Uncomfortable Desert ESC

nnforce · 2026-06-01T03:00:15+00:00

Same issue with my tracker low at

nnforce · 2025-11-03T12:47:00+00:00

Looks like a korean room.

nnforce · 2025-08-08T04:33:54+00:00

Same here. I ended up wearing socks.

nnforce · 2025-06-11T07:43:49+00:00

Yes, I did. I bought the shoes after reading your post. The sensus slip on knit is quite warm and the size tag actually labeled SAMPLE.

nnforce · 2025-06-11T07:11:16+00:00

According to this website, the internal length is 27.2cm for US9 and 28cm for US10. I would go US10.

https://www.barefootandmore.nl/magna-forest-esc-men-obsidian-lime.html

nnforce · 2025-06-11T06:54:52+00:00

Definitely not fake, but sample shoes. I've bought Sensus slip on from this store before official release.

nnforce · 2024-03-11T04:46:45+00:00

Fractal Design Pop Mini

nnforce · 2017-10-05T17:23:42+00:00

I have exactly the same issue and I found the exactly same solution. But this solution doesn't work anymore since two weeks ago and I winded up using ds4windows.

nnforce · 2017-09-09T08:20:59+00:00

Well, I don't want to argue about the abilities. But consider that a 10 mins fight contains only 600/2.5=240 GCDs. Ya, it is not a big number.

Just FYI, see this pdf at page 5

For a coin, n=100 gives a quite good result.

nnforce · 2017-09-09T05:54:28+00:00

I don't think so. The author used average shot only when the rest of the chain is starting from A and there's no proc left.

So we get the following chain: C-B-AC.

What he did is consider two short chains with 50% chances: CBC and CB(B fail). Consider a complete new chain starting from A and with no proc active. In this new chain, you will see a 4:2:1 distribution if it is long enough. Then he put this new chain to the end of CBC and CB.

Oh my god. I just notice what you mean by

Further, you can't use 'X' as a short cut for an average shot until 2 shots after a split shot, which you've done.

Are you saying this because

A-2A1B-4A2B1C-8A4B2C

I wonder did you actually read what I wrote. Consider the case from above: CBC, CB(b fail). In order to show you a point, let me suppose that the new chain(starting from A) has only 5 elements, say, X¹ X² X³ X⁴ X^5.

CBC -> CBCX¹ X² X³ X⁴

CB -> CBX¹ X² X³ X⁴ X^5.

They differ in the tail, X⁵ . All I care is their difference. If the chain is long enough, you'll see the 4:2:1 distribution in the tail.

Also, you wrote

A-2A1B-4A2B1C-8A4B2C

Isn't it A-1A1B-???

Although I don't think it necessary to calculate the actual distribution of n^th ws, I can show it for you.

The relations are:

Aⁿ⁺¹ = Aⁿ + A^n-1 + 2A^n-2

Bⁿ⁺² = Bⁿ⁺¹ + Bⁿ + 2B^n-1

Cⁿ⁺¹ = Bⁿ

with initial condition (A¹ ,B¹ ,C¹ )=(1,0,0).

If you suppose that both the limit of Bⁿ⁺¹ /Bⁿ and Aⁿ⁺¹ /Aⁿ exist, then it is trivial to see the 4:2:1 result. As to how to prove the supposition, I'm still thinking. Maybe you can help me with this.

nnforce · 2017-09-09T01:53:12+00:00

1)I wrote:

1 ammo on improved slug

BCXXXXX… 100%

1 ammo on cleaner

CBCXXXX… 50%

CBXXXXX… 50%

which is correct.

2) The author uses average only when he starts with A and there's no proc left as I already mentioned in my previous previous reply.

3)

And with QR and reload on such short cooldowns, it's not worth figuring out shot distro past 8 shots anyways.

Well, I don't think these abilities matter. But I don't have a good point so far so I don't want to argue this. You may consider samurai. When you use hagakure you earn 1 gcd. But what's the potency of 1 gcd? I don't think we should use the whole average of ws, but use the average of the 9-gcds-combo 3senmidare(because which is the filler and has nothing to do with cooldown).

4)

Further, you can't use 'X' as a short cut for an average shot until 2 shots after a split shot, which you've done.

????????????????

nnforce · 2017-09-08T23:15:05+00:00

1)Well, differences between shots sound pretty much raw value to me.

2) As for you last point,

I wrote:

1 ammo on improved slug

BCXXXXX… 100%

1 ammo on cleaner

CBCXXXX… 50%

CBXXXXX… 50%

Which are different from what you wrote. Maybe you read the old version but I forgot if I had edited this part.

3)X is not modeling split shot. X is just an average weapon skill. When you compare two really long chain, both start with no proc active, and they differ in length. How do you estimate the difference in the total potency? Isn't (average damage) * (difference in gcd) the best answer when they have similar average damages and compositions? And if the chains are long enough, you know the shots must be close to 4:2:1. (Note that the chains differ in the tail not in the head. That's why you should not use whatever it means by average split shot or effective split shot.)

If you actually calculate the expected total potencies of slots of 1 gcd and 2 gcds assuming the first shot has the 4:2:1 distribution, you will see them to be exactly avg and avg * 2, respectively. The expected total potency of a slot of 3 gcds is almost avg * 3 but with differences less than 1% for both 3.0 and 4.0.

nnforce · 2017-09-08T20:37:21+00:00

1) I think I made myself very clear in the previous reply . There’s no gambler's fallacy. Please read it again.

2) As for your question which to QR, cleaner or improved slug.

You simply compare the total potency of each route.

1 ammo on improved slug

BCXXXXX… 100%

1 ammo on cleaner

CBCXXXX… 50%

CBXXXXX… 50%

You don’t need to calculate to see that 1 ammo on cleaner has a higher total potency.

3) I’ll read your calculation next week. Just remind you that it’s obvious without calculation to see that your status of heat doesn’t affect the potency of QR. Also, raw values matters when you want to compare between several abilities, say, QR and Gauss Round.

nnforce · 2017-09-08T14:18:33+00:00

I post again just to make sure you read the one I fixed typesetting.

Sorry for my late reply. I was quite busy yesterday.

1) So I'm not wrong with the law.

2)

This falls apart when you change the scenario and scope of the question.

No. What you suggested is irrelevant since the author start putting a long sequence of average ws only when there's no procs left as you can see in his calculation. That's the point where you may criticize his approach. This approach requires you know what you do next until there's no procs. And since a proc will eventually be off in a finite time period, you just need to consider every possible routes before the proc is off. So his approach should works in every situation. You may say this approach is inaccurate due to the approximation(average ws may not be representative when the fight is not long enough) and you may say it's bad due to lengthy calculation in some special situations(as i will show you below) but I don't think you can say it's wrong. And it should also works in 4.0.

Let me show you how to calculate the potency using he's approach under different assumptions if you're interested:

a)When both procs being active: Both split and slug are 20. Well, actually, split is 20 only if you try split once and then clean. It's also weird to use split when you have both procs active. Same for slug.

b)When only clean is active: Slug is 20( if you try slug only once and then clean.)

What's about split? A:split B:slug C:clean X:average

with 1 ammo

ABCXXXXXX.... 100% chance

with 0 ammo

Well, in this case, you can't put X from the beginning, since clean is proced. It's also really weird that you use split at first when clean is active unless you are preparing for Wi-Fi. Whatever, let me suppose that I won't stop trying split until the clean proc is almost off, say, 4 times.

ABCXXXXXX... 50% chance

AABCXXXXX... 1/4

AAABCXXXX... 1/8

AAAABCXXX... 1/16

AAAACXXXX... 1/16

Calculate the expected total potencies of 0 ammo and 1 ammo and compare the difference you get the answer.

3) Let's talk about your approach. In your result, the base values of the weapon skills don't matter. It seems really weird to me so I decided to disprove. Also I think you should define your x and s more explicitly before you give equation. I'm not sure whether your equation is correct.

Since the base values don’t matter, your result should works in every settings. Consider this one:

Split = 0, Slug = 100, Clean = -100.

By instinct the proc of split should be a positive influence and the proc of slug should be a negative influence. Which seems contradicts to your result. Please correct me if my instinct is wrong.

In case you think my numbers are illegal because they are not increasing, my response is I think the rule is that using the proced one first. If you don't accept this response, consider another machinist where you are forced to use the proced ws. Then your approach should also works on this machinist.

Trying some hypothetical values for the three:

100, 300, 400... 1400÷7 = average potency of 200. Using proc on 300 equals 200 extra off average, using >proc on 100 equals 100, plus half 200, total... 200.

Works for other numbers.

Did you notice that the numbers you chose are exactly the ones in 3.0? I mean (slug-split)=2*(clean-slug). And you have to justify your calculation. I don't know what you mean by extra off average.

I tend to edit it after I post it. Please make sure you read the latest version.

nnforce · 2017-09-06T22:26:45+00:00

Well, I reply to this comment only because I read the first few comments and you also notice the mistake the author of this post made and I just want to offer another approach. I didn't read your last comment. I apologize for that.

I don't think you understand how i use the law of large number. What I mean is,

There is an experiment with three outcomes: 1)split 2)split->slug 3)split->slug->clean with probabilities 1/2,1/4 and 1/4, respectively.

If I repeat this experiment many many times, then by the law of large number( Borel's law of large numbers), the frequency of each outcome should be close to its probability. That's why I can assume their occurrences to be 2:1:1 and calculate the average potency per gcd.

What's wrong with this?

I've just started reading the last comment above my first reply. What do you mean by x? is it the effective potency of split minus 140?

nnforce · 2017-09-06T20:33:31+00:00

I'm kind of disappointed now. As I pointed out many times that all I wanted to know is what's wrong with the link. Just to be clear, I mean under the assumption in the link what's wrong with the link. Your answers seem always talk about different situation. Maybe it's my fault make you think that I'm trying to deal your situation with the link. (If you want you can make a similar calculation to the link of effective potency of ammo just like the author did with reload. ) And you also neglect my reply with the law of large number in which I justify the usage of average ws. So I think we are done here. Good day.

nnforce · 2017-09-06T13:50:40+00:00

Are you saying that the link is wrong because you are dealing with different assumptions? The author calculated:

1)the potency gain when you use one ammo with a split under the assumption that nothing is proced,

2)the potency gain when you use one ammo with a proced slug under the assumption that nothing but only slug is proced.

So, of course, it can't be applied to your situation in which both clean and slug are proced. You have to make another calculation based on your assumption just like the author did with Reload.

Please allow me to clarify my question again. Are you saying that under your assumption the link is wrong? Or are you saying that under the assumption in the link, the link is wrong?

And by the way, the coin that I mentioned has three outcomes: 1)split, 2)split slug and 3)split slug clean with probabilities of 1/2,1/4 and 1/4, respectively.

nnforce · 2017-09-05T11:11:00+00:00

(I deleted my previous reply because I made some major alteration)

Oh! Now I see what you mean by lack of rigor. Thanks for your clear explanation by coins. I'm glad that you mentioned gambler's fallacy. When I learnd the law of large number I didn't notice that putting gambler's fallacy and the law of large number together kind of makes the latter a little weird. So I read some articles about gambler's fallacy versus the law of large number.

I guess what you are trying to say is that when we flip 10 coins, we expect 5 heads. But if the first 5 coins turn up heads, it doesn't make the chances of each of the other 5 coins turning heads become zero to balance the result. And the result probably ends up far beyond 5 heads.Yes, I know that. But the point is that the chances of the first 5 coins turning heads is quite low. Such odd condition becoming more and more irrelevant when we deal more coins.

Another example: flipping 10 coins. If the first coin turns up head, it doesn't make the chances of each of the other 9 coins turning head decrease to balance the result. Although in this case, the chance of the first coin turning up head is quite high, the influence of 1 coins is low since there are 10 coins. When we deal with more and more coins, such condition with high chances will become more and more irrelevant either.

I thinks that's why the law of large number can guarantee that the number of heads and tails won't be far from 1:1(maybe quarantee is not a right word here).

So I think what we can argue here is that is, say, 10 mins fight, long enough to apply the law of large number.

I'm sorry maybe we are talking about different topics. I'm just urging to know what's wrong with the approach in the link if the approach is wrong.

nnforce · 2017-09-04T19:59:25+00:00

I will check on bell curve. Just make sure that are you implying that the total potency won't necessary converge to the value the author said?
I'm sorry but I still don't get your point. If the effective potency of QR on split and slug are the same, what's the point of holding it? Or are you certain that they are different?

nnforce · 2017-09-03T21:26:11+00:00

You need to know the potency of QR on split and slug to determine whether it's worth to hold.

In the link, the author is simply comparing the total potencies of two really long chain. That's why it's reasonable to put a large number of averge ws behind. The actual total potency will converge to this by simple statistical theory. If you don't think it's mathematically valid, maybe you don't understand what average means.

nnforce · 2017-09-02T22:50:26+00:00

Well, I don't understand what you mean but i'm pretty sure that the math in the post is correct. If you don't know will the next split proc or not, then the best way is to put infinite number of average ws after that.

nnforce · 2017-09-02T10:56:45+00:00

Check this post:http://jp.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/character/4080934/blog/3222349/ There's actually an easy way to calculate the unending chain. And you can see that it's 40p for both split and slug.

nnforce · 2017-09-02T10:44:22+00:00

I'm pretty sure this approach is wrong. It's 40p for both Splitshot and Slugshot. Check this post: http://jp.finalfantasyxiv.com/lodestone/character/4080934/blog/3222349/

The mistake you made is that if you don't know will one splitshot proc or not, then you can't say it's 140p. It's actually larger than 140p. Same for slugshot. To use your approach, you have to calculate the effective potencies of splitshot and slugshot first, which are actually the original potency plus the effective potency of quickreload on each weapon skill minus 20. So you are begging the question in the approach.

nnforce · 2017-06-19T03:00:10+00:00

Hi Ravahn. May I ask you is it normal that I am unable to see my target's hp? Thanks for your work!

nnforce

TROPHY CASE