Bahamut.Raenryong said:
a = bc. Can I conclude a relationship between a and c?
That has absolutely no bearing here.
"((H/100)D/60) = A" Would be more correct
Haste Is NOT Exponential...
|
Haste is NOT exponential...
That has absolutely no bearing here. "((H/100)D/60) = A" Would be more correct
[+]
Leviathan.Duvessa said: Bahamut.Raenryong said: a = bc. Can I conclude a relationship between a and c? That has absolutely no bearing here. "(H/100)D = A" Would be more correct how can you say that...idk cause i get stuck with a problem...
i mean say you have 500 base delay and subtract 1%...=495...now subtract another 1%..490.5....so -delay has decreasing returns.... so if you say haste >>>delay>>attack speed shouldnt that be the same? unless SE has it go off your original delay...and not your new delay... each percent Delay is a useless part of the calculation, and both sides are true. you arent making any point, because haste is exponential in its returns, but it doesnt change delay in a exponential fashion. good for delay. but luckily for the rest of us, DELAY DOESNT EVER CROSS OUR MINDS. attack speed and timer reductions do.
Can I conclude a relationship between A and H?
Yes. I can therefore say that changing A will change H in a certain way. Fenrir.Nightfyre said: How does that in any way affect the validity of his point? When calculating miles per hour traveled: Distance in miles / time = MPH Thus D/T = M Does Distance outside of that formula mean anything to MPH? No. One is merely the result of a calculation to determine the rate of travel. If someone says "that mountain is 60 miles away" are you gonna say "no, its 60 mph away"? Of course not, because it would be entirely incorrect. its a result of 2 variables to make an assumption based off time, in both cases of attack speed and mph.
[+]
Phen, haste stacks. We all know this. Thus its not calculated as 1%, then another 1%, then another 1%... It's calculated as 3%. If haste didnt stack that way, and was calculated the way you said then haste would have less return per 1% added at 25 than it did at 10%.
[+]
Distance = (ms^-1 * s)
Speed = (ms^-1) This is a completely different relationship to attack speed and delay which are reciprocal quantities (and not completely different ones as here). yeah i see where that went wrong...
Anyways, I'm going out. Seeya
[+]
I'm starting to like google docs...
Based on 999 delay:  amidoingitrite? semimmortal said: I'm starting to like google docs... Based on 999 delay: amidoingitrite? Perfectly right. Ya, been a couple of those graphs already. Doesn't help. He'll just argue something that isn't. Leviathan.Duvessa said: Fenrir.Nightfyre said: How does that in any way affect the validity of his point? When calculating miles per hour traveled: Distance in miles / time = MPH Thus D/T = M Does Distance outside of that formula mean anything to MPH? No. One is merely the result of a calculation to determine the rate of travel. If someone says "that mountain is 60 miles away" are you gonna say "no, its 60 mph away"? Of course not, because it would be entirely incorrect. its a result of 2 variables to make an assumption based off time, in both cases of attack speed and mph. maybe if i phrased it like this you will see you are wrong.
TAKE THE WHOLE EQUATION DURING HASTE (attacks per original delay)APOD = delay/x (x is new delay after haste) now if haste only affects delay linearly, then thats fine, it can be true. but if we look at APOD, it rises exponentially as haste goes up. and not at the same return per haste point. going from 1-2% isnt NEARLY as big as going from 98-99% can you ignore that part of the equation for damage done over time? NO. semimmortal said: I'm starting to like google docs... Based on 999 delay: amidoingitrite? Noyourenotdoingitright The graph is correct in the fact that it illustrates delay's effect on attack speed. Delay is influenced by haste. As i've said at least 5x by now, decreasing delay nets exponential returns. Haste has a direct and entirely linear effect on delay though. 600 delay * .5 (this is your 50% haste) = 300 delay, or 6 delay per 1% haste reduced. 600 delay * .99 (1% haste) = 594. Haste gives no exponential return. Every 1% of haste has an equal effect on delay. Delay has an exponential return on attack speed. HASTE, AS A VARIABLE... IS ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NOT EXPONENTIAL Is the rate of attacks based off delay exponential? Yep. Is the END result exponential? Yep. Haste, however, is not. It's merely a factor in the equation. NOOOOW I'm going out. Off to the movies, peace~
[+]
Carbuncle.Axle said: semimmortal said: I'm starting to like google docs... Based on 999 delay: [/img]http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/5315/hasteq.png[/img] amidoingitrite? Perfectly right. Ya, been a couple of those graphs already. Doesn't help. He'll just argue something that isn't. Quote: its a result of 2 variables to make an assumption based off time, in both cases of attack speed and mph. There is a difference. If someone asked you how fast you were going, you could say 10ms^-1. You could also say it takes you 1 second to do 10m, so 1/10 of a second for 1m, so 0.1sm^-1. This is analogous to attack speed and delay. If we were to represent a relationship between these two, we could simply show them as being inversely proportional to each other (x = k/y) and then use whichever of the forms is most useful. Sound familiar? If I said something like "I can do 50 metres!!" it doesn't even make sense in the context of the discussion. Leviathan.Duvessa said: The graph is correct in the fact that it illustrates delay's effect on attack speed. Delay is influenced by haste. As i've said at least 5x by now, decreasing delay nets exponential returns. maybe if i phrased it like this you will see you are wrong.
TAKE THE WHOLE EQUATION DURING HASTE (attacks per original delay)APOD = delay/x (x is new delay after haste) now if haste only affects delay linearly, then thats fine, it can be true. but if we look at APOD, it rises exponentially as haste goes up. and not at the same return per haste point. going from 1-2% isnt NEARLY as big as going from 98-99% can you ignore that part of the equation for damage done over time? NO. SERIOUSLY HOW CAN YOU IGNORE THIS DISCREPANCY Most of us only care about haste in regards to weapon delay as it is.
I can't believe this argument has been going on for 14 pages when you're simply arguing semantics.
You could say that "Haste in FFXI is exponential" is an FFXI colloquialism. When people are talking about adding haste to a DD for TP'ing, they're doing it to have a higher rate of attack. For each % of haste you add, your benefit will be greater than that which the previous % granted. So "Haste when used for melee DD provides an exponential increment in swings over a given time" can be condensed into "Haste is exponential". The intent in the phrase is the same, and anyone who cares knows what the person is talking about. So why the forum tantrum over a negligible difference in expression? You've been basically agreeing with each other for several pages, and where's the sense in that? Fenrir.Nightfyre said: Leviathan.Duvessa said: Hourshisama... You're like the third person to have posted that. We've already discussed it. Point and case is that haste lowers delay, delay increases attack speed. The exponential factor here is delay's influence over the rate of attacks. Haste is purely linear with both spells and delay. Faiye: If you really wanted to be correct about something that mattered, you'd point out that only one input is increasing. As it is, you're just trolling and thus not worth the effort. Moron, nobody is trying to disprove the relative rate of return in damage over time is getting less (DA) or increasing (Haste). The point is THOSE RELATIONSHIP AND THE WAY YOU'RE USING THE VARIABLES IN QUESTION DO NOT FALL INTO THE DEFINITION OF DECREASING RETURNS (for DA) OR EXPONENTIAL RETURNS (for Haste). And while we're at it alot of people are using increasing returns and exponential increase interchangeably, they are not necessarily the same thing. I got that, but you're the idiot here since you're trying to show we're "wrong" (which doesn't really matter since it's informal terminology) through an invalid point.
Fenrir.Nightfyre said: I got that, but you're the idiot here since you're trying to show we're "wrong" (which doesn't really matter since it's informal terminology) through an invalid point. Yes, I'm the idiot because I'm trying to explain correct terminology and economic principles and how people use them in the real world. Take "double attack is diminishing returns" and "haste is exponential" to any economics professor or classroom and they will laugh you out the door. But come to a FFXI forum and argue that those terms are being applied incorrectly and you get legions of ignorant uneducated morons saying: 1) Its semantics 2) We're not in a formal classroom, we don't have to follow their rules. 3) Who the f*ck cares about the correct definitions? We only care about our damage output. 4) Haste is terrrrrrrrific!! 5) You're a troll, GTFO. Sorry, but I think I'll stick with my classroom definitions. My quote isnt working but i have a question.
"Phen, haste stacks. We all know this. Thus its not calculated as 1%, then another 1%, then another 1%... It's calculated as 3%. If haste didnt stack that way, and was calculated the way you said then haste would have less return per 1% added at 25 than it did at 10%." was said by Duvessa. Is this true? BEcause i was told Double attack works by adding 1% of a remaining %. like.. 1 % = 1 % chance. so 99 % not to double atk. Add another 1% double attack and its 1 % of the remaining 99% thus having less effect the more you add. So who says haste isnt the same? or that either work that way. Does anyone know the actual answer? The number of swings will go up linearly. The damage resulting from the additional swing in comparison to a previous addition of DA+ will be less though, because the newest addition has a less chance to proc compared to the previous one.
It doesn't work that way. If you add 1% double attack to the original 1% then it is calculated as 2% double attack.
Ive heard compeltely different faiye.
Caitsith.Linear said: The number of swings will go up linearly. The damage resulting from the additional swing in comparison to a previous addition of DA will be less though, because the newest addition has a less chance to proc compared to the previous one. No the relative percentage increase in Damage-Over-Time goes down because you are comparing a fixed increase of Double Attack to a larger and larger base damage figure. |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.