Talk:Field Manual

Enhancement Duration
There have been differing reports as to the duration of the Regen and Refresh effects gained from Field Manual support. I have personally had Refresh last for an hour in Xarcabard. Others have reported durations as low as 10 minutes. I believe this may have to do with either your current level or the zone you obtain the effect in. I have changed the details on the main article to read "up to 60 minutes" with a link to this talk section so we can discuss the reasons why the duration may be lower. I think that if you are under level 41 (where you normally could not get the refresh spell), or possibly under level 25 (when you could not possibly get AutoRefresh), the duration may be lowered. Instead of level dependent, this effect may instead (or also) zone dependent. So please put your experiences here, and be sure to report your level and the zone you received the effect from. Thank you. -- 23:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Remember that effect timers are paused during dialog, and the effect is wiped like other effects when changing job or level synching. I have obtained the refresh effect at level 15 in Sarutabaruta and it lasts the full hour. I also get the full hour in Buburimu and Passhow Marshlands. Falcrin 17:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Level 30 Red Mage - Received Refresh and Reraise about one hour and fifteen minutes ago in Jugner Forest. Both effects are still active. What gives? --Gasher 01:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Levels 32-34 on Scholar I was getting a one hour refresh from Qufim Island - Akairyu 18:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Level 27-28 on Scholar I was also getting a one hour refresh from Qufim Island - Mishli

Level 13 Scholar was getting a one hour refresh from Buburimu Peninsula. - Camthan 20:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Level 14-17 WHM I was getting one hour Regen/Refresh from Buburimu. I think that the only reason people are getting differing durations are the reasons Falcrin mentioned (duration paused during dialog/zoning, effects removed upon level sync, changing job, etc.). --Kyrie 08:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Table Format
I think we need to get a chart going here, before we all throw up nine different formats. I'm not certain how to get that accomplished... something like the CampOps chart?--Baroness 22:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the table format that someone added to the page but Rec. Level is solo or with party? and should we post both? -- 22:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Dropped the poor tables I started on in the Fields of Valor page, and instead are sending people here. Hopefully that cleans it up a little. Can we add EXP reward as a column though? --Yoteo 22:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a reward column is something we should have, has anyone confirmed that the rewards are static for the page or is it based on performance? -- 22:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, it's static. Not too sure how much your performance can vary in just killing x mobs. Either you do it, or you don't. Plus, all the numbers I've seen so far are just to nicely rounded to be based on variable conditions. --Yoteo 22:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ran West Ronfaure Page 1 twice. Same mobs to kill, same rewards (270xp 270g 27t) both times.  --Baroness 22:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (270xp, 270gil, 27t) Killing just the Carrion Worms not the Tunnels if someone can verify its the same with tunnels that be great -- 23:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't matter. The specs for that regime are "Worm family", so any worms would work. --Baroness 01:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Idea maybe it varies with time taken to kill them? -- 22:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The rewards are static you will get the same reward for the same regime everytime

Sorting?
At the mo the table is sorted alphabetically by region, could we make it sortable so it can be sorted by level? -- 23:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was going to sort them by level, but don't want to piss anyone off lol. --Bojack316 23:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Making the table sortable doesn't work because the zone names span several rows.--Anthoron 03:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I rearranged the list by recommended level, grouping like regions together alphabetically (e.g. North Gusta, West Ron, West Saruta). Also, the extra column headers were unnecessary. The list isn't that long, and the information is pretty self explanatory once you've seen the headers once. -- 12:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Colors

 * I know it's a work in progress but, Jesus, who picked them >< Looks like someone barfed after a candy binge! -- 22:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Lol, I was thinking the exact same thing... why not continue with the normal colour scheme for tables? --Nicknick 22:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think they where going with nation based colors maybe >.>
 * The missed Bastok then... <.< - and let's not forget that another nation could take West Ronfaure, at least in theory >.> -- 22:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Although, I can't figure out why everything is in bold...--Anthoron 03:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, figured it out.--Anthoron 03:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Picture

 * Does the picture cover up the table for anyone else or is that just on Googles Chrome? -- 03:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's just a Chrome problem, but it should be fixed now.--Anthoron 03:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Max Level
I've added a max level column, which indicates what is the max level that you can complete the regime and still get credit, (the max level you can be and still get XP off the mobs your are supposed to kill), this hasn't been 100% tested, I'm just going off the max level of the mobs and the max level that you can get XP from those mobs. any help filling in the rest of the information would be helpful. Tjpoe 19:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm debating how useful it is to calculate the max level based off the max levels of the mob. Take Page 1 of North Gustaberg for example. It's true the Stone Eaters are Lv2-5, and the Lv5 ones will check EP at Lv14. But that implies that ~75% of the worms will check TW, and a bunch of time will be wasted scouring the zone for Lv5 (and likely, killing TW so they repop as EP). Lv14 is a useful number, but for me Lv11 is more meaningful, because that is the highest level where all of the worms will be EP or higher. Perhaps, then, the Max Level column should read 11~14, indicating the range in which the weakest mobs start to become TW. --Pav Feira 19:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought about this too, but I feel like it goes without saying. If you know that you have to get exp on a mob to get credit, then of course some mobs will be TW. and do you do about the multi-type regime, some mobs will be EP, but others are DC. Tjpoe 20:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it goes without saying that if I do Page 1 as a Lv14, most of my prey will be TW. But knowing that Lv11 is the max level where no mobs will be TW, is a non-trivial and useful calculation, which is why I proposed adding it. --Pav Feira 20:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree, its not trivial, it would be useful. Tjpoe 21:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It does make sense, but I don't know how useful it is. If the 'Max Level' reads as 14, then it's obvious that being a few levels below that would be optimal. Someone who's level 15 would know that there's no possible way that they can complete this regime and that they shouldn't even bother. But, if it does get changed to something like 11~14, the column name should be changed as well.


 * As a level 32 in Valkurm Dunes, the majority of the required monsters for Page 5 are Too Weak. Though, it is still possible to complete so long as you /check before killing.
 * Tiffany Lynn 14:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Manual Picture
The picture for the manual shows a book in North Gustaberg by the outpost which there isnt one. --Rues 20:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think someone just put 'North Gustaberg' because of the Bastok flag in the picture. To me that outpost looks like the Aragoneu Outpost. --Bojack316 21:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Protect/Shell Field Support Potency
After doing several tests I can confirm that the Tier of Protect and Shell gained by Field support is based upon your current level when it is granted, not the recommended levels of the area. However, I am unsure if Protect and Shell 1 can be granted before level 7 and 18 respectivly. But I am sure that the Tier level of Protect/Shell field support does indeed increase in strength based upon your level; I have only assumed that the level of Tier increases corrasponds to the level in which these spells are learned, and as such my conclusional theory is based upon. I hope this new information is helpful. --Luke 01:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete/Redirect
All of the content on this page is duplicated in the actual event page, Fields of Valor. I propose this page be changed to a redirect to that page. Tahngarthor talk-contribs 07:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This was never the case, the table on the Fields of Valor page is a transclusion of this page.-- 05:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Move content, Delete and redirect:Makes no difference. The content should be on the Fields of Valor page as it appears now- transcluding something like this that is only going to appear on one page doesn't make sense, and this page should be removed and replaced with a redirect. It makes no sense to have two pages that show the exact same content like this. Tahngarthor talk-contribs 23:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's too much content here for the FoV page. The transclusion should be dropped, and replaced with a summary/link to this page.-- 04:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, there is far from "too much" information for an article that's supposed to be all about an activity. I don't like either but keeping the transclusion would be a far better idea than removing it from the FoV page. What's your idea of "too much content?" more than 2 paragraphs? Tahngarthor talk-contribs 07:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I shouldn't have said "too much" content, rather, that having separate pages provides a good division of content. The FoV page holds general information about the system for people unfamiliar with it, while this page provides a much more detailed reference for the field manuals. If I'm looking to do an FoV page, I don't want to have to dig through the FoV page to find information about the pages--I don't care about the rest of the information on that page.-- 09:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Redundant information. Keneth 17:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to delete this information. The information is what the "Field Manuals" are - yet it should also be on the FoV page since that encompasses Field Manuals.  It is appropriately set up now. -- 14:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The information provided is accurate, correct and relevant. The reason for using transclusion to place the information on another page is that there is a browser limitation on size of pages that can be edited. The page could well become a sub-page of Fields of Valor (as Fields of Valor/Field Manual for example) which would make sense. Idun Midgardsormr 00:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The length of Fields of Valor is far, FAR away from having browser limitation issues. What's just as silly as this page is having the FoV page, which already has the entire contents of this page transcluded onto it, link to this page. The infrmation on this page would not be lost if we removed its contents from here. I'm only proposing that the contents of this page be actually placed on the FoV page and removed from here. We don't need the exact same information in two places. It's redundant clutter. Tahngarthor talk-contribs 08:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)