Forum Settings
       
This thread is locked

Why does an RDM cap Ice Magic merits?Follow

#152 Sep 06 2011 at 7:42 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
LyltiaofLakshmi wrote:
There's a command that switches pages within the same book of macros, so if you set up your macros properly, you can essentially spam one macro to perform up to 10 different sets of actions in sequence. Still not as good as Windower/Spellcast, but workable.

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.
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#153 Sep 06 2011 at 8:19 AM Rating: Excellent
cidbahamut wrote:
Hyrist wrote:

cidbahamut wrote:

Do you have roughly one hour of time to play on a semi-regular basis?



The answer for most of the last 9 years is no.

Then why on earth would you be playing an MMORPG?


To be fair, if he gets enjoyment out of the game even though he can't devote that much time to it, then more power to him. Though I don't consider it an excuse or justification or anything, it is his money
____________________________
Lady Jinte wrote:

Vlorsutes' Negotiation Skill rises 0.2 points
Vlorsutes' Observant Parent Skill rises 0.3 points
Vlorsutes' Argument Diffusing Skill rises 0.1 points

#154 Sep 06 2011 at 9:00 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
Vlorsutes, Lord of Stuff wrote:
cidbahamut wrote:
Hyrist wrote:

cidbahamut wrote:

Do you have roughly one hour of time to play on a semi-regular basis?



The answer for most of the last 9 years is no.

Then why on earth would you be playing an MMORPG?


To be fair, if he gets enjoyment out of the game even though he can't devote that much time to it, then more power to him. Though I don't consider it an excuse or justification or anything, it is his money

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.
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#155 Sep 06 2011 at 9:32 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
crap, ran out of time.. will post the rest later.....


Neisan wrote:
... You're not even talking about the same thing anymore. You can't paralyze a paralyzed mob (with an effect of the same tier, and Ice spikes is still considered tier 1). If the added effect of ice spikes procs on a mob, it can't proc again until the status wears off.

Edited, Sep 5th 2011 2:58pm by Neisan


ALl I know is the procs from ice spikes were greater than paralyze 1 and II. That's why I started using ice spikes.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#156 Sep 06 2011 at 9:42 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
i would love to see your data to support that claim.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#157 Sep 06 2011 at 12:50 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
RDD wrote:
learn2math.


Please stop confusing lolffxi internal rounding fake math with real math. Once again, I seriously doubt that you have surpassed me in the math realm.

Cid wrote:
ITT: Scars of Abyssea is old content, Alma doesn't have time to play but has plenty of time to tell us how we're all wrong and Ironclad Executioner isn't soloable.


Almalieque the Awesome wrote:
Just because new stuff came out, doesn't mean I magically received the older content.


I don't have to have +2 to know that my elegy and merited slow II is more potent than your slow II and mnd build up.

ICP wrote:
It's "not be a big deal" to cap dMND for Slow II.
It's "not be a big deal" to precast short spells with Fast Cast.
Almalieque's making a list of things that "aren't a big deal".

Just don't let it get too long, Alma...
Those things add-up.



That's the thing. This is game is designed to where it's literally impossible to max/min every stat used by a job. You WILL have to make a decision of one stat over another and that's determined by how you play. Just like how some RDMs choose not to melee, some choose not to nuke, while most RDMs merit int over mnd, don't merit earth m. acc and don't merit slow II more than once. Yet, here we are talking about carrying extra gear to enhance slow II. It's all preference and to pretend otherwise is s*lly.

I'm not naive, there are some "stupid" decisions that are made, but choosing to merit a spell instead of carrying extra gear isn't one of them. It's not even like I don't macro in mnd gear for slow II, just not always as a solo/duo melee rdm.

ICP wrote:
The funniest thing is you acting like there's a disadvantage to precasting "short" spells in Fast cast gear.


I'm not pretending that it's a disadvantage to do so, just don't act like that I'm at a disadvantage for choosing not to. It's a trade off. That's the primary thing RDD left out in his attempt to counter my claim. By not switching to fast cast gear, yes, I'm casting a fraction of a second slower, but I'm also swinging a fraction of a second faster or have more defense a fraction of a second longer, etc. It all varies on what you value to be the most important.

For most of the mobs I fight, defense outweighs the fast cast on "short spells".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#158 Sep 06 2011 at 12:54 PM Rating: Excellent
***
3,059 posts
Hyrist wrote:
You'll have to pardon my skepticism, but how did you manage to macro in pre AND mid cast sets into limits of 5 lines? (I got as far as potency/accuracy sets swapped back into idle/melee and that was it.)

Mind you, this is on a fast casting spell enhanced moreso by fast cast gear.

Edited, Sep 6th 2011 3:45am by Hyrist

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.
____________________________
"And I'm prepared to passionately argue this point until nothing makes sense anymore. If that doesn't work, then the hours upon hours of whining will." -Red Mage Statscowski

Saggo of Garuda Lakshmi
#159 Sep 06 2011 at 1:19 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Hyrist wrote:

Though I do understand your concern with Alma trying to get away with not swapping for things. I had to tell someone the value of swapping gear earlier in the summer.


I DO swap gear, just not everything for every mob every time. If I'm melee tanking, geared up a certain way, I'm not necessarily going to lug around other gear to cast for a spell if the difference isn't worth it. Everything else, I agree with. There's so much stuff in this game and to assume that in the free time that we do have to play this game, that we should be doing x,y and z is simply the wrong answer.

Quote:

Using this, you press the macro once to change to Precast, press it a second time to fire the spell, plus one additional time for each additional page of gear swaps (3 times to switch 14 slots worth of gear is the most you'll need), and press a final time (or times, depending how much gear needs to be swapped to go back to idle) to go back to your idle gear and return to the first page.


Wait a minute here. So this is completely acceptable for EVERY casting of a particular spell, yet using DA for sleeping on an occasions is just WAAAAY too much?

Lyltia wrote:

Playing your overused "I hate elitists" card is not the correct response, as anyone can tell by taking a stroll through Port Jeuno these days that +2 gear is hardly rare. When we say this stuff is easily obtainable, we don't mean you have to join some endgame LS, kiss ***, and sit in line for a few months to get it (although some, amazingly, still do this); we mean that you can either go solo it yourself and get it done in a few runs, or grab a friend and finish it in one go.


Read above.

People spend 9 merits to upgrade a stat by one, yet somehow meriting slow II is a waste? Do you not realize how much +int gear there is? For the longest I had almost the same amount of +int as I did base int.

This is nothing more than cookie cutting, band wagon players expecting everyone should be playing a certain way. We are all guilty to it to an extent, we just have to realize it.

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#160 Sep 06 2011 at 1:28 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
Almalieque the lolRDM wrote:

I don't have to have +2 to know that my elegy and merited slow II is more potent than your slow II and mnd build up.

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
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#161 Sep 06 2011 at 2:09 PM Rating: Good
***
1,018 posts
Quote:
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 gear armor.
Why did I have to FTFY?
Almalieque (our beloved on-board Weapon Categorization Semanticist) has already explained the terminology differences at length.

Did you not learn anything?
____________________________
--------- Xenith ---------
----------------------------
RDM /
*videos*
#162 Sep 06 2011 at 2:25 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
Fixed. Thanks for catching that.
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#163 Sep 06 2011 at 2:56 PM Rating: Default
**
824 posts
Quote:
Wait a minute here. So this is completely acceptable for EVERY casting of a particular spell, yet using DA for sleeping on an occasions is just WAAAAY too much?


You do realize that all it amounts to is mashing the same button a few times in quick succession? The only hard/time-consuming about it is setting it up.

Also doesn't apply to me, as the way i have my game setup, i barely even have need for macros, much less macroed gearswaps.
____________________________
rdmcandie wrote:
RDM can attain an almost static 50% reduction to recast time, SCH can over shoot this for a total of 60% reduction under Alacrity (provided you are wearing loafers and keeping dark weather on yourself)

rdmcandie wrote:
MACC is a joke, any job with access to mage gear can hit close the MACC cap on legion mobs, which is why my BRD/RDM can land slow/para/blind despite having only 150 skill (from /RDM.)
#164 Sep 06 2011 at 5:07 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,354 posts
LyltiaofLakshmi wrote:
There's a command that switches pages within the same book of macros, so if you set up your macros properly, you can essentially spam one macro to perform up to 10 different sets of actions in sequence. Still not as good as Windower/Spellcast, but workable.


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.)


Quote:
In regards to the rest, if you have so little playtime, obviously none of what we said really applies to you, so there's no reason to get so bent out of shape about it. Playing your overused "I hate elitists" card is not the correct response, as anyone can tell by taking a stroll through Port Jeuno these days that +2 gear is hardly rare. When we say this stuff is easily obtainable, we don't mean you have to join some endgame LS, kiss ***, and sit in line for a few months to get it (although some, amazingly, still do this); we mean that you can either go solo it yourself and get it done in a few runs, or grab a friend and finish it in one go.


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.)
#165 Sep 06 2011 at 5:36 PM Rating: Default
**
824 posts
Well then, I think the conclusion is rather crystal-clear; use Spellcast or be forever consigned to second-rate performance.

You might not like it, and can ***** all you want, but those are cold, hard facts.
____________________________
rdmcandie wrote:
RDM can attain an almost static 50% reduction to recast time, SCH can over shoot this for a total of 60% reduction under Alacrity (provided you are wearing loafers and keeping dark weather on yourself)

rdmcandie wrote:
MACC is a joke, any job with access to mage gear can hit close the MACC cap on legion mobs, which is why my BRD/RDM can land slow/para/blind despite having only 150 skill (from /RDM.)
#166 Sep 06 2011 at 7:36 PM Rating: Good
**
785 posts
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).
#167 Sep 06 2011 at 9:45 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Almalieque wrote:
crap, ran out of time.. will post the rest later.....


Neisan wrote:
... You're not even talking about the same thing anymore. You can't paralyze a paralyzed mob (with an effect of the same tier, and Ice spikes is still considered tier 1). If the added effect of ice spikes procs on a mob, it can't proc again until the status wears off.

Edited, Sep 5th 2011 2:58pm by Neisan


ALl I know is the procs from ice spikes were greater than paralyze 1 and II. That's why I started using ice spikes.



rdmcandie wrote:
i would love to see your data to support that claim.


Alma wrote:
lots of wrong stuff


Still waiting champ.

Also if you are so good at math why do you pass up a 5% increase to melee damage by not using fast cast gear on all your casts (and AFv3 on all your buffs). 5% is pretty good buff for macro-ing in 5 items . Also you can't swing while casting so technically me using fast cast gear would be swinging a fraction of a second faster than you, on every single spell cast, and that is the point.

Since you can't swing while casting, haste gear is mostly useless (outside the 10% needed to cap recasts on the cast)
-pdt gear takes up wonderful slots like neck, rings, waists and backs, leaving out head body legs hand feet open for our fast cast and af3v2. You lose very little in the way of....ah @#%^ it you aren't going to understand it anyway.

Lets just say you are right so you will shut up and stop being wrong.


Edited, Sep 6th 2011 11:52pm by rdmcandie

Edited, Sep 6th 2011 11:53pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#168 Sep 06 2011 at 9:50 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
IcookPizza wrote:
Quote:
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 gear armor.
Why did I have to FTFY?
Almalieque (our beloved on-board Weapon Categorization Semanticist) has already explained the terminology differences at length.

Did you not learn anything?


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
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#169 Sep 06 2011 at 10:09 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
RDD wrote:
Also if you are so good at math why do you pass up a 5% increase to melee damage by not using fast cast gear on all your casts (and AFv3 on all your buffs). 5% is pretty good buff for macro-ing in 5 items .


The same reason why a person who converts every 10 mins doesn't cast refresh.

RDD wrote:
Lets just say you are right


deal...

+1

Ly wrote:
You do realize that all it amounts to is mashing the same button a few times in quick succession? The only hard/time-consuming about it is setting it up.

Also doesn't apply to me, as the way i have my game setup, i barely even have need for macros, much less macroed gearswaps


I didn't say it was difficult, just that it involves MORE work than DA+sleep as you can do that all in one macro. Yes, it does includes you in a way. You were part of that debate and you didn't voice this opinion when it supported my argument, but here you are when it supports yours. You are not required to respond to stuff not directed at you and/or it could have just been a "coincidence", but it does make you seem "choosy".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#170 Sep 06 2011 at 10:42 PM Rating: Decent
**
824 posts
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 **** man, that is some You Fail Logic Forever **** 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
____________________________
rdmcandie wrote:
RDM can attain an almost static 50% reduction to recast time, SCH can over shoot this for a total of 60% reduction under Alacrity (provided you are wearing loafers and keeping dark weather on yourself)

rdmcandie wrote:
MACC is a joke, any job with access to mage gear can hit close the MACC cap on legion mobs, which is why my BRD/RDM can land slow/para/blind despite having only 150 skill (from /RDM.)
#171 Sep 06 2011 at 11:20 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Quote:

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


If it works then it is valid, he shouldn't be saying its optimal this and optimal that though, because everything he has claimed is optimal is hardly optimal.

Id still like to see his numbers on Ice Spikes vs Para vs Para II though.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#172 Sep 07 2011 at 12:47 AM Rating: Good
Guru
Avatar
*****
10,679 posts
Quote:
A RDM shouldn't ever have a sword and everyone wanted staff weapon skills.


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.
#173 Sep 07 2011 at 3:34 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Lyltia wrote:
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.


It's called consistency.

Lyltia wrote:
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.


More perks? Now you're just making stuff up. He mentioned two reasons for /RDM, dispel and convert. Dispel can be achieved from SCH. He not only admitted that convert wasn't necessary 100% of the time and that it was MORE than necessary to get the job done but it was nothing but a convenience of getting a lump sum of MP all at once as opposed to other methods such as sublimation.

In any case, /sch gives more combination of white and black magic spells than /whm,/blm or /rdm. So, unless you're specifically needing one spell or ability, there isn't more perks.

Lyltia wrote:
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.


No, I think casting in 3/5 slow II and Elegy is better than casting Slow 2 and MND gear. It's not comparable and never said that it was. I'm willing to bet that you didn't merit 8 mnd now did you? So, I guess you don't know what you're talking about right? Don't you know that MND enhances slow II more than int does?

So how can you choose not to merit 8 mnd and then complain about not carrying mnd gear? The answer: It's a give and take, you have to choose, you can not max anything out and to pretend that someone is "retarded" because they chose to give/take in another area as opposed to what you chose is s*lly.

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


Exactly.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#174 Sep 07 2011 at 4:11 AM Rating: Decent
**
824 posts
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...
____________________________
rdmcandie wrote:
RDM can attain an almost static 50% reduction to recast time, SCH can over shoot this for a total of 60% reduction under Alacrity (provided you are wearing loafers and keeping dark weather on yourself)

rdmcandie wrote:
MACC is a joke, any job with access to mage gear can hit close the MACC cap on legion mobs, which is why my BRD/RDM can land slow/para/blind despite having only 150 skill (from /RDM.)
#175 Sep 07 2011 at 7:20 AM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
Alma, precisely how much +MND are you getting from the equipment you use to cast Slow II?
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#176 Sep 07 2011 at 7:59 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Quote:
No, I think casting in 3/5 slow II and Elegy is better than casting Slow 2 and MND gear.


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
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#177 Sep 07 2011 at 12:29 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,354 posts
LyltiaofLakshmi wrote:
Well then, I think the conclusion is rather crystal-clear; use Spellcast or be forever consigned to second-rate performance.

You might not like it, and can ***** all you want, but those are cold, hard facts.



Translation: Cheat or Suck.

Awesome choices there. You wonder why SE hates third party tools. Breaking the rules should not be a standard.

Edited, Sep 7th 2011 2:29pm by Hyrist
#178 Sep 07 2011 at 12:48 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
Hyrist wrote:
LyltiaofLakshmi wrote:
Well then, I think the conclusion is rather crystal-clear; use Spellcast or be forever consigned to second-rate performance.

You might not like it, and can ***** all you want, but those are cold, hard facts.



Translation: Cheat or Suck.

Awesome choices there. You wonder why SE hates third party tools. Breaking the rules should not be a standard.

Edited, Sep 7th 2011 2:29pm by Hyrist

****** game design shouldn't be standard either, but what're you gonna do?
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#179 Sep 07 2011 at 1:09 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,354 posts
Keep my standards in check for those who don't like having their Accounts at the mercy of SE's GMs to ban whenever they feel like?

Just a suggestion.
#180 Sep 07 2011 at 1:11 PM Rating: Decent
**
824 posts
Quote:
Awesome choices there. You wonder why SE hates third party tools. Breaking the rules should not be a standard.


Life is so unfair, non?
____________________________
rdmcandie wrote:
RDM can attain an almost static 50% reduction to recast time, SCH can over shoot this for a total of 60% reduction under Alacrity (provided you are wearing loafers and keeping dark weather on yourself)

rdmcandie wrote:
MACC is a joke, any job with access to mage gear can hit close the MACC cap on legion mobs, which is why my BRD/RDM can land slow/para/blind despite having only 150 skill (from /RDM.)
#181 Sep 07 2011 at 1:12 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
4,354 posts
Actually, life itself is harsh, but very fair.

Humans are the unfair ones. They cheat to win. *grin*
#182 Sep 07 2011 at 1:16 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
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.
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#183 Sep 07 2011 at 1:22 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,354 posts
Actually I myself have been using Spellcast for about a year now Cid. (2 if you count the break)

I'm speaking from both sides, having to do both.

And I agree, it did wonders for my game, it's a lot less stressful. Though I kinda keep my code a bit on the simple side.

So you're a bit late on that offer there Cid.

Though if you want to help, pick out the coding section that skips precast during Chainspell and Soloiquity and hand it to me. I'm having a **** of a time finding it.

Edited, Sep 7th 2011 3:22pm by Hyrist
#184 Sep 07 2011 at 1:26 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
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
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#185 Sep 07 2011 at 1:30 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,354 posts
I'm at work at the moment. I'll link you to the Template in the other forums when I get home.

My major point for that moment was: I don't hold it against others for not using windower, I know the risks involved and accept them, but I can't fault others for not wanting to take that risk.

If SE made programmable "Equipment Sets" to put in macro commands I'd probably drop it.

Edited, Sep 7th 2011 3:33pm by Hyrist
#186 Sep 07 2011 at 1:40 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
Hyrist wrote:
I'm at work at the moment. I'll link you to the Template in the other forums when I get home.

My major point for that moment was: I don't hold it against others for not using windower, I know the risks involved and accept them, but I can't fault others for not wanting to take that risk.

If SE made programmable "Equipment Sets" to put in macro commands I'd probably drop it.

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

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.
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#187 Sep 07 2011 at 1:58 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,354 posts
Understandable. Again it's not the functionality that I'm worried over so much as the risk of using it.

I'm not in a programming background but I have some base understanding of code so I've been working off of bits and pieces, only adding them in when I understand how they function. But if SE was to make something comprehensive enough to make it so I can save gear sets to a list and activate that on a push of a button, that'd be good for me. I don't have so much of an ambition to have my spellcast check for what day and weather it is to make sure I'm wearing the corresponding Obis or too much in that vein. That's a bit too far into micromanagement for me.

Right now I happy with the fact that makes sure it gives me the right gearset for the right action. I might be convinced in it checking my TP level to automatically swap in my staff for nuking while in melee mode. (Not keen on autoswapping staves while in backline mode, sometimes I like to hold onto that TP for WS procs or skillchain setups.) but a lot of what I do requires me to have my set be functional enough to take out and add in pieces as I need them depending on front/back line performance.

Edited, Sep 7th 2011 3:59pm by Hyrist
#188 Sep 07 2011 at 2:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
4,416 posts
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.
____________________________
Aliekber
RDM BLU SCH DRG PLD BLM NIN WHM
Linkshell: CrimsonMercenaries Server: Carbamesh

Sandinmygum the Stupendous wrote:
Human (?) females look ugly.
Post in /K/ where the orbital laser system is now online.
#189 Sep 07 2011 at 2:11 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
Hyrist wrote:
Understandable. Again it's not the functionality that I'm worried over so much as the risk of using it.

I'm not in a programming background but I have some base understanding of code so I've been working off of bits and pieces, only adding them in when I understand how they function. But if SE was to make something comprehensive enough to make it so I can save gear sets to a list and activate that on a push of a button, that'd be good for me. I don't have so much of an ambition to have my spellcast check for what day and weather it is to make sure I'm wearing the corresponding Obis or too much in that vein. That's a bit too far into micromanagement for me.

See, that's the level I dive into it, and then I go deeper still if I find a need that I suspect spellcast can resolve. For example, there's a metric ton of XMLs floating around out there that make use of a convert set. Covert is a huge deal. However, they all approach Convert in a very silly manner. Swap to convert set, convert, and then input a raw Cure IV. Now I don't know about you, but the difference between my maxMP set and my set with the lowest MP total is a good deal larger than 88 mp, and sometimes immediately dropping a Cure IV is not the wisest course of action. I figured out a way to improve that. I made rulesets that would stagger which pieces of gear actually got swapped so I wouldn't waste the 200+ mp I was getting by using a convert set. It was a vast improvement to my mp efficiency and ensured I was getting the most out of each convert, allowing me to cast more aggressively.

Spellcast is an incredibly powerful tool if you can take the time to learn how to use all of its features. It's a puzzle box and the prize inside is a better FFXI. It's such a shame it doesn't have SE's blessing.
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#190 Sep 07 2011 at 2:32 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,354 posts
Quote:
Spellcast is an incredibly powerful tool if you can take the time to learn how to use all of its features. It's a puzzle box and the prize inside is a better FFXI. It's such a shame it doesn't have SE's blessing.


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
#191 Sep 07 2011 at 2:45 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
LyltiaofLakshmi wrote:
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...


Funny coming from a guy who claims putting 5 merits in Slow II is negligible, but not putting 9 merits to upgrade int by one.

I know you honestly believe that I'm wrong, but if you are as half as knowing as you claim, then you must realize that you can not max/min every stat all of the time. You have to sacrifice based on what you doing. I guess you believe if you keep talking confidently to me, then I would cave in. Sadly, the game is built to fit your fantasy argument.

cidbahamut wrote:
Alma, precisely how much +MND are you getting from the equipment you use to cast Slow II?


Depends if I'm in mage mode or melee mode. I don't know the exact number, but I try to max in mage mode and have more of a balance in melee mode, depending on the mob that I'm fighting.

RDD wrote:
This is a stupid comparison and you know it.


How so? 87.34% of everything I did before I left the states, was with my bro, who is a brd. Even if he wasn't on line, I could log on the brd, since I'm paying for it and he only leveled it from 75.

That's part of the reason why I'm not concerned about + mnd, because I have elegy.

RDD wrote:
So excluding elegy from the above comparison leaves you...wrong again.


1. Why would I do that?
2. Wrong about what? I don't recall ever stating that w/o elegy, one was better than another. I simply made a decision to say that certain gear wasn't worth carrying/macroing for certain mobs while meleeing.

RDD wrote:

I thought you said you knew how to math?


I never said that either.. I said that I seriously doubt that YOU have surpassed me, besides, once again, you're confusing play-play made up math with real math. Please stop insulting Math as such pretending to have some value worth while in reality.

RDD wrote:

Also you get those para numbers yet?


I have no numbers, never said that I have. You're the one caught up in fictional numbers. If you really want to see a demonstration of ice spikes, fight an undead (ghost, skeleton) DC or higher.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#192 Sep 07 2011 at 2:46 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,286 posts
Come back with exact numbers Alma.
____________________________
Server: Midgardsormr
Occupation: Reckless Red Mage

IcookPizza wrote:

I think RDM's neurotic omniscience is sooooooo worth including in any alliance.
#193 Sep 07 2011 at 4:13 PM Rating: Excellent
There's still some flame-baiting on both ends, so if you could all tone it down.

Alma, I say this not as an admin but someone just reading the "debate" going on, but I don't understand why you're making claims regarding the quality of the paralysis from Ice Spikes over Paralyze/II (or some of the other subjects you all have been bouncing around on), yet you're not giving any empirical evidence to support your claims. When it comes to debates over in-game mechanics and what constitutes being best, it's best to bring empirical data rather than just "I find it best" to support yourself, since the burden of proof most often lies in the person suggesting the different idea. What some of the others have been commenting about is based on years of testing and number crunching to determine what is the best setup for several things.

I'm not taking sides on this and saying you're right or wrong, I'm just saying that in any debate like this, it's best to have empirical data to support your side otherwise your claims likely won't be given much credence. With evidence supporting your side, even if they still don't agree with what you're saying, maybe they'll at least see where you're coming from with it, and if it's a misunderstanding of the math on your end (which I've been guilty of before, leading me to some wrong beliefs), then perhaps they'll be able to point it out.
____________________________
Lady Jinte wrote:

Vlorsutes' Negotiation Skill rises 0.2 points
Vlorsutes' Observant Parent Skill rises 0.3 points
Vlorsutes' Argument Diffusing Skill rises 0.1 points

#194 Sep 07 2011 at 4:25 PM Rating: Decent
Jack of All Trades
******
29,242 posts
Quote:
My major point for that moment was: I don't hold it against others for not using windower, I know the risks involved and accept them, but I can't fault others for not wanting to take that risk.


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.
#195 Sep 07 2011 at 5:07 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
4,354 posts
Vol

What's your take on the RDM melee aspect, Temper, the direction of RDM and the rest?

You may be a content admin and mod, but you're also a Red Mage and I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.

And keeping you active in this thread might spook some of the others here into calming down.
#196 Sep 07 2011 at 10:35 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Vlorsutes wrote:
Alma, I say this not as an admin but someone just reading the "debate" going on, but I don't understand why you're making claims regarding the quality of the paralysis from Ice Spikes over Paralyze/II (or some of the other subjects you all have been bouncing around on), yet you're not giving any empirical evidence to support your claims. When it comes to debates over in-game mechanics and what constitutes being best, it's best to bring empirical data rather than just "I find it best" to support yourself, since the burden of proof most often lies in the person suggesting the different idea. What some of the others have been commenting about is based on years of testing and number crunching to determine what is the best setup for several things.



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.

Vlorsutes wrote:
I'm not taking sides on this and saying you're right or wrong, I'm just saying that in any debate like this, it's best to have empirical data to support your side otherwise your claims likely won't be given much credence. With evidence supporting your side, even if they still don't agree with what you're saying, maybe they'll at least see where you're coming from with it, and if it's a misunderstanding of the math on your end (which I've been guilty of before, leading me to some wrong beliefs), then perhaps they'll be able to point it out.

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.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#198 Sep 08 2011 at 12:24 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Quote:
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.


Ice spikes can only proc once then it can not until it drops off the mob.

The paralysis effect it puts on a mob can proc paralyze as many times as it wants while it is up.

The simple matter is after the initial paralyze lands those Ice spikes are only dealing damage, when the para expires then they can proc again. What is being said it is just as efficient to Sab Para I or II and use Blaze or Shock spikes as both do more damage, with shock spikes having an additional effect of stun.

It is a pretty logical point considering with proper convert merits change for you alma (from your unneeded MACC merits in earth wind) you should easily be able to handle the 6 MP of a Para I and use Blaze or Shock spikes for faster kills.

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#199 Sep 08 2011 at 1:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Vlorsutes wrote:
Alma, I say this not as an admin but someone just reading the "debate" going on, but I don't understand why you're making claims regarding the quality of the paralysis from Ice Spikes over Paralyze/II (or some of the other subjects you all have been bouncing around on), yet you're not giving any empirical evidence to support your claims. When it comes to debates over in-game mechanics and what constitutes being best, it's best to bring empirical data rather than just "I find it best" to support yourself, since the burden of proof most often lies in the person suggesting the different idea. What some of the others have been commenting about is based on years of testing and number crunching to determine what is the best setup for several things.



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.

Vlorsutes wrote:
I'm not taking sides on this and saying you're right or wrong, I'm just saying that in any debate like this, it's best to have empirical data to support your side otherwise your claims likely won't be given much credence. With evidence supporting your side, even if they still don't agree with what you're saying, maybe they'll at least see where you're coming from with it, and if it's a misunderstanding of the math on your end (which I've been guilty of before, leading me to some wrong beliefs), then perhaps they'll be able to point it out.

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
____________________________
Lady Jinte wrote:

Vlorsutes' Negotiation Skill rises 0.2 points
Vlorsutes' Observant Parent Skill rises 0.3 points
Vlorsutes' Argument Diffusing Skill rises 0.1 points

#200 Sep 08 2011 at 4:28 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,091 posts
Vlorsutes wrote:
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).


There's no issue with that. The issue is with you not mentioning other names that were blatantly wrong, biased, and/or contradictory.

Vlorsutes wrote:
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.


I have. Ice spikes wasn't part of the argument, so there isn't any need to provide evidence on something that isn't being argued. I asked a question. I got an answer. I concluded with a personal observation. If you want further evidence of my observation, then you do the work yourself. Go fight an EM skeleton or ghost or something.

Vlorsutes wrote:
That's the only reason I brought your name up.


So what's your reason for not mentioning other names?

Vlorsutes wrote:
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.


Of course, except I wasn't making such claims.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#201 Sep 08 2011 at 4:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Almalieque wrote:
Vlorsutes wrote:
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).


There's no issue with that. The issue is with you not mentioning other names that were blatantly wrong, biased, and/or contradictory.

Vlorsutes wrote:
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.


I have. Ice spikes wasn't part of the argument, so there isn't any need to provide evidence on something that isn't being argued. I asked a question. I got an answer. I concluded with a personal observation. If you want further evidence of my observation, then you do the work yourself. Go fight an EM skeleton or ghost or something.

Vlorsutes wrote:
That's the only reason I brought your name up.


So what's your reason for not mentioning other names?

Vlorsutes wrote:
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.


Of course, except I wasn't making such claims.


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
____________________________
Lady Jinte wrote:

Vlorsutes' Negotiation Skill rises 0.2 points
Vlorsutes' Observant Parent Skill rises 0.3 points
Vlorsutes' Argument Diffusing Skill rises 0.1 points

This thread is locked
You cannot post in a locked topic!
Recent Visitors: 16 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (16)