tests on Absorb-TP

[Lavi]

Originally Posted by Dayner's Quoted Text
[...]
1) Speculation: The higher the mobs TP the more tp you will get. True

2) Speculation: Bursting will increase you percentage past 36. False. It appears you cannot burst it.

3) Speculation: Amount drained is effected by weather, and day. False. Even Darkday seemed to have no effect. Monsters' natural weaknesses and strengths tend to play a more vital role. (Ants v Crab v Crawler)

4) Speculation: Amount drained with Dark Staff will increase your returns. Irrelevant. Unless used strictly to debuff the mob's TP pool, having TP on a Staff is next to useless. (However, untested)

5) Speculation: You can self SC using absorb only. True. Though Rare as fuck.

[...]Skyra

Above are observations from a level 50's DRK.

Just for the record, when you respond with observations, you shouldn't say true/false as it makes them seem like you are stating facts, when they are just as you said, observations. And for #3, the easiest way to test it is with an Anrin Obi (gain full benefits of Darksday/Dark weather) in dynamis. Do a dynamis with and without the obi and you should get a significant change if there is any at all.

 

[Phraust]

Just for the record, Lavi, I am stating facts, it's what observations are, imperical data, eyewitnessing actual events. Your suggestion was to go observe the same scenarios using an obi... Wouldn't the results of your suggestion be observations as well?

The main thing about Ab-TP is, that it's an Ab-Spell, it doesn't function like drain or aspir. If you succeed in using Ab-Str, you get a set amount of Str to use, and the mob gets a set deficit to thier Str. There's no real sliding scale on that. It's not like Wearing a pluto's staff or obi will make me drain more Str, Dex, Vit, etc. The Black/Onix set however, will. How the Black/Onix affects Ab-TP is outside my realm of experience. It may seem confusing, because the more TP a mob has, the more you Absorb from it, but it's pretty cut and dry.

All I was saying is that when I went out and screwed with the spell, it acted the exact same on darksday, as it did any other day. And Darkness weather didn't seem to affect it much either. If you want to say my observations are false go level Dark to 45+ and play with the spell yourself, or Go find a freind and do tests on your own if you don't believe me. Hell that's just good advice in general, if you don't belive someone's words or advice, go test it yourself.

 

[Skaw]

I believe it's a drain, it just happens to have Absorb in the name for some retarded reason. Why I think this? Just like Aspir, if the mob doesn't have any, you can't get any. However, I think Absorb-Attributes will give you thier full buff effect(and debuff effect on the target) regardless of thier totals, simply because it's a buff/debuff effect. You're not actually lowering thier STR total, just penalizing them. If the mob has 0 STR, you still get +10, they still get -10(Example numbers.)

 

[Tyrath]

I believe it's a drain, it just happens to have Absorb in the name for some retarded reason. Why I think this? Just like Aspir, if the mob doesn't have any, you can't get any. However, I think Absorb-Attributes will give you thier full buff effect(and debuff effect on the target) regardless of thier totals, simply because it's a buff/debuff effect. You're not actually lowering thier STR total, just penalizing them. If the mob has 0 STR, you still get +10, they still get -10(Example numbers.)

Agreed with what Skaw said

Hopefully I get to test this soon <.>

 

[Lavi]

Just for the record, Lavi, I am stating facts, it's what observations are, imperical data, eyewitnessing actual events. Your suggestion was to go observe the same scenarios using an obi... Wouldn't the results of your suggestion be observations as well?

The main thing about Ab-TP is, that it's an Ab-Spell, it doesn't function like drain or aspir. If you succeed in using Ab-Str, you get a set amount of Str to use, and the mob gets a set deficit to thier Str. There's no real sliding scale on that. It's not like Wearing a pluto's staff or obi will make me drain more Str, Dex, Vit, etc. The Black/Onix set however, will. How the Black/Onix affects Ab-TP is outside my realm of experience. It may seem confusing, because the more TP a mob has, the more you Absorb from it, but it's pretty cut and dry.

All I was saying is that when I went out and screwed with the spell, it acted the exact same on darksday, as it did any other day. And Darkness weather didn't seem to affect it much either. If you want to say my observations are false go level Dark to 45+ and play with the spell yourself, or Go find a freind and do tests on your own if you don't believe me. Hell that's just good advice in general, if you don't belive someone's words or advice, go test it yourself.

Observations are far from fact. Just for the record, Phraust, you are stating observations, observations are, imperical data, eyewitnessing actual events which is what facts are based on.
You are merely taking what you see without the need to analyze it and whether the data was analyzed, you never stated. You said true/false as if it was fact when you gave no proof other than "I observed" which coincidentally, the previous person whom you quoted, did the same thing. So he observed, you observed and you both claim to be right, so who's fact is actually fact?

The reason I mention the obi is because it's a guaranteed boost. You are using nothing to enhance the weather/day effects and as you may or may not know, the boost from those effects are extremely random. By extremely random, I mean you NEVER know on a dark based spell whether it was effected or not because dark spells are so very random to begin with. However, if you entered dynamis, you can get a GUARANTEED 20%(30 if you do it on darksday too) which is a sizeable increase that you WILL notice.

Edit: Didn't notice the bolded question. Yes, you are correct, my observations would be observations and I never stated anything to the different. I never made the distinction to consider my observations fact like you did. However, given my method of using a guaranteed boost (weather+obi) to a random variable(abs-TP) versus your method whichs imposes a random variable (weather,no obi) to boost another random variable (abs-TP), I would consider mine a far more suitable test to get reliable observations. Those observations can then be analyzed to state fact, but never before then.

 

[Phraust]

Observations are far from fact. Just for the record, Phraust, you are stating observations, observations are, imperical data, eyewitnessing actual events which is what facts are based on.
You are merely taking what you see without the need to analyze it and whether the data was analyzed, you never stated. You said true/false as if it was fact when you gave no proof other than "I observed" which coincidentally, the previous person whom you quoted, did the same thing. So he observed, you observed and you both claim to be right, so who's fact is actually fact?

The reason I mention the obi is because it's a guaranteed boost. You are using nothing to enhance the weather/day effects and as you may or may not know, the boost from those effects are extremely random. By extremely random, I mean you NEVER know on a dark based spell whether it was effected or not because dark spells are so very random to begin with. However, if you entered dynamis, you can get a GUARANTEED 20%(30 if you do it on darksday too) which is a sizeable increase that you WILL notice.

Edit: Didn't notice the bolded question. Yes, you are correct, my observations would be observations and I never stated anything to the different. I never made the distinction to consider my observations fact like you did. However, given my method of using a guaranteed boost (weather+obi) to a random variable(abs-TP) versus your method whichs imposes a random variable (weather,no obi) to boost another random variable (abs-TP), I would consider mine a far more suitable test to get reliable observations. Those observations can then be analyzed to state fact, but never before then.

The original poster of the quoted text was speculating, not observing.Nor did the poster insinuate or reference thier speculations as fact, or observations. It's why I posted, to clear those speculations and make light of them. That's the difference. Observations are generally facts. If I Cast a spell during the Burst Window and it says "Magic Burst! Phraust drains 88 MP from the Robber Crab." It means I Aspired 88 MP from a crab. There's no flexibility there. When I tried to Burst Ab-TP it did not burst. I tried a whole slew of times and got no Burst message what so ever, which leads me to conclude that it cannot Magic Burst on a skillchain, at least a Gravitation or Compression skillchain. How is that observation not fact?

When I cast and it was the first thing to land after it used a weapon skill I would Drain 0 TP. When I cast it randomly during a fight I would get varying amounts of TP, that seemed to coincide with the time between when it last WS'd and when my spell went off, and I saw that I absorbed more the longer I waited. How is that Observation not fact?

You're getting hung up on nomenclature.

 

[Lavi]

The original poster of the quoted text was speculating, not observing.Nor did the poster insinuate or reference thier speculations as fact, or observations. It's why I posted, to clear those speculations and make light of them. That's the difference. Observations are generally facts. If I Cast a spell during the Burst Window and it says "Magic Burst! Phraust drains 88 MP from the Robber Crab." It means I Aspired 88 MP from a crab. There's no flexibility there. When I tried to Burst Ab-TP it did not burst. I tried a whole slew of times and got no Burst message what so ever, which leads me to conclude that it cannot Magic Burst on a skillchain, at least a Gravitation or Compression skillchain. How is that observation not fact?

When I cast and it was the first thing to land after it used a weapon skill I would Drain 0 TP. When I cast it randomly during a fight I would get varying amounts of TP, that seemed to coincide with the time between when it last WS'd and when my spell went off, and I saw that I absorbed more the longer I waited. How is that Observation not fact?

You're getting hung up on nomenclature.

In that instance, it's fact for that one moment. Does it make it fact for all instances? No. If I absorb 10 TP one time, does it make it fact that it absorbs 10 TP all the time? No. Your assumption on the inability to MB is probably correct, but can you make the same assumption for weather/day effects? No, you cannot safely assume that. It's evidently clear on MB because the game will outright say "MB Absorb-TP blahblahblah" and since it didn't you can safely take it as fact. The same cannot be said with aspir, drain OR asborb-TP and weather/day effects because the game will not directly tell you. And correct, the original poster was speculating using observations. Observations are facts in that in that instance it did occur. It's like stating "Weather didn't effect my Blizzard MB". It's a fact I didn't get that one 10% boost from the weather; however, in all instances it is NOT fact. You can in fact get a 10% increase with Blizzard on ice weather, it just didn't happen that one particular instance.

There are times when you can safely assume from your observations and take them as fact. The MB is one instance you can safely assume because it's extremely obvious from a single attempt and every further attempt just removes possible doubt. But unlike MB, weather doesn't give an indication as to whether it procs or not. On a normal nuke, it's clear because there is little variation in the normal nuke and when they do, it's in the form of (1/2)^n so a 10% boost is very visible. A dark spell tends to have variations (not just by 1/2 either) and the boost is sometimes not obvious. Add to the fact the boost is not a 100% proc rate, you have no idea if the weather effect occurred. I suggest my test because it's a superior test for the reasons I already stated. Constant times a variable or variable times a variable. In the first instance, the effects of the variable are just shifted and more apparent. In the second scenario, you must determine the effects of two varying factors, which in most instances is very difficult. Your test chose the latter method and you did so without having an accurate knowledge of the original spell. So how can you speculate the random effect of weather proc'ing when you have random TP gain on mobs? Actually answer the question this time instead of telling me I am arguing semantics. And notice, I don't state whether you are correct or not, I do not know. I just don't know how you can state it as fact when you method is flawed.

 

[Dayner]

ok i did a test on AB-TP in dynamis with Anrin Obi + dark magic gears *no darkday*

max tp = 103
min tp = 70

27+ dark magic skill

 

[Courtney]

In that instance, it's fact for that one moment. Does it make it fact for all instances? No. If I absorb 10 TP one time, does it make it fact that it absorbs 10 TP all the time? No. Your assumption on the inability to MB is probably correct, but can you make the same assumption for weather/day effects? No, you cannot safely assume that. It's evidently clear on MB because the game will outright say "MB Absorb-TP blahblahblah" and since it didn't you can safely take it as fact. The same cannot be said with aspir, drain OR asborb-TP and weather/day effects because the game will not directly tell you. And correct, the original poster was speculating using observations. Observations are facts in that in that instance it did occur. It's like stating "Weather didn't effect my Blizzard MB". It's a fact I didn't get that one 10% boost from the weather; however, in all instances it is NOT fact. You can in fact get a 10% increase with Blizzard on ice weather, it just didn't happen that one particular instance.

Is there a single spell in the game that when timed correctly only MBs "sometimes"?

 

[Lavi]

Is there a single spell in the game that when timed correctly only MBs "sometimes"?

Did you not read the entire thing? Or did you just not understand it?

 

[Bigboy]

ok i did a test on AB-TP in dynamis with Anrin Obi + dark magic gears *no darkday*

max tp = 103
min tp = 70

27+ dark magic skill

Your timing is really good with that spell then. =D

The mobs almost always have alot of TP though because so many people are hitting them.

 

[Dayner]

true .. i use it at the start by the time spell is cast the mob maybe have
150-200 tp

also the old AB spells are not MB able , you dont see any magic burst Message i guess same can be said abot AB-TP

 

[Windy]

I've seen good DRKs out TP SAMs and RNGs with that spell alone. Personally I feel that it should have a 3 min timer on it just like Meditate and Barrage do.

Yeah but that wouldn't screw over Sams and that's all SE seems to do.
Crappy delay.
Low damage.
No unique ability to do anything aside mediocre DD.

Oh self light! Yeah, #$&*% Blu can do it. Total BS. :/

 

[Skaw]

Yeah but that wouldn't screw over Sams and that's all SE seems to do.
Crappy delay.
Low damage.
No unique ability to do anything aside mediocre DD.

Oh self light! Yeah, #$&*% Blu can do it. Total BS. :/

The Ability to sub THF without losing out on as much as other jobs is incredibly overlooked it seems.

Well, atleast thats what I see when I look at SAM. But then again, MNK subbing /THF should be last resort due to how hand to hand skills work.

 

[Trippyhippy]

The Ability to sub THF without losing out on as much as other jobs is incredibly overlooked it seems.

Well, atleast thats what I see when I look at SAM. But then again, MNK subbing /THF should be last resort due to how hand to hand skills work.

Samurais WS are all 1 hit except Enpi. That works well with SA. Samurai is also a great skillchain partner on any level for any job. If you have no Blm and an extra Damage Dealer and a Ninja tank, Sam Can SC with all 3 of them.

But personally, I still like Sam/Rng.

 

[Uzor]

I love SAM's... since I parse every party I'm in, I really see how much damage a good SAM can deal. They are great in many ways, both for total damage per fight, and awesome SC partner as they can open and close pretty much any SC in the game. They can also SC with several melees in the party during the same fight, which really helps with a BLM in the party.

So in short, SAM is one of my favourite melees. But that's besides the point.

With Absorb-TP, DRK can build TP very fast. Its probably one of the best things SE could have done for DRK's imho. Although I have one question, can it be completely resisted like the other absorb spells, or is it like Drain and Aspir, in that it drains lower ammount of TP if its resisted?

 

[dedalius]

I love SAM's... since I parse every party I'm in, I really see how much damage a good SAM can deal. They are great in many ways, both for total damage per fight, and awesome SC partner as they can open and close pretty much any SC in the game. They can also SC with several melees in the party during the same fight, which really helps with a BLM in the party.

So in short, SAM is one of my favourite melees. But that's besides the point.

With Absorb-TP, DRK can build TP very fast. Its probably one of the best things SE could have done for DRK's imho. Although I have one question, can it be completely resisted like the other absorb spells, or is it like Drain and Aspir, in that it drains lower ammount of TP if its resisted?

6 ) Fact: The spell can be outright resisted.

weeee.

 

[Dayner]

yes it can get resisted also you can AB-TP for 0 if the mob dont have any tp

 

[jamal]

A fun absorb tp test would be to see how much tp (then convert it to hits) it took to kill someone in the dunes. Watch for an unsuspecting someone to get gob aggro and run for the zone, as soon as they die, absorb-tp it.

Not nice, as you could have saved them, but still fun nonetheless