pants off your elegy + slow II cast in melee armor.


Edited, Sep 6th 2011 4:25pm by cidbahamut

Fixed. Thanks for catching that.

I've used this system, and what I've realized is that after a certain amount of frequency, the macros start dropping equip pieces to start to keep up.

You're also limited to picking a limit of 3-4 pieces per cast. Which means you have to macro in some of your potency gear for precast, and you need 2 presses for idle gear unless you try to fragment your swaps depending on priority.

In the end, it was an incredible hassle, and I learned instead to categorize my swaps and flip through the menu.

For example Two boxes on my page would be [pre] [cast] Then another say on Alt would be sorted out between [m-bui][m-bui] with an easily accessible idle or melee set to swap into.

In both cases what would happen is the faster to cast spells would have more difficulty swapping from precast to potency and I'd just opt to choose between the two. That wouldent work so much with buffs now due to AF3+2. (Now there's a duration set and a fast cast set.)




I hate elitism. That's a general rule of thumb. Those that practice it forget that this is, in fact, a game, something to be done at your leisure, and come up with an artificial rule-set to try to force other people under, just because they prefer to play the harder parts of the game with the utmost efficiency possible. It would be fine if they didn't go so far as to presume these rules upon everyone else regardless of their playstyle or content, and I am quite thankful to SE for Abyssea the way it is.

Not that I don't encourage self-improvement. But I do it with the approach of 'see what you can do?' My playing around days were often spent with friends that didn't necessarily push the envelope until I repeatedly put them in danger to teach them what they were capable of. But it was, and still is, all in good fun. But it was great taking the time, giving someone a basic equip swap, going out and showing them how it improved their set up.

I do intend to get the things I desire from Abyssea on my own good time. For me, there's no rush. I don't regret NOT slaving myself away to Dynamis just so I could have the Relic pieces. In the end I still got the Best Enhancing Skill Hands, the best Fast Cast Body, and the default Idle Head out of it in short order and enjoyed myself in the process.

We can argue which was the better use of their time, if you wish. However, I have no regrets.


To Cid. I do believe I explained this part already, but there's on reason why I continue to play this game: I have friends here that want me to play with them, and I happen to enjoy doing so. I USED to be able to play this game regularly when I first got it. And in my travels in the game I made a great deal of friends because of my loose approach to the game. I'm quite good at finding odd strategies or making things that are not optimal work because the optimal wasn't available. In fact, I find more fun in that than your typical playstyle due to how regimented, and thus, boring following a normal grind becomes.

But I've no illusions that my playtime is limited and therefore I have to make the hard choice every time I log on, whether it's a day to put my nose to the grindstone and try to eek out as much productivity as I can during that time, or whether or not I'm in the mood to just fool around and have some fun with friends.

Abyssea has done a good job kinda mixing in the two and I'll be having fun enjoying that part of the game for quite a while, as I want to get sets for both RDM and BLU.

Voidwatch has almost no draw to me due to the hardcore nature behind it. I'm glad they've removed the 24-36hour pop timers and heavy competition for HNM type monsters, but without having prerequisite gear and time to dedicate to regularly hunting monsters for a large demand base for drops, it's just not a wise use of my time.

I just wish that congestion for such would also lessen a bit in Abyssea. But I expect that to occur to some degree when the content move on a bit.

But no, I play this game because I enjoy the company of old friends I've made with it, and that of new friends I tend to meet due to my open approach to play.

That doesn't change the intellectual discussion on where I would like the game to progress. SE has done a lot to make the game's content more accessible to players like me and I'd like them not to take a back step on that design. I'll continue to push for what I enjoy as a player and what I've heard others enjoy in the game as well.

If you're going to insult me for it, then you're not worth my time. But if you want to have an intellectual discussion on why it is or is not healthy to appeal to a casual base as well as your hardcore base then I'm more than welcome to oblige. As well as any other topic as to the difficulties the causal player currently has, used to have, or how they no longer have to deal with specific ones.


My friends, since the level cap rise have since noted to me I should pick BLU back up again, as it lends itself well to my playstyle, and I have, (slowly) been working it back up. I'm taking my time, as I want to get the spells as I progress rather than level BLU up straight and force myself to play catch up, but I may end up having to do the latter anyways simply due to conservation of time. (Easier to focus first on leveling up, then Skilling up, then spell hunting separately, than trying to mesh it all together.)

But as far as RDM as a hybrid. I love the fact that it is essentially an all range job (jack of all trades), scooting more into the back line role for more difficult encounters. But my stance in it having more leeway for the front line hasn't changed in the entirety of my gameplay, It won't just because that gameplay continues to evolve. SE seems to agree, and I don't see the point in insulting it rather than simply trying to find that niche for it and working to be better for that niche.

Again, it's my stanch opinion that the martial side shouldn't be just a toy. And if it's not viable as it stands in the view of the community, suggestions should be offered to make it so, as there's a large enough player base (game heritage, gear support, etc) to justify giving it that niche. We don't have to sacrifice either back line nor front line gameplay to improve one or the other. That's just fear-mongering.

But instead of continuing on with the conversation, people seem content to derail things by attacking every which aspect in someone's playstyle they don't agree on. The game is huge, there's no point in spending time insulting where someone draws the line between efficiency and enjoyability. And honestly, RDM's martial skills shouldn't be the argument defining that line either. It should be a separate discussion on it's own to try to find a place for this age-old desire FOR THE JOB that would be both enjoyable, and productive, (even if that productivity is on an older event or restricted to sections of a newer event that aren't as difficult as a boss fight.)

I managed to make it work with just extended macros for quite a bit after sitting down and rewriting everything and even running out to saru to check it swapped FC then potency, but had to drop fast cast on certain spells (wait timers and extended macros didn't go too well for me). Switched this year and haven't looked back (although I keep the old macro palette as book 20, just in case).

Wait? So now everyone here also has a brd?

Edit: Also, you're making an unnecessary differentiation only to support your argument. Slow II(or any spell for that matter) doesn't behave differently based on slot that mnd and m.acc comes from. The bottom line is, you know that I'm right. We all have to pick and choose and we can't have it all. Some things cost more than they benefit.

Years ago, there was no differentiation. A RDM shouldn't ever have a sword and everyone wanted staff weapon skills. NOW, people are saying that there's a difference? Get over yourselves, there is no difference. This is all preference and if anyone chooses anything outside of the popular preference is instantly shunned. Just like then and just like now.

Edited, Sep 7th 2011 5:55am by Almalieque

Edited, Sep 7th 2011 5:59am by Almalieque

You just love to compare every subsequent argument back to that first one, but all it does is show your concept of logic is tenuous, at best.

They have nothing to do with each other, as one can get the same spells with less work from another subjob which offers you more perks than the one that requires more work for the same spells and less perks. Comparing that to not carrying/swapping gear is simply retarded, as the difference between casting in melee gear/whatever versus casting in an intelligent set is vast; given that you think a 5/5 Slow2 cast in melee gear is comparable to a 1/5 Slow2 cast in MND gear, it seems to me that you really don't have any clue what you're talking about.

Then there's the comparison you tried to make between Ice and Shock Spikes procs... I mean damn man, that is some You Fail Logic Forever sh*t right there.

As I said before, you are entitled to your playstyle/opinion, but don't make the mistake of thinking it makes them valid.

Edited, Sep 7th 2011 12:46am by LyltiaofLakshmi

As one of the melee kooks, I'd think I'd remember this. Conversation on lack of staff skill at times, sure, but very rarely a concentrated movement on acquisition, especially considering the frequent nature of swaps inherent to the staff mentality.

Just imagine how much better you'd be at RDM if you spent as much time researching and gearing it as you do attempting to justify being a failure at it on these forums...

This is a stupid comparison and you know it.


In order to be better than a capped single merit slow 2 you would need 3 merits, and and a dMND of 62.

SLOW II @ 1 merit with capped MND = (350+(1*10)/1024) = 35.1

SLOW II uncapped requires. 1024*.351 = 359.42

reverse engineering this formula

230 + (3*10) + (dMND * 1.6) gives us.

359.42 - 260 = 99.2/1.6 = 62dMND.

Therefore even with 3 merits you still need 62 dMND to match the slow effect that someone with dMND capped is providing with a 1 merit spell.

So excluding elegy from the above comparison leaves you...wrong again. Hence the reason why going 1/5 or 5/5 in slow is the best bet, and even then going from a capped dmnd slow II with 1/5 to 5/5 is still only a minor change to damage mitigation.

I thought you said you knew how to math?

Also you get those para numbers yet?





Edited, Sep 7th 2011 10:17am by rdmcandie

Edited, Sep 7th 2011 10:18am by rdmcandie

sh*tty game design shouldn't be standard either, but what're you gonna do?

Life is so unfair, non?

Ok. Have fun with your standards. I'll be over here enjoying spellcast and the ability to trivialize gearset management. You really ought to try it Hyrist, it breathed new life into the game for me and I suspect it did the same for a lot of other folks once they got around to trying it. Let me know when you finally cave in and I'll help you get a nice XML file set up.

throw me a link. I'll see if I can dig up that part of my own XML out of an old version I kept on Google docs. Gimme a minute.

Edit:
Found it. My XML isn't structured to outright skip precast on all spells, I'd have to overhaul it a bit to get that but I do have chainspell rules built into my nuking ruleset. Here, knock yourself out: http://pastebin.com/L5Ap15Gr

As usual stick it in Notepad++ or it'll look icky.

Edited, Sep 7th 2011 3:33pm by cidbahamut

At this point, I wouldn't go back. Spellcast simply offers a level of precision that cannot be matched, although it does take some time to craft the XML to extract that precision and not everyone is up to the task. I come from a programming background so it's fairly intuitive for me to write my own stuff, but I know there's also a lot of people out there who have to rely on really bare bones templates because they don't have the experience required to craft their own. For those folks, in-game macro sets would suffice just fine. For those of us who build our own XMLs from scratch and enjoy the puzzle of figuring out how to get exactly what we want out of spellcast, well I don't think any in-game option could come close to giving us the same functionality.

It's easy enough to just enable/disable your Main + Sub slots, and have your SpellCast XML default to swapping. If you're swording stuff and don't want to lose TP, just disable your Main + Sub slots manually. If not, it will swap all your staves as necessary.

We agree there. But I understand their stance.

They don't want to condone console users getting too far behind the PC users. So until they drop that sort of support (IF they drop or seperate the support.) Windower will never get SE's blessing.

Unless of course, someone learns how to program windower for the PS2 and Xbox360. I'd love to see that happen.

That said. I do like what you stated about curing and convert sets. There is a limit to the amount I can cast in direct relation to the fact that I can't keep the MP I get during convert swaps, but there's no way for me to functionally amend this if I'm going to take the front lines, so I've learned to manage my MP better.

A 'Vert may translate into an immediate nuke after the Cure to get my HP up. Otherwise, I only keep as much of a convert set on me to offset the cost of curing myself up.

Edited, Sep 7th 2011 4:34pm by Hyrist

Edited, Sep 7th 2011 6:00pm by Hyrist

Come back with exact numbers Alma.

That's my take on things.

Don't care if people use it (I use it), just hate it when it gets treated as the standard.

Here's the thing. I WASN'T ATTEMPTING TO PERSUADE ANYONE IN ANYTHING. You all said that ice spikes only procs once. After people "ensured" me that was a fact, I just left it at that. I merely mentioned that I got more procs from Ice spikes than para I or para II, which was the reason why I use ice spikes now. You can take it or leave it.

So, no, I don't need to provide any proof of evidence of anything, because I was never trying to prove anything. I was merely stating an observation. If you or anyone else doesn't like it, then tough beans.

People just started asking for numbers. There's a reason why I stated from PERSONAL experience only and observation. I couldn't care less if you believe me or not as your beliefs will not make my para I or para II outperform my ice spikes.

Unless that is, people aren't authorized to say observations without numbers? Ice spikes wasn't part of the debate.


Intentionally or not, you're taking sides. Yet, till this day, with all of the hypocrisy that has occurred, my name is the only name you mentioned.

What they've been saying, as far as the Ice Spikes only procing once, is what RCD just mentioned. Once the actual paralysis effect from the Ice Spikes is inflicted on the mob, the Ice Spikes themselves won't proc the paralysis effect again until the Paralysis on the mob wears off. You could cast Ice Spikes, have the mob hit you until you see that it's been paralyzed, and then you could switch to something like Blaze or Shock Spikes and the mobs would retain the same level of paralysis as before until it wears off. It's less efficient in my mind to keep Ice Spikes up constantly when you could have Blaze or Shock Spikes up and just throw a Paralyze on the mob.

As for why I brought your name up, I mentioned you specifically because of where you stand on this entire debate (you are debating against what is considered the "standard" for RDM nowadays). In these situations, if anyone is debating against the standard belief of how to play a job or the best gear for this weapon skill or anything along those lines, the burden of proof is going to be on them to support their claims, because they're going against repeated testing by several different individuals over several weeks and months time. If I were to make a claim or state that I think a setup that doesn't conform to the normal way of thinking would do better than the standard, I would feel obligated to back it up with my empirical data to try and support it, because in this day and age, eyeballing it just doesn't cut it anymore. That's the only reason I brought your name up. I didn't actually say you were wrong or side against you, it's just that you are in that particular seat as far as these "debates", that you are arguing against what is considered the "standard", and the burden of proof lies on you.

For an example, let's just say that I hopped over to the Warrior forums and said that from my personal experience, King's Justice is superior to Ukko's Fury in any and all situations, and while I fervently argued and debated about my beliefs, I never gave any real empirical data to support my claims. Would you take my beliefs at face value and accept them as the truth despite that not only am I going against the standard belief of Warriors and players in general, I'm going against it without any tangible proof to support it? Probably not, which is why I'm saying that supporting what you say with tests and experiments of your own so you can show others why you're concluding what you are is going to do you much more than just stating your side without any proof for others to see.


Edited, Sep 8th 2011 10:41am by Vlorsutes

In short, the reason your name was mentioned and not the others was because the side they've been arguing on is by and large the standard way that most Red Mages play the game (their merits are the "standard", what gear they advocate swapping in for debuffs is the "standard", and so on), whereas you are that other side of the argument, the one that is advocating doing things in a way other than what is considered the "standard". I must stress that I'm not saying that your method is wrong or anything like that, I'm just saying that how you do it is different than what is considered the norm, and as such the burden of proof rests with you, which is why I recommended you have empirical evidence.

I didn't mention the others only because the information they've been giving is that norm, and the evidence already exists and can likely be found in multiple areas, so they don't necessarily have to post that information (though in some cases in this topic alone they have anyway). If the sides were flip-flopped I'd be saying the same thing to RCD or Fyn or Lyltia or whoever was debating on the "against the norm" side.


Edited, Sep 8th 2011 10:41am by Vlorsutes