[Extracrispy]

With the new update we Redmages get a new toy:

Alkalurops:
(Staff) All Races
DMG: 49 Delay: 366 HP -10 INT +10 MND +10 CHR +10
Magic Accuracy +20
Lv. 73 RDM / WHM / BLM / BRD / SMN / SCH
http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/wiki/Alkalurops

And I ask the question, while this new staff looks awesome, does it replace our standard HQ staffs for our endgame/solo/trio use?
I do however give it props as a new toy because it drops from the new ZNM Hydra

[nourss]

http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/wiki/Aquilo%27s_Staff

+15% increase to Ice Element Magic Spells

+15%

%

[Ludomancer]

Possibly for Para/Slow/Blind.

I doubt it will be as accurate as HQ Lv51 staff, but it's a nice compromise considering some people like to use a wand for those spells.
Though, it's worth noting that ZNM also offers a Muse Tariqah(MND+7) so there's a possibility of MND+16-17 in the weapon slots compared to +12 using staff + strap.

Since SE is too retarded to give us a proper status screen, we have to guess about magical accuracy.
If we theorize (skill + 1/2 attribute) then an ordinary RDM would have something like 330-340 on an enfeebling spell. If an HQ staff adds 15% then it's worth about +50 magic accuracy.

[Extracrispy]

nourss :
http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/wiki/Aquilo%27s_Staff

+15% increase to Ice Element Magic Spells

+15%

%

yeah thats what I was thinking as well, the HQ staffs outweigh the bonus that +5 more Magic Accuracy because each staff also adds
+15% increase to each type of Element Magic Spell

[julieandali]

Well I think the difference between Alkalurops and the HQ staff is not only the +5 Mag. Acc. but Good INT and MND too, wich add more Mag. Acc. from what they said in last Fan Festival. I think that this staff is better for enfeeb. Now for nuke, we'll have to make some test and see. 5 Mag. Acc. + INT 10 is it better than elemental magic skill +15 for example on ice staff.
The problem is in Fan Festival they said: Magic skill have a direct influence on magic accuracy. There are also bonuses based on INT MND CHR ect. Ya I know it's not really an answer, like Ludomancer said, we gonna have to guess again, damn SE. But ya agree that that staff is better for enfeeb. Now for nuke, need to test.

[Thalos]

The main problem I see with this is:

A) On anything where you don't need the extra macc from staves you're probably hitting the cap on Slow and Paralyze, or getting really close at least.

On anything you do need the extra MND you probably need the extra macc more.

So even though this has good stats, it doesn't really fit into either situation. Now if there was no cap on slow etc... then this could be a lot more appealing. Just my opinion though.

Edit: To clarify on the INT and MND adding macc thing: The amount you get from INT and MND is fairly small unless you're hitting a tier, even if it was 1 MND = 1 macc this would still be inferior to staves to a fair degree (unless you're hitting a tier with this).

[Kaparu]

nourss :
http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/wiki/Aquilo%27s_Staff

+15% increase to Ice Element Magic Spells

+15%

%

You know, because this has been tested.

Oh wait.


Lets not start pretending that the Macc. on elemental staves is currently quantifiable. The idea that they give a 10% and 15% increase respectively has always been speculatory. Now, I'm not saying that there is no Macc. increase, because its quite obvious that there is, but we don't know that its 15%, and we, subsequently, do not know that they are any better or worse than the staff in question.

Furthermore, until you can quantify the exact increase offered by elemental staves, lets keep the sarcastic, obnoxious comments to ourselves.

[Amastacia]

Thalos :
The main problem I see with this is:

A) On anything where you don't need the extra macc from staves you're probably hitting the cap on Slow and Paralyze, or getting really close at least.

On anything you do need the extra MND you probably need the extra macc more.

So even though this has good stats, it doesn't really fit into either situation. Now if there was no cap on slow etc... then this could be a lot more appealing. Just my opinion though.

Edit: To clarify on the INT and MND adding macc thing: The amount you get from INT and MND is fairly small unless you're hitting a tier, even if it was 1 MND = 1 macc this would still be inferior to staves to a fair degree (unless you're hitting a tier with this).

I don't see much use to Alkalurops either, but A and B are complete horseshit.

There's plenty of stuff where you can enfeeble just fine with a wand + shield, but are most definitely not capped on potency.

Skill-overkill RDMs make me very sad in the pants. There's plenty of stuff that's very debuff-able with 300-320 Enfeebling Magic (merits, torque, AF2 hat if you have it, basically), even without staves. An occasional resist is generally not a big deal - you just wait a few seconds and recast. If it's a fight where a certain debuff absolutely must be up the entire time, it may make sense to sacrifice potency for accuracy, but even 85-90% is plenty for most everything.

I'll happily take an extra 22 (26 w/ new shield) MND from wand/shield + Errant for Slow most of the time, even if Acc suffers a little. Worse comes to worst, you can always swap in more Acc if you're seeing a noteworthy number of resists, but 100% land rate for heavily stat-influenced debuffs is really not necessary.

[Thalos]

Lets not start pretending that the Macc. on elemental staves is currently quantifiable. The idea that they give a 10% and 15% increase respectively has always been speculatory. Now, I'm not saying that there is no Macc. increase, because its quite obvious that there is, but we don't know that its 15%

Go out and test for yourself. I've done a bit of testing myself and I'd have to say that it has to be at least 15% based on how much difference it makes. It's much more visible with nukes in my experience, you will notice the difference in accuracy almost immediately. Also this is SE we're talking about, if the staves give +15% potency (which they do) then it's quite logical to assume that it's also +15% accuracy. Otherwise that'd make NQ staves what? 5%? and HQ 10%? Unless of course you're suggesting it's more accuracy. Trust me, it's 15%.

I don't see much use to Alkalurops either, but A and B are complete horseshit.

There's plenty of stuff where you can enfeeble just fine with a wand + shield, but are most definitely not capped on potency.

And I ask the question, while this new staff looks awesome, does it replace our standard HQ staffs for our endgame/solo/trio use?

From what I gather he's mostly asking if this helps for things like Khim etc (endgame) and things like Zipacna or Fenrir (solo). The answer to this is mostly no. Even something such as Zipacna can be a pain to land on, I've tried landing in full potency before and had about 50% accuracy. On things like merit pts you're going to be capping out anyways, especially if you're 5/5 on slow and paralyze II (from what I've seen so far taking slow II merits up past 3 has hardly done anything for potency, but it has made it easier to reach the cap, I'm assuming the same can be said for paralyze). On higher things like Khim you're going to need the accuracy from staves. Even if you continue to spam on Khim with this + your potency gear all you'll do is increase his resistance to your enfeebles, making it harder and harder.

With that said, how much use does it really have? Especially for what the OP has in mind? Mabye some, but not enough to warrant the inv-1. Stick to your club and shield if you will, but this staff doesn't have much use.

[Kaparu]

Go out and test for yourself. I've done a bit of testing myself and I'd have to say that it has to be at least 15% based on how much difference it makes. It's much more visible with nukes in my experience, you will notice the difference in accuracy almost immediately. Also this is SE we're talking about, if the staves give +15% potency (which they do) then it's quite logical to assume that it's also +15% accuracy. Otherwise that'd make NQ staves what? 5%? and HQ 10%? Unless of course you're suggesting it's more accuracy. Trust me, it's 15%.

Bullshit. I want to see your tests.

If this were as easy to test as you're making it out to be, we would have documented numerical values of the magic accuracy given by staves, INT, and the stat itself, "Magic Accuracy".

I fully understand the impact that staves have on one's Macc., and wouldn't even begin to dig myself into an argument debating that such an enhancement doesn't exist, but unless you have documentation of a very, very large sample size, I find it hard to believe that you can say without a doubt that they offer exactly 15%, or a % at all, for that matter.

And lets save the, "It must be 15% because Square is all about symmetry" comments.

[Thalos]

I fully understand the impact that staves have on one's Macc., and wouldn't even begin to dig myself into an argument debating that such an enhancement doesn't exist, but unless you have documentation of a very, very large sample size, I find it hard to believe that you can say without a doubt that they offer exactly 15%, or a % at all, for that matter.

So you're suggesting it's less than 15%, if it's 10% that makes NQ staves 5%. That would (for a RDM) make Aquilo's staff a better choice (for accuracy) than Thunder Staff on Thunder III, consider what you're saying. Because I can tell you that even without tests this is false. (For the record I'm talking without merits or gear, but based purely on the base stats of a RDM).

Edit: Even if you were to just go back to level 51 when you first get the staves. Assume that NQ staves are +5% to accuracy. This would be something you wouldn't notice unless you tested for a long period of time. Yet people were able to notice this fairly early on. That's because the accuracy bonus was a noticeable one even at that level. You don't even need to do tests to be able to work it out. The staves definitely present a higher bonus than you seem to believe. Maybe it isn't exactly 15%, maybe it's something like 13 or 14%, but even at 10% the staves still give more accuracy than this new staff.

[Kaparu]

Thalos :

I fully understand the impact that staves have on one's Macc., and wouldn't even begin to dig myself into an argument debating that such an enhancement doesn't exist, but unless you have documentation of a very, very large sample size, I find it hard to believe that you can say without a doubt that they offer exactly 15%, or a % at all, for that matter.

So you're suggesting it's less then 15%, if it's 10% that makes NQ staves 5%. That would (for a RDM) make Aquilo's staff a better choice (for accuracy) then Thunder Staff on Thunder III, consider what you're saying. Because I can tell you that even without tests this is false.

Repeat after me:

S P E C U L A T I O N

You don't know that the difference between NQ and HQ is 5%, just like you don't know that 10% Macc. would be inferior to 10 Elemental Magic Skill.

You don't know any of this because half of the variables in your equations are currently not able to be represented by numerical values.

[julieandali]

exactly, all we can do is speculate. SE answer at last Fan Festival was not really an answer. All you can do is make test like kaparu said.

[Thalos]

You don't know that the difference between NQ and HQ is 5%, just like you don't know that 10% Macc. would be inferior to 10 Elemental Magic Skill.

SE has stated that magic accuracy is more or less on a 1:1 ratio with skill. We also know that skill gives magic accuracy. That would mean that 300 skill is more or less 300 magic accuracy. What's 10% of 300? 30. What number is higher 10 or 30? 30. There yeah go.

Now I'll amuse you and say that:
A) 300 skill is 275 magic accuracy
Staves give 7% magic accuracy

This would give you 19 magic accuracy, without factoring in things like INT or MND (which has also been confirmed to give magic accuracy by SE personally).

You can lower the numbers if you want, the result is still the same.

As for what I was saying take a level 51 RDM for example. At this level he has 146 elemental magic. That would mean 5% would add 7 magic accuracy vs the 10 skill from aquilos. If this was the case then you'd see almost no difference between the two. But the problem is you do. Even at this level you will see an accuracy improvement with Thunder staff over Aquilo's staff.

From this we can deduce that it's more than 5%. If it's more than 5% then why would we assume it isn't the same as potency (10%)? There's no reason for SE to make it something like 8% randomly, at that point they may as well just make it 10. Not to mention that as I stated above if you take 275 magic accuracy and add 7% to it while including any bonuses from INT and MND you're going to get a higher number than the staff. Even considering that the staff also gives some INT and MND the fact that staves work with %'s instead of set numbers means that the accuracy will go up accordingly in addition to what it's already giving.

This is the same situation as the Dorje staff which was quickly proven inferior in damage to HQ staves. This and the Dorje are nothing more than a way to save some inventory slots at the expense of effectiveness. SE released them as an alternative version for people that don't usually play a mage job and need the inventory.

[nourss]

Fuck this, it all been lies since start.

What next, Magnetic may end being the best earring...

Oh wait.

[Seraphicradienc]

In anything solo-worthy, Macc isn't normally an issue. I'll take my potencies for those. Thus, Mistilteinn/Mythic +1. The same goes for small-man groups. Even if Macc is an issue, I'm going for Staff/Grip and putting potency somewhere else. I've got enough shit to carry as-is. I don't want another piece.

[nourss]

Next up, Fourth Mace versus Light Staff.

The cure potency is a fucking lie, it's not 10%.

[Kaparu]

SE has stated that magic accuracy is more or less on a 1:1 ratio with skill.

Cite your source.

If it's more than 5% then why would we assume it isn't the same as potency (10%)?

As I've already said, symmetry is not a valid form of evidence.

This is the same situation as the Dorje staff which was quickly proven inferior in damage to HQ staves.

That's because the damage formulas for offensive magic has numerical value, and because anyone with a calculator can figure out the difference between Thunder IV, and Thunder IV casted with a Thunder Staff.


And that was a pitiful attempt at trolling, nourss. Try again when you're through masturbating.

[Thalos]

Relationship between magic accuracy and magic skill?
The skills have a direct effect on accuracy. Also bonuses for stats (INT, MND, CHR, etc.)

Taken from Fanfestival 2007, since they didn't give a specific value it could be something like 1 skill = 0.85 macc. But even if in the end it works out to something like 265 macc for 300 skill you have to also include INT and MND which is also confirmed to give macc directly. So if it's something like .5 macc per MND and you have say 120 MND than you're going to be at 325.

At +5% accuracy with 300 skill and 120 MND (in other words 325 base macc): 16

At +10% accuracy with 300 skill and 120 MND (in other words 325 base macc): 33 (rounding the decimal, assuming it isn't exactly 120 MND)

At +15% accuracy with 300 skill and 120 MND (in other words 325 base macc): 49

Alkalurops's bonus (including the MND, under the assumption 1 MND = .5 macc): 25

Sure you could say that staves have a set macc value instead of % but that would make it much more effective at lower levels and much less at higher levels. But to me it has always seemed the opposite, making it much more likely to be % based.

You can argue that it's something small like 5%, you can even argue that it's a set value, but without even doing serious tests you can quickly come to the conclusion that it isn't a set bonus and that it must be greater than 5%. Those two things are all you need to know, as I've said several times already even if it's something like 7 or 8% it'll come out better than the Alkalurops so this is a pointless argument. You base this off nothing but the simple fact SE hasn't handed you the exact specifics, while I base this off my several years of experience as a RDM and BLM. I think I'd rather go with the latter, but feel free to use this if you think the staves have such a low value. I'm sure it has just enough macc to get the job done in most situations, but you'll quickly find it has its limits on higher mobs.

[Kaparu]

I wasn't asking you to cite Square telling us that Magic Accuracy, Skill, and INT/MND all have an effect on spell accuracy. I know that, thanks. I'm asking you to cite where they specifically told us that Skill ~= Macc.

And while we're on the subjecting of source-citing, I'm still waiting on these tests that you originally mentioned. Vast experience won't suffice, if that's what you were planning on throwing at me, because I will be happy to throw it right back.