766 réponses à ce sujet

[Angelus_de_Mortiel]

You still think my "build" thread back then was inflammatory?

 

Yup. It literally was the definition of inflammatory, but it was not without just cause. It looks like my assessment was actually spot on, too:
 

If Drasca sees reason, then things will improve. If he does not, then mocking him will likely do nothing better than make him more hostile.

 

I think that back then I was a bit more forgiving of the Drascuffalo. He seemed to provide intelligent points mixed with his malicious comments. Now, it's becoming more clear that he just parrots the findings of others and then acts elitist and belittles others in an attempt to mask this shortcoming.

For example: When I was called out about an incorrect statement I made some time ago, it was yarpen (I think?) that originally had the correct information with which to refute my shameful behavior, whereas Drasca just parroted it. After a rather childish tantrum by me, I eventually conceded I was wrong, and took that opportunity to take a break from BSN. Upon coming back and watching interactions, I realized that I began to adopt that same negative attitude by reasoning with the Drascuffalo. I also noticed that Drasca rarely actually provided his own evidence for his claims, instead preferring to adopt the "you are not smart enough to understand, so are therefore unworthy of an explanation" attitude.

 

Seeing Snakebite and others falling into this pit, I decided that you were right, in a matter of speaking. From here on out, if Drasca makes a claim, I will be there demanding his own personal evidence for that conclusion. If he provides it, fair play to him. If he does not provide it, I will do exactly what I did here. Every. Time. He will grow up and act like an adult or leave. I personally would prefer for him to grow up and be more pleasant here, but I will not hold my breath.

Don't mistake it. This is not for the sake of malice or "jumping on the anti-Drasca" train. This is about seeing my PM box fill up with fed up people that are tired of him. This is about seeing "Drasca Blocked" everywhere I go. It's about people coming here for chatting with cool people as much as it is for getting solid information. With Drasca around, chatting with people becomes added stress, and solid information becomes convoluted in the sludge of hypocritical malice.

I, for one, am tired of just sitting around while BioWare issues no warnings for his behavior toward other paying customers. When I bartended back in college, if you had the antagonistic drunk guy making trouble for other patrons, you waved the bouncers over to see him to a cab. Its high time Drasca "sobered up", as it were.

[Gya]

Seeing Snakebite and others falling into this pit, I decided that you were right, in a matter of speaking. From here on out, if Drasca makes a claim, I will be there demanding his own personal evidence for that conclusion. If he provides it, fair play to him. If he does not provide it, I will do exactly what I did here. Every. Time. He will grow up and act like an adult or leave. I personally would prefer for him to grow up and be more pleasant here, but I will not hold my breath.

In all fairness to Drasca, he knows his shiz when it comes to game mechanics, and I know that he does like to test things quite extensively and thoroughly. (I've sat through one such test with Hellbiter!) To re-test everything every time you mention it is a waste of time, however, unless of course other factors have changed eg. Patch, balance change etc.

Once a claim has been tested, and other users have demonstrated reproducibility of the claim, we can probably accept it. Ideally, all claims would be referenced to primary evidence, eg video/screenshot, but this is BSN, not a journal.

[Snakebite]

In all fairness to Drasca, he knows his shiz when it comes to game mechanics, and I know that he does like to test things quite extensively and thoroughly. (I've sat through one such test with Hellbiter!) To re-test everything every time you mention it is a waste of time, however, unless of course other factors have changed eg. Patch, balance change etc.

Once a claim has been tested, and other users have demonstrated reproducibility of the claim, we can probably accept it. Ideally, all claims would be referenced to primary evidence, eg video/screenshot, but this is BSN, not a journal.

 

I corrected Drasca's claims about game mechanics, and do you know how he acknowledged it? I sure don't.  All that has come out of that was 28 pages of him ignoring that which he does not want to hear.  My claim that encore is bugged with PC has been reproduced by Yarpen, and is evidenced in Drasca's own video.  I have yet to see him accept that.

[apocalypse_owl]

PF isn't good at documenting a wide variety of test conditions and setting up a stable platform. i.e. he's lazy and only tries to test a few things, but is unwilling to test more when pressed after making his claim. This doesn't work well for the scientific method.

There are definitely exceptions. For example, certain venatori mages have near immunity to the element they're resistent to, taking 1 damage from shock for example. The high dragons definitely have more resistence than the usual suspects.

Documenting exactly what happens and when is important. The relative resulting damage of resistence is also greatly affected by how the math plays out too.

Let's assume we have an element resistent enemy: He'll halve 1k shock damage to 500. Element vulnerable enemies, even if it is only a 50% bonus, will be 1500 damage, which is 3x what the resistent enemy would take. If it is a 100% bonus, it'll be a factor of 4x vs element resistent enemies.

Brutes however definitely take 2x shock damage. I have plenty of video of me doing 1400-1600 shock damage vs normal targets, and doing double that vs Brutes. Same goes for Despair Demons. They take double fire damage, as fire mines typically do 4-5k with chaotic focus, and they do an upward 8-10k with fire mine.

Spirit vulnerable enemies tend to take double damage from spirit as well afaik. Fear demons and Shock High Dragon is included into the spirit vulnerable categor iirc. (not hard to check).

Then lets see your video proving your point. Since you are all about proof, wheres your 'scientific' video backing your claims? Remember, youve been wrong about a lot of things surrounding power combos, elemental resistance, bugged abilities etc etc before. So lets see it

[Angelus_de_Mortiel]

In all fairness to Drasca, he knows his shiz when it comes to game mechanics, and I know that he does like to test things quite extensively and thoroughly. (I've sat through one such test with Hellbiter!) To re-test everything every time you mention it is a waste of time, however, unless of course other factors have changed eg. Patch, balance change etc.

Once a claim has been tested, and other users have demonstrated reproducibility of the claim, we can probably accept it. Ideally, all claims would be referenced to primary evidence, eg video/screenshot, but this is BSN, not a journal.

 

See, the issue is that Drasca has so intertwined relevant data with malicious statements that you have a difficult time defending one without condoning the other.

 

I used to test things with him in game. I stopped when I actually came to a conflicting conclusion with his and he shut down. I repeatedly requested he explain to me where I went wrong in a polite manner (as I legitimately thought I was wrong and was trying to understand why), but he refused, instead obnoxiously talking over me repeating childishly that I was wrong and stating that he didn't feel like explaining it. I realized later that actually my findings were correct, which is why he reacted this way.

 

You have to look carefully to see that the majority of Drasca's "expertise" comes from a thread made by aznricepuff, whom with the help of others (not Drasca), deduced a large amount of data about the game mechanics. There is nothing wrong with that. It has been established as correct (so long as certain game mechanics remain consistent, c.i.p. "Bonus Damage"). .

 

The problem comes when evidence is provided for a claim, which does not conflict with aznricepuff's (et al) data, like Snakebites or mine, and instead of actually proving his claim or admitting he was wrong, Drasca shuts down and goes into Drascuffalo mode. He will try to bull over the opposition with pseudo-intelligent condescending dismissals/discreditation. Failing that, he resorts to diversion and obfuscation in an attempt to mask that he is wrong. This is all blatantly clear in this thread alone. This is not what I would consider to be a "credible" source. Such a source would constantly seek to learn, not preach. 

Furthermore, this game is not all about data, as I have repeatedly said. While here on BSN, testing / theorycrafting is a rather common pasttime, his reaction to qualitative findings is downright scary. I might add that qualitative data is unequivocally more important that quantitative data when the reference material is a form of entertainment. People come here to socialize and have fun too, but the oppressive Drascuffalo lurking and waiting to pounce on any "moron" (his words) playing an "inefficient" build is palpable.

 

TL;DR: I am, and have always been, supportive and promoting of Drasca's analytical data. It has unfortunately become so mired in malice that a change needs to happen. I would prefer he stay and just grow up, but knowing the Drascuffalo, that will be nigh impossible.

[Pork]

Then lets see your video proving your point. Since you are all about proof, wheres your 'scientific' video backing your claims? Remember, youve been wrong about a lot of things surrounding power combos, elemental resistance, bugged abilities etc etc before. So lets see it

 

I just tested this, across a variety of enemies. Drascas numbers are right. I tested every single demon with different staves. Every single enemy that was vulnerable took around double damage, including the ones the PF had originally tested (which is evidenced by video aswell). This leads me to believe that the resistance/vulnerability values were changed at some point to deal double damage as opposed to 50%.

 

Ive looked back on some older videos aswell (pre destruction), which further backs this theory. 

 

This image is vs a shade. Basic attack damage is 129 lightning and 52 spirit.

 

 

Later on in the same video we have this screenshot vs a fear demon: 

 

 

197 lightning damage and 83 spirit. 

 

 

 

Certainly not the double values we are seeing today, its around 60% +/- 5% bonus damage, which isn't quite what PF reported, but its a lot closer than the double values Drasca claims.

 

My conclusion here is that PFs video is dated, not technically wrong, or lazy as Drasca suggests, just out of date.

 

Full testing is needed of course (no, im not going to do it), but this is just what ive observed today.

[Gya]

Speaking of ruining movies, I just watched Mad Max which I thought was amazing until somehow at the end, the team with Zither! failed. How do you fail when you have a Zither!, let alone Gya's super ultra build? Maybe he was too busy giving out Bolstering Ballad or something. Oh well.

That movie copied me. They would be hearing from my lawyers, but it was a damn good film, so I'll let it slide.

[Angelus_de_Mortiel]

Full testing is needed of course, but this is just what ive observed today.

 

I thought I saw this actually stated by a dev somewhere, where elemental weaknesses were buffed, but I can't seem to find it so I guess not.

 

There have been occasions where people, myself included, have made a claim of current mechanics based on outdated info. It was why I clearly prefaced my claim earlier noting that my info was dated.

 

Regardless, there have been many occasions where Drasca was outrightly wrong on making a statement, usually due to simple oversight. Like when he claimed Spirit Damage ignores magic defense as a way to counter the claims that his Willpower promotions do grant him uncommon survivability against Wraiths. I am pretty sure he was thinking armour, not defense. He knows the mechanics well, so he either just slipped up there, or tried to pull one over on people.

 

The major issue here is that even with a tiny blunder like that, he could not even say, "Whoops! My mistake! I was thinking armour, not defense".

[Hellsteeth30]

That movie copied me. They would be hearing from my lawyers, but it was a damn good film, so I'll let it slide.

All my lawyers are tied up suing people for claiming they invented stuff I invented.

Which is everybody.

Good to see the numbers are still gone, I was starting to think people were taking a half-assed co-op MP experience too seriously.

[yarpenthemad21]

Furthermore, this game is not all about data, as I have repeatedly said. While here on BSN, testing / theorycrafting is a rather common pasttime, his reaction to qualitative findings is downright scary. I might add that qualitative data is unequivocally more important that quantitative data when the reference material is a form of entertainment. People come here to socialize and have fun too, but the oppressive Drascuffalo lurking and waiting to pounce on any "moron" (his words) playing an "inefficient" build is palpable.

This forum has somewhere thread around "which bow to choose", with the variety of every bow possible to take in game. Most of ppl, those afraid of math, say "take cruel redemtion", another "griffon" another "bow of dragon sucks, take punch of the maker".
I don't have time to go there and throw at ppl calculation that they are all wrong. Bow of the dragon because of 41% attack bonus + highest base damage just wins with every other bow. Most funny choice is cruel redemtion, because I've calculated it for me and with best crit damage upgrade (so 81% crit damage bonus) crit hits still was dealing less damage than on dragon bow. Lack of knowledge make ppl do bad decisions and what is also more annoying in this that they all think that "I've taken best weapon".

I would have some general advise for you Angelus. I know that there are ppl out there crying and running around when math is close, but you can't ignore it in most cases, because even if you think that math does not exists it works on you all the time.

Your builds in general aren't my way of playing, I'm more a min/max theorycrafter guy which hates when can't calculate something (because of lack of formula, data etc) and make choices around math most of the time. Also for me definition of fun is correlated with wiping everything as fast and as flashy as possible, not with "using fun skills".
But
You made builds, video guides mostly which probably works well with new and less experience players. It would be nice to add some basic mechanic information. It does need to be math, just mechanic of some skills, abilities, passives so ppl would just know how it works.
Basic things like bonus damage vs % ability damage, why twin fang, skill in which you don't have higher value than 200% in all those different bonuses can hit for 2x5k damage...
When to take crit damage, when to stick with crit chance so in general gearing. Just to slip some math, raw working and tested data in those build just to educate ppl in general.

[Pork]

Just going to throw out there that Drasca has only 12 hours to post his video.

[yarpenthemad21]

Full testing is needed of course (no, im not going to do it), but this is just what ive observed today.

I want to add on list for test red templars as whole faction.
I'm 100% sure that basic units, "red templars" (1h sword guys) have some build in resistance for fire and probably everything.
My auto attack on shade, venatori units, etc -140 damage.
Some magic happens and on red templar 1h guys is 99-100 damage.

[Kenny Bania]

Just going to throw out there that Drasca has only 12 hours to post his video.

 

I fully expect him to post one last minute leaving no room for a rebuttal.

[Hellsteeth30]

I fully expect him to post one last minute leaving no room for a rebuttal.

I bet 25000000 AW nerfs on this.

[Angelus_de_Mortiel]

Your builds in general aren't my way of playing, I'm more a min/max theorycrafter guy which hates when can't calculate something (because of lack of formula, data etc) and make choices around math most of the time. Also for me definition of fun is correlated with wiping everything as fast and as flashy as possible, not with "using fun skills".
But
You made builds, video guides mostly which probably works well with new and less experience players. It would be nice to add some basic mechanic information. It does need to be math, just mechanic of some skills, abilities, passives so ppl would just know how it works.
Basic things like bonus damage vs % ability damage, why twin fang, skill in which you don't have higher value than 200% in all those different bonuses can hit for 2x5k damage...
When to take crit damage, when to stick with crit chance so in general gearing. Just to slip some math, raw working and tested data in those build just to educate ppl in general.

 

You are completely honest about it, and you will never hear me say that your opinion on this is incorrect. We have discussed this before, unfortunately, and it was turned into a "Mortiel plays for fun, Drasca plays for efficiency", which is complete nonsense. It's all fun. I am just more diverse in what I consider fun than others.
 

I have a evolved a formula over the course of making videos based partly on quantitative and partly on qualitative data for how I devise my builds. I'll let you see my process so you can understand my position and why I do what I do:

1. Play the character. See how each ability behaves. During this period, I deliberately ignore all claims by others on what skills are "best" to avoid outside bias. I want some quantitative data on damage and functionality, but also qualitative data on how much "fun" I have with a skill. Elemental Mines comes to mind as a skill that was, until it's buff, rather lackluster for damage, but extremely satisfying to use.

2. Research mechanics/bugs, add up attribute stats, test the qualitative "flow" of skill use in a natural game environment.

 

3. Play PUG matches and get some people talking about the character. Get opinions. I prefer to get at least 15-20 different matches with random people for this.

4. Look through my YouTube shortlist of others that make build guides. Most of the time, they usually have 90% identical builds for most classes, so this brings me to a choice for the next step.

5. Is there enough quantitative or qualitative data to make a build that behaves in a completely different way that the "standard" build? If yes, get creative. If not, work on making a layman's explanation for why the standard build is good.

 

6. Tweak build. Repeat steps 1-3 until the build "feels" solid. Mostly qualitative, but some quantitative data applies (such as maximizing critical chance for Flow of Battle, etc).

Now, that is just the way I devise the build. I am removing the recording, editing, and mastering from it, because that is largely not in contention.

 

 

To be clear, this formula has been evolving since I started. It was not this way from the beginning. Older videos have clear errors in them, which I have fought with my OCD side to just let them be and move forward so I don't drive myself mad. However, even now I will frequently overlook certain points of data by mistake, misquote mechanics based on incorrect/outdated info, mistake one character for another, make errors in production, or all of the above. Seriously, you have no idea how many tiny mistakes that may be unnoticeable to you are like glaring beacons to me in my videos.

 

I can say, with a certain degree of honestly, that with making videos, I try to make relevant commentary about mechanics of the abilities I choose, such I when I noted that Toxic Cloud does not stack or that the Bow of the Griffon is a solid choice for the Hunter (read: not necessarily best) as he does well as a CQB archer. I don't always add these in, as I often have not confirmed certain points with enough certainty. The problem with starting to state "facts" about things like Bonus Damage in particular is that it is proven inconsistent. Using your example of Twin Fangs versus Wrath of Heaven. Both bonus damage. One is a multiplier (as Bonus Damage should be), and the other is a additive bonus to the base. In the YouTube world, confusing the audience is tantamount to suicide, and there is an obvious degree of posterity in what I do.

 

Overall, I try to be unique with my builds, as not many want to see the same build parroted by a dozen different videos. This has lead to some friction with players such as yourself, but I knew that risk going in. 

 

As far as mechanics go, I did make a very accurate, and triple confirmed Beginner's Guide that outlined general damage mechanics quite concisely. From that experience, I learned that it is quite tough for me to get really detailed on mechanics in a video and it not become really droll and long. Given that I have had to completely scrap and start over on guides recently due to balance changes has lead me to start being even less detailed about damage and duration figures, and focus more on how the skill actually works in a real environment.

I apologize for this being so long, but I am really trying to articulate where I am coming from, as I honestly think many of the disagreements between you an I have largely due to simply not "speaking the same language", and I felt that I owed you a more unfiltered explanation.

[Pork]

I want to add on list for test red templars as whole faction.
I'm 100% sure that basic units, "red templars" (1h sword guys) have some build in resistance for fire and probably everything.
My auto attack on shade, venatori units, etc -140 damage.
Some magic happens and on red templar 1h guys is 99-100 damage.

 

Just tested this one out. 

 

Red Templars (zealots) have no resistances listed whatsoever. However, in all the observed tests I did, Red Templars had elemental resistance to ice, fire and lightning (I used mindchill staff, staff of the dragon and Puritys Light). The observed damage reduction was 33% in all elemental damage. Spirit runes did identical damage across all three factions.

 

Interesting stuff! 

[Angelus_de_Mortiel]

Just tested this one out.

Red Templars (zealots) have no resistances listed whatsoever. However, in all the observed tests I did, Red Templars had elemental resistance to ice, fire and lightning (I used mindchill staff, staff of the dragon and Puritys Light). The observed damage reduction was 33% in all elemental damage. Spirit runes did identical damage across all three factions.

Interesting stuff!

One question, because I cannot remember off hand and cannot look it up at this time: Do all elemental damage types ignore armour or just Spirit? If not, could this play a role?

[Pork]

One question, because I cannot remember off hand and cannot look it up at this time: Do all elemental damage types ignore armour or just Spirit? If not, could this play a role?

 

Yes, all elemental damage ignores armor by design. Only physical attacks and abilities are affected by armor ratings.

[Drasca]

Speaking of ruining movies, I just watched Mad Max which I thought was amazing until somehow at the end, the team with Zither! failed.  How do you fail when you have a Zither!, let alone Gya's super ultra build?  Maybe he was too busy giving out Bolstering Ballad or something.  Oh well.

 

He (the stunt man for Doof Warrior) was apparantly busy romancing the actress for the Red Haired Bride, who's Elvis Presley's Granddaughter. Their relationship seems to have a disgusting lack of flaming guitars, even after they married.

[Yumi]

This thread, these long posts, man it has power leveled my reading skill tree

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

This thread, these long posts, man it has power leveled my reading skill tree

 

I put all my points in "Skim."

 

Sure, it doesn't crit as often, or for as much, but it helps me finish faster, which I figure pays off when grinding.

[Yumi]

I put all my points in "Skim."

Sure, it doesn't crit as often, or for as much, but it helps me finish faster, which I figure pays off when grinding.

You ran with that better than Usain Bolt

[Cirvante]

This forum has somewhere thread around "which bow to choose", with the variety of every bow possible to take in game. Most of ppl, those afraid of math, say "take cruel redemtion", another "griffon" another "bow of dragon sucks, take punch of the maker".
I don't have time to go there and throw at ppl calculation that they are all wrong. Bow of the dragon because of 41% attack bonus + highest base damage just wins with every other bow. Most funny choice is cruel redemtion, because I've calculated it for me and with best crit damage upgrade (so 81% crit damage bonus) crit hits still was dealing less damage than on dragon bow. Lack of knowledge make ppl do bad decisions and what is also more annoying in this that they all think that "I've taken best weapon".

 

People recommend Cruel Redemption for Perilous because of it's HoH ability, you genius. It makes the Archer more survivable in absence of a barrier pet. It can also hold a crit chance mod for underpromoted players who want to make better use of 'Opportunity knocks'.

 

And when you consistently run around hugging enemies with the Hunter, then the Griffon bow can out-DPS the Dragon bow. Your calculations mean nothing when you ignore the abilities of the weapons in question.

[Hellsteeth30]

This thread, these long posts, man it has power leveled my reading skill tree

I crashed 4 times and had to hard reboot twice.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

You ran with that better than Usain Bolt

 

My name isn't as cool, tho'.