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.

[Troxx]

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

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

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

Thank you for continuing to prove you are a nothing but a troll.

Please stop posting off-topic nonsense. If you think you are correct, you need to bring more than bad gifs.

[Troxx]

Oh I consistently have thoughtful input ripe with insight. My opinions, complete with supporting rationale, have been shared already. You have also shared yours. Repeating the same thing dozens of times does not add value.

I learned a long time ago that trying to argue and reason with you (specifically you) is pointless and only results in 400+ page-long threads of autistic sputtering.

GIFs are a far better approach.

Tally ho!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Oh I consistently have thoughtful input ripe with insight. My opinions, complete with supporting rationale, have been shared already. You have also shared yours. Repeating the same thing dozens of times does not add value.

I learned a long time ago that trying to argue and reason with you (specifically you) is pointless and only results in 400+ page-long threads of autistic sputtering.

GIFs are a far better approach.

Tally ho!

In other words: "Anybody who disagrees with me is 'autistic'. I am articulate by my own admission, and my gif posting is proof of that. When I re-post my opinion dozens of times, that is OK. Only people I dislike cannot do that".

It is sad that you are so unable to provide any evidence for your claims, you have to resort to lying about other posters to try and get people to agree with you.

Please stop posting this nonsense. It is off-topic, and simply continues to prove you are a troll.

I will be happy to discuss the topic at hand, if you ever decide to get back to it. I won't hold my breath. Gif incoming, probably.

[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.

[Jimjam]

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

See I'm beginning to doubt you're even reading or understanding my posts because you're ignoring or failing to comprehend what I've said. I'm not making any argument about what things are like at 60 with capped stats. OP is extremely unlikely to ever reach that point.

Yes your argument is based on facts, as is mine, but that doesn't make you correct, because the conclusions you are drawing from those facts are all wrong. You're telling some dude who wants to roll an iksar SK to play around with a Greenmist to put all his points into INT because at 60, raid-buffed and raid-geared, he's going to cap his STR and STA, and in that situation INT provides a damn near negligible benefit. Greater INT when leveling only translates to HP IF YOU RUN OUT OF MANA *and* cast the spells, because it's not sustain. Greater HP is going to keep you above the "Oh shit" threshold on a larger portion of fights and potentially preclude you from ever casting inefficient lifetaps in the first place.

You're additionally ignoring the fact that STR is going to help him do more damage 100% of the time while leveling, increasing XP, ending fights more quickly, and saving spells from ever having to be cast, while greater INT has a few fringe benefits in survivability, and you have to cast spells to realize the translation from mana to HP. Furthermore, that you believe Shralok Packs are going to keep an iksar from getting encumbered when stuffed with fine steel and other heavy junk tells me you've never played a nerd race.

Rip’s screen shot shows his nerd is carrying 200 weight with gear and a fair amount of pp.

Dumping str is great imo as you don’t rely on buffs and it protects against incapacitate type spells (which you’ll have spammed against you in karnors and seb, two of my favy zones, as well as a bunch more).

Getting encumbered is super annoying, which incapacitate, str taps, etc seem to provoke, so for a strict levelling toon I simp str. As i understand if you overcap str it is no problem as it provides a buffer against these spells (can anyone confirm or deny?)

[Troxx]

My scrub alt (60 paladin):

https://wiki.project1999.com/Magelo_Blue:Mithromir

Not great, but when I played actively my efforts (and dkp) were squarely focused on my warrior. I do wish I had spent some of my banked dkp on a Narandi helm for him before I stepped away from active play and Azure Guard disbanded.

I can’t honestly remember what I put his starting points into. Half elf paladins have a starting strength of 80. What I do know is that, geared as he is, I can hit the strength cap with any combination of 2 of the following 3 buffs:

Maniacal strength
Focus
Big Yaulp

With any buff less than focus/maniacal, I won’t hit that cap. I can Yaulp myself up over 200 self buffed. Having max strength increases your attack as well as the other damage scaling perks of strength up to the cap.

The OP, unless they become a dedicated raider, will likely be looking at a magelo profile similar to mine (minus the weapon) as the glass ceiling. He won’t be capping stamina ever. He might get lucky to cap his strength with str/focus stack from a 60 shaman - and always be floating lower than that without. Unless he raids and raids hard, the OP has no risk of overcapping his strength buffed in groups.

Strength does provide fairly linear gains up to the cap.

Extra mana is always cool but most knights will spend 99.9% of their active playtime hovering at some percentage of mana below 100% - teetering up and down depending on innate mana regen (FT items and buffs) and however much time they can manage to pop a squat to get in a few med ticks before the next engage. Even soloing, never really meditate all the way up to 100%. Even with my pathetic mana pool it just isn’t necessary.

[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.]