Self Destruct
self destruct
Self-deprecation sucks, man.
wiki
"Clusters use a slightly different version of Self-Destruct, and can not be used to learn the spell."
"Clusters use a slightly different version of Self-Destruct, and can not be used to learn the spell."
Well, not to take sides here, but I would like to add something to the table for this "Self-Destruct from Clusters" argument...
Think of everything on the Wiki as a scientific theory. We don't actually have the codes of the game, so we can never tell one way or the other how something works. As soon as one person comes up with a theory, they post the theory on the page with a verification tag. Then someone comes along and verifies it. But what if those two people were both wrong? At this point, the only knowledge we have of whether or not you can learn Self-Destruct from a Cluster is a theory that can be disproven but can never be totally proven (basically how every scientific theory is). (EDIT: The theory in question is that the spell can NEVER be learned from Clusters. Just to clarify)
Sir Isaac Newton proposed his scientific laws, and those are still on the table to this day. But since then we've discovered that those laws don't apply to the "very large" or to the "very small". In fact, that's what science is: proving things wrong.
So I'm not saying that they did learn Self-Destruct from Clusters, but I am saying that just because the Wiki says that they couldn't have, doesn't mean that it was an impossibility.
It took me around 3 hours of slaughtering Slimes to learn Digest back in the day, even though Slimes are the only monsters you can learn the spell from. Maybe the people that wrote down on the Self-Destruct page that you can't learn it from Clusters tried it but it was just taking them a long time too.
Think of everything on the Wiki as a scientific theory. We don't actually have the codes of the game, so we can never tell one way or the other how something works. As soon as one person comes up with a theory, they post the theory on the page with a verification tag. Then someone comes along and verifies it. But what if those two people were both wrong? At this point, the only knowledge we have of whether or not you can learn Self-Destruct from a Cluster is a theory that can be disproven but can never be totally proven (basically how every scientific theory is). (EDIT: The theory in question is that the spell can NEVER be learned from Clusters. Just to clarify)
Sir Isaac Newton proposed his scientific laws, and those are still on the table to this day. But since then we've discovered that those laws don't apply to the "very large" or to the "very small". In fact, that's what science is: proving things wrong.
So I'm not saying that they did learn Self-Destruct from Clusters, but I am saying that just because the Wiki says that they couldn't have, doesn't mean that it was an impossibility.
It took me around 3 hours of slaughtering Slimes to learn Digest back in the day, even though Slimes are the only monsters you can learn the spell from. Maybe the people that wrote down on the Self-Destruct page that you can't learn it from Clusters tried it but it was just taking them a long time too.
I feel someone would've said something after all these years. :x
But I guess it is hard to prove something on Blu with screenshots since it's a one-time thing, unless someone re-level's Blu on a mule.
But I guess it is hard to prove something on Blu with screenshots since it's a one-time thing, unless someone re-level's Blu on a mule.
Caitsith.Jessie said:
Well, not to take sides here, but I would like to add something to the table for this "Self-Destruct from Clusters" argument...
Think of everything on the Wiki as a scientific theory. We don't actually have the codes of the game, so we can never tell one way or the other how something works. As soon as one person comes up with a theory, they post the theory on the page with a verification tag. Then someone comes along and verifies it. But what if those two people were both wrong? At this point, the only knowledge we have of whether or not you can learn Self-Destruct from a Cluster is a theory that can be disproven but can never be totally proven (basically how every scientific theory is).
Sir Isaac Newton proposed his scientific laws, and those are still on the table to this day. But since then we've discovered that those laws don't apply to the "very large" or to the "very small". In fact, that's what science is: proving things wrong.
So I'm not saying that they did learn Self-Destruct from Clusters, but I am saying that just because the Wiki says that they couldn't have, doesn't mean that it was an impossibility.
It took me around 3 hours of slaughtering Slimes to learn Digest back in the day, even though Slimes are the only monsters you can learn the spell from. Maybe the people that wrote down on the Self-Destruct page that you can't learn it from Clusters tried it but it was just taking them a long time too.
Think of everything on the Wiki as a scientific theory. We don't actually have the codes of the game, so we can never tell one way or the other how something works. As soon as one person comes up with a theory, they post the theory on the page with a verification tag. Then someone comes along and verifies it. But what if those two people were both wrong? At this point, the only knowledge we have of whether or not you can learn Self-Destruct from a Cluster is a theory that can be disproven but can never be totally proven (basically how every scientific theory is).
Sir Isaac Newton proposed his scientific laws, and those are still on the table to this day. But since then we've discovered that those laws don't apply to the "very large" or to the "very small". In fact, that's what science is: proving things wrong.
So I'm not saying that they did learn Self-Destruct from Clusters, but I am saying that just because the Wiki says that they couldn't have, doesn't mean that it was an impossibility.
It took me around 3 hours of slaughtering Slimes to learn Digest back in the day, even though Slimes are the only monsters you can learn the spell from. Maybe the people that wrote down on the Self-Destruct page that you can't learn it from Clusters tried it but it was just taking them a long time too.
Ramuh.Haseyo said:
I feel someone would've said something after all these years. :x
Caitsith.Jessie said:
At this point, the only knowledge we have of whether or not you can learn Self-Destruct from a Cluster is a theory that can be disproven but can never be totally proven (basically how every scientific theory is).
i cant believe i have to be the one that points this out... you have that backwards. It can never be totally disproved, but it can be proved. If someone posts a screenshot of learning it from a cluster, its been proved. If someone doesnt learn it after 6 years of killing clusters, it may have been astronomically bad luck.
[+]
Caitsith.Jessie said:
Ramuh.Haseyo said:
I feel someone would've said something after all these years. :x
In terms of ease, I don't see why anyone would go out of there way to try to learn it from Clusters when there's a pit of low level'd Bombs just asking a Blu to come and begin the rape session.
Actually that's what I meant Tidus. I meant that it can never be proven that you can't learn it (since this is the theory we're talking about).
You're right. You can go like 0/1000 and it could just be really bad luck. But as soon as it happens that 1 time, it's proven that it CAN be learned.
That's what I meant. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
You're right. You can go like 0/1000 and it could just be really bad luck. But as soon as it happens that 1 time, it's proven that it CAN be learned.
That's what I meant. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Caitsith.Jessie said:
You can go like 0/1000
Oh, hello Metallic Body. ; ;
[+]
Self Destruct from Clusters and Bombs believe it or not are two completley different TP moves in general.
Thats like saying you learned Head butt from a Mandy.
Both Turtles and Mandys both can use Head Butt, but can you learn it from a Mandy? No you cant. There are a few other mobs I can name off that share TP moves with similar names, but they are NOT the same TP move which you can learn blue magic from.
So in the end Screenshot or it never happend.
Thats like saying you learned Head butt from a Mandy.
Both Turtles and Mandys both can use Head Butt, but can you learn it from a Mandy? No you cant. There are a few other mobs I can name off that share TP moves with similar names, but they are NOT the same TP move which you can learn blue magic from.
So in the end Screenshot or it never happend.
[+]
Ramuh.Haseyo said:
Caitsith.Jessie said:
You can go like 0/1000
Oh, hello Metallic Body. ; ;
learning spells in Whitegate >.> omgawd
Fenrir.Gradd said:
Self Destruct from Clusters and Bombs believe it or not are two completley different TP moves in general.
Thats like saying you learned Head butt from a Mandy.
Both Turtles and Mandys both can use Head Butt, but can you learn it from a Mandy? No you cant. There are a few other mobs I can name off that share TP moves with similar names, but they are NOT the same TP move which you can learn blue magic from.
So in the end Screenshot or it never happend.
Thats like saying you learned Head butt from a Mandy.
Both Turtles and Mandys both can use Head Butt, but can you learn it from a Mandy? No you cant. There are a few other mobs I can name off that share TP moves with similar names, but they are NOT the same TP move which you can learn blue magic from.
So in the end Screenshot or it never happend.
Like I said, I don't know one way or the other. There's no proof that it ever happened, but then, there's no proof that it can't happen either.
I'll take a wiki source over a "i seent it wit mah own eyez. no proof but i deed."
[+]
On the note of slamming their hp down that does seem to cause a higher trigger rate. I started opening with bludgeon to get their hp -30% fast and 6 in a row blew up. They were. Just reluctant to give up the wonderful lil "learns self destruct" msg -.-
daddyrabbit4444 said:
i learned self destruct off clusters in mount zolam so yes you can learn it from them took me 3 tries
I understand where the "take wiki with a grain of salt" advice comes from, but in practical terms, those ffxiclopedia wiki pages/topics do undergo a lot of scrutiny, especially the ones that have been around a few years.
People are constantly flagging claims on there for validity or requests to validate, and the discussion pages tend to serve as a historical documentation of changes and experiences. For sure there isn't always agreement, as there isn't here, but when the vast majority of users experience things one way and a minority claims it is another invariably these things are sorted out.
A good read is the Talk page on Charybdis and how some people there argue that Joyeuse is not a 100% drop, as they did not receive it upon defeat of the NM. It is the same exact argument that seems to be going on here--it was supposedly such a rare occurrence (and without empirical evidence) that most users were entirely skeptical of its validity. The discussion eventually indicated (just like in this thread) that the burden of proof then shifts to those that claim it wasn't 100%, which, to my knowledge has yet to be proven conclusively (i.e. that all the people that killed it didn't have it already, etc.)
So honestly, while I tend to take any wiki pages regarding new content with some skepticism (until things get "settled" with more users' experiences) I feel those pages that have existed for several years tend to be a bit more dependable.
People are constantly flagging claims on there for validity or requests to validate, and the discussion pages tend to serve as a historical documentation of changes and experiences. For sure there isn't always agreement, as there isn't here, but when the vast majority of users experience things one way and a minority claims it is another invariably these things are sorted out.
A good read is the Talk page on Charybdis and how some people there argue that Joyeuse is not a 100% drop, as they did not receive it upon defeat of the NM. It is the same exact argument that seems to be going on here--it was supposedly such a rare occurrence (and without empirical evidence) that most users were entirely skeptical of its validity. The discussion eventually indicated (just like in this thread) that the burden of proof then shifts to those that claim it wasn't 100%, which, to my knowledge has yet to be proven conclusively (i.e. that all the people that killed it didn't have it already, etc.)
So honestly, while I tend to take any wiki pages regarding new content with some skepticism (until things get "settled" with more users' experiences) I feel those pages that have existed for several years tend to be a bit more dependable.
[+]
Fenrir.Schutz said:
I understand where the "take wiki with a grain of salt" advice comes from, but in practical terms, those ffxiclopedia wiki pages/topics do undergo a lot of scrutiny, especially the ones that have been around a few years. People are constantly flagging claims on there for validity or requests to validate, and the discussion pages tend to serve as a historical documentation of changes and experiences. For sure there isn't always agreement, as there isn't here, but when the vast majority of users experience things one way and a minority claims it is another invariably these things are sorted out. A good read is the Talk page on Charybdis and how some people there argue that Joyeuse is not a 100% drop, as they did not receive it upon defeat of the NM. It is the same exact argument that seems to be going on here--it was supposedly such a rare occurrence (and without empirical evidence) that most users were entirely skeptical of its validity. The discussion eventually indicated (just like in this thread) that the burden of proof then shifts to those that claim it wasn't 100%, which, to my knowledge has yet to be proven conclusively (i.e. that all the people that killed it didn't have it already, etc.) So honestly, while I tend to take any wiki pages regarding new content with some skepticism (until things get "settled" with more users' experiences) I feel those pages that have existed for several years tend to be a bit more dependable.
Bismarck.Strange said:
the only way the joytoy will not drop if the ppl killing it all have the sword
LOL the last thing in the world I am arguing is the notion that it's not 100% LOL. You can go read the page here if you want to interject your thoughts...
http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/wiki/Talk:Charybdis
...just bring your dead horse beater club with you. :p
Fenrir.Schutz said:
Bismarck.Strange said:
the only way the joytoy will not drop if the ppl killing it all have the sword
Bismarck.Strange said:
Fenrir.Schutz said:
Bismarck.Strange said:
the only way the joytoy will not drop if the ppl killing it all have the sword
Um...ok. ^^
You can totally learn headbutt from mandies, btw.
/troll on
/troll on
Caitsith.Jessie said:
Well, not to take sides here, but I would like to add something to the table for this "Self-Destruct from Clusters" argument...
Think of everything on the Wiki as a scientific theory. We don't actually have the codes of the game, so we can never tell one way or the other how something works. As soon as one person comes up with a theory, they post the theory on the page with a verification tag. Then someone comes along and verifies it. But what if those two people were both wrong? At this point, the only knowledge we have of whether or not you can learn Self-Destruct from a Cluster is a theory that can be disproven but can never be totally proven (basically how every scientific theory is). (EDIT: The theory in question is that the spell can NEVER be learned from Clusters. Just to clarify)
Sir Isaac Newton proposed his scientific laws, and those are still on the table to this day. But since then we've discovered that those laws don't apply to the "very large" or to the "very small". In fact, that's what science is: proving things wrong.
So I'm not saying that they did learn Self-Destruct from Clusters, but I am saying that just because the Wiki says that they couldn't have, doesn't mean that it was an impossibility.
It took me around 3 hours of slaughtering Slimes to learn Digest back in the day, even though Slimes are the only monsters you can learn the spell from. Maybe the people that wrote down on the Self-Destruct page that you can't learn it from Clusters tried it but it was just taking them a long time too.
Think of everything on the Wiki as a scientific theory. We don't actually have the codes of the game, so we can never tell one way or the other how something works. As soon as one person comes up with a theory, they post the theory on the page with a verification tag. Then someone comes along and verifies it. But what if those two people were both wrong? At this point, the only knowledge we have of whether or not you can learn Self-Destruct from a Cluster is a theory that can be disproven but can never be totally proven (basically how every scientific theory is). (EDIT: The theory in question is that the spell can NEVER be learned from Clusters. Just to clarify)
Sir Isaac Newton proposed his scientific laws, and those are still on the table to this day. But since then we've discovered that those laws don't apply to the "very large" or to the "very small". In fact, that's what science is: proving things wrong.
So I'm not saying that they did learn Self-Destruct from Clusters, but I am saying that just because the Wiki says that they couldn't have, doesn't mean that it was an impossibility.
It took me around 3 hours of slaughtering Slimes to learn Digest back in the day, even though Slimes are the only monsters you can learn the spell from. Maybe the people that wrote down on the Self-Destruct page that you can't learn it from Clusters tried it but it was just taking them a long time too.
We have no reason to believe these moves can be learned via mobs currently not listed and it's *** 2010. It's extremely improbable that your proposal is correct at this point given the lack of supporting evidence after a sufficient period of time.
Caitsith.Jessie said:
Ramuh.Haseyo said:
I feel someone would've said something after all these years. :x
daddyrabbit4444 said:
i learned self destruct off clusters in mount zolam so yes you can learn it from them took me 3 tries
Thank - you very much.
[+]
olyard said:
Caitsith.Neonracer said:
Fenrir.Gradd said:
Caitsith.Neonracer said:
I got creative, and got mine off the Cluster in Lufaise, along with Refuelling...Double Whammy!
Too bad you cant learn Self Destruct from Clusters huh?
Dont Give out false info to people~
Refueling = Clusters
Self Destruct = Singles
http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/wiki/Clusters
Hey listen up.. I'm not going to slam testimonal information at ya, but how many updates have we seen since 2005? Its now 2010, and I'm telling you that I learned mine from a cluster. Sorry if you didn't happen for ya. Sorry if you missed out.
BTW. the wiki says it does cast Self Destruct, However, it may not be highlighted in the Blue meaning you can learn a blu spell from this mob, but again, I'm just letting you know from my experience,
I learned Self destruct from it. Ohhh Lucky me!
=/
***, coming from the tard who is doing a stp sword just cause. Also spamming dia is good for low level mobs.
Not my Fault, your experience is bad. Yer such a hater, when ppl want to be different. I carve my own path, I play my job how I want!
DEAL.
[+]
Fenrir.Nightfyre said:
Because that would let you get Refueling and Self-Destruct off the same set of mobs, you wouldn't have to *** around in Arrapago for Tail Slap, etc.
I agree that it would be better if a few more people went out and tried it to give us a clearer indication one way or the other. If someone could show us screenshots then BAM you're done. If multiple people tried for a long period of time (allowing all 3 bombs within the cluster to explode on their own accord, of course) and there was nothing, then it's plausible that it could simply never happen, or maybe it does happen to some people as some level of freak accident.
Maybe it was a glitch that Neonracer and Daddyrabbit learned the spell from Clusters. Heck, maybe it was a glitch that they ninja-fixed in a past update and we can never prove them right.
But again, like I said, there's no way to prove them wrong, only ever a way to prove them right.
Or they could be wrong and what they mistook for a Cluster was actually a couple of bombs close by. :P
Night: the Tail slap thing - discovered something interesting on this one. I learnt Hysteric accidently while singling out one of the COR merrows trying to learn Tail slap. Interestingly I could then not (or VERY bad luck) learn Hysteric from that mob grouping on the BLUmain page linked on page one (a fantastic guide btw if any BLU's here havent used it). I had to go to the other set of mobs listed for Hysteric learning for tail slap - thus reversing what the guide said.
However I could only learn one from each group/type of mob group.
Again I didnt screenshot it of course.
People on Fenrir who can confirm this odd occurance though are Duvelamilla, Bricent and Metabol who were all hunting with me.
If self destruct was a highly used spell then im sure this would be further looked into and examined but its not and won't be.
However I could only learn one from each group/type of mob group.
Again I didnt screenshot it of course.
People on Fenrir who can confirm this odd occurance though are Duvelamilla, Bricent and Metabol who were all hunting with me.
If self destruct was a highly used spell then im sure this would be further looked into and examined but its not and won't be.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.