Tree Formula Discussion

General discussion and socializing.
User avatar
ElGato
Posts: 1945
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:10 am

Re: Tree Formula Discussion

Post by ElGato »

DatOneGuy wrote: Gato, pretty sure that's not the formula, that's the one I had worked out in W3, and I had some discrepancies with it, although they could be from the still undetermined -/+ at the end
Well it's worked for me in the past :P
burgingham wrote:We are all Gato, and Gato is Delamore of course. Goons blablabla...
Caradon wrote:Gato, the anti-ghandi
Sabinati wrote:yeah we're gonna kill you gato!!!
User avatar
DatOneGuy
Posts: 5553
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 7:50 am
Location: I'm in Miami, trick.

Re: Tree Formula Discussion

Post by DatOneGuy »

Yea it worked for me too, but I ran into a few trees W3 that fell outside of it, they could be explained if the +- was +/- 10, but some has suggested it's lower.

Also, to alpha and others, we're not interested in 'purchasing' some 'possibly working' formula, that's not the point of any of it, the point is to come up with a formula that is correct while testing the ones that currently stand up to most or all data tested.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
User avatar
ElGato
Posts: 1945
Joined: Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:10 am

Re: Tree Formula Discussion

Post by ElGato »

DatOneGuy wrote:Yea it worked for me too, but I ran into a few trees W3 that fell outside of it, they could be explained if the +- was +/- 10, but some has suggested it's lower.

Also, to alpha and others, we're not interested in 'purchasing' some 'possibly working' formula, that's not the point of any of it, the point is to come up with a formula that is correct while testing the ones that currently stand up to most or all data tested.
then possibly you calculated your table ql wrong as most I've seen in Sodom were supposed to be q275.25 or something.
burgingham wrote:We are all Gato, and Gato is Delamore of course. Goons blablabla...
Caradon wrote:Gato, the anti-ghandi
Sabinati wrote:yeah we're gonna kill you gato!!!
User avatar
novaalpha
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 11:42 pm
Location: Sparta

Re: Tree Formula Discussion

Post by novaalpha »

DatOneGuy wrote:Yea it worked for me too, but I ran into a few trees W3 that fell outside of it, they could be explained if the +- was +/- 10, but some has suggested it's lower.

Also, to alpha and others, we're not interested in 'purchasing' some 'possibly working' formula, that's not the point of any of it, the point is to come up with a formula that is correct while testing the ones that currently stand up to most or all data tested.
I have the formula but say thx to ewlol, you're not getting it in any forseeable future.

PS still looking for buyer. Very expensive.
User avatar
DatOneGuy
Posts: 5553
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 7:50 am
Location: I'm in Miami, trick.

Re: Tree Formula Discussion

Post by DatOneGuy »

novaalpha wrote:
DatOneGuy wrote:Yea it worked for me too, but I ran into a few trees W3 that fell outside of it, they could be explained if the +- was +/- 10, but some has suggested it's lower.

Also, to alpha and others, we're not interested in 'purchasing' some 'possibly working' formula, that's not the point of any of it, the point is to come up with a formula that is correct while testing the ones that currently stand up to most or all data tested.
I have the formula but say thx to ewlol, you're not getting it in any forseeable future.

PS still looking for buyer. Very expensive.
Would still be pointless, because again if you sold us the 'formula' (which isn't guaranteed correct anyway, it's just your 'best guess' as it is for anything so far) I'd just post it for everyone which would make it pointless for future sale.
Go post your selling of your 'formula' somewhere else please, and keep it out of this thread that is for gathering a large sample to test such formulas.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hi. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
User avatar
boshaw
Posts: 1612
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: Tree Formula Discussion

Post by boshaw »

Image
selling formulas now eh?
User avatar
novaalpha
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 11:42 pm
Location: Sparta

Re: Tree Formula Discussion

Post by novaalpha »

DatOneGuy wrote:(which isn't guaranteed correct anyway, it's just your 'best guess' as it is for anything so far)
It works 100 out of 100, but I'm not interested in telling you more than that.

Carry on.
boshaw wrote:selling formulas now eh?
Instead of giving valuable stuff free, yes, I guess. :?
Last edited by novaalpha on Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
cobaltjones
Posts: 2725
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:27 am

Re: Tree Formula Discussion

Post by cobaltjones »

DatOneGuy wrote: Would still be pointless, because again if you sold us the 'formula' (which isn't guaranteed correct anyway, it's just your 'best guess' as it is for anything so far)
Literally every formula you or anyone else could come up with would be a "best guess" unless it came from loftar himself.
User avatar
Saphireking65
Posts: 856
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:35 pm
Location: Stormwind

Re: Tree Formula Discussion

Post by Saphireking65 »

Why would anyone buy a formula that they already have? It's not like knowing the formula will suddenly make all your trees better.
Last edited by Saphireking65 on Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Jackard wrote:
Sotsa wrote:I'm sad to see a wizard has shrunk your cabin and put it in a bottle.
better luck next time.
fucking wizards
User avatar
sabinati
Posts: 15527
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 4:25 am
Location: View active topics

Re: Tree Formula Discussion

Post by sabinati »

it's not like science is hard

Return to “The Inn of Brodgar”