Talk:Raid Boss: Difference between revisions

Talk:Raid Boss (edit)

Revision as of 14:00, 24 June 2016

4,757 bytes added , 14:00, 24 June 2016

no edit summary

Anonymous user

72.172.203.139

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 :::::::::While 57+57+10+X may work if X has a lot of enemies, my goal in using it is to determine which missions have which raid bosses, so it absolutely fails to help me when I'm dealing with high AP cost X with less than twelve enemies (which is most everything but the evolve medals missions). There's also the plain annoyance of having to scroll from 350 to 57 to 10. It's simply less frustrating to just filter it so that only Blue, Complete, Without Cutscene missions show up, and do 57 again. For people grinding top-ranking Lux, the AP is more important, but for players like me, not having to deal with tedium is more important. Your goal in this seems to be finding the most efficient way to grind Lux, and that's not quite what I'm trying to figure out here.
 :::::::::That being said, I ''definitely'' think we need to scrub the "82" from the wiki -- everyone's results have conclusively demonstrated that it's not a global constant. I think we should replace it with "a certain number of", though, since the number of Heartless slain still factors in to the final trigger.[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] ([[User talk:KrytenKoro|talk]]) 06:59, 24 June 2016 (PDT)
+:::::::::::Yeah, to be clear, the ongoing tests are really two distinct projects: The first is to evaluate raid boss locations in the unmarked range (251-300) and regular:omega spawn frequencies (When a Prime Omega mission is found, it is validated by multiple users across different unions to ensure that there is no IV. At this point, that step is being dropped because multiple proofs have shown that there is definitely no IV.), and the second is to mix up every variable that we can control in order to determine raid kill counts, which gives us the results that you expressed below. They have shown that people using ''the same setup'', using yours as well as many others, get differing results. I think that we're on the same page, now. You just wanted to be sure that my tests were being managed in a way that provides universal results, and I have shown that I had put the necessary thought into them.
+:::::::::::I am not on Reddit and don't intend to be. As it is, my communications are too scattered already. I will, however, shortly post a request on GameFAQs, and I manage lots of info through the Facebook page, North America Kingdom Hearts Unchained χ (https://www.facebook.com/groups/1077754335631502/). If you or anyone else wants to get on Reddit and refer people to me through either of those, you won't hear me object. I just can't realistically see myself signing up for yet another community just to use it once.
+:::::::::::Most missions have more than twelve enemies, so it's not like the 57-57-10-X method is too specific. I also listed missions within each of the eight (at the time) ranges that have many enemies, thus ensuring that the method always worked when people used those missions as X. Though, for regular Behemoth, the recommendation was just 5 instances of 10, since I, too, found that to be valid. To your assessment of my goal: Well, not exactly. My goal isn't specifically just for lux farming. That's just one of the perks of AP efficiency. If you save 3 AP per raid and do just seven raids in a day, that's 21 extra AP. That can be used for extra tries against the raid bosses that would get away, a special mission or two, story missions, what-have-you. It's more gameplay.
+:::::::::::For the tedium argument, let me show it this way:
+-57-57 (-4)-X: Spend 18 AP. In stead of killing all 84 enemies plus Pretenders, skip a group of four and all Pretenders, willingly sacrificing some foes-per-AP efficiency and potential Merlins. When you skip four, carefully navigate around them to get their treasure chest, because screw sacrificing that, too. If you screw up, either retry by S/L or face a regular Guard Armor and start over. Get tired of running the same mission over and over.
+-57-10-X: Spend 15 AP. Spend two seconds scrolling from 57 to 10. Blow through 10 in less time than 57. Kill Pretenders and eggs with impunity. Win.
+:::::::::::". . . a certain number of . . ." sounds great to me, too. I will take a hint from the FF wiki and put up an equation that shows our results, which is basically what you wrote below in paragraph form, to express how that certain number is determined.[[Special:Contributions/72.172.203.139|72.172.203.139]] 14:00, 24 June 2016 (PDT)
 On another note, are we just ignoring Savage/Venomous Spider? Just pretending that it doesn't exist? :/ ''<small>—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:72.172.203.139|72.172.203.139]] ([[User talk:72.172.203.139|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/72.172.203.139|contribs]])</small>''
@@ Line 39: / Line 46: @@
 I've been getting 78, myself. -[[User:Rikki21|<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#B452CD;font-size:4">'''Rikki'''</span>]][[User talk:Rikki21|<span style="color:#FF0066;font-size:4">'''21'''</span>]] 21:16, 22 June 2016 (PDT)
 :::::Something brought up on reddit -- doing Mission 10 five times (70 enemies) summons a raid boss, at least for me and presumably the person who relayed that. Doing 5* Evolve Medals: Speed three times (100 enemies) does not. In fact, you have to play that mission four times to get a raid boss. The mission appears to matter (at least if played repeatedly), which means testing this further will be almost impossible.[[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] ([[User talk:KrytenKoro|talk]]) 06:52, 23 June 2016 (PDT)
-::::::Actually, if you're only considering that variable, it's totally impossible . . . because even that isn't a constant. To exemplify, I completed 57 thrice, omitting a few enemies to land on a desired kill count, recorded the results, and repeated. I got nothing at 80, but success at 81 and 82. However, when I first went to 270 (straight to boss, so one kill) and then did three runs of 57 with some restraint, I got a raid at 80. Then, again starting with 270 (just 1), I ran 221 enough to have 81 kills and got nothing. There was still nothing at 85 and finally a raid at 89. As I said a bit ago, I'll be finalizing my results soon, but as a little preview, I see the following: Eggs count double. The value appears to depend on both the starting mission (first one that you go to after a raid) and the end (last one before a new raid spawns). The value trends toward the 70-80 range.
+::::::Actually, if you're only considering that variable, it's totally impossible . . . because even that isn't a constant. To exemplify, I completed 57 thrice, omitting a few enemies to land on a desired kill count, recorded the results, and repeated. I got nothing at 80, but success at 81 and 82. However, when I first went to 270 (straight to boss, so one kill) and then did three runs of 57 with some restraint, I got a raid at 80. Then, again starting with 270 (just 1), I ran 221 enough to have 81 kills and got nothing. There was still nothing at 85 and finally a raid at 89. As I said a bit ago, I'll be finalizing my results soon, but as a little preview, I see the following: Eggs count double. The value appears to depend on both the starting mission (first one that you go to after a raid) and the end (last one before a new raid spawns). The value trends toward the 70-80 range.[[Special:Contributions/72.172.203.139|72.172.203.139]] 14:00, 24 June 2016 (PDT)
 :::::::Yes, the order seems to matter. There's definitely an individual value, or my team running the same missions and killing the same enemies wouldn't have gotten Raid Bosses at different points. So, like you said, there seems to be several factors at play:
 *The first mission that you go to after your counter resets (sets the overall range)
@@ Line 47: / Line 54: @@
 :''Assuming'' that A is correct and that C is not necessary, then each quest would have a "raid value" in addition to a "raid boss" parameter -- but testing it would require doing that mission, then doing a mission where you can ensure that you kill only one enemy in that quest once you get close to the raid boss point, in order to narrow it down. I'm not confident on your claim about eggs, since I've gotten 82 both ''with'' 57-57-10-Keyblade Materials x times and by starting with 57 and not doing eggs or pretenders at all. If Eggs counted double, I'd definitely expect the Keyblade Materials missions to have taken much less runs than they did. This should be fairly simple to test for you, though -- run your preferred missions (57, 57, 10, X) both with and without killing Eggs, provided X is quantized so that you can pinpoint which enemy takes you over.
 [[User:KrytenKoro|KrytenKoro]] ([[User talk:KrytenKoro|talk]]) 06:48, 24 June 2016 (PDT)
+::::::::I, too, wondered whether or not running missions consecutively might interfere with the count. From what I've observed with various tests, no, but I intend to have one more test run to confirm. For the eggs, I'm a step ahead of you. It took a lot of giving up and reentering to do it, but I got a test of 80 (2 Prize Eggs) to fail, which means that they can't count double. I was sure that Growth Eggs did, though, due to getting a raid at just 39 kills from EXP Medals: Speed III. Then, the conclusions that I can draw are that either Growth Eggs count double, but Prize Eggs don't (and I've no idea on Munny Eggs), or the special missions, at least that one in particular, have a ridiculously beneficial raid value. I can't test further because I'm a free player, but if someone could run that special mission, then 57 three times, skipping enemies to land on 70 kills or so, and report back, that'd be as close to hard evidence as we're going to get.
+::::::::The really scary notion is that the algorithm for raid boss spawning could be exceedingly convoluted. There could be no "highs" and "lows" at all; it could be an untraceable matter of combinations having arbitrary values. I suppose that there's not much to say about that, though; we have to keep testing with hopes that our resultant equation is at least mostly accurate, or else it's all for naught.[[Special:Contributions/72.172.203.139|72.172.203.139]] 14:00, 24 June 2016 (PDT)