sa+sidewinder.. {Yes please}

[imac2much]

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
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.

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

Timoham already addressed this, since you can't read:

Originally posted by Timoham
HIS TESTS ARE FLAWED BECAUSE THEY ARE A HYPOTHETICAL APPLICATION OF YOUR ORIGINALLY FLAWED CONCEPT

I am evading NOTHING. You are the one constantly making excuses. My tests had one sole purpose, to disprove your theory, and it did it. You are denying it.

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.

Once again, Timoham addressed this:

Originally posted by Timoham
HIS TESTS ARE FLAWED BECAUSE THEY ARE A HYPOTHETICAL APPLICATION OF YOUR ORIGINALLY FLAWED CONCEPT

Learn to read please. The basis is flawed because it is your basis. The only thing you knew about Sidewinder was the ingame description (which I already disproved at face value), and your silly theory, which I also disproved. If you weren't sure what a working formula was, why did you go about correcting people like you did? Since you were correcting people, you must have presented some evidence for your claim right? And your evidence was your stupid 4D-X theory, which I disproved. I agree the basis is flawed, but its your basis.

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.

Again, taking things out of context. This seems to be your second expertise after your selective reading. Let's bring up the post you keep referring to:

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.

iglak is saying, compared to the other formulae from Studio Gobli, having a 5x fTP basically makes the damage increase fivefold while acting as one hit. This can ONLY be used when referring to these specific formulae, because he/she is ONLY basing this by referring to other Studio Gobli formulae. Can you understand this? I said I agree with iglak's assessment, i.e. if you compare it to the other Studio Gobli formulae, Sidewinder is 5x damage as one hit, due to the fTP modifier. This does not mean that Sidewinder is purely 5D-X, because it is NOT. If you did not have any Studio Gobli formula, 5D-X would not make SENSE.

Originally posted by imac2much
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.

That is my exact quote, which you keep referring to. Stop taking things out of context.

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.

Originally posted by Spider-Dan Only when it's called for, which is almost exclusively when someone is trying to correct others with false information. Don't believe me? Check my posts.

Your theory was incorrect. You had no backing for it. Hence you were correcting others with false information. You are doing something which you disprove of. You are a hypocrite.

After a certain point, your normal damage will not increase, no matter how much STR you add. Sidewinder's damage keeps increasing if you keep adding STR. I already said this.

No, you said my testing does not make sense because Sidewinder has no damage cap. In all my testing, Attack was always capped (just as it is in Sidewinder) and in all my testing, STR was never capped (just as it isn't in Sidewinder). Are you trying to take things out of context again?

[imac2much]

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
Does "EXACTLY" mean "dumbed down" in your language?

Cool. Taking out of context means you take a single statement without the previous or following statements which directly apply to it. This is exactly what you did here.

I already addressed this in my previous post. Look above, unless you can't read.

P.S. What, no apologies for incorrectly flaming my integrity? You said that I purposely went and changed the formula around to make my posts make sense, and I proved that I didn't. Either you can't read, didn't read the linked thread in the first place, or just can't understand numbers. How come you aren't addressing this, or are you running away again when you're wrong?

[Spider-Dan]

Originally posted by imac2much
Eh?? When did you point out ANY error in it?

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
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."

[...]

2) The translated equation given in the other thread does not work (Apple Pie supplied a different one that does);

Originally posted by Apple Pie
Yes, I did include "Arrow D" to get D95. I guess you are wondering why I didn't include "Arrow D" into fSTR2. Well, I think both Gobli and Rugal may want to add more details to their chart.

Originally posted by Apple Pie
Woops, I took a look at the one in PLD's forum but there's something missing T_T

Rugal, would you please translate and add these two lines to yours?
http://www5.sppd.ne.jp/grendal/FF11/...u/addition.gif

[imac2much]

Er, this further proves you DID NOT read the linked thread when Rones linked you to it.

I had absolutely no mention of fSTR2 in my previous thread. This only affected damage caps (different damage caps for ranged weapon skills).

Repeat: I did not have anything about damage caps in my original thread. This includes fSTR damage caps and PDIF damage caps. This also means I did not have fSTR2 since it specifies a different damage cap for ranged weapon skills.

You did not correct ANYTHING. You asked Apple Pie to explain one of the points Studio Gobli used for fSTR2, which I did NOT have in my thread.

Correcting an error would mean you yourself would have said,"But Rugal, your thread does not have damge caps!" Of course you could not say that, since you yourself said Sidewinder has NO damage cap.

Again, repeat: You did not point out ANY error in my thread. Are you trying to take credit for something you didn't do?

An analogy for the dim-witted:
Let's say I had to draw a picture of a company's logo, which consisted of a purple square with a pink circle within it. I forget to put the pink circle in it. Person A comes by and tells me I forgot the pink circle. You then say, "oh I noticed the circle is pink." Person A explains why it is. That does not mean you corrected my picture. Stop taking credit for things you didn't do. If you actually corrected my linked thread, that would have meant you were directly contradicting yourself (asking for damage caps in a weapon skill you refused to believe had damage caps).

P.S. What, no apologies for incorrectly flaming my integrity? You said that I purposely went and changed the formula around to make my posts make sense, and I proved that I didn't. Either you can't read, didn't read the linked thread in the first place, or just can't understand numbers. How come you aren't addressing this, or are you running away again when you're wrong?

[Timoham]

Look, I can selectively read and take stuff out of context like Dan.

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
I

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
Repeatedly

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
don't

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
read

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
imac's

Originally posted by Spider-Dan
posts

Amazingly it proves everything.

[Spider-Dan]

I give up. You win. (Congratulations!)

[neighbortaru]

Timohan gets teh win!

[imac2much]

This thread is so long and wordy. Anyone who reads it all deserves a cookie.

We got the closest we'll ever get to an apology from Dan (sad but true). It was fun while it lasted. I was hoping to let the thread die now :sweat:

But then again I want that win :mad: I'll see you in the boxing ring, Timoham!

[Timoham]

:dead:

[MurviD]

Originally posted by imac2much

Congratulations for realizing the point of this thread!

Ok... right... read the topic? >_<

im sry this turned out into a flame war, was not my intention.
stupid me to forget to write "and please no flames"..