[drunkenrdm]

well if you consider 2% hit rate a big leap then by all mean, go nuts. What I think is better is the fact enhancing magic effects a ton of shit, where elemental does not. If you think 2% more MACC is worth trading in better, well all of this:

Phalanx/Enspells(dmg+acc)/Stoneskin(reomves need of +MND)/Elemental+Enfeebling ACC and Potency/Healing Done/Barspells. Then go right ahead, personally I don't think 2% MACC is worth it, let alone a "big leap".

[Banter]

drunkenrdm, on 14 September 2010 - 07:21 AM, said:

well if you consider 2% hit rate a big leap then by all mean, go nuts. What I think is better is the fact enhancing magic effects a ton of shit, where elemental does not. If you think 2% more MACC is worth trading in better, well all of this:

Phalanx/Enspells(dmg+acc)/Stoneskin(reomves need of +MND)/Elemental+Enfeebling ACC and Potency/Healing Done/Barspells. Then go right ahead, personally I don't think 2% MACC is worth it, let alone a "big leap".

Bolded the parts that you're not actually going to see a benefit from, and Phalanx/enspells are really minimal as well (unless you like to Cere dagger stuff and even then it's small).

[drunkenrdm]

Banter, on 14 September 2010 - 09:53 AM, said:

Bolded the parts that you're not actually going to see a benefit from, and Phalanx/enspells are really minimal as well (unless you like to Cere dagger stuff and even then it's small).

Seriously, and elemental merits give you any benefit outside the use of 2 spells (we all know we don't cast anything but thunder or blizzard). So what I am seeing is an overall 6% MACC on two spells is superior to increasing the utility of Phalanx, Stoneskin*, Nukes, Enfeebles, Healing, Enspells, and Barspells. Please elaborate on how that is even remotely superior.

(as for the 6MACC thing I neglected Gain INT would provide a 9 INT gain without enhancing merits, which is a 4.5% Land rate VS 5.5, meaning the total is 7+4.5 =11.5 vs 5.5 for a difference of 6% not 2%)

You are seriously concluding that a 6% hit rate is better than more utility outside of solo? I am understanding this correctly right. You do know a RDM/NIN can easily cap resist rates on mobs without needing to use elemental skill merits, let alone a RDM/SCH. The majority of mobs we are capable of soloing are mostly around our level now, meaning our stats are not very far behind theirs, If behind them at all. Other things that are over us, require us to pin them on terrain, as they can't be kited, and as such RDM/NIN is not required, and RDM/SCH is the hands down best for the job, further increasing the redundancy of utilizing elemental magic merits. Outside of solo you are seriously going to tell me buffing 5 melee on a mob with enspells that do 23 DMG unresisted is going to be hardly noticeable?. Since the ACC is based of our skill, and the DMG is based off our skill, an 8% increase to having 5 melee with 23 DMG enspells is minimal, an extra 100DMG+ per attack round is of minimal benefit?

How about /BLU solo's is the extra phalanx damage take not a benefit? 2 damage over the course of 10 minutes, with an average delay on a mob of 4 seconds is a reduction of 300DMG, that isn't noticeable, that is the difference between having to Cure 4 and Cure 3, a difference of 42 MP.

I don't understand how you can say enhancing merits are marginally useful when compared to elemental merits, which see a 6% increase in ACC at most, on 2 spells we use minimally. How is that superior to the overall utility that enhancing merits provide in nearly every situation we would find ourselves in. I am miffed, I just don't see how a marginal increase in MACC is worth dumping merits into when marginal increases in everything we do from enhancing merits isn't.

Please explain to me why you think elemental merits are the be all end all of RDM merits? Keep in mind we can no longer kite most things around /NIN and the things we can are of equal level to us, also keep in mind the things we can't are better suited to /SCH.

Lets hear your side of the story, just remember it isn't 2009 anymore and we aren't stuck at lvl 75 with 230 in elemental as our cap.

This post has been edited by drunkenrdm: 14 September 2010 - 01:45 PM

[Banter]

I guess I'll break this down.

drunkenrdm, on 14 September 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

Seriously, and elemental merits give you any benefit outside the use of 2 spells (we all know we don't cast anything but thunder or blizzard). So what I am seeing is an overall 6% MACC on two spells is superior to increasing the utility of Phalanx, Stoneskin*, Nukes, Enfeebles, Healing, Enspells, and Barspells. Please elaborate on how that is even remotely superior.

Ok, the only real things you'll get out of Enhancing skill is:

1-2 damage reduced on phalanx. If the mob is swinging for over 300 a hit (which is common on tough solos), this is a reduction of .3% or .6% damage taken. It becomes more powerful as the mob hits for less, but so the danger of dying decreases and the need for a stronger phalanx is also reduced.

1-2 second reduction in recast on stoneskin if your recast isn't already capped. If it does grant a reduction, the chances of something being soloable when it wasn't before are slim to none.

Nukes: How are nukes being negatively effected by elemental merits?

Enfeebles: See Nukes.

Healing: This is a joke right?

Enspells: You might get 1 more damage a swing and a few less resists. However, you're not going to be hitting 5 melees unless your party is absolutely terrible. Also, Haste Samba is going to wipe the floor with enspells any day of the week.

Barspells: Yea, you'll get a few extra points of resist. For what?

drunkenrdm, on 14 September 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

(as for the 6MACC thing I neglected Gain INT would provide a 9 INT gain without enhancing merits, which is a 4.5% Land rate VS 5.5, meaning the total is 7+4.5 =11.5 vs 5.5 for a difference of 6% not 2%)

You are seriously concluding that a 6% hit rate is better than more utility outside of solo?

If you are over capped resist rate, then you can start throwing out things like Warlock's chapeau for other pieces of gear with more INT or MAB on them. The faster you kill a mob, the less chance it has to kill you, which improves your chances of success far more than 1-2 damage on phalanx.

drunkenrdm, on 14 September 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

I am understanding this correctly right. You do know a RDM/NIN can easily cap resist rates on mobs without needing to use elemental skill merits, let alone a RDM/SCH. The majority of mobs we are capable of soloing are mostly around our level now, meaning our stats are not very far behind theirs, If behind them at all. Other things that are over us, require us to pin them on terrain, as they can't be kited, and as such RDM/NIN is not required, and RDM/SCH is the hands down best for the job, further increasing the redundancy of utilizing elemental magic merits.

Extra skill? Again, throw on more INT/MAB. If you're at the point where you don't need any elemental skill at all, then you're probably at the point where what you're soloing has no chance to kill you either.

drunkenrdm, on 14 September 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

Outside of solo you are seriously going to tell me buffing 5 melee on a mob with enspells that do 23 DMG unresisted is going to be hardly noticeable?. Since the ACC is based of our skill, and the DMG is based off our skill, an 8% increase to having 5 melee with 23 DMG enspells is minimal, an extra 100DMG+ per attack round is of minimal benefit?

See above about 5 melee and haste samba. Also, this is only if you're RDM/SCH, there might be times where you need to sub BLM for Sleepga still (not very common, but still around). Just to play it on your side a little though, the faster swinging jobs (nin, thf, mnk) do actually see a very large benefit from Enspells only when you don't have haste samba

drunkenrdm, on 14 September 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

How about /BLU solo's is the extra phalanx damage take not a benefit? 2 damage over the course of 10 minutes, with an average delay on a mob of 4 seconds is a reduction of 300DMG, that isn't noticeable, that is the difference between having to Cure 4 and Cure 3, a difference of 42 MP.

Over the course of 10 minutes, I'd call that minimal.

drunkenrdm, on 14 September 2010 - 01:43 PM, said:

I don't understand how you can say enhancing merits are marginally useful when compared to elemental merits, which see a 6% increase in ACC at most, on 2 spells we use minimally. How is that superior to the overall utility that enhancing merits provide in nearly every situation we would find ourselves in. I am miffed, I just don't see how a marginal increase in MACC is worth dumping merits into when marginal increases in everything we do from enhancing merits isn't.

Please explain to me why you think elemental merits are the be all end all of RDM merits? Keep in mind we can no longer kite most things around /NIN and the things we can are of equal level to us, also keep in mind the things we can't are better suited to /SCH.

Lets hear your side of the story, just remember it isn't 2009 anymore and we aren't stuck at lvl 75 with 230 in elemental as our cap.

It's not that elemental merits are some ridiculous increase over what someone will have without them, it's more the fact that enhancing merits are almost worthless.

[drunkenrdm]

Well I had written an entire wall of text reiterating what ive said but ive realized it is pointless. We are arguing over a marginal increase in MACC for nukes, vs a marginal increase over nearly every thing else we do. Also I have realized that currently I have 2 enhancing merits that are not really doing much (2% increase to enspell MACC which can be easily covered by adding in a +MACC item like Balhranns ring).

Personally I think this is the ideal merit distribution

/w 348 Skill
8 merits enfeebling (duh)
6 merits enhancing
2 merits elemental

this gives you 360 enhancing skill which breaks all the current tiers available, meaning you get all the bonuses I alluded to earlier, while getting 4 more skill in elemental (droping the MACC difference from 6-4%)

/w 363 skill (AFv3+2 feet)
8 merits enfeebling (again duh)
4 merits enhancing magic
4 merits elemental magic

This gives you 371 skill, breaking yet another tier for things like Gain spells and phalanx, as well as providing 8 elemental skill (droping the MACC difference from 6-2%)

So I stand corrected splitting the points to reach tiers is better than max in either.

This post has been edited by drunkenrdm: 14 September 2010 - 06:47 PM

[drunkenrdm]

You know i was just going over the numbers last night with a friend, and my enhancing skill projections were off. SE seems to have increased the skill/level to 6 from 5. Which means at lvl 99 should it continue this way base would be 395+68(gear) = 458 meaning 6 enhancing merits will give max 470. Which puts Gain INT @ +22 or 11 MACC with 2 merits in elemental that is +15 MACC, only 1 MACC behind 8/8 elemental (16) and thus only a .5% difference in hit rate not 2%. Barring any new +enhancing gear and yet another change to skill gained per level, I am going to say 6 enhancing 2 elemental is the way to go not 4 and 4.

[Bikpik]

Doesn't Phalanx cap at 300 skill anyways?

[drunkenrdm]

No SE lifted the caps over 300

[Bikpik]

drunkenrdm, on 17 September 2010 - 10:29 AM, said:

No SE lifted the caps over 300

Since when?

[drunkenrdm]

since the last update

"Maximum values have been increased for certain enhancing magic, dark magic, and blue magic spells whose potency is commensurate with casting skill."

http://www.playonlin...835/detail.html

This has been tested and confirmed to raise enspells,phalanx and barspells.
Testing has already shown that gain spells increase by 1 for every 10 skill above 300