[X] My Assistant

Salvage > HGM. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) I used axes when I was at L20-150-200. 200-3xx - Rapiers & Staffs.

Bah, no one's even buying HGM except as 8:1 (etc) trade for some other HG item.

Not even good for DW?

Salvage > HGM. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) I used axes when I was at L20-150-200. 200-3xx - Rapiers & Staffs.

IMO, no. Axes aren't good now, but they might get better later, and Demonic Slaughter is the best combination.

It might someday be worth a decent amount. The price is one slot in your inventory.

Bah, no one's even buying HGM except as 8:1 (etc) trade for some other HG item.

Not even good for DW?

I prefer the Ethereal stuff.

no. Axes aren't good now, but they might get better later

Yeah, keep dreaming on. (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

and Demonic Slaughter is the best combination.

"Burden +14.70 ; Interference +4.34"
Screw it. I have enough Ethereal weapon & shards to enchant.

I don't know, but I've planned to look at compatibility with other browsers for next versions.

Man, I'd love to give it a try. Can't wait to see if it's faster than holding down the number key (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Bah, no one's even buying HGM except as 8:1 (etc) trade for some other HG item.

Not even good for DW?

apart from that ethereal thing (dark strike is still nice to have afterall), you really miss ACC/parry. should you really want to go with BW, a shortsword would be way better for the extra defense.

but again, nowadays it's quite hard to go against heavy chaosed mobs without at least PA effect.

tl;dr: keep for self use at low difficulties

There's a 15k level 310 Magnificent Power Leggings of Protection base ADB 15.12, str dex PAB in the Bazaar atm, in case any1 is looking for one.
Nvm, Gone.

This post has been edited by izpekopon: Nov 17 2015, 11:32

In the past few days I had been thinking about two not really useful topics.

1) In script like HV-Counter turn/s is the wrong metric name.
It should be called Action/s or a/s, because it's measuring how many actions you can take in the second elapsed from the start of the battle.
Using action will prevent the confusion arisen from having turns indicate two different things, HV turns and user turns (moreover wiki and abilities descriptions talk about action speed, so the terminology is already used).

2) Haste is a pretty useful spell, but it decreases 1H clear time (slightly).
Let's demonstrate this by creating a parallel world where Haste increases action speed x40 time.
You are facing a SG, and you need 40 hit to kill her.
In this parallel world if you cast haste you will probably need 40 actions to kill her (1 turn), if you're really lucky you can get a counter-hit, but it will not do enough damage to skip one action.
Let's say you decide instead to not use Haste, with a normal action speed the turn needed are a lot more, thus letting you get more counter-hits (I would say at least 5 or 6).
This should be pretty much equal to at least 2 normal hits, bringing the actions needed to kill the SG to 38.
tl;dr Haste lowers the number of counter-hits per action, thus slightly lowering damage and OC gain for 1H.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

In the past few days I had been thinking about two not really useful topics.

1) In script like HV-Counter turn/s is the wrong metric name.
It should be called Action/s or a/s, because it's measuring how many actions you can take in the second elapsed from the start of the battle.
Using action will prevent the confusion arisen from having turns indicate two different things, HV turns and user turns (moreover wiki and abilities descriptions talk about action speed, so the terminology is already used).

2) Haste is a pretty useful spell, but it decreases 1H clear time (slightly).
Let's demonstrate this by creating a parallel world where Haste increases action speed x40 time.
You are facing a SG, and you need 40 hit to kill her.
In this parallel world if you cast haste you will probably need 40 actions to kill her (1 turn), if you're really lucky you can get a counter-hit, but it will not do enough damage to skip one action.
Let's say you decide instead to not use Haste, with a normal action speed the turn needed are a lot more, thus letting you get more counter-hits (I would say at least 5 or 6).
This should be pretty much equal to at least 2 normal hits, bringing the actions needed to kill the SG to 38.
tl;dr Haste lowers the number of counter-hits per action, thus slightly lowering damage and OC gain for 1H.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Its true, but without haste you also need to rebuff more often wasting actions. I am already running without SV and in gf will trigger spark sometimes, not sure I want to run without haste too (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

Interesting idea. If a player never has to use Cure, there's less need for Haste. Unfortunately, there's still rebuffs to consider. Without IA, they might come out to requiring an average of 6 turns spent rebuffing every ~160.0 action time. Without Haste, that's 160 turns, assuming no attack speed bonus. But with Haste, that's probably 320 240 turns - significant savings. With more IA, the disadvantage of not using Haste due to rebuff frequency is less, topping off when only Heartseeker and Regen are required.

For low levels, it might make it harder to keep up PA.

This post has been edited by Superlatanium: Nov 17 2015, 12:29

also, consider that Haste contributes to divide a normal turn into two pieces, thus helps administer damage taken in a better way (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Its true, but without haste you also need to rebuff more often wasting actions

That's true too.
Probably Haste on IA has a positive effect on speed because you need less recasts.

And I agree that later rounds of GF (and >90 rounds IW) do benefit from haste.

@Superlatanium: shouldn't it be 160->240?
Also, as you probably imagined, I did the math with only regen and heartseeker in mind, and I pretty much never recast heartseeker (3 time out of 4 I recast it when I get a channeling effect).

apart from that ethereal thing (dark strike is still nice to have afterall), you really miss ACC/parry. should you really want to go with BW, a shortsword would be way better for the extra defense.

but again, nowadays it's quite hard to go against heavy chaosed mobs without at least PA effect.

tl;dr: keep for self use at low difficulties

I tried it in DW, despite having comparable PABs to my kite shield and +1000 ADB, it gives me only a +20 increase in ABD! (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

and I pretty much never recast heartseeker (3 time out of 4 I recast it when I get a channeling effect).

because that's the way to do it (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)
heartseeker is too expensive to cast manually, and judging by my experience you'll almost surely earn a channeling within +-50 rounds of its end, so why wasting 400 MP on it? and since it lasts 500 turns, even if you lose a half hundred it's still other 450 free (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/cool.gif)

I tried it in DW, despite having comparable PABs to my kite shield and +1000 ADB, it gives me only a +20 increase in ABD! (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif) (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

huh... just wondering, did you slot the 'DW Damage' ability? how high your DW proficiency?

This post has been edited by Scremaz: Nov 17 2015, 12:37

That's true too.
Probably Haste on IA has a positive effect on speed because you need less recasts.

And I agree that later rounds of GF (and >90 rounds IW) do benefit from haste.

@Superlatanium: shouldn't it be 160->240?
Also, as you probably imagined, I did the math with only regen and heartseeker in mind, and I pretty much never recast heartseeker (3 time out of 4 I recast it when I get a channeling effect).

I recently discovered this myself, and have been using the scroll of swiftness to great benefit as of late on SG runs.

huh... just wondering, did you slot the 'DW Damage' ability? how high your DW proficiency?

Uuuuugh. *facepalm*

Okay when I slotted my DW stuff I saw a nearly huge improvement (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

And my DW prof is 0.15... gonna have to train that wayyyy up.

In the past few days I had been thinking about two not really useful topics.

1) In script like HV-Counter turn/s is the wrong metric name.
It should be called Action/s or a/s, because it's measuring how many actions you can take in the second elapsed from the start of the battle.
Using action will prevent the confusion arisen from having turns indicate two different things, HV turns and user turns (moreover wiki and abilities descriptions talk about action speed, so the terminology is already used).

I rants about this a few months ago, long story short, let it be, it's not like anybody care too much anyway, and the trouble to rebuild everyone definition of turn is far outweigh the merit, disregard for those who struggle with action speed mechanic.
The system itself is also pretty confused itself, for example buff turn ticks per full turn, yet spell cooldown ticks are per player action.

2) Haste is a pretty useful spell, but it decreases 1H clear time (slightly).
Let's demonstrate this by creating a parallel world where Haste increases action speed x40 time.
You are facing a SG, and you need 40 hit to kill her.
In this parallel world if you cast haste you will probably need 40 actions to kill her (1 turn), if you're really lucky you can get a counter-hit, but it will not do enough damage to skip one action.
Let's say you decide instead to not use Haste, with a normal action speed the turn needed are a lot more, thus letting you get more counter-hits (I would say at least 5 or 6).
This should be pretty much equal to at least 2 normal hits, bringing the actions needed to kill the SG to 38.
tl;dr Haste lowers the number of counter-hits per action, thus slightly lowering damage and OC gain for 1H.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

that's interesting idea, but you might forget that 1 hand counter also give stun for 3(?) turns, those 3 turns might be 3 action without haste or 4.5 actions with haste.

also because you (i think) already understand the concept of difference between turn-turn and action-turn, you might already understand that times of monster's attack doesn't relate to your action (you could attack 1/2 times even 3 times between monster attack provided you have enough action speed - so do the monsters, they could attack you 2, even 3 times when you cast a very long spell like heartseeker)
so not using haste is literally only decreasing the times you attack the monsters, the number of monsters attack to you is still the same.

in a very simplistic comparison
- without haste 1 turn == you 1 action, monsters = 1 action => 1 turn = 1 action ~> 2 turns = 2 actions
- with haste 1 turn = you 1.5 attack, monsters = 1 action => 2 turns = 3 actions

so with your example.
let's say you need 40 attack and 1 attack/1 action spent 1 turn, without counting the buff/cure action wasted,
- without haste , give 75% chance counter, let's say you got counter every 2nd&3rd monster's attack and stun every 3, add 3 turn stunned (attack is considered -1/40 monsters hp counter -0.75/40) >>

turn 1 - you and (mHP 39/40)
turn 2, you attack and you counter (mHP 37.25/40)
turn 3 you attack counter then stun (mHP 35.5/40)
that's -4.5/3turns
followed with 3 turns (4-5-6 normal attack which yield -3/40
by the end of 6th turns you dealt -7.5/40

with haste you attack 1.5 times/turn (3 attacks/2 turns)
turn 1 you attack (39/40)
turn 2 you attack twice and counter (36.25/40)
turn 3 you attack and stun (34.5/40)
turn 4 you attack twice (32.5/40) (monster stunned)
turn 5 you attack (31.5/40)
turn 6 you attack twice again (29.5/40)

that's -7.5 vs -10.5 in the 6th turns

the 7th and so-on turn follow the 1st turn-6th turns cycle, repeat until monster dies.

you need 5 cycle and 3 extra turn to kill the monster without haste or 3 cycle and 5 extra turn without haste.
that's 33 turns vs 23 turns
the first will only shows 6 action/cycle, the 2nd will shows 9 actions/cycle, in the end that would be 33 actions vs 34 actions
So 1 action difference in visual, but 10 ticks difference of buff cooldown, I think I'll stick with haste.

---- edit
it seems aeon passed since I start writing the reply :/

This post has been edited by Fudo Masamune: Nov 17 2015, 12:51

Not rly. First, counter damage is much lower (it has no additional strikes and caped to 75%), second its limited to 3/turn, so against many active monsters higher chance is useless. But idea is more or less right, because more incoming attacks - higher chance to counter. Faster stun - faster new counters. At high lvl players even without defense forge has in few times higher regeneration than enemy can hit. So it works. But overall effect isnt very big, because we speak about small difference between 2 strategies.

Btw, even without cures we still lose turns, because sp damage recovers with our draughts/pots.

This post has been edited by nec1986: Nov 17 2015, 13:25

I rants about this a few months ago, long story short, let it be, it's not like anybody care too much anyway, and the trouble to rebuild everyone definition of turn is far outweigh the merit, disregard for those who struggle with action speed mechanic.
The system itself is also pretty confused itself, for example buff turn ticks per full turn, yet spell cooldown ticks are per player action.
that's interesting idea, but you might forget that 1 hand counter also give stun for 3(?) turns, those 3 turns might be 3 action without haste or 4.5 actions with haste.

also because you (i think) already understand the concept of difference between turn-turn and action-turn, you might already understand that times of monster's attack doesn't relate to your action (you could attack 1/2 times even 3 times between monster attack provided you have enough action speed - so do the monsters, they could attack you 2, even 3 times when you cast a very long spell like heartseeker)
so not using haste is literally only decreasing the times you attack the monsters, the number of monsters attack to you is still the same.

in a very simplistic comparison
- without haste 1 turn == you 1 action, monsters = 1 action => 1 turn = 1 action ~> 2 turns = 2 actions
- with haste 1 turn = you 1.5 attack, monsters = 1 action => 2 turns = 3 actions

so with your example.
let's say you need 40 attack and 1 attack/1 action spent 1 turn, without counting the buff/cure action wasted,
- without haste , give 75% chance counter, let's say you got counter every 2nd&3rd monster's attack and stun every 3, add 3 turn stunned (attack is considered -1/40 monsters hp counter -0.75/40) >>

turn 1 - you and (mHP 39/40)
turn 2, you attack and you counter (mHP 37.25/40)
turn 3 you attack counter then stun (mHP 35.5/40)
that's -4.5/3turns
followed with 3 turns (4-5-6 normal attack which yield -3/40
by the end of 6th turns you dealt -7.5/40

with haste you attack 1.5 times/turn (3 attacks/2 turns)
turn 1 you attack (39/40)
turn 2 you attack twice and counter (36.25/40)
turn 3 you attack and stun (34.5/40)
turn 4 you attack twice (32.5/40) (monster stunned)
turn 5 you attack (31.5/40)
turn 6 you attack twice again (29.5/40)

that's -7.5 vs -10.5 in the 6th turns

the 7th and so-on turn follow the 1st turn-6th turns cycle, repeat until monster dies.

you need 5 cycle and 3 extra turn to kill the monster without haste or 3 cycle and 5 extra turn without haste.
that's 33 turns vs 23 turns
the first will only shows 6 action/cycle, the 2nd will shows 9 actions/cycle, in the end that would be 33 actions vs 34 actions
So 1 action difference in visual, but 10 ticks difference of buff cooldown, I think I'll stick with haste.

---- edit
it seems aeon passed since I start writing the reply :/

(IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

tumben elu posting serius , fud (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/duck.gif)



btw , melee clear speed really depend alot on how fast your ping ~ t/s (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/heh.gif)

This post has been edited by nobody_xxx: Nov 17 2015, 15:27

stupid question here (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/heh.gif)

Postage Paid perk , if I unlock it than I will not pay 1000 credits per MM CoD anymore , right (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)


yeah , I still not unlock this perk (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/heh.gif)

This post has been edited by nobody_xxx: Nov 17 2015, 18:13

stupid question here (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/heh.gif)

Postage Paid perk , if I unlock it than I will not pay 1000 credits per MM CoD anymore , right (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)
yeah , I still not unlock this perk (IMG:[invalid] style_emoticons/default/heh.gif)

That was the first perk i went for.
http://ehwiki.org/wiki/MoogleMail#Sending_Items.2FEquipment:
Sending a message will incur a 10C postage fee. If a COD has been set, this 10C fee will be charged on top of the 10% COD fee.
This fee will not be incurred if the Postage Paid Hath Perk has been purchased.