Project 1999 - Enchanter Race Question

Project 1999 (/forums/index.php)

- Casters (/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=66)

- - Enchanter Race Question (/forums/showthread.php?t=201078)

gnome is best choice, any other suggestion is probably from ppl who dont know what they are talking about or who are just intentionally trying to mislead you ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raev (Post 1972303)

my work showing maybe 10% after massaging the data

Every post you've made in this thread is arguing semantics about the soft cap, and you keep linking your unscientific data to make yourself seem important. I think the discussion about race is over, and your message is clearly flawed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samoht (Post 1972068)

Maybe you should try a sample size more than 36. For it to be truly scientific, I would recommend something in the millions.

Why do you keep posting?

Alarti, you are like a textbook on how to argue an incorrect position. Embarrassed on your ad hominem 'poisoning the well claim'? No matter, deflect again. Destroyed on the evidence regarding the charisma softcap? No matter, claim your opponent is self-centered. Hint: Data is not 'scientific' or 'unscientific' because of its quantity. You simply have a greater or lesser confidence in the results.

Why do I keep posting? Because I find it amusing to grind your pathetic ego into the dust. You're an anonymous troll who contributes nothing. At least Tiggles is funny. But yes, I am getting a bit bored. I know exactly what you are going to post next, and I'm going to smack that down, and then I'm going to be done!

Your own data showed that 200 was more reliable than 255, and rather than extend your test like any good researcher would do, you just threw out a portion of your tests at 200. It wasn't thorough enough then, it's not thorough enough now. I'm calling you out.

Your tangents haven't changed a thing, though. Neither have your personal attacks. 255 is still the desired amount of CHA, and 200 is still the soft cap because that's the amount it takes to reach 255 with buffs, in spite of any proven or unproven demolishing returns.

Quit trying to derail the topic to make yourself seem important.

Did you really just spend 3 hours hammering refresh? Rhetorical.

And predictable. And no, I didn't throw out any data, because I reported it all. If I don't feel like doing more tests, that's my prerogative. An anonymous troll who has contributed nothing 'calling me out' is pure silliness. And since you don't like my analysis of the data, then the best we have is the raw data, which simply does not support your conclusions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samoht

Quit trying to derail the topic to make yourself seem important.

This is a textbook description of every post you have ever made on this forum. You want a callout? Do the experiment you are proposing. I'd be curious to see the results.

And now, as promised, I'm done. I'll let you have the last word, because everyone at this point already knows you're full of shit.

Well, since you want to keep arguing your tangent, I'll be happy to continue embarrassing you by debunking your so-called results.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raev (Post 1972773)

no, I didn't throw out any data

You admitted to... what word did you use? Massage? Massaging the data.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splorf22 (Post 797650)

Loraen, L60/255 cha, L53 Ilis w/tash x10: average 118 seconds
Loraen, L60/200 cha, L53 Ilis w/tash x10: average 139 seconds (1 outlier, without 109 seconds)

Let's just stick with the important parts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splorf22 (Post 797650)

199

[Thu Dec 27 17:12:26 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 2:46 166
[Thu Dec 27 17:15:12 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.
[Thu Dec 27 17:47:34 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 1:22 82
[Thu Dec 27 17:48:56 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.
[Thu Dec 27 17:49:30 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 0:34 34
[Thu Dec 27 17:51:38 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.
[Thu Dec 27 17:52:02 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 1:18 78
[Thu Dec 27 17:53:20 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.
[Thu Dec 27 17:53:37 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 0:07 7
[Thu Dec 27 17:53:44 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.
[Thu Dec 27 17:54:12 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 0:33 33
[Thu Dec 27 17:54:45 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.
[Thu Dec 27 17:54:58 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 0:11 11
[Thu Dec 27 17:55:09 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.
[Thu Dec 27 17:55:29 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 7:11 431
[Thu Dec 27 18:02:40 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.
[Thu Dec 27 18:03:01 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 3:39 219
[Thu Dec 27 18:06:40 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.
[Thu Dec 27 18:07:23 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 3:48 228
[Thu Dec 27 18:11:11 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.
[Thu Dec 27 18:11:23 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 4:01 241
[Thu Dec 27 18:15:24 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.

Wait, is that 11 iterations or 10? Your math says that an average of 10 iterations gave gave a time of 139 seconds. If you removed the top, you got an average time of 109 over 10 tests. Maybe you meant to remove outliers from both the top and the bottom. You would have gotten an average time of 121 seconds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splorf22 (Post 797650)

255

[Thu Dec 27 16:44:29 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 1:11 71
[Thu Dec 27 16:45:38 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.
[Thu Dec 27 16:45:54 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 3:38 218
[Thu Dec 27 16:49:32 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.
[Thu Dec 27 16:49:58 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 1:16 76
[Thu Dec 27 16:51:14 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.
[Thu Dec 27 16:51:37 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 2:02 122
[Thu Dec 27 16:53:39 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.
[Thu Dec 27 16:54:07 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 3:50 230
[Thu Dec 27 16:57:57 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.
[Thu Dec 27 16:58:31 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 0:57 57
[Thu Dec 27 16:59:28 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.
[Thu Dec 27 16:59:40 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 0:36 36
[Thu Dec 27 17:00:16 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.
[Thu Dec 27 17:01:58 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 1:42 102
[Thu Dec 27 17:02:04 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.
[Thu Dec 27 17:02:06 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 2:59 179
[Thu Dec 27 17:05:05 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.
[Thu Dec 27 17:05:30 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 0:25 25
[Thu Dec 27 17:08:53 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.
[Thu Dec 27 17:09:04 2012] You begin casting Boltran`s Agacerie. 3:08 188
[Thu Dec 27 17:12:12 2012] Your Boltran`s Agacerie spell has worn off.

Once again, see 11 tests listed, so I will assume that your average was from 11 tests and not 10. If you had thrown out the top time to match the change you made to the results of the 199 test, and done the average with 10 results, the time would have been 107 seconds. That's actually 2 seconds shorter than the time you used for the 199 CHA. Removing the results from both extremes would have given you an average time of 116 seconds, which is 5 seconds shorter than the 199 tests.

What results can be inferred from these tests? None. The sample size is simply too small for anybody with even the smallest education to rely on. On top of that, you mishandled the data. You treated the results from the 199 tests different from the results from the 255 test. In your results, you used 21 tests and a strange way to remove what you deemed outliers. The real method to remove outliers only left us with 18 tests.

At any rate, it's insignificant. Your tests were done two and a half years ago, and a lot of things have changed since then. They are no longer relevant, no matter how hard you're trying to hang onto them.

But even if your proposed 10% longer duration was true between 200 and 255 CHA in spite of the alleged diminishing returns, people are still going to aim for 255 CHA. And what is the easiest way to get 255 CHA without going over? Gearing for 200 CHA and getting a 55 CHA buff from a shaman (or 205 + 50 self-buff).

And that, my friends, is why 200 is the soft cap.

Now, to explain why your other posts are poisoning the well, by calling the soft-cap 200, you're saying that people should aim for 200 CHA with self-buffs included. Your reasoning? Since you don't reach 200 CHA unbuffed, they shouldn't, either. Your own shortcomings are showing bias, and thus any reasoning that they should aim for less than 200 unbuffed CHA is by definition poisoning the well.

All the other stats have "soft caps", I personally think it's pretty safe to assume that charisma operates in approximately the same manner. Everyone I know other than the current argument pretty much takes it for granted that it's a soft cap (ie, you still gain a benefit up to 255, it's just less benefit per point).

IMO an enchanter should have OVER 200 charisma while buffed. I prefer to operate at about 225 cha, 255 int in addition to wearing a fair amount of +mana and hp gear. I'm an erudite with raid gear but nothing uber. I can do all that as an erudite but it if I was a high elf I could drop a couple cha items for more hp.

If I'm buffing a raid, I need the big mana pool to cast VoG , C2, Enlightenment, and coming in velious Gift of Brilliance on even 1/3 of the raid if there are 3 chanters without making the raid wait or resorting to clicky haste.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Samoht (Post 1972827)

Well, since you want to keep arguing your tangent, I'll be happy to continue embarrassing you by debunking your so-called results.

You admitted to... what word did you use? Massage? Massaging the data.

Let's just stick with the important parts.

Wait, is that 11 iterations or 10? Your math says that an average of 10 iterations gave gave a time of 139 seconds. If you removed the top, you got an average time of 109 over 10 tests. Maybe you meant to remove outliers from both the top and the bottom. You would have gotten an average time of 121 seconds.

Once again, see 11 tests listed, so I will assume that your average was from 11 tests and not 10. If you had thrown out the top time to match the change you made to the results of the 199 test, and done the average with 10 results, the time would have been 107 seconds. That's actually 2 seconds shorter than the time you used for the 199 CHA. Removing the results from both extremes would have given you an average time of 116 seconds, which is 5 seconds shorter than the 199 tests.

What results can be inferred from these tests? None. The sample size is simply too small for anybody with even the smallest education to rely on. On top of that, you mishandled the data. You treated the results from the 199 tests different from the results from the 255 test. In your results, you used 21 tests and a strange way to remove what you deemed outliers. The real method to remove outliers only left us with 18 tests.

At any rate, it's insignificant. Your tests were done two and a half years ago, and a lot of things have changed since then. They are no longer relevant, no matter how hard you're trying to hang onto them.

But even if your proposed 10% longer duration was true between 200 and 255 CHA in spite of the alleged diminishing returns, people are still going to aim for 255 CHA. And what is the easiest way to get 255 CHA without going over? Gearing for 200 CHA and getting a 55 CHA buff from a shaman (or 205 + 50 self-buff).

And that, my friends, is why 200 is the soft cap.

Now, to explain why your other posts are poisoning the well, by calling the soft-cap 200, you're saying that people should aim for 200 CHA with self-buffs included. Your reasoning? Since you don't reach 200 CHA unbuffed, they shouldn't, either. Your own shortcomings are showing bias, and thus any reasoning that they should aim for less than 200 unbuffed CHA is by definition poisoning the well.

Jesus Christ bro

Should in this case we gear the ench for cha levels to het to 255 with our self nuffs, decreasing cha as we gain new cha buffs and adding Hp items or int gear as the slots open up?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Norathorr (Post 1973227)

Should in this case we gear the ench for cha levels to het to 255 with our self nuffs, decreasing cha as we gain new cha buffs and adding Hp items or int gear as the slots open up?

I think it would be fairly difficult to get 255 charisma without planar gear and decent self buffs. http://wiki.project1999.com/Magelo_B...erGuideClassic is a cha-build gnome with charisma oriented gear and still only hits 173 unbuffed; you could get +20 from being a full-cha high elf, 8 from Loam Shoes (a good idea if you can afford them), and +14 from charisma rings (dubious imo since 110 HP is so huge at lower levels). That would be 215 if I am doing my math correctly, so you still wouldn't cap without the L49 self buff. Maybe you could find another slot or two and cap at L34 instead.