[Suljin]

Just got to 75 recently, ive had several 75s say magic skill effects avatar acc/att etc on basic melee as well as bloodpacts. Is that really true, since update notes from back then specify only for bloodpacts. (this is for over the cap btw) and I just dont think its true. Thanks!

[Lilsoulreaver]

Suljin, on 24 March 2010 - 08:55 PM, said:

Just got to 75 recently, ive had several 75s say magic skill effects avatar acc/att etc on basic melee as well as bloodpacts. Is that really true, since update notes from back then specify only for bloodpacts. (this is for over the cap btw) and I just dont think its true. Thanks!

SMN Magic Skill is the single most important trait on a SMN you can max out. It largely effects acc of both melee and magical pacts, it increases your elemental siphon. and Avatar Favor abilities. Max it out, Merit it, get every piece of gear you can to increase it.

[spira]

you are right in believing it does not affect acc of non-BP moves.. but the difference it makes to BPs is very significant

[Pergatory]

spira, on 25 March 2010 - 02:09 AM, said:

you are right in believing it does not affect acc of non-BP moves

Source/testing? I've seen many people claim this, but never seen any verification. The one thing we can be sure of, is that it affects the accuracy of physical BP's. SE has told us this is the case. Whether it affects the magic accuracy of magical BP's, or the accuracy of normal melee attacks, I've not seen any conclusive evidence one way or the other.

This post has been edited by Pergatory: 25 March 2010 - 12:20 PM

[DarkRift]

Pergatory, on 25 March 2010 - 12:20 PM, said:

Source/testing? I've seen many people claim this, but never seen any verification. The one thing we can be sure of, is that it affects the accuracy of physical BP's. SE has told us this is the case. Whether it affects the magic accuracy of magical BP's, or the accuracy of normal melee attacks, I've not seen any conclusive evidence one way or the other.

Its in the update notes from like a year ago. It clearly states bloodpacts only. I am pretty sure it also clearly states that its physical acc and magical acc, as long as you are over the cap on smn magic skill, and on BP's only.

Please correct me if im wrong someone.

[DarkRift]

Here is the proof. This is from SE. The only thing they dont mention is Magic Acc for BP's. They make no mention of increased acc on regular this. BP ONRY!!!

http://www.playonlin...a71/detail.html

[spira]

also, summon carby without a skill set. throw him on some mobs for a bunch of hours. parse if you like.
then throw on a skill build and throw him on the same mobs for another bunch of hours. parse if you like again.

your results will be exactly the same.

[Pergatory]

DarkRift, on 25 March 2010 - 02:14 PM, said:

Here is the proof. This is from SE. The only thing they dont mention is Magic Acc for BP's. They make no mention of increased acc on regular this. BP ONRY!!!

http://www.playonlin...a71/detail.html

That doesn't say skill doesn't affect normal melee attacks. Nor does it say skill affects both physical and magical BP accuracy. In fact, it doesn't really say anything specific at all, so what makes you so sure of your interpretation?

When these update notes first came out, everyone swore it was fact that only physical BPs would be affected and not magical ones, because they said "accuracy" not "magic accuracy." Now the common perception seems to be that both magical & physical are affected, but no testing was done to suggest this.

That's my whole point, none of this is based on real information, it's just speculation.

spira, on 26 March 2010 - 12:52 AM, said:

also, summon carby without a skill set. throw him on some mobs for a bunch of hours. parse if you like.
then throw on a skill build and throw him on the same mobs for another bunch of hours. parse if you like again.

your results will be exactly the same.

You posit a sound-looking test and predict an outcome. Care to conduct the test and post the results? Until then, you are just waxing poetic.

All it takes to stop spreading false information as factual information is to add "the common perception is..." or "it's my opinion that..."

Why is this so hard for some people to understand? If you have a problem with me calling you out on this, prove it. Until then, I'll continue to argue that this is speculation based on the vague wording of SE's announcement, because as far as I can tell, that's all anyone has to go on.

[DarkRift]

Pergatory, on 30 March 2010 - 03:39 PM, said:

That doesn't say skill doesn't affect normal melee attacks. Nor does it say skill affects both physical and magical BP accuracy. In fact, it doesn't really say anything specific at all, so what makes you so sure of your interpretation?

When these update notes first came out, everyone swore it was fact that only physical BPs would be affected and not magical ones, because they said "accuracy" not "magic accuracy." Now the common perception seems to be that both magical & physical are affected, but no testing was done to suggest this.

That's my whole point, none of this is based on real information, it's just speculation.


You posit a sound-looking test and predict an outcome. Care to conduct the test and post the results? Until then, you are just waxing poetic.

All it takes to stop spreading false information as factual information is to add "the common perception is..." or "it's my opinion that..."

Why is this so hard for some people to understand? If you have a problem with me calling you out on this, prove it. Until then, I'll continue to argue that this is speculation based on the vague wording of SE's announcement, because as far as I can tell, that's all anyone has to go on.

First off. Why don't you do the parse data? You are the one going against the grain. If you are so sure we are wrong prove us....The entire summoner community wrong. I would say most of us are in the boat that it does not effect melee hits.

Here are the notes from the update notes i posted.

"Players can experience increased accuracy when using Blood Pact: Rage or lengthened effect durations when using Blood Pact: Ward."

It says. RAGE AND WARD... please tell me where it says anything at all about NON BP melee hits???? The only REAL argument you have is that it doesn't say anything about Macc.



Side note. IF we are wrong I would welcome it, and be happy melee hits are effected by smn skill.


EDIT:

I mean really? Just because it doesn't mention melee hits you think it effects it? That is such a huge detail I cant imagine they would leave it out.

This post has been edited by DarkRift: 30 March 2010 - 04:11 PM

[Pergatory]

DarkRift, you are reading things into my posts that are not there. I'm not saying it does anything, I'm saying you don't know that it does any particular thing, so stop claiming you do. You are the one claiming it does this or that, not me.

Their wording is so vague that it may affect physical only, maybe even magical only, maybe both; and because of that vagueness, I wouldn't be surprised if it did indeed affect normal attacks as well. For all we know, it has always affected normal melee accuracy, and that's why the update notes only talked about Blood Pact accuracy. Again, nobody has ever done any serious testing, so we just don't know.

The fact that you read my posts as me saying that skill does affect melee accuracy just underscores the fact that you don't even read what's being said, you just skim it. No wonder you confuse fact and opinion so easily.

[Pankas]

Just because Smn burns are comon and there is/was so many friends who are 75 smn's with smn magic way bellow cap, i can tell you they there doing same amount of dmg, sometimes even more on BP's on various NM's. I don't have proof or anything of that, but i can state that smn magic does not effect any damage bonus in my book. You will see increse in BP accuracy.

This post has been edited by Pankas: 31 March 2010 - 12:11 PM

[Bladen of ifrit]

Ive had friends burn their smns and be stupidly under capped because of it. Their melee acc pretty much is excatly the same as mine but their BP:Rs arent always as accurate and ill out DD them with 70 bps in the long run. Though my avatars melee attacks do a bit more (10-20 damage more) because of the pet:att+15 on my RR.

[DarkRift]

Pergatory, on 30 March 2010 - 03:39 PM, said:

That's my whole point, none of this is based on real information, it's just speculation.

You posit a sound-looking test and predict an outcome. Care to conduct the test and post the results? Until then, you are just waxing poetic.

Why is this so hard for some people to understand? If you have a problem with me calling you out on this, prove it.

First.

There is real information out there, and I quoted it. IT SAYS BP RAGE / WARD ONLY!

Second.

You say for us to prove you wrong. Why don't you prove us wrong. You are the one playing the devil's advocate, and just creating arguments based on nothing.

Third.

Although you may not be saying something is fact you are trying to prove factual evidence from SE wrong with Opinions. Why wouldn't they put it in their notes that it does effect melee acc? That is a MAJOR detail. The summoner community has tried informally testing skill, and if it effects melee acc, and it doesn't. I have tried stacking skill myself while leaving avatars out to melee, and see no change.

If you want to keep arguing this, and trying to get the community to side with you, please put up your own evidence. Why would I spend hours of my time to parse something I feel will end up with me bashing my head into the keyboard proving something I already know isn't going to be true?

Fourth.

I read your posts, and understand them completely.

Fifth.

It seems summoner burns have really started a new bread of summoners that think they know wtf they are talking about. Then they spread false information around which screw up everything that the long time members have been trying to prove for years.

This post has been edited by DarkRift: 02 April 2010 - 12:35 PM

[spira]

Pergatory, on 30 March 2010 - 03:39 PM, said:

You posit a sound-looking test and predict an outcome. Care to conduct the test and post the results? Until then, you are just waxing poetic.

All it takes to stop spreading false information as factual information is to add "the common perception is..." or "it's my opinion that..."

Why is this so hard for some people to understand? If you have a problem with me calling you out on this, prove it. Until then, I'll continue to argue that this is speculation based on the vague wording of SE's announcement, because as far as I can tell, that's all anyone has to go on.

Maybe I am waxing lyrical but I'm not asking anyone to show evidence for or against anything.
The burden of proof is on you.

As you yourself have said, I posit a sound-looking test, and a really easy one at that.
You want results? Parse it yourself. Reliable first-hand info right there.

If you have a problem with established norm, prove it and we'll stand corrected. Simple as that.
Social nature dictates that the consensus doesn't need proof if they see it already stands.

So don't come in with that speculation bullshit and expect us to find answers for your perceived problem or non-problem.
If you want definitive evidence, you should do it yourself to set your mind at ease or realise that it was a waste of time.

Also, we don't play the game for your benefit only.

Have a nice day.

[Pergatory]

DarkRift, on 02 April 2010 - 12:30 PM, said:

First.

There is real information out there, and I quoted it. IT SAYS BP RAGE / WARD ONLY!

There's a big difference between SE saying it affects BP Rage/Ward, and SE saying it affects ONLY BP Rage/Ward. Are you really so thick that you can't understand that subtle difference?

DarkRift, on 02 April 2010 - 12:30 PM, said:

Second.

You say for us to prove you wrong. Why don't you prove us wrong. You are the one playing the devil's advocate, and just creating arguments based on nothing.

I'm not the one misrepresenting opinion as fact. I'm not telling you to prove me wrong because I've made no assertions, there's nothing to prove. What I'm telling you to do is not state your opinion as fact. Even now, you continue to deny that nobody knows how summoning skill affects any form of damage output, whether BP or melee, physical or magical. Nobody even has a correlation. Nobody even knows if SE's changes worked! They could be broken and nobody would report it! That's how wildly unverified this topic is, and why it pains me to see people constantly refer to this as a closed book. It's also a great example of why constructive debate doesn't occur on KI, too many people willing to take everything at face value.

DarkRift, on 02 April 2010 - 12:30 PM, said:

Third.

Although you may not be saying something is fact you are trying to prove factual evidence from SE wrong with Opinions.

Again, you have no factual evidence. Stop misrepresenting your information. No one has ever tested this adequately. I remember seeing one test about 6 months back where someone parsed like 150 melee hits with about skill+10 or skill+20, and 150 without the skill bonus, and claimed that skill made no difference. Do you know what the margin of error is for a sample size of 150? It's in the region of 8-9%. Even if every 1 skill gave 1 point of accuracy, the margin of error would roughly equal the bonus granted by +20 skill! This is not an acceptable test. According to this test, it's just as likely he had some bad misses during the test that made it look like the skill made no difference, when really it did. Of course, like I said earlier, I don't actually think skill affects normal melee accuracy. I am in agreement with the consensus, that it affects BP Rage physical accuracy, and may or may not affect BP Rage magical accuracy... however, I'm not naive enough to think I know for certain, hence this debate.

spira, on 02 April 2010 - 01:12 PM, said:

Maybe I am waxing lyrical but I'm not asking anyone to show evidence for or against anything.
The burden of proof is on you.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. The burden of proof is on the person claiming it's fact. You are acting like the community has done some moderate informal testing, and got some indications that skill had X effect, and thus it became the consensus. That's not how it went. This "consensus" you are claiming is actually an echo chamber that has been going since the day the patch was released. On day 1 people were on this very forum claiming it affects this, affects that, doesn't affect this, doesn't affect that. Nothing has changed since then, so I don't see why we should accept this as fact just because time has gone by.

spira, on 02 April 2010 - 01:12 PM, said:

As you yourself have said, I posit a sound-looking test, and a really easy one at that.
You want results? Parse it yourself. Reliable first-hand info right there.

I wouldn't go so far as to say a "really easy one." The reason no one has tested it yet is because SMN tests are classically very difficult to parse. Personally, I've never even used a parser before. I'm not interested in proving it one way or the other, but I am interested in keeping the information within the community accurate. If you share that interest, all I ask is that you identify assumptions as such.

LAST TIME FOR FAILED READING COMPREHENSION:
Is your statement fact or opinion? It's opinion. There is no gray area here. You have no factual information to base it on or you would've posted it by now, it's all based on the interpretation of SE's wording. Many assumptions based on SE's wording in the past have fallen flat on their faces under more intense scrutiny. Blame it on translations, blame it on bad PR, blame it on whatever... but the wording of their release notes is not "evidence" unless it leaves no room for interpretation. You are posting an opinion, and you are representing it as fact. I don't know how much more clear-cut this can be. I didn't want to make a mountain out of this mole hill, but you two seem dead-set on your assumptions and completely ignorant to the fact that they may well be false. That's all fine for your internal use, you can believe whatever you want, but stop misrepresenting information you present to the community. What good does it do you to tell people this information is fact? What harm would it do to simply say this is what the community consensus is, rather than an absolute answer? I fail to understand why this is such a big deal for you guys. It's simple social etiquette. If this was coming from some random newbie poster, I'd simply correct him and be done with it, but since you guys are such established posters you seem pressed to "stand your ground." Give it up, guys. Either present proof, or admit that it's not proven.

[Lilsoulreaver]

Pergatory, on 05 April 2010 - 05:45 PM, said:

There's a big difference between SE saying it affects BP Rage/Ward, and SE saying it affects ONLY BP Rage/Ward. Are you really so thick that you can't understand that subtle difference?


I'm not the one misrepresenting opinion as fact. I'm not telling you to prove me wrong because I've made no assertions, there's nothing to prove. What I'm telling you to do is not state your opinion as fact. Even now, you continue to deny that nobody knows how summoning skill affects any form of damage output, whether BP or melee, physical or magical. Nobody even has a correlation. Nobody even knows if SE's changes worked! They could be broken and nobody would report it! That's how wildly unverified this topic is, and why it pains me to see people constantly refer to this as a closed book. It's also a great example of why constructive debate doesn't occur on KI, too many people willing to take everything at face value.


Again, you have no factual evidence. Stop misrepresenting your information. No one has ever tested this adequately. I remember seeing one test about 6 months back where someone parsed like 150 melee hits with about skill+10 or skill+20, and 150 without the skill bonus, and claimed that skill made no difference. Do you know what the margin of error is for a sample size of 150? It's in the region of 8-9%. Even if every 1 skill gave 1 point of accuracy, the margin of error would roughly equal the bonus granted by +20 skill! This is not an acceptable test. According to this test, it's just as likely he had some bad misses during the test that made it look like the skill made no difference, when really it did. Of course, like I said earlier, I don't actually think skill affects normal melee accuracy. I am in agreement with the consensus, that it affects BP Rage physical accuracy, and may or may not affect BP Rage magical accuracy... however, I'm not naive enough to think I know for certain, hence this debate.


I'm afraid you're mistaken. The burden of proof is on the person claiming it's fact. You are acting like the community has done some moderate informal testing, and got some indications that skill had X effect, and thus it became the consensus. That's not how it went. This "consensus" you are claiming is actually an echo chamber that has been going since the day the patch was released. On day 1 people were on this very forum claiming it affects this, affects that, doesn't affect this, doesn't affect that. Nothing has changed since then, so I don't see why we should accept this as fact just because time has gone by.


I wouldn't go so far as to say a "really easy one." The reason no one has tested it yet is because SMN tests are classically very difficult to parse. Personally, I've never even used a parser before. I'm not interested in proving it one way or the other, but I am interested in keeping the information within the community accurate. If you share that interest, all I ask is that you identify assumptions as such.

LAST TIME FOR FAILED READING COMPREHENSION:
Is your statement fact or opinion? It's opinion. There is no gray area here. You have no factual information to base it on or you would've posted it by now, it's all based on the interpretation of SE's wording. Many assumptions based on SE's wording in the past have fallen flat on their faces under more intense scrutiny. Blame it on translations, blame it on bad PR, blame it on whatever... but the wording of their release notes is not "evidence" unless it leaves no room for interpretation. You are posting an opinion, and you are representing it as fact. I don't know how much more clear-cut this can be. I didn't want to make a mountain out of this mole hill, but you two seem dead-set on your assumptions and completely ignorant to the fact that they may well be false. That's all fine for your internal use, you can believe whatever you want, but stop misrepresenting information you present to the community. What good does it do you to tell people this information is fact? What harm would it do to simply say this is what the community consensus is, rather than an absolute answer? I fail to understand why this is such a big deal for you guys. It's simple social etiquette. If this was coming from some random newbie poster, I'd simply correct him and be done with it, but since you guys are such established posters you seem pressed to "stand your ground." Give it up, guys. Either present proof, or admit that it's not proven.

If you're not intersted, as you clearly stated. Then WTF in gods green earth are you persistant in starting and arguement with these two that you've been going around in circles with since you started this whole back and forth. Wow.... just.... Wow.... You're done dude, just.... done. If you're not willing to prove them wrong, since you're so adament that they are, through testing results of your own. Then I think it's time you just be done....

[spira]

Pergatory, on 05 April 2010 - 05:45 PM, said:

I'm not the one misrepresenting opinion as fact. I'm not telling you to prove me wrong because I've made no assertions, there's nothing to prove.

You are dismissing the credibility of an assertion. That itself is an assertion, so you will need to prove that.

Pergatory, on 05 April 2010 - 05:45 PM, said:

What I'm telling you to do is not state your opinion as fact. Even now, you continue to deny that nobody knows how summoning skill affects any form of damage output, whether BP or melee, physical or magical. Nobody even has a correlation. Nobody even knows if SE's changes worked! They could be broken and nobody would report it! That's how wildly unverified this topic is, and why it pains me to see people constantly refer to this as a closed book. It's also a great example of why constructive debate doesn't occur on KI, too many people willing to take everything at face value.

Yes, nobody has a clear correlation, but we know what it affects and what it does not.
I probably don't need to say this, but its painfully obvious if you actually bother to play the job. Skill differences are so significant they're eyeballable, especially with magic BPs on end-game mobs. Physical BPs too. Those give significant results.
Normal avatar melee however, they do not.

Consider it knowledge gained from experience. But SMNs have eyes too. For other experienced SMN who have played the job long enough, they will be able to see the difference for themselves, and if this were not true, they would have spoken up about it.
Of course, you're not one of these people.

Pergatory, on 05 April 2010 - 05:45 PM, said:

Again, you have no factual evidence.

Oh I do. its just not formally recorded. Never saw the need to.
Besides, I don't parse.

Pergatory, on 05 April 2010 - 05:45 PM, said:

Stop misrepresenting your information. No one has ever tested this adequately. I remember seeing one test about 6 months back where someone parsed like 150 melee hits with about skill+10 or skill+20, and 150 without the skill bonus, and claimed that skill made no difference. Do you know what the margin of error is for a sample size of 150? It's in the region of 8-9%. Even if every 1 skill gave 1 point of accuracy, the margin of error would roughly equal the bonus granted by +20 skill! This is not an acceptable test. According to this test, it's just as likely he had some bad misses during the test that made it look like the skill made no difference, when really it did. Of course, like I said earlier, I don't actually think skill affects normal melee accuracy. I am in agreement with the consensus, that it affects BP Rage physical accuracy, and may or may not affect BP Rage magical accuracy... however, I'm not naive enough to think I know for certain, hence this debate.

We're not naive enough to think we know for certain. We have enough experience playing the game to figure it out.
Sure it's not textbook equation definitive. But that isn't necessary for us to make decisions based on gear that way.

Pergatory, on 05 April 2010 - 05:45 PM, said:

I'm afraid you're mistaken. The burden of proof is on the person claiming it's fact. You are acting like the community has done some moderate informal testing, and got some indications that skill had X effect, and thus it became the consensus. That's not how it went. This "consensus" you are claiming is actually an echo chamber that has been going since the day the patch was released. On day 1 people were on this very forum claiming it affects this, affects that, doesn't affect this, doesn't affect that. Nothing has changed since then, so I don't see why we should accept this as fact just because time has gone by.

Informal testing being actually playing the game before and after the skill change, actually throwing gear on and off and seeing what changes and what does not.
I've personally stripped in and out of at least 50skill in SMN gear to test for acc and damage. Have you?

You should know that a consensus agreement does not necessarily require proof. All it needs is shared opinions. But if you consider that you're the only person out of the ENTIRE Summoner community including here and BG and wherever who thinks that this consensus doesn't stand after all this while, then perhaps you should reevaluate the idea that nothing has changed.

The only thing that hasn't changed is the status quo, simply because people have found the existing findings sufficient.

Pergatory, on 05 April 2010 - 05:45 PM, said:

I wouldn't go so far as to say a "really easy one." The reason no one has tested it yet is because SMN tests are classically very difficult to parse. Personally, I've never even used a parser before. I'm not interested in proving it one way or the other, but I am interested in keeping the information within the community accurate. If you share that interest, all I ask is that you identify assumptions as such.

Easy is easy. If you're lazy just say so. Even lolCM bothered to hand-parse his shit. Didn't make her any more credible but hey A for effort.

Pergatory, on 05 April 2010 - 05:45 PM, said:

LAST TIME FOR FAILED READING COMPREHENSION:
Is your statement fact or opinion? It's opinion. There is no gray area here. You have no factual information to base it on or you would've posted it by now, it's all based on the interpretation of SE's wording. Many assumptions based on SE's wording in the past have fallen flat on their faces under more intense scrutiny. Blame it on translations, blame it on bad PR, blame it on whatever... but the wording of their release notes is not "evidence" unless it leaves no room for interpretation. You are posting an opinion, and you are representing it as fact. I don't know how much more clear-cut this can be. I didn't want to make a mountain out of this mole hill, but you two seem dead-set on your assumptions and completely ignorant to the fact that they may well be false. That's all fine for your internal use, you can believe whatever you want, but stop misrepresenting information you present to the community. What good does it do you to tell people this information is fact? What harm would it do to simply say this is what the community consensus is, rather than an absolute answer? I fail to understand why this is such a big deal for you guys. It's simple social etiquette. If this was coming from some random newbie poster, I'd simply correct him and be done with it, but since you guys are such established posters you seem pressed to "stand your ground." Give it up, guys. Either present proof, or admit that it's not proven.

Its not proven.
It's given in SE's wordings, and substantiated.
Troll fed. now contribute or leave.

but just like those who don't prove their findings, you're not going to bother to test to prove either side anyway.
just content with bitching, as if you have some moral high ground when you're probably worse off than us.

Typical.

Also, I'm not one to always trust SE on official statements, but for this matter I've read both the EN and JP (which is always accurate) sides of the notes and they are identical.
And its not like we were oblivious to SE's shoddy translations considering we figured out the wording errors in AF pants long before they were recently fixed.

edit:

This is a warning now.
If you have nothing to say other than 'Where's your proof?' for the sake of it and baiting people to respond to you, and not offering something to back up your own position, then I will firmly take that your only intention was to troll.

An argument is double-edged. If you insist that others need proof to assert something, you too will need proof to state the opposite case. If you have nothing to bring to the table to either prove your case or disprove the opposite, then your argument is as good as baseless.

In other words, if you want to bring proof into the picture, both sides will need to have their own, not just one. But seeing as you actually AGREE that skill probably doesn't affect melee acc, then you don't have proof to begin placing doubt on the initial stand. At most, it would be a cynical supposition.

---

t;;dr : If you insist on taking the stand that proof is so important even though you agree with consensus, then you should do some testing to start things off. As is, you've not managed to convince anyone that their belief isn't sound. So either you present something to prove them wrong, forcing them to re-evaluate it, or you stop bitching to get them to do your dirty work. Continue with that and its baiting.

You have been warned. Have a nice day.

tl;dr 2: The world is flat. We'll accept that until someone comes around and proves the world is round.

[Suljin]

Ive only been 75 for a few weeks and its easy to see how smn skill does effect bps and not melee attacks. Why this guy cant is beyond me.

[DarkRift]

He is the biggest fucking troll ever.

[Alkar]

Wait... how is this: "Players can experience increased accuracy when using Blood Pact: Rage or lengthened effect durations when using Blood Pact: Ward." vague at all?
It clearly says that players get increased accuracy (is there really a need to specify both physical and magical? it's still accuracy...) when using Blood Pact:Rage.
Rage pacts include physical and magical and nowhere do they mention melee hits. Grasping at straws much?