Quote:
Originally Posted by bcbrown
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Let me try to help you understand. It's very simple. Any idea has two fundamental criteria it must meet for me to take it seriously. It needs to explain the existing data. And it needs to make a prediction for a future experiment to evaluate. My ideas matched the measurements. I thought (bow + arrow + 1) + bonus was crazy at first but it matched the data. You said it "added 1 damage randomly". It turns out that was correct. You say it "didn't multiply the weapon damage by 2". It turns out that was correct. You say it used the "wrong damage table". It turns out that was correct.
|
The issue is not about whether you are correct or not. The issue is you are generally not very good at showing your work and/or data. This is compounded by your nature to reply with insult and arrogance, rather than address concerns other posters have.
1. Your data showing 26 damage as your minimum damage is hard evidence against your guess that the 2h damage table was being used. If your damage bonus is 34, you can't hit for 26. If you had simply posted your raw logs as requested, we could have figured out that your data was correct, but your method for collecting and graphing the data was flawed.
2. It was TytosOfEight who actually proved the 2h damage table was being used. Not yourself.
3. It was I who showed that Archery has it's damage divided by 2 and it has a global damage modifier in the EQEMU code. Not yourself.
There is nothing innately wrong with throwing out a wild guess. Lucky for you it happened to be at least partially correct. Next time please provide less insults, and be better at showing your data/work. Your arrogance and insults only increased the time it took to solve the problem, and it didn't help your credibility.