Myconid Spore King - Monk Solo

[Stryker85]

Zuranthium, clearly this is going no where after nearly 100 pages of arguing back and forth. If we are ever going to end this, we need to come up with some sort of compromise that we can all agree on. I would like to point out that when I made those recent changes to the rules, I was already doing my best to compromise with you. I left in some of your ideas and suggestions, I didn't just revert things back or use only my suggestions. For example I think you raise a valid point that excessive consumables (wort pots) that would equal to more than your full HP should count as a strong item clicky.

I also kept in your S+ rank as well. My only gripe with your proposed changes is that it would prevent any melee character from EVER achieving an S+ grade on literally ANY mob past the Grandmaster tier. To me, that is not acceptable, and it would ruin the spirit of the challenge if ONLY casters could compete for the highest ranking. I'm asking you to take things into the perspective of a melee. There is a reason why Loraen had the specific stipulation that melees were allowed to have buffs, because he knew they would not be able to compete otherwise. Even with allowing outside buffs for melees, the rankings were STILL dominated by casters.

If you would like to join a discord chat or somewhere where we can hash this out like mature, civilized, adults - that would be great. I think we can all see that this could go on forever otherwise. Loramin has already removed the rules section entirely until we can agree on something, so this seems like the best path to move forward.

[bcbrown]

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

Bcbrown used the wiki page at the very least, and he ran into Loramin's bugs. He posted about it lol. Lying just makes you looo bad.

Don't drag me into your nonsensical argument. I was dubious about the entire project for three reasons:
1) It's incredibly hard to reverse-engineer and re-implement a complex system and there will almost certainly be significant bugs/differences with the reference system
2) Even if it was accurate, one of the important inputs (mob AC) is an unknown, limiting the usefullness
3) Even without the prior two issues but especially with them, it's just not that useful, not being as simple as the rule-of-thumb (2*dmg + bonus)/delay formula, and without the real-world accuracy of simply parsing against the sort of mob you want to fight.

Even with those doubts, I gave it a shot, found some discrepancies against some parses, posted the inputs I used, and then you yelled at me for not knowing the mob AC values in the wiki are inaccurate. I then lost all interest in the project. Later on it turns out my first reason for being dubious turned out to be accurate, as you had a seriously incorrect assumption about the mechanics of dual wield. That may have been fixed now, but I'm sure there's other similar bugs hiding in it.

If you want the damn thing to be usable you're gonna have to debug the wiki version yourself (which you can easily do with in-browser developer tools for local editing).

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Don't drag me into your nonsensical argument. I was dubious about the entire project for three reasons:
1) It's incredibly hard to reverse-engineer and re-implement a complex system and there will almost certainly be significant bugs/differences with the reference system
2) Even if it was accurate, one of the important inputs (mob AC) is an unknown, limiting the usefullness
3) Even without the prior two issues but especially with them, it's just not that useful, not being as simple as the rule-of-thumb (2*dmg + bonus)/delay formula, and without the real-world accuracy of simply parsing against the sort of mob you want to fight.

Even with those doubts, I gave it a shot, found some discrepancies against some parses, posted the inputs I used, and then you yelled at me for not knowing the mob AC values in the wiki are inaccurate. I then lost all interest in the project. Later on it turns out my first reason for being dubious turned out to be accurate, as you had a seriously incorrect assumption about the mechanics of dual wield. That may have been fixed now, but I'm sure there's other similar bugs hiding in it.

If you want the damn thing to be usable you're gonna have to debug the wiki version yourself (which you can easily do with in-browser developer tools for local editing).

I couldn't edit the calculator code, that was admin only. You did run into one of Loramin's bugs, that is a fact.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...1&postcount=16

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

It'd be good to add a parameter for number of rounds for people who want to use large sample sizes but that's really a minor complaint compared to the fact that the calculator is not accurate.

Leaving the weapons as-is and setting the mob AC to 80 doesn't result in the 50ish DPS that you've reported vs the turtle. Setting the mob AC to 850-1200 like raid mobs have doesn't change the DPS value by much vs the default.

What validations have you done before making the claim that this calculator is accurate?

Bcbrown has a bad understanding of my calculator in part due to Loramins bad implementation.

[Samoht]

So the DSM DPS calculator is still inherently invalid because he does not know how to calculate AC?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

A

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

So the DSM DPS calculator is still inherently invalid because he does not know how to calculate AC?

No. Loramin's wiki version wasn't using the textbox changes, so the DPS calculation never changed as AC was edited. This wasn't an issue in my calculator's code.

[bcbrown]

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

I couldn't edit the calculator code, that was admin only. You did run into one of Loramin's bugs, that is a fact.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...1&postcount=16

Your entire argument is so silly I'm not going to engage with it, but I do highly recommend you send a PM to Rogean or Menden or someone, because no matter the outcome I'm sure it will be very entertaining.

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

So the DSM DPS calculator is still inherently invalid because he does not know how to calculate AC?

It might be pretty accurate if you already know the mob AC, but it's hard to know because mob AC isn't publicly posted and I guess the wiki values are from a different era. You can probably hand-tune the mob AC to match a parse, but that doesn't really tell you anything. You can't use a formula with unknown inputs (mob AC) to predict an output (DPS), even if you have the right formula.

But DSM is super defensive about the whole thing, so I'm not interested in spending any time on it.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Your entire argument is so silly I'm not going to engage with it, but I do highly recommend you send a PM to Rogean or Menden or someone, because no matter the outcome I'm sure it will be very entertaining.



It might be pretty accurate if you already know the mob AC, but it's hard to know because mob AC isn't publicly posted and I guess the wiki values are from a different era. You can probably hand-tune the mob AC to match a parse, but that doesn't really tell you anything. You can't use a formula with unknown inputs (mob AC) to predict an output (DPS), even if you have the right formula.

But DSM is super defensive about the whole thing, so I'm not interested in spending any time on it.

If you aren't interested, then don't post false claims about my calculator. You don't understand how it works, yet you keep making claims it doesn't work. Like Samoht, you have no evidence other than your bias against me.

You used Loramin's buggy version, and you used bad AC values. You gave a level 45 trash mob way more AC than they should have had. That is not the fault of my calculator.

[bcbrown]

Super defensive. The calculator can not fail, it can only be failed.

[shovelquest]

It's fine to be super defensive about something you've built, when people are like, "this thing fucking sucks, and so do you!"

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Super defensive. The calculator can not fail, it can only be failed.

My code is open source, and I have posted multiple P99 parses with different weapons, classes, and levels. Feel free to dig through it and let me know if you find any issues.

Until then, stop making things up to troll me.