Bio Engineer Archive
Thread: ranged damage thread
Message Edited by SomeUser on 06-12-2004 04:45 PM
Vezek Get the pet to attack and watch the floaties - if the floaties and match them up with the combat spam.
If the spam says 100 and the floaty says 40 and the pet has 60% kinetic resist then it was Kinetic damage.
The take the same pet and try it against other ranged creatures. Compare the floaty with the spam and calculate the resistance to determine the damage type.
I would do this on test but I still dont have correspondant terminal access
NancyJ wrote:
Actaully there is an easier way. Make a pet with no vulns but a different amount of resist to each damage type.
Get the pet to attack and watch the floaties - if the floaties and match them up with the combat spam.
If the spam says 100 and the floaty says 40 and the pet has 60% kinetic resist then it was Kinetic damage.
The take the same pet and try it against other ranged creatures. Compare the floaty with the spam and calculate the resistance to determine the damage type.
I would do this on test but I still dont have correspondant terminal access
Good idea Nancy
BTW, what is "correspondant terminal access" on Test?
NancyJ wrote:
Actaully there is an easier way. Make a pet with no vulns but a different amount of resist to each damage type.
Get the pet to attack and watch the floaties - if the floaties and match them up with the combat spam.
If the spam says 100 and the floaty says 40 and the pet has 60% kinetic resist then it was Kinetic damage.
The take the same pet and try it against other ranged creatures. Compare the floaty with the spam and calculate the resistance to determine the damage type.
I would do this on test but I still dont have correspondant terminal access
see that is A way..... i hinted on that but it in no way is really an "easier" way IMO but anyone who wants to try this, please do so
anyone who wants to try this out on kettemoor though, i will gladly provide you with pets free of charge 
My idea revolves around disproving TH. IMHO, **if** TH is full of it he should re-answer our question and save us the trouble of figuring out what the hell it really is... That was my mind set anyhow...
However,it is unlikely that TH would have the nads to man up to his ignorance so what Nancy suggested might kill several birds with one stone hehehe
Then again I could be wrong and TH right... wouldnt that make me the ass? LoL
As soon as I get access I'll be going MBE and taking a little CH and ranger with it.
SomeUser wrote:
My idea revolves around disproving TH. IMHO, **if** TH is full of it he should re-answer our question and save us the trouble of figuring out what the hell it really is... That was my mind set anyhow...
However,it is unlikely that TH would have the nads to man up to his ignorance so what Nancy suggested might kill several birds with one stone hehehe
Then again I could be wrong and TH right... wouldnt that make me the ass? LoL
What's with the attitude? Guess what. If the information is incorrect then is still isn't TH's fualt. Why you may ask? He's not the dev with the information. He takes our questions and gets the answers from those that should know.
Now, do you have the nads to admit you're blaming the wrong person?
NancyJ wrote:
The correspondant terminal lets you skill up novices and your elite profession without having to grind it out again.
As soon as I get access I'll be going MBE and taking a little CH and ranger with it.
Very cool
Kevm wrote:
What's with the attitude? Guess what. If the information is incorrect then is still isn't TH's fualt. Why you may ask? He's not the dev with the information. He takes our questions and gets the answers from those that should know.
Now, do you have the nads to admit you're blaming the wrong person?
Careful Kevm.
TH **does** have a responsibility to provide us with accurate information. In so far as "19 questions" are concerned that is his job. If, for whatever reasons, the information is **not** accurate he has a responsibility to correct such a mistake.
My post's "attitude" is:
Lets prove or disprove the first part of TH's statement. **IF** it is true then some of his credibility (in my book) goes up. If it is wrong, **he** should go back and get the right answer from the right DEV this time. If he cannot give out correct information **and** correct misinformation when found then the"19 questions" has no credibility in my book.
I'm **not** holding TH to an unrealistic expectation BTW. If my boss in RL came to me and requested that I answer some of our investor's questions about a productthen I better be damn sure the information I give out is accurate. For me this would entail that:
1. I have some understanding about the subject I'm talking about
2. That I check and re-check my information with multiple sources
If I gave out wrong information and tried to claim innocents by virtue of ignorance passing the "buck" of responsibility to another**not** only would that guarantee that I get fired it would also diminish the investor's confidence in my company.
Remember, people dont CARE why the information is incorrect, just that it is incorrect. I dont care why TH might give out wrong information. Just that it is incorrect. And when such blunders are made frequent enough one tends to get a little short.... Even when it is just a game.
SomeUser wrote:
Lets prove or disprove the first part of TH's statement. **IF** it is true then some of his credibility (in my book) goes up. If it is wrong, **he** should go back and get the right answer from the right DEV this time. If he cannot give out correct information **and** correct misinformation when found then the"19 questions" has no credibility in my book.
So you're attitude is 'everything said is a lie until proven true' and 'guilty until proven innocent'. Gotcha. Lets make sure that all future questions that are submitted demand a blow by blow of everything he did to get that answer and what work he did to verify the information he was given was correct. *rollseyes*
Back on topic: Good luck with the testing Kevie. I'm doing a bunch of custom orders for pets this weekend, but if I get a chance I'll see if I can do some testing. I have a number of pets that do not have any vulnerabilities that can be put to use with NancyJ's method.
Message Edited by Kevm on 06-12-2004 10:12 PM
Kevm wrote:
So you're attitude is 'everything said is a lie until proven true' and 'guilty until proven innocent'. Gotcha. Lets make sure that all future questions that are submitted demand a blow by blow of everything he did to get that answer and what work he did to verify the information he was given was correct. *rollseyes*
Kevm, take a deep breath my friend.
No where did I say TH is a liar. Let make that very clear.
I dont think TH is "in the loop" when it comes to the CH profession and any resulting mechanics thereof. My opinion on this matter has been developed through the weeks of "dealings" with him via the CH community.
I take what TH says as suspect at best. When he gives an answer that is questionable, INDEPENDENT of his reputation in such regard, I become very skepical.
That is **not** to say he is always wrong or that he is wrong here. I think we ought to do some experiments and see what turns up.
Most of my previous posts were done in a light heartedmanner rather then an "mean" "offensive" manner. Although I concede sometimes those things are lost via the Internet
As far as the second part of your post:
"all future questions that are submitted demand a blow by blow of everything he did to get that answer and what work he did to verify the information he was given was correct"
No where did I say that nor did I imply that. Pure rambling my friend.
I could care less how he gets the answers right so long as they are right. When they are wrong I feel **he** has a responsibility to get it right.
My position is straight forward and, IMHO, fair
Your aggressive posturing towards me and the sarcastic "eyerolling" ought to stop. Your previous post has shown much more intelligence then you are putting forth here.
I saywe drop it