Quote:
Originally Posted by loramin
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
If only we had a seasoned programmer who knew all the code and evidence involved, and could make intelligent decisions about them, so the peanut gallery here didn't have to. Ideally it's be someone so authoritative, so experienced, that they'd been working on re-creating classic EQ for well over a decade.
But where, oh where, could we possibly find someone like that? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] |
Friend, I'm trying to ask clarifying questions about the evidence already presented because that's generally the best way to start your own research. nilbog is great, but this thread is also 4+ years old so there's obviously a lot on his plate. I promise I have no vested interest in the outcome.
I'm still unclear whether the proposed code is entirely based on the decompile or used the magic numbers(I see the channelchance cap and interruptchance threshold) and supplemented with Live data? Personally, I don't mind TAKP's strategy of confirming against Live data but it's obviously a problem if I try to confirm Live derived formulas with more Live data.