When we say the word "
napkin math " it is because we are straying from known values and hard collected real world data. Napkin math is, by nature, extrapolative and starts to become theoretical. The basic value of 'napkin math' comes from the fact that it is grounded in observational data ... but you have to be cautious assuming that just because something was observed once (or twice or however many times) that it will mathematically carry over to all situations.
Heck, the above situation is the PERFECT example.
https://wiki.project1999.com/Corudoth
That's a
LEVEL 5 turtle with 200k hp. You have collected data sets that imply that offensive parses on this level 5 turtle are very shockingly similar to an XP group (relatively high level) xp mob in Frontier Mountains. Those fights happened. You have the numbers. You even video taped it (why you insist on doing this is beyond me - I do not recall anyone ever asking for video evidence). I will agree that the parses are similar enough that I am comfortable using "napkin math" to then infer that dps done vs Corudoth with a particular setup will be similarly ... VERY SIMILAR to what you might expect off that giant in FM.
Where napkin math runs into problems is if you blindly assume that the same proportionality exists between Corudoth and ... Vindi, Avatar of War, Kael arena mobs (notoriously high ac for their level) etc etc.
There is value in napkin math. But when napkin math is used improperly you're going to get stupid irrelevant results. This was the problem with you using napkin math of you soloing a damn level 40 frog in seb. You solo'd a level 40 frog in seb using dots. You did actually do that amount of dps to that mob between you and your pet. That was fact. You had the logs. You had the videos. YOU DID A THING. You and your pet did enough damage in a unit of time that you knew you had done XYZ dps. You then said "hey shamans can be expected to do XYZ dps all the time and in all circumstances" ... and we were like ... 'uh no, that's not how it works'. The conversation was regarding who was going to be the best 4th in a group that already had a cleric and 2 charming enchanters. Mobs would be dying quickly. Those spells aren't exactly quick to cast and you were not actually going to average the same thing in a fast 20 second or less fight that you had the luxury of doing when it was just you (and only you and your pet) with the full hp bar of the mob to play with. Necromancers feel this pain as well. Dots in this era are just not very cool for xp groups where mobs die pretty quickly.
"Napkin math" is hugely problematic when it is divorced from reality and the person using it is to hyper-focused on the napkin math results to step back and think clearly.
This has been a consistent problem for you DSM. I am not making fun of, mocking, or trying to disparage you right now DSM. For once I actually am not. I am trying to give you honest feedback. This is a problem for you. Whether you have the clarity of mind to see/acknowledge this and have some personal growth ... whether you just get angsty/pissy and double down ... well that is up to you.
"Napkin math" is math. IT IS MATH. But it is math that takes a known set of variables and from there makes attempts to extrapolate and theorize - to predict outcomes in other situations. It is a wonderful thing. This phenomenon (whether we are using math at all) is one of the things we as humans can do that separates us from lower organisms. Other members of the animal kingdom do it too to varying degrees but we humans do it best.
So napkin math. Maybe this works out. Maybe it does not. In the case of weapon performance in project 99 on a level 20 or a level 5 green mob with low ac vs weapon performance on a level 70+ with very high ac? No. You have to understand actual game mechanics and understand the breakpoints.