Quote:
Originally Posted by bcbrown
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
This is so important. You need to already have a hypothesis to answer and an expectation on what you'll find - coupled to a an openness to being surprised. If you find a flaw in your methodology you need to use new data with the corrected methodology - or else you'll end up p-hacking your way to erroneous conclusions.
|
Yep. Unfortunately this is one of DSM’s biggest weaknesses. Napkin math does not always translate to reality. You can’t solo one frog on a level 60 shaman - tabulate those numbers from that specific fight and then assume you could replicate that in a fast paced xp group with multiple charm pets with a kill time of <20 seconds. That other F’n thread went on for hundreds of pages (of the nearly 600 total pages) in large part due to that.
You don’t just go do one parse (of any length) against one single mob and then try to make assumptions that applies verbatim to the whole game.
… but the more you do it the better you globally come to understand the game.
I have always enjoyed applying the scientific method to my addiction of choice (EQ). I genuinely find satisfaction in it - that’s why I parse things literally any time I’m on with a heads up display. I don’t often do the deep dive but it does give you a good general awareness.
Most common theme I see? People have no idea how much damage they actually do. Most people severely overestimate what they or some classes can do.