Magic Accuracy - Why so serious?

[Yvonne]

I was talking about Omega Ring in LS chat a while back and it seems that some of the more jaded RDMs seem to laugh at it. Am I being mislead to believe that it won't carry it's weight compared to an old fashion +5 INT/MND ring?

Why would some people frown on Magic Accuracy? Is it just because it doesn't affect the potency?

Would this rule out that Alkalurops is just another "meh" equip overall compared to HQ staves or just the fact that some older players refuse to do research?

I'm not even sure where to begin on the formula for Alkalurops's affect compared to a HQ staff. Anyone every done the math for it? I looked up wiki and it seems that rounding up, 1 point of M.Acc is suppose to correspond to 1 point of the spell's skill (Fire IV = Elemental, Paralyze = Enfeeble). So in theory, that's +20 Skill in a slot, on top of +10 INT/MND/CHR, but a HQ staff is suppose to provide +15% (potency, damage, etc?) and BLMs that I've talked to, swear by it.

When it comes down to it, what kind of equip set would be appropriate to equip an Alkalurops over and HQ staff and vice versa?

[Gerkin]

Pretty sure research was done on the magic accuracy added by HQ staves and they were better no?

[Lyramion]

HQ staffs blow everything away as they are a streight % increase of MACC.


Omega Ring is an option. Little worse in some sitations and a little better in others.

[Maxxthepenguin]

HQ staffs blow everything away as they are a streight % increase of MACC.

Not really proven.

Frankly, no conclusive testing has been shown. The only somewhat significant test showed that 20 Macc + 10 stat would be a bit better than HQ staves, but the test wasn't that good.

[Spekkio]

magic accuracy has been given a lousy reputation imo for 2 reasons.

1.) we don't rightly know what the hell it does. we've done some testing to try to quantify its effects, and it may be a very promising tool, but we have no real ability to say something like "1 macc is equal to 2 int and 1.5 skill." we don't rightly know. 1 macc could be equal to 1 int or 4 int on a black magic spell. it used to be simple to determine what to add. you're resisting: add skill. need more potency: add stats. since initial testing with the original macc pieces were so weak, many people just stuck by the old dogma and wrote off macc as a gimmick w/ no use.

2.) the wise set. the wise set is a set of RDM JSE and was among the first known gear to have macc as a specific property. most pieces of it are bleh at best, for example the chausible. it has 5 macc on it. many bad rdm would use this to enfeeble or to take other actions that better gear existed for. there's no way 5 macc can trump 15 skill based on the tests people did when it first came out, so "chausible rdm" are generally looked down upon. now there were some limited uses, such as dark magic accuracy if a person didn't have a glamor jupon, so it wasn't useless, but the rdm who wore it full time gave it a rightfully deserved terrible name. this frowning upon macc has stuck around to this day to a degree and i think causes a lot of disdain for it. if you're interested in macc, dig up the testing done on flans by pchan (i think he did it) comparing NQ and HQ staves as well as macc, stats, and skill. for a variety of reasons, i wouldn't trust it as a final word on the topic as i think the experimental controls were incomplete, though it was acceptable to generate a rough rule and the best he could do with the tools provided.

[LD]

That would explain so many mages wielding Alkalurops, like it's the thing to do.
Just assumed it was a town gear trend. ._.

[Haroun]

Links to the only actual data I've seen on M.Acc:

http://killingifrit.com/forums/index...&#entry3592264
http://bluegartr.com/forum/showthrea...09#post1868106
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?k...0hqp81aA&gid=0

It seems like the effect +Skill, +Stat, and +M.Acc vary as far as success rate is concerned depending on how much you have of each. (i.e. +M.Acc has a bigger increase on success rate if you have larger amounts of +Skill) There are also certain points where additional +Skill and +Stat will no longer provide a noticeable increase in success rate, but I don't believe a point of diminish returns has been seen with +M.Acc (probably because it's harder to get large amounts +M.Acc gear).

[Toksyuryel]

If +Skill and +INT are converted into m.acc, that can explain the diminishing returns in the former without them being prevalent in the latter (where the only "diminishing" would be an outright stop at the accuracy cap, wherever that may be). Though, +INT diminishing is odd, but there's no reason why magic has to work like melee... just would have been nice

[Vyerz]

I remember someone bringing up a chart that said that depending on your int vs. the mobs int, Magic accuracy, INT, and skill (Not including the diminishing returns math) would play a different role. So if you have 10+ less INT than the monster INT would raise your Macc. % by 1% or something. And if you have over the amount of INT of the monster INT would play a different role, same with skill. Macc. never changed in the chart.

From my understanding 1Macc litterally = 1% Magic accuracy, and the HQ stave's give +15% Macc. to that element.
So in my mind +20 Macc and +10 int/mnd/Chr would in fact be better than the HQ stave's as far as resists go, but the HQ stave's would still give you a +15% damage boost, so it's destined to become one of those "shits situational" topics.

[Tsuko_Asura]

I have no data to support this, but I've always treated magic accuracy the way I treat melee accuracy, 1 Skill = .9 Macc. One of these days it'd be nice if someone could run some conclusive tests on the subject, but until then, following the above has never steered me wrong.

[Maxxthepenguin]

I have no data to support this, but I've always treated magic accuracy the way I treat melee accuracy, 1 Skill = .9 Macc. One of these days it'd be nice if someone could run some conclusive tests on the subject, but until then, following the above has never steered me wrong.

You're wrong; the data is pretty clearly in Macc's favor, even if the specifics aren't hammered out.

[Haroun]

It's also worth noting the description of Death Blossom (the new RDM mythic WS):

Delivers a threefold attack that lowers target's magic evasion.

Which may or may not be a new concept introduced to the game's code, like Magic Crit Rate, but is obviously related to M.Acc.

Also, tests have been done comparing Alka to HQ Staff success rate on BRD debuffs and multiple sources have confirmed that HQ Staves have a higher success rate. I would assume the same is true for RDM debuffs, so unless you're using ES or enfeebling something with a relatively low resist rate HQ Staves would probably be preferable.

And from the tests I linked in my last post, the data suggests that 1 M.Acc > 2 Stat > 1 Skill until the point of diminishing returns has been reached on each (this is easiest to reach for +Stat). However, at very low amounts of Skill the success rate gained per 1 Skill is greater than that gained per 1 M.Acc.

[Rocl]

The term magic evasion was actually introduced in the implementation of Dancer. Specifically, Stutter Step.

[Tsuko_Asura]

You're wrong; the data is pretty clearly in Macc's favor, even if the specifics aren't hammered out.

In favor of MAcc? Wouldn't that agree with what I said? <_<;

[Starr]

No........

[Maxxthepenguin]

In favor of MAcc? Wouldn't that agree with what I said? <_<;

Wait, shit, I got all dyslexic.

But Macc seems to be better than 1.11 skill

[Ruiner]

In favor of MAcc? Wouldn't that agree with what I said? <_<;

What you said is that Skill is more potent than M.Acc. What he said is that the data favors M.Acc, meaning that it is stronger. So no.

[solsovly]

What you said is that Skill is more potent than M.Acc. What he said is that the data favors M.Acc, meaning that it is stronger. So no.

What he said was 1 skill = .9 M.acc

That would mean 1.11 skill = 1 M.Acc making 1 point of Magical accuracy more potent than 1 point of skill.

[Vail]

I've been working on a test idea, I shared it with Spekkio already in PMs but figured it's time I share it here and see what people have for ideas to improve this test.

the test is to be done against higher level worms (like in ayadawa or ulgerand)
the test will (in time) be done on several jobs with different skill levels in elemental magic.

the spell of choice: stone
it's spamable, low MP cost, and worms ofcourse are highly resistant to it.

setups to test:
no equip (base)
added INT
larger added INT
added skill
larger added skill
added Macc
larger added Macc
HQ staff test (note: I don't own a NQ staff, and don't really care to test them, if you're a serious endgame player, you have HQ staves.)

Data to be collected in the form of % of 16th, 8th, 4th, half and full damage.

I'm gonna start with the base test this coming thursday (my day off) and get some data to start with. If people wanna help me with some ideas to make this test more concrete please give me your input.

[Ruiner]

What he said was 1 skill = .9 M.acc

That would mean 1.11 skill = 1 M.Acc making 1 point of Magical accuracy more potent than 1 point of skill.

Ah, my bad then. Can't read.