Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaggles
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
People use tools to test other tools and results all the time. I would think running Gameparse and then your own formula would be a great way to confirm that your approach is valid, or that Gameparse is broken. Two things you appear desperately trying to confirm.
I suspect you won’t. Belief is sometimes more powerful than truth. Additionally without ever trying to parse on red cons I’m not sure anyone should just trust your proposals. A lot (but certainly not all) of well intentioned science has fallen apart when the rubber meets the road.
|
Belief is more powerful than truth at times. Troxx factually posted inaccurate Gamparse data. Yet you cling to the idea Gamparse is always accurate, and nobody has ever posted inaccurate Gamparse data.
My parses have been confirmed by other posters. I post my logs too, so everybody can double check my work! You can't double check Gamparse unless people post logs, and they usually don't. Parsing is quite simple, everybody can do it.
At the end of the day readers have two choices:
1. Read my current theory on how the damage formula works using real P99 data, EQEMU code, logic, and math. I have included logs so you can double check my work. It supports all of the oppositions current theories on how damage should work, including on raid targets, so I am not sure what they are arguing:
https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=440
2. Listen to posters who post inaccurate Gamparse data, or posters who deny Gamparse can be inaccurate, and have no data-backed damage formula of their own. The opposition has no equivalent post to the one I posted above. They can't even post logs so other people can confirm their parses are accurate.