qwerty2 wrote:I know all about controlled tests. I will explain again, I do not want controlled tests, I do not want films soley because you dudded 8 times. What I want are films from normal games.
The reason I dont want controlled tests is because it doesn't prove much, lank is right that I can use the controlled test as a control but thats all I am going to use it for.
For example if dwarf hard death was tested soley on a controlled test of a duff dying then it wouldn't have shown that they drop more bottles. I tested this myself, shot duffs with archers over and over again but couldn't find anything.
Actually, a controlled dwarf hard death test should have immediately shown there were more lit bottles being dropped. You were testing soft deaths (death by arrow or sword) instead of hard deaths (death by trow kick, explosion or lightning) and thus lay the problem.
Most of scientific proof is obtained through controlled testing. Natural observation will give you an indication of what _might_ happen, as in you might get a lot of duds, or you might get no duds, but you may never know to what degree outside factors are influencing the results. Isn't there a saying that the mere act of observation can alter what you see?
Most of scientific proof is obtained through controlled testing. Natural observation will give you an indication of what _might_ happen, as in you might get a lot of duds, or you might get no duds, but you may never know to what degree outside factors are influencing the results.
if you can model the effects of combat on dudding then you'll have something to work with. i don't know the effect of angle of incidence on duds, and that will come into play much more than in a controlled test, but my feeling is that on average the detonation-dud ratio will tend towards what we see in the tags; it will just take much longer and it will be harder to gather all the data points.
i'm going to wait for qwerty to respond and tell us clearly what exactly he means to be testing.
Isn't there a saying that the mere act of observation can alter what you see?
that applies only to quantum physics/mechanics and isn't even a well understood principle (if such it is). the so called "observer" may not even need be sentient in order to produce that effect (i consider it simple human conceit on the part of people who do propose such anthropic nonsense that they need be).
it doesn't apply only to quantum physics/mechanics, it applies also in psycological/sociological/anthropological studies as well, and probably in some ecology/biology studies too.
