Iksar Shaman - Solo Challenges?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Sure thing! Note, I do not know the details of how damage is calculated, so there will be a couple places in this proof where details are elided.

Axiom: The hit rate (miss vs damage dealt) is independent of weapon using the same skill.

Axiom: If a weapon hits, the damage done is drawn from 20 possible values, equally possible. I don't know the details of the maximum and minimum values, but they are a function of the "damage" attribute of the weapon.

Axiom: The expected value of a weapon swing equals the average value.

Axiom: The average value of a weapon swing equals (2 * Weapon_Base) + Bonus_Modifier + STR Modifier, which we can simplify (in notation) to 2 * X + Y

Axiom: The number of swings per minute of a weapon is inversely proportional to the "delay" attribute of the weapon.

Axiom: A weapon with a delay of 60 will swing once per minute. Note: I don't know the exact calculation here, but this will not affect the proof.

Definition: The expected damage per minute for a weapon equals the expected damage per swing multiplied by the swings per minute.

Proposition to prove: a 15/20 weapon is expected to do more damage than a 5/35 weapon. In formula: EV(15/20) > EV(5/35) where EV is the Expected Value. Note: I don't know what ratio a NTOV weapon should be, so here I'm plugging in some arbitrary numbers.

Other axioms:

1. There's no procs
2. hate generation (due to procs) is irrelevant
3. the target is not immune to non-magical weapons

This proof is of the form direct proof

Step 1: The expected damage per minute of the rusty weapon is average damage times number of swings per minute, or (2 * 5 + Y) * 60/35

Step 2: The expected damage of the NTOV weapon is (2 * 15 + Y) * 60/20

Proof:
(2 * 15 + Y) * 60/20 > (2 * 5 + Y) * 60/35
(30 + Y) *35 > (10 + Y) * 20
1050 * Y > 200 * Y
1050 > 200
QED

As you can see, there is no information in this format that is different from the information I have already provided. You can find all of the mathematical formulas and axioms in my guide already. You can also take a look at my posts in this thread.

You haven't shown why restructuring my argument into this format will provide any new insight.

Hopefully you will answer my question this time:

Where do you believe I am incorrect with regards to FSI vs. Regeneration on a Shaman, and where is your counter-evidence supporting your claims?

[bcbrown]

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

You haven't shown why restructuring my argument into this format will provide any new insight.

You cannot restructure your argument into this format, because you have no falsifiable proposition.

I keep asking you for your proof, and you keep declining to provide one. As far as I can tell, your argument is that FSI provides higher survivability in solo fights, while regen provides a real & quantifiable but negligible benefit. This does not prove that "FSI is better than regen". All it supports is:

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

It just depends what you prefer.

Here's a falsifiable proposition: In a solo fight against a WW dragon, FSI enhances the odds of a successful outcome more-so than regen does.

I'd attempt to prove that using Markov chains, where each tick is a state transition, and the state variables would be hp&mana for PC&NPC&pet, plus all buff/debuffs, and who is in melee range of whom. I'd use Monte Carlo Markov Chain analysis to generate a probabilistic proof.

But let's be real. I haven't seen you provide any evidence of enough mathematical sophistication to prove that 2 is even, so I'm pretty confident that MCMC analysis is far beyond your remit.

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

Where do you believe I am incorrect with regards to FSI vs. Regeneration on a Shaman, and where is your counter-evidence supporting your claims?

I believe your argument is persuasive. I do not believe it is provable as formulated, and I do not believe you could prove it, even if you could formulate a falsifiable proposition.

If you're happy to concede that this is an opinion, I have no objections. As long as you maintain that this is provable and proven, I shall continue to ask for the proof.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

If you're happy to concede that this is an opinion, I have no objections.

I keep asking you for your proof, and you keep declining to provide one.

I am not sure why I should concede. I have provided plenty of evidence to back up my claims. You can read my guide/watch my youtube videos and come up with questions/concerns. Or better yet, provide counter-evidence showing why I am wrong!

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

But let's be real. I haven't seen you provide any evidence of enough mathematical sophistication to prove that 2 is even, so I'm pretty confident that MCMC analysis is far beyond your remit.

Your argument that a mathematical equation must be sophisticated to prove a point is laughable at best. You don't see sophisticated mathematics wrapped in a proof showing why a ToV Weapon is better than a Rusty Weapon, because the mathematics are already quite simple for why this is the case. People do not need to write a master thesis on why 2 + 2 = 4 to understand why 2 + 2 = 4. In practical computer programming terms, the computer does not care why 2 + 2 = 4. The hardware is built to do this calculation, and does so.

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

As long as you maintain that this is provable and proven, I shall continue to ask for the proof.

The only person who has provided zero evidence for their claims is yourself. You refuse to explain why you think my guide or youtube videos are incorrect in any way. I am sorry, but debates do not work this way. Simply saying "You are wrong and I don't have to prove it!", will get you nowhere.

You can keep asking me to re-format my entire guide/youtube channel into a random format as a diversion tactic if you wish, but it isn't a valid argument.

Hopefully one day you will actually provide something other than nonsense. Thus far you have completely admitted defeat by refusing to explain your position.

[Troxx]

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

If you're happy to concede that this is an opinion, I have no objections. As long as you maintain that this is provable and proven, I shall continue to ask for the proof.

Oh snap!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Oh snap!

I am not sure why you think that was an "oh snap" moment. Bcbrown has yet to counter even one of my points, or provide any counter evidence. Converting what I've said into a mathematical proof will not change the simple fact that Bcbrown has nothing to counter said mathematical proof anyway.

Bcbrown is simply employing a classic trolling technique. They want me to admit everything I say is simply an opinion, because then what I am saying is equal to everybody else's opinion. It's an underhanded method to throw out all of the facts, math, logic, and evidence I have provided.

Bcbrown can't actually win the debate fairly with facts, math, logic, and evidence of their own, so they must resort to this trolling technique instead. It is sad, but hopefully one day they will actually provide something that can counter what I have been saying. It would be great to learn something new. As it stands, Bcbrown is apparently going to just keep asking people to convert what they have been saying into mathematical proofs for unknown reasons.