It's sad we are not getting paid for this level of testing.

>From: <kim@...>
>Reply-To: eqbards@onelist.com
>To: "'eqbards@onelist.com'" <eqbards@onelist.com>
>Subject: RE: [eqbards] New Lullaby theory
>Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 13:49:26 -0500 (EST)
>
>Kitsai (and other lower level bards),
>
>Could you please test Lullaby against some mobs closer to your
>level? The guy claiming it worked great for him in Runnyeye
>posted a logfile with a sample size of 456 (good enough for
>me). He got a 10% primary resist rate, and a 28% secondary
>resist rate.
>
>This would support the theory that there's a sign error in the
>secondary resist check - r goes up as R goes down. But since
>r+R = approx constant, the song still seems as ineffective to
>you. Please do the test and send me the logfile. Even if
>your overall resist rate is the same as mine, the difference
>in r and R may be enough to prove a sign error.
>
>--
>John H. Kim
>kim@...
>

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com