Iksar Shaman - Solo Challenges?

[bcbrown]

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

Maybe the likelihood we are assuming to be 3% is actually lower and therefore I have never once experienced it … and that few if any ever statistically would?

You can cut it in half simply by recognizing that since DPS is an average, you can expect below-average periods of damage taken half the time. Another area of over-estimation is assuming the first slow is always resisted - I expect the actual resist rates to be closer to 10-20%, but honestly don't know.

Another flaw is assuming that stuns occur stochasticallly. They actually can only occur once every 8(?) seconds, which is plenty of time to get Malo or slow in. In one of the three videos, the first bash attempt lands right as Malo is about to finish casting. A high-skill non-ogre shaman could perhaps find out exactly where to stand a little further back such that you can get Malo off before the first bash. Then, you'll have 8 seconds to get Turgur's off before the next possible bash attempt, which with a gcd clicky should be plenty of time.

A completely different approach would be to observe that a successful stun adds 2-7 seconds to the pre-slow encounter, which is room for what, two rounds of attacks? This approach would conclude that the expected damage taken in the case of a successful stun is double the damage probability distribution.

I certainly don't have any confidence that the 3% figure corresponds to any real-world outcomes. It's merely a first attempt at providing DSM with the quantitative analysis he so desperately wants but is unable to produce, and I wouldn't be surprised if incorporating these areas of improvement we can reduce that figure by an order of magnitude.

All abstract analysis needs to be gut-checked by real-world improvement; if the two do not comport, it's a sign that the analysis is incomplete. This is why the motto of my alma mater is “Lehr und Kunst” or “Theory and Practice;” all theory must be tempered by practice, lest you find yourself completely divorced from reality.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

You can cut it in half simply by recognizing that since DPS is an average, you can expect below-average periods of damage taken half the time. Another area of over-estimation is assuming the first slow is always resisted - I expect the actual resist rates to be closer to 10-20%, but honestly don't know.

Another flaw is assuming that stuns occur stochasticallly. They actually can only occur once every 8(?) seconds, which is plenty of time to get Malo or slow in. In one of the three videos, the first bash attempt lands right as Malo is about to finish casting. A high-skill non-ogre shaman could perhaps find out exactly where to stand a little further back such that you can get Malo off before the first bash. Then, you'll have 8 seconds to get Turgur's off before the next possible bash attempt, which with a gcd clicky should be plenty of time.

A completely different approach would be to observe that a successful stun adds 2-7 seconds to the pre-slow encounter, which is room for what, two rounds of attacks? This approach would conclude that the expected damage taken in the case of a successful stun is double the damage probability distribution.

I certainly don't have any confidence that the 3% figure corresponds to any real-world outcomes. It's merely a first attempt at providing DSM with the quantitative analysis he so desperately wants but is unable to produce, and I wouldn't be surprised if incorporating these areas of improvement we can reduce that figure by an order of magnitude.

All abstract analysis needs to be gut-checked by real-world improvement; if the two do not comport, it's a sign that the analysis is incomplete. This is why the motto of my alma mater is “Lehr und Kunst” or “Theory and Practice;” all theory must be tempered by practice, lest you find yourself completely divorced from reality.

You are again missing the point. The exact percentage of FSI triggering at the right time is not the important part. It could be the full 8.5% I got from my Monk data, it could be 3% from your initial calculation, and it could be 1% after taking into account additional variables. This is because the chance of 24 HP saving you while you are trying to slow a mob is much lower than 1% already.

The point is that FSI provides a better chance to survive a fight than 24 HP from Iksar/Troll Regen in the same 17 seconds of the pre-slow phase of a fight, when you are trying to slow the mob. That is the important part. Your attempts to obfuscate by quibbling over a specific percentage number is just a distraction.

If you want to do a deep dive mathematically and show objectively that Iksar/Troll Regen will actually save you in a fight more often than FSI, I would love to see it.

You also seem to forget that a number of variables like spell resists do not affect a specific racial at all. Both FSI and Troll/Iksar Regen do not modify spell resists. This means that if spell resists decrease your survivability by 10% in a fight, this will reduce the odds of both racials saving you by 10%.

[Troxx]

One truth that needs to be kept in mind: DSM never has an epiphany in a DSM thread. Goalposts will move. We’ll get on side tangents. We’ll talk about wizard nukes instead of FSI or regen.

I acknowledge the above and expect no less from this thread. If we were to keep responding (and I’m not saying that we shouldn’t) it’s gonna continue to get longer and longer with nobody saying anything that hasn’t been said and DSM copy/pasting his summaries “to help all the new guys out there”

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

One truth that needs to be kept in mind: DSM never has an epiphany in a DSM thread. Goalposts will move. We’ll get on side tangents.

"One truth that needs to be kept in mind: Troxx never has an epiphany in a Troxx thread. Goalposts will move. We’ll get on side tangents."

I said the same thing. We are at an impasse again, as posting random words in a thread is not evidence of anything.

Now that Troxx's silly trolling is out of the way, back to the topic at hand. For those interested in the truth and the actual discussion about why FSI is the Min/Max racial for Shamans: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=311

[Troxx]

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

and DSM copy/pasting his summaries “to help all the new guys out there”

Called it!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Called it!

Yes you did! It doesn't help any of your existing points, however. You are still losing the debate. Using trolling, insults, fallacious arguments, and fake medical diagnoses to try and win a debate is still invalid, and still makes you look bad.

[Toxigen]

Given the number of hours an average player will spend simply getting to 60 still makes regen better.

Sorry not sorry.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Given the number of hours an average player will spend simply getting to 60 still makes regen better.

Sorry not sorry.

Everybody agrees Regen is better while leveling. I've said the same thing for years, including writing it in my guide.

Again, this is irrelevant to Min/Max. Min/Max looks at the endgame, when you have a complete character. There are also plenty of people who have played their level 60 character longer than the time it took them to level to 60.

FSI is still the Min/Max option objectively speaking based on all the evidence thus far. Talking about non-Min/Max scenarios like leveling is irrelevant to the Min/Max discussion.

[Jimjam]

Having friends to help out at 60 is min max, not soloing. Soloing is to gamestyle as barbarian is to race. Cute if you're into that kind of thing, but there are better efficiency choices.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Having friends to help out at 60 is min max, not soloing. Soloing is to gamestyle as barbarian is to race. Cute if you're into that kind of thing, but there are better efficiency choices.

Assuming FSI only works during soloing is incorrect. I often tank in single group scenarios if we don't have a dedicated tank. Torporing yourself instead of the Monk in a Monk/Shaman duo allows the Monk to maximize their DPS, as a simple example.

FSI also works in raids, as Shamans use https://wiki.project1999.com/Di%60zok_Oracle_Shillelagh to try and get the initial slow on resistant mobs sooner.

Assuming Regen is better in groups/raids is also incorrect. Groups often allow individual group members to spend less HP/Mana in any given scenario. This means you are more likely to be at full HP/Mana, and less likely to be using passive regeneration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq39ybDWx-k - Even when buffing 10 people in a row during a raid, Regen is only giving you 30 seconds of recovery time after the buff session, which isn't going to help the raid.

The reality is racials matter most while soloing. Group members provide a much larger boost to your efficiency than any racial. Shamans are a class that solo, group, and raid equally well. Most players who make Torpor Shamans will do some soloing. This is because people make classes like Shamans or Enchanters because you get one character that can do everything, depending on how much time you have to play, and group/raid availability.