When under the effect of Allied Tags and in Limit mode, and running a campaign op such as "Slaughterhouse III", you will receive XP instead of Limit Points for the operation, but Limit points for the battle. Storme 16:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Merit Point Loss
I had 2 unused Merit Points saved up and lost my level during a disconnection due to bad internet connection, when i got my level back the next day I noticed that my 2 unused merit points were gone. Very upsetting. I only have my BLU at 75, so this might not come up if you have another job at 75. Storme 05:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Unable to acquire merit points via Campaign Ops
while doing Streetsweeper III (San d'Oria) the limit points to gain a merit were acquired, but the merit was not given. this may be a glitch in the game, i will post more information when i get a GM that doesn't provide inaccurate information and then disconnect (thanks a bunch [GM]Iskaldur of garuda, that was totally professional).--Littledarc 02:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- this is a GM confirmed glitch and is being currently investigated. please note this is not during a campaign battle BUT an in city campaign OP.--Littledarc 01:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Update they really need to enforce
you put so much effort into getting to 75 to find out you can only have a set number of hp+mp evasion etc etc merits points and then you have the job specific merits which i think are fine but... wouldnt it be better for every additional job you get to 75 that you get to have like 2-5more merits which u can put into any stat e.g. hp u have max of 8 with an additional 75 you can put in 5 more into anyone you like be it mp hp or evasion what ever... all i'm saying is the game is hard as it is why give us players a little break. i mean it would really split the pro's from the newbies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cloud 1199 (talk • contribs).
- I disagree. Splitting pros from newbies is one of the worst things SE could do, since furthering success of the game requires these two factions to become closer together, not further apart. Also, it already takes a significant period of effort in order to fill up the non-job-specific merits, and few people have maxed out these merits and all their job-specific merits for 2-4 75 jobs. --Taeria Saethori 19:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- They have a lot of work to do, both in-game socially and infrastructurally, if they are ever going to achieve that situation. I almost get the feeling that Cloud1199 wants the newbies out of the game in the first place. Whassa matter? Too much competition for your bots or something?? --Starcade 03:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
well that cause they dont want to if there are limited non-job-specific merits if there wasnt a limit then, I for one would merit all the time but because there is a limit i wont partisipate in them... and the idea wasnt to split newbie+pro's just to show how much that 1 person has put into the game and changing the merit system 2 a non limitless system wouldnt effect newbie+pros
- yeh it would... It would mean that people that play non-stop can level all 20 jobs and have 2k HP as a taru whm, whereas people that play a somewhat more normal amount of hours will eventually maybe max out all the merits for one job. As it is now, the latter can compete with the former, with your suggestion it makes it impossible, and also game breaking. --Blazza 04:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with Blazza. Doing that would be very very bad. We already have TONS of VERY hard to get weapons and armor that you can work for INSTEAD of meriting all the time. Those are even better than extra merits, but it takes skill and luck. There are also some bosses, like Pandemonium Warden and Absolute Virtue that are MEANT to be REALLY hard to beat. Square has ALWAYS had enemies, optional bosses like them in their games. No offense, but if you want to just get more and more power, play another game. The true power in this game lies in teamwork, not the individual, and only with that can come great achievements. Snowpaw 04:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- He doesn't want all the n00bs in "his game"... --Starcade 03:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Page Move to Category
I have been creating pages for Group 1 Merits and Non-Job Ability or Job Trait merits that don't already have them. I'm proposing that we move this page to Category:Merit Points so they can more easily be found- Some people may be overwhelmed by all the info about every merit being on one really long page. I know that this kind of transition is difficult to make due to wiki limitations. But I have already been categorizing the pages, so I think it is worthwhile. Tahngarthortalk-contribs 02:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- If the page cannot be practically moved, transpose the content.
I like your idea. Seems to make things very clean and would be easier to update. Shentok 04:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Makes sense. I think this time Charitwo can teach me how to move/import history of the static page to the category page. --GAHOO t/ c 18:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, gahoo. You got yourself a deal. --Talk 20:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- As a side result of this, is there some way we can make this article shorter? It's really long. Is there any way to make each section of merit items show/hideable (sort of like the table of contents and alert messages and the like) I could also just change all the merit items to links to the merit pages i've been creating. I could shrink it by directing people to the job pages which also list the merits specific to the job. Tahngarthortalk-contribs 21:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think the Merit Point page is fine just the way it is and would be opposed to moving this to Category: Merit Points. As someone who has multiple lv75 jobs to merit, it's very convenient to be able to be able to see all merit point information in an "all in one" page format when deciding which upgrades for which jobs I wish to spend my merit points on. I don't find the current page structure overwhelming at all, because at the very top of the Merit Point page is already a table of contents with links to the different sections and categories.
I do not find helpful at all to create separate, individual pages for HP merits, MP merits, STR merits, DEX merits, etc. If anything, it adds an unnecessary layer of complexity by making it harder, not easier to find helpful information. In fact, all the information contained under Category: Merit Points would be more easily seen if added to the (already existing) relevant pages for HP, MP, STR, DEX, etc. rather than making people click through a bunch of unnecessary links. In the pursuit of simplicity, in my opinion, it creates more complexity.
I'm not sure if I am for this or oppose this, but one thing is for sure. How will FFXClopedians benefit from having all the merit abilities, traits, and spells lumped together in a new category? I really don't see much of a benefit, mainly because if one wanted to compare a selection of merit points to spend for a job, one could simply go to the Job page instead. I guess, taking this into account, there isn't really a point to having a Merit category. Totema of Siren talk 22:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments. I'm not proposing to remove content from the page. Only to make the page a category so that all pages related to merit points can be properly categorized. How can you be opposed to that? Tahngarthortalk-contribs 17:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Additionally, The category already exists. The proposal is to have the content of this page on [[:Category:Merit Points] and this will redirect there. Neither you or anyone else would notice any difference, unless they used the search function for a specific ability. This is like asking "how do we benefit from having all the monsters, monster families, spells, etc. lumped into a category." They already are. Could you explain to me what is bad about a category?
pretty new to discussions and such but i agree with last three comments it will not make it easier by making more pages to thumb through. Although removing all info on job specific merits and putting each seperate job merits on their job page wouldnt be a bad idea.Umichi 05:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- "putting each seperate job merits on their job page wouldnt be a bad idea." This is already being done, I jsut haven't finished yet. Tahngarthortalk-contribs 17:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thenn ill retain that said comment but i dontt see a problem with how merits page is set up now.Umichi 05:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
The only visible difference you will see on this page is that the bottom will have a list of pages in the category. The real benefit comes from visiting a page that's in the category and then clicking the category link which will take you here where you can learn about other stuff in the same category. It's not a hugely used feature on this wiki in particular but it aids in organization and offers more means of finding the same thing. It's a convinence thing, that's all. Tahngarthortalk-contribs 21:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. I don't really see a reason to make new pages when its easy enough to link to it with Berserk Recast, for example. Surely doing it that way is far cleaner and easier than making a bunch of stub pages. We wouldn't have to move anything, and people wouldn't be confused. --♫CRIXA♫ 16:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Or better yet, edit the berserk page with a merit recast section, and link to it that way. --♫CRIXA♫ 18:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- This originally came about due to an edit war on the DNC page where people kept repeatedly adding group 1 merits to the job trait list even though they aren't job traits. I decided those items hsould still be there and have their own page though they should be set off from the JA list. You guys seem to be dodging around the big picture. Really, what's so bad about this being "Category: Merit Points" instead of "Merit Points"? Typing "Merit Points in seach would still direct players there. Creating the individual pages for group 1 and other merits is specifically meant to aid searching. I myself have typed in names of merits and gotten nothing. That's why I started creating those pages. They would need to be redirects at the very least, but I opted to put content there instead.
At issue here is only one thing: To make or not make this page a category page instead. The page will look exactly the same except that because it is a category, it will aid in using the search tool. Why is this so hard to accept? Tahngarthortalk-contribs 19:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support We utilize categories in this manner as a convention. --Talk 04:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not see any reason not to merge them, if we are going to create articles for individual merits. --Melios 13:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a lot of work to do to make the page even less accessible.--Stammer 02:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not a lot of work. And it's not less accessible, seeing as how all redirects are left intact. --Talk 02:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I might be misunderstanding, but wouldn't this change simply mean this page would be renamed Category:Merit Points and the two pages would be merged? If so, I think it would be more convenient -- you could look at merits arranged both by job and alphabetically. As it is, I think it's kind of strange to have two separate pages. --FFXI-Soli 18:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Resolution: Move. Although that was a lot of work because it took 20 minutes to do. Merit Points will also redirect to the category, nothing has changed except now everything is in once place. Now the proposed cleanup can commence. --Talk 20:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Level Cap increase
What is going to happen to the lv75 merits when the level cap gets increased? --Cloudius777 16:02, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
I have observed that neither my merits in Jump or High Jump recast have any effect at 77. I'm not sure if this is a glitch, or if they have become inactive because of not being at the maximum level any more. We need more data to confirm that Group 1 Merits are inactive at 75-79. --Jaxson of Cerberus 12:07, June 24, 2010 (UTC) Jaxson of Cerberus, June 24, 2010 6:07 am.
After thinking about this for a few minutes, I realized that Angon and Deep Breathing are still in normal working order. I just logged back on to check on Convert on Red Mage. Now tested, Convert Recast still works. Sending an error report to square. --Jaxson of Cerberus 12:17, June 24, 2010 (UTC) Jaxson
I think we need to reword the merit page, once u hit cap on 75 you no long auto switch to Limit Points, you just gain 76, does anyone know if once u cap lvl80 you auto switch to Limit Points?
- Yes and no. Yes to auto switch once the current level cap has been achieved, this pertains to 75 also if you have not completed the genkai required to surpass and for 80 and 85 so on so on. Then no you do not auto switch if you have the genkai done for 75-85 and you're leveling straight through. Zetsugan 20:42, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
Weapon Skills Bonus - How long?
I noticed on the weapon skills each merit provides a bonus increase. Yet, I can't find any information on how long this bonus lasts after doing the weapon skill? It might only last for the weapon skill only, for all I can tell. I suspect this is not the case, though, because of available bonus' having nothing (or seeming to have nothing) to do with the weapon skill. While some bonus' might help the weapon skill, itself, such as DEX, others, such as INT would only seem to help after completing the weapon skill.
I've noticed this on other weapon skills of lower level and also wondered. Given we can now spend up to 103 extra merits to increase the bonus effect, the length of effect is important. Oh, too, bad one of the increases to the effect would be to say time. --IBHalliwell (talk) 03:45, October 12, 2013 (UTC)
- Um.... what are you talking about? Do you mean the modifiers for the meritWSs?? Cause.... that's not a bonus... that's just how weaponskills work. Each WS has a statmod that take X% of a stat and uses that number in calculating damage.
- Is that what you're asking about???
- Cause.... that's not a time thing, that's a change to the damage formula... it's not a bonus. -- FaeQueenCory (talk) 19:33, September 16, 2014 (UTC)