Iksar Shaman - Solo Challenges?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

None of that is based on real world evidence though, which still proves that Barbarians are the best shaman race, followed by trolls, with everyone else in a shared third place, following the Solo Artist Challenge Hall of Fame (https://wiki.project1999.com/Solo_Ar...e_Hall_of_Fame). Everything else is just theory.

Player skill is not comparable to which racial is best. It's an apples to oranges comparison. Racial bonuses have no relation to player skill.

And yes, real world math/data/evidence is what I am using. You can double check everything I said yourself by playing a Torpor Shaman.

I am at least a Solo Grandmaster according to the solo challenge wiki. I even have video proof of me killing Tranix, Ionat (Solo God Mode) and a Cliff Golem to back it up.

Under your own logic Ogre cannot be in third place. They are at least tied for second with Trolls. But you know there is nothing innate about a Barbarian that makes them better at solo challenges than other races. It is just the skill of the player who is using the Shaman.

[fortior]

I don't know about that, because I don't see any proof on the wiki. The current leaderboards conclusively show barbarian > troll > everything else. There are likely some variables you're missing in your calculations, because your results do not correspond with reality (i.e. the real leaderboards).

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I don't know about that, because I don't see any proof on the wiki. The current leaderboards conclusively show barbarian > troll > everything else. There are likely some variables you're missing in your calculations, because your results do not correspond with reality (i.e. the real leaderboards).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rzw3wLWEsM - Tranix

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umuVBewCNgY - Cliff Golem

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPxeOVuX0G8 - Ionat

This is real evidence. You are clearly trolling at this point by presuming what is currently on the wiki is the only proof that matters. There's no real reason for anybody to believe you are being sincere, nor do you have any evidence to back up your claims about which racial bonuses are the best.

[Tann]

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

None of that is based on real world evidence though, which still proves that Barbarians are the best shaman race, followed by trolls, with everyone else in a shared third place, following the Solo Artist Challenge Hall of Fame (https://wiki.project1999.com/Solo_Ar...e_Hall_of_Fame). Everything else is just theory.

And not a single FSI shaman on the list, it's almost as if racial bonuses don't matter and it's all about the player. Ty for the link

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

it's almost as if racial bonuses don't matter and it's all about the player. Ty for the link

Nobody said otherwise. That isn't relevant to the discussion of which racial bonus is best.

It is factually true that specific Shaman racial bonuses are not required to do content.

It is also factually true that FSI is the best racial bonus for Torpor Shamans.

I am not sure why you think these two facts are in conflict at all.

[bcbrown]

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

It is also factually true that FSI is the best racial bonus for Torpor Shamans.

As far as I can tell your "proof" is an opinion.

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

Take these two statements: "FSI is provably better than Troll/Iksar Regen when a Shaman has Torpor", and "ToV Weapons are provably better than Rusty Weapons". I am not sure why the former gets so much pushback, and the latter does not. Both are proven via math and data, and are quite easy to prove.

Please show me the proof. And yes, I've read your guide. I saw a lot of opinions, a couple calculations, but no proof.

Until I see a proper formal proof, I'm gonna side with this guy:

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

It just depends what you prefer.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

As far as I can tell your "proof" is an opinion.

Please show me the proof. And yes, I've read your guide. I saw a lot of opinions, a couple calculations, but no proof.

What is your definition of proof? It clearly isn't the normal definition.

I have provided math using the actual formulas and values from the game. You can double check these formulas and values both on the wiki and in the game. You can double check the math as well.

I have provided video evidence with logs showing how the game works, as well as various fights. You can reproduce these videos yourself to double check my methods.

You have provided nothing to counter any of my points. The only person who is simply posting their opinion is yourself. A completely unfounded opinion.

If you believe I am wrong, please post something to counter my points. Your opinion that all of my evidence is an opinion has no merit as it currently stands.

I suggest you read my guide again, and watch my youtube videos.

[bcbrown]

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

What is your definition of proof? It clearly isn't the normal definition.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

A mathematical proof is a deductive argument for a mathematical statement, showing that the stated assumptions logically guarantee the conclusion.

Originally Posted by Webster's Third New International, 1965

A chain of statements or formulas leading logically from axioms and theorems previously established to the theorem which is the conclusion of the demonstation.

I showed you mine, now show me yours. What's your definition.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

What's your definition.

Clearly what you posted isn't your definition, as my guide and youtube videos meet what you posted. Why did you claim otherwise?

[bcbrown]

Jesus Christ. Here's a proof that there is no highest prime number, or equivalently that the the sequence of prime numbers is unbounded. Note, this is a proof by contradiction.

Assume that there is a highest prime number, P_max. Thus the sequence of primes runs P_0, P_1, P_2 ... P_max. Compute the number sum(P_0, P_1, P_2 ... P_max) + 1. This number is not divisible by any number in the sequence of primes and is larger than P_max. This contradicts the assumption there is a highest prime number. QED.

I ask again, what is your definition, and what is your proof? You said it was easily provable.