Does being a higher CL than 11.4 affect the rest of the crew

[Memory Haunts You]

Red Kutai

Lux Fortuna

I love how my knowledge of DMS is in question here. The underlying assumptions are insulting, to say the least.

Has nothing to do with you, I'm afraid; the issue here is DMS v. everything-else-in-zOMG!. sweatdrop

As Thard illustrated, the rest of the game works on a very predictable system; as you point out, though, there's rudimentary evidence that DMS has somehow complicated that system with additional variables. As with any good scientist, though, Thard is reluctant to simply assume the laws of the game no longer apply - at least without sufficient data. As sufficient as you may be in other regards, my friend, you must admit the data you've (not) presented is a little lacking. wink

I sympathise mostly, though, because I was in precisely the same position, not more than a couple of months ago - I attempted to make the same correction, and received a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that contested it. While I do suspect you're correct, I've yet to see a proper modicum of data collected that makes me comfortable accepting it as fact. If you'd like to change that, you are more-than-welcomed to work at collecting that data; otherwise, I'm sure you can understand how someone might maintain reasonable doubt... 3nodding

Ack, Froggy, why does your flash not work!! Otherwise, this would be the PERFECT excuse for me to drag you into DMS with me! I know you wouldn't be able to resist the urge for knowledge... twisted

[Lux Fortuna]

Red Kutai

Lux Fortuna

I love how my knowledge of DMS is in question here. The underlying assumptions are insulting, to say the least.

Has nothing to do with you, I'm afraid; the issue here is DMS v. everything-else-in-zOMG!. sweatdrop

As Thard illustrated, the rest of the game works on a very predictable system; as you point out, though, there's rudimentary evidence that DMS has somehow complicated that system with additional variables. As with any good scientist, though, Thard is reluctant to simply assume the laws of the game no longer apply - at least without sufficient data. As sufficient as you may be in other regards, my friend, you must admit the data you've (not) presented is a little lacking. wink

I sympathise mostly, though, because I was in precisely the same position, not more than a couple of months ago - I attempted to make the same correction, and received a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that contested it. While I do suspect you're correct, I've yet to see a proper modicum of data collected that makes me comfortable accepting it as fact. If you'd like to change that, you are more-than-welcomed to work at collecting that data; otherwise, I'm sure you can understand how someone might maintain reasonable doubt... 3nodding

I'm not assuming anything--at least nothing more than an 'official' experiment would shed light on. I am using empirical evidence to deduce the exact same thing they will find when they go and test it themselves. Not only that but my research has been supported by a majority of the zOMG! Community as a whole. Just because I didn't screenshot my orbs before and after a run and another players orbs before and after a run doesn't make my claims any less legitimate.

The last time you tried to call me out on something similar to this I proved my point. My intent in this thread was not to cause some debate over research and data, but to give the OP honest answers. He asked a straightforward question and someone came into the thread offering convoluted and incorrect answers.

I think it's hilarious how everyone jumps on me when I try and help the person who genuinely wants answers. The burden of proof isn't on me, this time, it's on anyone who disagrees because it is generally accepted by most players to be true that 11.4 is the cap point for maintaining 'good' drops in DMS and that a .8 cl difference is the maximum difference allotted in a crew for all players to receive their appropriate drops (otherwise the ones with cl's below that get radically less drops).

Collect the data? I already have and so have hundreds of other players. It's embedded in our experiences. I came into this thread to help the kid, not prolong the help with hours of research and writing. To say that this is not about me is off-point. Had anyone else come into this thread maintaining the status quo he would most likely have gone un-bothered. Excuse me while I dot my i's and cross my t's.

At the end of the day, any 'official' experiment that is done will still just be an assumption. The strongest evidence would be to have a developer who knows the coding well come in and verify exact numbers. Of course that's unlikely, but anything less than that is still speculative.

[allegoriest]

Lux Fortuna

Red Kutai

Lux Fortuna

I love how my knowledge of DMS is in question here. The underlying assumptions are insulting, to say the least.

Has nothing to do with you, I'm afraid; the issue here is DMS v. everything-else-in-zOMG!. sweatdrop

As Thard illustrated, the rest of the game works on a very predictable system; as you point out, though, there's rudimentary evidence that DMS has somehow complicated that system with additional variables. As with any good scientist, though, Thard is reluctant to simply assume the laws of the game no longer apply - at least without sufficient data. As sufficient as you may be in other regards, my friend, you must admit the data you've (not) presented is a little lacking. wink

I sympathise mostly, though, because I was in precisely the same position, not more than a couple of months ago - I attempted to make the same correction, and received a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that contested it. While I do suspect you're correct, I've yet to see a proper modicum of data collected that makes me comfortable accepting it as fact. If you'd like to change that, you are more-than-welcomed to work at collecting that data; otherwise, I'm sure you can understand how someone might maintain reasonable doubt... 3nodding

I'm not assuming anything--at least nothing more than an 'official' experiment would shed light on. I am using empirical evidence to deduce the exact same thing they will find when they go and test it themselves. Not only that but my research has been supported by a majority of the zOMG! Community as a whole. Just because I didn't screenshot my orbs before and after a run and another players orbs before and after a run doesn't make my claims any less legitimate.

The last time you tried to call me out on something similar to this I proved my point. My intent in this thread was not to cause some debate over research and data, but to give the OP honest answers. He asked a straightforward question and someone came into the thread offering convoluted and incorrect answers.

I think it's hilarious how everyone jumps on me when I try and help the person who genuinely wants answers. The burden of proof isn't on me, this time, it's on anyone who disagrees because it is generally accepted by most players to be true that 11.4 is the cap point for maintaining 'good' drops in DMS and that a .8 cl difference is the maximum difference allotted in a crew for all players to receive their appropriate drops (otherwise the ones with cl's below that get radically less drops).

Collect the data? I already have and so have hundreds of other players. It's embedded in our experiences. I came into this thread to help the kid, not prolong the help with hours of research and writing. To say that this is not about me is off-point. Had anyone else come into this thread maintaining the status quo he would most likely have gone un-bothered. Excuse me while I dot my i's and cross my t's.

At the end of the day, any 'official' experiment that is done will still just be an assumption. The strongest evidence would be to have a developer who knows the coding well come in and verify exact numbers. Of course that's unlikely, but anything less than that is still speculative.

Whenever I'm dragged into in a DMS crew, they always level to 10.8 for me, because I am so sadly leveled. So I don't think it's just Lux. Valky and Magey and co want to test on me to see what I get. When I go in with 10.8's I tend to get an orb at each monster defeated. So I guess we'll find out later, provided I don't keep dying.

*Is far to lazy to actually DMS*

[Red Kutai]

Lux Fortuna

I'm not assuming anything--at least nothing more than an 'official' experiment would shed light on. I am using empirical evidence to deduce the exact same thing they will find when they go and test it themselves. Not only that but my research has been supported by a majority of the zOMG! Community as a whole. Just because I didn't screenshot my orbs before and after a run and another players orbs before and after a run doesn't make my claims any less legitimate.

I... I did say I suspected you were correct, yes? Nor, I believe, did I claim you were making assumptions - you're obviously drawing conclusions from the data you have at hand. My point was that Thard and I don't have that data at hand, and therefore cannot draw those same conclusions - if we did, we would be making assumptions.

There's a world of difference between calling a claim wrong - which I don't believe it is - and saying that it's unsupported by data. My apologies if I was unclear as to which I was referring. redface

Quote:

At the end of the day, any 'official' experiment that is done will still just be an assumption. The strongest evidence would be to have a developer who knows the coding well come in and verify exact numbers. Of course that's unlikely, but anything less than that is still speculative.

That's true here, as well as in real-world science - the core of this argument is that all science is speculation, unless we get the data directly from God himself. Judging by the last 1,000-or-so-years or human history, though, I'd say speculation based on data has been working out pretty well.

An analogue: If I were to make the claim that gravity functioned differently in my bathroom than the rest of the world, people would likely not believe me. Even if many people make that claim, that doesn't make it scientifically arguable - though it certainly arouses suspicion. Indeed, no matter how much time I might spend in my bathroom, how much of an authority I might be on it, or how confident I may be in my claim, it cannot be argued scientifically without observable data. It's not your responsibility to obtain that data, but you have to understand that someone not reaching that conclusion without that data is not only perfectly defensible, but it's the only logical option available...

[Lux Fortuna]

Red Kutai

With regard to your first point I maintain that the data IS there. Is it accessible to everyone? No--it's stored in the minds of those who experienced it first hand. Data is merely a collection of facts from which conclusions can be drawn. Assumptions.

Sure we can have a metaphysical discussion on the essence of 'verifiable truth' but it leads nowhere. I feel it's safe to believe that in this vacuum the numbers implemented by the developers would be considered 'fact'.

I don't regret anything I've said in this thread--I corrected someone who was wrong. If you guys want to do research to support me then go ahead (the research won't disprove what I already know to be true... or rather... 'assume' to be true). I'm not going to go spend hours taking screenshots of DMS runs just so I can offer 'screenshot supported' data to support my claims that the majority of the community holds to be the truth.

[Memory Haunts You]

Lux Fortuna

I think it's hilarious how everyone jumps on me when I try and help the person who genuinely wants answers. The burden of proof isn't on me, this time, it's on anyone who disagrees because it is generally accepted by most players to be true that 11.4 is the cap point for maintaining 'good' drops in DMS and that a .8 cl difference is the maximum difference allotted in a crew for all players to receive their appropriate drops (otherwise the ones with cl's below that get radically less drops).

Collect the data? I already have and so have hundreds of other players. It's embedded in our experiences. I came into this thread to help the kid, not prolong the help with hours of research and writing. To say that this is not about me is off-point. Had anyone else come into this thread maintaining the status quo he would most likely have gone un-bothered. Excuse me while I dot my i's and cross my t's.

I believe you on your data but not on the more personal parts I bolded. A few people asked for evidence, that is not "jumping on you". Plus, I think some people are just a bit taken aback by the tone you struck in your first reply to Thard. I'm gonna admit that I had this "Oh heavens, why is he so angry at Thard?" eek at first, too. But I can understand that seeing the wrong numbers being thrown around makes a person a bit irate.

I don't think anyone (and especially not Kutai) is meaning any offense to you here.
Though I do agree with you that it's maybe someone else's turn to go and play for hours if they want to "test", rather than laying the burden on you.

[Lux Fortuna]

Memory Haunts You

I believe you on your data but not on the more personal parts I bolded. A few people asked for evidence, that is not "jumping on you". Plus, I think some people are just a bit taken aback by the tone you struck in your first reply to Thard. I'm gonna admit that I had this "Oh heavens, why is he so angry at Thard?" eek at first, too. But I can understand that seeing the wrong numbers being thrown around makes a person a bit irate.

I don't think anyone (and especially not Kutai) is meaning any offense to you here.
Though I do agree with you that it's maybe someone else's turn to go and play for hours if they want to "test", rather than laying the burden on you.

So I want to help Skechid by correcting someone who clearly doesn't know the mechanics of DMS and I'm the one being asked to present numerical data, even though what I am saying is significantly supported by the most active DMS players? I have nothing to prove--I just came in here to correct a blatant error.

I realize there was no intended offense, but when someone who I don't believe is a credible source on the state of DMS comes in attacking the status quo maintained by high-end DMS'ers and I am the one put on the stand being asked to provide evidence to disprove HIM? I take offense to that.

[Deldevious]

Meh, someone could just as easily take offense to you taking offense because you don't play anymore but assume you still have all the answers. Not saying you aren't credible, but you're old, grandpa.

[Red Kutai]

Lux Fortuna

With regard to your first point I maintain that the data IS there. Is it accessible to everyone? No--it's stored in the minds of those who experienced it first hand. Data is merely a collection of facts from which conclusions can be drawn. Assumptions.

A term exists for first-hand exclusive data; we call it "anecdotal". The term carries connotations of unreliability, though, because such evidence is notoriously... Well, unreliable. That doesn't mean that because something is anecdotal, it is necessarily untrue; but neither does the existence of anecdotal evidence make something necessarily true. As I said before, anecdotal evidence serves best to rouse scientific suspicion - the basis for a proper hypothesis - for which actual empirical data gives us the confidence - though, as you mention, not certainty - to confirm or deny.

This is fundamentally how science works, and it's how some people - like Thard and myself - choose to verify our beliefs. I understand that it's not strictly universal, but as I mentioned it's worked out pretty well over the most recent portion of human history... 3nodding

[Lux Fortuna]

Red Kutai

Lux Fortuna

With regard to your first point I maintain that the data IS there. Is it accessible to everyone? No--it's stored in the minds of those who experienced it first hand. Data is merely a collection of facts from which conclusions can be drawn. Assumptions.

A term exists for first-hand exclusive data; we call it "anecdotal". The term carries connotations of unreliability, though, because such evidence is notoriously... Well, unreliable. That doesn't mean that because something is anecdotal, it is necessarily untrue; but neither does the existence of anecdotal evidence make something necessarily true. As I said before, anecdotal evidence serves best to rouse scientific suspicion - the basis for a proper hypothesis - for which actual empirical data gives us the confidence - though, as you mention, not certainty - to confirm or deny.

This is fundamentally how science works, and it's how some people - like Thard and myself - choose to verify our beliefs. I understand that it's not strictly universal, but as I mentioned it's worked out pretty well over the most recent portion of human history... 3nodding

Yeah, I am well aware of the difference between different forms of evidence, and as Deldev pointed out just now, anecdotal evidence isn't sketchy if the source is credible.

For me to be lying about my experiences I would either have to genuinely be ignorant (or have misinterpreted what I witnessed.

OR

I would have to have ulterior motives. What benefit is there for me to perpetuate misconceptions?

Any third possibility seems HIGHLY unlikely.

I believe my credibility in the community is well-regarded. Enough for me to legitimately be allowed to post my opinions in the forums without being asked to support every claim I make with hours of 'new' research. I've already done it before; I have no intention of doing it again.

Take my word for what it is--if that means little or nothing to you then so be it, but there's no way I'm going to do another DMS run.

If it's my personality or tone that people have a problem with. Well it's high time that the community learn that in the past 3.3 years zOMG has been active, I've never changed in that respect.

[Lux Fortuna]

DelDev

Meh, someone could just as easily take offense to you taking offense because you don't play anymore but assume you still have all the answers. Not saying you aren't credible, but you're old, grandpa.

Ahahahahaha. That would be valid except the game hasn't been updated since I stopped playing ;P

Oh, and plenty of people take offense to what I say. It doesn't make me less right, though.

[Memory Haunts You]

Lux Fortuna

Memory Haunts You

I believe you on your data but not on the more personal parts I bolded. A few people asked for evidence, that is not "jumping on you". Plus, I think some people are just a bit taken aback by the tone you struck in your first reply to Thard. I'm gonna admit that I had this "Oh heavens, why is he so angry at Thard?" eek at first, too. But I can understand that seeing the wrong numbers being thrown around makes a person a bit irate.

I don't think anyone (and especially not Kutai) is meaning any offense to you here.
Though I do agree with you that it's maybe someone else's turn to go and play for hours if they want to "test", rather than laying the burden on you.

So I want to help Skechid by correcting someone who clearly doesn't know the mechanics of DMS and I'm the one being asked to present numerical data, even though what I am saying is significantly supported by the most active DMS players? I have nothing to prove--I just came in here to correct a blatant error.

I realize there was no intended offense, but when someone who I don't believe is a credible source on the state of DMS comes in attacking the status quo maintained by high-end DMS'ers and I am the one put on the stand being asked to provide evidence to disprove HIM? I take offense to that.

Ohh!! *lightbulb goes on* You're offended that people don't automatically believe you and take your word, your authority for it. And that your help isn't being appreciated. Got it. Yeah, I can see why you would feel that way.

But I'm sure your help *is* being appreciated.
Ummm please nobody ask me to go find statistical evidence for that last statement now, though. razz

[Lux Fortuna]

Memory Haunts You

Lux Fortuna

Memory Haunts You

I believe you on your data but not on the more personal parts I bolded. A few people asked for evidence, that is not "jumping on you". Plus, I think some people are just a bit taken aback by the tone you struck in your first reply to Thard. I'm gonna admit that I had this "Oh heavens, why is he so angry at Thard?" eek at first, too. But I can understand that seeing the wrong numbers being thrown around makes a person a bit irate.

I don't think anyone (and especially not Kutai) is meaning any offense to you here.
Though I do agree with you that it's maybe someone else's turn to go and play for hours if they want to "test", rather than laying the burden on you.

So I want to help Skechid by correcting someone who clearly doesn't know the mechanics of DMS and I'm the one being asked to present numerical data, even though what I am saying is significantly supported by the most active DMS players? I have nothing to prove--I just came in here to correct a blatant error.

I realize there was no intended offense, but when someone who I don't believe is a credible source on the state of DMS comes in attacking the status quo maintained by high-end DMS'ers and I am the one put on the stand being asked to provide evidence to disprove HIM? I take offense to that.

Ohh!! *lightbulb goes on* You're offended that people don't automatically believe you and take your word, your authority for it. And that your help isn't being appreciated. Got it. Yeah, I can see why you would feel that way.

But I'm sure your help *is* being appreciated.
Ummm please nobody ask me to go find statistical evidence for that last statement now, though. razz

NUMERICAL DATA OR YOUR STATEMENT IS FALSE!

Excuse my facetiousness xD Couldn't resist

[Deldevious]

Lux Fortuna

If it's my personality or tone that people have a problem with. Well it's high time that the community learn that in the past 3.3 years zOMG has been active, I've never changed in that respect.

Welll iiiiiiiiiiiiii don't know about that. I'm an oldschool zOMG!'er, was hyperactive on the z!F (I've changed my name) and we were all pretty tight/close with each other. You've gotten a lot more.. um, proud is a polite way to put it, since then, seemingly just because you've retired and expect everyone to take your word as law. Why do I say that? You disagreed with someone while not offering up any empirical data, and took it as a personal attack when doubted.
But that's neither here nor there, or really on topic. still wub you lux.

[Lux Fortuna]

DelDev

Lux Fortuna

If it's my personality or tone that people have a problem with. Well it's high time that the community learn that in the past 3.3 years zOMG has been active, I've never changed in that respect.

Welll iiiiiiiiiiiiii don't know about that. I'm an oldschool zOMG!'er, was hyperactive on the z!F (I've changed my name) and we were all pretty tight/close with each other. You've gotten a lot more.. um, proud is a polite way to put it, since then, seemingly just because you've retired and expect everyone to take your word as law. Why do I say that? You disagreed with someone while not offering up any empirical data, and took it as a personal attack when doubted.
But that's neither here nor there, or really on topic. still wub you lux.

Pshhhh I was the same way back in the old EB days.

Impossible regen anyone?

>;3