sk starting points

[Toxigen]

idk man i laughed a bit

troxx is good elf peepul

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Toxigen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

idk man i laughed a bit

troxx is good elf peepul

I am sure Troxx is good people. I honestly never see forum toxicity translate to in-game toxicity. I'll gladly play P99 with him any time. I'll gladly play P99 with you any time Toxigen.

I have no problem with entertainment, but please leave that in RnF. This is a forum that is discussing the mechanics of the game. Trolling here is simply confusing readers who don't know the forum drama very well.

[Troxx]

Originally Posted by Toxigen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In about an hour I'm gonna be kickin back with a casamigos margarita.

Wanna know what I won't be doing? Looking at this thread.

Sperg on, boys.

I’m jealous. It’s a slow day a work and this is the only entertainment I have.


I’m reading back through the thread out of boredom. This post from page 8 really stands out.

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But yes, I agree with Troxx. Not because of who he is or any authority he has, but because the content of what he says makes sense to me. I find his argument to be reasonable and convincing. I find your argument to be unconvincing. OP mentions "I will have access to all or most of group content gear at level 1"; if you want to convince me, show an Iksar SK magelo with 180-200 strength at that level of gear. Not raid BIS, but "all or most of group content gear". (I'm also curious what the OP would find convincing)

But I think the larger, more fundamental point I'd like to make regards what I would characterize as your preoccupation with "evidence". You're constantly asking for evidence. You frequently mention that your motivation is to put information out there and let the audience make their own decisions. As someone who is far less experienced or knowledgeable than any of y'all, I believe I'm qualified to speak as a representative for the cohort of people you claim to be addressing. Your constant emphasis and demand for "evidence" makes you less credible.

Not all forms of disputes or arguments require evidence. If there is a factual dispute, then obviously evidence is pertinent. But this dispute, like most that you seem to find yourself in, is not factual. It's about which of several mutually exclusive options is better. And better is subjective. As far as I can see, there's three positions one can hold:

• Intelligence is best, because the other relevant stats will be capped easier late-game, and more mana is always better.
• Stamina is best, because an SK's main job is tanking, and it's important to cap stamina/HP as quickly as possible.
• Strength is best, even though it might eventually be overcapped, because late game stats won't make much difference, whereas it will make a measureable difference in quality of life while leveling and uncapped.

Evidence has very little to do with the strength of the argument when everyone is in rough consensus as to the mechanics affected by each of these attributes. It's the quality of the reasoning that matters.

And so this is my unsolicited feedback for you: I find how you structure your arguments to be weak. When you say "no one will be convinced by what you say" to someone I find credible, it makes you less credible. When you demand evidence in a subjective dispute, it makes you less credible.

If I'm the sort of person you're trying to convince, I hope this feedback is helpful. If not, please feel free to disregard it. Either way, I hope you're having a great day.

Emphasis on him pointing out that “better is subjective” in the context of this thread. Unlike other situations where we wasted hundreds of pages with you trying to convince us shamans can dps as well as a mage in a fast paced high dps group with 2x charm pets (they can’t even come close), there is no factual *right* answer here. The game is easy regardless of where you put starting stats.

I would never put 20 int starting stats on an iksar sk
You would put those 20 points into intelligence

And that is ok.

Whether a 4.3% increase (again, using your numbers) and more carrying capacity is significant enough to offset the loss of a little mana?

That is also subjective.

You feel it isn’t.
I feel it is.

That’s Ok.

There is no winning or losing.
Opinions were shared.
Some people’s opinions might have changed, others not.
We established that yes GamPase is accurate

Nothing new is being said at this point. This spirited thread exists for anyone who cares to read it. The opinion of whoever has the last or most recent post doesn’t get bonus points in the eyes of the readers. If anything most may make it 10 pages in before getting bored and moving on or simply making up their mind and moving on.

Time to put Old Yeller out to pasture and let this thread die.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Troxx [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That is also subjective.

This is where we disagree. Video games are built on rules and math. There are objective truths in systems built on rules and math.

I do not think it is productive to simply claim everything is subjective. People use this as a tactic to dismiss factual evidence. That is what it feels like you are doing on a regular basis. This is especially true when you have a habit of dismissing evidence out of hand. I am not trying to be mean, I am simply pointing out this behavior.

I will be happy to admit I am wrong if you can show evidence that counters what I have provided here: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=300

We all agree that starting stats will not significantly impact OP, regardless of what they choose. I simply want to ensure OP has the best information possible, so they can confidently make the choice that feels right for them.

[Crede]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is where we disagree. Video games are built on rules and math. There are objective truths in systems built on rules and math.

I do not think it is productive to simply claim everything is subjective. People use this as a tactic to dismiss factual evidence. That is what it feels like you are doing on a regular basis. This is especially true when you have a habit of dismissing evidence out of hand. I am not trying to be mean, I am simply pointing out this behavior.

I will be happy to admit I am wrong if you can show evidence that counters what I have provided here: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=300

We all agree that starting stats will not significantly impact OP, regardless of what they choose. I simply want to ensure OP has the best information possible, so they can confidently make the choice that feels right for them.

This is precisely why nobody really takes you seriously. Just because this game is built on rules and logic doesn’t mean every application of the game has an objective truth.

Your argument about INT is min/max in nature. The vast majority of players never get to end game stats. So you’re effectively giving advice that will apply to almost nobody. Each stat has its own application. There is no correct answer, unless this is a min/max thread, then yes the answer is INT. OP hasn’t asked for a min/max debate, you’ve just turned it into one.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Crede [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is precisely why nobody really takes you seriously. Just because this game is built on rules and logic doesn’t mean every application of the game has an objective truth.

You are incorrect here. The rules and math of the game allow you to statistically determine things like best stats.

It is easy to prove this. Just take a look at video game metas. In a game like League of Legends, there are objectively better or worse champions. This is because people can run the numbers and determine which champions have a statistical advantage, after accounting for player skill, latency, etc. Does this mean a lower tier champion cannot compete? No, but you will be at a disadvantage.

The reality is yourself and other posters simply do not understand this concept well enough. This is why you simply keep insisting it is subjective.

[Sizar]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

OP can only make the correct judgement if they have the correct facts.

After recently going 1-60 on a SK, I feel like the facts are this.....while having 20 more INT would be good I guess, and I may get more mileage out of it now that I am mediocre geared and raiding, from level 1-60 , 20 more INT would have meant NOTHING to me. The strength let me do more dps, which meant less downtime. I solo'd about 98% from 1-60.

OP just go with Str and be done with it. I have followed Troxx's posts for a while now when looking for info on monk DPS and whatnot and his numbers are solid. DSM seems like the dude who always needs to get in the last word, even if he is basically wrong, but not completely wrong.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Sizar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

After recently going 1-60 on a SK, I feel like the facts are this.....while having 20 more INT would be good I guess, and I may get more mileage out of it now that I am mediocre geared and raiding, from level 1-60 , 20 more INT would have meant NOTHING to me. The strength let me do more dps, which meant less downtime. I solo'd about 98% from 1-60.

I have leveled an Iksar Monk recently from levels 1-52, and I can tell you that I never needed the +20 STR. He had 140STR or less for the entire leveling process. I looted everything, leveled quickly, and didn't have Tink Bags. I also soloed the majority of the time. I can counter your anecdotal story with my own. The difference is I actually have evidence to back up my position with regards to this thread, while you do not. https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=300. Thus far, I have shown that +20 STR is giving you about 1.5 extra DPS. You have no grounds to claim that the STR gave you enough DPS to reduce your downtime in any meaningful way.

Originally Posted by Sizar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

OP just go with Str and be done with it. I have followed Troxx's posts for a while now when looking for info on monk DPS and whatnot and his numbers are solid. DSM seems like the dude who always needs to get in the last word, even if he is basically wrong, but not completely wrong.

Troxx hasn't provided any numbers in this thread, so I am not sure why you think that anecdote is relevant. He has deemed his own parses to be invalid. You haven't done anything to discount my numbers either.

Your opinions on me are irrelevant and incorrect. It is quite telling when you have to resort to insults. You have nothing to support your position, and you are hoping that discrediting others will lift yourself up.

[bcbrown]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is easy to prove this. Just take a look at video game metas. In a game like League of Legends, there are objectively better or worse champions. This is because people can run the numbers and determine which champions have a statistical advantage, after accounting for player skill, latency, etc. Does this mean a lower tier champion cannot compete? No, but you will be at a disadvantage.

The reality is yourself and other posters simply do not understand this concept well enough. This is why you simply keep insisting it is subjective.

I'm aware you have some sort of professional experience in the games industry, and I'm sure you have far more experience than I do with things like adjusting game mechanics to guide the meta towards whatever you're attempting to accomplish.

But this concept you're talking about is well within my bailiwick. I've built epsilon-greedy multi-armed bandits for online commerce. I've worked on systems that attempt to correct for the "banana problem" in collaborative recommendation systems. I've worked through the mathematics of recursive descent, and understand mechanics of and motivation for using something like simulated annealing to avoid local optima. So yes, I'm explicitly arguing from authority here.

The difference between what you're talking about with LoL and what we're talking about with EQ SK attribute starting points is that the cost function is well defined in your LoL example, but there is no well defined cost function here, which is exactly what I mean when I say "best is subjective".

Min-maxing or formal optimization is about using a cost function across some domain of parameters, where you try to choose parameters that minimize the cost function. With LoL, that cost function would be loss percentage, modified by something like an Elo rating system to account for opponent player strength. The parameters would be something like team champion choices, opponent champion choices, map; not really sure because I've never played LoL.

What's the cost function in EQ? I genuinely can't think of any formal cost functions that could apply. The game content is too easy; that's why we all agree that starting point allocations have minimal impact. There's things like solo artist challenges or low-man raids, but that's only relevant within those subsets of the larger game content.

So when I say that the best is subjective, what I mean is that there's no universally applicable cost function. I mostly enjoy leveling minimally-twinked characters through pickup groups, so my cost function is going to overweight attributes like undergeared DPS, carrying capacity, and so on. You seem to mostly enjoy end-game soloing and maybe raiding, so you're going to underweight those attributes.

If we don't share a cost function, we won't agree on "best".

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The game content is too easy; that's why we all agree that starting point allocations have minimal impact. There's things like solo artist challenges or low-man raids, but that's only relevant within those subsets of the larger game content.

This is correct. That is why it is best to put your starting stats into the statistically best option, because it isn't going to matter much anyway. If you agree that we can statistically discover which champions are better or worse in LoL, you will agree the same can be done in EQ. There is nothing special about EQ's code and equations that make it impossible to apply statistics to things like starting stats.

I think the problem is people have an inflated concept of what "best" means. I think they assume it means "so much better you will regret everything else". I am not saying that. INT is simply the best choice in a set of options that are ultimately not going to impact your character in a significant way. This is backed up by statistical evidence.

There is nothing wrong with saying:

1. INT is the best choice statistically.
2. You can pick any other stat, and you will not have noticeable issues with your character.
3. Other stats have benefits, which are as follows...

The best solution is to give people the facts, and trust them to make the right decisions. I see no benefit in basically saying "everything is subjective, therefore it doesn't matter". Not only is this a false statement, but it hurts the players who enjoy min/maxing. Players who do not enjoy min/maxing will not be hurt by the facts. It is a win/win to supply the best information possible.