Base attack vs Rattack

[poweryoga]

Recently I've been partying with some rangers my level and a lot of them use sarngas and claim it does more damage.

I know sarnga has a higher base attack (in fact, 1 higher than E-bow's) and very good Acc bonuses but hideous delay. The problem is, is Base attack worth more than Rattack when it comes to calculating damage? I haven't found any concrete evidence yet but people seem to be leaning towards Mast.Cast. Bow if they're windurstian at lvl 71, despite the fact that warbow+1 has higher attack if you add base + rattack, which I don't understand.

That brings up the issue of maybe base damage affects damage more than +rattack, just like other weapon's damage vs +attack?

Compared to Onthius Bow, Bullet damage, and all that jazz, how does Sarnga/Mcastbow/Warbow/E-bow all stack up?

Bow damage > Bullet damage, Base damage > Rattack, combination of a bunch of stuff, etc?

Maybe topic for discussion and exploration, since there's a bit more than just preference once you get higher up... I'm pretty happy with Onthius Bow right now but I'd like to know if its worth switching to M.Cst.Bow at lvl 71 or not (planning to switch alligence to windy).

I mean, I guess I can always wait till lvl 71 to find out but I'd rather not wait that long. ^^

[2.0]

It's not base attack. It's base damage. Which is the most important stat for a bow (or any weapon). Attack or ranged attack is used to keep a consistent damage flow. I think it's a little overrated though.Meat Mithkabob and a couple of other things should be all the +attack you ever need.

Bottom line: 99% of the time (except with crap like sarnga) go with the weapon that has the highest damage.

[poweryoga]

thats what i meant, base damage, not attack.

to 2.0:

highest damage in terms of base, or with +Rattack? Because sarnga has very high base attack but 0 +Rattack

I did a little test yesterday with sarnga vs warbow and sarnga does indeed do more damage, although with a little bit more inconsistancy.

Testing it on cockatrices outside jeuno, warbow does about 208-210 damage rather consistantly, varying at most 1-2 points.

I'm assuming this will vary quite a bit if I try it on IT mobs. With the mobs I'm fighitng now, I'd put accuracy over damage on a bow when I can help it.

Sarnga on the other hand, does 207-220 damage with some inconsistancy, most landing in the 208-214 range.

warbow is less accurate, and returns less TP than sarnga.

Sarnga has hideous delay but has a rather nice TP return + tiny bit of status bonuses.

[2.0]

Like I said 9 times out of ten,I pick the weapon with the highest damage rating. You will see that if you use a weapon (guns) that has a higher damage rating over another weapon (bows) you will see that over time even taking other factors into consideration (ranged accuracy,ranged attack, or whatever) you will infact do more damage with the higher damage weapon.

It's really simple when you think about it but people have a way of making simple things complicated. But basically more damage= more damage.

There are exceptions though that you have to keep that in mind but they're usually pretty obvious.

[Spider-Dan]

Weapon DMG rating will kick the ass of +RATK, pretty much hands down. I would imagine you need RATK at a 2:1 ratio to compete with higher DMG; probably even more than that. (notice that Sarnga only has D+6 over the War +1, but War +1 has RATK+18)

As you scale down in mob difficulty, though, RATK makes less and less difference, and weapon D increases its lead. At the extreme end of the spectrum, against TWTBW mobs RATK will make no difference whatsoever (you will always hit for capped damage) , while weapon D will make a significant difference.

[Macht]

Actually Range Attack and weapons base damage will have alternating effects depending on what your fighting. Without a doubt base damage is going to give the minimum potential damage a much higher point then Range attack will. Range Attack will give you a higher max potential damage, but without successfully overcoming the monster's defense/evasion as well and it not being a special or critical hit you are not reaching your max potential.

So if you do not critical frequently, or if the monster's defense overcomes the weapons base damage then Range Attack in effect becomes useless and is more or less just balancing your losses to break even.

Focusing first on mostly getting more STR/AGI and Accuracy along with a bow that has good Base Damage should help you deal more steady damage, after that's done focusing on Range Attack should help your max potential damage do more so that attacks like (Barrage, Sidewinder, Arching Arrow, Eagle Eye Shot, and Criticals) have a greater output when used.

EDIT:

Hate to admit it after going threw all that testing to just figure that out I see more now that Elvaan may actually have a slightly better advantage over Mithran at being RNGs. However it's still just slight so it still ends up as the players skill being more important in the end.

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by Macht
[B]Actually Range Attack and weapons base damage will have alternating effects depending on what your fighting. Without a doubt base damage is going to give the minimum potential damage a much higher point then Range attack will. Range Attack will give you a higher max potential damage, [...]

This is incorrect. Straight from the devs' mouth, they have stated that Attack increases your average damage, while STR serves the purpose of increasing your minimum and maximum damage. (unless you're claiming that RATK functions in a totally different manner than ATK, which would require some evidence)

Weapon DMG just increases your damage, period.

[Macht]

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
This is incorrect. Straight from the devs' mouth, they have stated that Attack increases your average damage, while STR serves the purpose of increasing your minimum and maximum damage. (unless you're claiming that RATK functions in a totally different manner than ATK, which would require some evidence)

Weapon DMG just increases your damage, period.

No what the Developers says from what I recall is that Attack changes the Max Potential Damage and that STR adjusts the Average. Even the damage formula that I think the posters name is Mithrael follows so religiously shows that same thing. STR effects your damage directly were Attack has the possibility of effecting your damage exponentially.

That means STR along with weapon's Damage determines what you'll get in a normal attack for most of the damage output because it'll come to a point were attack adds no more to the damage unless a critical or a special attack occurs which then draws more out of Attack.

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by Macht
No what the Developers says from what I recall is that Attack changes the Max Potential Damage and that STR adjusts the Average.

You do not recall correctly.

http://ffxi.crgaming.com/interviews/...iew.asp?Id=209

Q: What is the relationship between STR and Attack? For example, does each point of STR equal 1 point of Attack? Or is there some other relationship?

A: Attack=STR x 2
However, Strength and Attack each have different functions.

Attack:
Attack raises your standard damage variance and increases the average damage given.

STR:
STR raises your damage curve itself and increases the maximum amount of damage given.

[poweryoga]

there's still the question of ammo to take into consideration... though i imagine they just act as base damage modifiers.

[Narru]

Originally posted by Macht
No what the Developers says from what I recall is that Attack changes the Max Potential Damage and that STR adjusts the Average.

Macht you got it backwards - Attack raises your Mean, STR raises your Min/Max.