Iksar Shaman - Solo Challenges? - Page 70

Ripqozko · #**691** 01-31-2024, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Trolling and spamming, clearly. These messages have no relevance to the thread, the poster in question, or the guild in question. You could replace the poster and the guild, and the message would be equally nonsensical, irrelevant, and off-topic.

"Toxigen is the new Aftermath" is the same as "DSM is the new Kittens". Both are equally useless to the topic at hand, and say nothing about the poster or guild in question.

Sorry , its good to warn people that DSM is the new reflection of kittens. if you want to be around a bunch of DSM app today.

DeathsSilkyMist · #**692** 01-31-2024, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ripqozko [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Sorry , its good to warn people that DSM is the new reflection of kittens. if you want to be around a bunch of DSM app today.

Troxx · #**693** 01-31-2024, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is one of the few random phrases Ripqozko posts in every thread he participates in for no discernable reason.

"<Poster> is the new <Guild>"

Nobody knows why he does this, and I would be curious to know how many of this specific random message is in his history. I would guess 50 posts of it at least.

Perhaps he has a bot posting for him.

Your post indicates he does this in lots of threads and about lots of people … the whole <poster> <guild name> bullshit.

Let’s be clear. The only poster I’ve seen him refer to this way is you. And only in what we the community refer to as DSM threads.

DeathsSilkyMist · #**694** 01-31-2024, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Let’s be clear. The only poster I’ve seen him refer to this way is you.

Indeed! That is a pattern of spamming and targeted trolling. I am glad you noticed it too. If he was being sincere, he would also say the same thing about you. You actively spam threads with silly gifs, troll posters, lie about posters, etc.

The difference between yourself and I is I can actually show many examples of you spamming threads with silly gifs, trolling posters, lying about posters, etc. You cannot do the same for me.

As a very quick example, your current location is: "The sands of DSM’s vagina".

You simply think that disagreeing with you is trolling, which is why you accuse me of being one. Unfortunately your behavior matches the definition of a troll, while mine does not.

Troxx · #**695** 01-31-2024, 04:20 PM

People say things about you because they don’t like you.

If you have a problem with that …

Maybe try not being such a herpetic twat-waffle?

Hope that helps.

DeathsSilkyMist · #**696** 01-31-2024, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

People say things about you because they don’t like you.

If you have a problem with that …

Maybe try not being such a herpetic twat-waffle?

Hope that helps.

As long as people do not lie about what I have said, it doesn't matter if they like me or not.

Clearly you have a bias against me, which means you are more inclined to troll me, lie about me, etc.

You have such a strong bias against me specifically, you changed your location to: "The sands of DSM’s vagina".

Don't you think people will be just a little suspicious of your motivations when posting? When other people tend to follow your lead, that is also suspicious, especially when regarding a matter of fact that can be proven.

This doesn't help your arguments, because people simply cannot tell when you are being sincere, and when you choose to troll and lie.

Jimjam · #**697** 01-31-2024, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Maybe try not being such a herpetic twat-waffle?

Maybe a lil too mean, bud... I'm gonna ban ur swarmcaller from proccing for 3 days.

Duik · #**698** 01-31-2024, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Maybe a lil too mean, bud... I'm gonna ban ur swarmcaller from proccing for 3 days.

Now that's a bit mean.

bcbrown · #**699** 01-31-2024, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 7thGate [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

DSM, you're not correct about the DOT calculation.

For DD procs, you can just do a straight average of PPM * damage per proc to get expected damage per minute, because the timing doesn't change it at all. This is because with each success valued the same regardless of sequencing, the mean of a binomial distribution is just the probability of success * number of swings, and the PPM system sets the probability of success such that this always comes out to the number of PPM.

This is not the case with a DOT proc because every proc is not equally valuable, you have to calculate the contribution each branch makes to the average individually and sum them to get the correct average. BCBrown is correct in his analysis. I have no idea why you're just averaging the timing and assuming that's correct when there's a nonlinear impact from the different samples in the distribution.

You don't have a 31.2% chance to proc with three swings at 10.4% each, you have a 29.07% chance. You get 0.312 procs of expected value, but 0.0213 of them are bound up in the cases where you proc two or three times out of the three swings, so your chances of proccing at least once are only 29.07%.

You gave it a good shot, bcbrown.

Thanks for taking the time to weigh in, 7thGate. I agree completely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Because the fight lasts 2 minutes, you have a total of 1.56 procs. This means you are guaranteed 1 DoT proc somehwere within the fight on average.

This just isn't true. Not accurate. This entire approach is based on a flawed foundation of inaccurate reasoning.

DeathsSilkyMist · #**700** 01-31-2024, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Thanks for taking the time to weigh in, 7thGate. I agree completely.

This just isn't true. Not accurate. This entire approach is based on a flawed foundation of inaccurate reasoning.

You can't back this up. Simply saying so is irrelevant.

Please post your normal distribution for the dot damage over a 2 minute fight.