Subscribe Today

Ad-Free Browsing

Close This Ad


Quick question about /check - Don't the level ranges for these change for 50+ (and again 60+)? Does anybody have hard numbers for those changes? I believe what is posted here is accurate for 1-50. --User:Antichris


According to the above source you are correct. And there are additional variances. I think the Nephilim charts can be simplified for the Check page (no need to have XP column) with maybe an internal link to a new page that has the more detailed information.

so the plan...[edit]

So perhaps simplify this article, removing the numbers, then link to a new article called check_level_difference or something similar that has the relevant charts? User:Antichris


Maybe we should add some referense to IT+ and IT++ abbreviations that are often used and I still don't fully understand. People who want to know about this are most likely to check here I think


Somepage has more complete tables than the nephilim page. Note that the gray section on the "lower than EM" table is easy prey that doesn't aggro. --Valyana 09:11, 24 May 2006 (PDT)

Aht Urhgan monsters[edit]

Many people have commented that the monsters in new areas "check more accurately" - that is, something which checks Decent Challenge in Xarcabard is going to kill you, but you can solo a DC-mob in Bhaflau. This may also be due to differences in monster types based on level (EM worm != EM dancing weapon).

Should anything regarding this be added to the main page?


Many people have commented that the monsters in new areas "check more accurately" - that is, something which checks Decent Challenge in Xarcabard is going to kill you, but you can solo a DC-mob in Bhaflau. This may also be due to differences in monster types based on level (EM worm != EM dancing weapon).

TW,EM,DC, etc is /check based on level difference. Thus, soloableness (can't think any good word) is not a measurement to /check
Furthermore, each monster family have their own rank on stats like STR, VIT, INT, defense, and attack

--VZX 22:15, 22 June 2006 (PDT)

About High/Low Defense/Evasion[edit]

This is a subject relevant to many topics, but I would just like to clarify the definitions of "high evasion," "low evasion," "high defense," and "low defense."

"High evasion" - your total accuracy is 20 or more below the opponent's total evasion.

"Low evasion" - your total accuracy is 20 or more above the opponent's total evasion.

Note that the 20 above/below applies at ALL levels. However, the /check result really does NOT tell you anything about your expected hit rate. I have used a staff against a low level goblin checking as "high evasion" and still achieved a 95% hit rate. Actual hit rate takes into account combat skill vs evasion skill, DEX vs AGI, and total accuracy vs total evasion.

"High defense" - your total attack is 20 or more below the opponent's total defense.

"Low defense" - your total attack is 20 or more above the opponent's total defense.

I read a comment by Valyana somewhere that "High Defense" actually means the opponent's defense is 1 or more above your attack. I don't know what the evidence behind this statement is, but if it is true then perhaps the same applies for "High Evasion." In any case, there is indeed a 40 point difference between the "High" and "Low" defense and evasion /check results at all levels.--Cryconius 12:22, 8 June 2006 (PDT)

This post contradicts your statement that high/low defense is also a 40 point spread; the poster sees a 94 point spread on Abraxas. How did you test this?

Other interesting links: [1] [2] --Valyana 00:16, 15 June 2006 (PDT)

High/Low Evasion Calculations[edit]

A couple questions. First...

High Evasion / If a monster checks as high evasion, you have a lower than 60% chance to hit it. / Mathematically, your accuracy < Enemy evasion - 30

Low Evasion / If a monster checks as low evasion, you have a greater than 80% chance to hit it. / If the monster is higher level than you, you may have less than 80% Hit Rate / Mathematically, your accuracy ≥ Enemy Evasion + 10

For that "Low Evasion" section, are we to assume that the disclaimer/exception line about higher level mobs relates to Level Correction? And if that's the case, shouldn't the disclaimer/exception be changed to reflect the 2% Hit Rate times how many levels apart you are from the mob? In that case, you'd also have to change the "Mathematically" lines to reflect that level difference is a necessary factor in determining what message comes up in the /check. Basically, aren't the percentages provided here only valid if the mob checks as "Even Match" to the player?

Working in the example from the Hit Rate page, if a mob is Even Match to the player, you start with a 75% Hit Rate. But if that check comes with a "Low Evasion" message, that means the player's ACC is at least 10 points higher than the mob's EVA, which indeed comes out to be an 80+% Hit Rate. But if the mob is 10 levels higher than the player, calculations show that the base Hit Rate is 55%. Meaning a check including "Low Evasion" means your Hit Rate is 60+%.

Assuming this is all correct as far as we players know (which it should be, since it all fits together and was all pulled from the wiki pages here), using a general opening statement like "If monster checks as ??? evasion, you have a lower/greater than ??% chance to hit it" is very reckless, especially since it gives no clarification that it only applies if the mob *happens* to check as Even Match, nor any specific clarification of how level difference affects the numbers.

Sorry if that seems like a wall of text. I've been going over information all night about this, simply because I'm trying to figure out whether I need more ACC gear or not (and I don't have a party of bored people willing to assist in my testing at my disposal). So I'm just trying to make sure I have all this information correct (and this "Check" page did not help, since it seemed not to jive with information elsewhere on this website). --Gamesoul Master 09:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Determining Mob Defense[edit]

In Image talk:pDIF.gif there is some talk about how to determine the defense of an Abraxas given that it checks as High Defense at 366 Attack and below, and Low Defense at 461 attack and above.

I'm inclined to believe that mob defense is just the lowest attack value that doesn't give High Defense, which is 367 in this case.

The problem is that 367*1.25=458.75, so if its Defense is 367, it ought to check Low Def at 459 attack.

VZX hypothesizes that the game is rounding to two decimal places, and att/def needs to round to 1.26 or higher for high def, and 0.99 or lower for low def. 461/367=1.256, which rounds to 1.26. But 366/367=0.997->1.00, too high.

We could also try 386, but: 461/368=1.252->1.25, too low.

If the game rounds to three significant digits rather than two decimal places, 366/367=0.9972->0.997, which would be ok.

However, this doesn't quite work for Greater Colibri: Level 81 birds are High 321-, Low 404+. 404/322=1.25468, which would round down.

Also, the game usually truncates rather than rounding, presumably to avoid actually doing slow floating point math.


Instead of figuring out which calculation they actually used, how about re-guess the formula we currently have:
How about:

  • high def if ratio ≤ 1.000
  • low def if ratio ≥ 1.250

Or maybe, to make "high defense" definition more sense:

  • high def if ratio < 1.000
  • low def if ratio ≥ 1.250

However, we can't determine the exact defense of mob (see abraxas case for def 367 and 368) --VZX 02:46, 30 May 2007 (CDT)


If we assume the following ...

  • RATIO is used to determine the /check message.
  • RATIO is a 8-bit fixed point number.

.., then the numbers match.

1.25 is 320/256, which means that a RATIO of 321/256 and higher would check as high defense. --JKL 03:35, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

321/256 (~1.254) seems to work with the Abraxas and Greater Colibri examples. So I'd guess that the formula is:

  • High Def if attack < defense
  • Low Def if attack > defense*321/256 --Valyana 08:40, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

Hmm yeah.. right shifting the BIT seems plausible to me. --VZX 12:20, 30 May 2007 (CDT)

After the Level Cap Increase to 80[edit]

Down in the basement of Garlaige Citadel there are several skeletons who, according to this wiki are at a max of lvl 62. As lvl 78, they agro by sound (HP at full). Doing the math, that's 16 levels away from me. According to this article, they should not agro. Either Fallen Mage needs updating, or this article needs updating. -Akaden 00:38, July 18, 2010 (UTC)

Item Level 100+[edit]

I just killed six Djinn in Batallia Downs (S) as 99 DRK that all checked Too Weak while I had a Voay Sword (Item Level 107) equipped. Each gave limit points, either 15 or 16 depending on the kill. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary, I think the line "This change does not affect areas outside of Seekers of Adoulin" should be removed. --Weapons Grade (talk) 04:51, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

I received the "Incredibly Easy Prey" message in Wajaom Woodlands on Tigers and Ameretats, and they still aggroed as a 99 PLD. They gave limit points below 50 in all cases, however I was not wearing any equipment that has an Item Level. I don't believe this change was limited to Seekers of Adoulin areas, and it was not restricted to players using Item Level gear, at least when it was first released. --Devhead39 (talk) 15:52, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

Received the "Incredibly Easy Prey" on Fetid Flesh as 99 PLD with no Item Level equipment. It did not aggro, and gave 14 limit points when killed. Devhead39 (talk) 21:20, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

This article uses material from the "Talk:Check" article on FFXIclopedia and is licensed under the CC-BY-SA License.