Definitegj
-
Posts
697 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Definitegj
-
-
The UI has a good amount of bugs.
You use a weapon that fires multiple projectiles at the same time.
You get an result.
Promising but still with a margin of doubt.
Which part of your statement say it is promising? What margin of doubt? you outright dismissed it and still want to say in-game multishot damage UI is buggy based on ....nothing.
I see multiple pellets causing the effect.not 1 pellet causing multiple effects...
also laughing at the video producer using a shotgun to test it.
sitll multiple pellets that created the illusion.
want a good test? use 1 bullet (aka no multishot) to test if 1 bullet can cause multiple effects at once.
-
You assumed this about him by his statement, and by your own words didn't test this issue for veracity. I'm sorry, but I cannot take your side in this matter.
How you prove proc can't cross over then? How much absence of evidence do i need. Why he get free pass on claiming bugs and then i need to test it?
If procs can cross over how about he show me by shotting 2 enemies (A and B) with shotgun at the same time and the status effect on A are shown on the pellets number on B.
Nevermind, lets do it my way.
Btw, for your procs test there might be a UI bug that only allow simultaneously proc for the first 300 shots by delaying and carrying the proc from previous shot to next. After that, it will disallow them. Sometimes is the reverse. Is a variable you must take account into.
-
Are you certain he was "inventing a UI bug" and not simply misunderstanding?
Yes inventing, nothing that hint pellets/multishots can affect each other to suggest proc can cross over.
-
You most certainly can prove that something is not true in science - in fact, I think Dr. Stephen Hawking did just that recently regarding the properties of black holes.
Talking about this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
Testing something isn't for the ultimate goal of proving yourself right - it's about testing something to see what the results are, and then drawing conclusions.
I have tested this myself, using both a Lato, and a Latron - I was testing proc chances to see if more than one thing can proc at once per shot, and to see if physical damage mods affected elemental damage in any way, since they didn't appear to in the Arsenal UI screen.
So I tested both things for 100 shots, wrote down the results, and did it again with a different setup, trying to see if I can falsify the results of the first test. They did not, which told me many interesting things about how proc chances are applied, and how elemental damage from mods scales based on additional physical damage mods.
I'm not testing stuff. Not my goal.
I have 2 goals in this thread. My original goal is to help new players by showing (not test/proof) the simultaneously proc chances. I don't have the intentional to waste extra time proving anything. It is so clear cut to me (a regular shotgun user) that i won't be testing it. Those with issues can carry on further testing by themselves.
but secondly, i don't condone the act of mocking others and inventing UI bug out of nowhere as excuse and will call out on it.
-
If you're not willing to test this idea, then you're simply left with an argument that isn't backed up on either side with the burden of proof, and that honestly doesn't help anyone.
I have tested this personally, and I'd be glad to share my results if you do the same.
No, you can't prove a negative in science. Burden of proof is on the side who claim the bug can occur.
He didn't against simultaneously proc, so proving simultaneously proc won't prove my point.
No need, have already seen them in others video.
-
Maybe, but why not set it up properly, so you don't have to do repeated testing? The user here PsycloneM did some exhaustive testing of Warframe abilities using much the same methodology. He posted his results in a thread in the Warframe Abilities subforum.
In a situation like this, if you don't mind a suggestion - prove someone wrong with data, not sarcasm. It creates a much more interesting discussion, and the little arguments tend to drop by the wayside as a result.
It is not a set up test. Just happen to come across it when testing other stuffs for myself. One shot from Sobek = 4 events. Things get done faster.
How to prove things to a person who claim procs can jump across pellets. Prove negative? He didn't against simultaneously proc, so proving simultaneously proc doesn't prove my point.
-
True, but it's harder to track and annotate the results of each shot as easily as you can with a single-shot weapon, such as the Latron. Multiple shots at once don't let you see as easily which one triggered which proc - it'll let you delineate based on groupings, but not specific shots as easily.
Shotguns have this issue, and this is what he was referring to, from what I understood of the thread.
I get the point you're trying to make, but the joke and it's point don't carry across well.
Harder to track (actually, not that hard with pausing video) doesn't make it false and certainly not an excuse to invent a bug out of the blue.
Yeah point might not carry across well but trying to let it know how absurd is the UI bug claim.
-
That response was to you, in which you said "quit talking so much about variables." The post right before that, #26, was one where he mentioned (without stating Split Chamber specifically) that such variables should be reduced to make testing easier.
I read that to mean that you have a gun with just the elemental mods on it to test how often status procs, based on the damage involved.
I did, twice - and the points you stated were still not clear.
How about we drop the "they said / I said" thing altogether, and focus on resolving the issue of proc chances?
My screenshot didn't involve any multimods. It is just a shotgun with 4 pellets. It is reproducible and known that each pellet act as individual bullet with ability to crit/proc separately. But he cited UI (in game damage numbers) bugs out of the blue that procs can jump across pellets with no single shred of evidence. Used Arsenal UI to prove in game UI as buggy when asked for indicators that the bug can occur.
If UI bug can be so freely used as a reason and a free pass to dismiss test, then no test can ever be done unless you look at code and bypass UI.
-
In-game results don't have anything to do with the Arsenal UI.
Exactly but that is what was cited in post #27.
PS, might want to reread the thread again. I have been using sarcasm to prove my points for quite a few posts.
-
That's not what I read of their posts.
They were saying that the numbers listed on the Arsenal UI screen are frequently incorrect, and therefore not a good indicator.
I read the "reducing room for errors" as setting the boundaries of in-game testing, but what form of "reducing room for errors" was not explicitly stated by either user.
But either way, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that this can be tested in-game to show results. Put the appropriate mods on a weapon, and record the results of firing off, say 100 shots. Then change the conditions of the test, and do another 100 shots.
Why are Arsenal UI used to show mission damage numbers as not a good indicator? The reason we know Arsenal UI are frequently incorrect because it does not match the damage numbers during mission.
Also no point, whatever you saw might be false positive depending on how UI works.
-
Given that the effects of this are the issue here, doesn't it stand to reason that repeated and reproduceable testing in-game would show the results of this in the best way?
I'm really not seeing why code has to be examined for this to be tested. Please explain this to me.
According to reasoning i get from jmthebigma, we must reduce as much room for errors as possible even though the effects is reproducible and the UI is fairly consistent because there might be UI bug or else at most the result only show "is plausible" and the test should be laughed at.
-
Good grief.
It's not eliminating absolutely all doubt, it's reducing as much as possible. The test with the shotgun looks promising, but any attack that has multiple shells or pellets leaves more room for erroneous information than a single shot.
Seriously, no one's attacking you here. Calm down.
Not enough. Any test is pointless, single shot or not. Nothing that you observe has any more meaning/relevance due to possible UI bug.
You need to get to the programming code to reduce room for erroenous information due to UI. We must reduce as much as possible. Any test less than that must be laughed at like what jmthebigma did.
-
Definitegj, you're taking this way to personally. Especially since jm isn't even saying the evidence is wrong, just that it could be and the topic should be investigated further.
And he's right, running a weapon with pellets or multishot could give a false positive depending on how the UI functions in game. A more definitive test would require a confirmed single shot.
Running a weapon with single shot could also give a false positive depending on how the UI function. No way a UI bug can be freely claim without evidence to cast doubt on a test. Come up with any test video really. I will come up with variables not accounted for depending on how the UI function.
-
Top half of the comment: there are more UI/graphical bugs: Orokin Cell showing as mod drop at ruk
So its valid to say we need a better test with less variables.
It has something to do with in-game multishot/pellets or damage numbers? Also provide link to forum bug report. Never heard of this bug before. A picture of Orokin mod sound cools.
Bottom half:
1 bullet 2 or more procs will be shown at the dmg number and at the enemies info bar or health bar or w/e you'd like to call it. small chance two visual/UI bugs when done with 1 bullet. aka less variables than with shotgun / multishot.
No idea what you are trying to answer against the bottom half. Doesn't address anything. Please make a test video, i have lots of "variables" prepared to use. Inventing bugs is quite fun.
-
1) Intentional judging from no response from countless of bug reports
2) Yes, it bothered me. It use to be big bright orange splash on screen when using shotgun, now only a few sparks here and there.
-
Its a known fact that the UI is buggy and common scientific approach to get the least amount of variables in a test.
Only Arsenal UI is buggy. In mission UI is very consistent. Show me instance of how multishot or shotgun pellets is buggy. Should be easy right? It is not a valid variable, you try to make it one by inventing a make-up bug.
Or how about you make a test video, I'll come up with "variables" that arise due to bug. (Protip, I can claim UI buggy on any test you do.)
-
Guess your not all that scientific.
If you were you'd know to limit the variables as much as possible. And Considering there are allot of UI bugs its fair to say its better to take out the variable the variable of multiple hits per shot.
Here you say it can, later you say its not about 1 bullet but that they can occur at the same time.
occuring same time also includes multiple hits at once doing an effect.
your saying A but at the same time B.
your mistake not mine.
Saying I can never test anything in that case...
If you want to test if you do X that Y will occur you will need to filter out other variables that also have effect on the outcome.
Stop BSing about variable. Give me the any history hint/evidence that your bug can occur and to be counted as variable.
-
With a test always state the factors.
He was stating it all unclear, while Athros did better work.
I still would like to see it with a signle hit, not shotgun.
Reason: to filter out a possible bug where 2 indicators got placed at one number where it could of been Dmg1 with effect X and Dmg2 with effect Y
thats the reason i find shotgun a bad testing weapon.
with the result given so far, id say what the mythbusters would say: Its plausible.
This is not a purposeful test for simultaneously proc but a visual observation to the occurrence of simultaneously proc. Did i say is a proof video? Have you look at the title of the video? Do you have basis/evidence/forum reports to believe your so call bug exist? Which test is free from possible interference from bug. I can make up a hypothetical bug that somehow happen to prevent simultaneuously proc from occuring on your game session and you alone. You will never be fit to test anything in that case.
You can point out that there MIGHT be hidden factor/bugs (you didn't at all) but to outright dismiss without a doubt the whole video as "multiple pellets causing the effect, not 1 pellet causing multiple effects" and to laugh at it is a pure sign of disrespect and a show of lack of knowledge on how shotgun numbers work. I would say you probably didn't even see the multiple icons before I had to take a screenshot from how you didn't mention them at all in the beginning.
Also talk is cheap, how about you perform the actual test so i can link it in future.
-
Yeah, I know it's certainly not for it. It's just that since you bring it out that it could multi-proc per single bullet/pellet and jmthebigman denied it...
Haha, he need to use shotgun more often.
-
Actually... Yeah, your test variable is unclear; you didn't state a clear limitation for the test. I suggest you to repeat the test without any other variable that could alter the whole result (multishot/elemental).
The video is not for testing simultaneously proc. Is for testing the claim extra damage is given for each proc. Just happened to observe the multiple proc and share with you all. Three proc icons behind a single number are not obvious enough? Other numbers only have 1 icon.
-
I see multiple pellets causing the effect.not 1 pellet causing multiple effects...
also laughing at the video producer using a shotgun to test it.
You're blind and whats wrong with shotgun? Each pellet has 15% base chance of proc and 28.5% after mod.
-
http://youtu.be/RqT7DbhvvLk?t=15s
Single bullet/pellet can have multiple proc on it. Pause the video and look at the icons.
-
It add to charge damage. It just don't show in UI because the UI only show base damage + elements. Extra IPS won't be shown in UI.
Still won't recommend it though. Elements mods are still better.
-
Great show coming up.
Need Confirmation Regarding Dual Elemental Dmg
in Players helping Players
Posted · Edited by Definitegj
You said plausible only after a large text of explanation from Athros to explain "Multishot pellets on shotgun ALWAYS have their own damage pop-up, and in no way creating illusion that made multiple damage popup joined as one" but then you come up with a new "a possible bug where 2 indicators got placed at one number where it could of been Dmg1 with effect X and Dmg2 with effect Y". When ask for basis/evidence that hint that bug can occur to be considered as reasonable variable. You cite Arsenal UI/graphical bugs but totally ignore that in-game mission damage number is consistent and reproducible. Until you can provide basis/evidence to hint that your bug can occur, i would not consider that as reasonable variable. If anyone can freely cite UI bug with no evidence as reason, to create new variables, no test will be enough.