|
Tachi: Ageha defense down tests
Carbuncle.Xenhas
Server: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 664
By Carbuncle.Xenhas 2012-04-14 16:25:58
I am here to post my results of my brief Tachi: Ageha testing, and will add more samples at a later date.
For now, I wanted to clear up some misconceptions that have been created about the weaponskill.
The defense down effect is NOT 100% at any levels of tp.
The defense down effect is over-written by, and overwrites, other defense down status effects (ie. angon, Gungnir's additional effect)
The defense down can either last 1:30, or last 3:00
The defense down effect is 25%
The chance of the defense down occurring MAY change dependent on the target
The first point was simple enough to prove. Use Tachi: Ageha on a target, wait for it to wear off in the log.
I also went to test in a PvP area for visual proof
no defense down effect from Tachi: Ageha
defense down from Tachi: Ageha
The defense down being overwritten is already well-known. I did this by getting a friend on DRG with Gungnir to use both angon, and an additional effect from the weapon, and checked the DEF on my mule as the new effects were applied. They overwrite by the order they are applied, not based on remaining duration.
When the defense down occurs, it seems to have a 50% chance of lasting 1 minute and 30 seconds and a 50% chance of lasting 3 minutes
( needs a higher sample size based off of roughly 50 times)
Proof of the defense down not occurring and lasting for only 1:30
on mule in pvp
on a mob
note: the time isn't exactly 1:30 in the log from the delay of Tachi: Ageha appearing in the chat log.
It lasted exactly 1:30 or exactly 3:00 on Cyphos' screen when it was applied
The defense down is 25% down from your current defense
Cyphos' defense without ageha 388
Cyphos' defense with ageha 291
291/388 = 75% (25% off)
I feel that the chance of defense down occurring may change based on the target. From PvP testing at 300tp, I witnessed a 75% chance of landing the defense down effect. However, on my test on EP Ypottryls, DC-T Sierra tigers (brief), and EM Bluffalo, I have witnessed a much lower proc rate.
Based on a sample size of 100 Tachi: Agehas performed on easy prey Ypottryls in Abyssea - Konschtat, I witnessed what appears to be roughly a 10% chance of proc (9/100).
For an exact proc rate on this mob, clearly a higher sample is needed, however, I feel it is pretty clear that Tachi: Ageha has a horrible chance of landing on even this type of fodder mob.
How I conducted my tests up to this point:
I would use a mob and check for changes in their defense with /check and dia II. After waiting for dia II to wear off, I would Tachi: Ageha and check the mob for a change in defense. I noted my current attack when I checked to show when it changes. I would change gear to an attack value that would let me confirm Tachi: Ageha landing or not.
The first 40ish times, I would wait 3 minutes regardless, to ensure that my check method was consistent and wouldn't skew the data.
The Steps in my testing:
1) Check mob with gear set 1 (lower attack) that says normal defense
2)check mob with gear set 2 (higher attack) to say low defense
3)Tachi: Ageha mob
4)Check mob in gear set 1 and if the attack stays normal, I would know that Tachi: Ageha's effect had not proced, and could continue to do another weaponskill without waiting 3 minutes.
5) If I checked the mob in gear set 1 and the defense now said low, instead of the mob having normal defense, I knew that Tachi: Ageha's additional effect had landed on the target
6) Wait for the target's defense down effect to wear off in the chat log and record it
The PvP testing was easy to check by simply switching characters to check for procs and wait for the effect to wear off (when it did happen.)
My notes of proc rate and duration cyphos base def 388
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 3:00
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp- NO PROC!! <--- not 100% chance of defense down
300tp- proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 1:30 - def 291 -25%down
204tp + hagakure - no proc
300tp - proc - 3:00 - 291 def
300tp - proc -def 291
300tp - proc - 1:30 - 291 def
100tp - proc - 3:00 -291 def
100tp - no proc
120tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
120tp - no proc
101tp - no proc
100tp - proc - 3:00 - 291 def
100tp - no proc
120tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
140tp - no proc
100tp - proc - 1:30
101tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - proc - 3:00
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
300tp - NO PROCLOL
100tp - proc - 3:00
100tp - proc - 1:30
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - proc - 1:30
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 3:00
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - proc - 3:00
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 3:00
300tp - no proc
300tp - proc - 3:00
300tp - no proc
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 3:00
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 3:00
BLUFFALO - even match --- too small a sample size on mob
630 att normal defense
dia II = low def
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
Sierra Tiger - decent challenge to tough -- too small a sample size on mob
normal def @ 503 att
dia II = low def
300tp - proc - 1:30 -dc
300tp - no proc -dc
300tp - proc - 3:00 -t
300tp - proc - 1:30 -t
300tp - no proc -t
300tp - no proc -t
300tp - proc - 1:30 -t
300tp - no proc -t
300tp - no proc -t
300tp - no proc -t
300tp - no proc -t
300tp - no proc -dc
300tp - no proc -dc
300tp - no proc -dc
300tp - proc - 3:00 -dc
Ypotryll - easy prey - 480 att = normal def
dia II = low
508 att = low
300tp - proc - 3:00 -ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - proc - 3:00 - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - proc - 1:30 - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - proc - 3:00 - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - proc - 1:30 - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - proc - 3:00 - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - proc - 3:00 - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - proc - 3:00 - ep
300tp - proc - 3:00 - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
In conclusion, I hope that I have cleared up some misconceptions about Tachi: Ageha.
In my opinion, it is far from a debuff to rely on. Use angon or something instead.
The current 10~% proc rate on EP fodder mobs just seems waaaaay too low to bother using on NMs.
I will update this thread eventually with more personal testing once I do it. Feel free to contribute any other possible information with actual proof. I am also open for constructive testing critique and other possible ideas for concrete testing.
[+]
By Fupafighters 2012-04-14 16:34:15
Can I ask if you're using it at 300% tp? Just wondering. Didn't see you saying level of tp you're using it at.
NVM lol Didn't see that tab haha. My bad.
Shiva.Ariaum
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 196
By Shiva.Ariaum 2012-04-14 16:42:40
Interesting, I remember reading some thing from a dev at SE saying add affect from ws effected by skill. might be worthing trying that to see if it raised the consistency of the def down.
Carbuncle.Xenhas
Server: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 664
By Carbuncle.Xenhas 2012-04-14 16:45:40
Interesting, I remember reading some thing from a dev at SE saying add affect from ws effected by skill. might be worthing trying that to see if it raised the consistency of the def down.
Do you have a link or know when this was implemented or if it is still in development?
My tests were done prior to this current update
Server: Sylph
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1
By Sylph.Kalsena 2012-04-14 16:48:45
Great Katana skill affecting the land rate wouldn't be all that surprising, but I would take it a step further and consider the element of the effect could have resulted in the 9/100 rate on the tested mobs.
If possible, perhaps drag your PLD buddy as /WHM or /RDM and have him take WS hits with Barspells up. Unfortunately, you'd need a BRD to test Light and Dark resistances unless he happens to have a lot of gear with that floating around.
The duration thing just has me thinking resists are coming into play, and while Ballista doesn't quite follow the rules of outside-FFXI, it could steer us in the right direction for figuring out the effect's land rate.
And at the very least, skill rating was proven to show the MACC of WS like Wildfire. I think Byrth did testing specifically to that degree on the test server before SE implemented auto-capping skills.
Server: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11680
By Fenrir.Nightfyre 2012-04-14 16:56:58
I really recommend testing this somewhere other than Ballista given that many mechanics, resist rate included, function drastically different there.
EDIT: nevermind, just saw your EP tests.
Server: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11680
By Fenrir.Nightfyre 2012-04-14 16:57:26
Interesting, I remember reading some thing from a dev at SE saying add affect from ws effected by skill. might be worthing trying that to see if it raised the consistency of the def down.
Do you have a link or know when this was implemented or if it is still in development?
My tests were done prior to this current update It's old news, they were just confirming it.
[+]
Carbuncle.Xenhas
Server: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 664
By Carbuncle.Xenhas 2012-04-14 17:00:07
I really recommend testing this somewhere other than Ballista given that many mechanics, resist rate included, function drastically different there.
Check further down in the last spoiler. I did 100 tests on Ypottryls and a few on some tigers and bluffalo in aby - ule.
Lakshmi.Byrth
VIP
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6137
By Lakshmi.Byrth 2012-04-14 17:02:51
http://www.bluegartr.com/threads/107650-Random-Question-Thread-XXIV-Occupy-the-RQT?p=4905838&viewfull=1#post4905838
So, one problem I see is that he assumed Dia II and Ageha's defense down were multiplicative instead of additive, but you can continue through the thread for a few pages and hear about him using it on Kaggen and crap to good effect.
Also, if you assume they're additive instead of multiplicative then Ageha isn't a clean 25% by his test either.
Shiva.Ariaum
Server: Shiva
Game: FFXI
Posts: 196
By Shiva.Ariaum 2012-04-14 17:05:17
In all honesty it was some thing I skimmed that was talking about skill caps or some thing of the sort and was unrelated to the topic.
While it may be old news to some, still nice to see it confirmed by the people that code the game, considering the lack of any info they give about anything.
Carbuncle.Xenhas
Server: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 664
By Carbuncle.Xenhas 2012-04-14 17:12:37
I popped 5 kaggen and wiped solo to check for the effect wearing off and nothing. I had PM'd him to ask about it. He replied that Kaggen was resistant to defense down effects(huh?), and to test on something else.
I'd appreciate being able to see some of his testing on Kaggen, as my personal tests seem to suggest it's far from good, unfortunately.
100% chance of 30% def down for 3 minutes was too good to be true :(
Server: Fenrir
Game: FFXI
Posts: 11680
By Fenrir.Nightfyre 2012-04-14 17:14:08
I really recommend testing this somewhere other than Ballista given that many mechanics, resist rate included, function drastically different there.
Check further down in the last spoiler. I did 100 tests on Ypottryls and a few on some tigers and bluffalo in aby - ule. Yeah, saw that right after I hit submit. Out of curiosity, did you grab a fresh mob for each test? What atmas were used?
Bismarck.Sylow
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3111
By Bismarck.Sylow 2012-04-14 17:18:04
I smell ninja-nerf.
Carbuncle.Xenhas
Server: Carbuncle
Game: FFXI
Posts: 664
By Carbuncle.Xenhas 2012-04-14 17:18:28
i would have to get a new mob for pretty much every test because they died too fast. in ule i used none. I had RR VV AoA for maybe the first 5~10 Ypottryls before i took them off and just had cruor buffs.
Ramuh.Austar
Server: Ramuh
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10457
By Ramuh.Austar 2012-04-14 17:19:29
If they're additive, wouldn't it put Ageha at 274/1024?
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 19432
By Valefor.Prothescar 2012-04-14 17:40:19
Um, additive? It's been known that defense down effects are multiplicative for years now.
Ramuh.Austar
Server: Ramuh
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10457
By Ramuh.Austar 2012-04-14 17:44:15
News to me.
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 19432
By Valefor.Prothescar 2012-04-14 17:46:12
Besides that, the method that I used for testing would have seen a difference in DEF values between additive and multiplicative, unless for some reason Molting Burst changes the way debuffs are applied or player DEF downs function independently from monster DEF downs.
Ramuh.Austar
Server: Ramuh
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10457
By Ramuh.Austar 2012-04-14 17:49:09
For all we know, it molting bursted the loss of defense, and not a percentage.
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 19432
By Valefor.Prothescar 2012-04-14 17:50:49
derp, nvm. It is additive. I blame just having woken up. I believe I correct that in a later post in the thread that Byrth had posted. http://www.bluegartr.com/threads/107650-Random-Question-Thread-XXIV-Occupy-the-RQT?p=4906640&viewfull=1#post4906640
Also, I have strong evidence to suggest that is not the case Austar. You'd be suggesting that ephemeral limules have exorbitant amounts of DEF, and that DEF downs work statically in any environment.
Lakshmi.Byrth
VIP
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6137
By Lakshmi.Byrth 2012-04-14 23:49:21
So, can we agree on 25% vs. 27%? The test server is down and I don't have SAM or NIN leveled.
Also, it looks like SE substantially nerfed the accuracy of this WS from the test server to the main servers, which makes sense given the substantial nerf to Torbillion accuracy (tested at the same time). It is unfortunate, though.
By the way, ~10% proc rate for a 2-state spell is (I think) near floored magic accuracy. Also, all stat-down WSs have two states> Adding a second state was the buff that they talked about.
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 19432
By Valefor.Prothescar 2012-04-14 23:50:56
They did, I went to go test it again to get physical evidence for you and could not land it once in an hour, even with 300TP. I absolutely promise that it was landing every single time when I tested it previously, the same as Tourbillion, and the same as Barbed Crescent.
That is right next to floored magic accuracy. It's either broken of intentionally made to almost never be capable of landing, similar to the broken BLU spells.
Lakshmi.Rearden
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1130
By Lakshmi.Rearden 2012-04-15 00:02:01
SE: we added a defense down ws
Players: we love it
SE: this ws was too powerful, we make this useless
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 19432
By Valefor.Prothescar 2012-04-15 00:04:59
The more things that turn up with this disability, the less hope I have of it having been a mistake via poor coding or something.
Lakshmi.Byrth
VIP
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6137
By Lakshmi.Byrth 2012-04-15 00:17:36
The weird part about an Ageha nerf is that it had been released for months already at that point.
... but yeah, I do the thing Rearden said in my head every time I see something like this.
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 19432
By Valefor.Prothescar 2012-04-15 00:18:25
It's possible that they'd just broken it on the test server and what I'd perceived as normal was the actual broken bit. Idk. Floored accuracy is pretty extreme.
I'll go try it on lower level mobs like Seethers or Gnats like I usually do for things like these and see if I can land it even somewhat reliably.
Lakshmi.Byrth
VIP
Server: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 6137
By Lakshmi.Byrth 2012-04-15 00:27:09
Well, my original assumption was that something like this happened:
1) SE makes additional effect Spells/etc. for years with a single-state system.
2) SE adds a second state, which dramatically increases the functional magic accuracy of the additional effects ( approximately +20% hit rate over most of the range).
3) we increased the accuracy of additional effect WSs.
4) cool we luv it
5) these WSs were too useful, so we made them useless
I do think the current nerf levels are perhaps beyond intended, though. Even if you were a SAM whoring MAcc gear (lol), you still wouldn't necessarily move off the floor. That makes me wonder about Infernal Scythe and such as well.
Server: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 19432
By Valefor.Prothescar 2012-04-15 00:43:56
on blu, with every piece of macc gear that BLU can wear, as much skill as I can possibly stack, I remain at floored macc for spells such as Tourbillion and Barbed Crescent. I suspect Ageha is the same.
Makes me wonder why all spells and abilities with these sorts of properties aren't affected by this issue. Bilgestorm, for example, is very difficult to have any less than capped macc on at least two of the effects at once landing for the full 60 second duration.
Bismarck.Sylow
Server: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3111
By Bismarck.Sylow 2012-04-15 00:51:39
Benthic Typhoon seems to land almost always too.
Sylph.Traxus
Server: Sylph
Game: FFXI
Posts: 383
By Sylph.Traxus 2012-04-15 01:46:53
Valefor.Prothescar said: »The more things that turn up with this disability, the less hope I have of it having been a mistake via poor coding or something.
I could maybe understand SE's train of logic in nerfing ageha and tourbillion somehow, due to the strength/duration of the effects, but I have a hard time believing anything similar could have been intended for spells like hecatomb wave or vaporspray.
EDIT: And now I feel like an idiot for making sams ageha every 3 minutes in all my VW runs, lol. What is the best non-drg form of defense down than? Do armor break/shell crusher still work?
I am here to post my results of my brief Tachi: Ageha testing, and will add more samples at a later date.
For now, I wanted to clear up some misconceptions that have been created about the weaponskill.
The defense down effect is NOT 100% at any levels of tp.
The defense down effect is over-written by, and overwrites, other defense down status effects (ie. angon, Gungnir's additional effect)
The defense down can either last 1:30, or last 3:00
The defense down effect is 25%
The chance of the defense down occurring MAY change dependent on the target
The first point was simple enough to prove. Use Tachi: Ageha on a target, wait for it to wear off in the log.
I also went to test in a PvP area for visual proof
no defense down effect from Tachi: Ageha
defense down from Tachi: Ageha
The defense down being overwritten is already well-known. I did this by getting a friend on DRG with Gungnir to use both angon, and an additional effect from the weapon, and checked the DEF on my mule as the new effects were applied. They overwrite by the order they are applied, not based on remaining duration.
When the defense down occurs, it seems to have a 50% chance of lasting 1 minute and 30 seconds and a 50% chance of lasting 3 minutes
( needs a higher sample size based off of roughly 50 times)
Proof of the defense down not occurring and lasting for only 1:30
on mule in pvp
on a mob
note: the time isn't exactly 1:30 in the log from the delay of Tachi: Ageha appearing in the chat log.
It lasted exactly 1:30 or exactly 3:00 on Cyphos' screen when it was applied
The defense down is 25% down from your current defense
Cyphos' defense without ageha 388
Cyphos' defense with ageha 291
291/388 = 75% (25% off)
I feel that the chance of defense down occurring may change based on the target. From PvP testing at 300tp, I witnessed a 75% chance of landing the defense down effect. However, on my test on EP Ypottryls, DC-T Sierra tigers (brief), and EM Bluffalo, I have witnessed a much lower proc rate.
Based on a sample size of 100 Tachi: Agehas performed on easy prey Ypottryls in Abyssea - Konschtat, I witnessed what appears to be roughly a 10% chance of proc (9/100).
For an exact proc rate on this mob, clearly a higher sample is needed, however, I feel it is pretty clear that Tachi: Ageha has a horrible chance of landing on even this type of fodder mob.
How I conducted my tests up to this point:
I would use a mob and check for changes in their defense with /check and dia II. After waiting for dia II to wear off, I would Tachi: Ageha and check the mob for a change in defense. I noted my current attack when I checked to show when it changes. I would change gear to an attack value that would let me confirm Tachi: Ageha landing or not.
The first 40ish times, I would wait 3 minutes regardless, to ensure that my check method was consistent and wouldn't skew the data.
The Steps in my testing:
1) Check mob with gear set 1 (lower attack) that says normal defense
2)check mob with gear set 2 (higher attack) to say low defense
3)Tachi: Ageha mob
4)Check mob in gear set 1 and if the attack stays normal, I would know that Tachi: Ageha's effect had not proced, and could continue to do another weaponskill without waiting 3 minutes.
5) If I checked the mob in gear set 1 and the defense now said low, instead of the mob having normal defense, I knew that Tachi: Ageha's additional effect had landed on the target
6) Wait for the target's defense down effect to wear off in the chat log and record it
The PvP testing was easy to check by simply switching characters to check for procs and wait for the effect to wear off (when it did happen.)
My notes of proc rate and duration cyphos base def 388
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 3:00
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp- NO PROC!! <--- not 100% chance of defense down
300tp- proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 1:30 - def 291 -25%down
204tp + hagakure - no proc
300tp - proc - 3:00 - 291 def
300tp - proc -def 291
300tp - proc - 1:30 - 291 def
100tp - proc - 3:00 -291 def
100tp - no proc
120tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
120tp - no proc
101tp - no proc
100tp - proc - 3:00 - 291 def
100tp - no proc
120tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
140tp - no proc
100tp - proc - 1:30
101tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - proc - 3:00
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
300tp - NO PROCLOL
100tp - proc - 3:00
100tp - proc - 1:30
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - proc - 1:30
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 3:00
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - proc - 3:00
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 3:00
300tp - no proc
300tp - proc - 3:00
300tp - no proc
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 3:00
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 1:30
300tp - proc - 3:00
BLUFFALO - even match --- too small a sample size on mob
630 att normal defense
dia II = low def
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
100tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
300tp - no proc
Sierra Tiger - decent challenge to tough -- too small a sample size on mob
normal def @ 503 att
dia II = low def
300tp - proc - 1:30 -dc
300tp - no proc -dc
300tp - proc - 3:00 -t
300tp - proc - 1:30 -t
300tp - no proc -t
300tp - no proc -t
300tp - proc - 1:30 -t
300tp - no proc -t
300tp - no proc -t
300tp - no proc -t
300tp - no proc -t
300tp - no proc -dc
300tp - no proc -dc
300tp - no proc -dc
300tp - proc - 3:00 -dc
Ypotryll - easy prey - 480 att = normal def
dia II = low
508 att = low
300tp - proc - 3:00 -ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - proc - 3:00 - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - proc - 1:30 - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - proc - 3:00 - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - proc - 1:30 - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - proc - 3:00 - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - proc - 3:00 - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - proc - 3:00 - ep
300tp - proc - 3:00 - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
300tp - no proc - ep
In conclusion, I hope that I have cleared up some misconceptions about Tachi: Ageha.
In my opinion, it is far from a debuff to rely on. Use angon or something instead.
The current 10~% proc rate on EP fodder mobs just seems waaaaay too low to bother using on NMs.
I will update this thread eventually with more personal testing once I do it. Feel free to contribute any other possible information with actual proof. I am also open for constructive testing critique and other possible ideas for concrete testing.
|
|