U27 Items Official Discussion - Round 2

[Chai]

He has proved he doesn't know what BDR is. His idea of how BDR is useful has failed. He is grasping at straws because it kills him that he is wrong. (that's what I think at least)

Thanks for the support.

[Axeyu]

That same convoluted calculation is something you've used quite often to figure out DPS.

No, that's not true. BDR has never existed in any DPS calculation that I have ever done.

To include BDR you would have to mess things up a fair bit. You have to do the exact same calculation again, but with your damage modifiers. So in Barrage for example you would need to use all 5 first variables again.
The alternative ofcourse is to just sum all damage before you make any multiplications to it, and completely ignore BDR.
That is if we ignore crit modifiers. If we introduce them the BDR would require alot more complexity and redundancy to be able to be used as a variable.


I also looked up Barrage. You are wrong again there, the third variable is damage modifier. That is not included in BDR. Only a part of the damage modifier is included in BDR, which is a big reason why it's such a useless number. So you can't substitute the first 5 varaibles with BDR It has no use in Barrage.

Right now youre simply quibbling over semantics of how the analysis is done, and taking a "mine is better" approach due to lacking refutation of what I stated earlier, which has yet to even be addressed.

Or I am just making a point of how silly it is to consider BDR useful when you have to specifically design a calc around it (making it more complex than it needs to be for a damage calc) and still have to include all the variables again anyway. The only use for BDR is the one you invented, whichs only purpose is to make use of BDR.

Maybe it is time for you to just accept that you are wrong?
If BDR really was useful then you or someone else would just have shown an actual example of it already. Just "begin a comparison" using BDR.

[Chai]

No, that's not true. BDR has never existed in any DPS calculation that I have ever done.

To include BDR you would have to mess things up a fair bit. You have to do the exact same calculation again, but with your damage modifiers. So in Barrage for example you would need to use all 5 first variables again.
The alternative ofcourse is to just sum all damage before you make any multiplications to it, and completely ignore BDR.
That is if we ignore crit modifiers. If we introduce them the BDR would require alot more complexity and redundancy to be able to be used as a variable.


I also looked up Barrage. You are wrong again there, the third variable is damage modifier. That is not included in BDR. Only a part of the damage modifier is included in BDR, which is a big reason why it's such a useless number. So you can't substitute the first 5 varaibles with BDR It has no use in Barrage.



Or I am just making a point of how silly it is to consider BDR useful when you have to specifically design a calc around it (making it more complex than it needs to be for a damage calc) and still have to include all the variables again anyway. The only use for BDR is the one you invented, whichs only purpose is to make use of BDR.

Maybe it is time for you to just accept that you are wrong?
If BDR really was useful then you or someone else would just have shown an actual example of it already. Just "begin a comparison" using BDR.

As usual, the disagreement portion of the argument is tailored to be designed to work around the specific point being made rather than addressing it, and instead of agreeing that all of the same variables are present regardless, an attempt to disagree is made based on semantics in methodology alone, unwilling to accept that more than one order of operations can be taken to arrive at the same correct conclusion. The entire argument is centered around it being inconvenient for you to calc the way you are shown after you demanded that very explanation (not because its wrong to do so, but because you are unwilling to do so). This is classic moving of the goal posts fallacy being invoked in full. Claim 1: you cant show us this, and when it was shown, claim 2: its not convenient, too convoluted, etc....lack of proof, so avoidance, backpedaling, and criticism of the poster due to lack of refutation of point made. Once the demand of evidence is met after claims made of its nonexistence, the credibility of evidence is attacked in a pattern based fashion, then when that fails, repeated declarations ensue of not having provided it in the first place, which objective readers will clearly see by reading the discussion in order, is false.

I have shown the example. Your denial is not proof of lack of its existence. We can continue this discussion when you admit that all of the same variables must be accounted for in order for an accurate DPS calc to occur, regardless of convenience in accounting for them. Until then, the more you guys flail at semantics in order to have something to disagree with regarding claim made, the more you indicate Im correct here.

[moo_cow]

That same convoluted calculation is something you've used quite often to figure out DPS. Right now youre simply quibbling over semantics of how the analysis is done, and taking a "mine is better" approach due to lacking refutation of what I stated earlier, which has yet to even be addressed. The more this takes place, the more I rest assured that I am correct. If refutation of what youre glossing over here existed, it would have been posted by now.

Not true, you simply don't even know what BDR is.

[moo_cow]

As usual, the disagreement portion of the argument is tailored to be designed to work around the specific point being made rather than addressing it, and instead of agreeing that all of the same variables are present regardless, an attempt to disagree is made based on semantics in methodology alone, unwilling to accept that more than one order of operations can be taken to arrive at the same correct conclusion. The entire argument is centered around it being inconvenient for you to calc the way you are shown after you demanded that very explanation (not because its wrong to do so, but because you are unwilling to do so). This is classic moving of the goal posts fallacy being invoked in full. Claim 1: you cant show us this, and when it was shown, claim 2: its not convenient, too convoluted, etc....lack of proof, so avoidance, backpedaling, and criticism of the poster due to lack of refutation of point made. Once the demand of evidence is met after claims made of its nonexistence, the credibility of evidence is attacked in a pattern based fashion, then when that fails, repeated declarations ensue of not having provided it in the first place, which objective readers will clearly see by reading the discussion in order, is false.

I have shown the example. Your denial is not proof of lack of its existence. We can continue this discussion when you admit that all of the same variables must be accounted for in order for an accurate DPS calc to occur, regardless of convenience in accounting for them. Until then, the more you guys flail at semantics in order to have something to disagree with regarding claim made, the more you indicate Im correct here.

Can we say delusional?

[Axeyu]

Do you not realise that BDR does not include your damage modifiers? Is that it?

As usual, the disagreement portion of the argument is tailored to be designed to work around the specific point being made rather than addressing it, and instead of agreeing that all of the same variables are present regardless, an attempt to disagree is made based on semantics in methodology alone, unwilling to accept that more than one order of operations can be taken to arrive at the same correct conclusion.

The same variables are used in a way that creates a number that has absolutely no practical function what so ever. You do not seem to undertsand that what's missing from BDR is so important that you have to do all the calculations over again anyways, and if you introduce crit profile changes things gets really messy.
You are the one making this about semantics by insisting that because it's theoretically possible to use the BDR number in a DPS calc I am wrong to say that it's useless. If you don't want to argue about semantics then just go ahead and show me a practical use of BDR. Or at the very least show me a calculation that includes BDR, practical or not. I'm sure that in your reply you will conveniently forget to adress this.

The entire argument is centered around it being inconvenient for you to calc the way you are shown after you demanded that very explanation (not because its wrong to do so, but because you are unwilling to do so). This is classic moving of the goal posts fallacy being invoked in full. Claim 1: you cant show us this, and when it was shown, claim 2: its not convenient, too convoluted, etc....lack of proof, so avoidance, backpedaling, and criticism of the poster due to lack of refutation of point made. Once the demand of evidence is met after claims made of its nonexistence, the credibility of evidence is attacked in a pattern based fashion, then when that fails, repeated declarations ensue of not having provided it in the first place, which objective readers will clearly see by reading the discussion in order, is false.

Contrary to what you have repeatedly stated there is no calc that includes BDR. I'm sure that in your reply you will conveniently forget to adress this.
You are the one who brought up DPS calcs, you firmly believed that BDR was used by them. Now that you know that you were wrong you are trying to twist the argument into "it's theoretically possible to include BDR in a DPS calc and therefor it has a use". I just think that's a utterly ridiculous argument because I understand the lenghts one would have to go through to make such a calc, and let me tell you "useful" is the last word I would use for it.
You were wrong and now you are trying to semantic your way out of it knowing full well that you will not be able to provide even a mediocre reason why it would be beneficial to include or use BDR anywhere.

I have shown the example. Your denial is not proof of lack of its existence. We can continue this discussion when you admit that all of the same variables must be accounted for in order for an accurate DPS calc to occur, regardless of convenience in accounting for them.

No one is disagreeing that the same variables are used to calculate DPS. But when will you understand that used because the number is based on useful data it does not mean that the number is automatically useful?

All your examples are just plain wrong, I'm sure that in your reply you will conveniently forget to adress this:
BDR is not used in the damage done calculation.
BDR is not used in my DPS calc
BDR is not the 5 first variables of Barrage.


BDR is not useful to compare/evaluate weapons.
BDR is not useful in DPS calcs.
If you disagree with either of those you really should show an example to demonstrate it.

[Chai]

No one is disagreeing that the same variables are used to calculate DPS. But when will you understand that used because the number is based on useful data it does not mean that the number is automatically useful?


BDR is not used in the damage done calculation.
BDR is not used in my DPS calc
BDR is not useful to compare/evaluate weapons.
BDR is not useful in DPS calcs.

The top statement cannot be correct while also asserting those below. Once you have acknowledged this the discussion can continue.

[Axeyu]

The top statement cannot be correct while also asserting those below. Once you have acknowledged this the discussion can continue.

You are wrong Chai. Everything you quoted is true. It that doesn't seem possible then you are misunderstanding something fundamental.

I have demonstrated that you can use useful variables to make a number that is not used in the damage done calculation, not used in my DPS calc, is not useful to compare/evaluate weapons and is not useful to include in dps calcs in general due to being a number derived from variables you have to include anyways.
BDR also happens to be such a number.

[moo_cow]

The top statement cannot be correct while also asserting those below. Once you have acknowledged this the discussion can continue.

This is getting sad, Chai. You still simply don't know what BDR is.

[Cordovan]

Since this thread has devolved into an off-topic and fight-filled discussion of the usefulness of Base Damage Rating, and because U27 is already out, this thread is no longer necessary to continue. Thanks, everyone, for your feedback from Lamannia!