Quote:
Originally Posted by bcbrown
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The game content is too easy; that's why we all agree that starting point allocations have minimal impact. There's things like solo artist challenges or low-man raids, but that's only relevant within those subsets of the larger game content.
|
This is correct. That is why it is best to put your starting stats into the statistically best option, because it isn't going to matter much anyway. If you agree that we can statistically discover which champions are better or worse in LoL, you will agree the same can be done in EQ. There is nothing special about EQ's code and equations that make it impossible to apply statistics to things like starting stats.
I think the problem is people have an inflated concept of what "best" means. I think they assume it means "so much better you will regret everything else". I am not saying that. INT is simply the best choice in a set of options that are ultimately not going to impact your character in a significant way. This is backed up by statistical evidence.
There is nothing wrong with saying:
1. INT is the best choice statistically.
2. You can pick any other stat, and you will not have noticeable issues with your character.
3. Other stats have benefits, which are as follows...
The best solution is to give people the facts, and trust them to make the right decisions. I see no benefit in basically saying "everything is subjective, therefore it doesn't matter". Not only is this a false statement, but it hurts the players who enjoy min/maxing. Players who do not enjoy min/maxing will not be hurt by the facts. It is a win/win to supply the best information possible.