sa+sidewinder.. {Yes please}

[imac2much]

Hehe, it's been accepted already Kastel.

[sylvanas]

Originally posted by John Doe III
Practise = Practice. They have no life.

[TheMidg]

Important information down below regarding the first post of this thread:









































NO

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by imac2much
Stop trying to bring up Studio Gobli and Apple Pie's explanations when they are IRRELEVANT.

Nice smokescreen. The actual, true damage calculation is "irrelevant" to whether or not your tests actually prove something? Good one. Maybe someone will buy that.

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

And you would be wrong. Period.

Again, look at the true damage formula for Sidewinder, as posted by Apple Pie:

(95 + 31 + 26) x 3 x 5 = 2280

As we already know, the fTP multiplier for Sidewinder is 5. That is what is being quintupled. If the description said "quintuple damage" then it would be perfectly accurate, because the WS calculation is directly being multiplied by 5. Does the description say anything about WHAT is being multiplied? I didn't think so.

Your problem is that you think "quintuple damage" means "the same damage as a 5-hit barrage." This is simply ludicrous. There is no way that this would work on a 1-hit WS, which is why (shock! awe!) you cannot figure out Sidewinder's damage using the net damage of a normal hit!

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

It has EVERYTHING to do with the TRUE CALCULATION of Sidewinder. The actual formula for Sidewinder PROVES that you cannot calculate its damage by multiplying normal hits. Therefore, your whole line of testing (in which you try to do precisely that) is broken and useless.

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.

WTF?!?!?!

So you agree that Sidewinder is quintuple damage, defense subtracted once! That means that all your attempts to multiply normal hits (which have defense subtracted on each hit!) are out-and-out wrong! You're contradicting your own tests!

The bottom line is that while Apple Pie's corrected formula did disprove my theory, it simultaneously showed that your tests were entirely irrelevant. Your tests obsess over the net damage of a normal hit, which doesn't even factor into Sidewinder's calculation.

[imac2much]

Your selective reading boggles my mind Dan.

How many times do I have to repeat this? Seriously?

I was not performing tests determining itsmultiplier. I was performing tests to prove whether YOUR theories were right or wrong.

I proved them wrong. That's all there is to it. You are just beating around the bush.

And as much as I respect Apple Pie, why do you keep citing him and "his" formula? This is the exact same formula that Rones cited in his response to you. It is Studio Gobli's formula. The only thing different is that he added the damage caps (which you said didn't exist for sidewinder, by the way). But the basic formula remains the same, since in an XP PT you won't hit those damage caps.

You are citing the very same formula that you DISAGREED with.

Allow me to spell this out for you, once again.

Studio Gobli provided their own very in depth formula and testing. I would not and did not disagree with it.

You provided your silly theory and an ingame description that syas "quadruple damage". Taken at face value, that is incorrect. What else is incorrect at face value in this game? Bonuses from Leaping boots are correct at face value. Why are you suddenly giving it some kind of benefit of the doubt that it involves a mysterious equation and formula to which you have no idea of?

Next since you wre the one correcting people, yet the description couldn't be taken at face value, you provided your silly theory and stated it as fact. I proved this wrong.

My testing had nothing to do with determing the true multiplier. All I was doing was proving you wrong. Can you understand this concept at all, or do you want to make some more excuses?

You were an arrogant hypocrite correcting others with false information.

[poweryoga]

I can do selective reading just like dan.

you're

wrong

you're

useless

[Timoham]

We should take this to the ring. Friday night fights In this corner, Rugal with his legendary Retarded Theory Cutter. In that corner Spider-Dan with the power of Numbers Pulled from his Ass! SIEG HEIL ASS NUMBER! Who will win? Tune in tonight.

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by imac2much
How many times do I have to repeat this? Seriously?

I was not performing tests determining itsmultiplier. I was performing tests to prove whether YOUR theories were right or wrong.

According to you, you also disproved the description, remember? The description says nothing BUT a multiplier. So how exactly did you disprove the description (as you have claimed multiple times) if your tests don't determine the multiplier? Disproving that the multiplier is 4x requires you to determine that it is something (anything) else, ruling out 4x by elimination.

My testing had nothing to do with determing the true multiplier. All I was doing was proving you wrong.

You're joking, right? You just blasted a huge hole in your tests.

If your tests really have nothing to do with determining the multiplier, please tell me what conclusion you can possibly reach WITHOUT referencing a multiplier. Seeing as how you referenced a multiplier no less than FOUR TIMES in your tests, this should be good for a laugh.

I'm not being facetious, either. Please show me exactly how you can get any sort of meaning out of your tests without taking the net damage of a normal shot and multiplying it by four. That was the entire basis of your tests!

At least I could admit when I was wrong. I find it hilariously ironic that you turned out to be far more obstinate.

In summary:

1) Your tests say, "Normal shot * 4 = proof Dan (and the description) are wrong"
2) We now know for a fact that "Normal shot * [any number]" gives you a totally meaningless answer (with regard to Sidewinder)

Unless you dispute the above, your tests are bunk, by definition. The logic behind them is hopelessly flawed.

Still waiting for you to come clean...

[Rones]

Hmm, I feel like pulling a Dan and calling smokescreen. Imac says he proved your theory wrong with his tests. You are nit picking the experiment like you always do (eg: my delay discussion), but this is just a smokescreen for the fact you have provided nothing to even support your theory: "4 attacks with def only subtracted once". So stop whining over Imac's experiment unless you can provide a better one that would support your theory, unless you want to admit your theory is bunk. Then you arguing merely for the sake of arguing which is just pety.

According to you, you also disproved the description, remember? The description says nothing BUT a multiplier. So how exactly did you disprove the description (as you have claimed multiple times) if your tests don't determine the multiplier?

That's just a flaw in logic and is quite possible. A simplier case for you: We are trying to find the variable 'x'. Someone says its 4. Imac could in theory disprove that the number is 4 without actually knowing what the value is beyond it not being 4.

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by Rones
So stop whining over Imac's experiment unless you can provide a better one that would support your theory, unless you want to admit your theory is bunk.

I admitted that my theory was bunk 4 pages ago, after Apple Pie provided a calculation that worked perfectly. RTFT.

It's imac that can't admit that his tests are thoroughly broken, by the very same formula that breaks my theory.

That's just a flaw in logic and is quite possible. A simplier case for you: We are trying to find the variable 'x'. Someone says its 4. Imac could in theory disprove that the number is 4 without actually knowing what the value is beyond it not being 4.

In order to disprove 4 as a multiplier, you have to use it in a formula and show that it doesn't work. This would be determining through testing that the number is definitely something other than 4.

You can try to determine what something is, or you can try to determine what something is NOT. Both cases are still "determining."

[imac2much]

Haha, this is hilarious. Dan, it's obvious to everyone you're just struggling to try to save face. You are just trying to defame me because I proved you wrong and you don't want to admit it. You are saying "omg noz imac did not prove me wrong, apple pie did" because for some reason that makes you feel better.

Apple Pie is a great person. However, what he did, was provide evidence why the 5x multiplier works. This indirectly proved you wrong, but I already did that several pages back.

Besides, your selective reading strikes again. Why won't you admit that this isn't even Apple Pie's formula? Rones brought it up in his VERY reply after yours. The only thing missing was damage caps. So what? We were even talking about xp PT sidewinders at the time. You do not hit damage caps when xping. Also, you are not even admitting that you were wrong AGAIN when you kept claiming that Sidewinder has no damage cap. What's wrong? Not addressing that point because of your selective reading again? Maybe any time you're proven wrong you just ignore it, thinking it will look better the next day.

This is funny since it's a totally one-sided debate, yet you are struggling tooth and nail trying to perserve your ego. Who are you trying to impress, really?

I did not prove any multiplier. You know why, right (or do I have to repeat myself again? Please learn to read. This is getting annoying.)

You would have to provide a formula where the multiplier works. In the lack of a formula, the description "quadruple damage" means exactly that: QUADRUPLE DAMAGE. When Leaping Boots say AGI+3, DEX+3, it doesn't mean that they equal that when there's a full moon and only with a certain formula. You take it at face value unless you have another formula provided to you.

You had no such other formula. Thus, all you can do is take it at face value. Hence my initial "normal shot * 4" tests. To counter this you had your stupid "quad damage - 1 enemey defense". Why do you even ignore the fact I proved your stupid and arrogant theory wrong? Selective reading again?

My latter tests all proved that "4x damage - 1 enemy defense" didn't work. That was your stupid theory. I proved this wrong long before anyone proved the 5x formula right. If you had another formula where 4x somehow works, you sure kept it a secret from us.

I proved you wrong. You refused to admit it until someone came along to which your ego could admit defeat. You just didn't want to admit to Rones, me, or anyone who actually argues with you, that you were wrong. I did not correct ANYONE until you came along, I had no formula or claim to prove.

If the description said "quintuple damage", I probably would not have trusted it at face value. However, I likewise would not be arrogant enough to correct others without knowing for sure what's going on. That's exactly what you did.

It's not about what you believe or anything really. It's the sad fact that you are correcting people with incorrect information that you consider fact just because you believe it. Because of this, I proved you wrong. The majority of the people here don't even care whether it is 4x or 5x. It's just funny when haughty pompous people like you who like to correct others get shot down.

Besides, again with the selective reading: you do know you're a hypocrite right? Regardless of the direction of this argument, you still corrected people with incorrect information. When are you going to 'fess up?

[imac2much]

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
Please show me exactly how you can get any sort of meaning out of your tests without taking the net damage of a normal shot and multiplying it by four.

For the slow-witted, I will recap exactly where I proved your theory wrong. The numbers were all there, but I guess you need someone to pound it into your skull before you get it. You keep claiming that all I said was "omgz sidewinder is more than 4 regular shots lolz" when I didn't just do that.

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

This is your theory. Don't deny it, you repeated it several times.

Let's say Damage = D, and enemy defense = X. This is for a very simple formula, since your theory is simple as well.

This is taken from Page 5, from my Tavnazian Sheep test:

Originally posted by imac2much
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.

Now, the normal shots of 280 were not capped, obviously, but still consistent. Thus let's call a normal shot in your theory: D-X. There is a damage number, but defense is subtracted from it. (Mind you, this is not how I am saying damage actually works, because it's obvious it's more complicated, but this is all that you provided in your evidence to correct people).

Now for sidewinder, according to your theory, it should be 4D-X.

To compare 4D-X and D-X, just take the difference.

Namely, (4D-X) - (D-X) = 3D.

Thus 1739 - 280 = 1459.
D = 1459/3 = 486.
X = 486 - 280 = 206.

So you are basically saying a level 30 sheep that is Too Weak has enough defense to reduce my damage by over 200 points a shot.

Another example:

Originally posted by imac2much
Regular hit = 375 (extremely consistent)
Sidewinder = 2265 ~ 2275
375 x 4 = 1500

D-X = 375
4D-X = 2270
2270 - 375 = 1895
1895/3 = D = 632
X = 632 - 375 = 257
A lvl 1 worm reduced my damage by 257 points!
Don't even bring up the thing about damage caps here. You were wrong again when you said Sidewinder didn't have a damage cap. It caps your ATK<->DEF and STR<->VIT checks like I said. The only place it doesn't cap is very marginal increases in secondary stat bonuses when you increase STR. Well my STR obviously wasn't capped on lvl 1 worms since using a Meat mithka increased my damage.

The numbers were all there, and I thought it would be obvious to you. I guess you need everything spoonfed into your mouth. Your theory basically says that lvl 1 worms have 250+ points reduced by defense and lvl 30 sheep have 200+ points reduced by defense. Hell, I didn't know lvl 1 noobs could do enough damage to pierce 250 points worth of defense!

All this is proven WITHOUT studio gobli or any other formula. The only thing you need to disprove a given theory (yours) is evidence that it doesn't work. I don't have to prove a secondary theory just to prove yours wrong.

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
2) We now know for a fact that "Normal shot * [any number]" gives you a totally meaningless answer (with regard to Sidewinder)

The ONLY reason I did this was included in the disclaimer in my tests: The monsters were TWTBW (for heaven's sake, one of them was a worm) so that their defense is negligible.

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.

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.
...
These sheep are pretty low level, probably around 30 or so. Suffice to say, they have been TWTBW for a while.

As X approaches 0, Sidewinder will = 4D and normal shot = D. Thus, Sidewinder = 4x normal shot as defense is negligible.

Still need someone to hold your hand or can you walk on your own now?

[John Doe III]

Who cares.

[Kastel]

i hit damage caps on the dhamels in bibiki bay when they used berserk ._.

let's just agree to disagree, this thread could go on forever at this rate, Sidewinder isnt based on any formula, except the, "i wonder how much this next WS is going to drop this mob's life, ::mob splats::haha, love being a rng"

[imac2much]

I agree this thread may go on forever. Frankly the only thing in debate right now seems to be Dan's credibility. Since everyone except himself know where that stands, the posts are one-sided. However, it's still entertaining to see how he tries to claw out of the hole he dug himself.