142 replies to this topic

[Wizard]

I'm not going to point fingers; I like arguing math with math.



What is this "something" and what is this "other external influence"?

I'm not aware of any MATK bonus that is reliant on some sort of external influence while being achievable with more MATK. It doesn't even make sense.

It would basically require a card that said "if you have more than 1100 MATK, or have external influence X, +100 MATK."



It is this kind of sketchiness which causes a lot of confusion in people, leading to my earlier post. 1100 (stat, I presume) MATK is irrelevant to whether or not %MATK or +MATK is beneficial, but it depends on the actual bonuses in question. I can imagine that for your build and your stats 1100 MATK is your magic breakpoint at which this happens, but no math or proofs have been posted as to why this is so.

I politely request the "mere maths" you speak of.

And that is why people are getting confused. Even if that 1100 MATK barrier turned out to be universal, your point is moot without proof as to why it exists.



That is an entirely different concept. DEX and LUK are bound variables in a very well-defined system. It is mathematically simple to determine an optimal amount of matk from any given stat points, distributed between dex and luk. And because I like proofs:

Benefit = floor(DEX/5 + LUK/3)
StatCost(DEX) + StatCost(LUK) <= N
For Stat < 100:
StatCost(Stat) = ∑(Stat,k=1) [Floor((k-1) / 10)] + 2
For Stat >= 100
StatCost(Stat) = (∑(99,k=1) [Floor((k-1) / 10)] + 2) + (∑(Stat-99,k=1) [Floor((k-100) / 5)]*4 + 16)

More or less that (it's not exact, and I probably missed a few points here and there since I didn't test it, but that's the gist of it). From there it becomes a two-variable system. Or you can do it iteratively.

What you're describing as a "barrier" is as much a barrier as a car has a "60MPH barrier" because it's the point where it stops going faster when you push the pedal. There may very well be a reason for it, and there very well may be a solution, but - without proofs - it's relative to that car and shouldn't be pushed around to other people without justification.



I assume this is your justification for your 1100 MATK number. Please, do post your graphs, I'd love to see them. I'm not sure I understand this paragraph at all, because I'm not sure how statistics factor into this. You're a scientist, please back up your claims. I'd simply like proof as to why you call this 1100 MATK point special and, from the way you say it, universal.

Firstly... I have yet to see any calculation or whatsoever using any data to remotely back up what you are saying. I did post the calculations I was based off at the beginning of the thread.

Hmm, where do I start? Oh yah, if you happen to read my quote, you can tell that the same way, you can save points by balancing DEX/LUK since it will give you the same amount of MATK by using less stat points (tried with INT, but INT has its unique way in which every 2 points you will see an increase of 2 pts instead of 1 thanks on how decimal points are not taking into consideration)...

I did post the math behind the MATK, the reason why I mentioned that after 1100matk you have the need to increase +MATK even further is quite simple actually, a hint, try using %matk to calculate the matk output and then try replacing the %matk with +matk and see how much increase you get from each of them... then compare and get your own conclusions.

At 1100matk, you will have that each %matk point, it will value 11matk towards the end damage... now if you happen to replace the it for +matk instead, you will need at least a card/accessories to grant you +11matk or more for it to be replaced by %matk. Rata card is the latest one that will give you +10matk towards equipment but once you pass that mark, +matk will became pointless because the matk output will be less than the expected even using the same slot.

Therefore, once you reach 1100matk, the required +matk to replace %matk will be +11 in which, there are few items to grand such thing while there are better options to give you %matk instead... that plus adding the new gear coming from kRO, increasing +matk will be futile and obsolete.

Lets see... from this:

Benefit = floor(DEX/5 + LUK/3)
StatCost(DEX) + StatCost(LUK) <= N
For Stat < 100:
StatCost(Stat) = ∑(Stat,k=1) [Floor((k-1) / 10)] + 2
For Stat >= 100
StatCost(Stat) = (∑(99,k=1) [Floor((k-1) / 10)] + 2) + (∑(Stat-99,k=1) [Floor((k-100) / 5)]*4 + 16)

I believe you can tell what would be the "breaking point" or "balance point" in where the amount of points used for either DEX or LUK became relevant... if not, there's a hint, at certain point, there's a margin of 3 stat points that will make one better than the other for the same amount of MATK. I think you have the grasp of it, I do hope so.

The "proof" that you request of was quite there from the very beginning... hence why I did say that there was no need to mentioned anymore (because it was quite obvious).

Again, if you didn't understand what I said...

1100*0.01 = 11 right? so that means, after 1100matk, you will need to add >+11matk to actually get something better than +1%matk.

There are 2 ways to do so, remember that equipment MATK follows its own unique formula and by that, it needs another modifier depending on the weapon level you are holding (that not including misc matk of course).

Most buffs will add ONLY Misc MATK and as such, it won't be modified by Weapon Lv., the only way for +MATK to actually beat %MATK after the 1100 mark (in which, each %matk will be +11 or higher), is for it to be classified as Equipment MATK and as I mentioned before, there are just few ones that will accomplish this, sadly, iRO just have just couple of them atm.

Of course, remember that %MATK will multiply by themselves instead of adding, and that's when my second "argument" kicks in...

The math and graphs for this is quite simple really... in fact, its simple distribution by having a media of 50% in which, the closest to it, the better output will you get.

Hows that you ask? simple!

1.5*1.5 = 2.25.

Now, what will happen if the %MATK is far from the media (50%):

1.3*1.7 = 2.21

As you can see, you will have less and less matk every time you get farther than the media..

How do you know if that applies to RO or not? Simple... trial/error is always the best way to try new things... by exchanging gears, replacing the %MATK you will get the same experience (always use a buffer of 10 tries so you can get better results).

And educated guess that you can tell by just looking at the numbers.

Any question, suggestion or something else, feel free to post it here =)

PS: I'm not posting the entire data because it won't be fun, but with the background info, I'm pretty sure most of you guys can follow from it.

PS 2: Most MATK modifiers out there will only affect Misc MATK, hence it has a random probability for it to reach max output... the probability for it to reach its max output is quite simple actually... P(A) = N1(favor)/N2(total)


∂e−∂xdx = ∂ 1∂ e−∂x ∗0 = 1

f(x) = ∂e−∂x

Please, kindly, define what you mean with "min barrier", "break point", and "external factor." And "fiction" - does that mean "not real" or "not precise" or "not defined" or what?

Repeating what you said without any clarification is terrible form in any sort of discussion.

I politely requested your math which you refer to in determining the 'barrier' you defined about at 1100 MATK.

read above... sorry, forgot to add it to my last post xD

Edited by Wizard, 19 March 2013 - 07:39 PM.

[Wizard]

As for graph... dunno how to copy/paste one here...

So I made a lil space on my board (bottom right) lol (don't pay attention to Schrodinger 3D Cartesian equation... I'm working on 3 axes time-space movement)

[SergioSSA1LER]

There are no mexicans in anime.

Sorry to disappoint you:
http://en.wikipedia....i/Yasutora_Sado

Also, don't be racist, I'm Mexican and not because of that I'm an idiot or a douche. If you consider the value of people based on where do they come from, you aren't that smart as you presume.

Edited by SergioSSA1LER, 19 March 2013 - 08:10 PM.

[Wizard]

Sorry to disappoint you:
http://en.wikipedia....i/Yasutora_Sado

Also, don't be racist, I'm Mexican and not because of that I'm an idiot or a douche. If you consider the value of people based on where do they come from, you aren't that smart as you presume.

lol

Being racist and such is the only way they have to vent their impotence lol, that's the most they can aim for since the lack of IQ clearly betray them.

Just don't mind them... =)

Edited by Wizard, 19 March 2013 - 08:13 PM.

[Rirezz]

Before I start refuting:

PS: I'm not posting the entire data because it won't be fun, but with the background info, I'm pretty sure most of you guys can follow from it.

This is exactly why I'm calling you out on it. If you're going to make a statement about game mechanics or terminology you make up, you will have to back it up.

"Leave this as an exercise for the reader" is not proof.




--

Firstly... I have yet to see any calculation or whatsoever using any data to remotely back up what you are saying. I did post the calculations I was based off at the beginning of the thread.

The burden of proof is on you, as you're making the claim. I have no obligation to back up anything, and there isn't even anything to back up; I'm calling you out on your terminology.

Hmm, where do I start? Oh yah, if you happen to read my quote, you can tell that the same way, you can save points by balancing DEX/LUK since it will give you the same amount of MATK by using less stat points (tried with INT, but INT has its unique way in which every 2 points you will see an increase of 2 pts instead of 1 thanks on how decimal points are not taking into consideration)...

In laymen's terms, one int is 1.5 MATK. Yes. Hence?

I did post the math behind the MATK, the reason why I mentioned that after 1100matk you have the need to increase +MATK even further is quite simple actually, a hint, try using %matk to calculate the matk output and then try replacing the %matk with +matk and see how much increase you get from each of them... then compare and get your own conclusions.

At 1100matk, you will have that each %matk point, it will value 11matk towards the end damage... now if you happen to replace the it for +matk instead, you will need at least a card/accessories to grant you +11matk or more for it to be replaced by %matk. Rata card is the latest one that will give you +10matk towards equipment but once you pass that mark, +matk will became pointless because the matk output will be less than the expected even using the same slot.

Therefore, once you reach 1100matk, the required +matk to replace %matk will be +11 in which, there are few items to grand such thing while there are better options to give you %matk instead... that plus adding the new gear coming from kRO, increasing +matk will be futile and obsolete.

One does not reply to a request for proof with a "hint". I am asking for the data you're using.

Yes, at 1100 sMATK, 1% MATK multiplier will give 11 end MATK. Correct. Yes, that is more than 10 MATK. I don't see how this has anything to do with your 1100 MATK number, as you haven't actually compared anything that gave 10 MATK or 1% MATK (sans that Rata card you just mentioned). So okay, I have 1100 MATK. Yes, I know how to pick between this J. Random Equipment that adds 10 MATK and this K. Random Card that adds 1% MATK. How does this have to do with 1100 MATK being a magic number? I can do this for any MATK value.

To be clear, you haven't actually brought up any actual equipment/gear numbers, so I'm assuming you're just talking mechanic theoreticals.

Lets see... from this:

Benefit = floor(DEX/5 + LUK/3)
StatCost(DEX) + StatCost(LUK) <= N
For Stat < 100:
StatCost(Stat) = ∑(Stat,k=1) [Floor((k-1) / 10)] + 2
For Stat >= 100
StatCost(Stat) = (∑(99,k=1) [Floor((k-1) / 10)] + 2) + (∑(Stat-99,k=1) [Floor((k-100) / 5)]*4 + 16)

I believe you can tell what would be the "breaking point" or "balance point" in where the amount of points used for either DEX or LUK became relevant... if not, there's a hint, at certain point, there's a margin of 3 stat points that will make one better than the other for the same amount of MATK. I think you have the grasp of it, I do hope so.

You did not mention INT at all - in fact, I'm not even sure what you're saying. That forumla will, given a number of stat points, figure out an optimal amount of DEX and LUK. Sure, I can throw in INT there as well. This still has nothing to do with your arbitrary claims about 1100 MATK and how you call it a "balance point". I am asking for an equivalent formula or proof, like the formulas I provided for LUK/DEX optimization above, to indicate why it's some sort of magic number.

The "proof" that you request of was quite there from the very beginning... hence why I did say that there was no need to mentioned anymore (because it was quite obvious).

You had no proof. You only had a bunch of numbers.

Of course, remember that %MATK will multiply by themselves instead of adding, and that's when my second "argument" kicks in...

The math and graphs for this is quite simple really... in fact, its simple distribution by having a media of 50% in which, the closest to it, the better output will you get.

Hows that you ask? simple!

1.5*1.5 = 2.25.

Now, what will happen if the %MATK is far from the media (50%):

1.3*1.7 = 2.21

As you can see, you will have less and less matk every time you get farther than the media..

Uh what? Status matk is a fixed number, not a multiplier. Yes, there are a number of groupings in multipliers (as in, various different % MATK bonus types), but that has absolutely nothing to do with stats. There is no reason to "limit %MATK at 50%". None at all. There is reason to discard %MATK for +MATK of your choice, or discard different kinds or modifier groups, based on calculating which has a better end benefit, but that 50% is completely wrong.

∂e−∂xdx = ∂ 1∂ e−∂x ∗0 = 1

f(x) = ∂e−∂x

I'm afraid I'll have to call you out for pulling crazy math out of thin air if you can't explain what you're trying to say here. A see a bunch of meaningless symbols. ∂ has many meanings, but none of them make sense. You have no polynomials, so it's not ∂ in algebra; you aren't talking about topology theory, so it's not that either; and it makes no sense as a partial derivative in calculus.


Therefore I conclude all of those math scribbles to have absolutely no meaning unless you clarify what all those symbols are supposed to mean. Or unless another mathematician in this thread can do so.

Edited by Rirezz, 19 March 2013 - 09:40 PM.

[Wizard]

Before I start refuting:

This is exactly why I'm calling you out on it. If you're going to make a statement about game mechanics or terminology you make up, you will have to back it up.

"Leave this as an exercise for the reader" is not proof.

The burden of proof is on you, as you're making the claim. I have no obligation to back up anything, and there isn't even anything to back up; I'm calling you out on your terminology.

In laymen's terms, one int is 1.5 MATK. Yes. Hence?

One does not reply to a request for proof with a "hint". I am asking for the data you're using.

Yes, at 1100 sMATK, 1% MATK multiplier will give 11 end MATK. Correct. Yes, that is more than 10 MATK. I don't see how this has anything to do with your 1100 MATK number, as you haven't actually compared anything that gave 10 MATK or 1% MATK (sans that Rata card you just mentioned). So okay, I have 1100 MATK. Yes, I know how to pick between this J. Random Equipment that adds 10 MATK and this K. Random Card that adds 1% MATK. How does this have to do with 1100 MATK being a magic number? I can do this for any MATK value.

You did not mention INT at all - in fact, I'm not even sure what you're saying. That forumla will, given a number of stat points, figure out an optimal amount of DEX and LUK. Sure, I can throw in INT there as well. This still has nothing to do with your arbitrary claims about 1100 MATK and how you call it a "balance point". I am asking for an equivalent formula or proof, like the formulas I provided for LUK/DEX optimization above, to indicate why it's some sort of magic number.

You had no proof. You only had a bunch of numbers.

Uh what? Status matk is a fixed number, not a multiplier. Yes, there are a number of groupings in multipliers (as in, various different % MATK bonus types), but that has absolutely nothing to do with stats. There is no reason to "limit %MATK at 50%". None at all. There is reason to discard %MATK for +MATK of your choice, based on calculating which has a better end benefit, but that 50% is completely wrong.

I'm afraid I'll have to call you out for pulling crazy math out of thin air if you can't explain what you're trying to say here. A see a bunch of meaningless symbols. ∂ has many meanings, but none of them make sense. You have no polynomials, so it's not ∂ in algebra; you aren't talking about topology theory, so it's not that either; and it makes no sense as a partial derivative in calculus.

Therefore I conclude all of those math scribbles to have absolutely no meaning unless you clarify what all those symbols are supposed to mean. Or unless another mathematician in this thread can do so.

I did back it up already... refer to the first page to see the examples and some "test" I did perform. Sorry, but I can't give you complete data because I just don't see it proper. Numbers are there as reference as well as an example, of some raw data, more than that, you have to work it out on your own.

Yes, 1 INT = 1.5MATK, but if you pay attention to your screen, you will noticed that the decimal point does not carry over but it buffer towards the next point in which will increase by 1 unit. That's something you can test by yourself if you don't believe me... which I encourage so far.

You ask for data? and I replied to you already... by trial/error, in other words, by resetting over and over and see the difference and the behavior of it. Again, if you want proof of it, I won't give you any because I reserve myself to do so... if you don't believe or have anything against it, feel free to test it yourself and see if what I'm posting is true or not =)

Numbers = proof.

I did proof and gave an example of why 1100matk will be a break point between %matk and +matk. It seems I had my hopes too high since I'm pretty sure I did explain that quite well... INT aside, I gave the same example in how DEX/LUK relate each other almost same way... plus you have the formula, I encourage you to do your own math and see if what I'm proposing is true or not.

And yes, I'm afraid you did not understood what I wrote in the least... Sorry, but I'm pretty sure I did explain it quite well, even a HS would understood lol, perhaps I was mistaken?

Let me try to rephrase that again.

1. INT behavior: INT does not carry decimal point, hence increasing it by multiples of 2 (after certain point that is), will increase your MATK by 2 points each amount of time...

Proof of it? have my test and numbers, but by posting it, I will be giving away some stats and I'm not comfortable about it... there are 2 ways to refute my argument. You either test it yourself and post the data going against what I've just said, or just lie. f(x) = 1.5x - 0.5 while x is odd, 1.5x while even.

2. 1100matk magic number?? simple lol, 1100*0.01 = 11, hence any increase below that mark, will be less effective than any %matk. I tried to explain this as simple as possible... please tell me you do understand the reason why.

3. Media = 50%, that's simple statistics... by having a number close to the media, the chance of higher output will increase (said chance because the chance for misc matk to be the max is the formula I posted which equals the area of the media under the f(x)).

I did post some data about it and calculations... refer to first page if don't understand this, but I'm pretty sure its quite clear. the closest to 50%, the highest output you will get, the farthest, the less output, hence balancing it is the key for better output, instead of just stacking it like an idiot.

4. polynomial? topology? lol, sorry... my bad. I do think sometimes everyone have same common sense as myself... sorry, that's the part of the formula for 3., nothing more, nothing less...

Finally... if you think I am wrong, please feel free to post data and prove me wrong... that's what we do when we write a paper and present it so it can be credited (usually debating against 15 other PhD's that wanna eat u alive).

I do reserve the right to keep my data but I did post some results and just enough data to back up what I've been saying alllll along... believe me, its easy to understand.

From what I've been reading so far, you not just failed to understand all my post but the essence of argumentation all together. Usually, when you think someone is wrong, you use their results against them by proving them wrong, not just calling a "hunch".

I have yet to see either data or results coming from your side, hence I'll be waiting patiently for the day you share your reasoning and results behind your dis conformity towards my argument.

Thanks =)

PS: Derivate of calculus? Topology?? that's a perfect representation of media and area of incident, real life event lol. sorry, I thought u had some background on science (math/physics/statistics) hence I did wrote the theory behind it as we always do... but it seems I was mistaken all along since you can't even fathom a proper way to counter an argument... kinda disappointing but its ok, The results of my findings are posted already, you just have to follow and read it right.

[Wizard]

Quite a lot of people has been asking me for stats/build advice and I always tell them the same to each of him...

"Stats and builds are related to each player, it depends mostly of personal preference and such..."

But it was wrong from my part asking most players to achieve something w/o even giving an example of what they should be aiming to... hence the reason behind this thread.

The screenshot I gonna present to you guys, is from one of my warlocks I use for test... and the MATK you will see is the one I had until last week (every week I try to improve my MATK output and I did managed to increase it for quite a bit) and I would like for you guys to use it as a "short term goal" so you guys know what to aim to...



As before, I'm not going to give you the STATS or equipment need it to get such MATK, but if people are interested, I can suggest some gears in the near future in this very own thread.

Just for people who are wandering how much MATK is that... well, just apply the formula...

MaxMATK = 544*0.4 + 544 + 402 = 1163.6 matk.

As you see, that's your MaxMATK and remember that is based on stats, gear and food... it does not include Miscellaneous and/or musician's buffs as well as %MATK (raw and towards race) including Mystical Amplification.

If you use Amp all the time for casting, you would have: MaxMATK * 1.5 = 1163.6 * 1.5 = 1745.4matk

After that, it will depend on your %matk and you can get up to +5,430matk... and after that, you multiply by the spell itself.

Any doubts... don't hesitate on post here... and hope people find this somehow useful.

I think you will be needing this...

Have fun.

[Rirezz]

I'm going to stop trying to argue, as I got my point across already, and it appears others agree. You're not showing goodwill in discussion by using an ad hominem, and I see no reason to argue with you.

Numbers are not proof. Data is proof. You can't just give your end number results and call that proof. You need to explain how you got there. I'm pretty sure this is basic science. I do not need to post data to prove anything, as you are the one with burden of proof.

How could you possibly say

Usually, when you think someone is wrong, you use their results against them by proving them wrong, not just calling a "hunch"

when I have given no "hunches" and you simply refuse to use "results". I am not trying to prove anything; I am challenging your hypothesis. You are the one with burden of proof.

And given that you're continuing to pull out symbol meanings and terminology out of nowhere, I'm giving up on this cause. Nobody uses rounded d to mean whatever you think it means. Hell, there isn't even anything CALLED an "Area of Incident".

I'm calling it. Please stop pulling numbers and nonexistent math out of thin air.

[Azyrk]

You don't even calculate that correctly, as I pointed out on the first page.
Oh and since we're calling you out on things:

Btw, I'm not using SoD at all lol (my SoD has Spell 5 & matk +2% enchants btw), I'm using my new (old?) Glorious Staff of Destruction and some gear that adds +matk instead so I can compensate for my high base matk.

nice armor (+3int).

Edited by Azyrk, 19 March 2013 - 09:54 PM.

[Wizard]

I'm going to stop trying to argue, as I got my point across already, and it appears others agree. You're not showing goodwill in discussion by using an ad hominem, and I see no reason to argue with you.

Numbers are not proof. Data is proof. You can't just give your end number results and call that proof. You need to explain how you got there. I'm pretty sure this is basic science. I do not need to post data to prove anything, as you are the one with burden of proof.

How could you possibly say



when I have given no "hunches" and you simply refuse to use "results". I am not trying to prove anything; I am challenging your hypothesis. You are the one with burden of proof.

And given that you're continuing to pull out symbol meanings and terminology out of nowhere, I'm giving up on this cause. Nobody uses rounded d to mean whatever you think it means. Hell, there isn't even anything CALLED an "Area of Incident".

I'm calling it. Please stop pulling numbers and nonexistent math out of thin air.

??? What I'm seeing is that you guys just don't get it, hence the reason why you can't argue back.

Dunno what's the complicated of it, really... What good will should I show if I already post some data and results backing that up... I mean, seriously, I fail to understand that point of yours.

Numbers are not proof? Data is not proof? Wow, really? data is just data, that will back up a hypothesis, once has already been proven, the data will became the proof of it... a theory.

How can you be so naive and blind lol... results are right there... for everyone to see... do I have to go over again?

- 1100matk as point of balance between +matk and %matk, why? because after that, 1%matk will be of more "value" than +10matk, at that point, reducing the former will become pointless because the latter will do a better job to do so.

Do you need proof of that??? what proof? the numbers are quite clear an easy to understand... that became a hypothesis and after testing (see page 1), that hypotesis became a theory because thru the experiment (trial/error) it became acceptable... An example of that trial error can be found on first page (even a screenshot of it).

If you fail to understand that... sorry, I don't know what kind of algorithm should I use to make it look easier.

The same applies for INT/DEX/LUK. I gave you the hypothesis behind it... heck I even wrote a law in which an event occurs for INT. DEX and LUK variables are easy to read as well... balance the number of points and you will find same results. That data can't be given since its quite personal for my build... but the background info has been given already lol.

And yes, it seems clear that people agreeing with you have same background and same understanding to all this as yourself, hence why I tried to explain better but I won't hold your hand to make you understand what is quite obvious.

=S

[Rirezz]

And that is why I refuse to continue arguing with you; you're continuing to misrepresent my position while conveniently ignoring issues I pointed out. (Hint: I never argued that 1100 is where 1% matk is more than 10 matk. I'm asking you why that's significant and why you even call that a "barrier". Yes, it's where an arbitrary piece of equipment giving 1% matk is better than 10 matk, but this is common sense and is nothing of interest. Your made-up terminology of "balance breaker" or "barrier" or Kitten-Einstein Wormhole is confusing people to think it's somehow significant or special to have 1100 matk. It is not.)

Heck, you're pretending to have math when I just called out your entire math notation entirely.

And no, presenting arguments and formulas in a way that nobody understands them to the point that nobody can think of a response does NOT count as winning a debate.

Edited by Rirezz, 19 March 2013 - 10:17 PM.

[Azyrk]

Rirez, save your beautiful brain. Arguing with haseo about this is a kitten-einstein wormhole.

huhu thank you blue!

[Rirezz]

I won't further argue about it, since it's obviously going nowhere anywhere... And I usually don't bother to argue math if we don't speak the same notation language anyway.

But yeah, just gonna leave this thread with further proof that there's really no such thing as (and people need to stop worrying about) hypothetical "balance breaker" and "barriers" and stuff.

Work out the math and stuff, use a calculator, whatever. Just do whatever makes sense and checks out with the math. There aren't any hidden bonuses, special break or balance points or anything that isn't obvious in the basic math of mechanics.

Edited by Rirezz, 19 March 2013 - 10:30 PM.

[Wizard]

And that is why I refuse to continue arguing with you; you're continuing to misrepresent my position while conveniently ignoring issues I pointed out. (Hint: I never argued that 1100 is where 1% matk is more than 10 matk. I'm asking you why that's significant and why you even call that a "barrier". Yes, it's where an arbitrary piece of equipment giving 1% matk is better than 10 matk, but this is common sense and is nothing of interest. Your made-up terminology of "balance breaker" or "barrier" or Kitten-Einstein Wormhole is confusing people to think it's somehow significant or special to have 1100 matk. It is not.)

Heck, you're pretending to have math when I just called out your entire math notation entirely.

And no, presenting arguments and formulas in a way that nobody understands them to the point that nobody can think of a response does NOT count as winning a debate.

why? because after 1100matk, which is 11matk, in other words, 1%matk, there will be no meaning on increasing +matk when the max you can get from food and such is less than +20matk in which, some food can you up to 5%matk and by that, rendering useless.

I call it a barrier because its the point of break in where one became more useful than the other... I did mention that several times over and over and yet you fail to either read it or understand it... really... is it that hard to understand? even thou the numbers and the reasoning behind is right there?

If is significant for you or not, is beyond me... but that's a point in where a rational person can decide to opt for the second option which is increase %matk. Simple as that... and yet you failed to understand it.

Arguments were given from the first page... same goes for data and such... If you can't understand, even after I did explain the same thing more than 5 times already, well... dunno what to say... some other people did understood what I meant by that and helped me with the data back on Sakray. Formulas are set in stone from first page as well...

And you are wrong, presenting formulas and math is a way to win a debate... data and hypothesis... but thats usually oriented towards people of the same level of understanding, but I can't make it more easy to understand than that since that's the lowest way to explain something... the basic of the basic algorithm I can fathom to explain.

And no need to save your brain, since it seems it won't be of much use if u can't understand simple math and data behind it. lol

PS: The formulas of irowiki are outdated, hence better off using your own calculations to get data... and coming out with the formulas =)

Edited by Wizard, 19 March 2013 - 10:37 PM.

[Wizard]

PS 2: Presenting formulas and data that no one understand clearly does not qualify as losing a debate... to do so, you have to come out with a theory and prove my results wrong, hence I do encourage you to do so... otherwise all this winning from you will be for nothing since you can't even back up your arguments with data but just pure words that have no real meaning... I have yet to see why 1100matk can't be used as point of break, I did wrote why it should be used for it... but still waiting for a refute.

Edited by Wizard, 19 March 2013 - 10:44 PM.

[Rirezz]

why? because after 1100matk, which is 11matk, in other words, 1%matk, there will be no meaning on increasing +matk when the max you can get from food and such is less than +20matk in which, some food can you up to 5%matk and by that, rendering useless.

I call it a barrier because its the point of break in where one became more useful than the other... I did mention that several times over and over and yet you fail to either read it or understand it... really... is it that hard to understand? even thou the numbers and the reasoning behind is right there?

So... Your fancy terminology "barrier" simply means "point at which arbitrary value A becomes better than arbitrary value B"*? You could have made that clear by just answering when I asked for a definition of "barrier". Because I have never heard anyone else use "barrier" to mean something like that. And that is exactly why I'm calling you out on your terminology: your vague use of words are confusing people into something that doesn't exist.

I repeatedly hear people say "oh, haseo said something about a matk barrier/balance breaker", thinking it's somehow magically special.

*) I'm calling it arbitrary because they are arbitrary. It'd still be more useful to say "x MATK is where weapon A becomes better than weapon B." Random "10 matk" and "1% MATK" are just arbitrary.

And you are wrong, presenting formulas and math is a way to win a debate... data and hypothesis... but thats usually oriented towards people of the same level of understanding

You win by using formulas and math that people understand. Way to completely ignore half of my entire sentence.

Nobody uses your notation or terminology. I've brought this up three times now. I don't care if you have an army of PHDs behind you. Standard math notation exists, and if you're going to call yourself a mathematician, you use them.

Oh, and keep calling me of lesser intelligence, as well. That only further proves that you have no idea what you're talking about. I came into this conversation in good faith, but if you're going to do that, I can't play your game. Sorry.

Edited by Rirezz, 19 March 2013 - 11:18 PM.

[Wizard]

So... Your fancy terminology "barrier" simply means "point at which arbitrary value A becomes better than arbitrary value B"*? You could have made that clear by just answering when I asked for a definition of "barrier". Because I have never heard anyone else use "barrier" to mean something like that. And that is exactly why I'm calling you out on your terminology: your vague use of words are confusing people into something that doesn't exist.

I repeatedly hear people say "oh, haseo said something about a matk barrier/balance breaker", thinking it's somehow magically special.

*) I'm calling it arbitrary because they are arbitrary. It'd still be more useful to say "x MATK is where weapon A becomes better than weapon B." Random "10 matk" and "1% MATK" are just arbitrary.



You win by using formulas and math that people understand.

Nobody uses your notation or terminology. I've brought this up three times now.

I did state that LOOOONNGGGGG ago dude... you just failed to see it.

Barrier, break point, those are terminologies that we use in our every day life... hence why I made a mistake by assuming you had a science background... I do apologize for thinking you had same level when it was the other way around... those are not vague words, you and your friends just failed to understand it... hence my fault by assuming that you guys have your average high school math level... it seems I was mistaken =S

Its nothing magical but just an educated guess, hypothesis, data test, and theory... just your average trial/error research... everyone should be familiar with it by now... I do believe in magic by being a modification of personal reality in which equations from the inner self are manifested in our reality (see human brain evolution research, Oxnard University).

Nobody uses notation or terminology? well... I do, hence not my problem lol... I did try to make it fool-like level but I guess it was still too high?

And no, is not arbitrary because it has data and a hypothesis behind it... it would be arbitrary when I say a number and did not present any data or information to back it up... pretty much like all your arguments >_<.

Glad you finally understood pretty much everything since you haven't mentioned any "assumption" towards my math and data, If you feel like you maybe right and I'm wrong (which i doubt it... cuz its me lol), feel free to research, collect data and prove your hypothesis and then we can argue all you want...

PS: I wasn't trying to make you feel bad... just stating the facts, and apologizing for the assumptions on my part... I thou we were in the same book at least... that's all...

Edited by Wizard, 19 March 2013 - 11:23 PM.

[Rirezz]

Nobody uses notation or terminology? well... I do, hence not my problem lol... I did try to make it fool-like level but I guess it was still too high?

....... What?










Are you kidding me? You're a scientist and you can say that?

Wait, or are you saying that your terminology - which nobody else uses - is fool-level? I... Guess... Okay, if you're going to say that, I... Suppose.

EDIT: I'm removing the rest of my reply. I simply can't argue with someone with the delusion of self-importance to say something as impossibly smug like that.

Edited by Rirezz, 19 March 2013 - 11:52 PM.

[zr0rieu]

@ Rirezz

Your question was answered so there's no point of arguing further.

[Wizard]

....... What?

Are you kidding me? You're a scientist and you can say that?

Wait, or are you saying that your terminology - which nobody else uses - is fool-level? I... Guess... Okay, if you're going to say that, I... Suppose.

EDIT: I'm removing the rest of my reply. I simply can't argue with someone with the delusion of self-importance to say something as impossibly smug like that.

Why not? my terminology is normal, a every day way of talking... lol

Self importance? yes... Narcissist, Egoist, Self-centered, Proud, etc... those traits are quite common for us I think?... I did mention that a while ago, dunno why the surprise now...

And dunno why you said argue... you never argued with me lol, since you never refute and used any proof/data to counter my argument... there was a claim without a statement to back it up, hence it can't be called an argument.

My bad, I do apologize for the misunderstanding lol, but hey, its your fault as well since usually you "argue" with someone by refuting their theories and showing up data to back you up... since you never did so, I thou u just didn't understood my numbers lol and by that, never assumed u were trying to argue lol... perhaps normal ppl have a different believe of what argue with someone really mean? at least in science field.

Just to make things clear again:

- Balance Breaker = cool name isn't? I do refer this to the point in where DEX and LUK became correlated in which there's no waste of stat points... also, it refers to the balance between Equipment and Base MATK, remember that by using Recog Spell, the less difference between those 2, the more MATK output you can get.

- 1100matk break point = I call it like that because is the min amount of MATK in which, 1%matk will be better than +10matk, hence the use of food and such kRO buffs that add +30matk tops, can be easily replaced by mere +3%matk... Its easier to get %matk than +matk, hence its even better for warlocks to get %matk after u reaching that point. Its a terminology that I did explain once I post it here, afterwards, I kept referring to it as such because I thought most ppl were familiar to it.

- Media Breaker = That's the media for the 50%matk increase... its quite simple actually... any increase by multiplication, the closest the number to 50 (media), the more output you will get, hence once you reach 50% or close in %matk, you should aim to do so for the other %matk (which can be towards any race and such). It's quite simple and I did post the math behind it as well, for people to understand... In other words, stacking %matk is not that good if you get farther and farther from the media since the increase of number will only be a nuisance.

Any doubts, comment or new data, feel free to post it here, I shall do the testing and post the results (sadly, most data is personal specially because I just write it down, no need to use Screenshots, hence if I post just numbers, people may think those are made up, hence better off showing just some data and the results of testing).

Thanks and good night.

PS: There's another "law" that involves Misc MATK that has to do with linear equation for the "probability" of events to happen (I did post the formula from my board), I believe there's no need to explain any further that since it will be kinda pointless but yah, is there anyway.

Edited by Wizard, 20 March 2013 - 12:34 AM.

[Rirezz]

@ Rirezz

Your question was answered so there's no point of arguing further.

Yeah, I finally got my answer at that last post. My point still stands that people are getting mislead by the nonstandard terminology, however.

I'm not trying to pick a fight; I just recently got asked by 3 separate people (who want to play warlocks) about what was so special about the 1100 MATK "barrier". I seriously suggest just calling it "the point where +1%MATK is better than +10MATK" instead of assigning your own terminology on them.

--

Update to update on edit

- Balance Breaker = cool name isn't? I do refer this to the point in where DEX and LUK became correlated in which there's no waste of stat points... also, it refers to the balance between Equipment and Base MATK, remember that by using Recog Spell, the less difference between those 2, the more MATK output you can get.

- 1100matk break point = I call it like that because is the min amount of MATK in which, 1%matk will be better than +10matk, hence the use of food and such kRO buffs that add +30matk tops, can be easily replaced by mere +3%matk... Its easier to get %matk than +matk, hence its even better for warlocks to get %matk after u reaching that point. Its a terminology that I did explain once I post it here, afterwards, I kept referring to it as such because I thought most ppl were familiar to it.

- Media Breaker = That's the media for the 50%matk increase... its quite simple actually... any increase by multiplication, the closest the number to 50 (media), the more output you will get, hence once you reach 50% or close in %matk, you should aim to do so for the other %matk (which can be towards any race and such). It's quite simple and I did post the math behind it as well, for people to understand... In other words, stacking %matk is not that good if you get farther and farther from the media since the increase of number will only be a nuisance.

Okay, this is the clarification you probably need to have wherever you refer to them. I know you like your air of mystery and all, but you kind of owe it, because neither "breaker", "break point", or "media" mean anything in conjunction with their explanations.

Thanks for finally making that clear.

P.S. The word you want is "Median".

Edited by Rirezz, 20 March 2013 - 12:50 AM.

[Kieri]

- Balance Breaker = cool name isn't?

No.

"Cool name is not".

Oh wait then yes, I do agree it is not a cool name.

Edited by Kieri, 20 March 2013 - 12:53 AM.

[MrTyranitar]

such kRO buffs

There is none.

[Wizard]

There is none.[/size]

Ask Zero xD

[Azyrk]

If they are kRO exclusive they don't exist on iRO. Stop being ridiculous. This is the crap everyone is talking about.