Iksar Shaman - Solo Challenges?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Jesus Christ. Here's a proof that there is no highest prime number, or equivalently that the the sequence of prime numbers is unbounded. Note, this is a proof by contradiction.

Assume that there is a highest prime number, P_max. Thus the sequence of primes runs P_0, P_1, P_2 ... P_max. Compute the number sum(P_0, P_1, P_2 ... P_max) + 1. This number is not divisible by any number in the sequence of primes, is not divisible by any of them, and is larger than P_max. This contradicts the assumption there is a highest prime number. QED.

I ask again, what is your definition, and what is your proof? You said it was easily provable.

Did you not read my guide? I provided the math in it quite clearly. If you are simply going to quibble over the specifics in how I wrote out the math, then you have already lost the argument.

I'll ask again: What part(s) of my arguments do you feel are incorrect?

[bcbrown]

I think your argument supporting your opinion is fairly convincing. It is not a proof.

As you are unwilling to provide a proof, allow me to attempt to summarize your argument:

Trolls/Iksars get +8 standing Regen over other races. 8 x 10 x 60 = 4800 HP per hour. That's the equivalent of 3-4 Torpors per hour. 3-4 Torpors per hour is not really significant on a Torpor Shaman. FSI increases your chance of survival before the initial slow on any difficult fight, which can actually be the difference between success and failure. Increasing your survivability during the first minute of a fight (before a mob is slowed) will be better than a small boost to your Mana/HP regeneration on a class that can already fully recover in 3 minutes or less.

Your argument is that the increased survivability of no stuns before a slow during a solo fight is a subjectively better than the (quantifiable) benefit of 4800 HP/hour.

Show me the proof or stop claiming it's provable.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I think your argument supporting your opinion is fairly convincing. It is not a proof.

As you are unwilling to provide a proof, allow me to attempt to summarize your argument:

Trolls/Iksars get +8 standing Regen over other races. 8 x 10 x 60 = 4800 HP per hour. That's the equivalent of 3-4 Torpors per hour. 3-4 Torpors per hour is not really significant on a Torpor Shaman. FSI increases your chance of survival before the initial slow on any difficult fight, which can actually be the difference between success and failure. Increasing your survivability during the first minute of a fight (before a mob is slowed) will be better than a small boost to your Mana/HP regeneration on a class that can already fully recover in 3 minutes or less.

Your argument is that the increased survivability of no stuns before a slow during a solo fight is a subjectively better than the (quantifiable) benefit of 4800 HP/hour.

Show me the proof or stop claiming it's provable.

Let's approach this from a different direction. You seem to want me to write out what I have said in a very specific format: a mathematical proof in this case.

Please write out the mathematical proof for why a ToV Weapon is better than a Rusty Weapon. Then I can use that template to rewrite what I have said in the way you wish to read it.

You keep refusing to explain why you think I am incorrect. Your baseless opinion that my evidence has no merit is simply nonsense until you can back it up.

[bcbrown]

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

You keep refusing to explain why you think I am incorrect. Your baseless opinion that my evidence has no merit is simply nonsense until you can back it up.

Man, I try to do my best to avoid personal insults and engage forcefully but respectfully on the merits, but you make it harder when you throw in inflammatory language like this.

I'm working on that proof for you, but I'm also playing EQ, so it'll take a couple hours.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Man, I try to do my best to avoid personal insults and engage forcefully but respectfully on the merits, but you make it harder when you throw in inflammatory language like this.

I'm working on that proof for you, but I'm also playing EQ, so it'll take a couple hours.

Your opinion is baseless in it's current state. Me saying that isn't inflammatory when it is true. Take a look at your first post:

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

As far as I can tell your "proof" is an opinion.

Please show me the proof. And yes, I've read your guide. I saw a lot of opinions, a couple calculations, but no proof.

There is nothing here that supports your claim. This is a baseless opinion, which you refuse to explain further.

[bcbrown]

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

[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.

[fortior]

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rzw3wLWEsM - Tranix

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umuVBewCNgY - Cliff Golem

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPxeOVuX0G8 - Ionat

This is real evidence. You are clearly trolling at this point by presuming what is currently on the wiki is the only proof that matters. There's no real reason for anybody to believe you are being sincere, nor do you have any evidence to back up your claims about which racial bonuses are the best.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Counts as duo master

The other 2 look legit though. Congrats! Not sure your videos are completely usable since most people submitting them do things like showing which buffs they have, but I'm not such a hardass. Once you have submitted yours, I think you're on your way to proving ogres are just as good as trolls and potentially even barbarians. However, it does say 'any 5', so you have a few more kills to go [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]