Dev Tracker - News, Discussions

What more proof do you need? There's a full video of that fight, showing that it only has 1.2M hp with 6. It shows that a (presumably top notch) SMN could do 477,339 damage during conduit. Never mind that they still had 20 seconds left, which could have been used to blow through apogee/revits and pump damage even higher.

Are you suggesting a thrown together SMN is unable to do half the damage of a top SMN? The math suggests a 100M SMN would be at around 80% of a perfect SMN. Where is the flaw in logic?

Proving something doesn't mean entertaining ill-supported arguments based on nothing more than conjecture. Use facts or go home.

Based on what? Please show your work.

For a second we were back on track to being a dev thread again....

But then the smn nation attacked...

can easily track it down if you care to but w/e:


Add 2 more seconds from rev/ja and you're 34.5s thats 4.5s more than AC/RUN window.

That was a hypothetical, illustrating how much leeway there is for SMNs to suck at pressing a single macro.

You can BP every 1.8 seconds.

This ***is what happens when you try to twist facts to support a conclusion instead of using facts to draw a conclusion.

No you can't deflect this margin of error as well, that 3.5s is perfectly reasonable imo.

Have you done any engineering calculations before?

A reasonable margin of error is taking twice as long as you need to activate the next pact, every single time, by every single smn? You are wrong, you are trying too hard, and this is utterly absurd. Mods will clean it up, make a real argument if you want anything more out of me.

Never mind that, even in that absurd hypothetical, you only have 4.5 seconds where you aren't invincible to finish it up.

3.5 seconds was slow as ***. i intentionally chose very slow response times to illustrate the leeway required. a more reasonable number would be 2-2.5s.

When it comes to human error and skill level it can reach up to 40% the more "real" people you add to it.
The perfect margin of error would be around 15% but I have never seen a single report where designers/engineers resort to it when factoring human error not machine error.

With that many people in alliance its very reasonable assumption [maybe down to 2.8-3s]

480k is about right for a good AM3 AC/AF burn. Was/Grid tops out around 370k, I can't recall off-hand parse results when we were testing stuff. Truthfully I can't recall parse numbers from when we tracked T4 fights as they tended to be ad-hoc things due to people missing kills on our scheduled events.

Short version was that we always rolled with 350k as a baseline target, and the honest truth is plenty of times I've seen SMN fall well under it. And not just players with WIP sets, sometimes good players would make errors or simply get unlucky. It happens because its a flaky, super time-critical strategy.

I really don't want to get dragged back into this, bur just let me point out the obvious: If you assume that each SMN is contributing 2 players worth of damage, if one SMN makes an error its like 2 players making an error. It magnifies the problem. Ergo, the more SMN you involve the more likely it becomes that these errors can mount into a a critical fail.

Conventional strategies with 2 or more parties in the alliance are more fault-tolerant. Which is why we always preferred them. Especially when in a LS setup, you do have to include people who's gear or skill isn't quite there yet, or may be having connectivity/lag issues due to their equipment or service provider.

Its just really basic, pragmatic planning.

Theories fine and all but that video shows the last kill taking ~30 seconds of fight time if you count the initial melees.

And while they did have 2 war DDing with full prebuffs and both 2hrs as well the 2 of them combined only did a little more than the worst smn and the best smn did 2.4x as much dmg as that smn. Really goes to show dmg difference potential and how much a single pimped out smn can do to make up for other DDs. I mean 3 phoucs + geo by themselves would've killed it faster than that setup of setup of 3 smn and 2 war + geo not to knock the other smn

The problem with this assumption is that each SMN doesn't need to contribute 2 players worth of damage.

With a group of 6, you have COR GEO RUN SMNx3. In this case, each smn needs to do 400k damage. That's pretty hard.

Now, let's say you have:
SMN x6
SMN SMN SMN GEO RUN COR

In this case, each smn only needs to do 267k on average. If the core 3 are each doing 350k, the 6 additional ones can get away with 225k.

Let's go all the way to 18.

SMN x6
SMN x6
SMN SMN SMN GEO RUN COR (really you don't even need the COR.. they can drop after rolling)

Each SMN only needs to do 240k. If the core 3 each do 350k, the remainder only need to average out to 212k.

If you take a group that can already win, even if they have 0 excess damage, each additional SMN only needs to do 200k(the amount them being in group adds).

You're looking at it the wrong way, adding more SMNs adds more room for error, not less. Yea, 5 of the 'extra' smns could easily screw up. If the other 10 are doing their estimated 350k, the 5 screwups only need to do 20k each. That's 1 blood pact per.

You will see more errors with a larger group, but they'll hurt you less. SMN scales excellent, and as you can easily see, the more of them you have the less damage each needs to do.. because RUN GEO COR take up a smaller percentage of the alliance. It's just like any other setup, the more you bring the more room you have for any of them to mess up.

There's no need for multiple RUN(1 subterfuge lasts 1 conduit regardless and helps entire alliance) and no need for multiple GEO(debuffs effect entire alliance) and no need for multiple COR(split smns into parties of 5, fold after each roll, use revit to get them all up.. rolls from even a terribly geared cor are upwards of 8min and the fight only lasts 1min).

Just saying, but within the video itself is a smn doing less than half of Phuoc's damage. Though they still made the 200k cutoff and they might possibly have had a few seconds of conduit left.

My initial post was never addressed to you, was quoting Ramzus & Inx?

Idk why you always try so hard to make it about you.

And that breakdown was a real argument lol [if you factor real people in 18 Alliance] ...

Honestly, I just don't care anymore :D

Roll on Friday and new content, Escha is old and so is this pointless argument. You do you, bro.

Yeah for Nickeny's Sake this time too.

Albumen with 9, inx is the only 1 without nirvana in that picture.



This was a merced Schah, you can see the pattern on both pictures of the dmg done with nirvana, on the second pic prime just started a bit after us.

As comeatmebro said, if you have the core SMNs do big dmg, you can get away with the rest doing less (scaling it up to a full alliance) but if (for some reason) you had 9 excellent geared smns, you can basically fill an alli with those 9 + geo + run + 7 leechers since those smns will do 400k+ each covering the 3.6m of schah for example.

Hypothetical but that's a scenario lol, for mercs its usually run geo smn x2-3 and client.

Please try to stay civil and on-topic. The shitposting and arguing in here is getting old.

Sorry Anna but you need to be more specific about your comment:

When there is a debate happening regarding certain Jobs/Weapons/DPS you can't help but notice that some individuals use offensive approach to debates and start virtue signaling around how knowledgable they are and that others opinions hold no value.

In a debate I expect the opposing party to present evidence and not start attacking the credibility of other's judgment/skill/experience.

Its becoming exceedingly counterproductive to delve into any sort of discussion without these individuals coming in with their unprofessional attitude dismissing everyone because they know things and/or straw man it entirely.

My apologies for this but it reached a point where its extremely hard to gain any insight through this website because of how they operate and silence others around them.

And to top it all, you come and brush everyone with the same color.

Sorry, but No.

Ok, I've gotten reports on you arguing with 2-3 different people in 2-3 different threads over the past month or so. I don't know why, but from the looks of things on my end it would appear you don't pick your battles and have an inability to just ignore someone and let them be wrong should they be wrong. The people you are debating with come off as unprofessional because they aren't exactly professional, being good and knowing one's class in a video game doesn't require professional conduct. I'm sure these people you end up arguing with probably come off as belligerent and have probably done or said questionable things, but your name comes up as the most common denominator in guide thread and now dev tracker arguments.

To the entire thread: If you want to argue about changes you want to a job, SE staff doesn't read our forums. The only thing you'll accomplish posting proposals on buff or nerfs is being ridiculed by people who have no say.

The same people you speak of are probably the same who reported said threads, if I started being more active during the last month or so does that imply [Discreditably]?

I never picked battles, I simply share findings same as everyone else and try to abide by a certain "social" conduct, its not my issue if it tickles someones "ego".

Arguing for the sake of SE reading it isn't my intent, last time I checked its a forum of people that happen to play the same game and share their views.

Also, point out a single misconduct in any of my posts unlike other "belligerent individuals".

9 times out of 10, it's someone who doesn't even delve into the crap in this thread.

I know.

The same could be argued against you; your taking offense to others challenging your findings instead of ignoring them could also be seen as an ego issue.

It is, and it's okay to deem an argument not worth your time and simply ignoring it.

No, if you hadn't stuck your head out and implied I was being vague, I wouldn't have even called you out publicly. I was being vague on purpose and to your benefit to cover both sides instead of just you.

I'm sure this doesn't satisfy you but I don't really care to sit and argue with you in a Dev Tracker thread about this topic and will just assume this matter is resolved.

Honestly point is, none and I do mean none of this ***belongs in the dev tracker news. Argue all this mess in their respective forums or create another thread. ***is old and tiring as ***.

It was never an issue until DRG REMA thread.
From my side, its 100% resolved.

Thanks for the replies.

The Dev Tracker and News Discussion should be separated...

One just for Dev status/updates only and another just for Dev discussion/Theory/Ego-fest battles...

It's a hassle to scan several pages of discussion to see the latest update..

Front page doesn't always update every tidbit not on the tracker feed..

Oh, I can finally get 2 of the trusts I'm missing. YAY
Just need another login campaign with ulegore & mildaurion to be done.

also another lockstyle sword to store in a slip 99% of the time. :P

So, general question:

Are we expecting this new Dynamis system to be essentially Abyssea V2 ? Maybe a scaled-back version due to less resources, but is it going to be intended as a "final" endgame area?

Or is it going to be something more modest like Omen?

That means another few months and we'll get Thunder Blade / Bolt Edge, basically the thunder version of those three classic Final Fantasy swords.

Honestly though I think SE messed up here, they should of glowed or had some quest that converted them to +1 and gave them an element specific animation like Router and a few other weapons.

Was there already a Fire Brand or Flametongue or something?

I would have loooved if these elemental swords had some sort of glow or special emitter animations attached to them. The feel so bland as just a red sword and a blue sword. :[