Talk:Check
From FFXIclopedia, the free Final Fantasy XI encyclopedia
Quick question about /check - Don't the level ranges for these change for 50+ (and again 60+)? Does anybody have hard numbers for those changes? I believe what is posted here is accurate for 1-50. --User:Antichris
According to the above source you are correct. And there are additional variances. I think the Nephilim charts can be simplified for the Check page (no need to have XP column) with maybe an internal link to a new page that has the more detailed information.
Contents |
so the plan...
So perhaps simplify this article, removing the numbers, then link to a new article called check_level_difference or something similar that has the relevant charts? User:Antichris
IT++?
Maybe we should add some referense to IT+ and IT++ abbreviations that are often used and I still don't fully understand. People who want to know about this are most likely to check here I think
--Jengel
Somepage has more complete tables than the nephilim page. Note that the gray section on the "lower than EM" table is easy prey that doesn't aggro. --Valyana 09:11, 24 May 2006 (PDT)
Aht Urhgan monsters
Many people have commented that the monsters in new areas "check more accurately" - that is, something which checks Decent Challenge in Xarcabard is going to kill you, but you can solo a DC-mob in Bhaflau. This may also be due to differences in monster types based on level (EM worm != EM dancing weapon).
Should anything regarding this be added to the main page?
Many people have commented that the monsters in new areas "check more accurately" - that is, something which checks Decent Challenge in Xarcabard is going to kill you, but you can solo a DC-mob in Bhaflau. This may also be due to differences in monster types based on level (EM worm != EM dancing weapon).
TW,EM,DC, etc is /check based on level difference. Thus, soloableness (can't think any good word) is not a measurement to /check
Furthermore, each monster family have their own rank on stats like STR, VIT, INT, defense, and attack
--VZX 22:15, 22 June 2006 (PDT)
About High/Low Defense/Evasion
This is a subject relevant to many topics, but I would just like to clarify the definitions of "high evasion," "low evasion," "high defense," and "low defense."
"High evasion" - your total accuracy is 20 or more below the opponent's total evasion.
"Low evasion" - your total accuracy is 20 or more above the opponent's total evasion.
Note that the 20 above/below applies at ALL levels. However, the /check result really does NOT tell you anything about your expected hit rate. I have used a staff against a low level goblin checking as "high evasion" and still achieved a 95% hit rate. Actual hit rate takes into account combat skill vs evasion skill, DEX vs AGI, and total accuracy vs total evasion.
"High defense" - your total attack is 20 or more below the opponent's total defense.
"Low defense" - your total attack is 20 or more above the opponent's total defense.
I read a comment by Valyana somewhere that "High Defense" actually means the opponent's defense is 1 or more above your attack. I don't know what the evidence behind this statement is, but if it is true then perhaps the same applies for "High Evasion." In any case, there is indeed a 40 point difference between the "High" and "Low" defense and evasion /check results at all levels.--Cryconius 12:22, 8 June 2006 (PDT)
This post contradicts your statement that high/low defense is also a 40 point spread; the poster sees a 94 point spread on Abraxas. How did you test this?
Other interesting links: [1] [2] --Valyana 00:16, 15 June 2006 (PDT)
Determining Mob Defense
In Image talk:pDIF.gif there is some talk about how to determine the defense of an Abraxas given that it checks as High Defense at 366 Attack and below, and Low Defense at 461 attack and above.
I'm inclined to believe that mob defense is just the lowest attack value that doesn't give High Defense, which is 367 in this case.
The problem is that 367*1.25=458.75, so if its Defense is 367, it ought to check Low Def at 459 attack.
VZX hypothesizes that the game is rounding to two decimal places, and att/def needs to round to 1.26 or higher for high def, and 0.99 or lower for low def. 461/367=1.256, which rounds to 1.26. But 366/367=0.997->1.00, too high.
We could also try 386, but: 461/368=1.252->1.25, too low.
If the game rounds to three significant digits rather than two decimal places, 366/367=0.9972->0.997, which would be ok.
However, this doesn't quite work for Greater Colibri: Level 81 birds are High 321-, Low 404+. 404/322=1.25468, which would round down.
Also, the game usually truncates rather than rounding, presumably to avoid actually doing slow floating point math.
Ideas?
Instead of figuring out which calculation they actually used, how about re-guess the formula we currently have:
How about:
- high def if ratio ≤ 1.000
- low def if ratio ≥ 1.250
Or maybe, to make "high defense" definition more sense:
- high def if ratio < 1.000
- low def if ratio ≥ 1.250
However, we can't determine the exact defense of mob (see abraxas case for def 367 and 368) --VZX 02:46, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
ATTACK / DEFENSE = RATIO
If we assume the following ...
- RATIO is used to determine the /check message.
- RATIO is a 8-bit fixed point number.
.., then the numbers match.
1.25 is 320/256, which means that a RATIO of 321/256 and higher would check as high defense. --JKL 03:35, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
321/256 (~1.254) seems to work with the Abraxas and Greater Colibri examples. So I'd guess that the formula is:
- High Def if attack < defense
- Low Def if attack > defense*321/256 --Valyana 08:40, 30 May 2007 (CDT)
Hmm yeah.. right shifting the BIT seems plausible to me. --VZX 12:20, 30 May 2007 (CDT)