sk starting points

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

statistics can prove anything - I think you are so focused on statistics you are overlooking practical reality.

Again, disagreed. What matters is how characters end up geared, not statistics. Statistics may guide creation and gearing decisions but if those decisions don’t meet their objectives then the statistics must have overlooked some assumptions.

Rip’s Magelo is very top end. Yours is decent. Yet both have issues capping core tank stats with/without buffs.

I thought you said having high str gave the ability to focus on +int gear though? Maybe you need to follow your own advice more aggressively if you really value int over str/sta?

You completely misread my post in it's entirety. You need to reread it, as you missed every single point. I would just be retyping the same thing.

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

DSM values levelling as an ordeal to go through that unlocks end game. Others view the end game just being a postgame/'winners room' for people that exhausted/completed the real game content (levelling up).

IMO this is why he values levelling stats much lower than endgame bis stats.

I am simply looking at the data: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=300 .

I have leveled a Monk from 10-52 recently with 140 or less STR for the entire leveling process. I can tell you that having 140 STR was not a problem. 160 STR wouldn't have helped me.

Anybody claiming STR will give a significant boost to DPS is literally pulling this opinion out of thin air, and should not be listened to until they can provide evidence.

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

Confirmed mad treble post!

I am not mad at all. I am simply pointing out that people continue to post insults and baseless opinions. It is honestly sad that people care so much about trying to be right, that they are willing to mislead new players.

[Ripqozko]

Impassception

[Toxigen]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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".