Iksar Shaman - Solo Challenges?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

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

Again, I am not sure why you keep bringing up leveling. Everybody already agrees Regen is better while leveling, including myself. Min/Max is not about the fastest way to level. Claiming FSI provides no bonus while leveling is also silly. It isn't like FSI turns on at 60 lol.

I am talking about the best Min/Max racial, which looks at which racial is best at level 60 with Torpor and good gear. FSI is the best racial trait in this scenario. Thus far you haven't shown anything that disproves this.

[Jimjam]

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

The issue is you haven't proven Regen is better than FSI to begin with. You cannot simply assume this is the case for whatever reason.

Thus far I have provided a lot more evidence showing FSI is the Min/Max option than the opposition. It is easy to rebut the claims put forth so far from the opposition with math and evidence too.

This is the problem, you are claiming Regen has already been proven to be better than FSI without merit, and this makes no sense. Nobody has actually done this.

I'm not assuming regen is better - my position is the assumptions / value judgements / aims / motivations of each player will result in different answers for which racial is best.

The only way to get a one-size-fits-all 'best' is to be too reductionist in assumptions.

[Toxigen]

only dsm would take a meme and argue against it

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I'm not assuming regen is better - my position is the assumptions / value judgements / aims / motivations of each player will result in different answers for which racial is best.

The only way to get a one-size-fits-all 'best' is to be too reductionist in assumptions.

In a video game, there are fixed rules and maths you cannot change. This naturally means some things are factually better than others. This is not reductionism, it is simply the truth. ToV weapons will always be better than rusty weapons in melee, regardless of what a player's preferences are.

I am not forcing people to take the Min/Max option. I am simply providing the factual truth of what the Min/Max option is.

Knowledge is power. Let people know the facts so they can decide how they want to play.

Regret comes from not knowing something and making a mistake because of it. If someone picks Troll because they think it is Min/Max, they will regret this later. Ogre is Min/Max. If they pick troll because they prefer Regen, not because it is Min/Max, then they won't regret it. They were able to make an informed decision with all the facts.

[Jimjam]

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

In a video game, there are fixed rules and maths you cannot change. This naturally means some things are factually better than others. This is not reductionism, it is simply the truth.

There are fixed rules and maths, I've acknowledged that. That was literally part of my argument. However, what you either fail or refuse to realise - despite it having been clearly spelt out - is there unquantifiable extraneous factors can't simply be ignored.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

There are fixed rules and maths, I've acknowledged that. That was literally part of my argument. However, what you either fail or refuse to realise - despite it having been clearly spelt out - is there unquantifiable extraneous factors can't simply be ignored.

Like what? Player preference does not change the fact that FSI is quantifiably better than Regen at level 60 with Torpor.

If you think Regen is quantifiably better than FSI at level 60 with Torpor, you need to bring facts and evidence to support it.

This is a factual discussion, not a player preference discussion. One racial is better than the other, regardless of your preference.

[Jimjam]

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

This is a factual discussion, not a values discussion.

Then the fact is this discussion has no value.

[Toxigen]

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

Then the fact is this discussion has no value.

boom! headshot

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Then the fact is this discussion has no value.

The benefit of the discussion is dispeling false information about Shaman racials. Unfortunately when people cannot bring logic and evidence to support their positions, they resort to trolling instead. This hurts all the players trying to get answers to basic questions about the game.

I am not sure why people want to hurt others by providing bad information and trolling.

[7thGate]

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

everyone always says that xp penalties don't matter at 60 but they conveniently forget that time at 60 is infinitely more profitable than time getting to 60, since you have way more raid oppts and cash camps available. doubly so for shamans who get torpor.

this means that if you take 2 months longer to level to 60 as an ogre than as a barbarian, and at 60 you can do the same camps as either race, you're forever 2 months behind in plat/dkp as the ogre until you reach BiS

I am fully convinced by this argument, and now believe Barbarian has the best racial.

Realistically, you get the best gear by raiding. The most effective raiding setup is to actually be raiding, which requires being high level, which requires getting to high level. Being at raid level for a longer period of time is therefore a stronger boost to character performance than any of the other racials.

None of the other racials have a meaningful impact outside soloing, but soloing is generally not a mix-max approach vs. raiding anyway. Its fine for FSI to be better at soloing, though that hasn't been proven (especially vs. Iksar, with both AC and regen benefits potentially increasing the steady-state damage taken). But that's not a min-max setup even if it is due to lack of contribution to small group content and raiding situations.

Even solo, you have to have enough cases over the course of your career where FSI saves you in a solo camp situation to make up for the additional time spent being able to solo camp by being at 60 with Torpor earlier. I am extremely skeptical this is the case for anyone, especially anyone who does not play 40+ hours/week.

If FSI causes your success rate on killing Ayllish to go from 78%->81% or similar level of impact, but Barb XP bonus let you hit 60 and camp 25 extra Ayllishes before you would have as an Ogre, you have to do 833 Ayllishes before you pull ahead on the Ogre. At that point you're starting to get into "CHA is optimal warrior starting stats bc DI" levels of Min-Maxery that, while technically true, don't apply to anyone who isn't playing for tens of thousands of hours.

You have to quantify somehow how much this is helping before being able to confidently assert you're actually ahead vs. the Barb XP bonus on a given amount of time invested playing, you can't just say that its better so is obviously superior.