sk starting points

[Toxigen]

DPS does have diminishing returns in a lot of scenarios. Let me give you an example I posted earlier:

People enjoy the semi-AFK killing of single static respawn mobs.

https://wiki.project1999.com/Travis_Two_Tone according to the wiki he has 875 HP, and respawns every 6 minutes, 40 seconds.

If you are doing 30 DP, you will kill him in 29.1 seconds. This means it takes 429.1 seconds per respawn and kill. 3600 / 429.1 = ~8.4 kills per hour.

If you are doing 31 DP, you will kill him in 28.2 seconds. This means it takes 428.2 seconds per respawn and kill. 3600 / 428.2 = ~8.4 kills per hour.

You would need to kill him for 53 hours straight to get an extra kill lol. This means no breaks in between. You lose your progress if you stop. Extra DPS is not always increasing kills per hour. The 1 kill per hour estimate I gave earlier is assuming you are going balls to the wall in terms of your killing process.

You are assuming every player is going to be XPing in the most efficient way possible, and thus maximizing their DPS at all times. It is a bit silly to make the claim that this DPS difference is going to be noticeable for most players, who are probably not XPing at maximum efficiency all the time.

Max mana can save your life. I have had situations where I ran out of mana, and needed to use my Blood Ember Greaves as manaless FD. Since Iksars cannot do that, they will find extra mana useful.

jesus fucking christ

[Jimjam]

I looked around and didn't see anything else in the codebase that would account for what I found in the log I examined. Would you expect exactly 20 unique hit values?

Okay, I’ve done some thinking for when I was engaging with the steel warrior… on reflection I believe the 20Di system was introduced with a melee revamp way, way after velious. Sorry!

[Troxx]

Okay, I’ve done some thinking for when I was engaging with the steel warrior… on reflection I believe the 20Di system was introduced with a melee revamp way, way after velious. Sorry!

I always assumed the DI20 system was in from the start of eq but I could be wrong. The great “ac vs hp” debates didn’t really kick off in a large way until augments were introduced to the game.

For those that are interested, ac won by a landslide in those eras. It didn’t stop the debate from raging for YEARS on the warrior and sk forums. The debates were nasty. I think I logged hundreds of hours parsing fights defensively to help settle the debate. It was possible, with sufficient ac to completely eliminate DI20 incoming hits even on standard length boss fights. The hp centric tank (warriors especially) had a few thousand more hp but the ac centric tank would receive 45-50% of incoming hits for minimum damage (vs 32-37% for the hp tank and like 0.001% or less hits for max vs 2-5% max hits for the hp focused tank … against raid bosses.

On trivial expansions old raid targets and all group content I would regularly never see a DI over 16 (4 highest hits completely eliminated). So yeah a few thousand more hp to hopefully survive being one rounded vs making it statistically nearly impossible to receive one of those tank killing max rounds to begin with. Healers clearly preferred the latter.

So yeah I am assuming we still follow a DI 1-20 model here … but not certain. It may not have been introduced until PoP/LDoN/GoD era. It was definitely in by Omens of War and epic 1.5/2.0 - that’s when all those fancy 90hp + whatever augs started appearing on minor raid mobs. I always went for the 20-25-30 ac augments.

[Troxx]

Oooo I did find my old magelo though!

I sold it when the level cap was 80 for thousands of dollars. It doesn’t look like the buyer (who moved him to bertoxx) ever changed a piece of his gear. (Not sure on augments)

https://eq.magelo.com/profile/1274599

Not sure why the magelo is showing his ac as low as it is. I want to say I had the second or third highest serverwide warrior ac at the time.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I always assumed the DI20 system was in from the start of eq but I could be wrong. The great “ac vs hp” debates didn’t really kick off in a large way until augments were introduced to the game.

For those that are interested, ac won by a landslide in those eras. It didn’t stop the debate from raging for YEARS on the warrior and sk forums. The debates were nasty. I think I logged hundreds of hours parsing fights defensively to help settle the debate. It was possible, with sufficient ac to completely eliminate DI20 incoming hits even on standard length boss fights. The hp centric tank (warriors especially) had a few thousand more hp but the ac centric tank would receive 45-50% of incoming hits for minimum damage (vs 32-37% for the hp tank and like 0.001% or less hits for max vs 2-5% max hits for the hp focused tank … against raid bosses.

On trivial expansions old raid targets and all group content I would regularly never see a DI over 16 (4 highest hits completely eliminated). So yeah a few thousand more hp to hopefully survive being one rounded vs making it statistically nearly impossible to receive one of those tank killing max rounds to begin with. Healers clearly preferred the latter.

So yeah I am assuming we still follow a DI 1-20 model here … but not certain. It may not have been introduced until PoP/LDoN/GoD era. It was definitely in by Omens of War and epic 1.5/2.0 - that’s when all those fancy 90hp + whatever augs started appearing on minor raid mobs. I always went for the 20-25-30 ac augments.

Interesting! When I was playing live I didn't do anything like this. It is really cool to see you spent a lot of time parsing on live.

It's only on P99 I started looking into how P99 specifically worked. In the EQEMU code, they are also using a D20:


// this assumes "this" is the defender
// this returns between 0.1 to 2.0
double Mob::RollD20(int offense, int mitigation)
{
static double mods[] = {
0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5,
0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0,
1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5,
1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2.0
};

if (IsOfClientBotMerc() && IsSitting()) {
return mods[19];
}

auto atk_roll = zone->random.Roll0(offense + 5);
auto def_roll = zone->random.Roll0(mitigation + 5);

int avg = (offense + mitigation + 10) / 2;
int index = std::max(0, (atk_roll - def_roll) + (avg / 2));

index = EQ::Clamp((index * 20) / avg, 0, 19);

return mods[index];
}

void Mob::MeleeMitigation(Mob *attacker, DamageHitInfo &hit, ExtraAttackOptions *opts)
{

...

auto roll = RollD20(hit.offense, mitigation);

// +0.5 for rounding, min to 1 dmg
hit.damage_done = std::max(static_cast<int>(roll * static_cast<double>(hit.base_damage) + 0.5), 1);
}


I looked at some parses, and for mobs at least it looks like the D20 system described in the code above is still in place. Someone can look through their logs and see if any mobs have more than 20 unique damage values.

Here are the hit values from Mentrax Mountainbone and Eldak Howlingbear against my SK. Both are level 50 and the same stats as far as I am aware:


hits YOU for 32
hits YOU for 37
hits YOU for 43
hits YOU for 49
hits YOU for 54
hits YOU for 60
hits YOU for 66
hits YOU for 71
hits YOU for 77
hits YOU for 83
hits YOU for 88
hits YOU for 94
hits YOU for 100
hits YOU for 105
hits YOU for 111
hits YOU for 117
hits YOU for 122
hits YOU for 128
hits YOU for 134
hits YOU for 140


For players, you can hit for more than 20 unique damage values. When fighting Mentrax Mountainbone I got these values. There were some more probably, but I don't need to find them all:


39
52
55
64
71
72
79
83
99
103
112
115
119
120
121
122
123
126
141
148
154
157
191
208
212
223


Based on a quick glance at the code, I believe the extra damage values players can get is coming from the ApplyDamageTable() function.

After the D20 is rolled and multiplied against your damage, the ApplyDamageTable() function is called next, and does an additional modification to your damage done based on a percentage.

In the ApplyDamageTable() function there is this return statement:


if (!IsClient()&& !IsBot()) {
return;
}


This means the extra modification is only applied to players, which lines up so far.

[Jimjam]

Maybe they changed displayed AC to show ‘real’ ac accounting for caps?

Edit(in reply to why Troxx’s displayed AC is so low)

[Jimjam]

Great code you found.

Shouldn’t the presence of 2 rolls (roll for attack and roll for defence) create a normal distribution (like how rolling 2d6 creates a bell curve where 2 and 12 are 1/36 each, 3 and 11 are 3/36 going up to the most common result, 7 which is 6/36)?

The question is why aren’t hits amounts on mr turtle looking very normally distributed? Each fight he has like 100 hits for 1 specific hit value and the many (more than 19) other hit values tend to only occur a couple of times??

Edit: Interestingly mr turtle himself only hit for one value (like 30 times per fight).

[Toxigen]

50 pages on starting stats for an iksar sk

never ceases to amaze

[Lune]

Great code you found.

Shouldn’t the presence of 2 rolls (roll for attack and roll for defence) create a normal distribution (like how rolling 2d6 creates a bell curve where 2 and 12 are 1/36 each, 3 and 11 are 3/36 going up to the most common result, 7 which is 6/36)?

The question is why aren’t hits amounts on mr turtle looking very normally distributed? Each fight he has like 100 hits for 1 specific hit value and the many (more than 19) other hit values tend to only occur a couple of times??

Edit: Interestingly mr turtle himself only hit for one value (like 30 times per fight).

Yes, 2d10 with the formula:

int index = std::max(0, (atk_roll - def_roll) + (avg / 2))

is going to be normally distributed. However, rounding all the outputs up is going to skew it slightly rightward. Also skewed higher than the expected cluster around 10 with 2d10 by the addition of avg/2 to roll difference. Evidence:

https://i.imgur.com/j2aP84G.jpg

I believe the reason Mr. Turtle isn't normally distributed is because of this:

auto atk_roll = zone->random.Roll0(offense + 5);
auto def_roll = zone->random.Roll0(mitigation + 5);

int avg = (offense + mitigation + 10) / 2;

The modifiers on your hits are overwhelming the modifiers on his defense, producing consistently high outputs. The fact that mitigation is added to offense tells me the calculation for mitigation might result in a negative value or it is modified in some other way before final result.

[Jimjam]

So what are the reasons for the extra values above the enormous spike (on mr turtle)? Is there a further random element to damage? Like a random bonus damage which is only sometimes added? I remember reading about such a thing in the past but can’t find much specific … just ‘internet wisdom’

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Great code you found.

Shouldn’t the presence of 2 rolls (roll for attack and roll for defence) create a normal distribution (like how rolling 2d6 creates a bell curve where 2 and 12 are 1/36 each, 3 and 11 are 3/36 going up to the most common result, 7 which is 6/36)?

The question is why aren’t hits amounts on mr turtle looking very normally distributed? Each fight he has like 100 hits for 1 specific hit value and the many (more than 19) other hit values tend to only occur a couple of times??

Edit: Interestingly mr turtle himself only hit for one value (like 30 times per fight).

We can take a quick look. This is using the https://wiki.project1999.com/Ancient_Fire_Etched_Flamberge on my 60 Shadowknight.

1. Scenario with 350 offense, 260 Max Damage, and 350 mitigation:
1a. atk_roll = Average roll between 0 and 350 = 175.
1b. def_roll = Average roll between 0 and 350 = 175.
1c. avg = (175 atk_roll + 175 def_roll + 10) / 2 = 180.
1d. index = (175 atk_roll - 175 def_roll) + (180 avg / 2) = 90.
1e. index = (90 index * 20) / 180 avg = 10.
1f. index 10 in the array is 1.1.
1g. Average damage value is (260 Max damage / 2) * 1.1 = 143.

1. Scenario with 337 offense (-20 STR), 254 Max Damage, and 350 mitigation:
1a. atk_roll = Average roll between 0 and 337 = 169 (rounded up).
1b. def_roll = Average roll between 0 and 350 = 175.
1c. avg = (169 atk_roll + 175 def_roll + 10) / 2 = 177.
1d. index = (169 atk_roll - 175 def_roll) + (177 avg / 2) = 83 (rounded up).
1e. index = (83 index * 20) / 177 avg = 9.3.
1f. index 9 in the array is 1.0, with a 30% chance to move up to index 10, which is 1.1
1g. Average damage value is (254 Max damage / 2) * 1.0 = 127.
1h. Average damage value is (254 Max damage / 2) * 1.1 = 140 (rounded up).
1i. In a data set of [127, 127, 127, 127, 127, 127, 127, 140, 140, 140], adding up these numbers and dividing by 10 gives you and average of 131.

This implies the 20 STR is giving you a 8.5% (131/143) difference in your average damage at level 60 with a 46 damage weapon. On Corudoth I missed 49 times and hit for 496 times on the 2H test, so on a mob 55 levels below you, it looks like you will hit 90% of the time. so 90% of 8.5 is a 7.6% increase in DPS.

On harder mobs your hit rate is much lower. Looking through some quick parses it is more like you are missing 40-50% of the time on a tougher mob, but I don't have a large sample at hand. This means the 4-5% number I got from my turtle parses happened to be just about right. RNG simply didn't give me the 7.6% high end, it gave me the middle and lower ends.

4-5% of a DPS increase is really not a large boost for most players during the leveling process. If you are doing ~20 DPS around level 30, a 4% boost to that is 0.8. 3600 x 0.8 = 2880 damage per hour, assuming you are auto attacking non-stop. Realistically speaking you are probably getting half that. A mob like https://wiki.project1999.com/Travis_Two_Tone has 875 HP, so you are getting 1-2 more kills per hour if you are XPing at maximum efficiency. If you are semi-afk killing Travis Two Tone, you are getting 0 extra kills per hour.

[Toxigen]

No matter how small the DPS increase is, its still better than INT.

Add in the extra weight carry and its a no brainer.

[Lune]

We can take a quick look. This is using the https://wiki.project1999.com/Ancient_Fire_Etched_Flamberge on my 60 Shadowknight.

1. Scenario with 350 offense, 260 Max Damage, and 350 mitigation:


Where are you getting these values for offense and mitigation?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Where are you getting these values for offense and mitigation?

Good question. I got the offense values from a previous post I made:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3635076&postcount=446

The offense value is correct based on real data and code as far as I can tell. I am using my SK's STR and Offense Skill, as well as the damage from the Ancient Fire Etched Flamberge.

The mitigation value is made up. I am simply showing what a mob with equal mitigation value would look like.

Feel free to manipulate the mitigation value as you see fit.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

No matter how small the DPS increase is, its still better than INT.

Add in the extra weight carry and its a no brainer.

I disagree. You can show plenty of cases where the DPS bosst from 20 STR is giving you no more kills per hour. It will not be noticeable most of the time, just like the extra mana from INT.

You do not need 200+ STR to carry everything you need, I have leveled two melee characters with less than 200 STR and did fine. They were carrying FS weapons from guards a lot of the time too. Bazgek did not have 200+ STR for most of his leveling career, and Sznake never had more than 140ish STR. They picked up everything, including heavy stuff and coin.

Both STR and INT are providing small bonuses, but INT will take you longer to cap. This means INT will give you it's small bonus for a longer period of time.

[Toxigen]

I disagree. You can show plenty of cases where the DPS bosst from 20 STR is giving you no more kills per hour. It will not be noticeable most of the time, just like the extra mana from INT.

You do not need 200+ STR to carry everything you need, I have leveled two melee characters with less than 200 STR and did fine. They were carrying FS weapons from guards a lot of the time too. Bazgek did not have 200+ STR for most of his leveling career, and Sznake never had more than 140ish STR. They picked up everything, including heavy stuff and coin.

Both STR and INT are providing small bonuses, but INT will take you longer to cap. This means INT will give you it's small bonus for a longer period of time.

nah

[Lune]

Good question. I got the offense values from a previous post I made:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3635076&postcount=446

The offense value is correct based on real data and code as far as I can tell. I am using my SK's STR and Offense Skill, as well as the damage from the Ancient Fire Etched Flamberge.

The mitigation value is made up. I am simply showing what a mob with equal mitigation value would look like.

Feel free to manipulate the mitigation value as you see fit.

Ok, looking back at your post, this is not true:

The EQEMU source code is available. P99 is based off of this code. I can show you the P99 max damage formula is unchanged when compared to the EQEMU code:

P99 does not use the EQEMU source code for damage calculation:

Code:
Kanras: Removed hard "calculated damage" cap for < 10 and < 20 players, replaced with weapon_dmg cap.
Kanras: Archery weapon_dmg is once again correctly being calculated.
Kanras: Backstab and sneak now require you to be behind the mob to succeed, rather than requiring you to only be outside the mob's frontal attack cone.
Kanras: More accurate NPC backstab and flying kick damage ranges.
Kanras: All potential double attack/dual wield rolls will succeed for all attack types when using Kinesthetics.
Kanras: Pets will use same calculations as PCs when doing double attack/dual wield rolls.
Kanras: Corrected the rate at which warriors triple attack.
Kanras: Offhand double attack can only succeed if double attack skill >= 150.
Kanras: High-level monks can now carry increased weight without penalty. The additional allowance is granted at levels 55 and 60.
Kanras: Two-handed weapons have had their damage-bonus modified. The damage-bonus for low-delay two-handed weapons (27 or below) created a problem similar to the weapons below and has been reduced. The damage-bonus has not changed for normal-delay (28-39) two-handed weapons. The damage bonus for high-delay two-handed weapons (40+) has been increased.
Kanras: "Damage Table" changes. In a previous patch, they were used to justify higher PC_DMG_MULT cap (correct) and a PWR-based method for calculating the max roll (incorrect). They now account for adjusting distribution of successful hits rather than just increasing the max possible hit. Chance to successfully dual wield/double attack is also affected by the damage table you are on.


Basic summary to melee DPS changes: 60 rog/mnk/war/rng will see very, very minor DPS reduction due to max mult. reduction. 1-50 non-mnk will see a decent dps reduction due to distribution changes. 51-59 rog/mnk/war/rng will have a small reduction in DPS due to max mult reduction and in-between distribution reduction.

Pet attack frequency/damage changes: Yes, they're justified due to data.

It doesn't even take parsing to show that P99's max damage formula is the same as EQEMU, but that's just a small part of gross damage calculation. You aren't going to be able to derive the actual, entire damage tables/formulas from parsing because there are too many variables (mob level, AC, etc). Beating on a low level mob is going to obscure the distribution and overrepresent max hits. Knowing max hit calculation is of limited usefulness, only showing the contribution from strength for a small slice of total combat.

(However, as I showed about 20 pages ago, looking only at max hit is sufficient to show strength is better than INT from a pure numbers perspective because the contribution from INT is that paltry.)

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Ok, looking back at your post, this is not true:

P99 does not use the EQEMU source code for damage calculation:

It doesn't even take parsing to show that P99's max damage formula is the same as EQEMU, but that's just a small part of gross damage calculation. You aren't going to be able to derive the the actual, entire damage tables/formulas from parsing because there are too many variables (mob level, AC, etc). Beating on a low level mob is going to obscure the distribution and overrepresent max hits. Knowing max hit calculation is of limited usefulness, only showing the contribution from strength for a small slice of total combat.

(However, as I showed about 20 pages ago, looking only at max hit is sufficient to show strength is better than INT from a pure numbers perspective because the contribution from INT is that paltry.)

Based on my calculations using P99 data, it does use the EQEMU source code for damage calculations. Do you think it is a coincidence that plugging in P99 numbers gives me a 260 max damage, and I hit for 258 max damage on my parses with those numbers?

Remember that the EQEMU code gets updated by the same people who work on P99. It is probable they uploaded the P99 damage code back into EQEMU after those posts were made. You are looking at patch notes from 2011, a lot has changed in 12 years.

This honestly makes sense. From a code perspective it is better to keep the EQEMU codebase and the P99 codebase as close as possible. If you have to fix a bug twice in two different code bases, you are doubling up your workload. The ideal situation is to only make specific changes to P99 when it is necessary.

Most of P99's magic comes from the database anyway, which they will never share. They will never put the P99 database on GitHub.

[Lune]

Based on my calculations using P99 data, it does use the EQEMU source code for damage calculations. Do you think it is a coincidence that plugging in the numbers gives me a 260 max damage estimate, and I hit for 258 max?

Remember that the EQEMU code gets updated by the same people who work on P99. It is possible they uploaded some of the P99 damage code back into EQEMU after those posts were made. You are looking at patch notes from 2011, a lot has changed since then.

Again, that is your max hit, that is not your damage over the course of a fight. Max hit is just a small part of the big picture. I just posted a literal quote from Kanras himself saying the P99 backend was modified, so we fundamentally know it doesn't use the same formula as EQEMU.

You are conflating max hit and damage table hit calculation values. Of course you are going to get a bunch of max hits on a green turtle. That parse is pretty much only useful for showing max hits, which is something you can already just calculate with a much simpler formula. This is just a part of total damage. Nevermind the fact that all of this is pointless as your own numbers are showing the superiority of STR, a conclusion you are simply unwilling to accept. A difference in DPS or max hit of 8% at 60 and 4% before 60 is enormous.

Remember that the EQEMU code gets updated by the same people who work on P99. It is probable they uploaded the P99 damage code back into EQEMU after those posts were made. You are looking at patch notes from 2011, a lot has changed since then.

This honestly makes sense. From a code perspective it is better to keep EQEMU as close to P99 as possible, to reduce the amount of work it takes to keep two code bases up to date and bug free. Most of P99's magic comes from the database anyway, which they will never share.

P99 is not open source like that. So you are basing your calculation on the assumption that EQEMU (which is predominantly non-classic client servers that live in Luclin/PoP and beyond), somehow obtained P99's damage calculations, and used that? Wow, man. We simply do not know the P99 backend, afaik. Maybe you can be better than me at finding it.

That is not a valid assumption.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Again, that is your max hit, that is not your damage over the course of a fight. Max hit is just a small part of the big picture. I just posted a literal quote from Kanras himself saying the P99 backend was modified, so we fundamentally know it doesn't use the same formula as EQEMU.

You are conflating max hit and damage table hit calculation values. Of course you are going to get a bunch of max hits on a green turtle. That parse is pretty much only useful for showing max hits, which is something you can already just calculate with a much simpler formula. This is just a part of total damage. Nevermind the fact that all of this is pointless as your own numbers are showing the superiority of STR, a conclusion you are simply unwilling to accept. A difference in DPS of 8% at 60 and 4% before 60 is enormous.

P99 is not open source like that. So you are basing your calculation on the assumption that EQEMU (which is predominantly non-classic client servers that live in Luclin/PoP and beyond), somehow obtained P99's damage calculations, and used that? Wow, man. We simply do not know the P99 backend, afaik. Maybe you can be better than me at finding it.

There is no conflation going on. I already provided the average DPS including the mitigation and hit chances here: https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3635462&postcount=513. This is assuming you are fighting a mob roughly equal to yourself.

You quoted a post from 2011, which doesn't mean anything anymore to be honest. 12 years of code changes have been made since then.

What you do not understand is P99 is based on the EQEMU code. The P99 codebase is not a completely different codebase that has no relation to EQEMU. P99 can take updates from the EQEMU repository, and they can also update the EQEMU repository with P99 code. The P99 devs ALSO work on EQEMU. These are not two separate projects.

If you understand how managing codebases work, you would know that occam's razor suggests the EQEMU source code is similar to P99's. The larger the difference in the two codebases, the more work it takes to fix a bug that affects both codebases. As far as I know, the biggest difference between P99 and EQEMU is the code that switches between patches, to emulate the progression from classic all the way to Velious. You can still use the same calculations a EQEMU, and simply branch the alternatives during a specific patch.

You need to understand the the source code on GitHub is not the thing that makes P99 special. It is the database and scripts that have the "classic" data in them that make the game feel like it is classic.

[Lune]

There is no conflation going on. I already provided the average DPS including the mitigation and hit chances here: https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3635462&postcount=513. This is assuming you are fighting a mob roughly equal to yourself.

You quoted a post from 2011, which doesn't mean anything anymore to be honest. 12 years of code changes have been made since then.

What you do not understand is P99 is based on the EQEMU code. The P99 codebase is not a completely different codebase that has no relation to EQEMU. P99 can take updates from the EQEMU repository, and also update the EQEMU repository with P99 code. The P99 devs ALSO work on EQEMU. These are not two separate projects.

If you understand how managing codebases work, you would know that occam's razor suggests the EQEMU source code is similar to P99's. The larger the difference in the two codebases, the more work it takes to fix a bug that affects both codebases. As far as I know, the biggest difference between P99 and EQEMU is the code that switches between patches, to emulate the progression from classic all the way to Velious. You can still use the same calculations a EQEMU, and simply branch the alternatives during a specific patch.

You need to understand the the source code on GitHub is not the thing that makes P99 special. It is the database and scripts that have the "classic" data in them that make the game feel like it is classic.

https://i.imgur.com/2amGCh3.jpg

You are making the argument that something is 'likely'; I disagree, but even if it were 'likely', that is not a sufficient standard of evidence to make the assumption that the EQEMU damage calculations are correct for P99. Think about the absurdity of that. Why are resistances so different on P99 vs other emus? Channeling? It's all fucking different.

[Troxx]

4-5% of a DPS increase is really not a large boost for most players during the leveling process.

In a game of inches like p99 a 4-5% dps increase from something as simple as a measly 20 str is a whopper of a difference. Its more than the difference you’d see upgrading from a 34% haste belt to a 41% raid item. It’s about the same difference you’d expect upgrading FBSS (21%) to RBB (31%). If 100% haste doubles your damage output, it would take 8-10% difference in haste to result in a 4-5% dps output boost.

There are only 4 things a person can do to directly influence their melee dps without buffs:
-better weapon setup (ratio etc)
-more worn haste
-more strength (up to the cap)
-worn attack items

There is a reason every melee strives to have as much str as you can - all the way up to the 255 cap. All things considered equal, the player with more strength will put out more than the player with less.

An Iksar sk is not going to be getting to 255 str without maniacal str AND focus stack until you start thinking moderate to high level raid gear. This is well beyond an iksar SK alt to mess around with greenmist. Sure with avatar, but for that they are either a high end raider with BiS potential and their own proc or a level 60 shaman following them around.

Let’s use my warrior as an example. Starting strength of 100. I dumped most or all of my starting stats into dexterity because procs are the lifeblood of warrior threat. I don’t know if I put 5 points into stamina or not. I honestly don’t remember.

Here’s my warrior with 100 naked str:

https://wiki.project1999.com/Magelo_Blue:Bedavir

My gear what you’ll expect as a very well geared casual raider. Nothing overly flashy but solid enough and beyond the level the OP is probably going to take their SK. Meaningful upgrades from here are going to be mostly limited NToV, kings, AoW/Statue, Tunare and sleepers.

I’m sitting at 186 strength. If the iksar sk put all 20 stats into str and had comparable gear … it would be pretty similar. Focus gets me to 253 str. Less if I have to put in some resist gear for whatever reason.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

https://i.imgur.com/2amGCh3.jpg

Incorrect. You simply do not have a good grasp on how code repositories work, and you do not seem to understand that P99 is based on EQEMU code, which is also being worked on by P99 devs.

The database is where P99's magic comes from, not simple code calculating things like max damage or mitigation.

[Lune]

Incorrect. You simply do not have a good grasp on how code repositories work, and you do not seem to understand that P99 is based on EQEMU code, which is also being worked on by P99 devs.

The database is where P99's magic comes from, not simple code calculating things like max damage or mitigation.

Prove it. I've showed where P99 devs specifically made changes to the backend damage calculation. You claim I don't understand codebase but you deny that P99 is a branch of original EQEMU that has been growing, not open source, for 15 years. Now show where those changes have been applied to EQEMU. Simply stating "They had to have moved it over!" is not sufficient. You haven't provided shit but an assumption.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

In a game of inches like p99 a 4-5% dps increase from something as simple as a measly 20 str is a whopper of a difference. Its more than the difference you’d see upgrading from a 34% haste belt to a 41% raid item. It’s about the same difference you’d expect upgrading FBSS (21%) to RBB (31%). If 100% haste doubles your damage output, it would take 8-10% difference in haste to result in a 4-5% dps output boost.


When it comes to haste, the reason why going from 34%-41% haste is a small difference is because half of the possible delay reduction occurs in the first 34% haste. For example, at 34% haste a weapon with 40 delay is reduced to 30 delay. 20 delay is the lowest value you can get from haste on a 40 delay weapon. This means you need 64% haste to get the same gains you got with the first 34% haste.

That is why any worn haste item is giving you such a large boost to DPS over STR.

I have shown that there are going to be a lot of scenarios in which a 4-5% DPS boost is not going to give you any more kills per hour. Like INT, you will sometimes get the benefit, and sometimes not.

Factoring in how easy it is to get STR https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3634277&postcount=300 , there is less reason to worry about STR as a whole, especially on melee classes.

That is why INT is generally the better starting stat objectively speaking.

I am not trying to say that STR is bad, or people who put their starting stats into STR made a mistake.

I simply want to let people know what the objective answer is, so they can decide if the shorter term gains from STR make more sense.

I think this is a fair answer to OP's question, which is what I have been saying the whole time:

1. INT is the best starting stat for SK's.
2. Starting stats do not affect your character enough to worry about them. You can put all your starting stats into WIS and it wouldn't matter.
3. STR is a good choice for your first character on a server, or a self found character. Twinked characters will probably have enough STR and WR bags already.

Prove it. I've showed where P99 devs specifically made changes to the backend damage calculation. You claim I don't understand codebase but you deny that P99 is a branch of original EQEMU that has been growing, not open source, for 15 years. Now show where those changes have been applied to EQEMU. Simply stating "They had to have moved it over!" is not sufficient. You haven't provided shit but an assumption.

I already showed you an example of where the max damage formula in P99 lines up with the EQEMU source code https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3635076&postcount=446. That is more evidence than your 12 year old post. The only thing that matters is what the code looks like today, in 2023, not what the code looked like in 2011. We are not in 2011 anymore.

[Jimjam]

No matter how small the DPS increase is, its still better than INT.

Add in the extra weight carry and its a no brainer.

It’s not just about your dps increasing kills/hour. As has been shown some camps the biggest limit is the respawn timer.

What I’ve perceived dps useful for is making each individual fight a little shorter and safer. The longer a fight goes on the more chances the opponent has to spike, getting you low health and forcing you to do an extra tap, spend quaff a pot or whatever.

[Troxx]

When it comes to haste, the reason why going from 34%-41% haste is a small difference is because half of the possible delay reduction occurs in the first 34% haste. For example, at 34% haste a weapon with 40 delay is reduced to 30 delay. 20 delay is the lowest value you can get from haste on a 40 delay weapon. This means you need 64% haste to get the same gains you got with the first 34% haste.

What? Lol no. Wtf lol no. That is now how math and percentages work.

I feel like I’m arguing with an imbecile here!

No haste: 40 = 40 = 4 seconds between melee rounds
34% haste: 40/1.34 = 29.8507 delay = 2.985 seconds between rounds
68% haste: 40/1.68 = 23.8095 delay = 2.38 seconds between rounds
100% haste: 40/2 = 20 delay = 2 seconds between rounds

A better way to think about it?

Swings rounds per 10 minutes:
No haste = 150
34% haste = 201
68% haste = 252
100% haste = 300

600 seconds divided by time between swings.

You don’t get “more value from the first 34% haste”. You get linear returns on haste up to the haste cap.

What. The. Literal. Fuck?

[Lune]

I have shown that there are going to be a lot of scenarios in which a 4-5% DPS boost is not going to give you any more kills per hour. Like INT, you will sometimes get the benefit, and sometimes not.

Any % of DPS boost is always going to give you more kills per hour, unless you are artificially limiting your kills per hour by camping a single spawn, which is a hilariously braindead scenario on which to base the utility of STR-- especially, for your point, because INT is 100% useless in that scenario.

"Hey guys, killing this bard that only spawns every 6 minutes faster, only saves you a a little time every hour!"... meanwhile every single knight who is grouping or actively and consistently playing their character is seeing the full bonus and doing 5-10% more damage which, as both I and troxx have said, is whopping.

It’s not just about your dps increasing kills/hour. As has been shown some camps the biggest limit is the respawn timer.

What I’ve perceived dps useful for is making each individual fight a little shorter and safer. The longer a fight goes on the more chances the opponent has to spike, getting you low health and forcing you to do an extra tap, spend quaff a pot or whatever.

In a scenario where killing is limited by a spawn timer, the combat is trivial for what you bring, and killing speed is therefore the only relevant figure.

It all boils down to sustain vs. max. DPS is a variant of sustain; killing something faster scales multiplicatively with all the numbers of combat, dips into many different buckets, and ultimately saves you resources (mobs do less damage to you, you potentially get to spend more time medding, etc). It improves the efficiency of your character. Sustain is far more valuable in EQ. Max mana only has one-dimensional utility, other than a few, extremely rare scenarios such as surviving a fight specifically because you spiked from 100 to 0 and that small difference in max mana was the difference.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

It’s not just about your dps increasing kills/hour. As has been shown some camps the biggest limit is the respawn timer.

What I’ve found dps useful for is making each individual fight a little shorter and safer. The longer a fight goes on the more chances the opponent has to spike, getting you low health and forcing you to do an extra tap, spend quaff a pot or whatever.

I agree that more DPS can save you a bit more HP/Mana per kill. However, it is not wise to fight a mob that is going to get you down to 10% life and/or mana on average. You generally fight mobs that are already easy enough to where a few seconds of fighting either way is not going to put you in danger.

If 5 extra seconds of fighting is extremely dangerous, that probably means you are fighting a mob that is too difficult to begin with. The difference between 20 DPS and 21 DPS on Travis Two Tone is 2 seconds.

Any % of DPS boost is always going to give you more kills per hour, unless you are artificially limiting your kills per hour by camping a single spawn, which is a hilariously braindead scenario on which to base the utility of STR-- especially, for your point, because INT is 100% useless in that scenario.

"Hey guys, killing this bard that only spawns every 6 minutes faster, only saves you a a little time every hour!"... meanwhile every single knight who is grouping or actively and consistently playing their character is seeing the full bonus and doing 5-10% more damage which, as both I and troxx have said, is whopping.

I also already showed you what the maximum bonus from the extra DPS would give you. If you have 20 DPS, you are getting a 0.8 DPS increase from the 4% boost. Assuming you are auto attacking non-stop for an hour straight, you will get 3600 x 0.8 = 2880 extra damage per hour. Absolute best results are going to be 3 kills per hour when fighting mobs with similar stats as Travis Two Tone, who basically has 900 HP. You would agree that it is not normal to be auto attacking for an hour straight, so the reality is you are getting less than 3 kills per hour. It is probably more like 1-2 kills per hour, assuming you are XPing in a highly efficient manner. This really isn't going to be noticeable for most players.

I have also shown you examples of where you get 0 kills per hour, because respawn rates are a real factor in the game. They are not artificial. Different camps have different DPS thresholds that result in diminishing returns.

[Troxx]

https://media.tenor.com/ibcvq5vzRb4AAAAC/malena-ernman-greta-thunberg.gif

[Troxx]

Let’s do the numbers again.

40 delay weapon

No haste = 150 swings in 10 minutes
34% haste = 201 swings in 10 mins
41% haste = 211.5 swings in 10 minutes

It’s 1.5 swings more per 10 minutes per 1% haste for the first 34%
It is 1.5 swings more per 10 minutes per 1% haste for the next 7% …

201/211.5 = 0.9503 … or 4.07 % more damage for 7% more haste (actually less since double attack is not 100% for a knight). Think more like … I dunno … 3.5% more because you have 7% more haste.

How can you expect us to take you seriously when you fail at shit so absolutely basic.
4-5% more damage is literally (ie mathematically) like having 8-10% more haste.

The emperor has no clothes.

[Lune]

I agree that more DPS can save you a bit more HP/Mana per kill. However, it is not wise to fight a mob that is going to get you down to 10% life and/or mana on average. You generally fight mobs that are already easy enough to where a few seconds of fighting either way is not going to put you in danger.

If 5 extra seconds of fighting is extremely dangerous, that probably means you are fighting a mob that is too difficult to begin with. The difference between 20 DPS and 21 DPS on Travis Two Tone is 2 seconds.



I also already showed you what the maximum bonus from the extra DPS would give you. If you have 20 DPS, you are getting a 0.8 DPS increase from the 4% boost. Assuming you are auto attacking non-stop for an hour straight, you will get 3600 x 0.8 = 2880 extra damage per hour. Absolute best results are going to be 3 kills per hour when fighting mobs with similar stats as Travis Two Tone, who basically has 900 HP. You would agree that it is not normal to be auto attacking for an hour straight, so the reality is you are getting less than 3 kills per hour. It is probably more like 1-2 kills per hour, assuming you are XPing in a highly efficient manner. This really isn't going to be noticeable for most players.

I have also shown you examples of where you get 0 kills per hour, because respawn rates are a real factor in the game. They are not artificial. Different camps have different DPS thresholds that result in diminishing returns.

By only looking at kills per hour for a static spawn you're, again, ignoring the implications for sustain in the other 99% of EQ content.

You are cherry-picking only the scenarios where the usefulness of DPS is more marginal, but in all of those scenarios, INT is completely useless. So it really doesn't help your point. While ignoring the other 95% of the game where 5% difference in DPS is huge. Not only are you unable to see the forest for the trees, you can't even see the fucking trees.

"Hey guys, I only kill Travis Two-Tone a little bit faster, therefore strength useless"

[Jimjam]

I don't understand what we’re talking about haste for and how it relates to starting stats?

Can someone catch me up on that thread of the discussion?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Let’s do the numbers again.

40 delay weapon

No haste = 150 swings in 10 minutes
34% haste = 201 swings in 10 mins
41% haste = 211.5 swings in 10 minutes

It’s 1.5 swings more per 10 minutes per 1% haste for the first 34%
It is 1.5 swings more per 10 minutes for the next 7% …


How can you expect us to take you seriously when you fail at shit so absolutely basic.

The emperor has no clothes.

I am not sure why you think agreeing with me is proving me wrong.

At 100% haste, a 40 delay weapon is reduced to 20 delay.

40 / 1.34 = 29.8.
40 / 1.41 = 28.3.

The difference between 29.8 and 28.3 is 5%. The difference between 201 swings and 211 swings is 5%.

Congratulations on saying the same thing as me, but somehow thinking I was wrong.

You are incorrect about the 7% haste over 34% giving the same value as the first 7%, however. It takes 34% haste to get to 30 delay, and 64% haste to get to 20 delay. This means you lose value on haste after the first 34%. It takes 34% haste to reduce your delay by 10, and then it takes 64% haste to reduce your delay by another 10.

You are cherry-picking only the scenarios where the usefulness of DPS is more marginal, but in all of those scenarios, INT is completely useless. So it really doesn't help your point. While ignoring the other 95% of the game where 5% difference in DPS is huge. Not only are you unable to see the forest for the trees, you can't even see the fucking trees.

You are cherry picking scenarios where INT is less useful.

I don't understand what we’re talking about haste for and how it relates to starting stats?

Can someone catch me up on that thread of the discussion?

Troxx randomly brought it up a few posts ago.

[Troxx]

Or a non eq example. Let’s dumb this shit down so it is even easier to understand.

Jimmy has 100 apples.
You give Jimmy 34% more apples than he a started with. Jimmy now has 134 apples.
You give Jimmy 41% more apples than he started with. Jimmy now has 141 apples

Those extra 7 apples are just a real and delicious as the other 34. They are worth just as much at market as the first 34 apples. If it takes one damn Apple to make a motherfucking Apple tart, he can make just as many apple tarts regardless of which apple you handed him first and proportional to the total number of extra percent apples you decided to give him above what he started with.

https://media.tenor.com/DWONbJBKDbsAAAAC/math-meme-math-is-math-meme.gif

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Or a non eq example. Let’s dumb this shit down so it is even easier to understand.

Jimmy has 100 apples.
You give Jimmy 34% more apples than he a started with. Jimmy now has 134 apples.
You give Jimmy 41% more apples than he started with. Jimmy now has 141 apples

Those extra 7 apples are just a real and delicious as the other 34. They are worth just as much at market as the first 34 apples. If it takes one damn Apple to make a motherfucking Apple tart, he can make just as many apple tarts regardless of which apple you handed him first and proportional to the total number of extra percent apples you decided to give him above what he started with.


You are missing the point entirely, because you are again too concerned about admitting you were wrong.

40 / 1.34 = 29.8. This means you need 34% haste to reduce your delay by 10 out of a possible 20.
40 / 1.68 = 23.8. This means the next 34% haste reduced your delay by 6.

That is the same amount of haste added, but the difference in how much you gained is less. This is not difficult.

[Troxx]

I am not sure why you think agreeing with me is proving me wrong.

At 100% haste, a 40 delay weapon is reduced to 20 delay.

40 / 1.34 = 29.8.
40 / 1.41 = 28.3.

The difference between 29.8 and 28.3 is 5%. The difference between 201 swings and 211 swings is 5%.

Congratulations on saying the same thing as me, but somehow thinking I was wrong.


Dude your post is still there. I can still quote it:

When it comes to haste, the reason why going from 34%-41% haste is a small difference is because half of the possible delay reduction occurs in the first 34% haste. For example, at 34% haste a weapon with 40 delay is reduced to 30 delay. 20 delay is the lowest value you can get from haste on a 40 delay weapon. This means you need 64% haste to get the same gains you got with the first 34% haste.
.

I’ll admit that I might have been getting caught up with the part in bold. It seemed to imply some magical benefit from the first 34% meaning that an upgrade to 41% is somehow less meaningful. If you read your post literally you say:

“Half the possible delay occurs in the first 34%”. No that’s not how it works. 34% haste means you get 34% more swings per unit time.

Your statement was misleading at best … but realistically just wrong.

The point was that 4-5% damage is nothing to sneeze at. Most people consider upgrading 34 to 41% haste or an FBSS to RBB as being a BIG improvement. Yet here you are saying that a comparable 4-5% damage increase is somehow not a BIG improvement.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Dude your post is still there. I can still quote it:



I’ll admit that I might have been getting caught up with the part in bold. It seemed to imply some magical benefit from the first 34% meaning that an upgrade to 41% is somehow less meaningful. If you read your post literally you say:

“Half the possible delay occurs in the first 34%”. No that’s not how it works. 34% haste means you get 34% more swings per unit time.

Your statement was misleading at best … but realistically just wrong.

The point was that 4-5% damage is nothing to sneeze at. Most people consider upgrading 34 to 41% haste or an FBSS to RBB as being a BIG improvement. Yet here you are saying that a comparable 4-5% damage increase is somehow not a BIG improvement.

I apologize if my wording was confusing. I am saying the same thing in all of my posts, just slightly different variations in the hope that one sticks.

Thank you for admitting you were wrong about the delay calculations.

Again, the first 34% haste you get is reducing a 40 delay weapon to 30.

The next 34% haste you get (68% total) is reducing your delay from 30 to 24.

This means you are getting diminishing returns from haste above 34%. This math is really simple.

[Troxx]

That is the same amount of haste added, but the difference in how much you gained is less. This is not difficult.

Thank you for clarifying. I was concerned that I misunderstood what you wrote and was therefore off the mark. You have clarified that I did NOT misunderstand you and that you are indeed an idiot.



No haste: 40 = 40 = 4 seconds between melee rounds
34% haste: 40/1.34 = 29.8507 delay = 2.985 seconds between rounds
68% haste: 40/1.68 = 23.8095 delay = 2.38 seconds between rounds
100% haste: 40/2 = 20 delay = 2 seconds between rounds

Abetter way to think about it?

Swings rounds per 10 minutes:
No haste = 150
34% haste = 201
68% haste = 252
100% haste = 300


First 34% gave you 51 more attacks. The second 34% gives another 51 attacks. You get just as much value relative to no haste for each additional point of haste you have.

The returns on haste are linear from 0 to 100% with 100% giving you literally twice the melee rounds per unit time compared to 0% haste.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Thank you for clarifying. I was concerned that I misunderstood what you wrote and was therefore off the mark. You have clarified that I did NOT misunderstand you and that you are indeed an idiot.

First 34% gave you 51 more attacks. The second 34% gives another 52 attacks. You get just as much value relative to no haste for each additional point of haste you have.

Incorrect.

34% haste is reducing your delay by 10.

68% haste is reducing your delay by 6.

You are getting less returns for the same amount of haste added to your character.

You are not grasping this basic concept.


No haste: 40 = 40 = 4 seconds between melee rounds
34% haste: 40/1.34 = 29.8507 delay = 2.985 seconds between rounds
68% haste: 40/1.68 = 23.8095 delay = 2.38 seconds between rounds
100% haste: 40/2 = 20 delay = 2 seconds between rounds


With your own quote, you are reducing the amount of seconds between rounds from 4 to 3 with the first 34% haste. The next 34% is reducing the amount of seconds between swings from 3 to 2.4 seconds.

[Troxx]

Incorrect.

34% haste is reducing your delay by 10.

68% haste is reducing your delay by 6.

You are getting less returns for the same amount of haste added to your character.

You are not grasping this basic concept.

Swings rounds per 10 minutes:
No haste = 150
34% haste = 201
68% haste = 252
100% haste = 300

Your first 34% gave you 51 more rounds. The next 34% gives you … 51 additional extra rounds (same as the first 34%). At 100% haste you get 150 more rounds (twice what you started with).


Is this guy serious?

[Toxigen]

5% more dps is massive.

[Lune]

5% more dps is massive.

Don't you know? You can only kill another 1 or 2 Travis Two-Tones in an hour...

[Troxx]

With your own quote, you are reducing the amount of seconds between rounds from 4 to 3 with the first 34% haste. The next 34% is reducing the amount of seconds between swings from 3 to 2.4 seconds.

With a weapon delay of 40 you get a round per 4 seconds.
With 34% haste the delay is now 29.85 or a round per 2.985 seconds.
With a 68% haste the delay is now 23.809 or a round per 2.381 seconds

If you are fighting for 600 seconds (10 minutes)
-you get 150 rounds with a 4 second delay between rounds
-you get 200.957 rounds with a 2.985 second delay between rounds
-you get 252 rounds with a 2.381 second delay between rounds

Don’t believe me? Use a calculator

600/4 = 150
600/2.985 = 200.957
600/2.381 = 252

This is how math, percentages, and time work …

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Swings rounds per 10 minutes:
No haste = 150
34% haste = 201
68% haste = 252
100% haste = 300

Your first 34% gave you 51 more rounds. The next 34% gives you … 51 additional extra rounds (same as the first 34%). At 100% haste you get 150 more rounds (twice what you started with).


Is this guy serious?

Ah I see what you are saying now. Yes, that is correct when looking at it from the raw number of hits per swing. See? I can admit when I am wrong. I was too caught up in the delay reduction, which is not linear.

However, that doesn't mean every math formula I do is incorrect, as you are probably going to try and argue.

A 0.8 DPS boost is still giving you 2880 damage per hour, assuming you are auto attacking non-stop. This is unrealistic, which means you are realistically getting a significantly lower number, unless maybe you are being power leveled.

When factoring in respawn timers, saving 2 seconds per kill is not always going to result in additional kills per hour, or a significant boost to your meditation/hp regen times. There are many scenarios where it is doing nothing for you.

[Ripqozko]

I'm surprised yall are stilling trying with him

[Troxx]

Edit: nevermind … he figured it out

https://media.tenor.com/6IZKGSu4bSoAAAAM/accomplishment.gif

[Troxx]

Ok now that we have established that math is math … it is not subjective and that calculators do work …

Most people would consider upgrading a FBSS to a RBB to be a huge upgrade (5% dmg boost). Most would consider jumping from 34% worn haste to 41% huge upgrade (3.5% dmg boost). We can therefore conclude that most people would find a 3.5-5% range dps boost to be a big upgrade.

You own parses showed a 4.3% dmg boost from 20 strength as a level 60 vs a level 5 turtle.

How is this not significant again?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Ok now that we have established that math is math … it is not subjective and that calculators do work …


Nobody said math was subjective. My calculator was working correctly as well. I simply got too caught up in the non-linear decrease of delay. People are allowed to make mistakes. As you can see, I am happy to admit I am wrong if I am wrong!

5% more dps is massive.

It really isn't. 5% of 20 DPS is 1 DPS. On a mob with 900 HP, you are saving 2 seconds per kill. If they are on a 30 minute respawn timer, you are saving 4 seconds per hour.

If you are killing 10 of these mobs, you are saving a total of 40 seconds per hour.

You would need to kill this group of 10 mobs for 45 hours non-stop to see an extra spawn cycle.

40 seconds per hour isn't going to be enough time to meditate a significant amount of mana, take a longer break, etc.

[Troxx]

It really isn't. 5% of 20 DPS is 1 DPS.

And 5% of 40 is 2.
And 5% of 60 is 3.
And 5% if 80 is 4.

For solo …

5% more dps means you kill things 5% faster. They die 5% faster resulting in 5% more kills per unit time actually playing. Coincidentally it also means they are hitting and hurting you for 5% less time resulting in 5% less damage taken when solo. It also means you have 5% less time you need to be casting spells … which results in (statistically) saving 5% mana over time.

Vs having a bit more total mana pool.

If I could choose between having to spend 5% less mana consistently over time or having an extra 20-30 low end mana or 80-200 more high end mana …

I’ll take mana preservation. Strictly from a mana standpoint and not factoring in all the other perks.

Disclaimer: yes all of this skews when grouping as the sk is only a portion of the total damage dealt. I’m groups, however, mana regen is all that really matters because you have others to help support you and the collective goals of the people hunting together.

Is it making sense yet?


Come on man … we are ALMOST THERE!

Rub dem brain cells together!

[Lune]

It really isn't. 5% of 20 DPS is 1 DPS. On a mob with 900 HP, you are saving 2 seconds per kill. If they are on a 30 minute respawn timer, you are saving 4 seconds per hour.

If you are killing 10 of these mobs, you are saving a total of 40 seconds per hour.

You would need to kill this group of 10 mobs for 45 hours non-stop to see an extra spawn cycle.

40 seconds per hour isn't going to be enough time to meditate a significant amount of mana, take a longer break, etc.

What if, instead of being completely retarded, we don't just assume we're camping a single mob with a 30 minute respawn timer, or even just 10 mobs in an hour?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

What if, instead of being completely retarded, we don't just assume we're camping a single mob with a 30 minute respawn timer, or even just 10 mobs in an hour?

Because if you have played P99, you would know that a lot of people are not bard kiting 25 mobs at all times.

I camped guards while soloing my SK most of the time. My example was killing 10 mobs every 30 minutes, not 10 mobs an hour. This means 20 mobs an hour.

One good guard camp is East Freeport Guards. I think there are 10 of them total in the area, and they are on a 30 minute respawn timer. This fits my example perfectly.

In reality a lot of solo camps have hard limits on mobs, and there are not 20+ mobs available on a single cycle. That doesn't mean they are bad camps.

A lot of group camps have limits too, depending on zone popularity, mob distribution, difficultly of mobs, etc.

This is the reality of Everquest. It is not common to simply sit in camp with autoattack on for an hour straight while someone pulls in an endless supply of mobs. There are areas where you can do this if the zone is empty, but that is not what most people are doing most of the time.

[Lune]

Because if you have played P99, you would know that a lot of people are not bard kiting 25 mobs at all times.

I camped guards while soloing my SK most of the time. My example was killing 10 mobs every 30 minutes, not 10 mobs an hour. This means 20 mobs an hour.

One good guard camp is East Freeport Guards. I think there are 10 of them total in the area, and they are on a 30 minute respawn timer. This fits my example perfectly.

In reality a lot of solo camps have hard limits on mobs, and there are not 20+ mobs available on a single cycle. That doesn't mean they are bad camps.

A lot of group camps have limits too, depending on zone popularity, mob distribution, difficultly of mobs, etc.

This is the reality of Everquest. It is not common to simply sit in camp with autoattack on for an hour straight while someone pulls in an endless supply of mobs. There are areas where you can do this if the zone is empty, but that is not what most people are doing most of the time.

So why choose to use a situation where you're limited by spawn timers as an example? That is not a situation where you are pushing your character, making stats largely irrelevant (notably, with the exception of strength), nor is it the most common way to level.


In reality a lot of solo camps have hard limits on mobs, and there are not 20+ mobs available on a single cycle. That doesn't mean they are bad camps.

A lot of group camps have limits too, depending on zone popularity, mob distribution, difficultly of mobs, etc.

Actually, that does mean they are bad camps, unless you are committed to having afk time/down time/minimal effort

[Lune]

Come on man … we are ALMOST THERE!

Rub dem brain cells together!

I'm sure deep down he can see it, as this point has been getting hammered for 50 pages in numerous ways by 10 different people, but he's resolved that this isn't going to be his conclusion so he's not going to accept it.

[Troxx]

I'm sure deep down he can see it, as this point has been getting hammered for 50 pages, but he's resolved that this isn't going to be his conclusion so he's not going to accept it.

https://media.tenor.com/s6temlqJhfQAAAAM/george-michael-have-faith.gif

The finish line is in sight!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So why choose to use a situation where you're limited by spawn timers as an example? That is not a situation where you are pushing your character, making stats largely irrelevant (notably, with the exception of strength), nor is it the most common way to level.

Actually, that does mean they are bad camps, unless you are committed to having afk time/down time/minimal effort

Why are you assuming the majority of camps in P99 are camps where you can solo 60+ mobs an hour?

This is a silly assumption if you have actually played the game. It is pretty clear you do not know what you are talking about.

If you are doing something like the Docks in the Hole, your group can just stream mobs into camp. But how many groups can do Docks on a single server? I think you are beginning to get the picture lol. There are not enough Docks-like camps in P99 to support 1000 players.

Most players are doing camps that are limited by mob numbers and respawn timers. 20 mobs an hour is not an uncommon or bad number for a solo camp. If you think a camp like East Freeport Guards is a bad camp in terms of XP and Money, your inexperience is showing further.

[Lune]

Why are you assuming the majority of camps in P99 are camps where you can solo 60+ mobs an hour?

This is a silly assumption if you have actually played the game. It is pretty clear you do not know what you are talking about.

If you are doing something like the Docks in the Hole, your group can just stream mobs into camp. But how many groups can do Docks on a single server? I think you are beginning to get the picture lol.

Docks in the hole is a popular camp for a reason, along with KC and Seb where you can get all the pulls your group can consume. But you didn't answer my question.

So why choose to use a situation where you're limited by spawn timers as an example? That is not a situation where you are pushing your character, making stats largely irrelevant (notably, with the exception of strength).

Why would you use a situation where kill rate has more to do with spawn timers than your character's power, as a scenario to illustrate differences in your character's power?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Docks in the hole is a popular camp for a reason, along with KC and Seb where you can get all the pulls your group can consume. But you didn't answer my question.

So why choose to use a situation where you're limited by spawn timers as an example? That is not a situation where you are pushing your character, making stats largely irrelevant (notably, with the exception of strength).

Why would you use a situation where kill rate has more to do with spawn timers than your character's power, as a scenario to illustrate your character's power?

Easy. What if Docks are taken by another group? Are you going to steal their camp lol?

Do you not realize that this server does not have instancing, and thus you are not always guaranteed the best camps?

There aren't 200+ Docks-like camps in the game. People are going to have to choose other camps that have less mobs.

[Lune]

Easy. What if Docks are taken by another group? Are you going to steal their camp lol?

Do you not realize that this server does not have instancing, and thus you are not always guaranteed the best camps?

There aren't 200+ Docks-like camps in the game. People are going to have to choose other camps that have less mobs.

Forget about docks.

Why choose to use a situation where you're limited by spawn timers as an example? That is not a situation where you are pushing your character, making stats largely irrelevant (notably, with the exception of strength).

Why would you use a situation where kill rate has more to do with spawn timers than your character's power, as a scenario to illustrate differences in your character's power?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Forget about docks.

Why choose to use a situation where you're limited by spawn timers as an example? That is not a situation where you are pushing your character, making stats largely irrelevant (notably, with the exception of strength).

Why would you use a situation where kill rate has more to do with spawn timers than your character's power, as a scenario to illustrate your character's power?

Because there are good solo camps that do not have a 60+ kills per hour count.

Can you provide an example of a camp where a level 30 SK is soloing 60 mobs per hour?

You have a serious lack of understanding of camps in this game if you think everybody has constant access to an endless supply of mobs at all times.

[Lune]

Because there are good camps that do not have a 60+ kills per hour count.

Can you provide an example of a camp where a level 30 SK is soloing 60 mobs per hour?

Yes, I know there are good static spawn camps, but why use that scenario (one in which your kill speed is limited by spawn timers rather than character power) as an example in this discussion, where we're talking about character power?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Yes, I know there are good static spawn camps, but why use that scenario (one in which your kill speed is limited by spawn timers rather than character power) as an example in this discussion, where we're talking about character power?

I already answered that question. Most camps do not have unlimited spawn rates in P99. They ARE limited by respawn timers.

You are using the minority case (Docks, for example) to make the claim that most camps are like that.

If you have played P99, you would know that most camps that players consider to be worth while are not high volume camps, where you are killing a ton of mobs. Why would guard killing be so popular if this wasn't the case? Guard spots have somewhere around 15 guards at maximum with a 30 minute respawn timer. A lot of them have less than that, while still being on a 30 minute respawn timer.

This means you are more likely to run into diminishing returns on DPS than not via respawn timers. That is just how P99 is set up.

[Lune]

I already answered that question. Most camps do not have unlimited spawn rates in P99. They ARE limited by respawn timers.

You are using the minority case (Docks, for example) to make the claim that most camps are like that.

If you have played P99, you would know that most camps that players consider to be worth while are not high volume camps, where you are killing a ton of mobs. Why would guard killing be so popular otherwise? Most guard spots have 15 guards at maximum with a 30 minute respawn timer. A lot of them have less than that.

You didn't answer my question; you are claiming that spawn-limited areas are the most popular way to level (false), and that therefore it is relevant to this discussion (also false). That is not a scenario where your character's power has much bearing (not to forget that even in this dumb scenario, STR beats INT, because 5% faster is better than no benefit whatsoever).

Guard killing is popular for low-effort soloists because guards live in zones with good ZEM's, are convenient, safe, and easy. They are far from the most popular or effective way to level.

If this is such a popular way to level, and INT does nothing leveling this way, how can you claim INT is a better stat than STR? If this is not the most popular way to level, STR clearly beats INT as you're killing everything 5-10% faster.

[Ripqozko]

Easy. What if Docks are taken by another group? Are you going to steal their camp lol?

Do you not realize that this server does not have instancing, and thus you are not always guaranteed the best camps?

There aren't 200+ Docks-like camps in the game. People are going to have to choose other camps that have less mobs.

No one's ever in hole and there's like 6 camps there deep, same with velks upper and lower dogs always open. This isn't 2015.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You didn't answer my question; you are claiming that spawn-limited areas are the most popular way to level (false), and that therefore it is relevant to this discussion (also false). That is not a scenario where your character's power has much bearing (not to forget that even in this dumb scenario, STR beats INT, because 5% faster is better than no benefit whatsoever).

Guard killing is popular for low-effort soloists because guards live in zones with good ZEM's, are convenient, safe, and easy. They are far from the most popular or effective way to level.

If this is such a popular way to level, and INT does nothing leveling this way, how can you claim INT is a better stat than STR? If this is not the most popular way to level, STR clearly beats INT as you're killing everything 5-10% faster.

I did answer your question. If most camps are respawn timer limited, then that is a factor you need to consider when looking at player power. This includes DPS. You cannot change respawn timers, you simply have to live with them.

Most popular camps are limited by respawn timers, which means DPS is more likely to have diminishing returns than not for the average player.

You are simply making the false assumption that most players are doing Docks-style camps from 1-60. The game doesn't have that many camps of this kind for 1000+ people.

No one's ever in hole and there's like 6 camps there deep, same with velks upper and lower dogs always open. This isn't 2015.

6 camps with 6 players = 36 players. Where are the other 964 players camping?

[Ripqozko]

I did answer your question. If most camps are respawn timer limited, then that is a factor you need to consider when looking at player power. This includes DPS. You cannot change respawn timers, you simply have to live with them.

Most popular camps are limited by respawn timers, which means DPS is more likely to have diminishing returns than not for the average player.

You are simply making the false assumption that most players are doing Docks-style camps from 1-60. The game doesn't have that many camps of this kind for 1000+ people.



6 camps with 6 players = 36 players. Where are the other 964 players camping?

Where are the 964 players, we have a 500 pop max and camps are never used atm.

[Lune]

I did answer your question. If most camps are respawn timer limited, then that is a factor you need to consider when looking at player power. This includes DPS. You cannot change respawn timers, you simply have to live with them.

Most popular camps are limited by respawn timers, which means DPS is more likely to have diminishing returns than not for the average player.

You are simply making the false assumption that most players are doing Docks-style camps from 1-60. The game doesn't have that many camps of this kind for 1000+ people.


If this is such a popular way to level, and INT does nothing leveling this way, how can you claim INT is a better stat than STR? If this is not the most popular way to level, STR clearly beats INT as you're killing everything 5-10% faster.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Where are the 964 players, we have a 500 pop max and camps are never used atm.

Green has 1000 players. I don't see Hole, Velks, Karnors, etc. permacamped on blue. This means players prefer camping other areas lol. Areas with less mobs and 30 minute respawn timers perhaps?

If this is such a popular way to level, and INT does nothing leveling this way, how can you claim INT is a better stat than STR? If this is not the most popular way to level, STR clearly beats INT as you're killing everything 5-10% faster.

If you are getting 0 extra kills per hour, killing faster is generally irrelevant. saving a few seconds per kill is not going to save your life, or significantly reduce your down time. If you are killing mobs that will take 20% of your life in 5 seconds, you are fighting mobs that are too hard.

This means both 20 STR and 20 INT are generally not giving you a noticeable gain. That means you should put your points into the stat that will be uncapped longer. You get the minor benefit longer, and it doesn't matter anyway.

[Ripqozko]

Green has 1000 players. I don't see Hole, Velks, Karnors, etc. permacamped on blue. This means players prefer camping other areas lol. Areas with less mobs and 30 minute respawn timers perhaps?



If you are getting 0 extra kills per hour, killing faster is generally irrelevant. saving a few seconds per kill is not going to save your life, or significantly reduce your down time. If you are killing mobs that will take 20% of your life in 5 seconds, you are fighting mobs that are too hard.

People just sit at KC and pray they get a group because they are bad, these other good camps are always open. Surely even you aren't this dumb. Maybe you are

[DeathsSilkyMist]

People just sit at KC and pray they get a group because they are bad, these other good camps are always open. Surely even you aren't this dumb. Maybe you are

You cannot say things like:
No one's ever in hole

And then try to claim people prefer hole over other camps lol. If most people preferred to level in the way of chain sawing endless mob supplies, you would think Hole would always be full, even after the ZEM changes.

[Ripqozko]

You cannot say things like:


And then try to claim people prefer hole over other camps lol.

I'm saying they are always open people are just bad and wait in kc, that's not the camps fault

[Vexenu]

DSM has yet to articulate a compelling argument or provide any actual evidence for his contention that the added mana from 20 INT confers a meaningful advantage for an Iksar SK. His only points are literally, "You should pump INT because it's harder to cap" and "It could theoretically give you enough extra mana to FD and save your life one day". But neither of these statements are logical arguments for pumping INT over STR:

1) CHA is the hardest stat for an SK to cap, so why not pump it? The answer is obvious: because it doesn't confer enough of an advantage to do so. The same logic applies to INT in this case.

2) Pumping INT just because you might one day get off an extra FD from it makes no sense. Theoretically, a lot of things might happen in EQ. Theoretically, extra STR might also make the narrow difference between life and death in some bizarre, highly improbable scenario. Or extra DEX might give you an Epic proc that saves your life. Or extra STA might give you just enough buffer not to die before a CH lands. Because of this, a theoretical argument for INT is no more valid than a theoretical argument for any other stat, most especially STR.

Why? Because STR is the only stat that provides IRREFUTABLE AND CONCRETE benefits both IN and OUT of combat, as has been exhaustively demonstrated in this thread. Whether the precise value is 4 or 5% added DPS is irrelevant, as is how many extra kills this might generate per hour in your tortured examples. The point is that this benefit exists. It is real. You cannot handwave it away. It is a real benefit that can be objectively proven. Added carry weight is also a real, concrete benefit. There is no argument against it. Carrying more weight provides meaningful value. Everyone who has played EQ understands this intuitively.

In contrast, there remains no way to demonstrate any sort of conclusive value from the extra mana provided by INT. SKs do not EVER dump their mana 100-0 in the way that a Wizard, Druid or Cleric regularly does, or the way that another caster might occasionally have need to do. Good SKs spend most of their active playtime hovering between 25% and 75% mana. They leave enough reserve in the tank to account for any emergencies, while ensuring that they don't waste any mana regen by sitting around at full mana. Because of this, adding extra mana on top of their mana pool provides little in the way of value to begin with, and whatever value it does provide simply cannot be accounted for accurately. It's like if your car holds holds enough gasoline to drive 500 miles without filling up, but you never drive more than 50 miles at a time. In this case, expanding your gas tank makes NO SENSE and provides you zero value. And that goes exactly the same for expanding the SK's mana pool by pumping INT in this scenario.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'm saying they are always open people are just bad and wait in kc, that's not the camps fault

I am not blaming camps. I am simply pointing out camp distributions.

If most people prefer camps that have low mob counts and 30 minute respawn times, that means those camps are what people prefer to do. Your DPS is going to have diminishing returns.

[Lune]

Yep, and then KC gets cleared out and everyone gets shit XP. Apparently people should be gearing and allocating stats based on AFK camps and shitty overcrowded zones? Someone should tell OP lol

[Ripqozko]

Yep, and then KC gets cleared out and everyone gets shit XP. Apparently people should be gearing and allocating stats based on AFK camps and shitty overcrowded zones? Someone should tell OP lol

Yea he's just insufferable can't have a conversation with him good luck to you

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Yea he's just insufferable can't have a conversation with him good luck to you

As per usual, when you realize you are wrong, you go back to insults.

I am really not sure why you think that respawn timers are not a significant factor for a ton of camps on P99. Popular ones at that. This is basic knowledge.

[Lune]

I had a dorm-mate with aspergers in college; sometimes he'd argue about something easily verifiable like the date something happened, and when pressed on it, he'd just continue to deny, and start laughing nervously, continuing to deny something plainly evident, like on some level he knew he was wrong but just couldn't bring his brain wiring to admit it.

3yX_1gJ_51M

[Troxx]

Ok so now that we have established that
-20 str gave 4.3% more dps
-that 4.3% is significant (about the same as 9% more worn haste which most would give a lot for)
-that math is math

Goalposts have been shifted …

And now we’re saying that more dps is not relevant because you’re gonna run out of mobs anyways?

And if you ran out of mobs how is 20int doing anything at all for you??

If anything it weakens the argument for intelligence. If you’re out of mobs sitting and waiting on respawns - you’re never using that extra 30-100 mana from having a slightly larger pool … …

But please carry on!




https://media.tenor.com/hSvVbjc_ar4AAAAC/moving-goal-posts-down-the-field.gif

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I had a dorm-mate with aspergers in college; sometimes he'd argue about something easily verifiable like the date something happened, and when pressed on it, he'd just continue to deny, and start laughing nervously, continuing to deny something plainly evident, like on some level he knew he was wrong but just couldn't bring his brain wiring to admit it.


If it is easy to verify, please show me how many kills per hour you can get at the camps you believe to be most popular.

Also, please show us why you think everybody is constantly playing in these high volume areas, when even Ripqozko admits places like the Hole are fairly empty.

If you were correct, you should be seeing the Hole with a lot more people at all times of day.

I have already admitted to being wrong about various things multiple times in this thread. Other posters (including yourself) resort to trolling instead when they are confronted with the possibility of being wrong. Perhaps you are the one who cannot admit they are wrong, even when it is easily verifiable?

[Troxx]

People just sit at KC and pray they get a group because they are bad, these other good camps are always open. Surely even you aren't this dumb. Maybe you are

Meh maybe they are trying to finish our level 59 on their cleric and don’t have more than 30-90 minutes to play per session.

KC is trivial but unfortunately there aren’t people readily available in other zones to group with on a limited play schedule.

I sat a week’s worth of 60 minute sessions in seb. It was either empty or there were 3 level 60s farming fungis.

At least in KC I can log in and either quickly hop in a group or invite another random at the zone in and get the xp bar a bit closer to Aegolism :p

[Ripqozko]

Meh maybe they are trying to finish our level 59 on their cleric and don’t have more than 30-90 minutes to play per session.

KC is trivial but unfortunately there aren’t people readily available in other zones to group with on a limited play schedule.

I sat a week’s worth of 60 minute sessions in seb. It was either empty or there were 3 level 60s farming fungis

Like I said that's a player issue not the zone issue, hole was packed before. 10% zem less and it's empty.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Like I said that's a player issue not the zone issue, hole was packed before. 10% zem less and it's empty.

I agree, it is a player issue if they choose not to play at 100% efficiency.

However, if the average player prefers to play at a slower pace, that means small boosts to DPS will affect the average player less.

If we are talking about a hyper-focused player who is trying to rush levels, they are more likely to hit 60 and get raid gear anyway.

I am not sure where this unicorn player is that is hyper-focused on gaining levels as quickly as possible, while also looking at starting stats in a manner that is more akin to a casual player. A player who is hyper-focused on gaining levels is probably leveling an alt, which means they are more likely to twink anyway. They are going to have a ton of DPS, carry capacity, and WR bags already.

[Ripqozko]

I agree, it is a player issue if they choose not to play at 100% efficiency.

However, if the average player prefers to play at a slower pace, that means small boosts to DPS will affect the average player less.

If we are talking about a hyper-focused player who is trying to rush levels, they are more likely to hit 60 and get raid gear anyway.

I am not sure where this unicorn player is that is hyper-focused on gaining levels as quickly as possible, while also looking at starting stats in a manner that is more akin to a casual player. A player who is hyper-focused on gaining levels is probably leveling an alt, which means they are more likely to twink anyway. They are going to have a ton of DPS, carry capacity, and WR bags already.

Inefficient also means 20int is pointless , so this really doesn't help you either. Most players will half afk in KC only returning when they tab back from YouTube. That's reality.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Inefficient also means 20int is pointless , so this really doesn't help you either. Most players will half afk in KC only returning when they tab back from YouTube. That's reality.

Exactly. That has been my point. Neither +20 STR or +20 INT is providing a noticeable boost to the average player. Therefore, put your points into the stat that is harder to cap, so you can get the benefits for a longer period of time. It really is that simple.

I provide examples of where INT can be useful simply to dispel the notion that max mana will never matter. This is obviously not true.

This thread is absolutely wild. There's no better example that DSM has no fucking clue what he's talking about most of the time than this thread. Even when presented with concrete, iron clad, granite strong data and facts he refuses to admit he's wrong and instead changes the argument to something else. Instead of INT not being the choice he refuses to admit STR is the better choice and decides to say it would be better to go with a stat that'll be uncapped for longer.

You literally can't make this shit up. I wonder if we could petition the GMs/forum Admins to ban him from the forums. At this point he's causing actual harm to people who might mistakenly take anything he says as good advice.

What are you talking about? I have provided in-game evidence with videos and logs, EQEMU code, and statistical distributions of stats on gear. That is concrete data and facts. Simply saying "20 STR increases DPS in a significant manner because I say so" is anything but concrete lol.

The majority of posters have resorted to trolling and attacking people, which is actually against the forum policies. I am not sure why you think I am getting banned lol. The trolls are getting banned first for thinking it is a good idea to call other people autistic, and then proceed to make fun of them for it.

[Ripqozko]

Exactly. That has been my point. Neither +20 STR or +20 INT is providing a noticeable boost to the average player. Therefore, put your points into the stat that is harder to cap, so you can get the benefits for a longer period of time. It really is that simple.

I provide examples of where INT can be useful simply to dispel the notion that max mana will never matter. This is obviously not true.

And I provided what is mostly bis from reality where DE needs the sta in order to even think about getting it capped, even your big ass sk can't cap without pe. Then you don't get to have avatar. You just ignore everything that doesn't help your narrative even with my proof.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

And I provided what is mostly bis from reality where DE needs the sta in order to even think about getting it capped, even your big ass sk can't cap without pe. Then you don't get to have avatar. You just ignore everything that doesn't help your narrative even with my proof.

I can also show a (much cheaper) Magelo where INT is capped before STR or STA. That doesn't change the reality of statistical distribution of stats across gear. It is still a fact that STA and STR is more common in SK gear on P99, even if you can put nothing but INT gear on an SK. Said INT gear will be inferior for an SK, but it is a valid gear combination.

[Ripqozko]

I can also show a (much cheaper) Magelo where INT is capped before STR or STA. That doesn't change the reality of statistical distribution of stats across gear. It is still a fact that STA and STR is more common in SK gear on P99, even if you can put nothing but INT gear on an SK. Said INT gear will be inferior for an SK.

This isn't random shit I have on and I don't cap, this is the legit path most will go, are you that much into "winning" a 24 year old Elf sim forum debate that you have to gaslight everything

[DeathsSilkyMist]

This isn't random shit I have on and I don't cap, this is the legit path most will go, are you that much into "winning" a 24 year old Elf sim forum debate that you have to gaslight everything

You need to stop assuming I am gaslighting you. The statistical probabilities show that you are less likely to cap INT than STR or STA. It is really that simple. This doesn't mean the probability is zero, it just means you have a better chance of ending up with uncapped INT when organically acquiring gear. You ended up with the statistically less likely scenario, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Your character is awesome, and I am not trying to give you starting stat remorse. You are fine.

[Ripqozko]

You need to stop assuming I am gaslighting you. The statistical probabilities show that you are less likely to cap INT than STR or STA. It is really that simple. This doesn't mean the probability is zero, it just means you have a better chance of ending up with uncapped INT when organically acquiring gear.

Your character is awesome, and I am not trying to give you starting stat remorse. You are fine.

As you say, this is fact this is what most strive to get, and I don't cap. If I was a dumbass and went int I'd be even more in a hole. Will I eventually cap? Sure but that's a long ass path to get this when your own ass character doesn't cap.

[Troxx]

https://media.tenor.com/hSvVbjc_ar4AAAAC/moving-goal-posts-down-the-field.gif

[DeathsSilkyMist]

As you say, this is fact this is what most strive to get, and I don't cap. If I was a dumbass and went int I'd be even more in a hole. Will I eventually cap? Sure but that's a long ass path to get this when your own ass character doesn't cap.

You wouldn't be in a hole. Starting stats don't really matter, and you have great gear already. 21 HP is irrelevant in a raid. If you got down to 21 HP, your healer(s) messed up, or your puller messed up, or your raid messed up.

You aren't at full BiS yet, and you have multiple routes to max out your STA before full BiS. You are fine.

[Ripqozko]

I tried and tried good luck dsm.

[Troxx]

Total posts on thread: 595
Total posts from DSM in thread: 212
# of people DSM has convinced: 0
# of people who disagree with DSM: unilateral consensus of active participants


Yikes.


Can we let this die now?

We are more or less unanimously in agreement and at an impasse convincing DSM of anything

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Total posts on thread: 595
Total posts from DSM in thread: 212
# of people DSM has convinced: 0
# of people who disagree with DSM: unilateral consensus of active participants


Yikes.


Can we let this die now?

We are more or less unanimously in agreement and at an impasse convincing DSM of anything

We can let it die at any time. You do not speak for everybody. It is silly to simply claim victory, when you cannot even provide evidence for your claims. Two posters agreed with me regarding INT on page 1 of this thread, using my same argument. Your trolling is trivial to expose.

People can compare your opinions to my actual evidence and make their own conclusions. You do not have to keep trolling due to a fear of being wrong.

Getting the correct information to the user is the important part, not who is right or wrong.

People can look at the evidence so far that INT is the best starting stat in the posts below:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3634277&postcount=300

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3635410&postcount=507

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3635462&postcount=513

I encourage people to gather counter-evidence if they feel there is something I am missing.

If you actually believe this you would never post on these forums ever again.

Your bias is clearly showing. Your opinion of me is irrelevant. If you think I am wrong, prove it! You do not simply get to say "I am right and you are wrong because some other posters agree with me". That is an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

[Vexenu]

People can look at the evidence so far that INT is the best starting stat in the posts below:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3634277&postcount=300

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3635410&postcount=507

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3635462&postcount=513


There is NOTHING in any of these posts that makes an actual argument that INT provides an advantage. Your entire argument is that "STR is not really that useful", even though its advantages can be MATHEMATICALLY DEMONSTRATED. In contrast, you cannot even demonstrate a single reasonably plausible scenario in which a well-played SK will benefit from extra INT (you merely offer the vague suggestion that extra mana it may allow for a life-saving FD), much less provide mathematical evidence of the sort that can be furnished in support of STR.

To reiterate:

DSM has yet to articulate a compelling argument or provide any actual evidence for his contention that the added mana from 20 INT confers a meaningful advantage for an Iksar SK. His only points are literally, "You should pump INT because it's harder to cap" and "It could theoretically give you enough extra mana to FD and save your life one day". But neither of these statements are logical arguments for pumping INT over STR:

1) CHA is the hardest stat for an SK to cap, so why not pump it? The answer is obvious: because it doesn't confer enough of an advantage to do so. The same logic applies to INT in this case.

2) Pumping INT just because you might one day get off an extra FD from it makes no sense. Theoretically, a lot of things might happen in EQ. Theoretically, extra STR might also make the narrow difference between life and death in some bizarre, highly improbable scenario. Or extra DEX might give you an Epic proc that saves your life. Or extra STA might give you just enough buffer not to die before a CH lands. Because of this, a theoretical argument for INT is no more valid than a theoretical argument for any other stat, most especially STR.

Why? Because STR is the only stat that provides IRREFUTABLE AND CONCRETE benefits both IN and OUT of combat, as has been exhaustively demonstrated in this thread. Whether the precise value is 4 or 5% added DPS is irrelevant, as is how many extra kills this might generate per hour in your tortured examples. The point is that this benefit exists. It is real. You cannot handwave it away. It is a real benefit that can be objectively proven. Added carry weight is also a real, concrete benefit. There is no argument against it. Carrying more weight provides meaningful value. Everyone who has played EQ understands this intuitively.

In contrast, there remains no way to demonstrate any sort of conclusive value from the extra mana provided by INT. SKs do not EVER dump their mana 100-0 in the way that a Wizard, Druid or Cleric regularly does, or the way that another caster might occasionally have need to do. Good SKs spend most of their active playtime hovering between 25% and 75% mana. They leave enough reserve in the tank to account for any emergencies, while ensuring that they don't waste any mana regen by sitting around at full mana. Because of this, adding extra mana on top of their mana pool provides little in the way of value to begin with, and whatever value it does provide simply cannot be accounted for accurately. It's like if your car holds holds enough gasoline to drive 500 miles without filling up, but you never drive more than 50 miles at a time. In this case, expanding your gas tank makes NO SENSE and provides you zero value. And that goes exactly the same for expanding the SK's mana pool by pumping INT in this scenario.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

There is NOTHING in any of these posts that makes an actual argument that INT provides an advantage. Your entire argument is that "STR is not really that useful", even though its advantages can be MATHEMATICALLY DEMONSTRATED. In contrast, you cannot even demonstrate a single reasonably plausible scenario in which a well-played SK will benefit from extra INT (you merely offer the vague suggestion that extra mana it may allow for a life-saving FD), much less provide mathematical evidence of the sort that can be furnished in support of STR.

To reiterate:

Throwing a tantrum and dismissing counter evidence (the actual definiton of goalpost moving) is not convincing anyone. Nor is simply proclaming your opinions are superior.

You have yet to provide any math of any kind to show the mathematical superiority you speak of when it comes to STR.

[Vexenu]

Throwing a tantrum and dismissing counter evidence (the actual definiton of goalpost moving) is not convincing anyone. Nor is simply proclaming your opinions are superior.

I want you to quote yourself from those threads and paste excerpts where you actually demonstrate an argument IN FAVOR OF INT. You have never been able to do this. You have just been trying to minimize the importance of STR. You have no actual argument in favor of INT. Saying that "STR is overrated" is not the same thing as saying "Here is the evidence that INT is the stat worth pumping instead of any other."

And reminder: Saying that INT should be pumped just because it is harder to cap than STR is NOT an argument. You have to actually demonstrate the value of the added INT, otherwise we might as well be pumping CHA.


You have yet to provide any math of any kind to show the mathematical superiority you speak of when it comes to STR.
Troxx and others have conclusively demonstrated the 4-5% DPS increase. Increased carry weight is self-evidently proven.

[Lune]

This thread is absolutely wild. There's no better example that DSM has no fucking clue what he's talking about most of the time than this thread. Even when presented with concrete, iron clad, granite strong data and facts he refuses to admit he's wrong and instead changes the argument to something else. Instead of INT not being the choice he refuses to admit STR is the better choice and decides to say it would be better to go with a stat that'll be uncapped for longer.

You literally can't make this shit up. I wonder if we could petition the GMs/forum Admins to ban him from the forums. At this point he's causing actual harm to people who might mistakenly take anything he says as good advice.

lol the thought ran through my mind. "this guy is just gonna be a fount of misinformation and I feel for any noob who runs across this shit and doesn't know better"

Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you look at it, it isn't a crime to be systematically wrong on the internet. As to whether trolling unintentionally through the sheer force of your personality could be bannable, I'll leave that one to the elf scotus

Troxx and others have conclusively demonstrated the 4-5% DPS increase. Increased carry weight is self-evidently proven.

The hilarious part is DSM himself is one of those others

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Troxx and others have conclusively demonstrated the 4-5% DPS increase. Increased carry weight is self-evidently proven.

The 4-5% DPS increase was provided exclusively by my data, multiple posts of it lol. Troxx and "other posters" did nothing. You dismiss my data, and then use it. Amazing.

I think this shows you are so willing to try and disprove me, you cannot even bother to read the thread.

I can also show plenty of scenarios using popular camps where the 4-5% DPS boost is providing nothing. No extra kills per hour, no significant amount of extra downtime.

Carry weight is always nice, but you do not need 255 STR on a character to carry everything you need, including FS weapons and coin. You can easily get 170ish STR on an Iksar, and buy WR bags. I've leveled under 200 STR on two melee characters so far just fine.


And reminder: Saying that INT should be pumped just because it is harder to cap than STR is NOT an argument. You have to actually demonstrate the value of the added INT, otherwise we might as well be pumping CHA.


Simply claiming something is not an argument... is not an argument lol. You cannot simply claim anything you disagree with isn't valid. CHA is only situationally useful on an SK since their lulls are undead only. INT is always helping.

[Troxx]

Two posters agreed with me regarding INT on page 1 of this thread,

Before any discussion took place.

[Troxx]

There is NOTHING in any of these posts that makes an actual argument that INT provides an advantage. Your entire argument is that "STR is not really that useful", even though its advantages can be MATHEMATICALLY DEMONSTRATED. In contrast, you cannot even demonstrate a single reasonably plausible scenario in which a well-played SK will benefit from extra INT (you merely offer the vague suggestion that extra mana it may allow for a life-saving FD), much less provide mathematical evidence of the sort that can be furnished in support of STR.

Bingo!

https://media.tenor.com/R0QirnNSE1IAAAAC/hungry-lunch.gif

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Before any discussion took place.

Thanks for admitting your troll failed. It is quite a common occurence. You can't even bother to read the thread.

[Vexenu]

I am still awaiting a positive argument in favor of INT. You continue merely to discount STR.

We get it by now. DSM thinks that STR reaches diminishing returns around 170.

Let's assume that you somehow managed to convince us that STR is overrated (you haven't, but let's assume). You now need to go ahead and convince us to pump INT at creation instead of STA, DEX or even CHA. "Because it's harder to cap" is not an argument. You need to make a logical argument and/or provide evidence that INT provides a tangible return for non-raiding Iksar SK that is at least comparable to that of STR (+4% DPS, additional carrying capacity) STA (extra HP/increased CH buffer) or DEX (more procs).

[Troxx]

You have yet to provide any math...

This from a guy who has, in this thread alone, failed at really basic use of a calculator or understanding how haste affects the math of hits per unit time. It doesn’t matter if we give you math. You don’t understand basic math fairly frequently.

I mean basic math fail on your part happened less than 3-4 hours ago here. I had to say the same god damn thing 7x before you “got it”.

Regardless, it was an honor to educate you and for you to admit it for once.

/boggle

I am still awaiting a positive argument in favor of INT. You continue merely to discount STR.

We all have been for 61 pages. He hasn’t even tried yet.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

This from a guy who has, in this thread alone, failed at really basic use of a calculator or understanding how haste affects the math of hits per unit time. It doesn’t matter if we give you math. You don’t understand basic math fairly frequently.

I mean basic math fail on your part happened less than 3-4 hours ago here. I had to say the same god damn thing 7x before you “got it”.

Regardless, it was an honor to educate you and for you to admit it for once.

/boggle



We all have been for 61 pages. He hasn’t even tried yet.

I am perfectly willing to admit when I make a mistake, unlike yourself. Yet another easy to disprove troll you like to perpetuate.

Feel free to double check my other math if you think I made any more mistakes. Unlike yourself, I provide my work instead of cower behind fallacies.

You are backed into a corner, and now are doing the thing I said you would do. I made one mistake, therefore you claim I cannot be right about anything. Thanks for continuing to show you are just a troll.

[Troxx]

For a SK who’s epic procs a 250 lifetap (50 x 5 ticks) and for an iksar sk who can get greenmist which procs a 240hp lifetap (30 x 8 ticks) there is honestly a better case to be made for 20 dex over 20int. Greenmist even steals 20 str and 4 ac for the duration.

Screw intelligence, if not str then a casual iksar sk would be better skipping intelligence and going for dex instead to maximize self healing.

That’s a lot of healing!

Disclaimer: as a warrior i prioritize dex for threat but acknowledge that even with max dex you’re looking at only 2 procs per minute. 20 dex is but a drop in the bucket but every little bit helps! That piddly 20 dex will do more for a SK than 20int by the metrics we are judging.

I feel bad for kittens.

You are backed into a corner

Hypocrisy.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

"Because it's harder to cap" is not an argument.

This is the core flaw with your thought process. You are falsely claiming that stat caps and statistical distributions of stats on gear are not a valid part of the conversation.

I am not sure how you think I can satisfy you when your basic premises are factually incorrect.

[Lune]

For a SK who’s epic procs a 250 lifetap (50 x 5 ticks) and for an iksar sk who can get greenmist which procs a 240hp lifetap (30 x 8 ticks) there is honestly a better case to be made for 20 dex over 20int. Greenmist even steals 20 str and 4 ac for the duration.

https://i.imgur.com/DOWNpeD.gif

[Crede]

For a SK who’s epic procs a 250 lifetap (50 x 5 ticks) and for an iksar sk who can get greenmist which procs a 240hp lifetap (30 x 8 ticks) there is honestly a better case to be made for 20 dex over 20int. Greenmist even steals 20 str and 4 ac for the duration.

Screw intelligence, if not str then a casual iksar sk would be better skipping intelligence and going for dex instead to maximize self healing.

That’s a lot of healing!

Disclaimer: as a warrior i prioritize dex for threat but acknowledge that even with max dex you’re looking at only 2 procs per minute. 20 dex is but a drop in the bucket but every little bit helps! That piddly 20 dex will do more for a SK than 20int by the metrics we are judging.

I feel bad for kittens.



Hypocrisy.

I said this the first page. Dex for sure on a casual greenmist player. Procs are more important for reducing downtime than some extra str or int

[DeathsSilkyMist]

DEX is also easy to cap with buffs, you can get over 200 from buffs alone.


Int will serve you the best overall imo.

You said that too on the first page.

[Lune]

DEX is also easy to cap with buffs, you can get over 200 from buffs alone.

https://i.imgur.com/tgGbL8D.gif

[Lune]

DEX is also easy to cap with buffs, you can get over 200 from buffs alone.



You said that too on the first page.

I've changed my mind as well. I wouldn't even recommend it for ogres and trolls now; that's the strength of your arguments

Int is just max mana though, and minimally relevant for most SK content where mana regen is the limiter. I'd hesitatingly recommend it for trolls and ogres maybe.

For an iksar, str or stamina is probably going to be more efficacious in the likely massive amount of time between being a fresh, twinked level 1 and actually capping those stats without buffs. Go int though if you're able to cap or close to cap with the gear available.

[Vexenu]

This is the core flaw with your thought process. You are falsely claiming that stat caps and statistical distributions of stats on gear are not a valid part of the conversation.

I am not sure how you think I can satisfy you when your basic premises are factually incorrect.

Let's say you have a 20 gallon gas tank in your car, and yet you spend 95% of your active drive time with the tank filled between 5 and 15 gallons.

That being the case, what practical value would you receive from spending money to upgrade to a 21 gallon tank?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Let's say you have a 20 gallon gas tank in your car, and yet you spend 95% of your active drive time with the tank filled between 5 and 15 gallons.

That being the case, what practical value would you receive from spending money to upgrade to a 21 gallon tank?

Using your analogy, INT is constantly having a 16 gallon tank. STR is having a small 1 gallon attachment to your 15 gallon tank that occasionally falls off.

Would you prefer a 16 gallon tank, or a 15 gallon tank with a 1 gallon attachment that sometimes falls off?

When you are stat capped, you get nothing.

[Troxx]

Using your analogy, INT is constantly having a 16 gallon tank. STR is having a small 1 gallon attachment to your 15 gallon tank that occasionally falls off.

No. It’s like having a 16 gallon tank vs having a car with a 15 gallon tank that gets at least 10% more miles per gallon WHILE hauling a small Uhaul.

Gas is expensive.

I’d rather have 10% better fuel efficiency.

(5% faster kills and 5% less damage taken to recover)

Ps: your analogy fails

[Troxx]

Guys, if we keep responding I promise we can get 400 more pages out of this. DSM’s autism mandates he will never relent.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

(5% faster kills and 5% less damage taken to recover)

Ps: your analogy fails

It doesn't fail, and you keep posting this fabrication that 5% more DPS always results extra in kills per hour, or meaningful decreases in downtime.

Please stop posting this, as it is false. It is trivial to prove you wrong, and I have done it multiple times already.

[zaeo]

str for carrying weight alone while leveling feels really nice. the damage benefit is obviously good too. it'll overcap eventually w/ good gear and shaman buffs at 60 but it helps during the part of the game where you're riding the struggle bus.

int is obviously better in the situations where ur str is capped and getting 1 extra spell off from the last of ur mana pool will be clutch but those situations are a lot less common and normally only happens when u fuck up.

ultimately the difference is really minor either way and your gameplay / who you chose to play with will make way more of a difference than 20 stats. i cannot stress enough how unimportant of a decision ur starting stats are. i dont know how this thread got to 62 pages w/ ppl busting out the source code to prove that having more strength will make u hit harder.

[Vexenu]

i dont know how this thread got to 62 pages w/ ppl busting out the source code to prove that having more strength will make u hit harder.
Welcome to your first DSM thread.

There will undoubtedly be more to come.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

i dont know how this thread got to 62 pages w/ ppl busting out the source code to prove that having more strength will make u hit harder.

Unfortunately posters like Troxx are known trolls, who bloat threads for no reason other than self gratification.

It is a well established pattern by now. Does it help anyone? No, but he doesn't care. The other trolls don't care either.

The only thing I can do is drown their misinformation in facts.

[Keebz]

I stacked strength gear towards the end when leveling my SK. Since I mostly fear kited, I found by spending less time killing each mob, I spent less mana per mob by nature of not needing an extra fear or two. It was a solid efficiency boost. Hybrids historically got kinda boned with accuracy, so the higher ATK doubly helped, though theoretically now SKs should be better in that regard. Nonetheless, STR is very underrated for leveling indeed.

Personally, I think I'd probably dump at least some in STA, given how low Iksar STA is. If OP wasn't a twink, STR would be the move. If you plan on going for BiS INT is a good choice, but that's a pretty big if.

[Toxigen]

If 5% dps doesn't matter for solo, then it doesn't matter in a group (ever had a mob gate on you at less than 5%?), and it certainly doesn't matter in a raid (ever seen sub 5% AoW wipes?).

Get what I'm gettin at yet, DSM?

5% dps is MASSIVE compared to 20 INT lmao.

[Troxx]

Move this to resolved. The correct answer in this situation is str.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If 5% dps doesn't matter for solo, then it doesn't matter in a group (ever had a mob gate on you at less than 5%?), and it certainly doesn't matter in a raid (ever seen sub 5% AoW wipes?).

Get what I'm gettin at yet, DSM?

5% dps is MASSIVE compared to 20 INT lmao.

I think you may have forgotten we are talking about SKs.

SKs don't need to worry about gating mobs, they have fear and snare. This can be used in both solo and group scenarios. Both of these spells use mana (INT), and Iksars do not have access to Blood Ember Clickies. Preventing a mob from gating completely is much more effective than slightly faster kill speeds. If you are doing a solo challenge mob that is immune to fear, that is one of the situations where the INT comes in handy! You are going to be using your full mana bar for that kind of fight, including the +20 INT from starting stats.

In a raid you have full access to buffs, which means you are STR capped anyway. You are getting +135 STR from Maniacal Strength and Focus of Spirit, which means you only need 120 STR before buffs. You simply need +40 STR from your gear on an Iksar SK if you put your starting stats into INT. I would be amazed if a level 60 melee class had less than +40 STR from gear. Please do not try and use the argument that asking for Maniacal strength is some kind of burden on Shamans lol. I have raid buffed for years, and never had an issue with buffing people with DEX and STR in addition to FoS and STA.

You are massively overestimating the small benefits you are getting from +20 STR via starting stats. Please stop telling people they are getting massive gains. This is simply false. I have provided plenty of counter evidence thus far, which you have yet to refute.

[Jimjam]

My only experience is vs Vox. More broadly is the typical group composition and role of raiding SK?

How would the buff window look?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

My only experience is vs Vox. More broadly is the typical group composition and role of raiding SK?

How would the buff window look?

Sorry, I am not 100% sure what you are asking. Can you clarify?

[Toxigen]

Move this to resolved. The correct answer in this situation is str.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

As per usual, Toxigen is unable to counter simple points. I am sorry, but proclaiming you are correct without reason is not a valid debate strategy. It is just sad.

If 5% dps doesn't matter for solo, then it doesn't matter in a group (ever had a mob gate on you at less than 5%?), and it certainly doesn't matter in a raid (ever seen sub 5% AoW wipes?).

Get what I'm gettin at yet, DSM?

5% dps is MASSIVE compared to 20 INT lmao.

I think you may have forgotten we are talking about SKs.

SKs don't need to worry about gating mobs, they have fear and snare. This can be used in both solo and group scenarios. Both of these spells use mana (INT), and Iksars do not have access to Blood Ember Clickies. Preventing a mob from gating completely is much more effective than slightly faster kill speeds. If you are doing a solo challenge mob that is immune to fear, that is one of the situations where the INT comes in handy! You are going to be using your full mana bar for that kind of fight, including the +20 INT from starting stats.

In a raid you have full access to buffs, which means you are STR capped anyway. You are getting +135 STR from Maniacal Strength and Focus of Spirit, which means you only need 120 STR before buffs. You simply need +40 STR from your gear on an Iksar SK if you put your starting stats into INT. I would be amazed if a level 60 melee class had less than +40 STR from gear. Please do not try and use the argument that asking for Maniacal strength is some kind of burden on Shamans lol. I have raid buffed for years, and never had an issue with buffing people with DEX and STR in addition to FoS and STA.

You are massively overestimating the small benefits you are getting from +20 STR via starting stats. Please stop telling people they are getting massive gains. This is simply false. I have provided plenty of counter evidence thus far, which you have yet to refute.

[Jimjam]

Sorry, I am not 100% sure what you are asking. Can you clarify?

Apart from ME/FoS what would a sk be wearing in buff window for typical raids. Will slots be left open for hot/bard/etc.

[Duik]

Jesus Fucking Christ.

[Crede]

The answer is DEX. OP is a filthy casual, hasn't even posted since post #1. Get them greenmist procs, he'll never see the advantage of INT in the endgame.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Apart from ME/FoS what would a sk be wearing in buff window for typical raids. Will slots be left open for hot/bard/etc.

Oh if you are asking about the 15 buff slot limit, I have had plenty of people ask for the full suite, DEX + STR + STA + FoS. Different raid targets require different buffs, so you generally do not need every single good buff on you at all times.

There is no reason to have Poison and Disease Resist buffs on, for example, due to the rarity of mobs that actually use these spells. When fighting one of these rare mobs, the raid will make sure people are appropriately resist buffed first. They will not assume it has been a normal buff you have been asking for, like FoS or STA.

[Troxx]

https://media0.giphy.com/media/l4EoMdGy8fSVAVhXq/200w.gif?cid=790b7611cd35tdviebh3kzezf1o7cz2tvsnoe 83z4vgrkuhu&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g

[DeathsSilkyMist]

https://media0.giphy.com/media/l4EoMdGy8fSVAVhXq/200w.gif?cid=790b7611cd35tdviebh3kzezf1o7cz2tvsnoe 83z4vgrkuhu&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g

Is that from All That? Great show!

[Duik]

It's Preacher Time!
Jesus Fucking Christ.

[Troxx]

1. Potg
2 symbol
3 ac (if tanking)
4. c2
5 haste
6 Divine strength
7 focus
8 stamina
9 CotP
10 instaclick
11 instaclick
12 avatar (spell cast or proc if you have weapon)

That leaves you 3 potential buff spots for bard songs, heal over times, divine intervention, mob dots/debuffs you may suffer from, any recourses from your own spells or self buffs, resist buffs (seasons, magic resist, etc), DMF ….

The list is long for a hybrid tank.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

1. Potg
2 symbol
3 ac (if tanking)
4. c2
5 haste
6 Divine strength
7 focus
8 stamina
9 CotP
10 instaclick
11 instaclick
12 avatar (spell cast or proc if you have weapon)

That leaves you 3 potential buff spots for bard songs, heal over times, divine intervention, mob dots/debuffs you may suffer from, any recourses from your own spells or self buffs, resist buffs (seasons, magic resist, etc), DMF ….

The list is long for a hybrid tank.

Plenty of people have asked me for DEX + STR + STA + FoS, even when i was in top raiding guilds getting most of the server targets. They found room. If you have Avatar and FoS, you are getting 167 STR and 160 DEX, plus saving a buff slot. Iksar SKs start with 80 STR and 85 DEX before starting stats. A level 60 can get 8 STR and 10 DEX from items lol. https://wiki.project1999.com/Silken_Cat-fur_Girdle or https://wiki.project1999.com/Belt_of_the_Great_Turtle would give these stats on a single droppable item.

An Iksar SK who put their starting stats into STR would be overcapped in STR by 12 points naked with Avatar and FoS.

[Jimjam]

Tldr: Screw MS, carry emerald avatar bribes until primal?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Tldr: Screw ME, carry emerald avatar bribes until primal?

That is a great strategy! Avatar is certainly better.

Also, the strength buff is "MS" (Maniacal Strength), not "ME".

[Jimjam]

Whoops. Hilarious typo removed.

[Troxx]

What buffs would you recommend dropping for maniacal str stack with focus as a Sk?

Would you consolidate 3 buffs into one for Aegolsim? Then you lose mana regen from PoTG. For the sake of 20int worth of mana?

Would you skip the ac as a tank? I’d hope not.

Would you drop your instaclick buffs be damned?

The hp from stamina or DS?

Would you skip resist buffs altogether?

Would you fill up your buff bar fully making it impossible to receive a torpor or celestial elixir?

Would you drop the CoP or Avatar? Surely not.

Go without the haste?

Skip the c2 for 20int worth of mana pool?


——————

There are a lot of really important buffs a raiding hybrid will ideally want all the time. All of which are a heck of a lot more important than a tiny bit larger mana pool.

Thankfully on my warrior I can save buff space by using aegolism instead of the triumvirate. I also can skip on the c2. I will stack dex and focus for 255 dex and max procs and thankfully focus alone gets me to 253 str.

———————

Keep on moving the goalposts without providing practical realistic examples of how 25-35 low end mana pool extra vs 80-200 high end mana pool is going to make “the difference”

[DeathsSilkyMist]

What buffs would you recommend dropping for maniacal str stack with focus as a Sk?

Would you consolidate 3 buffs into one for Aegolsim? Then you lose mana regen from PoTG. For the sake of 20int worth of mana?

Would you skip the ac as a tank? I’d hope not.

Would you drop your instaclick buffs be damned?

The hp from stamina or DS?

Would you skip resist buffs altogether?

Would you fill up your buff bar fully making it impossible to receive a torpor or celestial elixir?

Would you drop the CoP or Avatar? Surely not.

Go without the haste?

Skip the c2 for 20int worth of mana pool?


——————

There are a lot of really important buffs a raiding hybrid will ideally want all the time. All of which are a heck of a lot more important than a tiny bit larger mana pool.

Thankfully on my warrior I can save buff space by using aegolism instead of the triumvirate. I also can skip on the c2. I will stack dex and focus for 255 dex and max procs and thankfully focus alone gets me to 253 str.

———————

Keep on moving the goalposts without providing practical realistic examples of how 25-35 low end mana pool extra vs 80-200 high end mana pool is going to make “the difference”

I am not moving any goalposts. You really need to learn what this means. You yourself mentioned FoS and Avatar. Remember? Unless you are suggesting dropping one of those buffs, a naked Iksar is at 247 STR and 245 DEX with those two buffs alone.

As a buffing class, I have had plenty of people ask for STR + STA + DEX + FoS. I've raided in top guilds for years. You can keep trying to claim that people don't take the STR or DEX buff on raids, but it is factually untrue.

[Troxx]

Str/focus stack are only possible when there is a 60
Shaman available. The same is true for avatar unless you have a ST key.


These are not situations a new leveling iksar sk who wants to play around with will have access to at all for most of their time playing eq.

Ps: I do feel like an idiot for putting avatar in the 12 buff example because that alone will cap the str. But even then how many shamans will be putting avatar on the sk when there are much more suitable targets (rogues, monks, rangers, warriors) around in need who would benefit more.

By the time a sk can self buff avatar with a weapon proc, they are no longer relevant to this discussion. They are or are approaching the whole “gonna have BiS gear”

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Str/focus stack are only possible when there is a 60
Shaman available. The same is true for avatar unless you have a ST key.


You do realize you were talking about raid buffing, right? You will almost always have a Shaman available, unless you are a small/casual guild. In the case you are fighting easy targets anyway.

[Toxigen]

It only took 65 pages but we got there boys.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

It only took 65 pages but we got there boys.

I see you still havent addressed these points:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3635815&postcount=628

I can only assume you have conceded. Any other reasons why you think STR is the better starting stat, or do you agree with me now that INT is the best starting stat?

[Troxx]

It only took 65 pages but we got there boys.

Yep. Thread is over.

Move along.

[Toxigen]

CONCEDE YOUR FTE

[DeathsSilkyMist]

CONCEDE YOUR FTE

Thank you for conceding. You are unable to refute my points.

[Troxx]

I’m pretty sure that conceding requires a concession by the party that is conceding. Thus far I have not seen evidence that a concession has been conceded by the conceding party to actually concede.

You need to provide factual evidence to prove that the conceding party has offered a concession.

Or you can concede that no concession has yet occurred.

I await your evidence.

PS: please include your logs

[Toxigen]

Let's get our finest elf lawyers on this, Jimbo.

[Jimjam]

Honestly given the context of the thread I’ve been convinced dex just so OP can proc that greenmist a tiny bit more for those cool casting effects when no enc/bard/shaman to hand for maxing dex.

[Alarria]

I would rather have 20 strength while leveling than 20 intelligence. Extra carry weight and slightly more DPS. Maybe intelligence is good, but I think most everyone here agrees that strength feels better. For the OP, go strength. If you've made it this far that is and didn't decide that a game with people arguing over semantics like this for 66 pages is a waste of time.

[Crede]

Honestly given the context of the thread I’ve been convinced dex just so OP can proc that greenmist a tiny bit more for those cool casting effects when no enc/bard/shaman to hand for maxing dex.

Yah, i went dex with my iksar greenmist sk. You want that proc working 24/7.

[Troxx]

Dexterity is certainly an solid choice under these circumstances. While the proc is rolling it’s a static 6dps and heals 6hps (30/tick). Dex, unlike intelligence, does actually have a meaningful return on investments.

What level can a sk finish this quest?

Given the 8 tick duration, the gains from 20dex would be minimal … but still present. I want to say that around around 100 dex you’re looking at 1 proc per minute. As the proc rate is 2 for main hand at 255, you might have to hit 127.5 dex for a solid 1 proc per minute. Duration is 8 ticks … so you statistically only need a proc per 42 seconds on average to keep it up but the RNG is fickle.

Intelligence though? Nah.

[Troxx]

I’m pretty sure that conceding requires a concession by the party that is conceding. Thus far I have not seen evidence that a concession has been conceded by the conceding party to actually concede.

You need to provide factual evidence to prove that the conceding party has offered a concession.

Or you can concede that no concession has yet occurred.

I await your evidence.

PS: please include your logs

Still waiting on factual evidence to prove that concessions were made by a conceding party.

Please include your logs.

[Vexenu]

+20 STR to smash your keyboard and ensure that you don't waste time replying to DSM threads.
+20 STA to have the endurance required to keep up with DSM threads
+20 DEX to type replies more quickly in DSM threads
+20 INT to come up with stronger arguments in DSM threads
+20 WIS to understand from the get-go that you shouldn't even bother responding to DSM threads
+20 CHA to post better memes and gifs in DSM threads

[Gloomlord]

+20 STR to smash your keyboard and ensure that you don't waste time replying to DSM threads.
+20 STA to have the endurance required to keep up with DSM threads
+20 DEX to type replies more quickly in DSM threads
+20 INT to come up with stronger arguments in DSM threads
+20 WIS to understand from the get-go that you shouldn't even bother responding to DSM threads
+20 CHA to post better memes and gifs in DSM threads

https://media.tenor.com/p54UKZMskZoAAAAd/jonah-jameson-laugh.gif

[Toxigen]

ayyy this thread still? lol

[Lune]

+20 STR to smash your keyboard and ensure that you don't waste time replying to DSM threads.
+20 STA to have the endurance required to keep up with DSM threads
+20 DEX to type replies more quickly in DSM threads
+20 INT to come up with stronger arguments in DSM threads
+20 WIS to understand from the get-go that you shouldn't even bother responding to DSM threads
+20 CHA to post better memes and gifs in DSM threads

lol

DSM is an LLM designed by Satan to argue with people and irritate them on vbulletin boards.