Thoughts of a Random Guy on Necrom Changes to HA / Heavy-Attack builds & on Arcanist

Galeriano

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

vSS HM I am the one in green with HA and I managed to achieve an amazing 34k score in the first boss. (I was the only one using HA).



Edit:
HA really needs to be nerfed because all players who use it are as good as the best players in this build. And with 34k, I am almost in 2nd place and close to the top DPS.

edit2:
I believe that the Templar, with 38k, should request a nerf for the Warden dps. Both classes use two bars, but the Warden has 52% more DPS, which is not fair to the Templar. This is what people refer to as balancing the game, isn't it?
DK only has 42k?! (and only 23% more then HA) Okay, there must be a bug with the addon. If not, nerf HA please.
Something is not right. DK has only 23% more DPS than HA and 38% less DPS than Warden. There seems to be a significant discrepancy here.

Heres my oaken HA parse on vDSR last boss



Oh and thats only 25% of group dps, not OP at all lol

Well to be fair that particular thing is DSR exclusive. It's the only trial where You can buff HA dmg so signigicantly that You will be getting up to 700k ticks.

Kusto

Tradewind wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

vSS HM I am the one in green with HA and I managed to achieve an amazing 34k score in the first boss. (I was the only one using HA).



Edit:
HA really needs to be nerfed because all players who use it are as good as the best players in this build. And with 34k, I am almost in 2nd place and close to the top DPS.

edit2:
I believe that the Templar, with 38k, should request a nerf for the Warden dps. Both classes use two bars, but the Warden has 52% more DPS, which is not fair to the Templar. This is what people refer to as balancing the game, isn't it?
DK only has 42k?! (and only 23% more then HA) Okay, there must be a bug with the addon. If not, nerf HA please.
Something is not right. DK has only 23% more DPS than HA and 38% less DPS than Warden. There seems to be a significant discrepancy here.

Heres my oaken HA parse on vDSR last boss



Oh and thats only 25% of group dps, not OP at all lol

So i did 63% of all grp DPS? loooooooool

You cant even read cmx. 63% of your dps was on boss. On my cmx up top you can see that I was doing 25% of the GROUP dps while being only oaken ha. I literally carried 2 bar builds in there. That's why it needs nerfed hard. Pve is ruined for me because of this bs. Theres no challenge, no fun and no skill holding down 1 button. Not sure what was Zos thinking. And they only nerfed it 5% like its gonna change anything.

Tradewind

Kusto wrote: »

Pve is ruined for me because of this bs. Theres no challenge, no fun and no skill holding down 1 button. Not sure what was Zos thinking. And they only nerfed it 5% like its gonna change anything.

I don't like to play as a tank, so I prefer playing as a DD or Healer. Additionally, I don't enjoy playing with 2bars, so I opt to play with HA instead.

You mentioned that HA is dull and unenjoyable, so why do you use it?

Kusto

Tradewind wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

Pve is ruined for me because of this bs. Theres no challenge, no fun and no skill holding down 1 button. Not sure what was Zos thinking. And they only nerfed it 5% like its gonna change anything.

I don't like to play as a tank, so I prefer playing as a DD or Healer. Additionally, I don't enjoy playing with 2bars, so I opt to play with HA instead.

You mentioned that HA is dull and unenjoyable, so why do you use it?

I use it because I have to if I wanna be competitive. It's so overtuned that anyone parsing less than 120-130k will be beaten by it in content. And I cant parse 120k with 2 bar builds. Neither can 99.999% of the players. So we are all kinda forced to use HA unless we deliberately wanna gimp ourselves. If they are not gonna nerf it some more then they may aswell change the game name to Elder HA Online.

Tradewind

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

Pve is ruined for me because of this bs. Theres no challenge, no fun and no skill holding down 1 button. Not sure what was Zos thinking. And they only nerfed it 5% like its gonna change anything.

I don't like to play as a tank, so I prefer playing as a DD or Healer. Additionally, I don't enjoy playing with 2bars, so I opt to play with HA instead.

You mentioned that HA is dull and unenjoyable, so why do you use it?

I use it because I have to if I wanna be competitive. It's so overtuned that anyone parsing less than 120-130k will be beaten by it in content. And I cant parse 120k with 2 bar builds. Neither can 99.999% of the players. So we are all kinda forced to use HA unless we deliberately wanna gimp ourselves. If they are not gonna nerf it some more then they may aswell change the game name to Elder HA Online.

Very sad indeed. My answer to that is somewhere in this forum.
However, asking to nerf HA when there isn't enough DPS with two bars is worse than having access to functions such as DPS sharing.

loveeso

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

vSS HM I am the one in green with HA and I managed to achieve an amazing 34k score in the first boss. (I was the only one using HA).



Edit:
HA really needs to be nerfed because all players who use it are as good as the best players in this build. And with 34k, I am almost in 2nd place and close to the top DPS.

edit2:
I believe that the Templar, with 38k, should request a nerf for the Warden dps. Both classes use two bars, but the Warden has 52% more DPS, which is not fair to the Templar. This is what people refer to as balancing the game, isn't it?
DK only has 42k?! (and only 23% more then HA) Okay, there must be a bug with the addon. If not, nerf HA please.
Something is not right. DK has only 23% more DPS than HA and 38% less DPS than Warden. There seems to be a significant discrepancy here.

Heres my oaken HA parse on vDSR last boss



Oh and thats only 25% of group dps, not OP at all lol

So i did 63% of all grp DPS? loooooooool

You cant even read cmx. 63% of your dps was on boss. On my cmx up top you can see that I was doing 25% of the GROUP dps while being only oaken ha. I literally carried 2 bar builds in there. That's why it needs nerfed hard.

So you stumbled upon a bad group. Big deal, we've all been there. I can't count how many times I've done 20-30% DPS in a trial on my LA build. Instead of being so negative, enjoy the challenge. It has nothing to do with LA versus HA.

Here are the statistics for all logged Tideborn Taleria HM fights in the world in the last twelve weeks:



Clearly, all HA sorcerers and wardens like yours are already massively underperforming.

If anything, your anecdotal evidence proves that ZOS's plan to let players use HA playstyle as an alternative has worked great. Instead of trying to make the company nerf heavy attacks, you should be figuring out ways to encourage more people who don't know how to use the two-bar LA meta builds (often unwisely copied from influencers) to switch to HA. This way, they won't have to be carried like in your story. If they decide to stick with HA because it's good enough for them, that's fine. Those who really want to do top damage can practice their rotations on the dummy and start using them in more challenging content, like vDSR, when they are finally ready and have a group with good supports who can carry their glass-cannon builds. [snip]

[edited for inappropriate content]

loveeso

FrancisCrawford wrote: »

Some comments on the @loveeso summary a couple posts above:

• Overall, great work.
• 81 + 9 is not exactly 100.
• Almost the whole discussion is about lightning attack HA builds. Observing that other HA builds do lousy DPS is not very relevant.
• Nothing will fully settle the disagreement as to whether people with non-elite clicking skills should be allowed to do the toughest content. There will always be elite clickers greatly upset that lesser clickers are allowed into their club.

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They should just nerf the survivability and leave the damage alone. It is already objectively worse at the cap than LA.

Yes the cap is lower but the average player can get closer to the HA cap than LA cap. Not much point comparing everything to the 0.00001% of players. Majority of players cant hit 70-80k with 2 bar la builds. But EVERYONE can with oaken ha build IF they actually follow the build. Alot of people in this thread say they cant and throw out very low numbers but after looking into the builds it turns out they got everything wrong. Follow the EXACT build and you will hit 80k. Skill has nothing to do with it. It's just how the build works.

That is not entirely true. Not everyone can achieve close numbers with a HA build like Top-Tiel LA players, because it is not as simple as just pressing one button to get high numbers.

I just did this parse for ya, if you can call it a parse lol. I just held down 1 button for 4 and half minutes. My cat could step on the mouse button and get the same result. Theres 0 skill involved.




Also note that this is Warden, Sorc can get 80k
And this gets even better in actual content with multiple targets as 80% of this parse is aoe damage. All that with 29k HP, no pots use and 0 sustain issues. You can clear any content with it holding down 1 button, except trial trifectas. If thats not OP then I dont know what is.

But a team with 8 DDs like that wouldn't do 8x that damage, as they wouldn't do the DDs' share of raid buffing.

Didn’t you post that first part like a week ago and haven’t I already replied?! Let me check…

Here:

Thanks, corrected the typo. I didn’t start this discussion to talk about lightning HA sorcerer builds - it started with my initial impressions on the Arcanist class and the proposed nerfs that affect ALL HA builds. I do agree with your conclusion that some individuals (and not really "elite" in most cases) who insist on nerfing the HA play style will continue to ignore all rational arguments. It can be frustrating to engage with those who refuse to consider opposing viewpoints, even when presented with logical evidence.

tmbrinks

loveeso wrote: »

FrancisCrawford wrote: »

Some comments on the @loveeso summary a couple posts above:

• Overall, great work.
• 81 + 9 is not exactly 100.
• Almost the whole discussion is about lightning attack HA builds. Observing that other HA builds do lousy DPS is not very relevant.
• Nothing will fully settle the disagreement as to whether people with non-elite clicking skills should be allowed to do the toughest content. There will always be elite clickers greatly upset that lesser clickers are allowed into their club.

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They should just nerf the survivability and leave the damage alone. It is already objectively worse at the cap than LA.

Yes the cap is lower but the average player can get closer to the HA cap than LA cap. Not much point comparing everything to the 0.00001% of players. Majority of players cant hit 70-80k with 2 bar la builds. But EVERYONE can with oaken ha build IF they actually follow the build. Alot of people in this thread say they cant and throw out very low numbers but after looking into the builds it turns out they got everything wrong. Follow the EXACT build and you will hit 80k. Skill has nothing to do with it. It's just how the build works.

That is not entirely true. Not everyone can achieve close numbers with a HA build like Top-Tiel LA players, because it is not as simple as just pressing one button to get high numbers.

I just did this parse for ya, if you can call it a parse lol. I just held down 1 button for 4 and half minutes. My cat could step on the mouse button and get the same result. Theres 0 skill involved.




Also note that this is Warden, Sorc can get 80k
And this gets even better in actual content with multiple targets as 80% of this parse is aoe damage. All that with 29k HP, no pots use and 0 sustain issues. You can clear any content with it holding down 1 button, except trial trifectas. If thats not OP then I dont know what is.

But a team with 8 DDs like that wouldn't do 8x that damage, as they wouldn't do the DDs' share of raid buffing.

It can be frustrating to engage with those who refuse to consider opposing viewpoints, even when presented with logical evidence.

Completely agree. It is also frustrating when some players' opinions are presented as fact, and those that come to different conclusions have repeatedly been put down.

loveeso

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

FrancisCrawford wrote: »

Some comments on the @loveeso summary a couple posts above:

• Overall, great work.
• 81 + 9 is not exactly 100.
• Almost the whole discussion is about lightning attack HA builds. Observing that other HA builds do lousy DPS is not very relevant.
• Nothing will fully settle the disagreement as to whether people with non-elite clicking skills should be allowed to do the toughest content. There will always be elite clickers greatly upset that lesser clickers are allowed into their club.

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They should just nerf the survivability and leave the damage alone. It is already objectively worse at the cap than LA.

Yes the cap is lower but the average player can get closer to the HA cap than LA cap. Not much point comparing everything to the 0.00001% of players. Majority of players cant hit 70-80k with 2 bar la builds. But EVERYONE can with oaken ha build IF they actually follow the build. Alot of people in this thread say they cant and throw out very low numbers but after looking into the builds it turns out they got everything wrong. Follow the EXACT build and you will hit 80k. Skill has nothing to do with it. It's just how the build works.

That is not entirely true. Not everyone can achieve close numbers with a HA build like Top-Tiel LA players, because it is not as simple as just pressing one button to get high numbers.

I just did this parse for ya, if you can call it a parse lol. I just held down 1 button for 4 and half minutes. My cat could step on the mouse button and get the same result. Theres 0 skill involved.




Also note that this is Warden, Sorc can get 80k
And this gets even better in actual content with multiple targets as 80% of this parse is aoe damage. All that with 29k HP, no pots use and 0 sustain issues. You can clear any content with it holding down 1 button, except trial trifectas. If thats not OP then I dont know what is.

But a team with 8 DDs like that wouldn't do 8x that damage, as they wouldn't do the DDs' share of raid buffing.

It can be frustrating to engage with those who refuse to consider opposing viewpoints, even when presented with logical evidence.

Completely agree. It is also frustrating when some players' opinions are presented as fact, and those that come to different conclusions have repeatedly been put down.

Precisely. Focusing on objective data and facts, such as numbers and statistics, when discussing topics like this is of crucial importance. Relying solely on subjective feelings or opinions formed based on individual experiences (anecdotal evidence) may not provide an accurate or comprehensive understanding of the topic at hand.
By focusing on numbers and statistics, we can strive for a more reliable and objective understanding of the subject, rather than relying on personal biases or limited perspectives. This approach promotes evidence-based discussions and helps to avoid making decisions or forming opinions based solely on subjective impressions or individual anecdotes, which may not represent the broader reality or trends. It encourages a more rigorous and informed analysis by considering verifiable data and objective measurements.

tmbrinks

loveeso wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

FrancisCrawford wrote: »

Some comments on the @loveeso summary a couple posts above:

• Overall, great work.
• 81 + 9 is not exactly 100.
• Almost the whole discussion is about lightning attack HA builds. Observing that other HA builds do lousy DPS is not very relevant.
• Nothing will fully settle the disagreement as to whether people with non-elite clicking skills should be allowed to do the toughest content. There will always be elite clickers greatly upset that lesser clickers are allowed into their club.

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They should just nerf the survivability and leave the damage alone. It is already objectively worse at the cap than LA.

Yes the cap is lower but the average player can get closer to the HA cap than LA cap. Not much point comparing everything to the 0.00001% of players. Majority of players cant hit 70-80k with 2 bar la builds. But EVERYONE can with oaken ha build IF they actually follow the build. Alot of people in this thread say they cant and throw out very low numbers but after looking into the builds it turns out they got everything wrong. Follow the EXACT build and you will hit 80k. Skill has nothing to do with it. It's just how the build works.

That is not entirely true. Not everyone can achieve close numbers with a HA build like Top-Tiel LA players, because it is not as simple as just pressing one button to get high numbers.

I just did this parse for ya, if you can call it a parse lol. I just held down 1 button for 4 and half minutes. My cat could step on the mouse button and get the same result. Theres 0 skill involved.




Also note that this is Warden, Sorc can get 80k
And this gets even better in actual content with multiple targets as 80% of this parse is aoe damage. All that with 29k HP, no pots use and 0 sustain issues. You can clear any content with it holding down 1 button, except trial trifectas. If thats not OP then I dont know what is.

But a team with 8 DDs like that wouldn't do 8x that damage, as they wouldn't do the DDs' share of raid buffing.

It can be frustrating to engage with those who refuse to consider opposing viewpoints, even when presented with logical evidence.

Completely agree. It is also frustrating when some players' opinions are presented as fact, and those that come to different conclusions have repeatedly been put down.

Precisely. Focusing on objective data and facts, such as numbers and statistics, when discussing topics like this is of crucial importance. Relying solely on subjective feelings or opinions formed based on individual experiences (anecdotal evidence) may not provide an accurate or comprehensive understanding of the topic at hand.
By focusing on numbers and statistics, we can strive for a more reliable and objective understanding of the subject, rather than relying on personal biases or limited perspectives. This approach promotes evidence-based discussions and helps to avoid making decisions or forming opinions based solely on subjective impressions or individual anecdotes, which may not represent the broader reality or trends. It encourages a more rigorous and informed analysis by considering verifiable data and objective measurements.

While remembering that statistics and data can be presented in various ways to come to different conclusions. And those conclusions can vary wildly depending upon the assumptions that are made (whether correctly or incorrectly).

Unless an experiment has been run where you have two identical players of identical skill, running both setups in the exact same environment, buffs, deaths, etc... no conclusion can be "conclusive" and all valid conclusions are plausible.

loveeso

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

FrancisCrawford wrote: »

Some comments on the @loveeso summary a couple posts above:

• Overall, great work.
• 81 + 9 is not exactly 100.
• Almost the whole discussion is about lightning attack HA builds. Observing that other HA builds do lousy DPS is not very relevant.
• Nothing will fully settle the disagreement as to whether people with non-elite clicking skills should be allowed to do the toughest content. There will always be elite clickers greatly upset that lesser clickers are allowed into their club.

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They should just nerf the survivability and leave the damage alone. It is already objectively worse at the cap than LA.

Yes the cap is lower but the average player can get closer to the HA cap than LA cap. Not much point comparing everything to the 0.00001% of players. Majority of players cant hit 70-80k with 2 bar la builds. But EVERYONE can with oaken ha build IF they actually follow the build. Alot of people in this thread say they cant and throw out very low numbers but after looking into the builds it turns out they got everything wrong. Follow the EXACT build and you will hit 80k. Skill has nothing to do with it. It's just how the build works.

That is not entirely true. Not everyone can achieve close numbers with a HA build like Top-Tiel LA players, because it is not as simple as just pressing one button to get high numbers.

I just did this parse for ya, if you can call it a parse lol. I just held down 1 button for 4 and half minutes. My cat could step on the mouse button and get the same result. Theres 0 skill involved.




Also note that this is Warden, Sorc can get 80k
And this gets even better in actual content with multiple targets as 80% of this parse is aoe damage. All that with 29k HP, no pots use and 0 sustain issues. You can clear any content with it holding down 1 button, except trial trifectas. If thats not OP then I dont know what is.

But a team with 8 DDs like that wouldn't do 8x that damage, as they wouldn't do the DDs' share of raid buffing.

It can be frustrating to engage with those who refuse to consider opposing viewpoints, even when presented with logical evidence.

Completely agree. It is also frustrating when some players' opinions are presented as fact, and those that come to different conclusions have repeatedly been put down.

Precisely. Focusing on objective data and facts, such as numbers and statistics, when discussing topics like this is of crucial importance. Relying solely on subjective feelings or opinions formed based on individual experiences (anecdotal evidence) may not provide an accurate or comprehensive understanding of the topic at hand.
By focusing on numbers and statistics, we can strive for a more reliable and objective understanding of the subject, rather than relying on personal biases or limited perspectives. This approach promotes evidence-based discussions and helps to avoid making decisions or forming opinions based solely on subjective impressions or individual anecdotes, which may not represent the broader reality or trends. It encourages a more rigorous and informed analysis by considering verifiable data and objective measurements.

While remembering that statistics and data can be presented in various ways to come to different conclusions. And those conclusions can vary wildly depending upon the assumptions that are made (whether correctly or incorrectly).

Unless an experiment has been run where you have two identical players of identical skill, running both setups in the exact same environment, buffs, deaths, etc... no conclusion can be "conclusive" and all valid conclusions are plausible.

We should not oversimplify the role of statistics and fail to recognize its fundamental principles. While it is true that statistics can be presented differently and conclusions can vary based on assumptions, it does not imply that any conclusion is plausible or equally valid. Statistical analysis involves rigorous methods to control for confounding factors, establish causality, and quantify uncertainty. We benefit from such statistical rigour even just by using simple statistics like median, quartiles, or average on a composite variable like DPS for a large sample. This way we can reduce the likelihood of errors and improve our decision-making. Comparing two setups with identical players in an identical environment is not the sole approach to drawing valid conclusions; statistical methods offer tools to infer relationships and make reliable judgments even in complex and imperfect scenarios.

In other word, while statistical conclusions may have limitations, they are grounded in rigorous methods that aim to minimize biases and account for uncertainty. One advantage of statistical analysis is its utilization of larger samples from populations, thereby reducing biases. In contrast, personal biases and anecdotal evidence can be subjective, prone to cognitive biases, and lacking in generalizability. Relying on statistics helps us make more informed and objective judgments, leading to more reliable and meaningful insights.

In conclusion, it is important to highlight that even imperfect statistical conclusions are preferable to opinions based on personal biases, unsubstantiated speculations or anecdotal evidence like the ones we saw in this thread from the anti-HA side.

FrancisCrawford

Kusto wrote: »

FrancisCrawford wrote: »

Some comments on the @loveeso summary a couple posts above:

• Overall, great work.
• 81 + 9 is not exactly 100.
• Almost the whole discussion is about lightning attack HA builds. Observing that other HA builds do lousy DPS is not very relevant.
• Nothing will fully settle the disagreement as to whether people with non-elite clicking skills should be allowed to do the toughest content. There will always be elite clickers greatly upset that lesser clickers are allowed into their club.

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They should just nerf the survivability and leave the damage alone. It is already objectively worse at the cap than LA.

Yes the cap is lower but the average player can get closer to the HA cap than LA cap. Not much point comparing everything to the 0.00001% of players. Majority of players cant hit 70-80k with 2 bar la builds. But EVERYONE can with oaken ha build IF they actually follow the build. Alot of people in this thread say they cant and throw out very low numbers but after looking into the builds it turns out they got everything wrong. Follow the EXACT build and you will hit 80k. Skill has nothing to do with it. It's just how the build works.

That is not entirely true. Not everyone can achieve close numbers with a HA build like Top-Tiel LA players, because it is not as simple as just pressing one button to get high numbers.

I just did this parse for ya, if you can call it a parse lol. I just held down 1 button for 4 and half minutes. My cat could step on the mouse button and get the same result. Theres 0 skill involved.




Also note that this is Warden, Sorc can get 80k
And this gets even better in actual content with multiple targets as 80% of this parse is aoe damage. All that with 29k HP, no pots use and 0 sustain issues. You can clear any content with it holding down 1 button, except trial trifectas. If thats not OP then I dont know what is.

But a team with 8 DDs like that wouldn't do 8x that damage, as they wouldn't do the DDs' share of raid buffing.

Buffs get applied to everyone. If all 8 DDs would just HA then you can melt anything. You can clear EVERY vet trial while holding down only 1 button.

I should have said "debuffing" -- Catalyst, Z'en, MK and so on.

Galeriano

loveeso wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

vSS HM I am the one in green with HA and I managed to achieve an amazing 34k score in the first boss. (I was the only one using HA).



Edit:
HA really needs to be nerfed because all players who use it are as good as the best players in this build. And with 34k, I am almost in 2nd place and close to the top DPS.

edit2:
I believe that the Templar, with 38k, should request a nerf for the Warden dps. Both classes use two bars, but the Warden has 52% more DPS, which is not fair to the Templar. This is what people refer to as balancing the game, isn't it?
DK only has 42k?! (and only 23% more then HA) Okay, there must be a bug with the addon. If not, nerf HA please.
Something is not right. DK has only 23% more DPS than HA and 38% less DPS than Warden. There seems to be a significant discrepancy here.

Heres my oaken HA parse on vDSR last boss



Oh and thats only 25% of group dps, not OP at all lol

So i did 63% of all grp DPS? loooooooool

You cant even read cmx. 63% of your dps was on boss. On my cmx up top you can see that I was doing 25% of the GROUP dps while being only oaken ha. I literally carried 2 bar builds in there. That's why it needs nerfed hard.

So you stumbled upon a bad group. Big deal, we've all been there. I can't count how many times I've done 20-30% DPS in a trial on my LA build. Instead of being so negative, enjoy the challenge. It has nothing to do with LA versus HA.

Bad groups don't complete taleria on vet in 2 minutes.

tmbrinks

loveeso wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

FrancisCrawford wrote: »

Some comments on the @loveeso summary a couple posts above:

• Overall, great work.
• 81 + 9 is not exactly 100.
• Almost the whole discussion is about lightning attack HA builds. Observing that other HA builds do lousy DPS is not very relevant.
• Nothing will fully settle the disagreement as to whether people with non-elite clicking skills should be allowed to do the toughest content. There will always be elite clickers greatly upset that lesser clickers are allowed into their club.

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They should just nerf the survivability and leave the damage alone. It is already objectively worse at the cap than LA.

Yes the cap is lower but the average player can get closer to the HA cap than LA cap. Not much point comparing everything to the 0.00001% of players. Majority of players cant hit 70-80k with 2 bar la builds. But EVERYONE can with oaken ha build IF they actually follow the build. Alot of people in this thread say they cant and throw out very low numbers but after looking into the builds it turns out they got everything wrong. Follow the EXACT build and you will hit 80k. Skill has nothing to do with it. It's just how the build works.

That is not entirely true. Not everyone can achieve close numbers with a HA build like Top-Tiel LA players, because it is not as simple as just pressing one button to get high numbers.

I just did this parse for ya, if you can call it a parse lol. I just held down 1 button for 4 and half minutes. My cat could step on the mouse button and get the same result. Theres 0 skill involved.




Also note that this is Warden, Sorc can get 80k
And this gets even better in actual content with multiple targets as 80% of this parse is aoe damage. All that with 29k HP, no pots use and 0 sustain issues. You can clear any content with it holding down 1 button, except trial trifectas. If thats not OP then I dont know what is.

But a team with 8 DDs like that wouldn't do 8x that damage, as they wouldn't do the DDs' share of raid buffing.

It can be frustrating to engage with those who refuse to consider opposing viewpoints, even when presented with logical evidence.

Completely agree. It is also frustrating when some players' opinions are presented as fact, and those that come to different conclusions have repeatedly been put down.

Precisely. Focusing on objective data and facts, such as numbers and statistics, when discussing topics like this is of crucial importance. Relying solely on subjective feelings or opinions formed based on individual experiences (anecdotal evidence) may not provide an accurate or comprehensive understanding of the topic at hand.
By focusing on numbers and statistics, we can strive for a more reliable and objective understanding of the subject, rather than relying on personal biases or limited perspectives. This approach promotes evidence-based discussions and helps to avoid making decisions or forming opinions based solely on subjective impressions or individual anecdotes, which may not represent the broader reality or trends. It encourages a more rigorous and informed analysis by considering verifiable data and objective measurements.

While remembering that statistics and data can be presented in various ways to come to different conclusions. And those conclusions can vary wildly depending upon the assumptions that are made (whether correctly or incorrectly).

Unless an experiment has been run where you have two identical players of identical skill, running both setups in the exact same environment, buffs, deaths, etc... no conclusion can be "conclusive" and all valid conclusions are plausible.

We should not oversimplify the role of statistics and fail to recognize its fundamental principles. While it is true that statistics can be presented differently and conclusions can vary based on assumptions, it does not imply that any conclusion is plausible or equally valid. Statistical analysis involves rigorous methods to control for confounding factors, establish causality, and quantify uncertainty. We benefit from such statistical rigour even just by using simple statistics like median, quartiles, or average on a composite variable like DPS for a large sample. This way we can reduce the likelihood of errors and improve our decision-making. Comparing two setups with identical players in an identical environment is not the sole approach to drawing valid conclusions; statistical methods offer tools to infer relationships and make reliable judgments even in complex and imperfect scenarios.

In other word, while statistical conclusions may have limitations, they are grounded in rigorous methods that aim to minimize biases and account for uncertainty. One advantage of statistical analysis is its utilization of larger samples from populations, thereby reducing biases. In contrast, personal biases and anecdotal evidence can be subjective, prone to cognitive biases, and lacking in generalizability. Relying on statistics helps us make more informed and objective judgments, leading to more reliable and meaningful insights.

In conclusion, it is important to highlight that even imperfect statistical conclusions are preferable to opinions based on personal biases, unsubstantiated speculations or anecdotal evidence like the ones we saw in this thread from the anti-HA side.

While I appreciate the lengthy, jargon-filled, explanation.. I am a mathematics teacher by trade, you are not going to "wow" me. When the data itself is bad, not controlled, or subject to cherry picking only those points that justify our inherent biases, no amount of polishing is going to change that fact. The data from ESO logs is bad data for the premise. And it has been grossly misapplied to fit one specific narrative. Alternate conclusions from the same data, equally valid due to its incompleteness have been met with insults, and dismissive comments from several in this thread.

Published scientific work is subject to peer review, it's an integral part of science.

Ph1p

Galeriano wrote: »

Bad groups don't complete taleria on vet in 2 minutes.

Hmm, the CMX data looks incomplete. The whole group dealt just 69.5m damage, while the main boss alone has 100m health on vet.

Ph1p

loveeso wrote: »

Clearly, all HA sorcerers and wardens like yours are already massively underperforming.

First of all, thank you - TIL a new functionality of ESO Logs . However, everything underperforms by definition, if your baseline is defined as the absolute top of the list. Your statistics and rankings focus on the extremely narrow group of veteran HM players or even the top of that elite circle. It is also slightly biased towards single-target DPS, since it only contains boss fights. What happens if you look at whole trial content that is accessible to a broader group of players, e.g., just veteran trials?


This character ranking is based on damage for each regular veteran trial as a whole (bosses and trash), across all classes. For Cloudrest, it is set to vCR+0, as there are far fewer Oakensoul HA builds when Relequen is around.

Doesn't this prove that HA builds reign supreme in a lot of content across the board? Actually, I don't know. I'm not claiming that this is the whole truth or a definite argument in whatever direction, but neither should you with your data.

I also don't get your argument that "comparing two setups with identical players in an identical environment is not the sole approach to drawing valid conclusions". Sure, if you have incomplete data you will use certain tools and methods to work around it. But the gold standard is having an experimental and a control group that are representative of the same population, which is entirely possible here. There are enough examples of people of all levels trying out both LA and HA builds, but you ignore those results in favor of comparing top HA parses, which are achievable by a relatively broad population, with top LA parses, which are not.

You can't test a drug on young men with diabetes and use pregnant women as a control group. And you can't claim that a competitor drug is underperforming, because the patient is still worse off than someone completely healthy and in their prime.

EDIT: Added description for image content

Galeriano

Ph1p wrote: »

Galeriano wrote: »

Bad groups don't complete taleria on vet in 2 minutes.

Hmm, the CMX data looks incomplete. The whole group dealt just 69.5m damage, while the main boss alone has 100m health on vet.

Yeah now when You mentioned it I noticed that parse isn't complete but with similar pace it's still somwhere between 3-4 minutes for full fight which is not achieved by bad groups.

loveeso

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

FrancisCrawford wrote: »

Some comments on the @loveeso summary a couple posts above:

• Overall, great work.
• 81 + 9 is not exactly 100.
• Almost the whole discussion is about lightning attack HA builds. Observing that other HA builds do lousy DPS is not very relevant.
• Nothing will fully settle the disagreement as to whether people with non-elite clicking skills should be allowed to do the toughest content. There will always be elite clickers greatly upset that lesser clickers are allowed into their club.

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They should just nerf the survivability and leave the damage alone. It is already objectively worse at the cap than LA.

Yes the cap is lower but the average player can get closer to the HA cap than LA cap. Not much point comparing everything to the 0.00001% of players. Majority of players cant hit 70-80k with 2 bar la builds. But EVERYONE can with oaken ha build IF they actually follow the build. Alot of people in this thread say they cant and throw out very low numbers but after looking into the builds it turns out they got everything wrong. Follow the EXACT build and you will hit 80k. Skill has nothing to do with it. It's just how the build works.

That is not entirely true. Not everyone can achieve close numbers with a HA build like Top-Tiel LA players, because it is not as simple as just pressing one button to get high numbers.

I just did this parse for ya, if you can call it a parse lol. I just held down 1 button for 4 and half minutes. My cat could step on the mouse button and get the same result. Theres 0 skill involved.




Also note that this is Warden, Sorc can get 80k
And this gets even better in actual content with multiple targets as 80% of this parse is aoe damage. All that with 29k HP, no pots use and 0 sustain issues. You can clear any content with it holding down 1 button, except trial trifectas. If thats not OP then I dont know what is.

But a team with 8 DDs like that wouldn't do 8x that damage, as they wouldn't do the DDs' share of raid buffing.

It can be frustrating to engage with those who refuse to consider opposing viewpoints, even when presented with logical evidence.

Completely agree. It is also frustrating when some players' opinions are presented as fact, and those that come to different conclusions have repeatedly been put down.

Precisely. Focusing on objective data and facts, such as numbers and statistics, when discussing topics like this is of crucial importance. Relying solely on subjective feelings or opinions formed based on individual experiences (anecdotal evidence) may not provide an accurate or comprehensive understanding of the topic at hand.
By focusing on numbers and statistics, we can strive for a more reliable and objective understanding of the subject, rather than relying on personal biases or limited perspectives. This approach promotes evidence-based discussions and helps to avoid making decisions or forming opinions based solely on subjective impressions or individual anecdotes, which may not represent the broader reality or trends. It encourages a more rigorous and informed analysis by considering verifiable data and objective measurements.

While remembering that statistics and data can be presented in various ways to come to different conclusions. And those conclusions can vary wildly depending upon the assumptions that are made (whether correctly or incorrectly).

Unless an experiment has been run where you have two identical players of identical skill, running both setups in the exact same environment, buffs, deaths, etc... no conclusion can be "conclusive" and all valid conclusions are plausible.

We should not oversimplify the role of statistics and fail to recognize its fundamental principles. While it is true that statistics can be presented differently and conclusions can vary based on assumptions, it does not imply that any conclusion is plausible or equally valid. Statistical analysis involves rigorous methods to control for confounding factors, establish causality, and quantify uncertainty. We benefit from such statistical rigour even just by using simple statistics like median, quartiles, or average on a composite variable like DPS for a large sample. This way we can reduce the likelihood of errors and improve our decision-making. Comparing two setups with identical players in an identical environment is not the sole approach to drawing valid conclusions; statistical methods offer tools to infer relationships and make reliable judgments even in complex and imperfect scenarios.

In other word, while statistical conclusions may have limitations, they are grounded in rigorous methods that aim to minimize biases and account for uncertainty. One advantage of statistical analysis is its utilization of larger samples from populations, thereby reducing biases. In contrast, personal biases and anecdotal evidence can be subjective, prone to cognitive biases, and lacking in generalizability. Relying on statistics helps us make more informed and objective judgments, leading to more reliable and meaningful insights.

In conclusion, it is important to highlight that even imperfect statistical conclusions are preferable to opinions based on personal biases, unsubstantiated speculations or anecdotal evidence like the ones we saw in this thread from the anti-HA side.

While I appreciate the lengthy, jargon-filled, explanation.. I am a mathematics teacher by trade, you are not going to "wow" me. When the data itself is bad, not controlled, or subject to cherry picking only those points that justify our inherent biases, no amount of polishing is going to change that fact. The data from ESO logs is bad data for the premise. And it has been grossly misapplied to fit one specific narrative. Alternate conclusions from the same data, equally valid due to its incompleteness have been met with insults, and dismissive comments from several in this thread.

Published scientific work is subject to peer review, it's an integral part of science.

I apologise if my previous statement came across as offensive. I understand that the information I presented may have seemed basic, but it was not my intention to be condescending. I simply wanted to ensure that my explanation would be comprehensible to a wide range of readers, including those who may not have a scientific or mathematical background. Throughout this discussion, I have provided numerous examples supported by data to illustrate my points.

To address your concerns, I would appreciate it if you could demonstrate specific instances from this conversation where anti-heavy-attack rhetoric has been expressed that:

A. unequivocally establish the necessity of weakening all heavy-attack builds;

B. exhibit a statistically superior level of quality when compared to the non-peer-reviewed information I have presented.

loveeso

Ph1p wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

Clearly, all HA sorcerers and wardens like yours are already massively underperforming.

First of all, thank you - TIL a new functionality of ESO Logs . However, everything underperforms by definition, if your baseline is defined as the absolute top of the list. Your statistics and rankings focus on the extremely narrow group of veteran HM players or even the top of that elite circle. It is also slightly biased towards single-target DPS, since it only contains boss fights. What happens if you look at whole trial content that is accessible to a broader group of players, e.g., just veteran trials?



Doesn't this prove that HA builds reign supreme in a lot of content across the board? Actually, I don't know. I'm not claiming that this is the whole truth or a definite argument in whatever direction, but neither should you with your data.

I also don't get your argument that "comparing two setups with identical players in an identical environment is not the sole approach to drawing valid conclusions". Sure, if you have incomplete data you will use certain tools and methods to work around it. But the gold standard is having an experimental and a control group that are representative of the same population, which is entirely possible here. There are enough examples of people of all levels trying out both LA and HA builds, but you ignore those results in favor of comparing top HA parses, which are achievable by a relatively broad population, with top LA parses, which are not.

You can't test a drug on young men with diabetes and use pregnant women as a control group. And you can't claim that a competitor drug is underperforming, because the patient is still worse off than someone completely healthy and in their prime.

Thank you, I am glad that you found it useful (and thank you for compiling that data)

The prevalence of sorcerers (let’s assume they are all HA sorcerers), in mid-tier difficulty content serves as a perfect example of a point I have consistently made in my previous posts. To reiterate, glass-cannon meta builds are not intended for novice or intermediate players and should not be employed in mid- to end-tier content until players have gained proficiency in using them. In order to provide these players with the opportunity to explore all content and familiarize themselves with the combat mechanics of challenging encounters, ZOS implemented a brilliant strategy by making HA builds viable across the board.
As suggested by myself and others before, players who have not yet reached the level of mastery required can easily switch to HA builds to enjoy such content while honing their LA rotations outside of it. The data you have compiled effectively demonstrates the success of this approach. However, it is important to note that not all aspects have proven successful. Specifically, other classes and weapons should be adjusted and enhanced to allow them to achieve comparable HA DPS levels to lightning staff sorcerers, a point I have also previously addressed.

As for the last point you make, your comparison between testing a drug on young men with diabetes and using pregnant women as a control group is flawed because it assumes an inappropriate analogy. In the context of gaming setups, the comparison should be based on players of similar skill levels and conditions, not on completely unrelated groups. This is why, to effectively compare both playstyles, I have categorized them into three tiers, each showcasing different characteristics and performance levels:
Tier A: User-friendly and Tanky Builds with Sustainable DPS around 80k
These builds are designed to be extremely easy to use, offering a high level of survivability and sustained damage output. They provide a solid foundation for players looking for a straightforward playstyle.
For an exampler, see the one-button HA sorcerer and the One-Skill LA God earlier in this discussion.
Tier B: Moderately Engaging Builds with Tankiness and Sustainable DPS around 100k
Slightly more involved than Tier A, these builds still prioritize tankiness and sustainability while offering a slightly higher damage output. They strike a balance between accessibility and a slightly more engaging playstyle.
For an example, see the 7-skill LA build I have demonstrated earlier in this thread or the infamous 6-skill HA sorcerer.
Tier C: Mastery Builds with Optimal DPS Potential
Considered the pinnacle of achievement, Tier C represents builds that require mastery and expertise to fully utilize their potential. These builds prioritize maximizing damage output, which may involve sacrificing some tankiness and ease of use. They are best suited for players who have access to excellent support teammates capable of carrying them or for those who are willing to invest the time and effort required to master them and make them effective in any situation.
Many examples of LA builds but no HA build powerful enough to include in this tier.
Across all three tiers, LA builds have consistently demonstrated greater strength and performance compared to HA builds.

tmbrinks

loveeso wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

FrancisCrawford wrote: »

Some comments on the @loveeso summary a couple posts above:

• Overall, great work.
• 81 + 9 is not exactly 100.
• Almost the whole discussion is about lightning attack HA builds. Observing that other HA builds do lousy DPS is not very relevant.
• Nothing will fully settle the disagreement as to whether people with non-elite clicking skills should be allowed to do the toughest content. There will always be elite clickers greatly upset that lesser clickers are allowed into their club.

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They should just nerf the survivability and leave the damage alone. It is already objectively worse at the cap than LA.

Yes the cap is lower but the average player can get closer to the HA cap than LA cap. Not much point comparing everything to the 0.00001% of players. Majority of players cant hit 70-80k with 2 bar la builds. But EVERYONE can with oaken ha build IF they actually follow the build. Alot of people in this thread say they cant and throw out very low numbers but after looking into the builds it turns out they got everything wrong. Follow the EXACT build and you will hit 80k. Skill has nothing to do with it. It's just how the build works.

That is not entirely true. Not everyone can achieve close numbers with a HA build like Top-Tiel LA players, because it is not as simple as just pressing one button to get high numbers.

I just did this parse for ya, if you can call it a parse lol. I just held down 1 button for 4 and half minutes. My cat could step on the mouse button and get the same result. Theres 0 skill involved.




Also note that this is Warden, Sorc can get 80k
And this gets even better in actual content with multiple targets as 80% of this parse is aoe damage. All that with 29k HP, no pots use and 0 sustain issues. You can clear any content with it holding down 1 button, except trial trifectas. If thats not OP then I dont know what is.

But a team with 8 DDs like that wouldn't do 8x that damage, as they wouldn't do the DDs' share of raid buffing.

It can be frustrating to engage with those who refuse to consider opposing viewpoints, even when presented with logical evidence.

Completely agree. It is also frustrating when some players' opinions are presented as fact, and those that come to different conclusions have repeatedly been put down.

Precisely. Focusing on objective data and facts, such as numbers and statistics, when discussing topics like this is of crucial importance. Relying solely on subjective feelings or opinions formed based on individual experiences (anecdotal evidence) may not provide an accurate or comprehensive understanding of the topic at hand.
By focusing on numbers and statistics, we can strive for a more reliable and objective understanding of the subject, rather than relying on personal biases or limited perspectives. This approach promotes evidence-based discussions and helps to avoid making decisions or forming opinions based solely on subjective impressions or individual anecdotes, which may not represent the broader reality or trends. It encourages a more rigorous and informed analysis by considering verifiable data and objective measurements.

While remembering that statistics and data can be presented in various ways to come to different conclusions. And those conclusions can vary wildly depending upon the assumptions that are made (whether correctly or incorrectly).

Unless an experiment has been run where you have two identical players of identical skill, running both setups in the exact same environment, buffs, deaths, etc... no conclusion can be "conclusive" and all valid conclusions are plausible.

We should not oversimplify the role of statistics and fail to recognize its fundamental principles. While it is true that statistics can be presented differently and conclusions can vary based on assumptions, it does not imply that any conclusion is plausible or equally valid. Statistical analysis involves rigorous methods to control for confounding factors, establish causality, and quantify uncertainty. We benefit from such statistical rigour even just by using simple statistics like median, quartiles, or average on a composite variable like DPS for a large sample. This way we can reduce the likelihood of errors and improve our decision-making. Comparing two setups with identical players in an identical environment is not the sole approach to drawing valid conclusions; statistical methods offer tools to infer relationships and make reliable judgments even in complex and imperfect scenarios.

In other word, while statistical conclusions may have limitations, they are grounded in rigorous methods that aim to minimize biases and account for uncertainty. One advantage of statistical analysis is its utilization of larger samples from populations, thereby reducing biases. In contrast, personal biases and anecdotal evidence can be subjective, prone to cognitive biases, and lacking in generalizability. Relying on statistics helps us make more informed and objective judgments, leading to more reliable and meaningful insights.

In conclusion, it is important to highlight that even imperfect statistical conclusions are preferable to opinions based on personal biases, unsubstantiated speculations or anecdotal evidence like the ones we saw in this thread from the anti-HA side.

While I appreciate the lengthy, jargon-filled, explanation.. I am a mathematics teacher by trade, you are not going to "wow" me. When the data itself is bad, not controlled, or subject to cherry picking only those points that justify our inherent biases, no amount of polishing is going to change that fact. The data from ESO logs is bad data for the premise. And it has been grossly misapplied to fit one specific narrative. Alternate conclusions from the same data, equally valid due to its incompleteness have been met with insults, and dismissive comments from several in this thread.

Published scientific work is subject to peer review, it's an integral part of science.

To address your concerns, I would appreciate it if you could demonstrate specific instances from this conversation where anti-heavy-attack rhetoric has been expressed that:

A. unequivocally establish the necessity of weakening all heavy-attack builds;

B. exhibit a statistically superior level of quality when compared to the non-peer-reviewed information I have presented.

You are asking for an impossibility. No data is unequivocal. And "statistically superior" is ambiguous at best. There is no level of data and analysis that would meet this impossible standard you've asked for.

loveeso

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

FrancisCrawford wrote: »

Some comments on the @loveeso summary a couple posts above:

• Overall, great work.
• 81 + 9 is not exactly 100.
• Almost the whole discussion is about lightning attack HA builds. Observing that other HA builds do lousy DPS is not very relevant.
• Nothing will fully settle the disagreement as to whether people with non-elite clicking skills should be allowed to do the toughest content. There will always be elite clickers greatly upset that lesser clickers are allowed into their club.

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They should just nerf the survivability and leave the damage alone. It is already objectively worse at the cap than LA.

Yes the cap is lower but the average player can get closer to the HA cap than LA cap. Not much point comparing everything to the 0.00001% of players. Majority of players cant hit 70-80k with 2 bar la builds. But EVERYONE can with oaken ha build IF they actually follow the build. Alot of people in this thread say they cant and throw out very low numbers but after looking into the builds it turns out they got everything wrong. Follow the EXACT build and you will hit 80k. Skill has nothing to do with it. It's just how the build works.

That is not entirely true. Not everyone can achieve close numbers with a HA build like Top-Tiel LA players, because it is not as simple as just pressing one button to get high numbers.

I just did this parse for ya, if you can call it a parse lol. I just held down 1 button for 4 and half minutes. My cat could step on the mouse button and get the same result. Theres 0 skill involved.




Also note that this is Warden, Sorc can get 80k
And this gets even better in actual content with multiple targets as 80% of this parse is aoe damage. All that with 29k HP, no pots use and 0 sustain issues. You can clear any content with it holding down 1 button, except trial trifectas. If thats not OP then I dont know what is.

But a team with 8 DDs like that wouldn't do 8x that damage, as they wouldn't do the DDs' share of raid buffing.

It can be frustrating to engage with those who refuse to consider opposing viewpoints, even when presented with logical evidence.

Completely agree. It is also frustrating when some players' opinions are presented as fact, and those that come to different conclusions have repeatedly been put down.

Precisely. Focusing on objective data and facts, such as numbers and statistics, when discussing topics like this is of crucial importance. Relying solely on subjective feelings or opinions formed based on individual experiences (anecdotal evidence) may not provide an accurate or comprehensive understanding of the topic at hand.
By focusing on numbers and statistics, we can strive for a more reliable and objective understanding of the subject, rather than relying on personal biases or limited perspectives. This approach promotes evidence-based discussions and helps to avoid making decisions or forming opinions based solely on subjective impressions or individual anecdotes, which may not represent the broader reality or trends. It encourages a more rigorous and informed analysis by considering verifiable data and objective measurements.

While remembering that statistics and data can be presented in various ways to come to different conclusions. And those conclusions can vary wildly depending upon the assumptions that are made (whether correctly or incorrectly).

Unless an experiment has been run where you have two identical players of identical skill, running both setups in the exact same environment, buffs, deaths, etc... no conclusion can be "conclusive" and all valid conclusions are plausible.

We should not oversimplify the role of statistics and fail to recognize its fundamental principles. While it is true that statistics can be presented differently and conclusions can vary based on assumptions, it does not imply that any conclusion is plausible or equally valid. Statistical analysis involves rigorous methods to control for confounding factors, establish causality, and quantify uncertainty. We benefit from such statistical rigour even just by using simple statistics like median, quartiles, or average on a composite variable like DPS for a large sample. This way we can reduce the likelihood of errors and improve our decision-making. Comparing two setups with identical players in an identical environment is not the sole approach to drawing valid conclusions; statistical methods offer tools to infer relationships and make reliable judgments even in complex and imperfect scenarios.

In other word, while statistical conclusions may have limitations, they are grounded in rigorous methods that aim to minimize biases and account for uncertainty. One advantage of statistical analysis is its utilization of larger samples from populations, thereby reducing biases. In contrast, personal biases and anecdotal evidence can be subjective, prone to cognitive biases, and lacking in generalizability. Relying on statistics helps us make more informed and objective judgments, leading to more reliable and meaningful insights.

In conclusion, it is important to highlight that even imperfect statistical conclusions are preferable to opinions based on personal biases, unsubstantiated speculations or anecdotal evidence like the ones we saw in this thread from the anti-HA side.

While I appreciate the lengthy, jargon-filled, explanation.. I am a mathematics teacher by trade, you are not going to "wow" me. When the data itself is bad, not controlled, or subject to cherry picking only those points that justify our inherent biases, no amount of polishing is going to change that fact. The data from ESO logs is bad data for the premise. And it has been grossly misapplied to fit one specific narrative. Alternate conclusions from the same data, equally valid due to its incompleteness have been met with insults, and dismissive comments from several in this thread.

Published scientific work is subject to peer review, it's an integral part of science.

To address your concerns, I would appreciate it if you could demonstrate specific instances from this conversation where anti-heavy-attack rhetoric has been expressed that:

A. unequivocally establish the necessity of weakening all heavy-attack builds;

B. exhibit a statistically superior level of quality when compared to the non-peer-reviewed information I have presented.

You are asking for an impossibility. No data is unequivocal. And "statistically superior" is ambiguous at best. There is no level of data and analysis that would meet this impossible standard you've asked for.

Thank you but your reply falls short because it concedes rather than provides a valid argument. Claiming that providing specific instances is impossible and statistical superiority is ambiguous evades the task at hand. This inability to provide concrete examples suggests the lack of evidence matching the quality and statistical rigor of what the pro-HA side presented. [snip] Till the situation changes, let us agree to disagree.

[edited for baiting]

ZOS_Icy

Greetings,

We have removed some insulting back and forth along with some off-topic comments that was disruptive. Please ensure you are treating others with respect on the forums even when they have views that differ from your own.

Thank you for your understanding.

Ph1p

loveeso wrote: »

As for the last point you make, your comparison between testing a drug on young men with diabetes and using pregnant women as a control group is flawed because it assumes an inappropriate analogy. In the context of gaming setups, the comparison should be based on players of similar skill levels and conditions, not on completely unrelated groups. This is why, to effectively compare both playstyles, I have categorized them into three tiers, each showcasing different characteristics and performance levels:
Tier A: User-friendly and Tanky Builds with Sustainable DPS around 80k
These builds are designed to be extremely easy to use, offering a high level of survivability and sustained damage output. They provide a solid foundation for players looking for a straightforward playstyle.
For an example, see the one-button HA sorcerer and the One-Skill LA God earlier in this discussion.
Tier B: Moderately Engaging Builds with Tankiness and Sustainable DPS around 100k
Slightly more involved than Tier A, these builds still prioritize tankiness and sustainability while offering a slightly higher damage output. They strike a balance between accessibility and a slightly more engaging playstyle.
For an example, see the 7-skill LA build I have demonstrated earlier in this thread or the infamous 6-skill HA sorcerer.
Tier C: Mastery Builds with Optimal DPS Potential

This is inconsistent now. A few posts ago, you claimed that "comparing two setups with identical players in an identical environment is not the sole approach to drawing valid conclusions" and now you try to do exactly that.

However, your tiers are flawed, because you define them by possible performance levels and don't take effort/skill level into account. It's like comparing automatic and manual gear-shifting for a given car model and claiming both are equal because the top speed of the motor is the same.

• Take tier B: Your 7-skill LA build relies massively on weaving compared to a 6-skill HA sorcerer and still doesn't have the AOE damage of the latter. It employs one more skill, has one more timer to watch, requires bar-swapping, and only gets to >100k because you have a 0.1 weaving average and missed almost no LAs.
• Same with tier A: I don't see how weaving LAs and one skill - simple though it is - can be considered equivalent in effort to holding down the mouse button (and doing nothing else). And again, this LA build does no AOE damage at all.

I think this is one reason why the discussion goes on endlessly. Everybody needs to at least acknowledge that, for a given skill/effort level, HA builds can vastly outperform LA ones. You can see it in the data I shared here - and it looks very similar for normal trials, too. And they should perform better in some cases - if they didn't, then (almost) nobody would use them. But so much energy and effort goes into trying to prove that LA technically has higher damage potential, when no one has ever disputed that.

Of course, "outperform" also doesn't mean "massively overpowered and requiring a huge nerf back to pre-U35 status". But as far as I can see, that's not what ZOS is doing.

loveeso

Ph1p wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

As for the last point you make, your comparison between testing a drug on young men with diabetes and using pregnant women as a control group is flawed because it assumes an inappropriate analogy. In the context of gaming setups, the comparison should be based on players of similar skill levels and conditions, not on completely unrelated groups. This is why, to effectively compare both playstyles, I have categorized them into three tiers, each showcasing different characteristics and performance levels:
Tier A: User-friendly and Tanky Builds with Sustainable DPS around 80k
These builds are designed to be extremely easy to use, offering a high level of survivability and sustained damage output. They provide a solid foundation for players looking for a straightforward playstyle.
For an example, see the one-button HA sorcerer and the One-Skill LA God earlier in this discussion.
Tier B: Moderately Engaging Builds with Tankiness and Sustainable DPS around 100k
Slightly more involved than Tier A, these builds still prioritize tankiness and sustainability while offering a slightly higher damage output. They strike a balance between accessibility and a slightly more engaging playstyle.
For an example, see the 7-skill LA build I have demonstrated earlier in this thread or the infamous 6-skill HA sorcerer.
Tier C: Mastery Builds with Optimal DPS Potential

This is inconsistent now. A few posts ago, you claimed that "comparing two setups with identical players in an identical environment is not the sole approach to drawing valid conclusions" and now you try to do exactly that.

However, your tiers are flawed, because you define them by possible performance levels and don't take effort/skill level into account. It's like comparing automatic and manual gear-shifting for a given car model and claiming both are equal because the top speed of the motor is the same.

• Take tier B: Your 7-skill LA build relies massively on weaving compared to a 6-skill HA sorcerer and still doesn't have the AOE damage of the latter. It employs one more skill, has one more timer to watch, requires bar-swapping, and only gets to >100k because you have a 0.1 weaving average and missed almost no LAs.
• Same with tier A: I don't see how weaving LAs and one skill - simple though it is - can be considered equivalent in effort to holding down the mouse button (and doing nothing else). And again, this LA build does no AOE damage at all.

I think this is one reason why the discussion goes on endlessly. Everybody needs to at least acknowledge that, for a given skill/effort level, HA builds can vastly outperform LA ones. You can see it in the data I shared here - and it looks very similar for normal trials, too. And they should perform better in some cases - if they didn't, then (almost) nobody would use them. But so much energy and effort goes into trying to prove that LA technically has higher damage potential, when no one has ever disputed that.

Of course, "outperform" also doesn't mean "massively overpowered and requiring a huge nerf back to pre-U35 status". But as far as I can see, that's not what ZOS is doing.

Just as weight categories in boxing aren't compared based on fighters' skill, balancing MMO classes, weapons, or play styles shouldn't rely on players' skill, but rather on their maximum achievable power (i.e. weight / engine size / DPS).
As for the rest of what you wrote, I believe it should be quite clear to anyone who has read all my earlier posts that what you suggest is incorrect. Having said that, I don’t want to go in circles and repeat the points that I have already made so let us just agree to disagree, i.e. I do acknowledge that you believe I am wrong.

tmbrinks

loveeso wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

FrancisCrawford wrote: »

Some comments on the @loveeso summary a couple posts above:

• Overall, great work.
• 81 + 9 is not exactly 100.
• Almost the whole discussion is about lightning attack HA builds. Observing that other HA builds do lousy DPS is not very relevant.
• Nothing will fully settle the disagreement as to whether people with non-elite clicking skills should be allowed to do the toughest content. There will always be elite clickers greatly upset that lesser clickers are allowed into their club.

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They should just nerf the survivability and leave the damage alone. It is already objectively worse at the cap than LA.

Yes the cap is lower but the average player can get closer to the HA cap than LA cap. Not much point comparing everything to the 0.00001% of players. Majority of players cant hit 70-80k with 2 bar la builds. But EVERYONE can with oaken ha build IF they actually follow the build. Alot of people in this thread say they cant and throw out very low numbers but after looking into the builds it turns out they got everything wrong. Follow the EXACT build and you will hit 80k. Skill has nothing to do with it. It's just how the build works.

That is not entirely true. Not everyone can achieve close numbers with a HA build like Top-Tiel LA players, because it is not as simple as just pressing one button to get high numbers.

I just did this parse for ya, if you can call it a parse lol. I just held down 1 button for 4 and half minutes. My cat could step on the mouse button and get the same result. Theres 0 skill involved.




Also note that this is Warden, Sorc can get 80k
And this gets even better in actual content with multiple targets as 80% of this parse is aoe damage. All that with 29k HP, no pots use and 0 sustain issues. You can clear any content with it holding down 1 button, except trial trifectas. If thats not OP then I dont know what is.

But a team with 8 DDs like that wouldn't do 8x that damage, as they wouldn't do the DDs' share of raid buffing.

It can be frustrating to engage with those who refuse to consider opposing viewpoints, even when presented with logical evidence.

Completely agree. It is also frustrating when some players' opinions are presented as fact, and those that come to different conclusions have repeatedly been put down.

Precisely. Focusing on objective data and facts, such as numbers and statistics, when discussing topics like this is of crucial importance. Relying solely on subjective feelings or opinions formed based on individual experiences (anecdotal evidence) may not provide an accurate or comprehensive understanding of the topic at hand.
By focusing on numbers and statistics, we can strive for a more reliable and objective understanding of the subject, rather than relying on personal biases or limited perspectives. This approach promotes evidence-based discussions and helps to avoid making decisions or forming opinions based solely on subjective impressions or individual anecdotes, which may not represent the broader reality or trends. It encourages a more rigorous and informed analysis by considering verifiable data and objective measurements.

While remembering that statistics and data can be presented in various ways to come to different conclusions. And those conclusions can vary wildly depending upon the assumptions that are made (whether correctly or incorrectly).

Unless an experiment has been run where you have two identical players of identical skill, running both setups in the exact same environment, buffs, deaths, etc... no conclusion can be "conclusive" and all valid conclusions are plausible.

We should not oversimplify the role of statistics and fail to recognize its fundamental principles. While it is true that statistics can be presented differently and conclusions can vary based on assumptions, it does not imply that any conclusion is plausible or equally valid. Statistical analysis involves rigorous methods to control for confounding factors, establish causality, and quantify uncertainty. We benefit from such statistical rigour even just by using simple statistics like median, quartiles, or average on a composite variable like DPS for a large sample. This way we can reduce the likelihood of errors and improve our decision-making. Comparing two setups with identical players in an identical environment is not the sole approach to drawing valid conclusions; statistical methods offer tools to infer relationships and make reliable judgments even in complex and imperfect scenarios.

In other word, while statistical conclusions may have limitations, they are grounded in rigorous methods that aim to minimize biases and account for uncertainty. One advantage of statistical analysis is its utilization of larger samples from populations, thereby reducing biases. In contrast, personal biases and anecdotal evidence can be subjective, prone to cognitive biases, and lacking in generalizability. Relying on statistics helps us make more informed and objective judgments, leading to more reliable and meaningful insights.

In conclusion, it is important to highlight that even imperfect statistical conclusions are preferable to opinions based on personal biases, unsubstantiated speculations or anecdotal evidence like the ones we saw in this thread from the anti-HA side.

While I appreciate the lengthy, jargon-filled, explanation.. I am a mathematics teacher by trade, you are not going to "wow" me. When the data itself is bad, not controlled, or subject to cherry picking only those points that justify our inherent biases, no amount of polishing is going to change that fact. The data from ESO logs is bad data for the premise. And it has been grossly misapplied to fit one specific narrative. Alternate conclusions from the same data, equally valid due to its incompleteness have been met with insults, and dismissive comments from several in this thread.

Published scientific work is subject to peer review, it's an integral part of science.

To address your concerns, I would appreciate it if you could demonstrate specific instances from this conversation where anti-heavy-attack rhetoric has been expressed that:

A. unequivocally establish the necessity of weakening all heavy-attack builds;

B. exhibit a statistically superior level of quality when compared to the non-peer-reviewed information I have presented.

You are asking for an impossibility. No data is unequivocal. And "statistically superior" is ambiguous at best. There is no level of data and analysis that would meet this impossible standard you've asked for.

Thank you but your reply falls short because it concedes rather than provides a valid argument. Claiming that providing specific instances is impossible and statistical superiority is ambiguous evades the task at hand. This inability to provide concrete examples suggests the lack of evidence matching the quality and statistical rigor of what the pro-HA side presented. [snip] Till the situation changes, let us agree to disagree.

[edited for baiting]

I am not conceding anything. Please refrain from putting your interpretation on my statements.

Nothing I can say would meet your impossible standard. So I'm not going to spend any more of my precious time. I'll play the game, spend time with family, rather than continuing to beat a dead horse.

loveeso

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

tmbrinks wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

FrancisCrawford wrote: »

Some comments on the @loveeso summary a couple posts above:

• Overall, great work.
• 81 + 9 is not exactly 100.
• Almost the whole discussion is about lightning attack HA builds. Observing that other HA builds do lousy DPS is not very relevant.
• Nothing will fully settle the disagreement as to whether people with non-elite clicking skills should be allowed to do the toughest content. There will always be elite clickers greatly upset that lesser clickers are allowed into their club.

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

They should just nerf the survivability and leave the damage alone. It is already objectively worse at the cap than LA.

Yes the cap is lower but the average player can get closer to the HA cap than LA cap. Not much point comparing everything to the 0.00001% of players. Majority of players cant hit 70-80k with 2 bar la builds. But EVERYONE can with oaken ha build IF they actually follow the build. Alot of people in this thread say they cant and throw out very low numbers but after looking into the builds it turns out they got everything wrong. Follow the EXACT build and you will hit 80k. Skill has nothing to do with it. It's just how the build works.

That is not entirely true. Not everyone can achieve close numbers with a HA build like Top-Tiel LA players, because it is not as simple as just pressing one button to get high numbers.

I just did this parse for ya, if you can call it a parse lol. I just held down 1 button for 4 and half minutes. My cat could step on the mouse button and get the same result. Theres 0 skill involved.




Also note that this is Warden, Sorc can get 80k
And this gets even better in actual content with multiple targets as 80% of this parse is aoe damage. All that with 29k HP, no pots use and 0 sustain issues. You can clear any content with it holding down 1 button, except trial trifectas. If thats not OP then I dont know what is.

But a team with 8 DDs like that wouldn't do 8x that damage, as they wouldn't do the DDs' share of raid buffing.

It can be frustrating to engage with those who refuse to consider opposing viewpoints, even when presented with logical evidence.

Completely agree. It is also frustrating when some players' opinions are presented as fact, and those that come to different conclusions have repeatedly been put down.

Precisely. Focusing on objective data and facts, such as numbers and statistics, when discussing topics like this is of crucial importance. Relying solely on subjective feelings or opinions formed based on individual experiences (anecdotal evidence) may not provide an accurate or comprehensive understanding of the topic at hand.
By focusing on numbers and statistics, we can strive for a more reliable and objective understanding of the subject, rather than relying on personal biases or limited perspectives. This approach promotes evidence-based discussions and helps to avoid making decisions or forming opinions based solely on subjective impressions or individual anecdotes, which may not represent the broader reality or trends. It encourages a more rigorous and informed analysis by considering verifiable data and objective measurements.

While remembering that statistics and data can be presented in various ways to come to different conclusions. And those conclusions can vary wildly depending upon the assumptions that are made (whether correctly or incorrectly).

Unless an experiment has been run where you have two identical players of identical skill, running both setups in the exact same environment, buffs, deaths, etc... no conclusion can be "conclusive" and all valid conclusions are plausible.

We should not oversimplify the role of statistics and fail to recognize its fundamental principles. While it is true that statistics can be presented differently and conclusions can vary based on assumptions, it does not imply that any conclusion is plausible or equally valid. Statistical analysis involves rigorous methods to control for confounding factors, establish causality, and quantify uncertainty. We benefit from such statistical rigour even just by using simple statistics like median, quartiles, or average on a composite variable like DPS for a large sample. This way we can reduce the likelihood of errors and improve our decision-making. Comparing two setups with identical players in an identical environment is not the sole approach to drawing valid conclusions; statistical methods offer tools to infer relationships and make reliable judgments even in complex and imperfect scenarios.

In other word, while statistical conclusions may have limitations, they are grounded in rigorous methods that aim to minimize biases and account for uncertainty. One advantage of statistical analysis is its utilization of larger samples from populations, thereby reducing biases. In contrast, personal biases and anecdotal evidence can be subjective, prone to cognitive biases, and lacking in generalizability. Relying on statistics helps us make more informed and objective judgments, leading to more reliable and meaningful insights.

In conclusion, it is important to highlight that even imperfect statistical conclusions are preferable to opinions based on personal biases, unsubstantiated speculations or anecdotal evidence like the ones we saw in this thread from the anti-HA side.

While I appreciate the lengthy, jargon-filled, explanation.. I am a mathematics teacher by trade, you are not going to "wow" me. When the data itself is bad, not controlled, or subject to cherry picking only those points that justify our inherent biases, no amount of polishing is going to change that fact. The data from ESO logs is bad data for the premise. And it has been grossly misapplied to fit one specific narrative. Alternate conclusions from the same data, equally valid due to its incompleteness have been met with insults, and dismissive comments from several in this thread.

Published scientific work is subject to peer review, it's an integral part of science.

To address your concerns, I would appreciate it if you could demonstrate specific instances from this conversation where anti-heavy-attack rhetoric has been expressed that:

A. unequivocally establish the necessity of weakening all heavy-attack builds;

B. exhibit a statistically superior level of quality when compared to the non-peer-reviewed information I have presented.

You are asking for an impossibility. No data is unequivocal. And "statistically superior" is ambiguous at best. There is no level of data and analysis that would meet this impossible standard you've asked for.

Thank you but your reply falls short because it concedes rather than provides a valid argument. Claiming that providing specific instances is impossible and statistical superiority is ambiguous evades the task at hand. This inability to provide concrete examples suggests the lack of evidence matching the quality and statistical rigor of what the pro-HA side presented. [snip] Till the situation changes, let us agree to disagree.

[edited for baiting]

I am not conceding anything. Please refrain from putting your interpretation on my statements.

Nothing I can say would meet your impossible standard. So I'm not going to spend any more of my precious time. I'll play the game, spend time with family, rather than continuing to beat a dead horse.

Wishing you and your family the very best. Enjoy the game and let's respectfully embrace our differing views. Thank you for participating and sharing your thoughts.

Kusto

loveeso wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

vSS HM I am the one in green with HA and I managed to achieve an amazing 34k score in the first boss. (I was the only one using HA).



Edit:
HA really needs to be nerfed because all players who use it are as good as the best players in this build. And with 34k, I am almost in 2nd place and close to the top DPS.

edit2:
I believe that the Templar, with 38k, should request a nerf for the Warden dps. Both classes use two bars, but the Warden has 52% more DPS, which is not fair to the Templar. This is what people refer to as balancing the game, isn't it?
DK only has 42k?! (and only 23% more then HA) Okay, there must be a bug with the addon. If not, nerf HA please.
Something is not right. DK has only 23% more DPS than HA and 38% less DPS than Warden. There seems to be a significant discrepancy here.

Heres my oaken HA parse on vDSR last boss



Oh and thats only 25% of group dps, not OP at all lol

So i did 63% of all grp DPS? loooooooool

You cant even read cmx. 63% of your dps was on boss. On my cmx up top you can see that I was doing 25% of the GROUP dps while being only oaken ha. I literally carried 2 bar builds in there. That's why it needs nerfed hard.

So you stumbled upon a bad group. Big deal, we've all been there. I can't count how many times I've done 20-30% DPS in a trial on my LA build. Instead of being so negative, enjoy the challenge. It has nothing to do with LA versus HA.

Here are the statistics for all logged Tideborn Taleria HM fights in the world in the last twelve weeks:



Clearly, all HA sorcerers and wardens like yours are already massively underperforming.

If anything, your anecdotal evidence proves that ZOS's plan to let players use HA playstyle as an alternative has worked great. Instead of trying to make the company nerf heavy attacks, you should be figuring out ways to encourage more people who don't know how to use the two-bar LA meta builds (often unwisely copied from influencers) to switch to HA. This way, they won't have to be carried like in your story. If they decide to stick with HA because it's good enough for them, that's fine. Those who really want to do top damage can practice their rotations on the dummy and start using them in more challenging content, like vDSR, when they are finally ready and have a group with good supports who can carry their glass-cannon builds. [snip]

[edited for inappropriate content]

Our group dps was 576k, I wouldnt call it bad. Its average. Why compare with the top 0.0001%. I never said that oaken HA overperforms in high end groups. But it absolutely dominates in average groups and thats why needs to be toned down abit. Currently if yore not parsing 130k, youre better off with oaken ha. Thats 99.99% of all players. How is that healty to the game?
Game shouldnt be adjusted after your top HM chart lol.

loveeso

Kusto wrote: »

loveeso wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

Kusto wrote: »

Tradewind wrote: »

vSS HM I am the one in green with HA and I managed to achieve an amazing 34k score in the first boss. (I was the only one using HA).



Edit:
HA really needs to be nerfed because all players who use it are as good as the best players in this build. And with 34k, I am almost in 2nd place and close to the top DPS.

edit2:
I believe that the Templar, with 38k, should request a nerf for the Warden dps. Both classes use two bars, but the Warden has 52% more DPS, which is not fair to the Templar. This is what people refer to as balancing the game, isn't it?
DK only has 42k?! (and only 23% more then HA) Okay, there must be a bug with the addon. If not, nerf HA please.
Something is not right. DK has only 23% more DPS than HA and 38% less DPS than Warden. There seems to be a significant discrepancy here.

Heres my oaken HA parse on vDSR last boss



Oh and thats only 25% of group dps, not OP at all lol

So i did 63% of all grp DPS? loooooooool

You cant even read cmx. 63% of your dps was on boss. On my cmx up top you can see that I was doing 25% of the GROUP dps while being only oaken ha. I literally carried 2 bar builds in there. That's why it needs nerfed hard.

So you stumbled upon a bad group. Big deal, we've all been there. I can't count how many times I've done 20-30% DPS in a trial on my LA build. Instead of being so negative, enjoy the challenge. It has nothing to do with LA versus HA.

Here are the statistics for all logged Tideborn Taleria HM fights in the world in the last twelve weeks:



Clearly, all HA sorcerers and wardens like yours are already massively underperforming.

If anything, your anecdotal evidence proves that ZOS's plan to let players use HA playstyle as an alternative has worked great. Instead of trying to make the company nerf heavy attacks, you should be figuring out ways to encourage more people who don't know how to use the two-bar LA meta builds (often unwisely copied from influencers) to switch to HA. This way, they won't have to be carried like in your story. If they decide to stick with HA because it's good enough for them, that's fine. Those who really want to do top damage can practice their rotations on the dummy and start using them in more challenging content, like vDSR, when they are finally ready and have a group with good supports who can carry their glass-cannon builds. [snip]

[edited for inappropriate content]

Our group dps was 576k, I wouldnt call it bad. Its average. Why compare with the top 0.0001%. I never said that oaken HA overperforms in high end groups. But it absolutely dominates in average groups and thats why needs to be toned down abit. Currently if yore not parsing 130k, youre better off with oaken ha. Thats 99.99% of all players. How is that healty to the game?
Game shouldnt be adjusted after your top HM chart lol.

I already replied to what you write in my previous posts, including a recent one above. By the way, others above have pointed out that your cmx parse is incomplete. Hope you reply to them.

Tradewind

Kusto wrote: »

Our group dps was 576k, I wouldnt call it bad. Its average. Why compare with the top 0.0001%. I never said that oaken HA overperforms in high end groups. But it absolutely dominates in average groups and thats why needs to be toned down abit. Currently if yore not parsing 130k, youre better off with oaken ha. Thats 99.99% of all players. How is that healty to the game?
Game shouldnt be adjusted after your top HM chart lol.

I enter one of my Discord groups, and I take the first log regarding vDSR I print out this section;


Dam... you parse gooooood! If you wish, I can put you in contact with these team. They (we all) can learn a lot from you.

Ph1p

loveeso wrote: »

Just as weight categories in boxing aren't compared based on fighters' skill, balancing MMO classes, weapons, or play styles shouldn't rely on players' skill, but rather on their maximum achievable power (i.e. weight / engine size / DPS).

So you would compare an amateur boxer to Mike Tyson or Ali, just because they weigh the same? You do realize that boxing has experience-based divisions, right? You don't pit a novice with no championship fights against someone with 20 bouts under his belt, just because they theoretically have the same punching power...

loveeso wrote: »

As for the rest of what you wrote, I believe it should be quite clear to anyone who has read all my earlier posts that what you suggest is incorrect. Having said that, I don’t want to go in circles and repeat the points that I have already made so let us just agree to disagree, i.e. I do acknowledge that you believe I am wrong.

Simply asserting that I am wrong and you are right is completely meaningless and an indication that there are no insights to be gained here any more. So, I will follow @tmbrinks' excellent example and wish you all the best.