Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Esker" data-source="post: 8050388" data-attributes="member: 6966824">It's a bad look if the argument is, &quot;Look, I don't care about your data --- I have my gut feelings!&quot;If you want to have any hope of having an objective comparison, you need to start with a common reference point, and that means using some kind of quantitative analysis. Otherwise the conversation can't progress, because people will just keep talking past each other insisting that their experience (colored by confirmation and availability bias) is representative.The specific quantities analyzed and assumptions going in, those are fair game to disagree about. But the way to respond to an analysis that you think uses unhelpful assumptions and focuses on the wrong things is to do your own analysis that emphasizes the right things, while being up front and transparent about your assumptions. Not just keep moving the goalposts and waving your hands (I'm using 'you/your' here in a generic way, not specifically talking about you, Elfcrusher). Frogreaver did that, and contributed something useful to the discussion as a result --- for instance, the that the indirect damage from stunning strike is likely in the ballpark of the direct damage from flurry of blows, and so comparing to an optimal monk should probably assume most ki is used for stun attempts, rather than extra punches.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Esker, post: 8050388, member: 6966824"] It's a bad look if the argument is, "Look, I don't care about your [I]data[/I] --- I have my gut feelings!" If you want to have any hope of having an objective comparison, you need to start with a common reference point, and that means using [I]some[/I] kind of quantitative analysis. Otherwise the conversation can't progress, because people will just keep talking past each other insisting that their experience (colored by confirmation and availability bias) is representative. The specific quantities analyzed and assumptions going in, those are fair game to disagree about. But the way to respond to an analysis that you think uses unhelpful assumptions and focuses on the wrong things is to do your own analysis that emphasizes the right things, while being up front and transparent about your assumptions. Not just keep moving the goalposts and waving your hands (I'm using 'you/your' here in a generic way, not specifically talking about you, Elfcrusher). Frogreaver did that, and contributed something useful to the discussion as a result --- for instance, the that the indirect damage from stunning strike is likely in the ballpark of the direct damage from flurry of blows, and so comparing to an optimal monk should probably assume most ki is used for stun attempts, rather than extra punches. [/QUOTE]

Verification