Devs state that Steal IS NOT affected by stats

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by Rones
Just curious, have you tried your 100delay=1 sec theory on a melee weapon yet?

Why would I bother trying to prove anything to you anymore? Even if Squenix came out and said "100 delay = 1 sec," you wouldn't believe it.

Your posts in this thread have clearly established that once you make up your mind about something, you don't care what evidence is presented. If you won't even accept an explicit statement from Squenix as proof of a fact, why would I possibly waste my time trying to convince you?

No matter how many times you try to hijack this thread into a delay discussion, the fact remains: Squenix categorically stated that drop rate is not affected by level.

[Rones]

Even if Squenix came out and said "100 delay = 1 sec," you wouldn't believe it.

I would go retry the old tests to see if they had infact changed anything. Assuming they didn't change anything, I would get the same results of 60delay=1 sec (for melee) and you are right, I wouldn't believe what they said. They could say 500delay =1sec and I wouldn't believe that either unless testing confirmed it.

If you won't even accept an explicit statement from Squenix as proof of a fact, why would I possibly waste my time trying to convince you?

Well, I wouldn't be the one being convinced of something if you are refering to the delay argument. All you have to do is a couple small experiments with a melee weapon and you will see what everyone was talking about in those discussions when they said 60delay=1sec. In reality you won't try it not because you are worried of wasting your time, but because you releaize your results would show you were wrong about melee weapon delay.

the fact remains: Squenix categorically stated that drop rate is not affected by level.

Again, this comes down to the only proof in the entire discussion being what was posted on the website. I already brought up a few points that put the interview question, meaning alone that interview doesn't make for a solid argument. Unless this interview or info appears on SE's official web page, I don't see this as a reliable source. Thus, we are back where we started with just going off opinions. What I am curious about and have never seen much comment about is whether aoe farming could be affecting the drop rate like someone mentioned earlier.

[Gryff]

I wouldn't bother arguing with dan, he's some level 50 ( ish ) knowitall who was trying to tell multiple lvl 75 ninjas before the patch that we would all be raped and be the new dragoon and then claiming after posting something so rude that he didn't want ninjas changed.

:sweat:

dial 0-800-barrackroomlawyer.

[Timoham]

Honestly, something about being a high level HAS to affect drop rate. Otherwise it's illogical. Take a level 5 job to south gustaberg and farm the bees there without signet. Everytime you kill a bee you'll more than likely get a drop. Take a level 75 job out to the same area, grab up every single bee you can, and AOE kill them. Just even from my experience at 40 I got 3 drops from 20 or so sheep in konstacht WITH TH1. I've levelled jobs there on the sheep and gotten drops every kill. I'm not suggesting level has a DIRECT effect, what I'm suggesting is that you can only get a certain amount of drops per minute or per second even. Otherwise farming as a high level would be ridiculously easier. If I could go out onto Zegham hill, grab 50 or so bees, kill them all with one cyclone, get a drop from all of them... tell me that would not be ridiculous? But killing them slower over time doesn't nerf the drop rate.

What I'm saying that agrees with both of your arguments is that level only affects the drop rate because you kill the mobs faster per hour, minute, second, etc, ie Indirectly.

[Sabastion]

SE announcment: maitnenece will be schedualed.

Everyone else in this thread: Yeah right I'll believe it when I see it.

[raexn]

From what i've read on this forum awhile back before NA release, wasn't there a patch implemented so the high lvls would stop farm raping the lower level zones that others were exping in?

Hence the patch made drop rate, level based?

If i find the thread this was mentioed, I'll be sure to post it.

:confused:

EDIT: erm, waste of thought i guess, was thinking drop rate and not steal. sorry ; ;

EDIT2: For those of you interested, its stated here by Cedric, but no real evidence that its real unless you can go through all the back updates and check what was changed.

http://www.ffxionline.com/forums/sho...4&pagenumber=2

[Rones]

From what i've read on this forum awhile back before NA release, wasn't there a patch implemented so the high lvls would stop farm raping the lower level zones that others were exping in?

erm, waste of thought i guess, was thinking drop rate and not steal. sorry ; ;

Actually, that is along the lines of what I heard too. Not a waste of thought, that thread would be very useful if you could find it. Most of the discussion has switched from discussion over +int to a discussion on drop rates.

SE announcment: maitnenece will be schedualed.

Everyone else in this thread: Yeah right I'll believe it when I see it.

If a maintence was announced only on an indenpendent website and no mention of it was made in pol or on SE's official web page, then yes you are right; I would believe it when I see it.

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by Rones
All you have to do is a couple small experiments with a melee weapon and you will see what everyone was talking about in those discussions when they said 60delay=1sec. In reality you won't try it not because you are worried of wasting your time, but because you releaize your results would show you were wrong about melee weapon delay.

I didn't test melee delay because there is no controllable way to do it. I have already stated multiple times that stopwatching is uncontrollable and pointless, and your response to that is... more stopwatched tests. Then you criticize me for "backing out" of the thread, when your only response is more of the same uncontrollable tests that I objected to in the first place. Brilliant.

Again, this comes down to the only proof in the entire discussion being what was posted on the website. I already brought up a few points that put the interview question, meaning alone that interview doesn't make for a solid argument.

You did no such thing!

They said, "We currently have no plans to increase the level cap." In the same paragraph, they later said, "However, if necessary, we will consider raising the level cap."

You then conveniently snipped the "However, if necessary," part of the sentence out, and post the rest of it like you've discovered something.

All that you proved is that you can efficiently hack up a quote so it appears to contradict an earlier quote. What an outstanding display of integrity on your part.

Unless this interview or info appears on SE's official web page, I don't see this as a reliable source.

Squenix does not put interviews or player Q&As on their own website. They have already established a precedent of doing interviews with other websites before. Or are you saying that those are unreliable too? If you only accept information directly from Squenix as legit, why do you even read this forum?

Face it, the only reason you object to the interview is because of it's content.

And since you brought up the topic of testing, why is it that after all your valiant stopwatching, now you've declared that you don't need to log drop rates to find out about drop rate affecting level? No, you just know it's true. It's obvious, right?

If everyone followed that same ridiculous standard, we'd still be arguing about whether or not TH affects rare/ex drops, or whether CHR affects enmity. To the people that already believe it, of course the proof is obvious!

You seem to think that your anecdotes about the time you killed a bunch of bees and barely got any drops proves the point. Other people (including myself) have provided precisely contrasting anecdotes, showing that our drop rates were NOT adversely affected by our level.

You can't even get your story straight; first you cry about how you only get 4-5 drops in "100+" kills at level sixtysomething in Tahrongi, then when I say that I get ~35k worth of drops from 400 arrows, and the same drop rate at 58 as I did at 44 as I did at 30, you turn around and say that if you're "over the exp range for that zone" then your drop rate gets no worse from that point on. Uhh, what?

If I'm getting 35k worth of drops from <400 kills at level 30, and my drop rate will never get any worse (according to you) because I'm already over the exp range for that zone, how is the drop rate affected by level?

Not only is your theory expressly contradicting that of Squenix's statement, it doesn't even make any sense!

[Rones]

I didn't test melee delay because there is no controllable way to do it. I have already stated multiple times that stopwatching is uncontrollable and pointless, and your response to that is... more stopwatched tests. Then you criticize me for "backing out" of the thread, when your only response is more of the same uncontrollable tests that I objected to in the first place. Brilliant.

I have explained to you time and time again how to do it with a minimum margin of error. You minimize the margin of error by doing it over longer and longer periods of time. My old test was counting the number of swings from attacking an elemental for 2 min. At worst, my margin of error would have been 1 swing when my timer went off (last attack visual command from server gets lagged). Here is a copy of my old experiment posted in that other thread:

I got bored yesterday and found a nice too weak elemental to experiment on. I pulled out my 400 delay staff and began auto attacking. I cast no spells during the fight and had silenced the mob before fighting. After the 2nd attack I started my timer for 2 min and counted the number of attacks.

If 100delay = 1 sec, I should be able to get an attack every 4 seconds. So 120 sec/4 = 30 swings with my staff.

If 60 delay = 1 sec, it would be 400/60 = 6.67, meaning one attack every 6.67 seconds. So 120/6.67= 18 swings. That's a difference of 12 swings between the 2 formulas.

Well, when my timer beeped after 2 min I had performed 17 attacks (18th was about to go). There was no detectable lag during that and no spells cast on me to slow down my attacks. There is no way I could be short 13 attacks unless the 100delay = 1 sec formula is wrong. Don't believe me? Go try it with a high delay melee weapon as those are the easiest to count.

When the 2 theories result in a difference of 12 swings, does a margin of error of 1 swing ruin the entire experiment? Well going by Dan's opinion it does. :sweat: Anyone who has done a few physics experiment before would be hard pressed to throw it out over something that small. At the very least, this is superior to your method where you refuse to even use the weapons in question (you use ranged when the argument is focusing on melee delay).

They have already established a precedent of doing interviews with other websites before. Or are you saying that those are unreliable too?

You are generalizing my statements. Is every interview fake? Of course not. Are some? Most likely given the shear number that appear on the net.

why is it that after all your valiant stopwatching, now you've declared that you don't need to log drop rates to find out about drop rate affecting level?

In this situation, I felt personally the results were so different between the two theories that it was visible to the naked eye. Imagine if you were comparing two theories: 100 delay = 30 seconds and 100 delay = .5 seconds. Would you honestly need to use a parser to determine which one is right?

Not only is your theory expressly contradicting that of Squenix's statement, it doesn't even make any sense!

It makes since if you would take the time to comprehend it. Drops rates go from best to worst as you go from IT to TWTBW. Once you reach TWTBW your drop rate is as bad as it gets. This isn't likely the exact way it works, but it gets the general idea across of how lvl affects drop rates.

You can't even get your story straight

That isn't a flaw of my story not being straight. That is a comparison of my experience to your experience with drop rates and them not matching. That hardly makes me inconsistent in my statements. I say the sky is blue, you say the sky is green, does that mean I don't have my story straight?

you only get 4-5 drops in "100+" kills...I get ~35k worth of drops from 400 arrows, and the same drop rate at 58 as I did at 44 as I did at 30

Why are you comparing gil amounts per 400 arrows to my drops per kill I mentioned. That's like comparing apples to dogs (you thought I would say oranges :p ) 35k worth of drops can mean 35 drops or it can mean 350 drops. :sweat: Also, shouldn't 400 arrows at 58 net you more kills (higher accuracy/dmg) than when you were 30 which means should have a higher drop rate if we go by your theory, yet you say that isn't the case.

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by Rones
I have explained to you time and time again how to do it with a minimum margin of error.

And I explained from the very start that the problem with stopwatching is that there is no way to verify that you are always attacking as soon as possible, unlike with /ra macros. You haven't refuted this point, because you can't get around it.

No matter how cleverly you try to disguise a stopwatched test, it's still stopwatched. Without looking at the code, you cannot know whether or not the autoattack timer is always running when engaged. This is my fundamental problem with stopwatching (which I mentioned in the delay threads right from the beginning!), yet you don't seem to grasp it.

If you have some new, relevant, non-stopwatched data to present, please do it in the appropriate thread. Thank you.

You are generalizing my statements.

Direct quote: (emphasis added)
"Unless this interview or info appears on SE's official web page, I don't see this as a reliable source."

So unless interviews or info appear directly from Squenix, they are not reliable, according to you. Even here, I have to call you on more waffling; you've already stated that even if info does come directly from Squenix, you wouldn't necessarily believe it. So again, why read these forums?

It makes since if you would take the time to comprehend it. Drops rates go from best to worst as you go from IT to TWTBW.

So even though (according to you) a LV15 would get the same drop rate in Gustaberg as a LV75, you would consider that as "drop rate being tied to level". You surely have a different use of the term than anyone else.

The result of your theory is that in order to get the "normal" drop rate, you must only fight mobs that give xp. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I have a question for you: what sort of amazing drop rates do you consider "normal"?

Why are you comparing gil amounts per 400 arrows to my drops per kill I mentioned. That's like comparing apples to dogs (you thought I would say oranges :p ) 35k worth of drops can mean 35 drops or it can mean 350 drops.

I obtained a minimum of 15 stacks of items, not including clusters. Feel free to explain away.

Also, shouldn't 400 arrows at 58 net you more kills (higher accuracy/dmg) than when you were 30 which means should have a higher drop rate if we go by your theory, yet you say that isn't the case.

My arrows per kill is the same at 58 as it was at 30. One. Accuracy is 95%+ in either case.

The only thing that changes is the speed at which I farm. At higher levels, I used lower delay weapons with less base damage.

I suppose the only way to prove that your theory is totally bunk is to dump a few pages of logs on this thread. I guess I have a project.

[Nameless]

I also see Melee attacks to be 60=1. Ranged attacks are very different (you might have gone over this, I'm not sure.) Ranged attacks could very well be 100=1, but I'm positive that my Great Axe swings slower than 5 seconds.

I agree with Timoham on drop rates.

And I have no idea about steal as it doesnt really affect me.

[Rones]

And I explained from the very start that the problem with stopwatching is that there is no way to verify that you are always attacking as soon as possible, unlike with /ra macros. You haven't refuted this point, because you can't get around it.

And I answered this very question in the other thread which you simply ingnored. So here's an excerpt:

Yes, lag should be considered, but it can also be ruled out when you understand basic mmorpg programming style. After the initial command is sent to the server by your pc/ps2 to attack something, the attack timings/delay are handled server side free of lag. Your computer is NOT telling the server each individual attack you do after entering attack mode, not only would that be highly unefficient bandwidth use but down right awful programming. Your pc sends nothing but movement direction, engage, and disengage commands to the server. Otherwise, this would leave room for extreme abuse (eg. changing the programming to send the 'swing' command 20 times a second).

The program we all have installed is nothing more than a mere visulatization & command input program. All data crunching and actions are calculated by the server (without lag), and the visuliation commands are then sent to your pc (with lag). That is why some thfs miss sa, because the mob turned and hit someone according to the server calculations (no lag), but the command for the visual image of the mob turning on the thf's pc had not changed yet due to lag.

I also included an ingame experience that comfirms this setup in the other thread.

"Unless this interview or info appears on SE's official web page, I don't see this as a reliable source."

That statement was made over how reliable these websites are. Stuff like SE's offical web page and pol I would say are 99.9% reliable. Everything else is well below that. The way you are trying to form your argument is in the fashion that the website that posted that interview is 100% reliable, which isn't the case for anyone. What I should have said to avoid confussion is "I don't see that as a 100% reliable source."

So again, why read these forums?

Because semi-reliable information is better than no information. Same reason people use allkahazam, some information (even if some is wrong) is better than none at all. Clear enough for you?

My arrows per kill is the same at 58 as it was at 30. One.

That's pretty strong hits for a lvl 30 considering some of those mobs have ~150-175 hp.

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by Rones
And I answered this very question in the other thread which you simply ingnored.

I ignored your answer because it doesn't answer anything. It is still a fact that you do not (and cannot) know that the autoattack timer is always advancing (i.e. never pauses or delays) when you are engaged. You just engage and hope that it's always running. This is a fundamental flaw of stopwatching, and you can't get around it.

You can think of all these ways to try to prove that certain things don't interrupt the melee timer, but even if you're right, that only proves that those particular things aren't slowing it down. Without looking at the code, you have no way to know for sure if the autoattack timer is always advancing.

That's pretty strong hits for a lvl 30 considering some of those mobs have ~150-175 hp.

LV30 RNG can do more damage than that with LV1 arrows, no problem.

[Rones]

I ignored your answer because it doesn't answer anything. It is still a fact that you do not (and cannot) know that the autoattack timer is always advancing (i.e. never pauses or delays) when you are engaged. You just engage and hope that it's always running. This is a fundamental flaw of stopwatching, and you can't get around it.

I can know it the same way you know it with your ranged macro. Every single time I count how many attacks I do in 2 min (or any sufficiently large time limit) I get the exact same results. Same thing with your ranged macro, you say its reliable because it works everytime.

Without looking at the code, you have no way to know for sure if the autoattack timer is always advancing.

Without looking at the code I have no way of knowing my cure spell I cast will cure the tank instead of turn him purple. I don't know that when I'll rest I get mp. Yet, because I get the same results every single time, I can make a very realiable prediction.

Find a nice element and attack it for 5 min, and count how many swings you do for each min. I wager my dark staff (the few pennies its worth now) you will get within 1 swing of the other count each time (without triple or double attack and 1 swing since it's not 100% precise timing). On top of that, if you use the 60 delay = 1 sec theory, it will accuratly predict your number of attacks every single time.

You are simply making outlandish excuses to descredit an argument you don't agree with. This is such an easy thing to see if you would just go try it. Your auto attack timer is managed by the server and goes at a constant rate, so don't worry so much about lag (unlike ranged attacks, melee autoattack doesn't wait for that lagged ranged attack message to reach it). If it wasn't going at a constant rate, you would get inconsistent results when timing the number of attacks over the same period of time. I have done this many times and got consistent results with no mysterious force affecting my auto attack. When you experience this force of yours that is randomizing your auto attack, then we will have something to talk about (assuming you avoid haste/slow, double attack, triple attack, and any other speed changing effects :sweat: ).

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by Rones
I can know it the same way you know it with your ranged macro. Every single time I count how many attacks I do in 2 min (or any sufficiently large time limit) I get the exact same results. Same thing with your ranged macro, you say its reliable because it works everytime.

No, in my ranged macro, I can specifically input a time for the game to wait. There is no need to stopwatch it.

Like I said, figure out a controllable way to test melee delay without stopwatching and we can have something to discuss. Otherwise, you are just talking in circles.

You are simply making outlandish excuses to descredit an argument you don't agree with.

...says the person who doesn't believe statements from interviews with Squenix.

It is to laugh.