Doing less damage does not equal Unskilled

Because of that randomness, saying that doing less damage=unskilled is a fallacy at best.

Nobody ever said anything about whether the mystic is unskillful or not. I only pointed out there's nothing bragworthy in what he did. You can assume whatever you want from what I posted, it - however - does not make it true.

christyyyoung wrote: »

or cause u still wanted to qq about it and cant let it go like a 4 yr old child?
also u were asked to pm mod not make new thread
quoting in a new thread about a previous one is STILL derailing it..
so where is the polite gesture?

You cant derail existing thread by creating a new thread, the whole concept is laughable. On this case it might very likely reduce the amount of derailing in the original thread.

There are 2 school :

1) Doesn't count the kills used to buff oneself or debuff you as hits to kill you. A combo counts as 1, being purged or debuffed before by someone else is considered not to exist. These are usually the 1vs1 guys who considering mass pvp as unfair.
2) Any skill cast counts, by yourself or others, even if it doesn't really do damage or as a pre-attack buff. After all, every skill costs time, increasing the chance to be interrupted or engaged by others. These are usually the TW/NW squad play guys who consider 1vs1 boring/pointles.

Trying to convince a person from school 1 of a school 2 point of view is pointles. From your point of view, you are right, but you can't impose your point of view to the other so they will always consider you're wrong. If you know where you stand, you can respect their point of view without forcing the other to be like you.

Now that, I agree with depending on the context of the person being attacked. DPS vs DPH styles are a very valid thing and vary in use from class to class.


That said, depending on the gear gap, even a DPS based class should be able to 1/2-shot their opponent. So while in endgame vs endgame PvP, you won't expect archers, for example, to be 1-shotting their equally geared opponents even with debuffs applied... in mass PvP with varying gear levels, you do expect archers to be 1-shotting all the people with much lower gear (or at least killing them much faster than they can react) at a rapid pace from tab autos combined with their range. And that happens simply because of a vast gear gap.

Edit: Hope the wall isn't too much of a thing. If you want a short summary skip to the bottom. ^^;

unrefuted wrote: »

Not necessarily. For example, if the instance has a lot of AOEs that needs to be done on kite-happy mobs, and two people can both kill all the mobs in one zerk crit (but nothing less), then the speed of their run depends entirely on the number of zerk crits they get. If they get a zerk crit they can immediately move on. If not, mobs spread out and drastically add more time.

The reason I ignored what you said about NW is because you're getting the premise wrong again. The premise is that the person already died. So by saying one person can kill you and one person cannot is not a good analogy.

So far, your last example makes the most sense, and is the only one I can agree to, with one minor detail lacking. You were talking about a seeker that can ALWAYS one shot you given their best combo, crit or no crit. I am not. I am talking more so about a seeker that can 1 shot you if they zerk crit only on that combo. So if it happens that they didn't zerk crit that day, it doesn't mean they suck.

The confusion here is because you think the difference is in the sequence of skills they used. Except that is not the case, because the sequence is already given by Column: triple spark. And he thinks he should have took more damage from triple spark. But unless we are talking about another combo that possibly does NOT involve triple spark, there is nothing a triple sparked damage says about someone's skill. So it would be out of context to discuss how the mystic COULD have done more damage WITHOUT triple spark, when triple spark is part of the premise. The most you can say is that using triple spark at all indicates unskilled, but that is off topic (and not necessarily true)

Your example, again, does not take into account the sort of difference we were showing to begin with. If both players need a zerkcrit (and no less) to kill the mobs in one shot, then they don't have a gear gap as wide as G16+10 to R9 third cast +12. In essence, meaning that you've skipped my point about the differences in damage range. The max damage of the first person cannot be lower than the min damage of the second if they both need the exact same type of hit to 1-shot a mob. So my example of somehow killing faster than someone who outdamages me like that remains unrefuted.

The premise is still fairly accurate, truth be told. If I offer no real resistance and didn't utilize my defenses appropriately (IE: What happened with Colum who was uncharmed and didn't even bother with his survival skills), both are going to kill me. The difference is that the one who can kill me consistently can do so even when I utilize those defenses while the one who cannot only can do so when everything I have is on cooldown. This shows that fundamentally, the latter player is less skilled in their approach because while they can kill me, it's an unlikely event and as long as I have any defense ready they're going to fail. How is this relevant? Because it's showing that it's not all about the damage itself. Yes, the damage you can deal is an important aspect, but how you go about it is also important. Someone who does not play smart is going to be killing slower than someone who does play smart even at times where, looking at raw damage potential, the former shouldn't have a chance of killing faster than the latter.

My argument has never focused on a person who can be killed in X hits with the luck of a zerk or a crit involved. It would be dishonest to claim that someone who got a crit/zerkcrit on that type of person is more skilled than someone who just got a normal hit. On the flip side, yours has heavily relied on the assumption that a crit or zerkcrit was required. This is likely a large part of our differing views on this subject as my case has never been that someone getting on their high-end of damage range while someone else that was equal geared getting their low-end had anything to do with skill. Rather, my goal was to point out that if someone with inferior gear is killing someone quickly. There's no reason why someone in much better gear should have a harder time with the same target doing the same things. On the other hand, someone with worse gear can outperform someone with better gear by being smarter about their attacks.

Actually... you're not quite right on this. While he said good casters in T3+10 can 2-shot him, he never said how they can do so. Only that this mystic with much better gears triple sparked and still took 3 hits to kill him. Granted my original response to you was more on general terms instead of being specific to this case as I felt he wasn't really bragging but still, point remains that a comparison of the methods used was never really given.

Ironically, I have an example of something like this happening from personal experience. Namely damage testing with a couple of archer friends. One was a level 102 with a +7 G15 bow (this was back before G16) and the other was level 89 with a +3 FC green bow. They were both using my BM as a test dummy and using what they felt would get them the most damage. G15 archer 3sparked, cloud erupted, and... used barrage of all things to hit me for 4 digit damage even with crits. The 89 archer (who suffered a 40% damage penalty due to level gap against me mind you) also 3sparked... and the similarities ended there because that archer used a metal combo on me while using their genie to debuff me and frenzy. The result was the 89 archer getting 5 digit damage on me... while not even doing what would be their full damage if they were my level because of the level gap.

The point of that example? Even though the lower level archer with the weaker weapon should have by all means done less damage to me... they used their resources smarter/more skillfully and wound up hitting harder than the higher leveled one with better equips. Same thing applies to this discussion. If we're assuming same gear, same build, same skill use... then no the damage dealt doesn't display anything more than who the RNG favored more at the end. Much like you say and have been using as a base assumption. However, when we take into account gear gaps, varying use of skills, different methods of attacking, and so on... if the one with better gear is being outperformed by the one with worse gear, odds are the one with better gear is also less skilled. Which is the assumption I've been using.










In short, I agree with what you've said if we're using the same assumption you're using of total equality. When that assumption isn't being used, however, I feel that speed and damage can, in fact, be a measure of skill. Of course, this only applies to two people of the same class since different classes will have different methodologies, damage ranges, and so on and so forth by necessity.

Colum - Raging Tide wrote: »

Colum has nothing to do with columns. b:angryb:angryb:angry

Hahahaha. I was wondering if you'd catch that! b:laugh

Colum - Raging Tide wrote: »

b:laugh I'm watching the forums closely...

... Just in case. b:angry

Column for mod 2015!

With mod adviser Colum.

/derail

OPKossy wrote: »

-snip-

In short, I agree with what you've said if we're using the same assumption you're using of total equality. When that assumption isn't being used, however, I feel that speed and damage can, in fact, be a measure of skill. Of course, this only applies to two people of the same class since different classes will have different methodologies, damage ranges, and so on and so forth by necessity.

Comparisons are only valid ceteris paribus. Stating that DD ability = skill would dimply a controlled environment using the same combo, same target and under same latency, in which case we clearly see that DD ability is only a. gear if there is gear difference and b. luck if equal gear.

An interesting thought experiment: What if you normalized all damage, crit strikes and gear defense, and removed all procs and % to succeed (ignoring 0 pdef proc as an outlier for now)? Assume each class damage is calibrated so that each class expends the same relative (to class resources) cost to deal the same relative (to target HP) damage. In that case yes, damage dealing would be a matter of skill. However the game is not equalized thus.

DionDagger - Dreamweaver wrote: »

Best solution? Sin V Sin with r9.3 no cards, same refines/gear/stat allocation, and warsoul daggers. If one dies more than half the time, we can assume the other is more skilled. b:cool

Notice me tsy sempai.b:chuckle

that's possibly the wrongest example you could bring

how could you define some sin player skill over some other when there is the tidal factor to heavily influence damage output and CC reliability

even worse if said sins were using r9r3 daggers that is pretty much the common endgame scenario

realistically you cant determ or debate some player skill by his damage output, even if being able to dish out the highest amounts of damage will bring you closer to kill (then outplay) your target, cause i could hit 15k a barb or a seeker but he wont die,

and most same classes 1v1s are nowadays pointless cause there is no such thing as metagame balance

some classes pvp meta are way more effective than other classes pvp meta

defense passives brought so much sustain that most of the same classes, same skills, same gears 1on1s can hardly result in something different than a 30 minute charmrape draw

if f.e. once wizard vs wizard was thrilling cause a sage bid would hit 5 digits, now its just negligible damage and i really can't see a way how a wiz can possibly kill another one at very endgame (or barb vs barb, or cleric vs cleric or mystic vs mystic or bm vs bm etch)

i am calling defense passives as 2k14 pwi cancer, they should've add the resistances increase as a gear value (like adding 80% res on the belt or something) and not as a passive buff value

It's actually measureable if one ish more skilled than other, at least PVE-wise.

If person A has less base attack or attack levels than person B, this increases the time person A needs to kill compared to person B by a certain % (which ish difference between base attacks and attack levels). For ex. if person B had 12000 average base attack and 90 attack levels while person A had 10000 aver. base attack and 50 attack levels, the formula would be:

(12000 * 1,90) / (10000 * 1,50)= 22800 / 15000 = 1,52

This would mean person A should take 52% longer time to kill compared to person B, if both are equally skilled while excluding crits or zerks.

The crits and zerks can be roughly added to equation by multiplying the result of previous calculation by (crit%B / crit%A) * (zerk?B / zerk?A). In general Sacrificial Strike has about 15% chance and GoF about 20% chance for zerk.

If person A had 23% crit rate and GoF-weapon while person B has 18% crit rate and no zerk(due to T3-weapon's 40 attack levels), the calculation would be

(1,18 /1,23) * (1,0 / 1,2)= 0,959 * 0,83 = 0,799 .

So, multiplying these together would be 1,52 * 0,799 = 1,21 which means that person A should take 21% longer to kill if both were equal-skilled. If A killed significantly faster than that(in 1,1x same time as B or less) A ish more skilled and if A was significantly slower(taking 1,3x same time or more) B ish more skilled.

Ofc this ish a little rough if either had a lucky day with crits(though even critting can be semi-controlled with certain skills=skill), but that can be considered luck. Though even then accurate result can be achieved by counting how many zerks/crits really happened.

DEMHEALSMAN - Dreamweaver wrote: »

You can't measure skill by PvE at all, just set up a rofl-stomp-pve macro and you're done. No skill involved there.

When a T3 seeker is dying against Ethereal Abomination there is some lack of skill. b:chuckle

No duh. Any hard hitting DD could of just dropped some money on this game and have absolutely zero skills while some g16 ppl can do everything perfectly and still lose.

Are you familiar with the pay to win concept? [or in gaia's case pay 1000s of dollars or farm for years and you win]