SK Race Choice

[bcbrown]

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

My issue is when people hold their anecdotal “evidence” too proudly. In all my EQ years I’ve only seen a few examples of what appears a professional statistician fixating on a video game and doing research. My own testing is useful (for me) but less reliable, I NEVER indicate it’s the law due to short sampling and less the perfect testing. I probably have 500+ Vindi parses currently in my logs. I can draw some conclusions but I haven’t confined variables and ran a parse on him for like 1,000 hours. My data curve is still wobbly.

By no means am I a professional statistician, but I have worked with plenty. High quality statistical testing requires, at a minimum:

An explicit mental model of the world, with all assumptions stated clearly. You need to be able to articulate your understanding of the world before you can know whether your results indicate an improvement of that understanding.

An explicit hypothesis. You need to know what you are looking for in your experiment. Ad-hoc exploratory data gathering can be useful in trying to formulate a hypthothesis, but that exploratory data will not be useful in determining whether a hypothesis is confirmed or rejected.

An experiment design. You need to know ahead of time what data you wish to gather, how to gather it, and when to stop the experiment. An example of a flawed experiment would be trying to show that a certain gear combo causes a certain DPS increase, and then stopping your parse as soon as you show that DPS increase.

Sanity-checking the resulting data to confirm your assumptions have been met. If not, then your understanding of the world is flawed and your data unusable. You need to first run a different experiment to find and fix the flaws in your assumptions.

Run a well-defined, repeatable analysis. You need to know ahead of time what metrics you wish to calculate. You should also do some sort of calculation of statistical confidence, whether frequentist or Bayesian.

Scientific integrity. You need to publish your results whether or not they support your hypothesis. If the results violate some of your assumptions, you cannot rely on the results of any data analysis.

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

I once completed a successful high end group without my pants equipped on my warrior. This is a game and games are based on rules and math. My pants were not needed to successfully win these encounters.

I therefore assert that pants are not needed and thus do not need to be worn.

Time for us all to play commando guys!

This is a lovely comment when combined with the image in your signature. Horseriding while commando, though, whew. I pity the saddle.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

We've said pretty much everything to him that can be said. A normal troll would have bowed out by now, but this is merely some psychosis he's going through at the moment.

I kind of want him to just leave the forums now. All he does is give stupid advice and call you a troll when you get fed up with him.

This is your problem. You want people you disagree with to stop talking. Shutting down conversation is not how you prove you are correct. This is why you are a troll. You think that trolling is the method by which you can shut down the conversation.

It doesn't work. Prove you are correct with logic, evidence, and reason.

You can choose to stop trolling and start trying to prove me wrong at any time.

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

...

You also cannot simply dismiss all data out of hand, and assume an opinion is a stronger piece of evidence. This is done frequently by the trolls. Understanding that data may be flawed or incomplete is not a reason to assume it always must be. If you want to show that someone's data is flawed, you need to do more than simple trolling.

It is simply an excuse to always proclaim "You do not have a large enough sample size, therefore all evidence gathered thus far is meaningless". I am not saying you said that, but other posters basically do this. This is a tactic used to try and make all opinions equal. When all opinions are equal, nobody is correct. When nobody is correct, there cannot be a consensus.

[Troxx]

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

This is a lovely comment when combined with the image in your signature. Horseriding while commando, though, whew. I pity the saddle.

Pity the horse?

Consider this:

As you repeatedly ride your warhorse into battle (bareback), all those oils and taint juices cover your steeds back in a film that hardens into a protective shell. Given enough time, these layers of ‘coating resins’ build up to provide a thick, lustrous all natural armor.

Every horse should be so lucky!

Ps: skip the saddle

[bcbrown]

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

Every horse should be so lucky!

Tally-ho!

[Troxx]

I once completed a successful high end group without my pants equipped on my warrior. This is a game and games are based on rules and math. My pants were not needed to successfully win these encounters.

I therefore assert that pants are not needed and thus do not need to be worn.

Time for us all to play commando guys!

[Toxigen]

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

I once completed a successful high end group without my pants equipped on my warrior. !

There was this one particular warrior in Riot who used to tank shirtless on the regular. Pretty sure he did Vulak once w/ no BP.

He was a good elf.

[Snaggles]

This is a game where a couple extra tinfoil hats make up the stat loss from no-pants.

[Duik]

A group full of barbarian shaman sans pets is also without pants.

[Gloomlord]

I have a feeling, from what you've just said, Snaggles, is that DSM is just a contrarian troll.

Even a person who is relatively new to EQ will quickly discover the pointlessness of increasing the SK mana pool. Yet here we get DSM again, coincidentally making a point noone agrees with.

This is the same person who thinks shaman is a better fit for a 4 man caster group with 2 charms than a magician. He then proclaims that groups will allow root rotting in a charm group, just to prove the point that shamans are indeed a more worthwhile candidate for this group.

Almost noone will disagree with you about what you said about regen and shamans, but DSM is kicking up a massive fuss about this. If it were this thread alone, I'd be giving him the benefit of the doubt, but he's squandered all trust we might have had for him now.

[Gloomlord]

You literally say things like "I do not put you on ignore because you can redeem yourself", and you do not think this is the pinnacle of arrogance and self-righteousness?

I actually think that's worse than saying we're all idiots, and derive pleasure out of our frustration.