Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

How do you feel about strategems?Follow

#1 May 19 2011 at 10:50 AM Rating: Good
**
315 posts
I was bored and started thinking about the effective increase of our power when gaining another strategem (since a major part of our strength as a "mage" isn't dependent so much on mp, as it is our strategem reserve).

We all know the formula to calculate the amount of time to recover a strategem is 4/x * 60 = y (x = max strategems, y = time to recover in seconds).

I'm thinking about strategem levels and how much of a difference they really make in our gameplay.

<Effective value is simply a tier ratio>

The jump from 0 strategems to 1 is obviously undefined. (Why is "0" plural in our language anyway?)

The jump from 1 strategem to 2 is an increase in power at an effective value of 50%.

The jump from 2 strategems to 3 is an increase in power at an effective value of 66%.

The jump from 3 strategems to 4 is an increase in power at an effective value of 75%.

The jump from 4 strategems to 5 is an increase in power at an effective value of 80%.

Theoretically

The jump from 5 strategems to 6 is an increase in power at an effective value of 83%.

The jump from 6 strategems to 7 is an increase in power at an effective value of 85%.


To me, the math "seems" right on an intuitive level. I just "felt" like going from 4 to 5 was more empowering than going from 3 to 4.

This thread really has no purpose (other than my boredom with the SCH forum), so entertain me with your opinions about strategem levels.
____________________________
75NIN, 75BLM, 75SCH, 75SAM, 64BRD, 41RDM, 37DNC, 37WHM, 37WAR
#2 May 19 2011 at 2:48 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,598 posts
Instead of doing math based on the total number strategems, I would do math based on the refresh time for a single strategem.

Jump from 1 to 2: 240/120 = 200% (100% increase)
Jump from 2 to 3: 120/80 = 150% (50% increase)
Jump from 3 to 4: 80/60 = 133% (33% increase)
Jump from 4 to 5: 60/48 = 125% (25% increase)
Jump from 5 to 6: 48/40 = 120% (20% increase)
Jump from 6 to 7: 40/34.2 = 117% (17% increase)

These calculations are simply the inverse of what you did ("Jump from X to Y" is calculated as Y/X, rather than X/Y).

Fermion wrote:
The jump from 0 strategems to 1 is obviously undefined. (Why is "0" plural in our language anyway?)

Well, it's either plural or singular. Considering singular means "1", it wouldn't make sense for 0 to be considered singular.
____________________________
Lyonheart, like Eorzia, will be reborn in FFXIV!

FFXI veteran (Lyonheart and Lakiskline of Lakshmi)
1/467 on signed HQ Weskit!!!
#3 May 19 2011 at 3:04 PM Rating: Good
**
315 posts
You're probably right. I didn't really put much time into the theory of it all, I just did the math on a napkin at work during break. It's really not meant to be taken too seriously. The reason I inverted it is because I took the freedom to make the numbers increase because it looked "prettier" lol.

This is more of a boredom thread than anything.

svlyons wrote:
Fermion wrote:
The jump from 0 strategems to 1 is obviously undefined. (Why is "0" plural in our language anyway?)


Well, it's either plural or singular. Considering singular means "1", it wouldn't make sense for 0 to be considered singular.


I have no spell to proc grellow.

I have no spells to proc grellow.

Which one is correct? I'm no English major. Just asking.

Edited, May 19th 2011 5:17pm by Fermion
____________________________
75NIN, 75BLM, 75SCH, 75SAM, 64BRD, 41RDM, 37DNC, 37WHM, 37WAR
#4 May 19 2011 at 7:36 PM Rating: Good
****
5,598 posts
Fermion wrote:
I have no spell to proc grellow.

I have no spells to proc grellow.

Which one is correct? I'm no English major. Just asking.

I don't know if one use is incorrect, or if they are both correct and one is simply preferred, or if both are correct and one is simply more common.

Which one is more common probably depends on the context. If some teenagers were talking about wanting to go to the mall, one of them might say, "But I have no car." He wouldn't say, "But I have no cars." In contrast, a salesman at a used car lot that has somehow completely sold out their stock would say, "I have no cars to sell" rather than "I have no car to sell." It has to do with the expectations in that context over whether someone could have more than one of something or if they typically only have one of that something.

So I would probably lean towards "I have no spells to proc grellow." Though I would probably use completely different wording altogether:
"I don't have a spell to proc grellow."
"I don't have spells to proc grellow."
"I don't have a spell that can proc grellow."
"I don't have spells that can proc grellow."
____________________________
Lyonheart, like Eorzia, will be reborn in FFXIV!

FFXI veteran (Lyonheart and Lakiskline of Lakshmi)
1/467 on signed HQ Weskit!!!
#5 May 24 2011 at 12:24 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
829 posts
Fermion wrote:

svlyons wrote:
Fermion wrote:
The jump from 0 strategems to 1 is obviously undefined. (Why is "0" plural in our language anyway?)


Well, it's either plural or singular. Considering singular means "1", it wouldn't make sense for 0 to be considered singular.


I have no spell to proc grellow.

I have no spells to proc grellow.

Which one is correct? I'm no English major. Just asking.


[quote=svlyons]
So I would probably lean towards "I have no spells to proc grellow." Though I would probably use completely different wording altogether:
"I don't have a spell to proc grellow."
"I don't have spells to proc grellow."
"I don't have a spell that can proc grellow."
"I don't have spells that can proc grellow."



Think gramatically its I don't have "any" spells to proc grellow. :P
I was bored lol
Interesting thread might have to take a look at that later when i get on


Edited, May 24th 2011 2:25pm by Darkzeru
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 11 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (11)