So, can we just ban damage meters already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fynlar

Not a fan of the math boss; I am perfectly fine with basic math, but it still took me months of not realizing why I was failing it and getting killed before I learned how to do it correctly because I didn't realize that it used your HP to give your "response" and that the 1-2-3-4 platforms you stand in are not supposed to be your "response". It wasn't explained very well.

---

Your HP is reduced to a certain threshold, and you utilize the 1-2-3-4 platforms to increase your HP if need be. Like, say your HP is reduced to 2, but you need to provide Construct 7 with multiples of 3. You step into the 1 platform to make your HP 3, which is a multiple of 3. So, you do use the platforms to manipulate your “response” if your HP alone is insufficient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fynlar

I still think it's crap that it isn't, to be honest. It's pretty similar to my feelings about how Pluto should still be a planet.

---

If you make 1 a prime it breaks a lot of theorems, but most importantly the fundamental theorem of arithmetic which states that every positive integer greater than one can be written uniquely as a product of primes. E.g. 2 x 3 = 6. Include 1 as a prime, and you end up with infinitely many products of primes for any positive integer. E.g. 1 x 2 x 3, 1 x 1 x 2 x 3, and so on.

Quote:

---

Your HP is reduced to a certain threshold, and you utilize the 1-2-3-4 platforms to increase your HP if need be. Like, say your HP is reduced to 2, but you need to provide Construct 7 with multiples of 3. You step into the 1 platform to make your HP 3, which is a multiple of 3. So, you do use the platforms to manipulate your “response” if your HP alone is insufficient.

---

Yeah I got it several months down the line, but before that there was a whole lot of "but I stepped in the right platform; why isn't it working?"

Quote:

---

If you make 1 a prime it breaks a lot of theorems, but most importantly the fundamental theorem of arithmetic which states that every positive integer greater than one can be written uniquely as a product of primes. E.g. 2 x 3 = 6. Include 1 as a prime, and you end up with infinitely many products of primes for any positive integer. E.g. 1 x 2 x 3, 1 x 1 x 2 x 3, and so on.

---

I'm not seeing the issue with that tbh. Infinity is a concept that already shows up elsewhere in math; if someone wants to be obtuse and write 8 as 1x1x1x1x2x2x1x1x2 I say let em.

There's a reason it's called the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. Unique factorization of primes factors into so many other proofs and theorems that if you break that it breaks a lot of other math. Keyword there is unique. If one is a prime there are no unique factorizations and proofs break left, right and centre. To be fair, 1 used to be considered a prime, but the definition of primes was updated to be more precise and thus exclude 1 as these other branches of math were discovered or better understood. 1 is better understood as a unit. Interestingly, other branches of math have their own equivalent definitions of primes which also classify 1 or their unit equivalent as not a prime as well by similar properties.

The fact that infinity is a concept in math doesn't mean squat. You have to have a proof why something matters or doesn't matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

But more difficult dungeon content to help raise that skill floor for players, especially at the lower levels, will be better overall.

---

Yeah MMOs fail pretty miserably at the "gentle increase in difficulty". It's usually just faceroll easy until you hit the brickwall of difficulty that is organized raiding. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mhaeric

If you make 1 a prime it breaks a lot of theorems, but most importantly the fundamental theorem of arithmetic which states that every positive integer greater than one can be written uniquely as a product of primes. E.g. 2 x 3 = 6. Include 1 as a prime, and you end up with infinitely many products of primes for any positive integer. E.g. 1 x 2 x 3, 1 x 1 x 2 x 3, and so on.

---

I won't pretend to be well versed in mathematical theorems, but just from what you've said... if 1 isn't a prime number, how can any prime number fit the theorem? A prime number (as I understand it) has factors of only 1 and itself. But if every positive integer must be a product of primes, how does any prime number work if 1 is not prime?

I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I actually just don't understand it in the context of what you've described.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Callinon

I won't pretend to be well versed in mathematical theorems, but just from what you've said... if 1 isn't a prime number, how can any prime number fit the theorem? A prime number (as I understand it) has factors of only 1 and itself. But if every positive integer must be a product of primes, how does any prime number work if 1 is not prime?

I'm not trying to be obtuse here, I actually just don't understand it in the context of what you've described.

---

A product can include just itself... sort of. I know it's not intuitive, but it's there. The formal definition is usually expressed as a product of powers of primes and in simplified form is n = p1^i * p2^j ... and so on. N is the number you want to make out of primes, and p are the primes. E.g. 6 = 2^1 * 3^1. Some numbers just have a single p like 8 = 2^3. Prime numbers are just the simplest case of single p and the power it is raised to is just 1. E.g. 5 = 5^1.

And to get a bit more abstract, technically this means that all numbers include all primes as part of their product using this definition since p^0 = 1. I.e. the full product of primes for 5 is: 5 = 2^0 * 3^0 * 5^1 * 7^0 * 11^0 * ... etc. This is allowed since it still uniquely defines the number despite having an infinite number of terms. E.g. you will always have 3^0 and 5^0 as factors in 14 and changing those or any other term with power 0 will change the number. The number 1 breaks this, because 1 to any power is still 1 so it doesn't change the result. This means that if p were allowed to be 1 there would be no more unique factorization where n = p1^i * p2^j ... and so on. E.g. 5 = 1^0 * 5^1 = 1^1 * 5^1 = etc.

Edited: great question by the way! That's exactly the right kind of thinking to approach the problem. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mhaeric

A product can include just itself... sort of. I know it's not intuitive, but it's there. The formal definition is usually expressed as a product of powers of primes and in simplified form is n = p1^i * p2^j ... and so on. N is the number you want to make out of primes, and p are the primes. E.g. 6 = 2^1 * 3^1. Some numbers just have a single p like 8 = 2^3. Prime numbers are just the simplest case of single p and the power it is raised to is just 1. E.g. 5 = 5^1.

And to get a bit more abstract, technically this means that all numbers include all primes as part of their product using this definition since p^0 = 1. I.e. the full product of primes for 5 is: 5 = 2^0 * 3^0 * 5^1 * 7^0 * 11^0 * ... etc. This is allowed since it still uniquely defines the number despite having an infinite number of terms. E.g. you will always have 3^0 and 5^0 as factors in 14 and changing those or any other term with power 0 will change the number. The number 1 breaks this, because 1 to any power is still 1 so it doesn't change the result. This means that if p were allowed to be 1 there would be no more unique factorization where n = p1^i * p2^j ... and so on. E.g. 5 = 1^0 * 5^1 = 1^1 * 5^1 = etc.

Edited: great question by the way! That's exactly the right kind of thinking to approach the problem. :)

---

Thanks, that actually does make a lot more sense when explained with exponents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melichoir

Math Boss and Hashmal were good bosses. But Im of hte mindset we need to increase difficulty of the dungeons from the bottom up. If that means increasing exp values as well so it evens out, so be it. But more difficult dungeon content to help raise that skill floor for players, especially at the lower levels, will be better overall. The issue with current dungeons is they end up teaching players to face roll content instead of teaching them "Yes, you can wipe in this content, even with better gear. So play better and pay attention."

---

Imo Hashmal, or in general all of Rabanstre, was good because it has no obstruse mechanics. It can be your first run and it's pretty clear what's going on at all times, it just comes down to execution. A first timer going blind can understand and pick up mechanics on the fly.

Then there are the raids with obstruse stuff. Like Mustadio... I got that he was about to snipe me, but why would I have to face the open side of my ring towards him and not the solid side? It makes zero sense and is counter intuitive, so ofc I got obliterated the first time. Cheap deaths like that make you blame the game tho, and rightfully so. If it was 100% clear whats expected of me and I still failed, then I would blame myself for doing something wrong/being bad.

Quote:

---

The fact that infinity is a concept in math doesn't mean squat. You have to have a proof why something matters or doesn't matter.

---

Why does it "matter" if integers greater than 1 can all be products of primes? Sounds to me like that's something that matters only because we've arbitrarily decided it does, much like how it seems rather arbitrary to exclude 1 as a prime simply because "well then you could just say 1x1x1x1x1..."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fynlar

Why does it "matter" if integers greater than 1 can all be products of primes? Sounds to me like that's something that matters only because we've arbitrarily decided it does, much like how it seems rather arbitrary to exclude 1 as a prime simply because "well then you could just say 1x1x1x1x1..."

---

It's not arbitrary. See my previous post for why. But I'm sure that sounding like it's arbitrary to you has more weight than a century of modern math and its fundamental theorems. Don't bother responding, I've ignored your posts from this point on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mhaeric

And to get a bit more abstract, technically this means that all numbers include all primes as part of their product using this definition since p^0 = 1. I.e. the full product of primes for 5 is: 5 = 2^0 * 3^0 * 5^1 * 7^0 * 11^0 * ... etc. This is allowed since it still uniquely defines the number despite having an infinite number of terms. E.g. you will always have 3^0 and 5^0 as factors in 14 and changing those or any other term with power 0 will change the number. The number 1 breaks this, because 1 to any power is still 1 so it doesn't change the result. This means that if p were allowed to be 1 there would be no more unique factorization where n = p1^i * p2^j ... and so on. E.g. 5 = 1^0 * 5^1 = 1^1 * 5^1 = etc.

---

Neat explanation. And they say you can't learn anything on gaming forums. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fynlar

Why does it "matter" if integers greater than 1 can all be products of primes? Sounds to me like that's something that matters only because we've arbitrarily decided it does, much like how it seems rather arbitrary to exclude 1 as a prime simply because "well then you could just say 1x1x1x1x1..."

---

If it was arbitrary, there would be no reason why we decided that. Mathematics is a language, just like the words we type. We have reasons for defining them a certain way when expressing something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fynlar

Why does it "matter" if integers greater than 1 can all be products of primes? Sounds to me like that's something that matters only because we've arbitrarily decided it does, much like how it seems rather arbitrary to exclude 1 as a prime simply because "well then you could just say 1x1x1x1x1..."

---

We can never observe reality as a whole. That's why we need models, which simulate a tiny fraction of what we believe reality to be and to behave like, to make a tiny part of it observable. By your logic you could also say numbers don't exist and we only have them because someone randomly decided we should have them, so by that logic everything is arbitrary and we can all convert to nihilism ^^

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mhaeric

There's a reason it's called the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. Unique factorization of primes factors into so many other proofs and theorems that if you break that it breaks a lot of other math.

---

I've seen this claim before and it's just not correct. It would be a minor inconvenience at absolute worst; nothing about the mathematics would change, just a bit of nomenclature. You could call 1 prime then just replace current instances of the word "prime" with "prime larger than one" or "nonunit prime" and that would be that. Nothing would be "broken."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mhaeric

It's not arbitrary. See my previous post for why. But I'm sure that sounding like it's arbitrary to you has more weight than a century of modern math and its fundamental theorems. Don't bother responding, I've ignored your posts from this point on.

---

For the reason above, it is effectively "arbitrary." It's convenient, but not fundamental to the underlying math.

You can have a basically functional factoring system without unique factorization or a meaningful analog to the fundamental theorem of arithmetic.

For example, in Z[√(-5)], 6=2 x 3 = (1+√(-5))(1-√(-5)). We say we have multiplicatively irreducible numbers that are not primes. Proofs by reduction to minimal case in a well-ordered system will probably still find a way, you'll just need to find the ordering when you do your proofs or impose restrictions on magnitude. It's still the same old Aleph 0. And even if they don't, well, at least Z[√(-5)] isn't especially exotic.

I don't know how you guys got on this topic but I love you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PondHollow

I don't know how you guys got on this topic but I love you.

---

Next thing you know, thread gets deleted cuz #mathgate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SenorPatty

Next thing you know, thread gets deleted cuz #mathgate

---

:P its all relevant(ish) as it is trying to help people understand why 1 is not a prime number and thus why having a hp of 1 when Construct-7 asks for prime numbers would mean a fail instead of a pass. I haven't done major mathematics for years so i've had a big grin the past few pages despite it coming from a simple question of why is 1 not considered a prime number XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Azbroolah

I've seen this claim before and it's just not correct. It would be a minor inconvenience at absolute worst; nothing about the mathematics would change, just a bit of nomenclature. You could call 1 prime then just replace current instances of the word "prime" with "prime larger than one" or "nonunit prime" and that would be that. Nothing would be "broken."



For the reason above, it is effectively "arbitrary." It's convenient, but not fundamental to the underlying math.

---

The entirety of math is arbitrary if you want to go down that philosophical rabbit hole. But yes, technically, if you want to include 1 as a prime then you can do so... as long as you provide an explicit exception for every single case that it affects. It's far, far simpler, more elegant and to be frank smarter to leave it out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PondHollow

at least Z[√(-5)] isn't especially exotic..

---

Heh, this made me chuckle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liam_Harper

Ah, you're talking Savage. Fully agree with that. In fact it might even serve as a barrier to keep the unprepared player from wandering in there without realizing.



This is exactly what I mean. The dummies are perfectly fine, yet rather than admit to any faults even when presented with clear proof like other players beating these dummies, players will claim "overtuned" and refuse to learn to improve.

It varies a little, but SSS is tuned very well this expansion. I'd bet half the players claiming it's overtuned have no idea what weaving or clipping is, miss positionals, don't bother to meld, undervalue the important of DoTs or min-max abilities and so on, yet are convinced "my rotation is perfect!" and turn to excuses like "see someone else said it's too hard!".
EX is minimum 430 ilv, but that assumes you're raid prepared, melded, food, perfect rotation. It's endgame and SSS will test the same. If you can't be bothered to do that, it gets easier with gear. At 445+ you can blast through SSS with 20-30+ sec left on the clock. I have on every class I play and I'm fairly mid-average.

Honestly if you can't beat SSS it's all on you and you have no business in that content.

---

Regarding tuning, I can only speak to RDM's SSS directly, but it's definitely overtuned. For reference, dragoon's dummy asks ~12,800 on the E4S dummy, and RDM's asks ~12,400 from the same dummy. Considering where the jobs sit in relation to each other on rankings, it's a bit overtuned for RDM
Or undertuned for DRG. Up to reader discretion I suppose lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mhaeric

The entirety of math is arbitrary if you want to go down that philosophical rabbit hole. But yes, technically, if you want to include 1 as a prime then you can do so... as long as you provide an explicit exception for every single case that it affects. It's far, far simpler, more elegant and to be frank smarter to leave it out.

---

I would argue that the names we give mathematical objects are more arbitrary than the underlying structure of those objects. You wouldn't say that any of mathematics would break if we renamed 2 to "smorf," or if we called addition "kupo-ing." By that metric it seems disingenuous to say that any theorems would break if prime numbers included 1. Personally, I don't think it's "far, far" simpler to leave it out, as leaving it in would amount to adding a single word to the statement of most theorems involving prime numbers. It is definitely cleaner to leave it out, and I doubt anyone would argue with that, but the distinction isn't particularly important.

Well, this thread has officially taught me more about why 1 isn't considered a prime than my four minute Google search did. So thanks guys lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goji1639

At least in low level story dungeons. It's getting old.

I've been doing the main story as a healer, to avoid queue's, and I can think of at least 5 times off the top of my head where 1 DPS started harassing a sprout DPS over the dumb meter.

---

If you see them doing this, just click their name in the offending comment and report it for harassment.
Wait, there's no way to do that.. The only report option is for RMT activity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SamSmoot

If you see them doing this, just click their name in the offending comment and report it for harassment.
Wait, there's no way to do that.. The only report option is for RMT activity.

---

Submit a report once you leave the dungeon. The GMs will be able to look up your log to see what they wrote as long as you fill out the listed information they request such as character name, world, date and time including time zone and the instance or area it occurred. The instructions are all there as the default text where you enter your report. System --> Support Desk --> Contact Us --> Report Harassment.

The only snafu is that you can't report on someone's behalf. So if they were harassing someone else they'll just close the ticket unless you indicate that you were being harassed as well.

Huh... this thread has certainly changed...
Probably for the better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mhaeric

Submit a report once you leave the dungeon. The GMs will be able to look up your log to see what they wrote as long as you fill out the listed information they request such as character name, world, date and time including time zone and the instance or area it occurred. The instructions are all there as the default text where you enter your report. System --> Support Desk --> Contact Us --> Report Harassment.

---

Yea, so I stop running the instance so I can record all this stuff for the report 30 minutes later (if I remember.) Plus, an in-gam report probably snapshots the player's recent chat posts, and I doubt Square Enix maintains a long term chat log for EVERY player in the game. The storage requirements would be huge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SamSmoot

Yea, so I stop running the instance so I can record all this stuff for the report 30 minutes later (if I remember.) Plus, an in-gam report probably snapshots the player's recent chat posts, and I doubt Square Enix maintains a long term chat log for EVERY player in the game. The storage requirements would be huge.

---

If you dont remember the issue 30 minutes later it probably wasnt worth the report, though.

You can also copy&paste chatlogs (and are encouraged to do so), but a long term chat log isnt even required if you file the report straight away - I dont know how long SE stores this data, but certainly long enough to deal with an incident that was brought o their attention immidiatly (immidiatly = after you finished the instances, which normally only takes around 15 minutes.)

While I agree that the right-click is a lot more convenient, I can see why they only let us use this for the very obvious RMT-reports - every report made about a real player will require a lot more context to be dealt with properly and making that report using the ingame method asks you to provide this context. Imagine someone says something to you that you're offended by, but its not 100% obvious from context - do you want the GMs to go through all chatlogs of that day in order to determine which line was the issue?

So, no. You dont stop running the dungeon. You finish the dungeon and then make your report if you cant deal with the situation yourself by, for example, vote kicking the offender. Again, if you forget to report after the dungeon it probably wasnt worth the GMs time.
You also always have the option to leave the dungeon and make your report should the situation really upset you.
Right-click-reports for RMT-spammers are great because they're super easy - personally I dont feel "real" reports should be that easy. If you really want to report someone, you should be... decent enough to explain why you reported them, what they did and when. Not just running around, right-clicking and reporting people for any little possible infraction (I'm not saying you'd do that - but some people would definitly pass their time that way).

just report people that kick you based on DPS =)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegendaryKing

just report people that kick you based on DPS =)

---

How can you prove that you're being kicked for having bad DPS though?

Quote:

---

just report people that kick you based on fill in reason here

---

"Why dont people talk in game, I dont understand ?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!"

Quote:

---

I would argue that the names we give mathematical objects are more arbitrary than the underlying structure of those objects. You wouldn't say that any of mathematics would break if we renamed 2 to "smorf," or if we called addition "kupo-ing." By that metric it seems disingenuous to say that any theorems would break if prime numbers included 1. Personally, I don't think it's "far, far" simpler to leave it out, as leaving it in would amount to adding a single word to the statement of most theorems involving prime numbers. It is definitely cleaner to leave it out, and I doubt anyone would argue with that, but the distinction isn't particularly important.

---

Careful dude, he'll probably just retaliate-ignore you too for daring to equate his precious maths to a smorf :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Liam_Harper

It varies a little, but SSS is tuned very well this expansion. I'd bet half the players claiming it's overtuned have no idea what weaving or clipping is, miss positionals, don't bother to meld, undervalue the important of DoTs or min-max abilities and so on, yet are convinced "my rotation is perfect!" and turn to excuses like "see someone else said it's too hard!".
EX is minimum 430 ilv, but that assumes you're raid prepared, melded, food, perfect rotation. It's endgame and SSS will test the same. If you can't be bothered to do that, it gets easier with gear. At 445+ you can blast through SSS with 20-30+ sec left on the clock. I have on every class I play and I'm fairly mid-average.

Honestly if you can't beat SSS it's all on you and you have no business in that content.

---

My GNB friend couldn't clear the SSS dummy until AFTER he obtained the titan gunblade. He got a 95+ percentile on his titan clear. For some classes, it's extremely overtuned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Coatl

My GNB friend...

---

I stopped reading there. Stop making the paladin for someone else. Your friend/cousin/cat have forum access and can get here to complain.

As GNB you need 8,3k DPS to clear the E4S dummy while in reality the 'median' DPS for Gunbreaker on E4S clears is 7,5k. Of course you need to move a lot on titan, but 8,3k is still very high on a dummy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LalaRu

I stopped reading there. Stop making the paladin for someone else. Your friend/cousin/cat have forum access and can get here to complain.

---

Not if they’re one of the many users that have been banned from this platform. This is a silly reason to disregard an argument. Almost as silly and bumping this thread to provide a not-so-witty comeback against a ~2-week-old statement.

There's a reason a lot of parties disband from enrage/low DPS players, because they don't want to risk the GM slap from calling out exactly who's being bad.

in a boss fight if no one dies, and the enmity ranking shows tank 1 dps 2 healer 3 dps 4, I will tell the dps 4 who isn't pulling his/her weight to go read a guide. especially in a sync dung, given both dps are synced.

don't even need a parser to tell who is underperforming dps wise.

The length of the enmity bar is also a good comparison between the 2 dps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juicymama

in a boss fight if no one dies, and the enmity ranking shows tank 1 dps 2 healer 3 dps 4, I will tell the dps 4 who isn't pulling his/her weight to go read a guide.

---

Sometimes you get a healer, who spams whatever healing skills they have non stop. Sometimes you get 2 o_o. So enmity ranking is not so accurate. You have to take a lot of small things into consideration and have to have some knowledge about their class and rotation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miracle_Diva

Sometimes you get a healer, who spams whatever healing skills they have non stop. Sometimes you get 2 o_o. So enmity ranking is not so accurate. You have to take a lot of small things into consideration and have to have some knowledge about their class and rotation.

---

Not really. A spammy healer (thus doesn't DPS) still won't pull ahead of an average DPS, not with the new the rework emnity system in ShB. This is why huntgroup these days make a point of having only one healer in order to guarantee max reward unless they have 2+ tank. Tt's used to be the case it didn't matter if you have a bunch of healer just spamming heal, but now that's no longer a guarantee.

It had to take a combination of an Extremely spammy healer (like constantly overheal with AOE) and some seriously bad DPS for the healer to overtake a DPS. That, or a very good healer who DPS a lot and thus their combined emnity from doing damage and heal to overtake a (bad) DPS's enmity.

In both cases, it takes a seriously bad DPS for any kind of healer to overtake them in enmity, so Juicymama's point stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Juicymama

in a boss fight if no one dies, and the enmity ranking shows tank 1 dps 2 healer 3 dps 4, I will tell the dps 4 who isn't pulling his/her weight to go read a guide. especially in a sync dung, given both dps are synced.

don't even need a parser to tell who is underperforming dps wise.

The length of the enmity bar is also a good comparison between the 2 dps.

---

Lmao, imagine thinking enmity = DPS.

By that logic whoever is MT must be pulling huge numbers because they're number one.