Forum Settings
       
This thread is locked

Vitality testing Round 1Follow

#1 Jan 09 2012 at 3:43 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,202 posts
So did a small batch test of Vitality today...and the results are meh.

Took a Rank 50 Gladiator against a rank 50 Amalj Drubber (Monk Class Mob)

Vitality Stats
VIT 311
DEF 643

Took 124 attacks from the drubber for a total of 13,575 damage
81 non weaponskill attacks for 8,637 = AVG 106.62 damage per hit
43 weaponskill attacks for 4,938 = AVG 114.83 damage per hit
124 total attacks 13,575 = AVG 109.47 damage per hit

Non Vitality Stats
VIT 250
DEF 631

Took 124 attacks from the drubber for a total of 14,461 damage
81 non weaponskill attacks for 9,112 = AVG 112.49 damage per hit
43 weaponskill attacks for 5,349 = AVG 124.39 damage per hit
124 total attacks 14,461 = AVG 116.62 damage per hit

The VIT difference between the two was 61 VIT.
The Damage difference between the two is 886 Damage.

Will have to do long term tests to verify the small batch data. Keep in mind this was against a mob that was able to land "Defense Down" so that does somewhat skew the data. If anyone is interested I can post the lows and highs as well

Edited, Jan 9th 2012 2:48pm by Technolust

Edited, Jan 11th 2012 10:26am by StateAlchemist Lock Thread: Thread deminished to pointless squabbling.
#2 Jan 09 2012 at 7:12 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
3,226 posts
Quote:
124 attacks

Quote:
Keep in mind this was against a mob that was able to land "Defense Down" so that does somewhat skew the data.

Quote:
Difference of 12 DEF

In that case, all you managed to demonstrate is that VIT reduces physical damage taken, which is exactly what it says on the tin. You haven't adequately shown the extent to which VIT reduces damage; you haven't quantified anything.

You should eliminate as many variables as possible to get useful data. Try Ixal instead of Amaljaa. Keep a consistent DEF value (use rings and cheap VIT materia), and don't say "the change in DEF is insignificant" unless you can point to data that proves it.
____________________________
w(°o°)w
#3 Jan 09 2012 at 8:45 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,202 posts
Almalexia wrote:
Quote:
124 attacks

Quote:
Keep in mind this was against a mob that was able to land "Defense Down" so that does somewhat skew the data.

Quote:
Difference of 12 DEF

In that case, all you managed to demonstrate is that VIT reduces physical damage taken, which is exactly what it says on the tin. You haven't adequately shown the extent to which VIT reduces damage; you haven't quantified anything.

You should eliminate as many variables as possible to get useful data. Try Ixal instead of Amaljaa. Keep a consistent DEF value (use rings and cheap VIT materia), and don't say "the change in DEF is insignificant" unless you can point to data that proves it.


Hey thanks for your pointless input, like I already stated it was a small test, and more testing will be needed. If you have anything positive to actually add to this then I would be glad to hear it.

Better yet, since your the one complaining why don't you take the time to do the tests?


Edited, Jan 9th 2012 7:47pm by Technolust

Edited, Jan 9th 2012 7:49pm by Technolust
#4 Jan 09 2012 at 11:35 PM Rating: Good
***
3,530 posts
Preliminary results show that vitality doesn't do that much! XD
____________________________
"... he called to himself a wizard, named Gallery, hoping by this means to escape the paying of the fifteen hundred crowns..." (Machen 15)

"Thus opium is pleasing... on account of the agreeable delirium it produces." (Burke para.6)

"I could only read so much for this paper and the syphilis poem had to go."
#5 Jan 10 2012 at 12:16 AM Rating: Excellent
****
7,106 posts
Quote:
Hey thanks for your pointless input

He wasn't terribly polite about it, but he told you exactly what you need to do to keep from wasting your time in the future. There are variables that can be controlled with gear and mob selection, and you didn't bother.

I think it's great that you're running tests, but you'll undoubtedly get much more productive use of your time if you stick with a proper experimental methodology.
#6 Jan 10 2012 at 12:21 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
3,226 posts
Technolust wrote:
If you have anything positive to actually add to this then I would be glad to hear it.

Sorry, man. You're right. Let me add something constructive instead:

You should eliminate as many variables as possible to get useful data. Try Ixal instead of Amaljaa. Keep a consistent DEF value (use rings and cheap VIT materia), and don't say "the change in DEF is insignificant" unless you can point to data that proves it.
____________________________
w(°o°)w
#7 Jan 10 2012 at 12:38 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,202 posts
Caesura wrote:
Quote:
Hey thanks for your pointless input

He wasn't terribly polite about it, but he told you exactly what you need to do to keep from wasting your time in the future. There are variables that can be controlled with gear and mob selection, and you didn't bother.

I think it's great that you're running tests, but you'll undoubtedly get much more productive use of your time if you stick with a proper experimental methodology.



And Like I said in my OP this was a small test. I'm not in the habit of doing big tests without first testing the waters. I do tests all the time, my first phase tests are the simplest tests to see if the theory holds any water. The next phase of my test will be under a more controlled environment. It's not easy getting stats to match the same way with different gear, things have to be done to make each test as impartial as possible. I'm already running cure tests, and enmity tests. I was asked to throw a quick VIT test out there, so this is what I did on the fly.

You want to give me suggestions, then fine do so, I'm always open to suggestions, just don't do it with so much vitriol that it doesn't make it look like a suggestion it makes it look like your coming from a high horse.

Edited, Jan 9th 2012 11:39pm by Technolust
#8 Jan 10 2012 at 12:43 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,202 posts
Almalexia wrote:
Technolust wrote:
If you have anything positive to actually add to this then I would be glad to hear it.

Sorry, man. You're right. Let me add something constructive instead:

You should eliminate as many variables as possible to get useful data. Try Ixal instead of Amaljaa. Keep a consistent DEF value (use rings and cheap VIT materia), and don't say "the change in DEF is insignificant" unless you can point to data that proves it.



See this is what I'm talking about, you come in here with so much vitriol it just turns people off. Was there really any need to add the last part? I know how to proper tests, like I said above this was done on the fly because it was something I had to put together quickly.

I even stated in my OP that the test wasn't in the best possible setting. I also said it was a short quick test. Preliminary. Cool your jets. More tests will come under much stricter guidelines.
#9 Jan 10 2012 at 1:38 AM Rating: Decent
****
7,106 posts
Quote:
I even stated in my OP that the test wasn't in the best possible setting. I also said it was a short quick test. Preliminary. Cool your jets. More tests will come under much stricter guidelines.

Again, great that you're testing. I'm not being sarcastic at all when I say that. But, maybe next time, save your data until you've actually got data. Your methodology for this "preliminary" test wasn't test-worthy, and it's dangerous to produce conclusions when you know that your data doesn't support them. People see that who don't understand that your methodology was fundamentally flawed, and they assume that your results are legitimate. That's how ugly rumours about gameplay mechanics get started, and they have a way of sticking around long after they are disproven or properly refined.

Flawed testing gave people completely the wrong idea about enmity mechanics in FFXI, and even after Kanican's excellent testing it was years before many players finally figured out how things really worked. The bottom line is that it's not a good idea to post "results" that don't have experimental merit.
#10 Jan 10 2012 at 1:52 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,202 posts
Caesura wrote:
Quote:
I even stated in my OP that the test wasn't in the best possible setting. I also said it was a short quick test. Preliminary. Cool your jets. More tests will come under much stricter guidelines.

Again, great that you're testing. I'm not being sarcastic at all when I say that. But, maybe next time, save your data until you've actually got data. Your methodology for this "preliminary" test wasn't test-worthy, and it's dangerous to produce conclusions when you know that your data doesn't support them. People see that who don't understand that your methodology was fundamentally flawed, and they assume that your results are legitimate. That's how ugly rumours about gameplay mechanics get started, and they have a way of sticking around long after they are disproven or properly refined.

Flawed testing gave people completely the wrong idea about enmity mechanics in FFXI, and even after Kanican's excellent testing it was years before many players finally figured out how things really worked. The bottom line is that it's not a good idea to post "results" that don't have experimental merit.



Since you seem to have such an issue with the test and the data, go ahead and do your own test, proving that my data is incorrect. I honestly will never understand why some people will think there word is law. You are correct on one thing, it was wrong to post here on ZAM, because people don't want to know anything at all, they just want to sit on their pedestal and tell others how they are supposed to do things. I'm done replying to this thread, and I'm done posting on ZAM.

Pat yourself on that back of yours Sage, because you seem to forget that you **** stinks just like the rest of us.
#11 Jan 10 2012 at 7:35 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,606 posts
Caesura wrote:
Flawed testing gave people completely the wrong idea about enmity mechanics in FFXI, and even after Kanican's excellent testing it was years before many players finally figured out how things really worked.

You mean I shouldn't tank in all +CHR gear? lol

Edited, Jan 10th 2012 8:36am by MrTalos
#12 Jan 10 2012 at 9:20 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
*
77 posts
Tech, keep up the testing. I like reading your results and appreciate the time you are putting into it. Are you gonna do any more VIT testing or can it be assumed that VIT doesn't make a dramatic difference? By any chance, did you test DEF?
____________________________
FFXIV Sterling Cooper - Besaid

FFXI Cheebone - Unicorn
#13 Jan 10 2012 at 9:15 PM Rating: Good
*
54 posts
Technolust wrote:
Caesura wrote:
Quote:
I even stated in my OP that the test wasn't in the best possible setting. I also said it was a short quick test. Preliminary. Cool your jets. More tests will come under much stricter guidelines.

Again, great that you're testing. I'm not being sarcastic at all when I say that. But, maybe next time, save your data until you've actually got data. Your methodology for this "preliminary" test wasn't test-worthy, and it's dangerous to produce conclusions when you know that your data doesn't support them. People see that who don't understand that your methodology was fundamentally flawed, and they assume that your results are legitimate. That's how ugly rumours about gameplay mechanics get started, and they have a way of sticking around long after they are disproven or properly refined.

Flawed testing gave people completely the wrong idea about enmity mechanics in FFXI, and even after Kanican's excellent testing it was years before many players finally figured out how things really worked. The bottom line is that it's not a good idea to post "results" that don't have experimental merit.



Since you seem to have such an issue with the test and the data, go ahead and do your own test, proving that my data is incorrect. I honestly will never understand why some people will think there word is law. You are correct on one thing, it was wrong to post here on ZAM, because people don't want to know anything at all, they just want to sit on their pedestal and tell others how they are supposed to do things. I'm done replying to this thread, and I'm done posting on ZAM.

Pat yourself on that back of yours Sage, because you seem to forget that you sh*t stinks just like the rest of us.


Dude, you did one test and threw it on the forums. Post testing info when you've discovered something vital. Christ, you are so egotistical.
____________________________

#14 Jan 11 2012 at 9:25 AM Rating: Excellent
I hate to say it, but when your own post admits multiple faults about something your doing, you can't really expect anything but criticism and sarcasm in the posts that follow. I am locking the thread for obvious reasons. Look forward to your more extensive testing.
____________________________
Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost.
Data Center: Primal; Server: Ultros; Free Company: The Kraken Club; Grand Company: The Maelstrom; Chocobo: Kweh
This thread is locked
This Forum is Read Only!
Recent Visitors: 18 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (18)