Dear Pup Community can I have an Apology?

[Cljader1]

Dear pup community can I get an apology, over 4 in a half years ago I decoded the tactical processor on alla and with extreme accuracy laid out how the attachment functioned and what it did, however some people took the test as valid while others did not believe my test and called it bogus. SE has proven that the attachment functioned as I laid it out over 4 years ago here's the link http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=253&mid=1180983781125697207#42 this information was before the wiki and before SE gave a formal statement on the attachment. PS you have to scroll all the way to the top to see the actual test.

This is what wiki stated http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/wiki/Tactical_Processor

This is what Camate stated although a little vague stating whats all the variations the automaton checks for http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/11567-ATTN-Community-Reps-Dev-Team-PUPs-of-Vanadiel-DEMAND-a-response-on-Automaton-A.I.%21/page26?highlight=tactical+processor

So what do you think pup do I deserve and apology for the test I conducted where alot of people called bogus?

[Garota]

I wish you would have decoded something more important... Like Almighty Apkallu's spawn conditions...

[Cljader1]

lol yeah put back then pup was my main and alI we had to go on was a brief one sentence statement on what this attachment did, plus at that time we didn't know if it was important or not it was a complete mystery to most

[Spiritreaver]

Dear pup community can I get an apology, over 4 in a half years ago I decoded the tactical processor on alla and with extreme accuracy laid out how the attachment functioned and what it did, however some people took the test as valid while others did not believe my test and called it bogus. SE has proven that the attachment functioned as I laid it out over 4 years ago here's the link http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=253&mid=1180983781125697207#42 this information was before the wiki and before SE gave a formal statement on the attachment. PS you have to scroll all the way to the top to see the actual test.

This is what wiki stated http://wiki.ffxiclopedia.org/wiki/Tactical_Processor

This is what Camate stated although a little vague stating whats all the variations the automaton checks for http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/11567-ATTN-Community-Reps-Dev-Team-PUPs-of-Vanadiel-DEMAND-a-response-on-Automaton-A.I.%21/page26?highlight=tactical+processor

So what do you think pup do I deserve and apology for the test I conducted where alot of people called bogus?

I might have given you one since i remember that thread. But after reading this (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/16536-Wtf-SE) whole trainwreck and considering how in it you remind me more than a little like the main guy that was giving you flack in the tact proc thread, damned if i will.

[Theytak]

I'll consider an apology if you go back and edit your first post and fix every time you spelled the word "does" as "deos".

edit: also, you definitely didn't test and prove anything, let alone being proving yourself right about what tactical processor does, lol. The bulk of that thread was spent with nateypoo (one of the original math pups who contributed in providing significant amounts of original testing information to the pup community when few others were actually willing to bother; read: you were, at the time, effectively like some no name college student trying to argue with Einstein about physics) questioning your vague data presentation, and then being unable to prove or replicate the very basis of your testing. Natey wasn't alone either, several other people tried to prove/disprove what you asserted, myself included (at a later date) and were unable to replicate the issues you cited.

Additionally, you claimed that tactical processor made the puppet use it's JA attachments more quickly and intelligently, which is not what it does, and was a theory presented by several other people besides yourself over the years, and was time and again proven wrong. Tactical processor's "automaton checks" relates to how often the puppet checks its HP, MP, TP, the Master's HP, TP, the monster's HP, if the monster has MP, the presence of status debuffs, and the current state of its recast timers. The reason no one ever figured this out is because the difference between having the tactical processor and not having it is relatively small and very difficult to see, let alone differentiate from placebo.

The only semi-reliable test I've been able to do is related to getting the puppet to WS, where having the tactical processor leads to the puppet WSing at a lower average TP than not. The reason I've never posted this test is that even with the data I have, I can't consider it outside the margin of error due to lack of information in other fields. The test was done vs low level monsters in east ronf, using valoredge to smack and seeing what % it would WS, because getting the automatons to WS lowbie mobs is somewhat difficult. On average, without TP, VE would WS between 130 and 170 TP, with a few high balls over 200 TP that I feel may have been related to lag. The overall average was ~150tp (there were more 130ish results than 170ish). With Tactical Processor, the average fell to around 130, with a 110~150 TP window (I still had a high ball in 200 which is why I didn't completely rule out the other ones) with a similar pattern of more on the 110 side than the 150 side.

I decided after I did the testing though that I didn't like how unreliable it was, and wanted to try it on something where I could just let valoredge melee for a long time and record # of hits between ws, but my parser broke the next day and I haven't been able to get a new one to work since, so I gave up on testing the shit because no one cared about tactical processor anymore anyway. This was like, 2 years ago, btw.

tl;dr: there's nothing to apologize for, you were wrong and still are, and your shoddy testing didn't prove or disprove anything.

edit 2:


I might have given you one since i remember that thread. But after reading this (http://forum.square-enix.com/ffxi/threads/16536-Wtf-SE) whole trainwreck and considering how in it you remind me more than a little like the main guy that was giving you flack in the tact proc thread, damned if i will.

woooooow, I hadn't seen that thread. Yea, what the fuck are you bitching about? gtfo of the pup forum.

[Dfoley]

Gotta agree with everyone, your testing wasn't reproducible or accurate. I tried many times with Xiozen to discern the affect of tactical processor based on the many previous posts. Even natty once posted that he thought he figured it out latter he recanted because he couldn't prove anything.

Xiozen used to claim that its affect is noticable and stacks with the animators (again some thing never proven or replicable). Until now (on test) the affect of the processor is negligible and hardly noticable. In fact, in all my parsing, i have never seen anything on live.


However, if you would like to know what tactical processor does. Go on the test with a mage frame.

Global recast is 8 seconds.

With no tactical processor you will average 10 seconds between casts (as low as 8 as high as 12)
With tactical processor you will average 9 second with no maneuvers (low as 8 high as 11)
With 1~3 ice maneuvers it averages down to 8 seconds.

If it weren't such a pain to get times on the test, i would post 100000x screen shots on BG/ZAM to show the results.

[Cljader1]

This test was 4 in a half years ago, nobody knew what the attachment's function was or even a starting point for testing the attachment. As a result the was no experimental design yet alone a hypothesis that could even be formed before the testing. This test was the first ever done on the tactical processor completely done in the dark with no starting point, to gain a starting I had to begin with the most simple and barbaric form of the scientific method of "trail and error" until I started to see correlations. Thus that when I notices differences and converted it into a qualitative study and I think I was extremely close to how it actually functions. After I decoded a number of attachments the pup community specifically ask for me to figure out what the tactical processor did. Plus I have yet to see any test that was better, but now we know a lot more about the attachment do to SE recent post, but I think the test was very good starting from nothing.

[Cljader1]

I'll consider an apology if you go back and edit your first post and fix every time you spelled the word "does" as "deos".

edit: also, you definitely didn't test and prove anything, let alone being proving yourself right about what tactical processor does, lol. The bulk of that thread was spent with nateypoo (one of the original math pups who contributed in providing significant amounts of original testing information to the pup community when few others were actually willing to bother; read: you were, at the time, effectively like some no name college student trying to argue with Einstein about physics) questioning your vague data presentation, and then being unable to prove or replicate the very basis of your testing. Natey wasn't alone either, several other people tried to prove/disprove what you asserted, myself included (at a later date) and were unable to replicate the issues you cited.

Additionally, you claimed that tactical processor made the puppet use it's JA attachments more quickly and intelligently, which is not what it does, and was a theory presented by several other people besides yourself over the years, and was time and again proven wrong. Tactical processor's "automaton checks" relates to how often the puppet checks its HP, MP, TP, the Master's HP, TP, the monster's HP, if the monster has MP, the presence of status debuffs, and the current state of its recast timers. The reason no one ever figured this out is because the difference between having the tactical processor and not having it is relatively small and very difficult to see, let alone differentiate from placebo.

The only semi-reliable test I've been able to do is related to getting the puppet to WS, where having the tactical processor leads to the puppet WSing at a lower average TP than not. The reason I've never posted this test is that even with the data I have, I can't consider it outside the margin of error due to lack of information in other fields. The test was done vs low level monsters in east ronf, using valoredge to smack and seeing what % it would WS, because getting the automatons to WS lowbie mobs is somewhat difficult. On average, without TP, VE would WS between 130 and 170 TP, with a few high balls over 200 TP that I feel may have been related to lag. The overall average was ~150tp (there were more 130ish results than 170ish). With Tactical Processor, the average fell to around 130, with a 110~150 TP window (I still had a high ball in 200 which is why I didn't completely rule out the other ones) with a similar pattern of more on the 110 side than the 150 side.

I decided after I did the testing though that I didn't like how unreliable it was, and wanted to try it on something where I could just let valoredge melee for a long time and record # of hits between ws, but my parser broke the next day and I haven't been able to get a new one to work since, so I gave up on testing the shit because no one cared about tactical processor anymore anyway. This was like, 2 years ago, btw.

tl;dr: there's nothing to apologize for, you were wrong and still are, and your shoddy testing didn't prove or disprove anything.

edit 2:



woooooow, I hadn't seen that thread. Yea, what the fuck are you bitching about? gtfo of the pup forum.

I contribute tons to the pup community, I figured out stuff even natey was stumped on here's another attachment function I discovered and tested when everyone was mystified by it. Even natey didn't know what it did until I conducted the study http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=253&mid=1175829249138888683 You could show a little respect

[Chamaan]

You've been carrying this around for four and a half years?

[Wolfandre]

You're right. I am sorry....

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b55/Wolfandre/forever-alone.jpg


...sorry that you still can't find someone to lightsaber duel with. Maybe it's cuz ur teh best pup evar n u were so rite no1 want 2 fite u.

Seriously, no. Like Jinte said, you were wrong from the start. Don't go bashing pup in one thread and acting like our benevolent leader in the next.

While I'm at it, don't type like you talk. It's unbecoming. I don't claim to be the best at grammar, but I do know that '4 in a half' is probably 8. Not 4.5.

Lastly, if you go around like you do now on pup, we would much rather you stay on drk and /wrist about how every other job is soooooo much better than yours.

PS. It's also doesn't garner much adoration when you demand attention for work that wasn't done properly, especially after starting a mud-slinging thread. In fact, when you make such demands, it makes people do the opposite, as seen on this thread. So, I'll 'show some respect' when you give me something to respect.

INB4 obligatory 'WHERE'S PADME?!'

[Cljader1]

well I did post this thread in humor now some are just taking it too serious

[Dfoley]

Troll hhaaaaaadddddddah
~monkey from the lion king

[Kaizersan]

Does it really matter if no one listened to you it is just a game it isn't like you found the cure for cancer and no one listened to you.

[Puck]

There are no apologies on the internet. Only anger and porn.

[Cljader1]

There are no apologies on the internet. Only anger and porn.

lol I agree with half of that

[Theytak]

well I did post this thread in humor now some are just taking it too serious

"I WAS RIGHT, YOU WERE WRONG! SAY SORRY YOU PUNKS!"
"but you weren't right...."
"LOL, I WAS TRYING TO BE FUNNY, GOD"
"ok buddy."


There are no apologies on the internet. Only anger and porn.

You forgot one. Anger, Porn, and people being wrong.

[Urteil]

You're right. I am sorry....

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b55/Wolfandre/forever-alone.jpg


...sorry that you still can't find someone to lightsaber duel with. Maybe it's cuz ur teh best pup evar n u were so rite no1 want 2 fite u.

Seriously, no. Like Jinte said, you were wrong from the start. Don't go bashing pup in one thread and acting like our benevolent leader in the next.

While I'm at it, don't type like you talk. It's unbecoming. I don't claim to be the best at grammar, but I do know that '4 in a half' is probably 8. Not 4.5.

Lastly, if you go around like you do now on pup, we would much rather you stay on drk and /wrist about how every other job is soooooo much better than yours.

PS. It's also doesn't garner much adoration when you demand attention for work that wasn't done properly, especially after starting a mud-slinging thread. In fact, when you make such demands, it makes people do the opposite, as seen on this thread. So, I'll 'show some respect' when you give me something to respect.

INB4 obligatory 'WHERE'S PADME?!'

Are you supposed to be smart or something?

[Cljader1]

You're right. I am sorry....

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b55/Wolfandre/forever-alone.jpg


...sorry that you still can't find someone to lightsaber duel with. Maybe it's cuz ur teh best pup evar n u were so rite no1 want 2 fite u.

Seriously, no. Like Jinte said, you were wrong from the start. Don't go bashing pup in one thread and acting like our benevolent leader in the next.

While I'm at it, don't type like you talk. It's unbecoming. I don't claim to be the best at grammar, but I do know that '4 in a half' is probably 8. Not 4.5.

Lastly, if you go around like you do now on pup, we would much rather you stay on drk and /wrist about how every other job is soooooo much better than yours.

PS. It's also doesn't garner much adoration when you demand attention for work that wasn't done properly, especially after starting a mud-slinging thread. In fact, when you make such demands, it makes people do the opposite, as seen on this thread. So, I'll 'show some respect' when you give me something to respect.

INB4 obligatory 'WHERE'S PADME?!'

LOL we know you failed at school...I just actually read your post lol sorry bud but I don't speak "Homeless"

[Dfoley]

O joy, the emo twins have arrived.

[Theytak]

Are you supposed to be smart or something?

Are you supposed to be relevant or important to this thread in any way, shape, or form? No? That's what I thought.


LOL we know you failed at school...I just actually read your post lol sorry bud but I don't speak "Homeless"
You don't really have much room to talk, given that you can't even spell the work "does" properly. Also where in the world did you get "homeless" from? Are you just trying to say "Sorry, I don't speak 'gay'" but using a different term because you know that, as a pup, it's hard to say any of us aren't fairly fruity.

[Daniel_Hatcher]

Wow, really! How sad!

[Dfoley]

Really shouldn't feed the trolls Theytak. You will spoile their appetite and then the DRK threads wont be as emo today.

[Soranika]

It's really hard for DRKs not to be emo... just saying.

[SpankWustler]

Dear Puppetmaster Community, may I have a taco?

My reasoning is that I skipped dinner last night as well as breakfast this morning, and thus I'm feeling more than a little peckish.

[Ihnako]

You forgot one. Anger, Porn, and people being wrong.
What's wrong about porn?
Every time my automaton overloads a new one got released ;p

[Kristal]

I coined the term "pupdate"*. Can I have a cookie now?

[Theytak]

Really shouldn't feed the trolls Theytak. You will spoile their appetite and then the DRK threads wont be as emo today.

but it's so much fun ; ;


Dear Puppetmaster Community, may I have a taco?

My reasoning is that I skipped dinner last night as well as breakfast this morning, and thus I'm feeling more than a little peckish.

yes you may.


What's wrong about porn?
Every time my automaton overloads a new one got released ;p

There's nothing wrong with porn, it's that "somebody is WRONG on the internet!!!"


I coined the term "pupdate"*. Can I have a cookie now?




I coined it, punk, back off.

[Puck]

"I WAS RIGHT, YOU WERE WRONG! SAY SORRY YOU PUNKS!"
"but you weren't right...."
"LOL, I WAS TRYING TO BE FUNNY, GOD"
"ok buddy."
I believe that's the Herman Cain method.
"What, you didn't like what I said? I was totally joking... unless you guys like what I said. In which case I'm totally serious."

[Kristal]

I coined it, punk, back off.

March 15, 2007 (http://ffxi.allakhazam.com/forum.html?forum=10&mid=117390354214864964#10)
Get off my lawn, you scoundrel!

[Wolfandre]

LOL we know you failed at school...I just actually read your post lol sorry bud but I don't speak "Homeless"

I 'Like'd your post because you have made me aware of the fact that not only are the homeless high school drop-outs, but once a person loses their home, they immediately begin speaking another language.

Also, I at least try to implement some MLA rules into my posts. I'll swap servers and give you 1,000,000,000 gil if you can honestly tell me you knew what that was without looking it up. Let's take it apart, shall we?

'LOL' isn't a word, nor does it constitute as the capitilization of the sentence. Improper use of elipses. No period to signify the end of the first sentence. There's that pesky 'lol' again. Didn't capitalize again. No commas for using a nickname. 'Homeless' is improperly quoted, unless you're talking about a book entitled "Homeless." That word shouldn't be capilatized, also. And, again, no punctuation.

However, I commend you for capitalizing 'I' and using an apostrophy.

So, I guess it really comes down to this: Sorry, bud, but I don't speak 'Twelve year old.'

Disclaimer: I'm aware that my list doesn't follow any sort of rules. It's moreso just that: a list. Take it for what it is, English professors.

[Zaknafein]

This thread sucks.. I want a refund for those 3 minutes of my life

[Dfoley]

Sorry Zak, that's what happens when the emo twins post in your thread.