Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 6.2K All Categories
- 3.1K Everything Achaea
- 1.5K North of Thera
- 26 Archives of the Terraformer
- 257 The Matsuhama Arena
- 885 The Golden Dais of Creation
- 299 The Scarlattan Theatre
- 149 The Blank Canvas
- 2K Getting Help
- 412 General Questions
- 258 Quick Class Questions
- 1.3K Tech Support
- 313 Client Help
- 486 Curing Systems and Scripts
- 841 Off-Topic
- 255 The Wander Inn
- 586 The Universal Membrane
- 298 Class Discussions
- 298 Individual Class Sections
- 20 Alchemist
- 9 Apostate
- 30 Blademaster
- 9 Depthswalker
- 14 Druid
- 4 Infernal
- 20 Jester
- 19 Magi
- 34 Monk
- 11 Occultist
- 8 Paladin
- 7 Priest
- 29 Runewarden
- 18 Sentinel
- 26 Serpent
- 20 Shaman
- 9 Sylvan
Passive Bedevil discussion
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
@Tecton, are we just severely short on mods, or what? If simultaneously derailing my thread while being insanely offensive is not against the forum rules, then what is?
You must be confused, Ernam. I am unsure of this serpent char you believe I have, but whoever you think I am (that you are beating) isn't me!
Anyway, since we're talking about data, hopped on test server for a moment and got some numbers:
https://ada-young.appspot.com/pastebin/525b2e77
10 seconds of attacking against passive bedevil, received 9 afflictions back (almost 1 aff per second).
https://ada-young.appspot.com/pastebin/3447907b
10 seconds of attacking again, received 5 afflictions back (1 aff per 2 seconds).
https://ada-young.appspot.com/pastebin/d4550303
Active bedeviled with four affs, received 2 of them (50%).
Not a huge set of data, but I'm not bored enough to gather more.
Agreed, because it certainly isn't a huge set of data, and it's pretty obvious that they were hand-picked to show extreme results that happen to support your argument. We already know what the proc rates are for bedevil anyways, so why are you trying to tell us they're much higher than they actually are?
Showcasing a set of nine "snake-eyes" out of ten dice rolls (ignoring the other thousand sets) does not in any way mean that there's a 90% chance that rolling dice will result in this occurring. Your first "data set" reminded of one of those youtube videos where someone throws a ping-pong ball into a plastic cup on the ground, from the top of the Eiffel tower, "in a single attempt".
I mean, are you seriously going to quote us "50%" on active bedevil, which is purely random, based on a single data point? (this is a rhetorical question, because yes, you did do exactly that)
We are all, including yourself, educated enough to know that that's intentionally misleading data, but I half-heartedly appreciate you actually bothering to try to back up your counter-argument with some kind of facts.
Right, Ernam. I manufactured the data, as opposed to just testing for ten seconds, then logging off. Just like I wouldn't fight you as monk (lol), you beat me as BM (lol when have I ever even fought BM Ernam), you beat me as priest (lolrite), and unicorns are running around in my backyard.
...You are making up tons of shit about me for no reason. Of course we are going to call you a liar. -You- stick to the topic.
@Ernam
I'm just done, nothing productive is going to come out of this. I asked for valid arguments, and I have received a bit of noteworthy feedback, buried in 5 pages of otherwise useless trash.
Big thanks to @Tesha, @Jules, @Makarios, and even technically @Jhui and @Kross (first post) for actually posting on topic.