1) Nobody in this thread has
1a) the current damage formula
1b) the actual statistical parameters of that monster...
1c) ...at either level 54 or 55

2) Even if we did have all of those things it doesn't prove anything - because it doesn't tell us of that's how it was in ToAU or not. The only ToAU data I'm aware of is against Lv. 78 Earth Elementals.

3) If you a full resist can give you a 2 it doesn't matter if you MB or not. MB, according to Natsubo increases your damage result by 30%. Remember that damage is typically calculated as a multiplier randomly determined by attack and defense ratios that modify a base potency, meaning an exceptionally low modifier can turn any spell of any potency into crap damage.

So then if you can't tell anyone here, why are you wasting everyone's time by being an annoying scab?

I won't be performing this testing myself because I don't have a BLM at level 75 with which to test it. Nor do I have any desire to level up a BLM to 75 because I don't enjoy the play-style. The people who want the buffs - it is their responsibility to prove that there are discrepancies in the old and new data.

Someday nas might change my forum name to ahriman :/

I mean fid, upside is there's no question it's janked up somewhere. l'd think +34 int before food on a taru rdm @ lvl 40 should not see a weird common shock of reverb water 2 for 2 dmg. base int 52 base ele 122 /nin. /blm u can use the +5 ele earring, but ive seen reverb w2 land for shit either way. Will admit i've never used eseal with it to try. Maybe tomorrow....?

If someone actually takes the time to test this and finds magic hit rate is indeed too low, will that guy shut the heck up?

From my experience, elemental seal works on bard songs. Maybe someone else has had different luck though or it's hit or miss?

I believe ES works for BRD songs, as well.

_________________

Yes. Because that's all I've ever put forward in these threads - that someone needs to do the testing before they can complain. Feeling like M.ACC is wrong is not proof that M.ACC is wrong. I have never asserted that buffs are unnecessary. I have never asserted that BLM is in a good spot. I have never asserted that people who think BLM need a buff are being unreasonable - except in their insistence that they are incapable of entering data on a spreadsheet.

Do the tests and prove me wrong.

oh.

can you move along yet? you have already said you had no idea what you were talking about, its unclear if you even play here

"i never asserted x... Just don't count the times where I absolutely and clearly asserted x."

_________________

I don't understand. The second quote of mine reads "Proves wrong... who was saying BLM was much more powerful in retail."

The link in question shows only a 60% unresist rate with only a higher-than-average INT and no special M.ACC gear. This is not much more powerful than I believe users are experiencing in Nasomi currently - but there's no way to tell for sure since no users seem willing to actually record their own resist rates so we have no idea how different the resist rates on Nas are from the resist rates from this data set even with different conditions.

I have never argued against the concept of buffs - only that buffs should happen if BLM is provably underpowered compared to era-appropriate data. The words of mine you have quoted don't contradict anything I say.