Aller au contenu

Photo

Demon faction - fire, ice and lightning resistances/weaknesses?


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
50 réponses à ce sujet

#26
Guest_Mortiel_*

Guest_Mortiel_*
  • Guests

We all learn something new each day :)

 

I am familiar with spirit damage since Necromancer is my most played class, largely due to the fact that she, among all the mages, is the only one without barrier.

 

It doesn't really matter much on threatening difficulty, but on perilous I tend to pick which targets I hit with walking bomb whenever possible.  It probably wouldn't matter for people with very high willpower, but to me it does.

 

Your agrument was validated, but careful not to augment it with what could easily become a logical fallacy (read: Argument from Authority), as playing with a character a lot does not always denote expertise in damage resistances/weaknesses. However, please do not misunderstand this. You are granting me the opportunity to get some much needed data, for which I am grateful.

As I said your evidence in rebuttal was inconclusive, but it was my burden to prove/disprove. I am doing this as an example of how to make a claim and provide evidence to either prove or disprove that claim. It is objective and factual, even to my own detriment. I am making a demonstration of scientific method, not just empirical observation, so everyone can see the difference. (Of course, there is one more important part in this for you all to find.)

Now, to be clear, what happened here, like in many other topics, I got emotionally involved with my claim. People will use a plethora of logical fallacies as arguments when this happens. I, myself, used one here in trying to shift the burden of proof to you. When someone gets too emotionally involved with a discussion or debate, the intelligence of the topic devolves rapidly in many cases. Thankfully that did not happen here.

 

It all comes down to standing by a claim, and accepting when it's wrong. I made a array of claims, many of which were wrong. Fortunately, everyone, including me, gets to benefit from my erroneous assumptions with factual data. That's the beauty of science.

 

There were a few other things I learned from this, as well:

1. Critical hits are calculated twice per basic attack when a rune is equipped on the weapon, as in many cases I would see either the base or rune damage critical hit independent of each other.
2. Wraiths normally have no strengths/weaknesses, but take on the strengths weaknesses of elemental demons to which they are in close proximity (should have been obvious, yes, but I honestly did not think about it).
3. The final hit in a staff's combo chain seems to guarantee a status proc from the elemental type (Fire=Burning, Cold=Chilled, Electric=Shocked). I noticed this when using the Mindchill staff of a Despair Demon, and noticing each time I'd do the multi-shot basic attack, it would always show up with three "Immune" messages in addition to the Cold and Spirit damage.

 

And for reference, here is the video:

 



#27
Kenny Bania

Kenny Bania
  • Members
  • 2 903 messages

hanoobken wins!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



#28
N172

N172
  • Members
  • 945 messages
Thanks guys, it appears that for me it is best to put fire-runes in my non-staff-weapons while lightning-runes are the worst for me.

#29
Drasca

Drasca
  • Members
  • 2 574 messages

Oh you switched between classes... you didn't use a good control subject for comparison. It is good enough for demonstration purposes, but still pretty sloppy. No demonstration of what gear and skills were put on, no promotes shown. The basic stats (translating into combined attack power from multiple sources), passives (ability multiplier) & gear (lots of parts on the equation) do matter in damage calculations.

 

Sloppy, just sloppy.



#30
hanoobken

hanoobken
  • Members
  • 192 messages

And yet here we are coming to nearly identical conclusions.  You with your scientific method, and me with my observation skills.  I keep things simple, you like to over-complicate things.

 

Not all people you talk down to are stupid just because they do not employ the same methods as you.


  • Drasca et Kenny Bania aiment ceci

#31
Drasca

Drasca
  • Members
  • 2 574 messages

Technically you're both contributing to the scientific method, but Mortiel has been a jerk about it (and sloppy with his methodology). He admitted he let his emotions take over -- which to me is being sloppy in posting as well as his data gathering methods.

 

Sloppy Mortiel, just sloppy! Shape up! You should apologize to Hanoobken for the attitude. Oh, apologize for your sloppy data gathering too while you're at it! No consistency in controls, no full disclosure on skills, gear and promotes involved. Grumble grumble.


  • Kenny Bania aime ceci

#32
Kenny Bania

Kenny Bania
  • Members
  • 2 903 messages

You should apologize to Hanoobken for the attitude.

 

Agreed.



#33
ALTBOULI

ALTBOULI
  • Members
  • 2 704 messages
I think Drasca should appologise for playing down the importance of promotions in this game, loooooool skill :D

#34
akots1

akots1
  • Members
  • 1 223 messages

Agreed.

You are naive by thinking that an ***hole can stop being an ***hole out of a sudden. Abandon all hope ye who enter BSN.


  • Kenny Bania aime ceci

#35
Guest_Mortiel_*

Guest_Mortiel_*
  • Guests

Oh you switched between classes... you didn't use a good control subject for comparison. It is good enough for demonstration purposes, but still pretty sloppy. No demonstration of what gear and skills were put on, no promotes shown. The basic stats (translating into combined attack power from multiple sources), passives (ability multiplier) & gear (lots of parts on the equation) do matter in damage calculations.

 

Sloppy, just sloppy.

 

Actually, it was accidental at first... I realized it after the second match, but I deliberately did not change it. I mentioned the last part of the scientific method that was really important, right?

 

It's Peer Review.

 

Of course, hanoobken mistakes me disconnecting myself from the subject to be objective as talking down to him. And I will not apologize for something that I am not sorry about. I speak in an intelligent and articulate manner, that is all.

 

Drasca, you are correct, though. hanoobken was an integral part of the scientific process. I made a claim. He provided preliminary data. I tested in-depth to confirm. You reviewed for accuracy. Yay! Science works!



#36
Kenny Bania

Kenny Bania
  • Members
  • 2 903 messages

Hmmm. Still no apology.



#37
Guest_Mortiel_*

Guest_Mortiel_*
  • Guests

Hmmm. Still no apology.

 

Nope. And there will not be one.

 

I made incorrect assumptions about enemy resistances. I was proven wrong, and admitted that. I am not sorry I made the assumptions.



#38
Kenny Bania

Kenny Bania
  • Members
  • 2 903 messages

Nope. And there will not be one.

 

I made incorrect assumptions about enemy resistances. I was proven wrong, and admitted that. I am not sorry I made the assumptions.

 

No one is asking you to apologise for being wrong. It's for the condescending attitude while being wrong.



#39
ALTBOULI

ALTBOULI
  • Members
  • 2 704 messages

blah blah blah - too much theory-crafting from BSN WolfNerds. we can settle who is right or wrong in a thunderdome!!!


  • Kenny Bania aime ceci

#40
Guest_Mortiel_*

Guest_Mortiel_*
  • Guests

No one is asking you to apologise for being wrong. It's for the condescending attitude while being wrong.

 
I really fail to see the condescension. I have been treating no one here as inferior. I was, in fact, explaining why I was appreciative of hanoobken for challenging my claim and my reasoning as to why I went the route I did. I understand that text communication loses some effect, but I always thought that you explained more to those whom you see as peers and less to those whom are under you.
 
EDIT: *facepalm* My reading comprehension needs some work.
 
Now, going back and rereading the entire conversation, I would say, as objectively as I can, that both hanoobken and I were pretty rude to each other, but partially due to miscommunication, not me being wrong. Let me show my work here so others can see what I do:
 

Fear demon takes nearly thrice the spirit damage when crit with a staff auto attack compared to wraiths and shades.

-This is really where I was lost... I still do not understand what was meant here, but instead of asking, I just bulled on through.

So... what was the non-critical hit damage of each enemy? Critical hits are irrelevant in determining elemental resistance.
 
You could just bloody enter the fade and hover your ghost over these enemy types, at which point it outlines the current HP and any resistances/weaknesses/immunities.
 
-I just completely disregarded the valid parts of his statement and focused on the parts that are likely a miscommunication.

You would know this if you actually paid attention to it.  
 
Are you blind?  You can see the critical hits with the BIG FLASHING NUMBERS.  Look at the damage I did to the terror and fear demon.  Both have non-crits and crit numbers in them.
 
-In hindsight, this was likely the most condescending statement made, but now the miscommunication becomes apparent. He has no idea to what I was referring. Of course, this was a challenge to me, so I completely threw out all notions of questioning and instead assumed he was just not listening to me.

No, I'm not blind, but I think you may want to consider more careful observation. So since you missed it, let me highlight the part of my reply you should have noticed...
 
-And where I completely derailed. Not even an attempt to stay on topic.

While you are so busy looking on from the fade...
 
-He responds in kind.

 
Again, I fail to see the condescension. I definitely see a rather poor excuse for an argument, but condescension usually implies one person treats another as inferior, but we both were treating each other rather poorly.
 
To be honest, I was still rather heated when doing my testing (which lead to an error that Drasca pointed out),  which was exacerbated by this:
 

We all learn something new each day :)

 
Which I also took as condescending. However, I was at that point rather annoyed by having to load like twenty matches to get Demons on my third match (seriously, BioWare... manual faction selection). At that point, I had to either separate myself to maintain some objectivity or get more upset. I chose the former, which is why I was over-explaining.



#41
Kenny Bania

Kenny Bania
  • Members
  • 2 903 messages

I really fail to see the condescension. I have been treating no one here as inferior. I was, in fact, explaining why I was appreciative of hanoobken for challenging my claim and my reasoning as to why I went the route I did. I understand that text communication loses some effect, but I always thought that you explained more to those whom you see as peers and less to those whom are under you.

 

EDIT: *facepalm* My reading comprehension needs some work.

 

That may not be your intent, but it comes off that way to me anyway.

 

You've also hit 1000 posts  :wizard:


  • Drasca aime ceci

#42
Guest_Mortiel_*

Guest_Mortiel_*
  • Guests

That may not be your intent, but it comes off that way to me anyway.

 

You've also hit 1000 posts  :wizard:

 

I edited the post once I reread what you said correctly.



#43
Drasca

Drasca
  • Members
  • 2 574 messages

It's Peer Review.

 

*facepalm* My reading comprehension needs some work. 

 

No one is asking you to apologise for being wrong. It's for the condescending attitude while being wrong.

 

That may not be your intent, but it comes off that way to me anyway.

 

Peer review says Kenny Bania's right about this point.


  • Kenny Bania aime ceci

#44
Guest_Mortiel_*

Guest_Mortiel_*
  • Guests

Peer review says Kenny Bania's right about this point.

I edited the post once I reread what you said correctly.

 

Actually, that's conjecture. He responded to what I said before the edit. Let's him respond to the rest of my post before making that claim. Not saying you do not have a reason to say that, I am just saying that you are lacking data.

 

(See what I did there? B) )



#45
Drasca

Drasca
  • Members
  • 2 574 messages

Actually, that's conjecture.

 

From multiple peers. lol. You play since the patch? I'm about to.



#46
Guest_Mortiel_*

Guest_Mortiel_*
  • Guests

You play since the patch? I'm about to.

 

No, I've been in my studio all day.



#47
Kenny Bania

Kenny Bania
  • Members
  • 2 903 messages

Peer review says Kenny Bania's right about this point.

 

I read it, and haven't changed my mind. I'm not just making references to this topic either.



#48
hanoobken

hanoobken
  • Members
  • 192 messages

It all started here.  A claim from an "authority figure" without any actual proof whatsoever.  Note that according to you the only two things you haven't tested in this statement was about fear demons and terrors.  So according to this statement you've already tested everything else, including that rule of thumb.

The general rule of thumb is that the four elements are arranged in opposing pairs: Fire opposes Ice; Lightning opposes Spirit.

 

As such, Pride Demons are resistant to Lightning; but weak to Spirit. Rage are resistant to Fire but weak to Ice; Despair are strong to Ice but weak to Fire. I have not officially tested this final one, but I heard that Fear Demons round out the group, being resistant to Spirit but weak to Lightning.

However, that is not always the case: Wraiths are weak to Spirit but immune to Poison. Shades appear to have no resistances or weaknesses. I have not in depth tested this, but Terrors may be resistant to Spirit but weak to Poison.

EDIT: I struck-out the Poison parts as Poison is a status effect. not an element,

 

Here you start criticizing my method of determining damage resistance again without any actual proof of your own, whatsoever.  You know the 2nd step to the scientific method is to do a background research, which you still haven't done at this point and yet continue to make claims.


Fade Cloak does a huge amount of damage, so using it to test resistant will be misleading. Walking Bomb similarly does a lot of damage both DOT and in the explosions, so again, that is also a poor way to judge resistance.

Fear Demons and Terrors appear to take slightly less damage on average from Spirit compared to Shades, whereas Fear Demons take more damage from Lightning. Again, I have not tested either in-depth, but I want to be clear on your method being a bit flawed lol.

 

Here you intentionally overlooked "inconclusive" data because you were losing your cool, at which point it really just became a laughing matter to me.  And still you had no data to back your claims.

So... what was the non-critical hit damage of each enemy? Critical hits are irrelevant in determining elemental resistance.

Scientific method, man. Take out as many variables as possible.

 

1. Make hypothesis. In this case, "Fear Demon and Terror are resistant to Spirit damage."

 

2. Establish a control (e.g. Shade). Gather ten non-critical hits on a Shade and average the elemental damage from that. That is your control.

3. For each the Fear Demon and Terror, get ten non-critical hits and average the elemental damage from that. You should now have three numbers: Control (Shade), Test 1 (Fear Demon), and Test 2 (Terror).

 

4. Extrapolate data. Just because one average is higher does not indicate a weakness/resistance. It has been proven before that weakness means the target takes 50% more damage from that elemental source, whereas resistance means it takes 50% less. Your numbers should either agree with that or not. This will determine if the hypothesis is true or not.

 

 

 

 

Or, you know... You could just bloody enter the fade and hover your ghost over these enemy types, at which point it outlines the current HP and any resistances/weaknesses/immunities. You would need a second person that could stay alive patiently while you looked.

 

For someone who keeps on insisting that we follow the scientific method, you have the gall to make claims and ridicule someone's methods without doing research at all (until way later).  And you lost your cool which in itself is pretty hilarious, by the way.

 

It would've been a much shorter story if after I presented my data you went and said "hmm... let me test that for myself" using whatever method you thought was correct.

 

To your credit though, you had the balls to recant.

 

People look up to you in this community as some sort of Authority Figure for your guides and advice about this game and whatever other games you makes guides for.  I respected that.  Try not to ruin it for those who still look up to you.


  • Drasca et Kenny Bania aiment ceci

#49
Guest_Mortiel_*

Guest_Mortiel_*
  • Guests

It all started here. A claim from an "authority figure" without any actual proof whatsoever. Note that according to you the only two things you haven't tested in this statement was about fear demons and terrors. So according to this statement you've already tested everything else, including that rule of thumb.

People look up to you in this community as some sort of Authority Figure for your guides and advice about this game and whatever other games you makes guides for. I respected that. Try not to ruin it for those who still look up to you.


If anything, this should provide plenty of evidence that I am no "authority", except an "authority " on making unfounded claims.

I honestly would rather not be considered in any esteemed position, as I've really not earned any such thing. There are many others, such as Drasca, that have actually put effort into providing accurate data. I've put effort into making videos (that not many people watch, mind you) based 70% on completely subjective and/or incomplete material. I hardly see how that qualifies me as an authority on anything.

With that said, I have become increasingly more negative here. I think it's about time I stopped pretending I'm contributing and take my leave with some dignity.

TL;DR: It was quite well established that I was completely wrong here. However, it's really only the most recent incident like it. I think it's clear I have the wrong attitude to contribute here.

Thanks, everyone!
  • Drasca aime ceci

#50
Kenny Bania

Kenny Bania
  • Members
  • 2 903 messages

If anything, this should provide plenty of evidence that I am no "authority", except an "authority " on making unfounded claims.

I honestly would rather not be considered in any esteemed position, as I've really not earned any such thing. There are many others, such as Drasca, that have actually put effort into providing accurate data. I've put effort into making videos (that not many people watch, mind you) based 70% on completely subjective and/or incomplete material. I hardly see how that qualifies me as an authority on anything.

With that said, I have become increasingly more negative here. I think it's about time I stopped pretending I'm contributing and take my leave with some dignity.

TL;DR: It was quite well established that I was completely wrong here. However, it's really only the most recent incident like it. I think it's clear I have the wrong attitude to contribute here.

Thanks, everyone!

 

Are you retiring from the thread or BSN in general?