sk starting points

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You said nobody believed him, and I do, which makes your assertion factually incorrect. That's all I'm saying.

Thank you for your advice. I will take it under advisement with as much credence as I think is due.

I am not sure why you think this silly attempt at a "gotcha" is helping the conversation at all. If you agree with Troxx, simply say so!

There is obviously some reason why you think Troxx is correct, other than him simply saying so. For all I know you could agree with him because he disagrees with me. That is a reason, albeit a bad one. However, I am not going to insult you by claiming you are a Troxx yes man. That would be the only way you would agree with him simply because he says so.

Remember, I didn't say "Nobody believes Troxx". I said "Nobody thinks you [Troxx] are correct simply because you say so". There is a difference there. If you agree with Troxx simply because he says so, you are a yes man. A yes man is someone who will agree with someone else just for the sake of it.

[bcbrown]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am not sure why you think this silly attempt at a "gotcha" is helping the conversation at all. If you agree with Troxx, simply say so!

Remember, I didn't say "Nobody believes Troxx". I said "Nobody thinks you [Troxx] are correct simply because you say so". There is a difference there. If you agree with Troxx simply because he says so, you are a yes man. A yes man is someone who will agree with someone else just for the sake of it.

It makes me a little sad that you think I'm just attempting a silly gotcha. I'm trying to make a more fundamental point about your approach to rhetoric. I'm also aware that you find it somewhat frustrating how concise most of my replies are, so here is far more verbiage than this topic deserves.

It's possible I misinterpreted what you wrote. I see two ways to interpret "Nobody thinks you are correct simply because you say so.": 1) emphasizing 'because'; this is accusing Troxx of an appeal to authority, "this is true because I say it is true". I considered and discounted this interpretation because I don't see Troxx making an appeal to authority. If this is what you meant, I'd like to see where you think he is doing that. 2) emphasizing "say"; what you say is insufficient to convince anyone. This is what I assume you meant, because the previous sentence, "Please start providing evidence for your claims.", is discussing the content of his argument. If you had preceded this sentence with something like "You're no credible authority on EQ", I would have been more inclined to the first interpretation.

But yes, I agree with Troxx. Not because of who he is or any authority he has, but because the content of what he says makes sense to me. I find his argument to be reasonable and convincing. I find your argument to be unconvincing. OP mentions "I will have access to all or most of group content gear at level 1"; if you want to convince me, show an Iksar SK magelo with 180-200 strength at that level of gear. Not raid BIS, but "all or most of group content gear". (I'm also curious what the OP would find convincing)

But I think the larger, more fundamental point I'd like to make regards what I would characterize as your preoccupation with "evidence". You're constantly asking for evidence. You frequently mention that your motivation is to put information out there and let the audience make their own decisions. As someone who is far less experienced or knowledgeable than any of y'all, I believe I'm qualified to speak as a representative for the cohort of people you claim to be addressing. Your constant emphasis and demand for "evidence" makes you less credible.

Not all forms of disputes or arguments require evidence. If there is a factual dispute, then obviously evidence is pertinent. But this dispute, like most that you seem to find yourself in, is not factual. It's about which of several mutually exclusive options is better. And better is subjective. As far as I can see, there's three positions one can hold:

• Intelligence is best, because the other relevant stats will be capped easier late-game, and more mana is always better.
• Stamina is best, because an SK's main job is tanking, and it's important to cap stamina/HP as quickly as possible.
• Strength is best, even though it might eventually be overcapped, because late game stats won't make much difference, whereas it will make a measureable difference in quality of life while leveling and uncapped.

Evidence has very little to do with the strength of the argument when everyone is in rough consensus as to the mechanics affected by each of these attributes. It's the quality of the reasoning that matters.

And so this is my unsolicited feedback for you: I find how you structure your arguments to be weak. When you say "no one will be convinced by what you say" to someone I find credible, it makes you less credible. When you demand evidence in a subjective dispute, it makes you less credible.

If I'm the sort of person you're trying to convince, I hope this feedback is helpful. If not, please feel free to disregard it. Either way, I hope you're having a great day.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It makes me a little sad that you think I'm just attempting a silly gotcha. I'm trying to make a more fundamental point about your approach to rhetoric. I'm also aware that you find it somewhat frustrating how concise most of my replies are, so here is far more verbiage than this topic deserves.

It is not that I find concise replies frustrating. They are simply much easier to misinterpret, and it seems I did misinterpret it. All I can see is the text, not the intent. That is why I tend to be verbose in my posts. It reduces the odds of misinterpreting something. I apologize if I misinterpreted what you said.

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It's possible I misinterpreted what you wrote. I see two ways to interpret "Nobody thinks you are correct simply because you say so.": 1) emphasizing 'because'; this is accusing Troxx of an appeal to authority, "this is true because I say it is true". I considered and discounted this interpretation because I don't see Troxx making an appeal to authority. If this is what you meant, I'd like to see where you think he is doing that. 2) emphasizing "say"; what you say is insufficient to convince anyone. This is what I assume you meant, because the previous sentence, "Please start providing evidence for your claims.", is discussing the content of his argument. If you had preceded this sentence with something like "You're no credible authority on EQ", I would have been more inclined to the first interpretation.

I am saying the content of his argument is insufficient to convince people, because he will not provide evidence for his claims. Troxx and other posters keep making the claim the +20 STR will give you a significant boost to DPS. From my years of experience this has not been the case, and I am asking him and others to provide evidence for this claim. I would love to see some data showing this, but nobody seems interested in providing it. This is a factual claim, so it is easy to prove one way or the other. I am not going to simply accept this claim because they say so.

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But yes, I agree with Troxx. Not because of who he is or any authority he has, but because the content of what he says makes sense to me. I find his argument to be reasonable and convincing. I find your argument to be unconvincing. OP mentions "I will have access to all or most of group content gear at level 1"; if you want to convince me, show an Iksar SK magelo with 180-200 strength at that level of gear. Not raid BIS, but "all or most of group content gear". (I'm also curious what the OP would find convincing)

I have no problem with you disagreeing with me. But I will not agree with posters like Troxx who make claims without evidence, and then proclaim that people who disagree with them are 'autistic'. Not only have they provided no evidence, they use bully tactics in an attempt to silence detractors. I would be wary of listening to people like that. Here is the requested Magelo: https://wiki.project1999.com/Magelo_Blue:TestIksarSK - 172 STR with EC gear on a Iksar who put points into INT instead of STR. With Siphon Strength you would be at 182 self buffed.

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But I think the larger, more fundamental point I'd like to make regards what I would characterize as your preoccupation with "evidence". You're constantly asking for evidence. You frequently mention that your motivation is to put information out there and let the audience make their own decisions. As someone who is far less experienced or knowledgeable than any of y'all, I believe I'm qualified to speak as a representative for the cohort of people you claim to be addressing. Your constant emphasis and demand for "evidence" makes you less credible.

Evidence has very little to do with the strength of the argument when everyone is in rough consensus as to the mechanics affected by each of these attributes. It's the quality of the reasoning that matters.

This is incorrect. Video games are built on rules and math. Factual claims such as which starting stat is best can be proven with evidence, and there is a best and worst option statistically speaking.

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not all forms of disputes or arguments require evidence. If there is a factual dispute, then obviously evidence is pertinent. But this dispute, like most that you seem to find yourself in, is not factual. It's about which of several mutually exclusive options is better. And better is subjective. As far as I can see, there's three positions one can hold:

• Intelligence is best, because the other relevant stats will be capped easier late-game, and more mana is always better.
• Stamina is best, because an SK's main job is tanking, and it's important to cap stamina/HP as quickly as possible.
• Strength is best, even though it might eventually be overcapped, because late game stats won't make much difference, whereas it will make a measureable difference in quality of life while leveling and uncapped.

This is a common misunderstanding. Each stat can be the "best" in a specific scenario. Dumping your points into Charisma makes you the "best" at vendor prices and lulling undead. However, I think everyone would agree that this "best" is trivial for a Shadowknight. When most players ask "what is the best starting stat", they want the objective best starting stat. That is the stat that gives most players the most value over the most amount of time.

That stat is INT, and it is easy to prove:
1. INT will help you from levels 9-60, including when you are in BiS gear.
2. STR is easy to get, and you do not need 200+ STR to level to 60. No one has provided anything to show that 20 STR is going to be a significant boon.
3. STA provides less HP than INT will when it comes to lifetaps, and mana is more flexible. You can use it to FD instead, which will save you even more than 50-100 HP. When raiding, 50-100 HP will not save you in most situations. This is easily proven, as raid targets have been taken down with characters that are no where near BiS gear. That means you are hundreds of HP down due to the lack of 100 HP items.
4. When soloing, SK's use mana for fear kiting, especially when they are an Iksar without access to Blood Ember. This is a much more efficient manner of leveling than face tanking the mob. The mana is going to help with fear kiting.
5. If you get down to 100 HP, that is not an issue with your starting stats. That is an issue with skill, strategy, or luck. You shouldn't be getting to that point if you are playing correctly.

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And so this is my unsolicited feedback for you: I find how you structure your arguments to be weak. When you say "no one will be convinced by what you say" to someone I find credible, it makes you less credible. When you demand evidence in a subjective dispute, it makes you less credible.

Now I will provide some unsolicited feedback to you. I am pointing out that Troxx isn't providing evidence for his claims. You can get the data for how much DPS you get from +20 STR, that isn't subjective. He is responding to my posts with gifs and insults. You are calling me less credible than the posters who literally insult/troll people who disagree with them. That makes you sound like a troll, since you are clearly not being consistent with your opinions. I am perfectly fine with accepting criticism and trying to improve myself. But your advise sounds hollow when you give people who use insults and trolling a pass. You completely ignore them. This shows you do not have a very good method for determining credibility. You should work on that first, before advising others.

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I hope you're having a great day.

You too! Have a great day.

[Troxx]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

He is responding to my posts with gifs and insults.

Am not!

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[bcbrown]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am saying the content of his argument is insufficient to convince people, because he will not provide evidence for his claims. [...] This is a factual claim, so it is easy to prove one way or the other. I am not going to simply accept this claim because they say so.

The first sentence in this quote (in the stronger form you used earlier of "nobody is convinced") is what is factually incorrect, as I find it convincing. I don't expect you to accept it, but I do.

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Here is the requested Magelo: https://wiki.project1999.com/Magelo_Blue:TestIksarSK - 172 STR with EC gear on a Iksar who put points into INT instead of STR. With Siphon Strength you would be at 182 self buffed.

Thank you, this is convincing. I'd love to see someone else who favors putting points into strength to come up with a Magelo with similar gear levels.

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is incorrect. Video games are built on rules and math. Factual claims such as which starting stat is best can be proven with evidence, and there is a best and worst option statistically speaking. [...] When most players ask "what is the best starting stat", they want the objective best starting stat. That is the stat that gives most players the most value over the most amount of time.

This is something on which I don't think we will ever see eye to eye. Of course, the mechanics affected by the different attributes are deterministic, implemented through mathematical formulae. But value is subjective. Doesn't your shaman race guide essentially say "Iksar is best for raiding, Troll is best for leveling, Ogre is best if you primarily care about post-Torpor gameplay"?

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That stat is INT, and it is easy to prove:
1. INT will help you from levels 9-60, including when you are in BiS gear.
2. STR is easy to get, and you do not need 200+ STR to level to 60. No one has provided anything to show that 20 STR is going to be a significant boon.

You're setting different bars for strength and int here. You say int "will help", but that 200+ str is "not neccesary", and 20 str is "not significant". 20 str will help. You haven't shown that 20int is "a significant boon".

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are calling me less credible than the posters who literally insult/troll people who disagree with them. That makes you sound like a troll, since you are clearly not being consistent with your opinions. I am perfectly fine with accepting criticism and trying to improve myself. But your advise sounds hollow when you give people who use insults and trolling a pass. You completely ignore them. This shows you do not have a very good method for determining credibility. You should work on that first, before advising others.

I am entirely uninterested in engaging with insults and trolling. Notice that you're the only person I've engaged with in this thread. Yes, I may ignore trolls and insults, but it's not because I'm giving them a pass; it's because I don't think I'll get any sort of a constructive outcome from engaging with that sort of behavior. Maybe you think I'm picking on you, but I'd prefer you take it as a compliment that I think you're worth the effort of talking to you.

[PatChapp]

A mage was testing pets vs the shady swashbuckler. Seems like a good option, always lvl 45 and short respawn timer. No adds zl right there.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Thank you, this is convincing. I'd love to see someone else who favors putting points into strength to come up with a Magelo with similar gear levels.

You're welcome! I would like to see that too.

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is something on which I don't think we will ever see eye to eye. Of course, the mechanics affected by the different attributes are deterministic, implemented through mathematical formulae. But value is subjective. Doesn't your shaman race guide essentially say "Iksar is best for raiding, Troll is best for leveling, Ogre is best if you primarily care about post-Torpor gameplay"?

You're setting different bars for strength and int here. You say int "will help", but that 200+ str is "not neccesary", and 20 str is "not significant". 20 str will help. You haven't shown that 20int is "a significant boon".

I do indeed provide the best situation for each race. There are players who are looking to do something very specific, and they should know if a racial choice will help them out more in that scenario.

I still clearly state that Ogre is the best overall choice for the vast majority of Shamans. Torpor is the best feature of a Shaman, and the goal all Shaman players should be aiming for. FSI works best with Torpor, which means Ogre is overall the best choice. As I state in my guide, if you are 100% convinced you will never reach level 60, Troll is the better racial choice.

However, there are a lot of level 60 Shamans online when you /w all 60 Shaman. If you have been on the server for a number of years, you would notice how popular max level Shamans are. I don't think it is a wise idea to assume you will never hit 60 (and thus use that assumption to dictate your starting race/stats). There are plenty of stories of people who pick up characters they put down at level 40, and bring them up the rest of the way to 60.

The same logic applies to dumping points into STR as your starting stats. I am not saying STR will do nothing. I also mention that STR is a good choice on a self found character, or if it is your first character on a new server. This tends to be the less common scenario, however, due to both servers being at the end of Velious. As far as I know, OP is willing to twink his character, which is the common choice.

For a twinked character, STR is simply not going to be very noticeable, contrary to what everybody has been saying. I have provided evidence for this here https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=105 and https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=138 here. STA and INT will not be very noticeable either, but you will get benefits from them longer than STR, because STR is simply way easier to cap with gear and buffs. With Focus of Spirit and Maniacal Strength you only need 120ish total STR to cap out at 255. With only Maniacal Strength (if you are grouping with a sub 60 Shaman), you only need 187 total STR. As you can see, the Magelo I provided https://wiki.project1999.com/Magelo_Blue:TestIksarSK is already quite close to that number. I've done a lot of soloing over the years, and I can say that a bit of extra STR has not provided me with a significant increase in my kills per hour.

There needs to be a commonly accepted definition for what the "best" is when dealing with these kinds of questions. Otherwise there can never be consensus on any topic, because you can always find a situation in which something is the "best". Putting all your starting stats into AGI will make you the best "avoidance tank", but unfortunately the benefit from that is so small, that nobody would try and argue that it is the overall "best" choice.

The commonly accepted definition for what the "best" is should be the choice that benefits the most players, regardless of their intentions when playing the game. This advise will serve the most people. If someone is an advanced player, and looking for something more specific, a more technical discussion can be had. If someone wants to make a Magelo Shaman, who's primary purpose is to be a DKP dump for their thousands of unspent DKP, Iksar is the best choice for that. Most players don't have the luxury of having too much DKP to spend, however, so I wouldn't give this advise normally.

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am entirely uninterested in engaging with insults and trolling. Notice that you're the only person I've engaged with in this thread. Yes, I may ignore trolls and insults, but it's not because I'm giving them a pass; it's because I don't think I'll get any sort of a constructive outcome from engaging with that sort of behavior. Maybe you think I'm picking on you, but I'd prefer you take it as a compliment that I think you're worth the effort of talking to you.

I appreciate you have made your intentions clear, and have denounced the trolls. Thank you for that, and I apologize if I insulted you.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by bcbrown [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It makes me a little sad that you think I'm just attempting a silly gotcha. I'm trying to make a more fundamental point about your approach to rhetoric. I'm also aware that you find it somewhat frustrating how concise most of my replies are, so here is far more verbiage than this topic deserves.

It's possible I misinterpreted what you wrote. I see two ways to interpret "Nobody thinks you are correct simply because you say so.": 1) emphasizing 'because'; this is accusing Troxx of an appeal to authority, "this is true because I say it is true". I considered and discounted this interpretation because I don't see Troxx making an appeal to authority. If this is what you meant, I'd like to see where you think he is doing that. 2) emphasizing "say"; what you say is insufficient to convince anyone. This is what I assume you meant, because the previous sentence, "Please start providing evidence for your claims.", is discussing the content of his argument. If you had preceded this sentence with something like "You're no credible authority on EQ", I would have been more inclined to the first interpretation.

But yes, I agree with Troxx. Not because of who he is or any authority he has, but because the content of what he says makes sense to me. I find his argument to be reasonable and convincing. I find your argument to be unconvincing. OP mentions "I will have access to all or most of group content gear at level 1"; if you want to convince me, show an Iksar SK magelo with 180-200 strength at that level of gear. Not raid BIS, but "all or most of group content gear". (I'm also curious what the OP would find convincing)

But I think the larger, more fundamental point I'd like to make regards what I would characterize as your preoccupation with "evidence". You're constantly asking for evidence. You frequently mention that your motivation is to put information out there and let the audience make their own decisions. As someone who is far less experienced or knowledgeable than any of y'all, I believe I'm qualified to speak as a representative for the cohort of people you claim to be addressing. Your constant emphasis and demand for "evidence" makes you less credible.

Not all forms of disputes or arguments require evidence. If there is a factual dispute, then obviously evidence is pertinent. But this dispute, like most that you seem to find yourself in, is not factual. It's about which of several mutually exclusive options is better. And better is subjective. As far as I can see, there's three positions one can hold:

• Intelligence is best, because the other relevant stats will be capped easier late-game, and more mana is always better.
• Stamina is best, because an SK's main job is tanking, and it's important to cap stamina/HP as quickly as possible.
• Strength is best, even though it might eventually be overcapped, because late game stats won't make much difference, whereas it will make a measureable difference in quality of life while leveling and uncapped.

Evidence has very little to do with the strength of the argument when everyone is in rough consensus as to the mechanics affected by each of these attributes. It's the quality of the reasoning that matters.

And so this is my unsolicited feedback for you: I find how you structure your arguments to be weak. When you say "no one will be convinced by what you say" to someone I find credible, it makes you less credible. When you demand evidence in a subjective dispute, it makes you less credible.

If I'm the sort of person you're trying to convince, I hope this feedback is helpful. If not, please feel free to disregard it. Either way, I hope you're having a great day.

What a great post and I respect the kindness.

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is incorrect. Video games are built on rules and math. Factual claims such as which starting stat is best can be proven with evidence, and there is a best and worst option statistically speaking.

Dude do you not understand that you haven't provided any useful math? That is why people are accusing you of napkin math, because you are completely missing the full picture logically.

Yes, x INT will translate to x mana, which will translate to x HP with lifetaps. Now calculate the relative DPS burden of spending that time casting and not attacking, and then compare that to the amount of HP saved by the increased DPS, killing the mob more quickly and decreasing the damage it does to you by some amount. This is what I mean when I say you are drawing the wrong conclusions from your "facts". Most of us are extremely experienced with EQ and have a good deal of instinct when it comes to the game mechanics. I don't have to calculate the average weight of a fine steel weapon x the # of slots in an inventory of Shralok Packs to tell you any nerd is going to be encumbered because it has happened to me on characters.

(Although the answer is 6.55 average x 50 slots (to generously allot 16 slots for food and other items across 8, 8 slot shralok packs) = 327.5 - 25% WR = 245.6 weight, or an encumbered OGRE in raiding gear... not including worn equipment. I banged it out because I can't resist dunking on someone who doesn't reason in good faith. Even just 20 weapons in Shraloks would weigh 100, which coupled with worn gear is going to encumber most iksar. Hope there's a vendor nearby. Oh wait, you're iksar).

Just like I can tell you most knights never make it to 60, much less to full BiS gear (not just from personal experience, but from statistics someone gathered on the matter), because they are pretty weak classes for most applications at high levels and can be frustrating to play. And that's aside from the poor comparative utility of INT / max mana which I'm done repeating.

You don't have to provide actual numbers to know killing a mob faster is going to be more useful than having a slightly larger mana pool under 90% of circumstances when leveling. Want to prove that wisdom wrong? Good, provide actual math.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Dude do you not understand that you haven't provided any useful math? That is why people are accusing you of napkin math, because you are completely missing the full picture logically.

Yes, x INT will translate to x mana, which will translate to x HP with lifetaps. Now calculate the relative burden of spending that time casting and not attacking, and then compare that to the amount of HP saved by the increased DPS, killing the mob more quickly and decreasing the damage it does to you by some amount. This is what I mean when I say you are drawing the wrong conclusions from your "facts". Most of us are extremely experienced with EQ and have a good deal of instinct when it comes to the game mechanics.

You do not seem to be very experienced in P99's game mechanics if you think there is a burden to casting a single life tap spell on a mob that is feared or running at low life. Max mana/hp is only used once, and will not be replenished until you meditate back to full hp and mana. You are only getting enough mana for 1-2 good life taps with the +20 INT, depending on your level.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't have to calculate the average weight of a fine steel weapon x the # of slots in an inventory of Shralok Packs to tell you any nerd is going to be encumbered because it has happened to me on characters.

(Although the answer is 6.55 average x 50 slots (to generously allot 16 slots for food and other items across 8, 8 slot shralok packs) = 327.5 - 25% WR = 245.6 weight, or an encumbered OGRE in raiding gear... not including worn equipment. I banged it out because I can't resist dunking on someone who doesn't reason in good faith).

I have also lugged around plenty of FS weapons. You are not doing the math correctly, probably because you are too eager to "dunk" on people, instead of having a civil conversation. I think you missed my post where I mentioned other cheap WR bags.

Let's use your 6.5 stone average per FS weapon:

1. Evil Eye Bag is 70% WR. 8 slots would weigh (8 x 6.5) x 0.3 = 15.6 + 3 (bag weight) = 18.6 stone
2. Light Burlap Sack is 65% WR. 8 slots would weigh (8 x 6.5) x 0.35 = 18.2 + 3 (bag weight) = 21.2 stone
3. Large Soiled Bag (for Bandages, food, etc) weighs 1 stone total for the next 10 slots.
5. Shralok Pack is 25% WR. 8 slots would weigh (8 x 6.5) x 0.75 = 39 + 0.4 (bag weight) = 39.4 stone x 5 = 197 stone.

Total = 237.8 stone. You could further reduce the weight with a few other cheap/easy to get bags like https://wiki.project1999.com/Box_of_Nil_Space and https://wiki.project1999.com/Wenglawks_Manly_Purse .

The nice thing about having high STR is you can carry a lot more weight over capacity before you slow down. The formula is based on how much weight you are over capacity compared to your STR. That is why it is easier to slow down on a character with low STR. A character with 60 STR is already 50% over their max carry capacity at 90/60 stone. To get to 50% over capacity with 180 STR, you would need to be carrying 270 stone. https://wiki.project1999.com/Magelo_Blue:TestIksarSK - This magelo I made has an Iksar SK with 182 STR with Siphon Strength. They have 66 stone worth of equipment, so they would go up to 303 stone. They wouldn't be able to carry 7 bags worth of FS, but they could carry 5-6. Personally I usually have 3+ bags of gear. I never have 7 fully open bags for vendor loot. SK's need bandages, food, water, jaspers, bone chips, and keys at minimum. This isn't even including resistance gear.

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Just like I can tell you most knights never make it to 60, much less to full BiS gear (not just from personal experience, but from statistics someone gathered on the matter), because they are pretty weak classes for most applications and can be frustrating to play. And that's aside from the poor comparative utility of INT / max mana which I'm done repeating.

You don't have to provide actual numbers to know killing a mob faster is going to be more useful than having a slightly larger mana pool under 90% of circumstances when leveling. Want to prove that wisdom wrong? Good, provide actual math.

You do need to provide actual numbers when making claims about numbers. If the extra STR doesn't provide enough DPS to kill mobs fast enough to matter, then your whole argument falls flat.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

5. Shralok Pack is 25% WR. 8 slots would weigh (8 x 6.5) x 0.75 = 39 + 0.4 (bag weight) = 39.4 stone x 5 = 197 stone.

I did do the math correctly; I generously omitted the (.4) weight of the bag because it isn't necessary to prove the point.

Also your fucking SK is wearing all strength gear lol, way to prove my point (much of it iksar can't even wear)... that's the only way you're going to get an iksar SK to carry that much without encumbrance while leveling, especially if you allocate to INT.