sa+sidewinder.. {Yes please}

[imac2much]

You see, there's a funny thing. Let me repeat it for the slow-witted.

No one claimed it was "Quintuple damage, enemy defense subtracted once."

If someone did, then that damage formula would be wrong as well.

I am going to try to explain this to you in VERY simple terms. Take notes.

There are two parties involved in this debate.

Party A: Spider-Dan :
Claim: Sidewinder is quadruple damage.
Proof: The ingame description says so!
Testing: None.
Damage model: Quadruple damage, enemy defense subtracted once.

Party B: Rones, Apple Pie, etc :
Claim: Sidewinder has a 5x damage modifier.
Proof: Studio Gobli.
Testing: Several months and pages of research and testing by Studio Gobli.
Damage model: Studio Gobli's formula.

I proved Party A wrong. That is you, Mr. Dan, if you cannot follow this logic. Does this mean I proved Party B wrong?

NO.

Why? Because each party presented different claims, proof, formulae, and testing.

You provided a silly machination of words that you only THOUGHT was true, but never tested yourself. Yet you pushed it on others as if it were somehow fact.

You were the one correcting people. No one, including Rones, corrected others saying it was 5x until you brought it up. Rones cited a site that did much testing as his basis for belief. You cited... a crappy and silly theory.

The theory was proven wrong. The site is irrelevant to this topic.

The fact that the site was proven right is a bonus. That was not necessary to expose your inadequacies.

The logic I used in my test was exactly the same logic you provided. HOWEVER, this was NOT the same logic Party B provided. No, they provided a much more thought out and tested theory. You only provided silly words from your fantasy land.

I hope this has educated you a bit. If not, please keep grasping at straws and pretending to be intellectual.

[Spider-Dan]

Doing a bit of history rewriting, are we? Let me help you refresh your memory. You were claiming that your tests proved that the in-game description was wrong (emphasis added):

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
1) My position has never been that Squenix can't be wrong, but just that if one is going to claim something that contradicts one of their statements, one better have a damn solid foundation to make such a claim. Without any evidence for why the cited site thinks Sidewinder is 5X, it is only logical to defer to Squenix.

And I did subsequently give you solid foundations why it is incorrect, to which you threw some B.S. you thought of at the last minute like "well I guess VIT somehow is reduced from sidewinder four times even though it's one hit oh wait I'm contradicting myself but no I am never wrong" or something?

Are you now saying that your tests didn't disprove the description? Nice hindsight flip-flop.

[poweryoga]

dan, just shut up already.

For (at least) the third time, if you think that your tests really disprove 4x, then they also disprove 5x. If they don't disprove 5x, then they don't disprove 4x either. You can't have one without the other.

I don't remember rugal saying ONCE that he was trying to prove sidewinder was 5x. He was disproving that it was 4x, and he did. You using flawed (and stupid) logic doesn't help your "intellect" any, since rugal was never trying to prove it was 5x. You just don't know when to just stfu and gtfo.

Here's a few things you should read.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/s...ective_reading
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/s...tml#digression

Too many describe you, just take a skim through that list and you'll find yourself staring into the mirror.

I'll quote what rugal said. If you can't stfu after this, you're too stupid to comprehend human words.

My purpose was not proving it was quintuple damage. I was just showing that you had absolutely no evidence that it was quadruple damage. Period.

and your quote here...

Are you now saying that your tests didn't disprove the description? Nice hindsight flip-flop.

shows you need to learn how to read.

[imac2much]

:confused: :confused: :confused:

You honestly confuse me Dan.

Where are you getting this material from?

After ignoring the bulk of my previous posts (apparently since you know when you've been beaten but just can't admit it), you throw in something from left field.

Eh? When did I say I didn't prove you wrong? Wow, I thought the past 2 or 3 pages of this thread I've been saying I *DID* prove you wrong.

Obviously since you cite the ingame description, that means I proved that wrong as well.

In no way shape or form is Sidewinder just quadruple damage. To counter this, you came up with your theory. To counter that, I did testing, posted screenshots, and proved it wrong.

Did you just make a totally random and irrelevant post to mask your inadequacies once again? Either that or you are just grasping for straws and looking for small grammar and spelling errors to take out of context or something, I dunno.

I'll even quote the very quote you used:

And I did subsequently give you solid foundations why it is incorrect

And this I did.

Here's a quote from my PREVIOUS post.

Originally posted by imac2much
Party A: Spider-Dan :
Claim: Sidewinder is quadruple damage.
Proof: The ingame description says so!

I proved Party A wrong. That is you, Mr. Dan, if you cannot follow this logic.

Where the hell did you get the idea that I *didn't* prove you wrong? You must have some extreme case of selective reading where you're only reading one word every sentence or something.

You realize what you are doing now right?

You were proven wrong but continued to make excuses so I shot down those excuses. Now you are going on your expected tangents to mask your ignorance... yet the part that confuses me is that this tangent was totally contrived. You must really be running out of material.

What next? You'll start grasping at spelling errors or something?

Don't lose grasp of the main focus of this debate. It is not about whether I can prove 5x is correct or not. This entire time, it has been you stating outrageous claims, thinking you are correct.

Here's the history of this debate in a nutshell.

From Page 2:

Originally posted by Spider-Dan


That directly and conclusively states that Sidewinder does quadruple damage.

A few posts down, my reply. No screenshots yet, but some numerical data nonetheless:

Originally posted by imac2much
It is *OBVIOSLY* not just straight up 4x damage, so that means the weapon skill description is wrong anyway. On too weak things i can hit for 180-200 but my sidewinder does 1000-1300. Last time I checked 200 x 4 = 800, which is less than that. I have never done only 4x damage of my regular shot damage on a sidewinder. Ever.

Then you cited your silly theory again, which you had absolutely no proof for; you basically just made it up.

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
It's one hit, quadruple damage, enemy defense is only subtracted once.

From Page 4:

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
The in-game description says quadruple damage.

All of the above IS my backup. Feel free to present your counterevidence.

I posted screenshots of my testing proving that it was not quadruple damage like the description states. I took your defense thing into account and it still didn't work.

Originally posted by imac2much
In your theory, Sidewinder should equal exactly 4 x normal hit, since my STR and ATK is so far greater than a lvl 1 monster's VIT and DEF.
Regular hit = 375 (extremely consistent)
Sidewinder = 2265 ~ 2275
375 x 4 = 1500
Are you saying a level 1 worm somehow has enough defense and VIT to throw off my calculations somehow? Or wait, maybe the weapon skill description is WRONG? That sure as hell does not look like quadruple damage to me.

You then brought up the point about damage caps, even though my shots were not capped (increasing STR still increased my damage). This is from Page 5.

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
[B]imac, are you aware that there is a DAMAGE CAP on normal attacks? Do you find it strange that when you use Berserk and use ranged attack on a LV1 mob, your normal damage does not increase one bit?

I then did further testing on monsters that my shots were NOT capped against. This can be found on the same page (page 5), a few posts down.

Originally posted by imac2much
So instead, let's take a monster where my shots do vary as an example, but which is still low enough that I don't have to worry about its defense nor vit very much.
...
My normal shots varied, and berserk pumped up my attacks. Obviously there is no damage cap.
...
As you can see, my damage is not capped, from the variance of my shots and also the fact that Berserk increased my damage greatly. And yet, 280x4 = 1120, even though my Sidewinder damage is 1739.

As of this point, I already disproved both the ingame description and your silly theory to back it up. This is much different than looking at Leaping Boots and refusing to believe it really is +3 AGI+DEX. Why? Because you can wear them and find out, omgz, it really is +3 AGI+DEX. However, this in-game description does not work out in either its face value, or with your silly theory. Thus I already proved it wrong at this point.

For the next several pages you have been going on tangents and dodging reality, trying to mask your ignorance. Give it up already.

[Spider-Dan]

What have I been trying to dodge? I already admitted that I was wrong; you're the one trying to dodge that you were.

You claim the following:

Obviously since you cite the ingame description, that means I proved that wrong as well.

So it is clear that you think that your tests and the logic behind them disproved the description.

Now, if the description read, "Delivers an inaccurate attack that deals quintuple damage," it would have been correct, right? But according to your tests, even if the description did say that, it would still be wrong.

This is why your tests clearly didn't disprove the description (and why there was NO EVIDENCE disproving the description for the first 4 pages). All that your tests prove is that Sidewinder doesn't do the same damage as four hits added together (observe your constant references to "normal damage x 4 = blahblah"). That was never claimed!

[Timoham]

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
Now, if the description read, "Delivers an inaccurate attack that deals quintuple damage," it would have been correct, right? But according to your tests, even if the description did say that, it would still be wrong.

It would be wrong assuming it followed your flawed theory, which is what was disproved. Not that it wasn't 4x or 5x.. but that your theory was incorrect.

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
This is why your tests clearly didn't disprove the description (and why there was NO EVIDENCE disproving the description for the first 4 pages). All that your tests prove is that Sidewinder doesn't do the same damage as four hits added together (observe your constant references to "normal damage x 4 = blahblah"). That was never claimed!

I believe that was indeed claimed... by you... as in that was your theory and what Rugal disproved.

STFU

[iglak]

Originally posted by imac2much
No one claimed it was "Quintuple damage, enemy defense subtracted once."

looking over the formula, that appears to be EXACTLY what the formula is.
there are other WSs (Combo, for example) that say to do the calculation more than once (3 for Combo) and add the toals. whereas the Sidewinder formula is only one calculation. and since most of the variability in those calculations comes from ATK and DEF and STR and VIT, the formula really is saying that it's Quintuple damage, enemy defence subtracted once.

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by Timoham
I believe that was indeed claimed... by you... as in that was your theory and what Rugal disproved.

No, it absolutely was not claimed by me.

In fact, I repeatedly pointed out that multiplying the damage of a normal shot by 4 (or 5) would never give you any sort of meaningful number, in response to people incessantly stating "[normal shot damage] x 4 = [not Sidewinder damage]!" iglak pointed this out as well.

You can see imac2much relentlessly making this error in one post in particular:

"On too weak things i can hit for 180-200 but my sidewinder does 1000-1300. Last time I checked 200 x 4 = 800, which is less than that. I have never done only 4x damage of my regular shot damage on a sidewinder. "

"Suffice to say, Sidewinder does MUCH more damage than just 4 x a regular hit, so what do you have to back up the claim that it is a 'quarduple damage hit' ?"

"So are you trying to tell me your sidewinder only does 4x your regular hit damage?"

No one ever claimed Sidewinder does 4 (or 5) times the net damage of a normal hit (i.e. the same as a 4-hit Barrage). Everyone knows that is false. That was a strawman invented by other people.

[Spider-Dan]

In fact, here is an easy, straightforward way to see that the logic behind imac2much's tests didn't prove or disprove anything at all.

Take a look at Apple Pie's calculation. Other than simply verifying whether or not imac was at the ATK and STR cap, did he actually use the net damage from the normal ranged attacks in the calculation in any way? Nope.

So if the net damage amount of a normal ranged attack is totally irrelevant to Sidewinder's damage calculation, how can you possibly prove or disprove Sidewinder's multiplier by trying to crunch that number? Answer: you can't.

How bizarre that I'm getting more "STFU" replies when I'm right than when I'm wrong.

Let the tap dancing begin.

[sylvanas]

Originally posted by imac2much
Scam :dead:

He promised to lend me his Koenig.

I don't see any Koenig in my delivery box!!!

xd

shouldnt this thread be closed by now ^^'

[imac2much]

This is ridiculous Dan.

Stop trying to bring up Studio Gobli and Apple Pie's explanations when they are IRRELEVANT.

If the ingame description said 'quintuple damage' I would have disagreed with that as well. Why? Because it is not straight up quintuple damage.

S-E did not provide any formula in any shape or form.

You are conveniently taking the easy way out and trying to use something you DENIED earlier to get out of the mess you've got into.

Stop referring to Studio Gobli when it is irrelevant to your own theories.

I proved YOU wrong, and yes the ingame description as well. This has absolutely nothing to do with 5x, as has been repeated sooooooooo many times.

You nor S-E provided any formula in which 4x or 5x would work, yet YOU were the one correcting others saying it is definitely 4x.

You know what proof you had? Ingame description and theory. I proved them both wrong. This has absolutely nothing to do with Studio Gobli.

How bizarre that I'm getting more "STFU" replies when I'm right than when I'm wrong.

Didn't you think you were right this entire time until it was beaten into you? Isn't this the whole problem with your posts?

How do you know you're right? You don't. You *always* think you're right. You were wrong in this case, I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen again. You are too arrogant and haughty and even hypocritical to go about correcting others without any proof except for your own beliefs. As expected, it bit you in the ass.

In fact, I repeatedly pointed out that multiplying the damage of a normal shot by 4 (or 5) would never give you any sort of meaningful number, in response to people incessantly stating "[normal shot damage] x 4 = [not Sidewinder damage]!" iglak pointed this out as well.

So? What formula did you have? Nothing. Iglak makes a good point, but only by referring to Studio Gobli's formula. I agree with Iglak's assessment. However, this has NOTHING to do with Spider-Dan's claims, the only thing I was proving wrong. Bottom line: you ONLY had the ingame description and your theory as proof, yet you went around correcting people. I proved those wrong. This has nothing to do with Studio Gobli once again.

If you had nothing other than those 2 bits of information, and you honestly did not know HOW sidewinder could possibly be quadruple damage (no formula), then why were you going around correcting people?

If it had said quintuple damage, I wouldn't have believed it at face value either. Then again, I wouldn't have been correcting people either.

Stop making excuses and trying to use Studio Gobli and other formulae which you never referred to or even accepted. They are irrelevant to this current debate. All that happened was I proved you wrong and you refuse to admit it. You might have made a sorry attempt and saying you're 'kinda wrong... however' in a previous post, but it's obvious you still think you're right.

[neighbortaru]

OMG.

Rugal, just save your energy. Dan is as stubborn as a mule and thick as a wall. Your efforts would be more productive elsewhere.

[John Doe III]

You guys have too much time on your hands to keep quoting all this. Get a life.

Stay on the damn topic. The topic is about sa+sidewinder.. {Yes please} NOT about quad damage -1, using beserk to increase your attack, formulas, and saying STFU???? Grow up. What does any bit of this have to do with SA+Sidewinder?

After doing some testing of my own, the results that I got plugged into the formula and the predicted answer matched the real one, so I guess that's that.

The only question I have for Apple Pie is, why did you use only the Bow D for fSTR in the version of the formula you posted? The translated version of the formula in the other thread says "D" for that spot, and for the first part of the formula, you use Bow+Arrow DMG as "D."

If you include Bow+Arrow D in that slot, the TP multiplier would need to be less than 5 in order to compensate. With possible tweaking, you might end up with 4.

But essentially, that's all speculation. I don't have anywhere near the mathematical expertise to try to reverse-engineer this formula to work with x4 and bow+arrow D, so as of right now, the most reliable calculation uses x5 as the multiplier.

I'd like to point out three things, though:

1) All of the "120 x 4 = ???" objections were (and are) totally irrelevant, since 120 x 5 still doesn't match Sidewinder's real damage;
2) The translated equation given in the other thread does not work (Apple Pie supplied a different one that does);
3) In the absence of any better explanation, the best option is to go with Squenix's word.

With all that being said, yes, I was wrong, and Sidewinder's multiplier appears to be x5 (in the absence of any better equation that uses x4).

However, this doesn't change the fact that had anyone actually tried the equation given in the other thread, they would have found that it didn't work, yet no one made this objection.

Unless there is a better explanation available (which I asked for four times, and Apple Pie was nice enough to provide), it's ridiculous to just assume that Squenix is wrong by default. For every case that someone can cite where Squenix is wrong, I can cite a hundred where they aren't.

P.S. Sidewinder's animation has five "hits" (and "booms"); one when you fire, then three, then one more at the end.

OMG WHO CARES?? Did you mention SA? No.

Whoa..then imac2much is quoting to much to actually quote him! You guys should really stay on topic.

[imac2much]

Thank you Mr. Moderator.

[xcalibur2k]

Last time I checked this is a public forum.

So let the people argue. They get to practise their debate skill, and we get to learn tidbits plus some entertainment on the side.

oh, and the "no life" argument... that is seriously getting old.

Although I do agree with the topic getting sidetracked observation. Maybe this argument deseves it's own topic.