User talk:Vimescarrot/Archive 4

1, 2, 3.

Regarding Silverlight
Here's my evidence:

I recorded 338 hit attempts on lesser demons with Silverlight, 79 strength, aggressive mode, and an amulet of strength and calculated the relative frequencies of each damage amount as well as the damage amount for each last hit. I found that when current demon HP >= Max Hit, it NEVER hits {2, 5, 7, 10, 13, 15, 18, etc.}. The only times those damage amounts appear is when the demon has those amounts of HP left and therefore I am forced to hit that amount when the damage amount "rolled" > HP. This explains why those damage amounts either occur extremely infrequently or fail to occur at all:

Columns: Damage, Frequency, Relative Frequency (%), Predicted Relative Frequency (%), Difference

0.00000  138.00000    40.82840    40.82840     0.00000     1.00000    20.00000     5.91716     3.79358     2.12358     2.00000     2.00000     0.59172     3.71810    -3.12639     3.00000    25.00000     7.39645     3.64263     3.75382     4.00000    17.00000     5.02959     3.56715     1.46243     5.00000     0.00000     0.00000     3.49168    -3.49168     6.00000    21.00000     6.21302     3.41620     2.79682     7.00000     2.00000     0.59172     3.34072    -2.74901     8.00000    16.00000     4.73373     3.26525     1.46848     9.00000    22.00000     6.50888     3.18977     3.31910    10.00000     0.00000     0.00000     3.11429    -3.11429    11.00000    13.00000     3.84615     3.03882     0.80734    12.00000    14.00000     4.14201     2.96334     1.17867    13.00000     0.00000     0.00000     2.88787    -2.88787    14.00000    13.00000     3.84615     2.81239     1.03376    15.00000     1.00000     0.29586     2.73691    -2.44106    16.00000    10.00000     2.95858     2.66144     0.29714    17.00000    12.00000     3.55030     2.58596     0.96434    18.00000     0.00000     0.00000     2.51048    -2.51048    19.00000    12.00000     3.55030     2.43501     1.11529

I next compared Silverlight's accuracy to a Rune Scimitar's. The Chance to Hit turned out to be 62.285892% and 77.680044%, respectively, indicating that Silverlight doesn't increase accuracy very much, if at all.

Next I found my max hit using RuneHQ's calculator inputting Silverlight's regular strength bonus (+12) as well as the other modifiers (aggressive, etc.). My max hit turned out to be 12 - which, when multiplied by 1.6, rounds down to 19, my max hit during the recording session.

I then had a hunch that Silverlight increases the damage amount dealt by 60%, rounded down. To test this theory, I entered the following in GNU Octave:

floor(1.6*[1:12])

Sure enough, it outputted the following damage amounts:

1   3    4    6    8    9   11   12   14   16   17   19

or, all the damages that DID occur frequently.

Given how incredibly perfectly this theory fit the data, I decided it was FACT and therefore published it.

Dromedarii 10:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you...
The wiki HAS gone to hell. We have constant, very petty arguements daily. We have vandals that come and edit in false information, including those like Total Rune. We have lost people like Eucarya, which means that we lose valuble editors. Worst of all, a few (not all) people are being sysopped when they don't have the experience or need for sysopship (won't name anyone). I'll get to work fixing up the wiki, but I doubt I can do it alone...


 * I might consider throwing the all users are equal policy in the trash with your consent. Your correct the wiki does need some sort of authority the place is becoming increasingly unpleasent with these bicker wars and nothing ever gets done. --Whiplash 12:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

kill count
Yet again Vimes I am asking you to leave the part that says a higher kill count will raise the amount of runes, coins and bolt racks recieved, alone!. It is perfectly true, has been confirmed by ""Jagex"", and is a widely acknowledged and accepted fact, most if not all barrowers know this, why keep changing it? You have no reason to do so, please get your facts straight before deleting relevant information, why start a pointless edit war, when the information I have entered is correct?

further
oh stfu I was not contradicting jagex, my proof was from a gold mod, who works for customer support, can't u read? I''ll leave ur version until i post the mssg, then ill change it to how it should be.

Re:Wiki < Hell
Well the WoWWiki has something known as a systems administrator and that persons word is law it might not be a bad idea to look into getting one of those. Though I do believe that is kind of a replacement for wiki staff. But it does seem to work well for them. Whiplash 16:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If there are going to be someone with totalitarianistic powers, I rather it not be the bureaucrats, especially inactive ones. [[Image:Bowman_hat.png|12px]]Tarikochi 16:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Who would be better, then? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  16:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd rather that system not be applied in the first place, as even individual people can have faults to make incorrect decisions. Coming back all of a sudden and wanting to change the system that is apparently suited for them can display these errors. [[Image:Bowman_hat.png|12px]]Tarikochi 16:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't answer my question. Who would you prefer? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  16:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not answer a question that is unnecessary and only relevant to something I do not agree with. [[Image:Bowman_hat.png|12px]]Tarikochi 16:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So you choose only to tell us what you don't want, instead of what you do? Or was it some kind of hint suggesting you basically don't want it to be me? JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  16:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not want you to have such a rule, if that satisfies what you're after. Except I rather the policy not be applied in the first place.  [[Image:Bowman_hat.png|12px]]Tarikochi 17:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The 'crat's already have a semi-leadership position, IMO. If I had to guess who the some of most respected people here were, I'd say Whip, you, Sacre Fi, and Dtm. All of whom are 'crats. The point I have with this is that, no matter how many times RS:AEAE is put in front of you, chances are, if you make a decision, most users won't question it. An admin, mabye, but that only helps from it becoming totalitarianism.   Tes     Fan          16:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ew, put your sig in a template, please. Anyway, people generally complain if you do something like that, then throw AEAE in your face...don't they? Besides, I personally am not comfortable with using power like that without it already having been said that I can. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  16:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Tarik there has been fighting on this wiki since way before you joined perhaps you haven't noticed it because you weren't here when it started. But the fighting started after a certain user or two (won't say whom) began abusing the RS:AEAE policy. We need a better method. --Whiplash 16:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is better not to have a "one word rules all" scenario though. Assuming that this policy applies to bureaucrats only, then the conflict only elevated to the bureaucrat level, where one bureaucrat could just negate a bureaucrat's "one word rule" and introduce another "one word rule".  [[Image:Bowman_hat.png|12px]]Tarikochi 16:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

maybe something along the lines of "Admins/'Crats can use there powers to stop arguments, but not to win them" or something.   Tes     Fan          17:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There would be no probloem if you got the right kind of leader(s). JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  17:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Been watching this discussion, interesting stuff. Keep in mind that decisions are not as easy as a one-person deal.  If you're thinking of putting one person in charge, do it similar to a democracy type, choose the person (they don't need to be an admin or crat either), let them make decisions based on advice given from sysops and crats and all other editors (editors ARE equal).  The person in charge can make a more informed decision, hopefully not too biased (although no one's perfect).  They are also able to change that decision if required later.  There should, however, be a "checks and balances" system, where if the person in charge makes a very obviously bad decision, it can be changed or countered or something.  All the responsibilty on one person doesn't quite cut it.  18:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A leader/president-type thing? I'm not sure if I like that idea. If we would do so, we would need to make sure we're 100% sure about the leader to have. We shouldn't screw up, should we? 18:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict =o)

Do you really expect community members to go along with this? I say no, and there's no way I'd change my mind. All editors are equal, plain and simple. Christine Talk 18:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But most editors are cocks. That's the problem as I see it. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  18:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, also, may I mention; there doesn't need to be just one leader. There can be two. Three. Five, if we think it's appropriate. JalYt-Xil-Vimescarrot  18:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Before we go into this too much further, what needs to change? Be specific!  What kinds of choices would that person (or people) need to make and why would they need to be the ones making them rather than the community?  Sure, we have some unintelligent people (putting it mildy, I didn't want to quote you), but how does this solution change that problem?  Kind of hard since this is a wikia, not a personal website.  20:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)