How to beat Public enemies?

[Arthemis]

...everytime i read one of balbors post or a reply to his posts i begin to laugh IRL Givf more

 

[Edlina]

will only be 3 sec for someone with a dex under 60, no cast speed bonues and not using QC.

Its not 100% from 0, its from the total cast time and the ammount of time passed.

our equation would be between 2 instent cast spells of 2 spell with the exact same cast speed, same Dex and same Cast speed bonues as the different between them would be 0.

omg, get back to class, and this time listen to what the teacher is saying, ffs

 

[Huntingtons]

still cant say its 100% slower, since 100% from 0 is 0

You can say its 3 sec slower, but not 100% slower since that is wrong

the mistake is that instant isn't 0 seconds, its faster

 

[Balbor]

omg, get back to class, and this time listen to what the teacher is saying, ffs

ok i'll let you sort this out for yourself

1) What is 100% of 3sec

2) what is the difference between 0sec and 3sec

3) What is the difference as a % against 3sec

 

[Eroa]

you cant take a percent out from 0, it just dosnt work that way

 

[Kalthorine]

ok i'll let you sort this out for yourself

1) What is 100% of 3sec (3 secs)

2) what is the difference between 0sec and 3sec (3 secs)

3) What is the difference as a % against 3sec (100%)

OK Balbor, I'll try and explain where your logic is in error by using your own point of view (and this isn't an attempt to make you look silly or anything, I just want to bring an end to people baiting you!)

What is, for example, there was a spell that takes, say 8 seconds to cast instead, and that it too had an insta-cast 0 second version. By your maths I would say:

1) What is 100% of 8 seconds
Answer: 8 seconds

2) What is the difference between 0 sec and 8 sec?
Answer: 8 seconds

3) What is the difference as a % against 8sec?
Answer: 100%

Now on its own I can almost see the logic behind how you could convince yourself that might be true yeh?

The only problem now is, put your version (3 sec vs insta, in the quotes) next to my version (8 sec vs insta, as shown above) and what do you get:

3 seconds is 100% slower than 0 seconds. Er... and so is 8 seconds... and, indeed, so would be ANY length of casting time, so the comparison becomes a total generalisation that makes no real sense. In other words, a 0 second casting time by that argument will ALWAYS be "100% faster" than ANY length of casting time, which means that the mathematics is basically meaningless. Whenever you start talking about percentages and use 0 in your calculation of the size of the percentage, you can get your knickers in a twist really easily...

The problem is, you see, that you are using a circular argument to fool yourself mathematically and end up (by an honest mistake) looking a little foolish. No blame there... but please don't let people bait you any more, coz you aren't doing yourself any favours in the long run.

 

[Eroa]

this is kinda like the post when people were trying to explaine to Rambo that con debuff for assassins landed after the initial dmg with a pa and therefore were pretty useless

 

[Maleg]

this is kinda like the post when people were trying to explaine to Rambo that con debuff for assassins landed after the initial dmg with a pa and therefore were pretty useless

Well you can't blame Rambo for that, it's not like he ever landed that many PA's

 

[Gazon]

Can you tell Kalthorine used to be a teacher? :worthy:

 

[Kalthorine]

Can you tell Kalthorine used to be a teacher? :worthy:

I got better

 

[Balbor]

OK Balbor, I'll try and explain where your logic is in error by using your own point of view (and this isn't an attempt to make you look silly or anything, I just want to bring an end to people baiting you!)

What is, for example, there was a spell that takes, say 8 seconds to cast instead, and that it too had an insta-cast 0 second version. By your maths I would say:

1) What is 100% of 8 seconds
Answer: 8 seconds

2) What is the difference between 0 sec and 8 sec?
Answer: 8 seconds

3) What is the difference as a % against 8sec?
Answer: 100%

Now on its own I can almost see the logic behind how you could convince yourself that might be true yeh?

The only problem now is, put your version (3 sec vs insta, in the quotes) next to my version (8 sec vs insta, as shown above) and what do you get:

3 seconds is 100% slower than 0 seconds. Er... and so is 8 seconds... and, indeed, so would be ANY length of casting time, so the comparison becomes a total generalisation that makes no real sense. In other words, a 0 second casting time by that argument will ALWAYS be "100% faster" than ANY length of casting time, which means that the mathematics is basically meaningless. Whenever you start talking about percentages and use 0 in your calculation of the size of the percentage, you can get your knickers in a twist really easily...

The problem is, you see, that you are using a circular argument to fool yourself mathematically and end up (by an honest mistake) looking a little foolish. No blame there... but please don't let people bait you any more, coz you aren't doing yourself any favours in the long run.

the problem is that there is not a 0 in the equation for working out the amount of time as a % left to cast the spell. The problem only comes when working out the the % depending on which of the 2 spells you are looking at. Someone casting a 2sec spell will say that someone casting a 3sec spell take 50% longer to do so, but someone casting a 3sec spell will say that the 2sec spell will go off 33*3% faster than his spell.

To many peope see 100% and think it must mean a lot, but it could mean as little as 0.1sec as long as you are basing all equation on the left over cast time of the spell with the longest cast time. If the cast time between 2 spell with the same cast time is 0% then the cast time between the a spell with no cast time and a spell with one cannot also be 0% as some people are saying here.

While the matamatics is meaningless as you always get at 100%, i new this when i made the post, yet someone people think that the answer is not 100%.
If you try to work out the difference in cast time you must show 1000s times for all different spells, RAs, Bonues etc. In fact the only spell you can do it exacty for are instent cast spells which will be either 0% (instent vs instent) or 100% (instent vs cast).

 

[Kalthorine]

 

[Eroa]

Great pic do describe the feeling, hard to understand how someone is as stupid as Balbor.

 

[Kalthorine]

Great pic do describe the feeling, hard to understand how someone is as stupid as Balbor.

A trifle cruel Eroa... I think "stubbornly misguided" might be little fairer

 

[haarewin]

rofl

 

[Lorfo]

Tbh, you play hib/excal - you cant in no way compare alb/excal with alb/pryd. No offence, but many alb/excal players really arent very good xE

you cant compare mid/prydw to mid/exc either.

 

[Devaster]

corrupt pbuck to quit game or play excal

 

[Shike]

heeey I know that feeling from earlier "discussions" with the genious Balbor..

priceless :worthy:

 

[Arthemis]

heeey I know that feeling from earlier "discussions" with the genious Balbor..

priceless :worthy:

Youre not alone...

 

[Edlina]

you cant compare mid/prydw to mid/exc either.

True, heard mid/exc is just total newbs after NP quit there, and they can't do anything without them

 

[Lethul]

wtf is instent anyway?

 

[Arthemis]

wtf is instent anyway?

Be nice to balbor! think he means "instAnt", the ones where you press the button and then the effect will come i 0sec! or something like that

 

[Edlina]

Be nice to balbor! think he means "instAnt", the ones where you press the button and then the effect will come i 0sec! or something like that

But that's 100% of 0 seconds

Give faster instants!

 

[Killerbee]

Be nice to balbor! think he means "instAnt", the ones where you press the button and then the effect will come i 0sec! or something like that

You meant the effect will come 100% faster than the 3 sec one, didnt you?

 

[Arthemis]

But that's 100% of 0 seconds

Give faster instants!

Yeah i want faster instants on my skald! like -3seconds!

 

[Arthemis]

You meant the effect will come 100% faster than the 3 sec one, didnt you?

Yes i did made me laugh out loud IRL !

 

[Humo]

Tbh, you play hib/excal - you cant in no way compare alb/excal with alb/pryd. No offence, but many alb/excal players really arent very good xE

and how many "good" players does alb/pryd have? 2 guilds? I don't see much difference then with excal . Unlike Prydwen, Excalibur has decent mid/hib guilds .

 

[TiwiS]

and how many "good" players does alb/pryd have? 2 guilds? I don't see much difference then with excal . Unlike Prydwen, Excalibur has decent mid/hib guilds .

define good players? players that get 100k lwrp? 200k? 300k?
players that win more then 50% of their fights? 60%? 80%?


the first one is pretty much only related to play time and the second one you can't even begin to measure...
basically you have no clue about howmany good players are on either server

 

[Fadeh]

A good player is a player who can invest all spare time into the game. Thats the only thing needed.

 

[Edlina]

A good player is a player who can invest all spare time into the game. Thats the only thing needed.

You can be a good player without investing all spare time in the game, imo anyway.