Arcane: AM + IF: Optimal Latch

Mage
This is magical.
I just hopped on to test and each individual arcane missile takes your current IF stack into account upon launch. The IF snapshotting you're describing isn't happening for me at all.
02/27/2015 04:46 PMPosted by Aenallain
You are putting words in my mouth, saying I said things I did not or made claims that I did not. You are exaggerating and reading into things I did say.

Okay. Luckily I am able to quote posts from this same thread.

02/26/2015 10:41 AMPosted by Aenallain
This means your IF and AC stacks attach on cast

This is your claim from the opening post. Neither you nor anyone else has shown it happening anywhere. Frosted has tested on a dummy, and so have I. Both of us are seeing contradicting evidence. I therefore interpret this as you lying.

02/26/2015 09:01 PMPosted by Aenallain
Also, another issue confusing things is that the simulations I run show a slight increase in DPS using the method I described based on the whole AM latching to a single IF.

This is your claim that you ran simulations "based on the whole AM latching to a single IF", and found "a slight increase". As mentioned, this is impossible unless you're well versed in SimulationCraft source code. I knew that was unlikely, so I asked you to identify these "simulations". You answered SimulationCraft. Therefore, I believe this is a second lie.

02/27/2015 04:46 PMPosted by Aenallain
...I have 508MB of WoW Client log data to support what I said, plus more from other sources. I think that trumps your two cases from only WoW logs.

We are 2 days, 20 posts into this thread, and you still haven't shown a single shred from these 508MB of logs. What option do we have, other than believing this is a third lie?

02/27/2015 04:46 PMPosted by Aenallain
I am the one who is outraged, Komma ...and, also honestly disappointed in you.

I am glad to participate when people bring up topics for discussion, ask for clarification, or even ask for investigation. However, I heavily disapprove when people try to spread misinfo and pass it as fact. It's the equivalent of academic fraud.

First you got caught red handed trying to describe a mechanic that doesn't exist, and has never existed. Then, you got caught claiming that you did simulations that don't exist. Last of all, you lash back at players calling you a fraud, basing it off of data that you claim exists but nobody else has ever seen. I don't have an issue disappointing a person who does these things.
I really hope this thread helps people realize what a joke/troll Aenallain is, and to not take his threads seriously in the future.
WTB Best of Craigslist for battle.net

02/27/2015 05:17 PMPosted by Callistora
I really hope this thread helps people realize what a joke/troll Aenallain is, and to not take his threads seriously in the future.

Hopefully this serves as an example to others. Komma/Frosted are aware, hopefully more shall follow.
Okay. Luckily I am able to quote posts from this same thread.

02/26/2015 10:41 AMPosted by Aenallain
This means your IF and AC stacks attach on cast

This is your claim from the opening post. Neither you nor anyone else has shown it happening anywhere. Frosted has tested on a dummy, and so have I. Both of us are seeing contradicting evidence. I therefore interpret this as you lying.

It is a predicated statement, based on the preceding context in which I said it seems to be the case based on my data. Why did you take it out of context and quote it as an absolute? You have demonstrated the reasoning skills to know what context is and how important it is. Therefore you could only be doing this intentionally, right? This is deception and misinterpretation, and then you attach your hyperbole to it ("I therefore interpret this as you lying.").

02/26/2015 09:01 PMPosted by Aenallain
Also, another issue confusing things is that the simulations I run show a slight increase in DPS using the method I described based on the whole AM latching to a single IF.

This is your claim that you ran simulations "based on the whole AM latching to a single IF", and found "a slight increase". As mentioned, this is impossible unless you're well versed in SimulationCraft source code. I knew that was unlikely, so I asked you to identify these "simulations". You answered SimulationCraft. Therefore, I believe this is a second lie.

...
Features-rich and highly configurable: The nature of Simulationcraft allows us to provide rich informations and offer you a broader range of features, to let you change your rotations, to simulate fights the way you want, to synchronize your cooldowns with certain events, etc... Simulationcraft has tons of settings you can play with.

...
It is right in the documentation man! I am allowed to change the rotation configuration; there is nothing wrong with it. Why are you claiming otherwise? Why do you keep insisting that changing this is an impossible lie?! There was even guidance to help me do it in the forums.

You accuse me of lying, misleading people, attempting the equivalent of fraud, but I haven't done any of that. You attack me personally and baselessly and then say I am the one who is lashing out. I didn't even get personal with Frostedmages, I just told him plainly that I wasn't listening to him and why. I think you have read many things into what I have said; yes, in fact we just went over some examples of you doing that here. You seem to have some reputation with the community, but you have just used it to act like a bully and force your POV. You even have people believing I said there was no data supporting IF latching on tick, when in fact I said there was. I even said I might be wrong because of certain factors I wasn't able to simulate away or address. You have also ignored all of the issues I brought up concerning what you have said; you just went around them and instead focused on attacking and I guess "winning". You have very successfully trolled this post and turned it into an internet battle instead of anything useful. And I think you have yourself so fully entrenched that you can't back-down now.

I on the other hand know I could be wrong; I reserve that right. You may think it matters who wins or who loses; who is right or who is wrong; but, the truth is it isn't a destination, it is a journey and everyone is wrong and right to some degree. What you are doing here is not helpful or productive; it is entertaining to some, but that is all. So why are you here? What is it you really want?
02/27/2015 07:22 PMPosted by Aenallain
So why are you here? What is it you really want?


You to show your data instead of running your mouth.
Try showing these 500 MBs of logs, and simcraft APLs instead of trying to hide behind long paragraphs of pointless rhetoric and false accusations of aggression.
I dreamed a dream, where people like Aenallain are those who are oppressed, because they have no idea what they are talking about, and they realize that most of us actually want to help people, instead of talking about some thing where they want to sound important about finding some thing that boosted their dps, when it actually hurts everyone... because they are talking nonsense.
So I finally think I have what I need to bring this to a conclusion. I was stuck with conflicting data and no easy way to resolve it. The trolls sensed this and were circling like vultures. Until the other night, I was looking at the data and I noticed something. The conflicting part of the data was varying by time of day; or, more specifically, one session in particular late at night when few people were online happened to line up perfectly. I tried adjusting each of the other sessions for a new delta calculated specifically for them and they also lined up AM ticks with IF ticks. I don't know exactly where or what kind, but this almost guarantees an unaccounted for lag issue. So after allowing for this the data does show AM damage stepping with IF ticks. It isn't the most interesting result and it is not what I initially thought seemed to be happening, but it is conclusive, and something that I can live with.

In a way, I am actually happy with how things turned out. I stood up to Komma's lame attempt at internet bullying, ignored the peer-pressure from his clown posse, resisted the urge to fabricate log data and shove it down their throats (which would have been so easy and hilarious since they are too stupid to know what to do with it), and I didn't try to force the issue to conclude something. I just stuck with the facts and let them speak for themselves.

I think the most important thing that came out of this though is the new light cast on the SimulationCraft project. The revelation by Komma that he maintains the Mage modules, coupled with his flawed logic and one-dimensional thinking bring up serious doubts about the veracity of the SimulationCraft project.

  • Statistical short-comings; the first and possibly greatest issue is the fact that Komma is devoid of any statistical knowledge. He ran and cited two non-random samples and was like 'therefore, I conclude I am right'. In a very real sense that is actually just guessing.
  • Single Data Source; another issue I brought up was the fact that he was only using one data source. I pointed out the obvious issues with such an approach, and he just choked up. He simply tried to side-step that point and move on.
  • DPS Factoring; for some reason he stated the DPS Maximization problem backwards. I corrected him, and he just wandered off muttering something about 'doesn't know mechanics'.
  • Overreaching Assumptions; he 'inferred lying'; this one has gotta go down in history. I printed it out and showed it to my colleagues and we all had a good laugh. 'inferred lying'? This is the kind of presumptive reasoning he operates with.
  • Hypocrisy; he played dumb about the WoW simulation tools to bait me, and then when I tried to help him, he got mad and revealed that he contributes to the SimulationCraft project and maintains the Mage module; but this is the guy that called me a liar because he inferred it. And, he sees no discrepancy here. He throws around accusations of lying, but he is the one trying to deceive people.

With an amateur programmer like Komma contributing to the SimulationCraft project there needs to be some pretty thorough code review. However, there is not; the SimulationCraft project has little to no code review. Originally, I had thought that Blizzard's criticism of the published SimulationCraft rankings was baseless and made for ulterior motives, but based on what I have seen here, it seems Blizzard's point of view has merit. I knew the SimulationCraft numbers were idealized, but now I think this moves them more into the realm of the fanciful.
Komma, you are triggering me. Please refrain from cyber bullying or I will contact the proper authorities.
03/02/2015 09:46 AMPosted by Aenallain
The conflicting part of the data was varying by time of day; or, more specifically, one session in particular late at night when few people were online happened to line up perfectly. I tried adjusting each of the other sessions for a new delta calculated specifically for them and they also lined up AM ticks with IF ticks.

I admit I'm not mathematically minded...at all, but what's this all about? Verifying that AM ticks followed IF stacks only took as long as channeling the spell and watched as the damage fluctuated (since the spell has no natural damage range). Did something different happen when you tried it?
A gif is the only appropriate response to this: https://38.media.tumblr.com/cb2f37494fc555dbe8dd0744481d51f9/tumblr_mt2olc3Dq41s75k4ao1_500.gif
03/02/2015 12:19 PMPosted by Sarm
03/02/2015 09:46 AMPosted by Aenallain
The conflicting part of the data was varying by time of day; or, more specifically, one session in particular late at night when few people were online happened to line up perfectly. I tried adjusting each of the other sessions for a new delta calculated specifically for them and they also lined up AM ticks with IF ticks.

I admit I'm not mathematically minded...at all, but what's this all about? Verifying that AM ticks followed IF stacks only took as long as channeling the spell and watched as the damage fluctuated (since the spell has no natural damage range). Did something different happen when you tried it?

Apparently 500 MB of combat logs indicated that something different happened, 500 MB of logs that never got posted, and now apparently only indicated something different happened because of the time of day.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum