Grioavolr And AG Murgleis

Eorzea Time
 
 
 
Language: JP EN FR DE
users online
Forum » FFXI » Jobs » Red Mage » Grioavolr and AG Murgleis
Grioavolr and AG Murgleis
Guildwork Premium
Offline
Posts: 104
By Quendi210 2017-01-20 15:25:54
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Recently there was a "discussion" about the roles RDM can fill in the Omen thread. There were also comparisons made between the subject weapons. I have both and on a potency standpoint I'm sure Rdms agree a properly augmented Grioavolr wins.

My dream augment(without Dark Matter) for a Grioavolr would be:
MND+15, Magic Accuracy+30, Enfeebling Magic Skill+15

There's a small debate about how wide the gap is between something like that and AG Murgleis for Enfeebling Magic Accuracy. If we go by the idea that the we only get about half the value of Magic Accuracy Skill into our Magic Accuracy then we could math out:

Grioavolr: 114+14+30+15= 173
Murgleis: 127.5+40= 167.5

Pre-Omen the best pairings for each would be:
Grioavolr + Clerisy Strap+1(Magic Accuracy+15)
Murgleis + Forfend+1(Magic Accuracy+16) or if dual wield Colada with Magic Accuracy augment cap.

One of the common arguments for Murgleis is its AM1 but if you are playing backline it's not easy to maintain. If you're meleeing you give up the increased damage of AM3.

Post Omen we get acces to the Ammurapi Shield(Magic Accuracy+38). It is a dramatic increase over the the Forfend+1.

None of the above values take into consideration the gained Magic Accuracy from INT and MND.
[+]
 Asura.Saevel
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6918
By Asura.Saevel 2017-01-20 17:26:45
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Quendi210 said: »
None of the above values take into consideration the gained Magic Accuracy from INT and MND.

They should, it's typically dSTAT/2 as a bonus once your 10 or more over the enemies value.
Offline
By clearlyamule 2017-01-20 17:53:26
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Saevel said: »
Quendi210 said: »
None of the above values take into consideration the gained Magic Accuracy from INT and MND.

They should, it's typically dSTAT/2 as a bonus once your 10 or more over the enemies value.
3 things.

1) monster stats scale ridiculously so you might actually be negative dstat

2) without knowing mob stats it's really hard to accurately account. Using the old model you could just do the range though I suppose. But that brings me to point 3

3) It turns out the dstat effect on macc might be more complicated than that. So it might have a much lower or no effect. I say might be because it's pretty difficult following jp wiki and I couldn't really find the testing itself
 Fenrir.Snaps
Offline
Server: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
user: Mojopojo
Posts: 1139
By Fenrir.Snaps 2017-01-20 18:00:07
Link | Quote | Reply
 
The dSTAT thing is pretty much true. We don't know what mob stats are cause most of the mobs we are concerned with don't have known formulas are all notorious anyways. It's silly to assume you're at any specific dSTAT level on that stuff. SE really should give us a method to measure those things directly.
 Asura.Saevel
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6918
By Asura.Saevel 2017-01-20 18:00:59
Link | Quote | Reply
 
At worst you calculate it for the 4:1 ratio since on anything important you should be over 30 dSTAT.

1 and 2 is inconsequential unless your talking a very poorly geared RDM. You don't need to know the enemy stat to ballpark an estimate. Gain-MND is +25 plus all the other gear should have the player well over 300 MND (even INT) standing outside their mog house. T4 HELMs are the only things I know with stats that hit 300 and that's where your going to be getting 54~66 more stat anyways.

The point is that you can't just write off stats like they don't exist. Grio + Enki gives 29 of both MND and INT so that's worth mentioning as potency is also based on dSTAT.
Offline
By clearlyamule 2017-01-20 18:31:07
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Ah didn't realize we knew the stats of these nms.

Only high lvl base mage stats I remember seeing tested was Metalcruncher worm. And it being 292 int at lvl 124 figure higher ilvl content and nms would have more granted worms are blms so will be a bit higher but just figured crazy stat scaling especially when next lvl they went to 301 and lvl after they went to 312. But yeah if you can be reasonably sure they aren't much higher old xp mobs then guess you can account for it
Guildwork Premium
Offline
Posts: 104
By Quendi210 2017-01-20 20:11:35
Link | Quote | Reply
 
If you wish to take into account INT/MND and using 4:1 ratio the numbers would be:

Grioavolr:
MND:114+14+30+15+8.5= 181.5
INT:114+14+30+15+4.75=177.75
Murgleis: 127.5+40= 167.5

Further with Sub Slot Pre-Omen(Non Dual Wield)
Grioavolr:
181.5+15=196.5
177.75+15=192.75
Murgleis: 167.5+16=183.5
 Fenrir.Nightfyre
Offline
Server: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
user: Nightfyre
Posts: 11680
By Fenrir.Nightfyre 2017-01-20 21:08:30
Link | Quote | Reply
 
clearlyamule said: »
Ah didn't realize we knew the stats of these nms.
Last I'm aware we don't. While stats somewhere around that range are plausible given what we know about certain Adoulinian monsters (specific stats might even go higher on some NMs?), I would welcome a source for that claim given the definitive phrasing used and general value of the implied information behind it.

edit: Actually, we can partially debunk this already:

Quote:
T4 HELMs are the only things I know with stats that hit 300
Further down in the thread linked previously, CDF notes that Metalcruncher Worms of levels 124~126 have INT values of 292/301/312. The surrounding math checks out for those values and he's more than proven himself a reliable source of information on magic mechanics in the past, so I'm inclined to trust him on that information.
 Asura.Saevel
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6918
By Asura.Saevel 2017-01-20 23:45:24
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Was basing it off what we get on fSTR for targets VIT, it's entirely possible that certain monster types have radically different stat growths. We can cap fSTR on level 130 stuff. I've melee'd those worms and they didn't have 300 VIT, that would be very noticeable on average melee hits. I would love additional information on stuff like VIT / AGI since those are pretty important to know.

As for people testing things, I remember when they claimed Sinker Drill was 100% DEX based on similar testing, then later we found out it was 50% STR / VIT.

Plus the higher a NM's MND/INT the more important that MND/INT becomes for magic accuracy so it's makes an even stronger case for magic accuracy + potency.
Offline
By clearlyamule 2017-01-21 05:27:20
Link | Quote | Reply
 
It's entirely possible they were nice to melees with the vit.

Testing magical dmg tends to be a bit easier and less prone to error but I don't believe I saw the exact methodology and data given so it's highly possible there was some simple error. So for the sake of argument I shall redo one of the worms. Pulling some random gear together I actually managed to get exactly +200 mab and 301 int with no +mdmg on sch/blm. So if CDFs numbers are correct the lvl 125 ones should give me exactly 3x the 0 dint values SE gave us yay less math and possible rounding errors. Sure enough Elemental seal water 1 did 75 dmg. Checks out.

Tried doing some testing on higher lvl mobs like apex in raka to get a better idea what int could be like on things in the 130s but numbers kept coming out really weird like dmgs not coming out in multiples of 3 despite having same mab and fighting what are clearly blm mobs. Might try again when not so tired and can make sense

Based on the jp wiki info it would be more accurate to say int/mnd become more important the closer dint/dmnd gets to 0. Higher stats on the nm could make them more or less important to the player depending on how much they had already.

For example let's really high ilvl mobs have over 500 int. Which would put you so far below it that you'd never get enough to have any effect on macc and even if you did get that high you'd start out at a 4int : 1 macc ratio
 Asura.Saevel
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6918
By Asura.Saevel 2017-01-21 05:56:11
Link | Quote | Reply
 
clearlyamule said: »
For example let's really high ilvl mobs have over 500 int. Which would put you so far below it that you'd never get enough to have any effect on macc and even if you did get that high you'd start out at a 4int : 1 macc ratio

Doesn't quite work that way, having negative dINT is a penalty not a 0. So if you had 300 and the target had 500 with a -200 dINT, it's not +0 Macc but rater -50 Macc. Adding 40 INT would make it -160 dINT and -40 Macc. That is what I mean by it being even more important at those obscene levels because your now needing every scrap of Macc you can put together just to have a snowballs chance in hell of passing the resistance check.

And yeah it's entirely possible that SE had VIT scale a bit lower, or rather they have different stats based on the family and class of monster. Worms are BLM/BLM so there's that.
Offline
By clearlyamule 2017-01-21 17:18:26
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Asura.Saevel said: »
clearlyamule said: »
For example let's really high ilvl mobs have over 500 int. Which would put you so far below it that you'd never get enough to have any effect on macc and even if you did get that high you'd start out at a 4int : 1 macc ratio

Doesn't quite work that way, having negative dINT is a penalty not a 0. So if you had 300 and the target had 500 with a -200 dINT, it's not +0 Macc but rater -50 Macc. Adding 40 INT would make it -160 dINT and -40 Macc. That is what I mean by it being even more important at those obscene levels because your now needing every scrap of Macc you can put together just to have a snowballs chance in hell of passing the resistance check.

And yeah it's entirely possible that SE had VIT scale a bit lower, or rather they have different stats based on the family and class of monster. Worms are BLM/BLM so there's that.
Ah I knew I was forgetting something. The person who did a quick translation forgot something at the end I should have mentioned. The last tier isn't 31+ dint but 31-70. So I wasn't trying to say it's referenced around zero but that the effects on dint on macc cap at 70 dint for a total of +/- 30 macc. Tried looking over the testing and it seems pretty well done but language barrier and google translate misses things. If anyone wants to look it over you and maybe do a better job than I sorting thru it can find it here. The blog also has a lot of other interesting looking testing. Some really quick looks think they tested resist element and resist debuff stuff.

As far as family monster that definitely seems to be the case at least somewhat. Using the same method above. ie 3 mab multiplier no mdmg and adjusting int till I get the 3x 0 dint values just to help rule out math errors or weird shenanigans as I keep getting really weird numbers on a variety of high lvl targets when I do values outside of 0 and capped dint I got 222 for a 129 Apex Jagil. Tried multiple of the higher lvl apex in raka inner courts but stuff is all weird. Keep getting numbers not divisible by 3 against mob families I know have no magic dmg multipliers. So further testing on higher lvl stuff is on hold until I can get enough motivation to rule out mdt and mdb on mobs that shouldn't have any
 Asura.Saevel
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6918
By Asura.Saevel 2017-01-21 17:28:06
Link | Quote | Reply
 
clearlyamule said: »
I got 222 for a 129 Apex Jagil

That's exactly what I was thinking for VIT. Non-NM monsters seem to have around ~230 VIT around 130 and around 250 at 134 or so. These are all ballparks to subject to +/- 20 in either direction but not a gigantic jump like that worm had for INT. When you melee so much of this stuff you quickly get a feel for how much your regular non-crit swings should do and it's extremely easy to tell when a target has obscene VIT. Crabs and other PLD monsters (Genbu says hi) have ridiculous VIT which nerfs your fSTR pretty hard, THF's have ridiculously high AGI and so forth. Guess SE exaggerated the stat growth disparity for higher level monsters. I expect 300+ to be at 135 and up but BLM's might be packing north of 400 INT by then. But, most of the important enfeebles are based on MND and BLM's don't get obscene MND boosts.

As for the Magic Acc Bonus / Penality capping, I'm not sure about that. Evasion and Accuracy don't have a cap though dDEX for crits does at 50. Would be interesting if it did and almost impossible to confirm though.

Try looking for monsters that aren't apex, there should be some in Morimar's secret entrance to Woh gates (think that's the zone name) or even check Soundsplitter bats. Could get an interesting scale of things.
Offline
By clearlyamule 2017-01-21 18:05:19
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Not say these are the exact values because something was clearly up but to give an more comparable example did 137 skeletons. The blms calculated to be around 398 while the drk ones were around 340. And then you know SE just makes whatever stats they feel like it lol.

As far as confirmation going thru the entry the testing looks pretty thorough but I'm not sure I'm understanding the method exactly. From what I can make of it is they appear to be using a method I've never heard of before. It appears they are using a method with spiritreaver/stormwaker automaton and scanner wherein the auto just wont cast if the difference in macc and meva is too great which it appears they found here which also has a wealth of other testing. Then find the border of cast/not cast and use that as a reference point and things with known amounts like say some pet acc gear or geo buffs/debuffs. I must it's a rather novel way to test macc/meva and it does appear to work and is certainly much faster than doing long parses though somewhat limited because well autos do what they do

Maybe I'll do some others in a bit but got game stuff to actually do lol. But yeah apex probably a bad choice. That's probably what's giving me the weird numbers
 Asura.Saevel
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6918
By Asura.Saevel 2017-01-21 18:21:26
Link | Quote | Reply
 
clearlyamule said: »
Not say these are the exact values because something was clearly up but to give an more comparable example did 137 skeletons. The blms calculated to be around 398 while the drk ones were around 340. And then you know SE just makes whatever stats they feel like it lol.

That's hilarious and would explain a lot. That's a 58 point difference for mobs of the same family and level but different jobs. Possible to use Banish to get MND?

Anyone here have an automated way to crunch melee data if I provide a kparse results of melee hits on specific monsters? I can record the STR / Attack and WDMG used with no other bonus's present but capped attack (gotta find a GEO friend for this one). Might be able to get more solid numbers on VIT for comparison. Previously I figured monsters stats scaled like ours, different jobs have ones that are slightly better or worse but otherwise their all pretty even. Looks like that's not the case and a monsters job dramatically alters it's base stat distribution.
Offline
By clearlyamule 2017-01-21 23:04:36
Link | Quote | Reply
 
What makes it even more hilarious is at least for players drk is tied for 3rd in the int department. Can only imagine what a mnk mob would be lol.

Yeah probably could get mnd similar method with a few different spells or abilities though nuking whm mobs is kind of annoying because mdb high lvl smn ones are hard to find so would be looking a bit more work or going to lower mnd ranked job. I'd imagine similar results though. High stat scaling with emphasis on certain stats for that job that greatly widens the stat gaps jobs have. Guess SE isn't a fan of blm on blm violence.
 Asura.Saevel
Offline
Server: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6918
By Asura.Saevel 2017-01-22 02:02:51
Link | Quote | Reply
 
Yeah but only WHM and RDM mobs would have high MND, the rest would have normal(ish) for their level. A 137 DRK having 340 seems about right, means a WAR (most common job) would have like 300~320 at 137 which is about where I believed 300+ existed (CL130+). So we can expect an extreme variance in stats based on what job the monster is.