Ohh the power of the ExBow....lol (in General)

Was looking at my opponents and couldn't help but tob see this and say lolololol. This is a prime Example of the ExBow @ work.....say it's not a 1/0 weapon now.

Wardenskeep

Defender
Construct (F) (+) 80 1 0 1 97.56 13.2 Oct 5
Attacker
Construct (F) (+) 81 0 0 0 100.00 9.8 1:13 AM EDT

Certain strategies are supposed to have other strategies on lock down.

Everything has its positives and drawbacks. Much like you bringing up this tired old topic. Instead of reducing the ExBow's effectiveness, we should just reduce the ELB's damage. That's really the type of thing you're proposing.

So your current argument is that because the CB has a peculiarity about how the rounds happen the exbow is overpowered?

Sye: I reserve the right to laugh at anything I so choose and to me this is huilarious, stupid but hilarious.

Vu-Vu: No but remember that it took me putting Tons of CBD into my ELB. To make it viable for a SM Strat but if that is how you ant to take it go for it I honestly do not care.

Nov: Once again no, My point in this is if He goes first he wins if you go first you win. That at It's basis makes it a 1/0 Weapon period.

It's highly dependent on the items I've got equipped, and it took him doubling the damage of mine to account for all the HP I've got.

Stupid phone >.<

Sye that comment was meant for Vu Vu

This one is yours: True but it is still a ExBow on ExBow....redundant and dumb.

Nov: It's stiill an ExBow wa which is quite Stupid. Also note he has x12k on his ExBow so I think he's taking your HPs into account.

How is you killing me in a single round any less stupid?


FuerGrissa ost Drauka (I Win) defeated Construct after 1 rounds of combat

sorry...but I just can't handle you comparing the two

You do 20m damage in a single round, second largest HP in the game and I'm dead before I have a chance to blink.

I've advocated for STR regen, suggested items to help the situation, and yet instead of pushing those, you choose to ignore that it's specifically your setup which requires the exbow to function like it does and whine.

Horsepucky I NEVER compared these two in this thread nov VuVu did get it straight. However to put it into perspective: I did not whine I laughed at something I observed because I thought it to be funny. I also pointed out it was hard not to say it is not a 1/0 weapon after seeing this that is all.

Finally yes I could compare them if I chose to considering that yes I do massive damage my set up is made to do this.

On a one to one Ratio nov point blank you do more damage in a shot than I do in a round....Me 4-5 shots 20 Mil HPs down the drain.....you 1 Shot 21 Mil Str down the drain Char no good and a loss so yeah in your words pfft go whine some where else I cannot stomach it.

HP isn't STR Zenai...

If you'd chosen to use an RoBF, or familiar tat instead of the ToA you'd still be able to fight. I have no such capability.

Keep those blinders up buddy... they've served you well so far.

Ohhh blinders is it nov? Seriously....blinders....HAH!

You act as if my char can function WITHOUT Str....that sir is an impossibility, and you know it hence the ExBow, so your one shot drain is STILL just as devistating as my 4-5 Shots. You drain me I am useless might as well call the loss buddy because that is what it is the comparison sticks nov get over it.

Now we can point and counterpoint all day nov and you know if I choose too I can hang with you but honestly it is pointless since this thread was supposed to be somewhat lighthearted.

Just a little addition...

You talk about being setup for maximum damage Zenai... why are you then so opposed to someone specializing in disabling you?

"say it's not a 0/1 weapon now" isn't exactly lighthearted

tbh, this is just a clustermonkey of doom and should be kept to yourselves.

Novice: You have a point and I'm agreeing with you - if certain individuals wouldn't be untouchable without the ExBow working the way it does, I'd think changing it would be a good idea, maybe. But, certain people have broken the game and need to still be mortal.

Zenai: Stop complaining about a function of the game. You spending so much USD doesn't give you a free pass on "winning the game". I know your whole purpose is to beat novice. Great. Don't taunt his gameplay style in public. I don't see him doing that to you.

I've once heard someone saying the exact same thing as Ranger and his USD input.

Hmmmm

Lemme know if I'm interpreting this wrongly, but I see

Strategy designed to put out big damage in melee, uses Exbow to nerf physical attackers

Strategy designed to put out big damage in ranged, uses Elbow for massive physical damage output

Seems like the Exbow one should win every time, but the way rounds work the attacker gets a shot off first and with that enormous damage, wins

I agree, this is amusing...but it has nothing to do with "a prime example of the Exbow at work" and more "a prime example of how rounds work causing the Exbow to fail"

You've missed it OB... the initial post was about Slayer and I beating each other depending on who is fighting.

Ahhhh, okay

I got confused because of the mention about Zenai 1-rounding you

So it's two melee strategies that fight with Exbows, but because of the way rounds work, whoever attacks the other essentially wins because their bow hits first

2 physical damage vs. 2 physical nerf

If you would like this thread to remain open, stop making debates personal.

Thank you.

well i dont know... i think exbow % should be tweaked alittle... but thats probably just me

With the all the viable counters to the exbow I feel it is fine where it's at. Here's a list of all the different ways to beat a exbow team.

-Any mage setup
-evasion
-UC
-DB's
-Robf
-GA
-PL
-ToE
-High HP
-using an exbow yourself ;).. As we've seen with proof from this thread..

Nov: Seriously dude you just are not getting it. It's not an attack in any way I Pointed something out and said "LOL", yes I also said 1/0 Weapon but honestly look at your wins to each other.....80/80 dude that is hilarious! No sarcasm involved, no underlying meanings, no hidden points just a bit of laughter.....geeze.

Vu-Vu: First - PG! Second - Honestly stop attempting to read my mind and divine my thoughts you will fail. To add to this I NEVER said anything about USD or getting a free pass on dominating the game. So far you are two for two in bringing trash into the thread and being terribly wrong on both attempted points. Now if I wanted to go the distance with USD I could but I see no strategic reason to do so, furthermore even with more USD infusion I am STILL suceptible to other strats.The ExBow is only one of several things I must think about in concern to my strat.

Yes I could do many things to change the outcome of my fights but I have not but not because of any reason that you have seen fit to throw out but because it is not necessary.

OB: Out of everyone that has commented you are the only one to get my apparently twisted sense of humor. Thankyou for seeing it as I intended it.

Yeah I figured you skewed it to favor your point nov...you didn't have your tat on and that is with an Electric Familiar(With a ToA it is roughly 4 Rounds). Kinda low to try that nov honestly I am disappointed.

Am I missing something or couldn't Zenai just hire, put PL on the 2nd minion and then as long as he kills novice in 1 round the PL minion would eat the -STR for the archer?

It seems like the ExBow has a ton of counters.

The real issue is with evasion/tohit and the "cliff", if you are unhittable = invincble, and then as soon as you are hittable = dead. You end up spending a ton of NW on DBs or EXP on Evasion (or both) and because of that once the enemy can overcome it the rest of your stats are too weak to survive...

Evasion needs to be redone, not the ExBow and instead of its binary 0/1 dodge it should have much more of a bell curve where you take partial damage, turn it into an alternate type of AC essentially -- if you dodge somewhat and get hit in the arm instead of the chest it should hurt less.

Yeah zenai could do that, but for some odd reason unknown to me there is this giant rivalry going on, on who has the biggest baddest single minion. So I highly doubt you'll see that any time soon. Part of me kind of misses the days when Picasso was the largest single minion. At least then every thread didn't derail into a novice vs zenai argument.

I don't believe you could nerf the exbow and still have it be useful at the same time. And I'm not even sold on the idea it needs a nerf. I listed ten viable counters to the exbow above. Find me ten counters to GA better yet the robf, yeah the exbows fine where it's at.

the real funny part is those who think the X is okay either use it or are a mage :)

And even funnier those that want it nerfed don't have a counter to it ;p

:) i dont need a counter to it lol... But i still think it should be tweaked...

Before the ExBow was a detriment to my strat I advocated a change to the ExBow so honestly this is nothing new for me and why I keep saying it's not just because of my strat.

Bare bones though this was my laugh at the situation:

ExBow Hit nov goes down, ExBow hit Slayer goes down. I think that is funny and fitting to be honest. Hell if SHD came back and him and I had this same back and forth I would laugh at that too. Why? Because it is ridiculously funny.

We are looking at the freaks of the game do exactly as Jon always intended...Balance each other out so that there would be no clear #1 like Spid in CB1.

Now the mechanics of each weapon super boosted is a different subject as well as how we play, my intention was to simply point and laugh. Saying 1/0 from looking at this fits as well it is what it is there should be no problem calling it like it is.

Yes nov and I have a Rivalry.....we've had this rivalry for a very long time even when we were in TKII together it's just more public now.

Nov: I have agreed on more than one occassion with your intended ideas for both the EBow and ELB so I have no Idea where you think it's a personal attack when I said 1/0 Weapon when you have called it the same many times yourself.

It's not balance. It's a highlight of how rounds aren't actually simultanious, and the advantage goes to the attacker.

That's the antithesis of balance really...

Besides, this has been an issue for a long time. The binary switches were one of Sute's main gripes, of which Evasion/EXBows were top of that list.

But it is funny. ;)

Funny situations like this pop up form the infinite level system combined with % reductions. Eventually as the game goes on enough people will have near 100% reduction to physical damage and then everyone will whine about how mages rule the game, or how vorpal blades are the only way to run a tank :D

We hit that once already! :P

Is that what brought about SS and the AC reduction? I must have missed that part of the change log.

I remember something similar to this happening with Ranger back when he had Koy as the biggest team. I could double tap him and get a win but when he fought me I never did any damage to his team. It had something to do with the attacker going first.

I know it happened in CB1, and I think we got somewhat close in CB2.

wasn't freed the one in cb2 to do it? if people send me cbd i can hit it as well! ; )

Slayer is already at that point

i want 600 without steel skin! ; )

Ok, I'll need another billion networth please.

without steel skin you block about 80 percent. do you end up with any steel skin ac when fighting zen's character?

Oh hi Dude, I assassinate you. ;)

GL You're right in the Rounds but wrong on the Weapons capabilities. At any rate as fast as characters are starting to move up I would be in favor of another Exp Sink....the Idea is not quite balanced but the basis has a decent foundation....Initiative as an Innate Skill.

Against Zenai I have just a tiny bit of steel skin left, but I end up with a lot less AC because the encumbrance on my wall is dependent on GS, which also gets nuked.

Maybe this would work. What if you switched tour ToA to a RoS on your giant strength minion? You'd have quite a bit more steel skin and you wouldn't have to worry about your encumbrance on your wall being to low thanks to a super boosted GS..

I suspect that even with that he'd have nowhere near enough enc on his tank to fire his exbow or do any damage.

2M ST would be enough.

My tank is ENC capped, without the ToA I'll be short like...250m NW

Does that take into account the extra ENC you'll get form the RoS boosted GS though?

Plus, if you've got any native STR on the tank you could then use a TSA (and EC) and get an increase to ENC from that.

I mark GL. I doubt the extra ST from GS will make up for 250M ENC.

The nice thing about that given enough time enough trained HP on the wall will eliminate that little ENC problem.

At the same point me training HP/DM will further that problem and make one or the other strat more difficult to run against me. Still though my hats off to him he's done a fine jon of making that char completely his :-)

Job*

we all miss jon so much, it even comes out subconsciously in our forum posts! ; )

The RoS actually probably could work for slayer. With GS there is also no need for both weapons to go on the same minion.

Now I just need to get enough AC to be invincible against magic...

Congrats Slayer!

Just another Challenge for me to Overcome...Bring It On!

You hit him for zero Zen... there isn't really an overcome unless you finally start training dm and nothing

Slayer got enough AC to reduce Physical by 100%?

Congrats!

Time for a rescale... Jon hit AC just before Freed got to that magic number, looks like Slayer managed to slip in! ;)

Nov: I'm quite aware of that thanks for the lesson though :-)

Well, you only hit for 0 most of the time, you do actually come really close to beating me because of randomness.

What randomness?

Isn't AC reduction totally percentage based (excluding the 800-1600 odd direct reduction you'll have).

If you've got enough AC to make an attack hit for nothing, shouldn't it always hit for nothing?

Nope, there is a range. I get hit for anywhere between 0 and 1m damage by Zenai.

That's, interesting. Apart from the (tiny) direct reduction, there is absolutly no randomness to AC reduction. It's 0.167% or 0.21% (with SS) per point of AC.

477 AC with SS should give you 100% reduction to physical damage, without taking the tiny random subtraction into account, each and every time.

AC got BUSTED then for not working like it is supposed to. Blender draaama :)

I should get a special prize for recommending the RoS lol.

Well played slayer..

GL is wrong, AC has always (IIRC) had a random component.

The only random component was the amount of base direct reduction you get, which while uber when you start quickly becomes meaningless.

The percentage based reduction has always been (pre SS) 0.21% per point of AC. That didn't change with the introduction of SS, just the amounts shifted from item to ED.

There's also nothing else in the wiki to point to any other random effect of AC.

If there's a random elment in ACs percentage reduction, it's either a bug, or has never been revealed/documented.

i too didn't think it was random past the very low numbers. it did change with ss though to .167 per point though i thought?

It's the later GL... it's one of those that was well known but not talked about... as far back as I can remember heavy AC ranged from no damage (even below the former invincible mark of 477, so the random goes both ways) to some damage.

From Jon at the introduction of SS;


If Jon did update the formula in the Wiki, why was the Randomness excluded? It seems a bit, cloak and dagger. As there's no real way of us testing the inhernat randomness (and that had always been atrributed to incoming damage, not damage reduction), and makes it difficult to evaluate the impact of reaching things lke the milestone 477AC.

Maybe NS could comment on the randomness of AC?

Just do what everyone else does and ask Nat. The evidence is there (and in my experience always has been) I'm sure she'll be able to explain it fully.

Are you guys serious? With everyhing in this game having a Random factor you actually think that AC was magically left out? Oy Vey.........

Not an attack just pointing out the obvious.

Yeah, silly of me for beliving the games lead Dev when he said AC works by reducing damage by 0.21% per point of AC...

The thing about armor is it was generally assumed that the bonuses from it were not random (oops).

It would seem anything calculated on a per round basis is subject to randomness, whereas anything done pre battle is not. That is kind of lame, from an armor point of view. I wouldn't imagine the quality of armor changing from round to round.

I'm still looking for threads where it's elaborated on by Jon, I know they existed on CB1.

Indeed GL, you think he would have trusted us to remember the RNG in everything by the time hetold us about the revision to AC..........

I don't see it from that standpoint. Realistically If you hit someone in a spot and it doesn't work hit them in a different spot...ie find the chink in the armor. All armor has a weak spot the randomness in the code just reflects this simple truth.

See horses post above.

Weapon X and PTH doesn't fluctuate round per round (yeah, per round damage does...). Generally, item performance is held to be non random.

Junction always junctions (bar the silly time it was +1 to +10...), the HoC always gives you an extra round, A +10 TSA always regens the same amount and increases STR by 10%, EC always casts at the trianed amount, etc, etc.

The vast amount of CB isn't Random. Dealing damage was really the only thing that was.

But it's kind of obvious from Slayer's info that AC reduction also has a random element. To me, that's totally new information.

The only ones I can remember mate were discussion of the layers and order of reductions, and how it doesn't matter as they were all (agian bar the tiny direct reduction) multiplicative.

PTh also has a random component

It does? What part. It shouldn't... (Or rather that's also never been revealed...)

Edit: The attack roll itself is random, if there's a chance lower than 100%. But PTH shouldn't be. 100PTH should always give you an attack (as long as it's not reduced by anything!)

If the combination of BCTH and PTH comes to exactly 200, then you should get 2 attacks per round, always, with no randomness.

GL I have to say it...You are Wrong. At first I thought this to be true as well with all the various iron-clad fomulae floating around. Then every time I turned around I got schooled with the Random Factor by various players explainations. So far all I have seen is that everything, no matter how infintesmal, has a Random Factor built in somewhere in CBland.

If that game mechanic is true (RNG blender *chuckle*) then I think that is seriously flawed or not working as intended.

IMO NW should be the one thing in CB that is not random. If you spend 100 mil on pth, you should get 100 mil instead of 85 mil some rounds and 115 in others. It seems like extra server load to randomize values in this way. Same thing with AC, whatever damage you get hit with should get the same reduction every round.

In much the same way a corn always gives +2% per plus, AC should always reduce the same amount per hit. Possibly a misplaced set of brackets when dealing with the random amount of small armor reduction?

+100 on a weapon = 100PTh altered by a specific random formula
+100 on dbs = -100 CTH altered by the same or similar random formula

This is the reason all testing has to be done over multiple fights

Someone landed 2 small hits with an exbow on my char and brought my strength down to -26,185,417. Yes.

I land 11 hits on Nem before her tanks str is at zero... if we're spouting random effects

Nothing works perfectly every single time you use it whether it is operator error or device malfunction, it happens. RNG in this game is the simulation of that and quite fitting inho.

There is no randomness in cth. I distinctly remember seeing the same number every battle for the same opponent when NS had the stat up. I'm sure JS can back me up on this.

I don't think that those numbers took into account randomness, I'm fairly certain randomness on CTH was confirmed by Jon at some point.

Umm it should be readily apparent from the name:

(Means Random)--->CHANCE to Hit

I'm not trying to be a jerk here but seriously these things should be easy to spot.

i guess it just happens naturally? ; )

Not really it's just that I get my thoughts and actions interpreted as such that now I'm using disclaimers on my posts (>.<)

posting data rather than anecdotal evidence & opinion might help in this regard or if you lack the data then state it clearly as opinion instead of belittling the opposing opinion...


i would love to see some evidence, or nat's opinion as that is really the only opinion i trust these days. of course she always has the data to back it up...

I'm right, cth doesn't have randomness actually attached to the number. Only to the % effect that is under 100. If anyone cares enough to actually know, cm me, I do not care to explain to people who are not going to listen.

Your interpretation of "Chance to hit" is merely that - an interpretation.

"Chance" does not mean "random." It more closely means "probability."

So the number by "Chance to hit," if interpreted using common sense, means "the probability you will hit" - which is defined with a number. It is perfectly reasonable to assume there isn't any randomness involved, whether there really is or not.

1. Frequentists talk about probabilities only when dealing with experiments that are random and well-defined. The probability of a random event denotes the relative frequency of occurrence of an experiment'soutcome, when repeating the experiment. Frequentists consider probability to be the relative frequency "in the long run" of outcomes. [1]

2. Bayesians, however, assign probabilities to any statement whatsoever, even when no random process is involved. Probability, for a Bayesian, is a way to represent an individual's degree of belief in a statement, or an objective degree of rational belief, given the evidence.



Guess I'm a Frequentist or something......still it even says in the very explaination of the defenition that Probability doesn't have a consistant definition meaning that even in it's very nature it is RANDOM. /me rings the bell. School is out.

I see. So because there are multiple definitions, one of which allows for some randomness within the frequency of an outcome, it should be readily apparent that you are a frequentist and that "Chance to hit" means random. (Psst - that's not the case, even in the case of the frequentist definition of probability.)

Sorry, that might go over your head. Let me simplify it: looking up words online and finding that probability includes some element of randomness for a group that defines it as such does *NOT* mean "chance means random."

I am sorry, but you're wrong, no matter how much you want to defend your statement, and no matter how good you are with Google. "School is out?" How silly.

This, is why we can't have nice things

I thought this was a party thread

This.

Zen, prior to finding out there's some randomness to AC reduciton (which has never been published before), the only Random aspect to CB was Damage (or to hit rolls for BTCH/PTH under 100%, but that's a given really).

Well, cash/xp rewards are random. As is the chance to get an item drop (And to be complete whenever the Auctioneer spawns a new item to sell). But that's it, and they aren't anything under our control. That's the point.

Everything else to do with our charcater is fixed. From the amount of stats gained, to what those stats do.

I'd be happy to be corrected, there's probably some stuff I'm forgetting. But I'm confident in my claim that the vast majority of CB isn't random. With the largest random aspect being damage done.

OB: No matter what in everything CB you are right I am forever wrong since obviously your word is law here and since you can argue well that's that. I did use google if nothing more than to shut your blinded argument up since you just wanted to be right as always Mr. Lawyer wannabe. Silly right? It is accept it OB this time no matter how hard you press it you are wrong, you got schooled it happens get over it.

Think about it OB a Chance in it's very nature is Random. Maybe it will work maybe not. Even if it does work how well? It's an interpretation OB that is what a "Chance" means a Random factored answer that even when regimented is still varied. It doesn't take a degree in Math or Science to get it right just read the definition in the dictionary for crying out loud:

http://tinyurl.com/2d2s72r


GL/dudemus and whoever else: I have never been a #'s person all of CB knows this but I catch onto things quite well it's one of the reasons I had such trouble in math classes I couldn't prove my answers. You want hardcore #'s that I cannot provide well this can be solved quite easily ask NS problem freaking solved.

Now ALL OF YOU stop coming after me because I said something you either do not like or do not agree with I simply pointed some stuff out! I even tried to tell you I'm not trying to be a dammed jerk and you have to push it and come after me as if I was hence me being defensive.

Zen, I ain't "Coming after you". I went to bed, and the conversation moved on while I sleep.

The quote in my post above was refering to the discussion thread I was having with Nov about CTH.

Then, I was picking up our discussion from your last point to me;


No need for you to get to defensive. Just point out out me where I'm wrong. I'm happy to be corrected.

Slept. Gah...

GL: I did point it out. I said it was from my own experience of being consistantly wrong even with Iron-Clad Formulae in the Wiki. There is a Random factor of everything in CB no matter how infinitesimal it may be. I'm not trying to say that it is always blatantly obvious, what I am saying is that it is there. Also I did say that I cannot prove it with numbers, NS can though.

I will pose this though if not for the RNG in CB why did it take so long to get all of the Various Formulae? It should have been a snap with the # crunchers in CBland.

You guys are starting to make me drool. Please stop!

LOL! Z, really, using my course of study as a reason to whine at me? Look, I'll explain this in simple words for you.

Chance - as per the definition you supplied me with earlier - means the frequency of occurance. As you offered, there are two schools of thought, Frequentist - who define the chance as a relative frequency "in the long run," which allows for a measure of randomness - and Bayesians, who use it as a degree of rational belief. A percentage, if you will.

Okay, so here's what we've got so far.




I was responding to this statement. "Chance" does not mean "random."
You offered up the fact that the definition can be interpreted multiple ways, and one of those is random. This does not mean, however, that chance means random!

This should be easy enough for you to understand: There is an island with birds on it, and they only come in two colors: Blue and Red. All birds on the island are either blue, or they are red. So if you look up at the sky, and say "There's a bird!" and I yell "then it must be red!" am I right?

No, because "birds" encompasses two distinct possibilities, blue or red. Similarly, you cannot say "chance" is "random," because "chance" encompasses multiple possibilities.

It's not that my words are always true. It's just that when I catch you spouting ignorant horsecrap in a condescending manner at other players, as you were in this case, Zenai, I sometimes can't stop myself from calling you out on your absolute lack of sense. Call it a character flaw, but until you are slightly less of a child on the forums, it's probably going to keep happening.

No just that you are using the Forums and Specifically me when ever you get the chance to practice your future profession.


No need to condescend/patronize my intelligence OB you would be surprised but I actually understand far more than you think. In short stop being a Jerk.


No that was your interpretation here is the definition:

http://tinyurl.com/2d2s72r

> As you offered, there are two schools of thought, Frequentist -who define the chance as a relative frequency "in the long run," which allows for a measure of randomness -and Bayesians, who use it as a degree of rational belief. A percentage, if you will.

OB that was the Definition of Probability which you attempted to forcefeed me as the definite definition of chance. /me facepalms It would behoove you to pay closer attention to detail considering your chosen profession.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance?wasRedirected=true

Cance commonly refers to:
Physical ontology
Probability
Luck
Randomness
Contingency (philosophy)
Chance (Ancient Greek concept

Umm yeah it does just like it can mean any of the above OB. This is why words have many meanings and Law determines/defines them per situatuion/necessity.


Read the above. Just as a side note OB 2 Possibilities the "Probability" of me saying "then it must be red!" Would make it 50% right/wrong. Point to be made is that my corrolation is that I called it and I am right about it.....with #'s and the formulae attached in CB as with everything we have found to have a random factor well don't you think it fitting that Chance = Random to some degree at some point here? The probability should be high.

Now to hit onto something. Jon knew he made some mistakes with CB1 and wanted to rectify them in CB2. One of those things was predictability, number crunchers tore into CB1 at frightening rates. I know this because I was there and watched it happen. Here in CB2 it's still quite close to the same as CB1 but for this Random Factor that keeps popping up. Now there is a margin of error this just cannot be coincidence. Jon put this in CB, now as far as the extent honestly I do not know beyond the shadow of a doubt. Only one person would, NS, as I have directed others I will direct you. You have his ear OB so you should be able to get this answer quite easily. If I'm wrong I'll apologize and digress if you are wrong do the same.


You mean even as I backed it up AND said it in my post that I'm "NOT" trying to be a jerk.(In an attempt to try and avoid this horsecrap wiith the likes of you!) Yeah and you said I have kneejerk reactons. In your words "I do not have to handle anyone with kid's gloves just because you think I should."Do not think you have to right to govern me OB because you do not. Please Stop.


In other words you are trolling me because of your "Intrerpretation" of what you think I am saying/meaning and that it should be ok because of your "character flaw" as you call it. That in and of itself is childish, it is Unacceptable and you know it OB.

thanks with half my mpr are beating me coz of exbow...

at least mine is beeing forged, x2500+50

lets see how it feels

KW.

Over 30% of your experience is in DM, expect to be a target lol.

Ahahahahahah

Zenai, look at this for a moment

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chance


One of the definitions of chance is a possibility or probability of anything happening. You cannot simply discard definitions because they don't match what you are arguing! It is truly amusing how quickly you will discard rational thought for a chance to win an argument.

Speaking of patronizing or insulting others, didn't you start that with that whole "rings a bell, school's out" bit? If you don't want to be treated like a fool, you've got a lot of changes to make - but the first would be to stop treating others that way.


GL was using chance as probability; you responded saying "no, chance means random, how is this not obvious to everyone?" (paraphrased, btw.) I'm trying to explain to you that you can't say "this word means this" when it has multiple meanings, and then act as though this should be obvious to everyone.


Have you ever taken a logic course? "Red and Blue" and "Red or Blue" are not the same thing. If someone says "there's a bird!" and all birds are red and blue, then it is correct to say "That bird must be red!" but if birds are red OR blue, then it is incorrect to say "That bird must be red!" Yeah, there's a 50% chance of you being right, but that doesn't make the statement correct.

I'm sorry if this goes over your head. I am trying, really really hard, to bring it down to a child-like level of understanding for you. I'm not sure how better to explain it.

You can't say what Jon's intentions were with CB2 in regards to probability. I was in CB1 as well, Zenai, and if I recall correctly - and I do - he REMOVED VERY many things that were based on chance. Finger of Death, Cause Fear, etc. were skills that activated based on Chance, and Jon removed them for this very reason. He stated so himself. So it would be silly to say Jon's intent for CB2 was to recreate something he removed from CB1 because it was broken.

Let me ask you a question or three.

Does BA regenerate at a random rate?
Do you ever get stat points at less or more than 12 EXP each?
Does MPR increase by a random amount when training?
This game is not about random number generators.

FYI, saying "I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but..." doesn't make you any less of a jerk if you say something condescending. I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but damn, you just went full-retard on me with that last post.

Don't get mad, now, I did say I wasn't trying to be a jerk.

And no, if you say something stupid and I say "hey, btw, that wasn't correct" you aren't being trolled. It's when you turn around and retort with faulty "evidence" to back up a poor claim and then end with "/rings a bell. School's out" that provocation is occuring, and the definition of trolling begins to be met.

OB I didn't start being a Jerk until you did ie backoff and you will not get things returned in kind. You are the one to think you were championing some cause of protecting the weak from the dastardly Zenai....as if anyone here needs your freaking protection/help in the first place. As far as faulty evidence go talk with the people who write the dictionary not me.

Once again "TROLL" since you seem to want to continue on and on.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO GOVERN ME SO BACK THE HELL OFF!

Follow your own advice Jerk.

Awesome, I get the last word.

I know you all like to fight over me, but really...come on.