MACC Affinity Staves. [Flame Wars]

I don't believe thats the arguement he was trying to make, either, but in any case...

Again, pointing out that even if it does function the way you have proposed, it doesn't change the fact that accuracy and potency are two different things and you gear differently depending on which is more important. There are some situations where simply landing the spell is difficult, in those situations, you would never stack MND, you'd stack skill/macc.

If landing the spell isn't a concern but potency is, in the case of para and slow, which generally either land or are immunity resisted, potency is far more important, and you would stack MND not for the acc, but to make sure that you get the most out of their effects.

For Christ's sake. That is not a parallel scenario.

A parallel scenario would be, "no ostrich has ever spoken Portuguese. Does it follow that Ostriches do not speak Portuguese?"

The answer would be yes.

You're arguing with the wrong person, then. I've never at any point in this thread posited any one specific approach to gearing for enfeebling.

You're suggesting that an anomaly exists. Support your assertion.

Just making the point that assuming that dMND affects accuracy of enfeebles at all is pointless since it would not affect the way you gear or what you target in any way. Its a mute point and has no proof besides a thought experiment involving the way a different class of magic is calculated.

You can diminish precedence as you see fit, but introducing an anomaly on the basis of "lol well u got no proof" is not particularly compelling.

So you can make a baseless claim and its up to everyone to prove you wrong? BTW in that article it states that we have no burden to disprove your baseless claim. ^^

1) My claim isn't baseless(see: precedence)

2) I've never witnessed such a woeful misinterpretation of the celestial teapot

Why doesn't someone just go test it. It wouldn't require in depth testing to get basic support either way.

Pick a target you will have acc issues on naked (going something without enfeebling skill/mage would probably be easiest).

First do some casts naked to make sure you are having issues (somewhere around 50% acc would be good). Then cast while wearing magic acc (maybe about 40-60 magic acc). Once you have figured out about how much magic acc you need to get close to cap, stack as much mind as possible without putting on magic acc and observer resist rates. I would aim for having at least twice as much mnd as magic acc that you needed.

If you observe low resist rate mnd most likely works, if you observe high resist rate we know that mnd plays little to no effect.

We've already done that with one type of magic, and had confirmation of its applicability to another from the developers

Your assumption that acc and potency are effected by the same stat on one class of magic is the same as assuming that because INT effects ACC of nukes that STR must effect the ACC of WS in the same manner... it doesn't.

And the interpretation isn't an interpretation, its taken directly from the article you posted.

I'm inclined to invoke Poe's Law at this point.

Enfeebling magic, dark magic, and elemental magic have been proven to have their magic accuracy influenced by intelligence.

Songs have been proven to have their magic accuracy influenced by charisma.

Explain to me why white magic is the exception, because, again, precedence suggests the contrary.

AFFECTS.

actually it is the assumption that str must affect attack on WSs and Dex must affect acc....which they do. mix on we know chr affects brd songs and Int affects nukes and such. I'd have to tentatively side w/ Kapa on this one.

Oh my god, shut the *** up and do your research.

http://robonosto.blogspot.com/search/label/magic%20accuracy

Scroll down to "Experiments with Paralyze"

MUTE POINT

w

On subject: Just hit 80 ToM Ice staff! GO GO GO POWERMETHYLATER

Where were you an hour ago?

I had no idea this existed.

It's linked on the "Magic Accuracy" page of BGWiki.

I kept running into black magic testing, assumed it prevailed to he bottom :[

Crtl+F

Is it 2006 again?

Was 2006 the year when people foolishly spent sizable periods of time arguing with individuals lacking in the most basic of reading comprehension and critical thinking abilities?

Because, yes.

They are pretty universal for the most part. There are very few things in this game that function uniquely- and typically when things do function in a significantly different manner, it is because they were designed at very different periods in the game and probably by different developers (Looking at you, WS with transferring fTP and H2H WS with different description standards).

My shortcomings in PVP environments doesn't make you any less of an idiot.

Every damn thread....

In my defense, I went nearly twenty posts without whipping out any of the plentiful available ad hominems that presented themselves throughout the thread.

But if you're going to use a screencap of a PVP match as refutation to something entirely unrelated, you're at bare minimum being called out for being an idiot.