Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Green Eggs and Ham.Ham and Cheese.
Green Eggs and Ham.Ham and Cheese.
I have no problem with Treantmonk at all. I do think it is relevant to this conversation, which has it's genesis from his Monks Suck video essay, his public statements regarding DPS Calculation being an Art and the video just being his opinion, and not definitive.Todd, if you have issues with something Treantmonk said on some other message board, TELL HIM THERE.
I have no problem with Treantmonk at all. I do think it is relevant to this conversation, which has it's genesis from his Monks Suck video essay, his public statements regarding DPS Calculation being an Art and the video just being his opinion, and not definitive.
I didn't hack his email, these are public posts on Giants in the Playground....his responses to other posters. The thread on GITP is called "Treantmonk on Monks in 5e" if people want to read it for themselves...it is only at 16 pages..compared to 40+ here.
Disputes about how to interpret the evidentiary value of complex factors like DPS happen in science all the time. A scientist that responds to questions raised regarding methodology and interpretations of data in their study by stating "well it is just my personal opinion anyway",
would have their professional reputation take a damaging blow.
I'm not insulting Treantmonks intelligence, opinion, right to hold said opinion or anything else about him....that was someone else.
I am just disappointed at his response as I detailed earlier.
I am also disappointed that Galileo recanted....is that somehow insulting Galileo?
At this point, consensus seems to be DPS is an imperfect measurement tool, and thus care needs to be taken in assigning the appropriate weight to values derived from testing DPS to overall impact to gameplay.
I don't think that is an extreme position, as this thread seemingly shows.
Now I will admit to calling Alan Iverson "a chucker"....because well....scoreboard, baby!
(that and 20 year old basketball beefs are best forgotten and forgiven)
Without the benefits of Kepler's observations Galileo didn't have sufficient evidence to justify a paradigm shift. Observations of Venus and the moons of Jupiter where suggestive, but don't tell anything directly about the Earth.I am also disappointed that Galileo recanted....
Wait, let's be clear about what the two of you just did. You 1) went to a thread which is different from the one where Treantmonk is at, and bashed him. 2) part of the bash is to name things he said ON A DIFFERENT MESSAGE BOARD (without
Wait, let's be clear about what the two of you just did. You 1) went to a thread which is different from the one where Treantmonk is at, and bashed him. 2) part of the bash is to name things he said ON A DIFFERENT MESSAGE BOARD (without even a link to it) in cross-board drama fashion which I believe is against the rules here. 3) Gammadoodler then make a snarky personal attack against Treantmonk, again doing it in the thread he specifically isn't in rather than the one he was responding it.
Todd, if you have issues with something Treantmonk said on some other message board, TELL HIM THERE. And Gammadoodler, if you have personal issues with Treantmonk such that you're calling him dumb apparently (I have no idea what - it was just a direct context-less insult), maybe don't be a coward and do that directly to his face?
What the heck has gotten into you two? Are you just trolling from some other message board because of some personal beef over something which happened there?
Even in economics, they don't just calculate based on numbers. If they did, we'd probably have economic crashes one-after-another.I think the reason DPR ends up coming up so often is because modeling and trying to determine the effectiveness of DnD is a lot like economics. There are so many factors that come into play, that you either have to assume certain facts are static, or you just give up on any analysis at all.
And the most static of things to work with is DPR. They are the most raw numbers with the least possible disagreement in their implementation. A longsword with a +4 mod does 1d8+4 if the person is using a shield. No one can disagree with that statement, and a single attack on average does 8.5 damage.
Even in economics, they don't just calculate based on numbers. If they did, we'd probably have economic crashes one-after-another.
Most economists use a model determined using past models. Basically, they look at what happened during a past trend to predict what will happen during a present trend.
No matter what field of study you want to be in, unless it's pure mathematics, you want live data.
That's why I suggested having an actual play-by-post log, because we'll have a record on exactly what happened.Statistics and data can’t answer the types of questions we are asking. There’s no way for the data to differentiate the character from the player. As such the best data can tell us is how much a class contributes with an average player using it. The case could very much be the opposite with expert players or poor players. Then there’s the DM, which matters even for published adventures. Then there’s published adventures which many don’t actually play.
All your data would be able to tell me at the end of the day would be how average players playing a class with a specific build perform in the average dms run through of an average published adventure. Thats not a question anyone cares about.
Recognizing the limitations of data is the most important part of analytics.
I have no problem with Treantmonk at all. I do think it is relevant to this conversation, which has it's genesis from his Monks Suck video essay, his public statements regarding DPS Calculation being an Art and the video just being his opinion, and not definitive.
I didn't hack his email, these are public posts on Giants in the Playground....his responses to other posters. The thread on GITP is called "Treantmonk on Monks in 5e" if people want to read it for themselves...it is only at 16 pages..compared to 40+ here.
Disputes about how to interpret the evidentiary value of complex factors like DPS happen in science all the time. A scientist that responds to questions raised regarding methodology and interpretations of data in their study by stating "well it is just my personal opinion anyway",
would have their professional reputation take a damaging blow.
I'm not insulting Treantmonks intelligence, opinion, right to hold said opinion or anything else about him....that was someone else.
I am just disappointed at his response as I detailed earlier.
I am also disappointed that Galileo recanted....is that somehow insulting Galileo?
At this point, consensus seems to be DPS is an imperfect measurement tool, and thus care needs to be taken in assigning the appropriate weight to values derived from testing DPS to overall impact to gameplay.
I don't think that is an extreme position, as this thread seemingly shows.
Now I will admit to calling Alan Iverson "a chucker"....because well....scoreboard, baby!
(that and 20 year old basketball beefs are best forgotten and forgiven)