Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Rose StrapFollow

#27 Sep 27 2009 at 10:40 AM Rating: Decent
Kachi wrote:
I didn't need to read a link to realize something that obvious. However, even if it "works" it provides -no bonus- unless you gain additional swings or score a meaningful killing blow. There are many conceivable battles where only getting a faster second, third, fourth and fifth blow will not improve your DOT for the battle or the speed of the battle at all. At all. More often, it will improve it some, but not fully. e.g., a 15% bonus will only yield a 7% performance bonus.
You're wrong

Go read the **** link to figure out why, I'm not reexplaining it when there is already an extremely well done analysis of it.

Kachi wrote:
it's a completely unnecessary observation that really doesn't better anyone's understanding.
If you have low acc compared to the rest of your stats, you benefit more from increasing acc than other stuff, if you have near cap atk you gain low benefit from even fairly large amounts of atk compared to other stats. All improvements from +X stat B is relative to the amounts of stat B you already have compared to other factors you could increase. I don't care if it doesn't fit with your preexisting mental schema, your "2%DA = 2%dmg" fallacy has already given me plenty of evidence to show why it's important to define it this way and how it improves the accuracy, understanding, and clarity of my analysis.

Edited, Sep 27th 2009 2:41pm by shintasama
____________________________
Quote:
I don't believe in good guys versus bad guys anymore… I only see a plethora of states acting in self interest… with varying ethics and moral standards of course, but self-interest nonetheless
Winston Churchill wrote:
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things
#28 Sep 27 2009 at 11:38 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
In terms of relative gain, DA gets worse the more you get.


I suppose, but so does nearly every other stat in the game by that logic. That's why it's a meaningless and potentially confusing statement to make.
You're right, almost every stat DOES gradually get worse (increases at a decreasing rate) the more you stack it. There are only a couple exceptions: Haste and Dual Wield+.

The best results for DoT are gained from balancing different stats.

Sidenote: What's the largest possible area of a rectangle given static total dimensions?

1 x 5 = 5
2 x 4 = 8
3 x 3 = 9
4 x 2 = 8
5 x 1 = 5

Same logic applies to FFXI. Balance each stat.



Edited, Sep 27th 2009 3:02pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#29 Sep 27 2009 at 1:16 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Go read the **** link to figure out why, I'm not reexplaining it when there is already an extremely well done analysis of it.


I assume you wanted me to look at your charts and the explanation by RealityBytes? Ok, I read it, and it does not refute what I've said. In low amounts, Haste% can have no effect throughout the course of a battle, and may not give the full % to DOT. An important point is raised about swing order, but that's something I've already discussed in the past in reference to meaningful killing blows.

Put very simply, all other stats being the same, during some battles, a GKT with a delay of 437 will not increase the speed of the kill any more than using a 450 GKT. Is this ever true? Of course it is, especially in parties with low delay weapons, DOT, etc. And what's the difference between 450 and 437? Why, it's 3% Haste.

Quote:
2%DA = 2%dmg


Except that I haven't said that, because 2%DA =! 2%dmg. All I'm saying is that DA is a linear stat, and that each point of DA increases the absolute amount of damage that you do by the exact same amount as every other point of DA that you add. After you factor it into the total damage equation, DA does come very close to adding a 1:1 bonus because it operates mostly on top of the total damage equation rather than being factored into it.

Quote:
You're right, almost every stat DOES gradually get worse (increases at a decreasing rate) the more you stack it.


Sigh. They don't. Not anymore than 1% interest offers you less of $1 the more you add it. Yes, the second dollar you get from a 2% increase is less of a % bonus than the first dollar you get from a 1 or 2% increase, which is a completely worthless analysis, because 1% still equals $1 no matter how much you add. It does not get less valuable the more you add. Linear. Dictionary. But I'm done talking about that.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#30 Sep 27 2009 at 1:50 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
You're right, almost every stat DOES gradually get worse (increases at a decreasing rate) the more you stack it.
Sigh. They don't.
Here's why they do:

For sake of simplicity, say you have a 20% hit rate and are hitting for 1 damage per swing. Over the course of say, an hour of constant swinging with no haste and a 450 delay weapon, that's:

450 / 60 = 7.5 sec/swing
3600 / 7.5 = 480 swings/hour
480 * 0.20 = 96 landed swings/hour (or, 96 damage/hour, since we're saying a swing is always exactly 1 damage)

Raise the hitrate by 1% (acc+2), what's the relative increase to your overall DoT?

450 / 60 = 7.5 sec/swing
3600 / 7.5 = 480 swings/hour
480 * 0.21 = 100.8 landed swings/hour

100.8 / 96 = 1.05 = 5% increase to DoT

-----------------------

Now say we start with 90% hitrate:

450 / 60 = 7.5 sec/swing
3600 / 7.5 = 480 swings/hour
480 * 0.90 = 432 landed swings/hour

Raise the hitrate by 1% (acc+2) again:

450 / 60 = 7.5 sec/swing
3600 / 7.5 = 480 swings/hour
480 * 0.91 = 436.8 landed swings/hour

436.8 / 432 = 1.0111... = 1.11...% increase to DoT





Why does this matter?

It matters because of opportunity cost. Every slot you fill with accuracy, is a slot that could potentially be filled with DA+, attack+, haste+, etc. You're sacrificing the ability to raise your DoT by another method.

How do I know which stat to pick then?

You compare their relative impacts on your DoT. Adding 1% hitrate to a 90% hitrate is *NOT* the same as adding 1% hitrate to a 20% hitrate. You may very well be able to get better than accuracy+2 in that particular slot at 90% hitrate, but you probably wouldn't be able to do better at 20%.

Going back to the rectangle example, you have the dimensions 1 x 5 for a rectangle, and can add 1 to either the length or the width. Which provides the largest AREA?

1 x 6 = 6
2 x 5 = 10

So one IS superior to the other in the relative sense, even though you're adding a constant.



Kachi wrote:
Put very simply, all other stats being the same, during some battles, a GKT with a delay of 437 will not increase the speed of the kill any more than using a 450 GKT. Is this ever true? Of course it is, especially in parties with low delay weapons, DOT, etc. And what's the difference between 450 and 437? Why, it's 3% Haste.


Delay reduction =/= haste.

Edited, Sep 27th 2009 4:58pm by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#31 Sep 27 2009 at 1:59 PM Rating: Decent
God you're being dense, please tell me you're trolling, the Kachi I knew wasn't nearly this stupid.

Quote:
which is a completely worthless analysis,

/facepalm Lets say our total dmg was just the product of two factors "A" and "B" aka:

A*B = total dmg

for a certain player A=100 and B=400, and he's trying to decide between a piece of gear that raises A by 1 or B by 5

101*400 = 40400
100*405 = 40500

so he should use the piece that raises B.
HOWEVER, when he is getting buffs his "B" stat is 600

101*600 = 60600
100*605 = 60500

So in this circumstance he should use that piece that raises A. The second item still raises "B" by 5 in either case, but the RELATIVE INCREASE to his total damage (which is all we actually give a **** about at the end of the day) is lower when he has a higher "B" base. It matters.
Kachi wrote:
Ok, I read it, and it does not refute what I've said.

starfox wrote:
bsphil wrote:
Now that I think about it (since I'm taking forever to post this), I suppose you could see an increase over time from the extra second faster kills. Let's say you also need 10 seconds to get to a new mob. Over the course of an hour without the haste, you can kill 51 mobs. With the haste and the second faster kills, you're able to kill one extra mob in the hour time frame, giving every DD a DoT bonus by being able to damage another mob within the hour.

No, you will see a 1% increase in your DoT and a slight decrease in the other's DoT because once every 13 mobs you got a hit on a mob that was supposed to go to someone else. Again, mob health are set (with the slight exception of cure/mob regen), you are all competing for the slice of that mob health pie when you compare damage%. You don't get a consistent n seconds off every mob, you don't need to in order to gain benefit from haste.

Now that may sound self-centered, that haste is basically a tool to rob DoT% from others. But if you think about it, accuracy and attacks work the same way too. Just because you get a 1% increase in accuracy doesn't mean the mob always dies sooner. It just takes away some hits from others that you wouldn't've gotten had you wiffed, therefore helping your DoT and hurting "others". You don't get a decrease in kill time on most mobs, just once every few mobs where your hit counted to kill off the mob faster than it would have otherwise.

Starfox wrote:
The part where you are wrong is that you are only thinking in whole swings per mob while in FFXI that never happens unless you kill only one mob. If you kill 2 mobs, there will be a 50% chance that you end up with a fractional swing/mob. If you kill 3, 66%. Basically you are basing your argument on a 1/n chance that you will end up with a whole number of swings when you kill n mobs. In reality, you do end up with a (n-1)/n chance of having x swings that causes you to get a fraction when divided by n mobs.

Starfox wrote:
And fundamentally, that is all it takes to "gain" extra DoT. You don't need an guaranteed extra attack round, you just need to overtake someone in the mob hit order, in order to gain some advantage in terms of DoT.

Milich wrote:
the short summary answer is, "no, it's just like 90% chance to hit neatly yields a 90% hit rate over time. the randomness + the sample size iron out what the messiness does to stop X% rounds/min from being X% DoT. it is weird that the messiness actually assures the ultimate neatness, but there you go, it does. and not 'abracadabra, there you go it does,' but rather 'the messiness gets rid of the weird bias-bringing factors like killshots--eg if 3% haste actor always or never got the killshot--and therefore the attacks/min increase ends up equaling DoT% increase.
Now go actaully read it so you're not just wasting my time.

Edited, Sep 27th 2009 6:02pm by shintasama
____________________________
Quote:
I don't believe in good guys versus bad guys anymore… I only see a plethora of states acting in self interest… with varying ethics and moral standards of course, but self-interest nonetheless
Winston Churchill wrote:
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things
#32 Sep 27 2009 at 2:24 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Further, another example:

What's better, 1% increase in hitrate, or 1% increase in DoT?

According to your logic, they are equivalent, as they both technically add 1 attack per 100. They are not. The hitrate increase will always be more potent. DA+1% is at best equal to +1% DoT, hitrate+1% is at worst equal to slightly more than +1% DoT.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#33 Sep 27 2009 at 10:07 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
I've read all that and it's still wrong. I've already explained why and frankly don't even care enough to explain any further.

All that nice stuff you quoted is people either A) missing the point B) interpreting game mechanics incorrectly. Impressive mental gymnastics, but doesn't quite stick the landing. But I'm not going to break it down piece by piece. You're just going to have to take my word for it that I understand everything that was said, and it's incorrect. Then you can take some time to process why that is. Or not. I really just don't care, because even if you realize that I'm right, then what? People will stop using small amounts of Haste? I can almost taste how little that matters to me.

And besides that, I don't know for sure that you're not more concerned with convincing myself/others that you're right than you are with actually being right. If it's the former, it's a complete waste of my time. If the latter, I might be willing to discuss this in PMs, but not if you're going to keep repeating the same concepts over and over. No matter how often or loudly, a fallacy is a fallacy.

And please try not to think too badly of me for brushing you off on this. I'm actually making an effort to be civil about this out of respect for camaraderie.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#34 Sep 27 2009 at 11:38 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Kachi wrote:
I've read all that and it's still wrong. I've already explained why and frankly don't even care enough to explain any further.

All that nice stuff you quoted is people either A) missing the point B) interpreting game mechanics incorrectly. Impressive mental gymnastics, but doesn't quite stick the landing. But I'm not going to break it down piece by piece. You're just going to have to take my word for it that I understand everything that was said, and it's incorrect. Then you can take some time to process why that is. Or not. I really just don't care, because even if you realize that I'm right, then what? People will stop using small amounts of Haste? I can almost taste how little that matters to me.

And besides that, I don't know for sure that you're not more concerned with convincing myself/others that you're right than you are with actually being right. If it's the former, it's a complete waste of my time. If the latter, I might be willing to discuss this in PMs, but not if you're going to keep repeating the same concepts over and over. No matter how often or loudly, a fallacy is a fallacy.

And please try not to think too badly of me for brushing you off on this. I'm actually making an effort to be civil about this out of respect for camaraderie.
That's nice.

Haste still doesn't have diminished returns at low values, for the reasons explained a half dozen times already. You haven't actually explained why it's not true, other than summarizing that you disagree with it and that it doesn't make sense. You've even said it yourself here in an attempt to prove the theory wrong:

Kachi wrote:
Put very simply, all other stats being the same, during some battles, a GKT with a delay of 437 will not increase the speed of the kill any more than using a 450 GKT
Unfortunately, that's exactly the point being made. In some battles, a GKT with 437 delay WILL increase the speed of the kill where a 450 delay GKT wouldn't. If you multiply the relatively low probability of overtaking anyone's attack round due to the lower delay versus the relatively high DoT increase that will yield in a fight, the average expected outcome turns out to be an increase of just over 3%. Already proven in parses of similarly geared DDs on the same job.

Kachi wrote:
It would be like saying that each % interest on your $100 savings account gave less than the last % of interest.
Except for interest, each time you compound, you also compound the interest earned previously, which isn't analogous to something that would happen in FFXI. 5% interest compounded would go 100 -> 105 -> 110.25 -> 115.7625 -> 121.559625 -> etc. That truly is adding 5% each time.

To go 100 -> 105 -> 110 -> 115 -> 120 is NOT adding 5% interest each time. That's adding $5 each time, and that only happens to be 5% the first time you compound. This is not how the world works, but this IS how FFXI works. You seem to have the two confused? 100 -> 105 is a 5% increase, 105 -> 110 is a 4.76% increase, 110 -> 115 is a 4.55% increase, etc.



So yeah if you'd like to really detail why these theories are all wrong, go ahead.



Edited, Sep 28th 2009 2:47am by bsphil
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#35 Sep 28 2009 at 2:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
9,209 posts
This is sure a long discussion over naming a term.
#36 Sep 28 2009 at 8:53 AM Rating: Decent
Kachi wrote:
I might be willing to discuss this in PMs
You're completely unwilling to listen our arguments, bring up any of your own (other than "I don't believe you"), or even consider the fact that you're wrong. I fail to see how taking this to PM is supposed to help?
VZX wrote:
This is sure a long discussion over naming a term.
Semantics are semantics, but in this case it's a fairly important semantic choice to make if you want to be able to make valid comparisons between pieces of gear in different situations.
____________________________
Quote:
I don't believe in good guys versus bad guys anymore… I only see a plethora of states acting in self interest… with varying ethics and moral standards of course, but self-interest nonetheless
Winston Churchill wrote:
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things
#37 Sep 28 2009 at 9:59 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,626 posts
Did I read right earlier that this Kachi person is working on his/her phd? If that is true, its obviously nothing to do with Mathematics.

I think Alla's regulars have given you the benefit of the doubt because of your large post count, but its getting silly now.

I don't think there is any other way for ppl to explain itother than whats in this thread and Shinta's links.

Your either trolling, lying, or retarded. This is some of ffxi's most basic math.
____________________________
Taking a break.
#38 Sep 28 2009 at 11:39 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Yes, it is pretty basic, which is why I'm amazed that anyone even came close to something resembling the correct conclusion using such a needlessly convoluted process. But it does explain why there is so much confusion/misconception.

I might be willing to explain it in PM, but I'm not going to attempt to clear it up publicly where I'll no doubt get at least a few people who will continue to argue from ignorance, whether willful or well-meaning. There are just too many of you that do feel some stake in the argument versus myself who does not. Try to understand my position.

Quote:
Did I read right earlier that this Kachi person is working on his/her phd? If that is true, its obviously nothing to do with Mathematics.


fyi, there are very few doctoral programs that have nothing to do with mathematics. Even degrees that you might think have little to do with math (such as art or music) generally have much more than you would think. For my degree, statistics is incredibly relevant. And you won't even get into a doctoral program if you can't perform passably on the math section of the GRE.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#39 Sep 28 2009 at 6:23 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
So basic it's not even publicly explainable?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#40 Sep 28 2009 at 7:12 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Of course it is, but that doesn't mean that I'm up for it. I already crunched the numbers and checked the work to the extent that it interested me and I could be sure that I wasn't misunderstanding something. But it's one thing to explain something to people who are simply asking you for an explanation. It's an entirely different matter to explain something to people who are actively disagreeing with you. I think anyone who has been in this forum or pretty much any forum for a length of time knows what I'm talking about.

Basically I'm busier than I used to be, and if for no reason other than a matter of personal policy, I need to start picking my battles and not getting dragged into every internet disagreement that comes my way. Particularly ones that I'm not even enjoying. And while I'm good at math, I hardly consider it recreation. I don't even have time to watch all the shows that I want to watch, nevermind actually play some **** video games. Proving a mathematics point in a game I barely play a few hours a week is just not up there.

And see, I can barely keep my responses succinct just to say that I'm not going to respond. It'd be ten times worse if I allowed myself to accept the challenge.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#41 Sep 28 2009 at 8:37 PM Rating: Good
dict wrote:
cop out Slang
Verb:
1) to avoid taking responsibility or committing oneself
2) choose not to do something, as out of fear of failing;

Noun:
1) a way or an instance of avoiding responsibility or commitment

Synonyms:
avoid, dodge, abandon, withdraw from, desert, quit, skip, renounce, revoke, renege, skive
____________________________
Quote:
I don't believe in good guys versus bad guys anymore… I only see a plethora of states acting in self interest… with varying ethics and moral standards of course, but self-interest nonetheless
Winston Churchill wrote:
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things
#42 Sep 28 2009 at 8:40 PM Rating: Good
**
339 posts
When Starfox started posting his reasoning behind fractional swings, etc, almost nobody believe what he was saying and ridiculed him. Gradually people came to realize he was right and admit to it, so saying "you know how internet battles go lol" doesn't really cut it. If you aren't willing to post your reasoning behind your disagreement with what everyone else is saying, that's fine. Don't post at all. It's equally useful.
____________________________
Rale, Lakshmi, Linkshell: Jhereg, Amaranthine

#43 Sep 28 2009 at 10:04 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
*
85 posts
To: Kachi
1. Double Attack+ and Haste+ do not work the same way
Double Attack+ increases the chances of a second hit by a given percentage
Example with 50% Double Attack you will attack 150 times instead of the
100 times you would have attacked without it
Haste reduces the weapon delay and magic recast
Example with 50% Haste and a 509 delay weapon you will effectively be
attacking with a weapon that has a delay of 254.5. Because you are
attacking twice as fast you will get 200 hits in the time it would take
you to get 100 without the haste.
2. Haste provides more beneficial effects than double attack
Double Attack only affects how often you attack
Haste affects how quickly you attack AND how soon you can recast spells
What this means is that even if Double Attack and Haste were equal
Haste would still be more beneficial or at least equally beneficial
3. Haste+ is consistent. Double Attack+ is not.
With both Haste+ and Double Attack+ you are guaranteed to get a certain
percentage bonus over time. However Haste+ is guaranteed to be active all
the time while Double Attack+ is guaranteed to active a certain percent
of the time. For Double Attack+ there is no guarantee of WHEN it
will activate or WHICH attacks it will activate on, only that over time
it will activate a certain percent of the time
4. Because of how they work Double Attack+ is a linear increase and Haste is a
more of an exponential increase
In closing let us assume an extreme case of 80% Haste versus 80% Double Attack
as that is the effective cap on Haste.
With Double Attack+ 80% you would attack 180% of the norm.
In the time you would normally attack 100 times you would attack 180
times. This is true regardless of which weapon.
With Haste+ 80% and again using the 509 delay weapon as an example you would be
attacking as if you had a weapon with a delay of 101.8. You will be
attacking 5 times as often.
In the time you would normally attack 100 times you would attack 500
times. This is true regardless of which weapon.
In summation it is usually best to get Haste+ if possible and Double Attack+
only where you can not get Haste+ (Assuming only Haste+ and Double Attack+ as
possibilities)

Any questions class?
____________________________
No matter what level you are there's a rabbit that can kill you
80 Alchemy 29 Smithing 24 Goldsmithing 10 Cooking
Guild Items: Concoction, Iatrochemistry, Trituration, Anima Synthesis
#44 Sep 28 2009 at 10:15 PM Rating: Decent
kami wrote:
stuff
way to not read his actual arguments
____________________________
Quote:
I don't believe in good guys versus bad guys anymore… I only see a plethora of states acting in self interest… with varying ethics and moral standards of course, but self-interest nonetheless
Winston Churchill wrote:
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things
#45 Sep 28 2009 at 11:14 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
You can call it a cop out, but then you don't really care enough to take it to PMs, do you? It's hardly fair to accuse me of copping out just because I won't play a game I don't even want to play on someone else's home field while being totally outnumbered.

My strong suspicion from early in this discussion has been that you are too concerned with public appearance for my arguments to hold any sway, save perhaps if I fight tooth and nail. Your insistence on maintaining the discussion in public and efforts to bait me only serve to reinforce my suspicion that you mainly just want to be publicly right.

Nothing against you-- it's a perfectly typical motivational orientation. It's just not one I'm interested in accommodating. I find this meta-analysis of the discussion far more entertaining anyway.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#46 Sep 29 2009 at 12:08 AM Rating: Decent
You're obviously not going to listen to me either way (you wouldn't even read a pertinent link on the topic, if I didn't have some semblance of respect for you from previous threads I would have just blown you off as a troll and switched to "humiliate mode" instead of actually presenting real arguments this entire time), so my role has been purely for other players knowledge for awhile now, yeah. If I wanted to type out discussions that no one was going to read I could open up notepad.

Sidenote- if I had a position that I knew to be true, I would take on an entire forum tooth and nail to prove it (I recently did it in =6 too!), so I guess we're just different people.

Edited, Sep 29th 2009 4:23am by shintasama
____________________________
Quote:
I don't believe in good guys versus bad guys anymore… I only see a plethora of states acting in self interest… with varying ethics and moral standards of course, but self-interest nonetheless
Winston Churchill wrote:
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things
#47 Sep 29 2009 at 1:44 AM Rating: Excellent
***
2,626 posts
Want to show it it a slightly different way, as well as try to get you out of your line of thinking.



Kachi wrote:
DA has a linear effect on melee damage, yes. So 2% DA= +2% melee damage, right? Stop me if I get something wrong. Plus DA increases WS frequency and WS damage.


dictionary wrote:

lin·e·ar (ln-r)
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or resembling a line; straight.
2.
a. In, of, describing, described by, or related to a straight line.
b. Having only one dimension.



If there was a grapg showing DA's gains, it would be a straight line graph with 0-1% on the y-axis showing what each 1% of DA stacked does for your overall dmg, and 1-100% on the x-axis representing DA.

The line will be a straight line starting at 1% y-axis, 1% x-axis, moving down to 0.5% y-axis, and across to 100%DA x-axis

That seems pretty linear to me, its a straight line, but going down so you are correct in saying DA's gains are linear.



Haste looks like this (go to post #8):

Graph of Haste (scroll down to #8 post)


Your problem line of thinking, is that 3% DA has to be better than 3% Haste because you looked at it like this:

With 3% DA, in 1min, with a 450delay GKT, you'll average 8.24attacks every min, or an average of nearly 1DA every 4mins.

With 3% Haste, in 1 min, with a 450delay GKT, you'll average 8.25 hits a min, so you'd need precisely 4 min's to get that extra hit in from 3% Haste. (but at least with DA theres a chance that extra hit could come sooner or w/e)


Once you can get your head around that your still actually attacking faster meaning faster WS's, you'll see how 3% Haste is better. Its not about waiting for that extra hit or w/e to actually arrive because your faster attacking will lead to the monster KO-ing faster anyway.








Edited, Sep 29th 2009 9:45am by Sandmasterr
____________________________
Taking a break.
#48 Sep 29 2009 at 8:41 AM Rating: Good
Sand wrote:
That seems pretty linear to me, its a straight line, but going down so you are correct in saying DA's gains are linear.
He's not wrong about being able to plot it linearly when you look at it from a total gain perspective, he's wrong about looking at it from a linear/total gain perspective being useful. We don't actually give a fuck how much dmg your total +DA adds in a vacuum, we care about how much dmg a piece of +DA gear adds relative to how much dmg would be added by increasing a different stat via another piece of gear.

Thinking in terms of total gain:
 
   	total DA gain	Total Haste Gain 
0	1	        1 
1	1.01	        1.01010101 
2	1.02	        1.020408163 
3	1.03	        1.030927835 
4	1.04	        1.041666667 
5	1.05	        1.052631579 
6	1.06	        1.063829787 
7	1.07	        1.075268817 
8	1.08	        1.086956522 
9	1.09	        1.098901099 
10	1.1	        1.111111111 
11	1.11	        1.123595506 
12	1.12	        1.136363636 
13	1.13	        1.149425287 
14	1.14	        1.162790698 
15	1.15	        1.176470588 
16	1.16	        1.19047619 
17	1.17	        1.204819277 
18	1.18	        1.219512195 
19	1.19	        1.234567901 
20	1.2	        1.25

total gain


Thinking in terms of relative gain:
 
	Gain from this 1% DA	Gain from this 1% Haste 
0	1	                1 
1	1.01	                1.01010101 
2	1.00990099	        1.010204082 
3	1.009803922	        1.010309278 
4	1.009708738	        1.010416667 
5	1.009615385	        1.010526316 
6	1.00952381	        1.010638298 
7	1.009433962	        1.010752688 
8	1.009345794	        1.010869565 
9	1.009259259	        1.010989011 
10	1.009174312	        1.011111111 
11	1.009090909	        1.011235955 
12	1.009009009	        1.011363636 
13	1.008928571	        1.011494253 
14	1.008849558	        1.011627907 
15	1.00877193	        1.011764706 
16	1.008695652	        1.011904762 
17	1.00862069	        1.012048193 
18	1.008547009	        1.012195122 
19	1.008474576	        1.012345679 
20	1.008403361	        1.0125

Relative gain

Hard to see due to scale, but both are non-linear in the relative gain case. DA's best fit linear line has an r^2 of .989 when plotting 0->50%

Edited, Sep 29th 2009 12:43pm by shintasama
____________________________
Quote:
I don't believe in good guys versus bad guys anymore… I only see a plethora of states acting in self interest… with varying ethics and moral standards of course, but self-interest nonetheless
Winston Churchill wrote:
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things
#49 Sep 29 2009 at 1:32 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
That's why I retired that discussion. At best it's a matter of perspective in mathematical concepts, and at worst it's a semantics debate. I haven't been arguing your calculations, just your methodology, which in itself is pretty pointless as long as your conclusion is the same, but I still think you'll confuse people on matters of technical accuracy.

Quote:
you wouldn't even read a pertinent link on the topic,


I did read it, multiple times in fact, to make sure that I understood it. I know it's much easier to believe that I'm lying than that I actually found flaws in the methods and just don't want to play math teacher, but well, there you have it. We are in fact different people. If I tackle the accepted thinking in this venue, then suddenly I own it, and of course I'll be expected to fight tooth and nail. Can you blame me for not wanting to? Honestly, I'd prefer if you just think I'm a trolling liar.

Teaching math is difficult enough just to deal with the students who don't understand, nevermind if you add a few vocal ones who disagree with the one doing the teaching. (which is in no way to compare the variance in our math abilities to that of a teacher and student) Tutoring, on the other hand, is much more manageable. Still not my idea of recreation, though.

But the funniest thing happened to me a moment ago, and while this is entirely irrelevant, I have to share it. I came home to my apartment from one of my statistics classes just now to find a note from maintenance. They were doing regular air filter replacements and smoke detector checks-- I received the notice that they would be doing this last night.

So the guy came while I was at class and left me an apartment entry notice. I guess while he was checking the smoke detector in my room, he saw that I have a large box of Pokemon cards that I've been lugging around for a decade (my family used to play; actually won a trip to California for worlds). I've been meaning to get rid of them for an eternity, but dealing with eBay seems like a pain in the ***, and now that our family has new little ones, I think I may just give the cards to them someday. ANYWAY, yeah, there are a lot of Pokemon cards in my closet by the smoke detector.

So when I look at the note he left, I see that he's checked two boxes. The first:
Quote:

I was in your apartment today to:
[handwritten] replace a/c filter, check smoke detector

Normal stuff. The second:

Quote:
Will need to return:
Which is supposed to say things like "after parts arrive" "next week" etc. Instead it says in his handwriting...

Quote:
Pokemon


So I don't know. I just don't know. What does this mean? Did the maintenance guy STEAL some of my Pokemon cards, and even leave a confession? Or I guess he means to return them, so technically he's borrowing them, but why is my maintenance guy borrowing my Pokemon cards? Was he short a Pikachu? And there are really so many cards, I have no way of knowing if he actually took any.

He didn't leave his name on the note either, though I guess I could probably find out if I called the office. But what would I say? "Um, excuse me, I think one of the maintenance guys borrowed some of my Pokemon cards. Could you... ask around?"

Or another theory, maybe he was having a pun. "Pokemon-- return!"

Or could he need to come back because my Pokemon cards present some kind of health and safety violation? Are they moldy? Is maintenance going to come back to confiscate them?

I laughed for a good five minutes, both out of amusement as well as bemusement. Yep, both kinds of musement.

It reminds me of the time when firefighters stole my rug.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#50 Sep 29 2009 at 1:47 PM Rating: Good
Kachi wrote:
I did read it, multiple times in fact, to make sure that I understood it. I know it's much easier to believe that I'm lying than that I actually found flaws in the methods and just don't want to play math teacher, but well, there you have it. We are in fact different people. If I tackle the accepted thinking in this venue, then suddenly I own it, and of course I'll be expected to fight tooth and nail. Can you blame me for not wanting to? Honestly, I'd prefer if you just think I'm a trolling liar.
Forgive me for not finding "I have a proof that my side is right, I'm just not going to tell you" to be a credible argument.

By this point you already "own" that side of the discussion, and you obviously don't have issues wasting your time perpetuating this thread, so why not drop a hint at the "flaw" you found? Why bother to keep posting without advancing the knowledge of the forum if you aren't trolling?

now something irrelevant:
EmoPan


Edited, Sep 29th 2009 5:52pm by shintasama
____________________________
Quote:
I don't believe in good guys versus bad guys anymore… I only see a plethora of states acting in self interest… with varying ethics and moral standards of course, but self-interest nonetheless
Winston Churchill wrote:
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things
#51 Sep 29 2009 at 5:17 PM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Professor shintasama wrote:
Kachi wrote:
I
s

t
h
e

g
o
a
l

t
o

b
a
i
t

m

e

t
i
ll you

g
e
t

B
o
a
r
d
?

Hey wait a sec here!

That's not spelled right!
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)