sk starting points

[Ripqozko]

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

I apologize for trying guys. I was planning on repeating my tests more reliably and for a much longer parsed time but even my broken ass data set showing 20 str resulting in 16% more dps (lol no way it’s actually anywhere close to that) somehow still supports DSMs point in his mind.

Sometimes you can’t fix broken.

its pointless to start with, thank you tho. he will always go full DSM and never change.

any topic doesnt matter. he knows the truth and everyone else is wrong.

[Lune]

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

At least everyone here can see how this thread:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...d.php?t=406923

Got to 449 pages despite nobody agreeing with you. I bet if I had the stamina to keep this back and forth going we could make this thread 500 pages as well.

Autism and retarded (excuse me … intellectually disabled) are not a good combination.

Back to gifs I suppose. It killed the last thread once up a yesteryear. Maybe it will work here too.

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

For the sake of civil discussion, what definition of "nonsense" are you using?



For the sake of civil discussion, what definition of "insult" and "meme" are you using?



I am not sure why your post would seem to indicate/reveal/betray that you (seemingly) believe that you are aware of what others think, or why your post would seem to imply that there is any merit or relevance whether a particular poster is "any better than" another particular poster (or what that even means, as you have provided no definition[s]).

For the sake of civil discussion, what definition of "better" are you using?



You have provided zero evidence to support your apparent claim that "refusal to believe basic math and data does not mean the posts are the same" (whatever that is supposed to mean).



For the sake of civil discussion, what definition of "trolls" are you using?

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

epic. Cyxthryth had the right approach

[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.]

I apologize for trying guys. I was planning on repeating my tests more reliably and for a much longer parsed time but even my broken ass data set showing 20 str resulting in 16% more dps (lol no way it’s actually anywhere close to that) somehow still supports DSMs point in his mind.

Sometimes you can’t fix broken.

I am not sure why you are apologizing for providing data. Where it leads shouldn't be an issue for you, whether it proves you right or wrong.

As I said in the other thread, if you think your evidence is bad, provide better evidence instead of posting gifs.

This seems to be a common theme of yours. Evidence you provide that doesn't back you up is always bad for some strange reason.

If you think your DPS difference should be lower, that helps my position further, so I am not sure why you think that would prove you correct.

[Troxx]

For strictly theoretical purposes let’s assume that …

-DSM’s level 5 turtle parses are universally true.
-20 str results in 4.3% more dps
-4.3% dps means mobs die when soloing 4.3% faster

Would you, as a:
-new sk with EC gear
-playing a race with very low starting strength
-playing a race universally hated across Norrath
-resulting in rarely having a friendly vendor or banker around you

Would you rather have 4.3% more dps and 20 pounds worth of loot/coin hauling capacity or 20 more intelligence which results in pitifully nothing more mana at 9 scaling up eventually to 200 more mana at 60?

Knowing that:
-without raid gear you might be lucky to have 140- 160 unbuffed str at 60
-stamina will remain low-ish
-as such as a sk you won’t ever cap str without maniacal str (must be cast first) and focus (must be cast second) stack
-and that 200 more maximum mana pool means little to nothing while your ability recover mana (med, clarity, FT, PoTg) will have a huge impact on how many mana-actions you can take over time.

Discuss.

[Troxx]

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

This seems to be a common theme of yours. Evidence you provide that doesn't back you up is always bad for some strange reason.

Yeah no, the evidence I provided here “backed me up” to such an unrealistic degree that I am disinclined to believe it.

Because I’m an honest an objective fella’

/facepalm

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Yeah no, the evidence I provided here “backed me up” to such an unrealistic degree that I am disinclined to believe it.

Because I’m an honest an objective fella’

/facepalm

I am not sure how that helps you. If you believe the DPS difference should be smaller (let's say 2 DPS instead of 4 DPS), that simply strengthens my argument, because the smaller the DPS bonus, the less useful STR is. This means STR isn't going to be very noticeable for OP.

I am not sure why you are disagreeing with me if you believe your DPS difference should be lower.

[Lune]

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

I am not sure why you are disagreeing with me if you believe your DPS difference should be lower.

Because he's a young doctor, which means he is trained in assessing data, and believes in intellectual honesty. Like he said.

He didn't believe in the integrity of the data, regardless of the conclusion.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

Because he's a physician, which means he is trained in assessing data, and believes in intellectual honesty. Like he said.

He didn't believe in the integrity of the data, regardless of the conclusion.

I believe in integrity of the data too, and I can also assess data just fine. I also believe in intellectual honesty. Unfortunately he is simply dismissing his data without actually giving a good reason why.

He is leaving details fuzzy, such as what monster he was attacking. He also continues to refuse to provide logs for whatever reason. If he believed in the integrity of the data, he would provide the logs to prove his data is accurate.

But this is besides the point. If he believes the data was too good to be true (4 additional DPS is too much), then he must believe the DPS number should be lower. That is basic logic.

If he believes that, then he is supporting my position. He is saying the DPS data is too high, therefore future DPS data must be lower. Lower DPS data is good for my position.

[Troxx]

Not 4 dps (mine) vs 3dps (yours) difference.

It’s 16% (my findings) vs 4.3% (your findings) difference.

If you haste a 100dps pet by 16% you now have a 116 dps pet.
If you haste a 100dps pet by 4.3% you now have a 104.3% dps pet.

I used a crappy hate 1hs. It was boosted by 16% with 20str
You used a NToV 2hs. It was boosted by 4.3% with 20str

In no conceivable way were my results favorable to you. If accurate, it would be the final nail in your arguments coffin.

Thankfully I’m an honest enough guy to truthfully (and up front) point all the problems with the data set I gathered.