Bajaratt said:
Peregrine said:
Skaw said:
Peregrine said:
Everyone is sitting back all awkward wondering why the **** you're not backing down from the claim that 10% meleeing accuracy can be beaten by 1 strength point, ESPECIALLY over an extended period of time. People would rip you to shreds if you made that comment alone. Since you're against me, they'll leave you alone for saying something so stupid. I won't give you that luxury. Catch the error in your parse data. There is something VERY different between you and him if you are beating him with a 10% acc deficit. I'm talking 90 extra attack. Something HUGE. If you won't back down and check your error, you're a liar. Only other conclusion, because either way you are incorrect.
Can you read? We both had double minuet and berserk.
90 extra attack would do nothing at that point.
I scored a 35 on the reading comprehension section of the ACT. Catch your error and find the real difference between him and you. It was not simply 1 strength point and everyone else knows it. They just don't want to tell you.
Obviously you cheated or you forgot how to read, because if you were paying attention, you'd have seen that Skaw mentioned this game works on a RANGE, several times in fact. Each attack has a range of damage it can do, and STR affects the limits of that range. Maybe Makzilla had an off night, and was hitting at the bottom of that range often, while Skaw was hitting near the top just as often. At that point, Skaw is doing a significantly larger amount of melee damage, and the accuracy is only bringing up his damage to match Skaw's.
Or I outgun you, don't really care what you argued since it's flawed, and simply don't wish to address it. In addition to the reading comprehension of 35/36 on a national standardized test, I have also taken statistical analysis and data analysis 300-level courses--of which I have aced with ease. Each attack has a range, yes, but over time even the random fluctuation of almost any statistical data-taking becomes uniformly predictable. He parsed over a significant time, which is ultimately his downfall. Makzilla cannot have a "off night." All monks do is hit attack. Perhaps if you sampled 10 hits, the significance would be subject to fluctuation that you claim is "entirely plausible." However, that skaw claims to have 10% accuracy deficit over a HUGE amount of hits, and that he still claims that his meleeing was superior...it is not statistically possible for so many hits to be an aberration.
When your accuracy is 10% less than someone else's over more than 500 hits, I would make the call that all results have at least a 95% chance of being real...and not an aberration. Again, maybe if skaw parsed 15 hits then he could claim that range affected the data. Until then, no. So says statistical analysis methodology.
As such, no more talk about averages and rangers. With such a large sample size as skaw is claiming, any difference is not due to fluxuation and dice-rolling. Statistics takes into consideration all these, and tells you to drop that argument. It's the whole point of a freaking parse--to account for fluxuation.