Printable View
A continuation and maybe a summation of this:
EHP diminishes the RNG associated with the stochastic nature of boss hits and heals
Avoidance diminishes the RNG associated with lethal hit strings because we're rarely talking about 1 hit here, it's several, and the math behind that gets bloody really quick.
Look, if you want to critique what I chose to write about then take it to PMs or write your own article.
And you're also ignoring my counterpoints.
Sounds like some people want to get waaaay to nitpicky and start semantics wars over a concept that should actually be pretty intuitive right out of the box.
Also, nice article!
I guess me spending days on end dealing with this stuff to the point where I was talking with college professors that teach graduate level stats classes isn't enough for some people, apparently I needed to goto the english and philosophy departments too.
I don't really want to argue with you Bovinity but if you are talking about theorycraft, you can't really go 'Oh well this statement is not true or justified by the logic used, however, if we just change what the words mean and say it's about semantics, it's correct'. That's the nature of scrutinising mathematical theory or logic which is what is being used in this thread. Any false statement could be argued to be true if you change the meaning of the words.
Saying 'dodge is RNG, stam isn't' because of the reasons given is not a question of slightly iffy semantics, it is simply a false conclusion to draw using that logic.
I'm sorry but at the end of the day, only one person in the thread seems to understand the flaw in the logic used, perhaps it is too subtle.
It isn't enough, I have not seen anything wrong with the curves and probabilities in and of themselves but you are using them to try to answer a different question to the ones that they actually answer. And this is the source of confusion and the flaw in your logic, you do not appear to understand the difference and therefore can not have been clear when stating the question to your professors. Discussing something with a professor whilst a great idea does not necessarily mean that you have perfectly understood something or its implications. I'm not terrible at maths myself but I don't like to use arguments like 'I get these marks', 'I study maths at this level and you don't' or 'I talked to Professor X so I must be 100% correct even when extending my work beyond what I have discussed', none of these arguments proves that a specific statement you made about conclusions beyond the scope of what you specifically asked is correct. Also, you should know that university professors are not infallible (but neither am I ofc!). Did you literally ask your professors how to prove that 'dodge is random and stamina isn't' and clarify exactly what you meant by this statement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aggathon
Anyway, this is turning into a flame war and I have nothing against any of you personally, you can pm me about it if you like and sorry if you were offended by anything I wrote.
here's how i understand the use of the term "RNG" in this context.
on a given swing, you WILL mitigate some of the swing with armor and your health pool will absorb the rest (if it's big enough). there is no probability of whether or not those two factors are in play.
on a given swing, you MAY OR MAY NOT avoid an attack - therefore, avoidance might help you reduce the damage of a given swing (by 100%) or it might not. "RNG" is used here to indicate that you cannot count on avoidance on every attack.
did i get that right?
idk, it might be over my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by marklar
(hint: yes)
I have been reading these arguments over and over and you are starting to frustrate me.Quote:
I don't really want to argue with you Bovinity but if you are talking about theorycraft, you can't really go 'Oh well this statement is not true or justified by the logic used, however, if we just change what the words mean and say it's about semantics, it's correct'. That's the nature of scrutinising mathematical theory or logic which is what is being used in this thread. Any false statement could be argued to be true if you change the meaning of the words.
I'm sorry but at the end of the day, only one person in the thread seems to understand the flaw in the logic you have used, perhaps it is too subtle. I don't really want to continue it via pm because I can't see the point if you don't understand it, you don't understand
1) He didn't change the meaning, if you think that he did... that is your issue. The only person here who needs to re-read anything is you.
2) You say nobody has argued your points. We have, you have been dismissing.
3) Obvious troll is obvious. I'm sorry, you aren't arguing, you are trolling. Knock it off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MellvarTank
this just in:
on an infinite timescale, dealing with percentages (READ:AVOIDANCE)
THIS:
http://i31.tinypic.com/zwmfdv.jpg
IS EQUAL TO THIS:
http://i25.tinypic.com/51spxx.jpg
think about it. pretty fascinating, huh?
I do not think that Delmonte is trolling. I do think that Delmonte isn't explaining what he means very clearly, regardless of the number of words used. Care to try to explain in a somewhat simpler manner?
I do think that Agg should not be using "RNG" as anything but a noun. I do think that Agg should say things like "While avoidance is predicated on random chance, stamina is not subject to randomness", "Stamina reduces randomness in the stochastic nature..." and so on.
Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhh.
Ugh... that'd take a lot of editing, using non-words as verbs is fun. I still mean the same thing so I fail to see how it's a logical gap though, but I can try to correct some of that.
I'll post what I said in the SC earlier: At worst, we might have a case of "trade language" here, where the author is using phrases and terms in such a way that experienced members of said trade - as the audience here is assumed to be - will understand but which otherwise might be considered improper.
I think pretty much everyone here knows what we as gamers mean when we bring up RNG. I don't think we need to write stuff like, "The server side calculation that determines whether or not you are hit - as a function of the combined avoidance stats on your character sheet - is performed using an random number generator." every time we want to discuss it.
Or use, you know, perfectly serviceable words like "random" and "randomness" instead of jargon that a small proportion of your readership will actually understand.
I mean, i did try to define everything at the top, in my defense, but I will admit when I get in a Rhythm I tend to overuse jargon.
I think the simpler matter was explained earlier by aggathon:
As one increases their health and EH, one increases the likelihood that a string of X hits will be survived. And one can guarantee that for a given value of X, all X-1 hits will not kill you. This is subject to randomness in that incoming damage is random due to a number of factors, but EH improves this chance.Quote:
EHP diminishes the RNG associated with the stochastic nature of boss hits and heals
Avoidance diminishes the RNG associated with lethal hit strings
I'm still a bit surprised that more todo hasn't been made about the effect of armor/resistance on partial heals given the arguments about stochastic, discrete events for healing and damage. This is where the model of EH (especially compared to raw health) really shines.
I'm sorry if it frustrates you but you but if that is the case you are continuing to miss the point that I am making. I am also sorry for my comment about not wanting to continue it via pm, that was simply rude on my behalf and I deleted it pretty fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by MellvarTank
Thegreatme, that is not the logic in discussion, if you are saying that this discussion is fairly moot because you do not feel it impacts on tank survivability or gearing then I don't mind that comment.
I dunno Satrina, it seems that I can't condense it more really as people do not seem to appreciate what I am saying, it has been condensed a few times by other people and then dismissed. What I am saying is not trolling and anyone who is going to flat out dismiss it as that is not really tuned into the discussion. However I feel that the amount of posts I am making on this point is too many, so if anyone wants to pm me that's fine, if you are just going to post 'obvious troll is obvious' then spend a little more time reading and considering my posts please.
Why don't you just tell us what your point is, in one sentence?Quote:
I'm sorry if it frustrates you but you but if that is the case you are continuing to miss the point that I am making.
Ya, I agree felhoof, and I've been meaning to add on an "Armor vs. Stam" section (and talk about resist a little bit) to this, but I just really haven't had the time to.
Hell if you do have time to and wanna PM it to me I'll post it in this thread and credit it to you, heh.