sa+sidewinder.. {Yes please}

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by imac2much
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:

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!

You just agreed with iglak that Sidewinder is 5X damage, defense subtracted once.

So if your test is properly designed, replace the 4 with a 5 and everything works, right?

Thus 1739 - 280 = 1459.
D = 1459/4 = 365.
X = 365 - 280 = 85.

--

D-X = 375
5D-X = 2270
2270 - 375 = 1895
1895/4 = D = 474
X = 474 - 375 = 99
A lvl 1 worm reduced my damage by 99 points!

Oh no! Your tests don't f*cking work! Just like I've been saying for 6 pages! Or do you really think that a LV1 worm has more defense (enough to reduce a shot by 99 damage) than a LV30 sheep (enough to reduce a shot by 85 damage)?

Either your tests are broken, or Sidewinder is NOT what you just agreed it is!

And how the hell does ANY OF THIS disprove the description, as you claimed it does? The Ministry of Truth seems to have missed that little tidbit in this version of the rewrite.

Your PR campaign is pretty good, though. Even though you have thoroughly contradicted your own position (and reality), no one seems to have noticed.

[imac2much]

Hahahahahaha!!

Actually, to be honest, that was the funniest response so far from you Dan.

Do you know WHY my tests don't work? Need a hint?

Because they are using YOUR logic. You are just reinforcing the fact that your logic is flawed.

Don't you even GET it? Studio Gobli didn't use the 5D-X theory. That theory is obviously too simple to be correct anyway. They used a DIFFERENT THEORY.

They have a totally separate formula which you refused to believe.

The only formula I was using in the tests was Spider-Dan's Formula.

Can you even grasp this? How come you aren't even responding to the fact you were also wrong that Sidewinder is capped? How come you are ignoring so much of all my posts, and only selectively reading parts that don't totally destroy your credibility?

Do you honestly deny you are a hypocrite? Honestly?

Okay, since I think you skip most of people's posts anyway, and only read parts of it, I hope you at least read this part:

Stop bringing up 5x and crap into this. The only thing I have been doing was proving you and your theory wrong. I have driven this point home like 100 times, to the point other forum readers are getting exasperated and reminding you of the point. Yet you still try to ignore it.

I agree with some of the 5x multiplier theories WHEN used with the proper formula. Not your formula, but Studio Gobli's (which, once again, you refused to believe).

All you offered was your theory, which I proved wrong. I didn't do anything to prove 5x right, nor did I want to. I wasn't the one going around correcting people to begin with.

Can your feeble mind grasp this logic? Am I going too fast for you?

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
Your PR campaign is pretty good, though. Even though you have thoroughly contradicted your own position (and reality), no one seems to have noticed.

Is this your pathetic attempt at saying "I'm right and everyone else is wrong, no matter what!"?

[Rones]

Oh no! Your tests don't f*cking work! Just like I've been saying for 6 pages!

They fact that they don't work is the proof your theory didn't work. If they had worked your theory would have actually been right.

Here's a simplier case:
6X = 30 (where X is a variable)
Someone theories X = 2.
So we do a test: 6 * 2 = 18 =/= 30
The test didn't work, meaning the theory was wrong. If the test had worked, the theory would have been right such as:
X=5 6*5 = 30 = 30 Test worked, so the theory was right.

Or do you really think that a LV1 worm has more defense (enough to reduce a shot by 99 damage) than a LV30 sheep (enough to reduce a shot by 85 damage)?

If you scroll back up you will see he got the same results on his other test. The worm would have reduced more dmg than the sheep if the theory had been true. But of course no one belives that is the case, yet you would have to if you wanted to support Dan's theory.

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by imac2much
Actually, to be honest, that was the funniest response so far from you Dan.

Do you know WHY my tests don't work? Need a hint?

Because they are using YOUR logic. You are just reinforcing the fact that your logic is flawed.

Wait, so now 5x damage, subtract defense once is flawed? Then please explain the following:

Originally posted by 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.

Originally posted by imac2much
I agree with Iglak's assessment.

Make up your mind! Is it 5x damage, defense subtracted once, or not?

If you agree that the true calculation is 5x damage, defense subtracted once, then that proves that the foundation for your test does not apply. How can you possibly claim that your test "logically disproves" my theory if it also "logically disproves" what we know to be fact? If the true calculation can't even pass your test, what the hell do you expect from anything else?

P.S. I'm still waiting for you to explain how your tests disprove the description, as you claimed.

[imac2much]

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
Wait, so now 5x damage, subtract defense once is flawed?

If that was ALL you had to say, yes. Yes it would be.

Dammit Dan, stop going off on tangents to try to save your hide. You're still ignoring the majority of my posts anyway.

With the formulas you provided, your theory does not work.

If all you had said was '5x damage, subtract defense once', then yes. Yes, that would be wrong.

Do you know why Iglak and I agree that that is actually what happens? You probably don't know since you have such extremely selective reading so allow me to reiterate:

Originally posted by iglak
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.

They key phrase here for the extremely slow witted is: looking over the formula. This ONLY works if you are taking the formula into account. Iglak is saying, compared to other WS, the 5 on the fTP multiplier is basically allowing a higher multiplier with the defense checks only being calculated once. This ONLY works on the formula Studio Gobli provided, which I remind you, you refused to accept even though it was provided on the 2nd page.

Why do you keep dancing around everything? You still don't admit you're a hypocrite. You still don't admit you were wrong when you said Sidewinder is uncapped.

You are pulling sentences and quotes out of context to attempt to save face. Do you really think I or any other forum reader is ignorant enough to ignore context when looking at quotes? Not everyone has selective reading like you Dan. Most people can read.

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
P.S. I'm still waiting for you to explain how your tests disprove the description, as you claimed.

What's the point? I already did, you just don't ever acknowledge it because of your selective reading. How many times do I have to say this:
The description cannot be taken at face value. All it says is quadruple damage, which it isn't.

Originally posted by imac2much
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.

Just an example. I basically explained it in every other post I made.

P.S. I'm still waiting for you to admit you were a hypocrite and an arrogant elitist. I'm still waiting for you to admit that the very evidence you keep citing as truth was provided to you on page 2 by Rones, but you waved it off because it didn't agree with your theory (the only difference is damage caps). I'm still waiting for you to admit that even though you admitted your silly theory was wrong, you immediately corrected people with incorrect information again: saying that Sidewinder is uncapped. I'm still waiting...

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by imac2much
If all you had said was '5x damage, subtract defense once', then yes. Yes, that would be wrong.

...even though it's true!

OMFG. I cannot stop laughing.

So according to you, if I say something that is a FACT, and later data confirms that it is a FACT, it is WRONG when I say it, because a broken test (that contradicts the later FACTUAL DATA) says so!

Are you serious???

They key phrase here for the extremely slow witted is: looking over the formula. This ONLY works if you are taking the formula into account.

Again, I can't believe what I'm reading. So before we read over this formula, Sidewinder WASN'T doing 5x damage minus 1x defense? And then once we read the formula, it magically started doing that?

Your tests clearly "disprove" that Sidewinder is 5x damage minus 1x defense. But we know that 5x minus 1x is true. And yet your tests are somehow also not wrong? ROTFL.

This is a simple question. Does the logic behind your tests match up to what we KNOW to be fact, right now?

The answer is no. Therefore, your tests are wrong.

There is no way to get around this. Either your tests are wrong, or they are not. If they are not, then apply them to Sidewinder as 5x minus 1x.

You keep referring to the formula as if that's an excuse for why your tests are wrong. It's not an excuse, it's the PROOF that they are wrong. Your tests were just as flawed before Apple Pie's posts; there just wasn't definitive data to prove it.

Apple Pie's posts proved your tests wrong just as much as his posts proved my theory wrong. You can't wriggle out of this.

[imac2much]

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
So according to you, if I say something that is a FACT, and later data confirms that it is a FACT, it is WRONG when I say it, because a broken test (that contradicts the later FACTUAL DATA) says so!

Dan, will you start reading EVERYTHING in posts, instead of taking every damn thing out of context? Stop being such a selective reader!

Originally posted by imac2much
I don't care whether you want to believe it is 4x or 5x at all.

Originally posted by imac2much
This is now the 17th or so time I am saying this.

I never corrected anyone saying it is 5x.

You were the one presenting your silly theory of 4x.

I proved it wrong.

This has absolutely nothing to do with 5x or not.

All you had was your theory. I proved it wrong. I did this because it was ridiculous for you to go around correcting people with information that was not necessarily fact: you had no testing nor backing for it.

I said this so many times: I was proving your theories and formula wrong. If all you said was quintuple damage -1 defense, that would be wrong if that's all you had. The backing and formula makes all the difference. If you look at the formula, there are several other factors than just 'quintuple damage -1 enemy defense'... a lot more. You failed to mention any of these factors.

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
Your tests clearly "disprove" that Sidewinder is 5x damage minus 1x defense. But we know that 5x minus 1x is true. And yet your tests are somehow also not wrong?

You're not good with numbers are you? The formula has several more variables other than just 5D-X. You did not account for any of them. Saying it is "in essence, quintuple damage with defense calculated once" is saying it in dummy's terms... is that the only thing you can understand?

LOL. Out of context? Are you saying you actually DON'T think it's 5x minus 1x? Judging by this post, I'd say no.

It isn't at face value. You have to look at several other factors, it is not just a straight up 5D-X equation. Iglak was comparing the sidewinder formula to other similar WS of the same formula to come to that conclusion.

Does "quadruple damage on one hit" mean the same thing as "the total damage of four hits"? Nope.

At face value, all it means is quadruple damage. At face value, damage is just that. Damage.

If the correct formula was provided on page 2 by Rones, why did Apple Pie later ask you to fix it for fSTR2? Hmmm.

Originally posted by imac2much
I'm still waiting for you to admit that the very evidence you keep citing as truth was provided to you on page 2 by Rones, but you waved it off because it didn't agree with your theory (the only difference is damage caps).

Originally posted by imac2much
As for the difference between fSTR and fSTR2, they have different caps:

fSTR = from 0 to (D / 9) + 8
fSTR2 = from 0 to fSTR*2
Note: fSTR [(D / 9) + 8] doesn't count "Arrow D"

Try reading.

How many times do I have to repeat myself? My tests were doing only one thing: Proving your theories wrong. It doesn't matter what the correct multiplier was or wasn't, I said countless times that wasn't my concern. I wasn't the one going around correcting people. I was proving you WRONG. And you still deny it.

Any idiot can take quotes out of context to go on tangents that have no relevance to the debate. Stop trying to impress people with your ability to dodge the subject.

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
yes, I was wrong

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
This is ancient information.

Anyone can take quotes out of context. I wish those two quotes were true in conjunction. Alas, they are out of context, and so the sad reality is that you still won't admit you were wrong.

Apple Pie's posts proved your tests wrong just as much as his posts proved my theory wrong.

My tests had nothing to do with determing the true multiplier. All my tests were doing was PROVING YOU WRONG. What does Studio Gobli's equations have to do with proving you wrong?

Let's say you know three people, and their names are Bob, Bill and Ted. You know Person A is Bob, but you don't know Person B's name. Do I have to know Person B's name to come to realization that Person B is NOT BOB?

I don't have to prove anything correct, just to prove you wrong. All I have to do is take what you've given me, and show that it doesn't work. This has nothing to do with any other equation out there.

You can't wriggle out of this.

Funny, I haven't been on the defensive this entire thread. I'm not the one correcting people without any proof. I'm correcting you only because you thought you your words were fact when they weren't. You had nothing to back your words up.

P.S. I'm still waiting for you to admit you were a hypocrite and an arrogant elitist. I'm still waiting for you to admit that the very evidence you keep citing as truth was provided to you on page 2 by Rones, but you waved it off because it didn't agree with your theory (the only difference is damage caps). I'm still waiting for you to admit that even though you admitted your silly theory was wrong, you immediately corrected people with incorrect information again: saying that Sidewinder is uncapped. I'm still waiting...

[Timoham]

HIS TESTS ARE FLAWED BECAUSE THEY ARE A HYPOTHETICAL APPLICATION OF YOUR ORIGINALLY FLAWED CONCEPT

How you can selective read that, I have no clue. But give it a try.

[Rones]

Wait, so now 5x damage, subtract defense once is flawed?
...
Your tests clearly "disprove" that Sidewinder is 5x damage minus 1x defense. But we know that 5x minus 1x is true. And yet your tests are somehow also not wrong? ROTFL.

When I read this it comes across as wrong. From what I'm reading it looks like you are saying this:
(dmg from your attack*5 - mob def)

I don't have quite the understanding of the actual formula imac or ApplePie do, but when I look at the formula that we all later agreed on, I'm not seeing that. Defense is never subtracted anywhere inside the equation, rather it is used as a ratio in conjunction with your attack that is multiplied across the entire equation, look at the formula again:

Physical WS Damage Calculation:
WD: Base damage of your WS
D: Base damage of your weapon (e.g., Espadon = 43)
fSTR: difference between your STR and target's VIT. This can be capped (see below).
WSC: Secondary attribute like STR_30 (30% of your STR).
fTP: Multiplier (Please see chart below).
PDIF: (your ATK/target’s DEF) Caps at 2.4 for melee attacks and 3 for ranged attacks.
fSTR = from 0 to (D / 9) + 8
fSTR2 = from 0 to fSTR*2
Note: fSTR [(D / 9) + 8] doesn't count "Arrow D"

Ranged Damage = WD * PDIF = ((D + fSTR2 + WSC) * fTP) * PDIF

Since ftp is 5 for sidewinder you can rewrite the equation as follows by the very definition of multiplication:
((D + fSTR2 + WSC) + (D + fSTR2 + WSC) + (D + fSTR2 + WSC) + (D + fSTR2 + WSC) + (D + fSTR2 + WSC)) * PDIF
Simplier case: 2 x 3 x 4 = (2 + 2 + 2) x 4

What this comes down to is the def is applied as many times as needed since it is a ratio and not a set amount being subtracted. Dan's theory how ever treats def as a set amount that is subtracted like some kind of damage resistance (eg: stoneskin). This causes imac's tests to not work even when treated with a x5 attack not because his experiment is wrong, its that the theory was wrong (which involved subtracting def).

[imac2much]

Studio Gobli's formula also factors in several things that Dan's theory didn't, such as your level (yes supposedly that affects your WS damage too, read the formula) and secondary stats (varies from WS to WS, in this case it can be STR + AGI or AGI depending on archery or markmanship).

Dan's theory does not address any of this. Iglak's interpretation was just a dumbed down version, which is fine. But it's not the exact same thing.

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by imac2much
I said this so many times: I was proving your theories and formula wrong.

And as I have said multiple times, your tests didn't prove anything wrong, because they don't even match up to what even you later said was the case.

You're not good with numbers are you? The formula has several more variables other than just 5D-X. You did not account for any of them. Saying it is "in essence, quintuple damage with defense calculated once" is saying it in dummy's terms... is that the only thing you can understand?

Look, either 5x-1x defense is right, or it is not. You already said that you agree with it. Now you're trying to take it back by saying that it's "dumbed down." Right.

So if it is really "dumbed down" (read: not accurate), why did you agree with it? More backtracking.

It isn't at face value. You have to look at several other factors, it is not just a straight up 5D-X equation. Iglak was comparing the sidewinder formula to other similar WS of the same formula to come to that conclusion.

EXACTLY. That is the entire point!

Let's take two WSes. One has a 1x multiplier, and the other one has a 5x multiplier. According to you, it would be "wrong" to call the one that has a 5x multiplier "quintuple damage."

At face value, all it means is quadruple damage. At face value, damage is just that. Damage.

Your test cannot possibly disprove the description on this basis. There's no way for you to know whether the description refers to multiplying a normal shot, or the base damage of a WS (as it actually does).

Originally posted by imac2much
As for the difference between fSTR and fSTR2, they have different caps:

fSTR = from 0 to (D / 9) + 8
fSTR2 = from 0 to fSTR*2
Note: fSTR [(D / 9) + 8] doesn't count "Arrow D"

Try reading.

I am seriously floored that you are this f*cking dishonest.

You EDITED your post in the other thread after Apple Pie corrected you in THIS thread, which came AFTER I pointed it out! Look at the timestamps!

I mentioned to Apple Pie that the formula in your thread didn't have the Arrow damage removed, and he told you to update it.

This post proves everything I just said.

Now you've resorted to lying and quoting edited posts to try to prove a point. You have zero integrity.

My tests had nothing to do with determing the true multiplier. All my tests were doing was PROVING YOU WRONG. What does Studio Gobli's equations have to do with proving you wrong?

And as I've been saying, your tests don't prove or disprove anything at all, because the logic behind them can be used to "disprove" even theories that are known to work.

Once again, your tests are designed around multiplying the net damage of a normal hit and crunching that number to determine if it matches Sidewinder's. The net damage amount of a normal hit tells you nothing about what damage Sidewinder will do (this is proven). Not once did I claim that it would, and in fact, every time someone started number crunching a normal hit, I objected to it.

I'm still waiting for you to admit that the very evidence you keep citing as truth was provided to you on page 2 by Rones, but you waved it off because it didn't agree with your theory (the only difference is damage caps).

Of course it's correct NOW. You went and edited it after I pointed out the error in it, and now you're trying to throw that at me like it's my mistake? What a joke.

[John Doe III]

Wow...you guys are on the debate team I assume?

[imac2much]

Originally posted by Spider-Dan

Of course it's correct NOW. You went and edited it after I pointed out the error in it, and now you're trying to throw that at me like it's my mistake? What a joke.

Your posts aren't even worth responding to anymore because everyone already knows that you were wrong and you just don't want to admit it. But I can't believe you're so ignorant you said this.

I *KNOW* I changed the post. Go to the thread, look at the later replies, they are me SAYING that I changed it, acknowledging that I forgot the damage caps.

Which is why I said this:

Originally posted by imac2much
I'm still waiting for you to admit that the very evidence you keep citing as truth was provided to you on page 2 by Rones, but you waved it off because it didn't agree with your theory (the only difference is damage caps).

Can you even READ? We all know you suffer from selective reading, but do you even realize that I acknowledged the thread DIDN'T HAVE THE DAMAGE CAPS. Please learn how to read before you make a fool out of yourself... yet again.

Seriously, you need debate lessons. The way to win a debate is not by acknowledging only 20% of someone's post.

Before accusing me of integrity deficiencies (hypocritical yet again), learn to read. I repeatedly said my previous thread on the topic DID NOT have the damage caps. I said this at least 5 times. Can you read? Seriously, come on!

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
And as I've been saying, your tests don't prove or disprove anything at all, because the logic behind them can be used to "disprove" even theories that are known to work.

No it doesn't. The theories that are known to work have their own formulae. They don't use your stupid 4D-X theory (yes this is your theory, I just used variables to put it in a mathematical format, if you're too dense to realize it). Studio Gobli have their OWN formula, which is DIFFERENT from anything I used in my tests.

My tests only disprove one thing: your theory.

What more excuses do you have left? So far the only thing you've been doing is taking things out of context or just analyzing things completely wrong, then trying to defend yourself. But you say I'm on the defensive? Riiight....

P.S. I'm still waiting for you to admit you were a hypocrite and an arrogant elitist. I'm still waiting for you to admit that the very evidence you keep citing as truth was provided to you on page 2 by Rones, but you waved it off because it didn't agree with your theory (the only difference is damage caps). I'm still waiting for you to admit that even though you admitted your silly theory was wrong, you immediately corrected people with incorrect information again: saying that Sidewinder is uncapped. I'm still waiting...

[imac2much]

And for the slow-witted, here are the changes I made to that thread, which can be referred to here:
http://www.ffxionline.com/forums/sho...threadid=47276

Apple Pie informed I was missing some information about the fSTR damage caps:

Originally posted by Apple Pie
Anyway, the base damage (WD) of weapon skills is calculated in this way.

Melee WD: (D + fSTR + WS)
Ranged WD: (D + fSTR2 + WS)

fSTR = from 0 to (D / 9) + 8
fSTR2 = from 0 to fSTR*2
Note: fSTR [(D / 9) + 8] doesn't count "Arrow D"

Here are the initial changes I made to the thread:

Originally posted by imac2much
fSTR: difference between your STR and target's VIT. This can be capped (see below).
...
PDIF: (your ATK/target’s DEF) Caps at 2.4 for melee attacks and 3 for ranged attacks.

Actual Damage of WS is then calculated in this way.
Melee Damage = WD * PDIF = ((D + fSTR + WSC) * fTP) * PDIF
Ranged Damage = WD * PDIF = ((D + fSTR2 + WSC) * PDIF

As for the difference between fSTR and fSTR2, they have different caps:

fSTR = from 0 to (D / 9) + 8
fSTR2 = from 0 to fSTR*2
Note: fSTR [(D / 9) + 8] doesn't count "Arrow D"

Multiply everything by 1.25 if counted as a critical attack (or if sneak attack was added with THF subjob).

I added information about fSTR and information about PDIF caps.

Here is the update post I made to show the changes:

Originally posted by imac2much
Thanks to Apple Pie, I added some information that I missed out on earlier. This is information on the *damage caps* for each WS.

There is a damage cap for PDIF (ATK<->DEF) check; for melee WS it is 2.4, for ranged it is 3.

There is a damage cap for fSTR and fSTR2 as well (STR<->VIT check).

Hope this clears some things up.

In the next post, Rones pointed out that I forgot to include the fTP multiplier in the ranged damage equation (which was newly added in the first update), so I added that:

Originally posted by Rones
Was just looking over these old formulaes and noticed the fTP is missing from the Ranged Damage formula. Was this an accident? Should it be like this instead?
Ranged Damage = WD * PDIF = ((D + fSTR2 + WSC) * fTP) * PDIF

This is all about DAMAGE CAPS, which, by the way, you said did NOT exist for Sidewinder.

Learn how to read before trying to defame someone's integrity. The fact that you even mentioned this proves one of three things, or perhaps all of the above:
1) You don't read entire posts.
2) You did not even read the thread when it was linked to you in Rones' response on Page2. Why did you refuse to accept it then?
3) You cannot comprehend simple numerical formulae. fSTR and PDIF only affect damage caps in this case, which you said did not exist for Sidewinder.

Also, I have to point this out again for hilarity's sake:

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
You went and edited it after I pointed out the error in it

Eh?? When did you point out ANY error in it? The thing I changed involved damage caps: which you stated did not exist for sidewinder. fSTR and PDIF only affected damage caps in all my examples. You pointed out NO such error. Are you just making things up now?

I think after this thread Dan will be famous for his selective reading.

P.S. I'm still waiting for you to admit you were a hypocrite and an arrogant elitist. I'm still waiting for you to admit that the very evidence you keep citing as truth was provided to you on page 2 by Rones, but you waved it off because it didn't agree with your theory (the only difference is damage caps). I'm still waiting for you to admit that even though you admitted your silly theory was wrong, you immediately corrected people with incorrect information again: saying that Sidewinder is uncapped. I'm still waiting...

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by imac2much
Can you even READ? We all know you suffer from selective reading, but do you even realize that I acknowledged the thread DIDN'T HAVE THE DAMAGE CAPS.

I'm sorry, I thought you were trying to make a point there, but apparently you were not. I said the formula was broken, and it was broken. If Apple Pie had used the formula Rones cited, his answer would have come out wrong. It would not have worked.

Seriously, you need debate lessons. The way to win a debate is not by acknowledging only 20% of someone's post.

You're repeatedly trying to deflect the topic away from your tests. I'm trying to keep you from doing it.

My tests only disprove one thing: your theory.

The basis behind your tests is fatally flawed. Once again, multiplying net damage can't tell you anything about Sidewinder's damage (a point I have made over and over), we know this to be a fact from the working formula, and yet you think that your tests prove something.

What more excuses do you have left? So far the only thing you've been doing is taking things out of context or just analyzing things completely wrong, then trying to defend yourself. But you say I'm on the defensive? Riiight....

Based on the fact that you agreed that Sidewinder is 5D-X, and are now saying that it isn't, yes, I'd say so.

And since you really seem to want me address this part:

P.S. I'm still waiting for you to admit you were a hypocrite and an arrogant elitist.

I wasn't being hypocritical. I said that I would "flame" a reply with no evidence. The only way I would be a hypocrite is if I complained about being flamed, myself.

Arrogant elitist? Fine. What does this prove? I already said as much.

I'm still waiting for you to admit that the very evidence you keep citing as truth was provided to you on page 2 by Rones, but you waved it off because it didn't agree with your theory (the only difference is damage caps).

See, you confused me right here, because this is curiously disguised like a point. The "only difference" is that one of them works, and the other one (the one Rones cited) does not. That's the difference.

I'm still waiting for you to admit that even though you admitted your silly theory was wrong, you immediately corrected people with incorrect information again: saying that Sidewinder is uncapped.

[edit: I originally disputed this point, but I don't want to pull an imac and backtrack/redefine everything I already said. So I'll just concede that even though Sidewinder's damage will always increase if you keep adding STR, it does have a partial cap.]

P.S. I'm still waiting for YOU to admit to your flip-flopping (twice!) on whether or not Sidewinder is (multiplier) - (1x defense).

Originally posted by 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.

Originally posted by imac2much
I agree with Iglak's assessment.

Does "EXACTLY" mean "dumbed down" in your language?