[Wakmidget]

Alkalurops: +10 CHR * +20 Magic Accuracy

HQ Staves effect: +15% Magic Accuracy for the correspoding element spell.



Would Alkalurops outdo HQ staves on BRD Debuffs? Or Are HQ staves still better?

[Carynaira]

It would probably depend on what other gear you have on. If the 15% is more than 20 MA I'd say stick with HQ staves.

[Wakmidget]

Well, there really isn't much magic accuracy gear for BRD in the 1st place, atm I have +2 from Goliard Clogs, +4 from Balrahn's Ring(only use on /nin or in Salavage/Assault, and +2 from Earth Grip(only during Elegy). That's not much at all. So unless you total CHR somehow counts into the equation, Would that mean Alkalurops is better?

[Kaparu]

No one knows that staves give 10/15% magic accuracy respectively.


No one knows how much native magic accuracy a player has.





Summary? No one knows the answer to this question.

[rambus]

No one knows that staves give 10/15% magic accuracy respectively.


No one knows how much native magic accuracy a player has.





Summary? No one knows the answer to this question.

be good to praze that is why i want this staff even as a blm to test the answer for this.

if you do not get what i mean the simple answer would be

what kap said

[Starr]

HQ stave gives +15% landing rate, 80% of the time it is doing nothing for your resist rates. Cookie for the first one to make sense of why.

[pathwriter]

Hey, let's all make up shit and then follow it with a snarky comment that declares loudly that we're pulling our information out of our asses!

[rambus]

HQ stave gives +15% landing rate, 80% of the time it is doing nothing for your resist rates. Cookie for the first one to make sense of why.

because there is a so called acc cap, there are some parsers supporting the 15% but this is not absolute and hard to prove, hell i seen some people still say the HQ staffs don't give acc at all. Even though i think such a view is silly to me it does show there is no absolute proof. I know they do give some acc, I tend to side with the 15% since there is sighs for it but again it is still just a theory. we do not work for SE and we do not know how to account for some of their randomness but say there is some acc cap.

i do not see how one can argue with kap's first 2 statments, there is really no way of telling if 15% is better then +20 without knowing a player's native trait, it should be a combination of level pentelties , stat difference and + acc difference. I did take a jab at attempting to come up with an acc formula that mimicked the melee one but it seemed to give more magic acc then what is there.

[ummhi]

Starr :
HQ stave gives +15% landing rate, 80% of the time it is doing nothing for your resist rates. Cookie for the first one to make sense of why.

+15% land rate? Where is your proof? Oh, right.

[octoberasian]

There is no verifiable or concrete proof that NQ and HQ Staffs give 10% and 15% Magic Accuracy respectively. I think more correctly it's Elemental Magic Accuracy given the new Elemental Grips.

Only way to test out which of the two are better, one would have to do a series of lengthy tests.

Control: NQ Elemental Staff + No gear

Samples:
- NQ Elemental Staff + No grip
- NQ E. Staff + Grip

- HQ E. Staff + No grip
- HQ E. Staff + Grip

- Allkalurops + No grip
- Allkalurops + Grip

Test for the following:
- Enfeebling magic / Song accuracy: Resist versus success.

- Elemental magic accuracy: Lowest (resists), normal, average, and highest damage.

Theory: Prove the following.
State x = amount of damage done by an elemental magic spell (Fire, Ice, Wind, Water, etc.)

If Allkalurops + Grip = X and NQ / HQ E. Staff + No grip = X, then NQ / HQ. E. Staff = Allkalurops in Magic Accuracy.
Else if, then that statement is false.

State y = amount of success of enfeebling magic spell / Song landing on a monster

If Allkalurops + Grip = Y and NQ / HQ E. Staff + No grip = Y, then NQ / HQ E. Staff = Allkalurops in Magic Accuracy.
Else if, then the preceding is false.

---

It's simple math technically.

You have one item that has a known value and on the other hand you have an item without a known value.

Put it simply: Allk (20% Magic Acc.) and NQ/HQ staff (x% Magic Acc.), if both the Allk (with or without a Grip) returns the same exact results as either an NQ or HQ staff, then we will know the actual Magic Accuracy given by those Staffs. If the HQ Staff returns results greater than the Allk., then their Magic Accuracy is greater than the Allk.

Of course, Elemental days and Weather may affect the results.

Who would be willing to give it a shot?

[Starr]

ummhi :

Starr :
HQ stave gives +15% landing rate, 80% of the time it is doing nothing for your resist rates. Cookie for the first one to make sense of why.

+15% land rate? Where is your proof? Oh, right.

The proof is on BG, done with HQ dark staff and sleep 2, I can't be assed to find it but believe what you like.

[Evane]

I had Alkalurops. HQ staves are better believe me.

[Kaparu]

Starr :

ummhi :

Starr :
HQ stave gives +15% landing rate, 80% of the time it is doing nothing for your resist rates. Cookie for the first one to make sense of why.

+15% land rate? Where is your proof? Oh, right.

The proof is on BG, done with HQ dark staff and sleep 2, I can't be assed to find it but believe what you like.

If you can't be assed to prove it, don't be assed to say it.

[Starr]

smd Kap you idiot, I'm only putting the facts out there for people to see. There is of course a chance that the 15% landing rate is actually +30 Magic Accuracy (assuming 2 per 1% like melee accuracy) and they do give magic accuracy rather than landing rate, but ignoring the test done on BG I had seen it done literally years ago somewhere but I've no idea where it is now. Call BS but I need to prove it only as much as you need to disprove it for it to be dismissed.

[Kaparu]

Uh, actually, no. The burden of proof lies in the person who is trying lay down the law about something that, to most peoples' understanding, has never been tested.

I could give a damn whether you're right, wrong, backwards, or forwards, people just have no business parading an estimation based on absolutely nothing but speculation, and calling it fact.

[ummhi]

People on BG even say it's not a %+. It's debatable.

[Starr]

So you saw the post Tricen?

[Myrrial]

Search-function on BG turns up little that is actually helpful; but they just changed a bunch of stuff around and that may be giving the search trouble. The most well-done testing of the elemental staves appears to be on an FFXI blogger's writing space and isn't the most conclusive thing ever--but I can only find second-hand reports of this so it still looks like no one honestly has a good, solid answer to this.

Going so far as to use the word "facts" in relation to these staves is ignorant. Until SE puts the full code for what each of the damned staves does then we'll be arguing over this forever. I don't always agree with what Kaparu has to say but in this case I back him completely. Saying that you read testing one time on a messageboard and that you can't find it now shouldn't hold water with anyone.

Until you can provide something more solid than quoting figures from a post on BG that no one can find you've contributed all that you can thus far to the topic and hand. And that isn't much. You have no room to insult anyone's intelligence, Starr.

[Starr]

Dunno why everyone's so dumb about this, it's so easy to test and form a definitive conclusion but before you tell me to do it, I don't give a shit for the results.

[ummhi]

Starr, solid evidence or gtfo. Seriously, have proof or shut the fuck up.