Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Todd Roybark" data-source="post: 8053930" data-attributes="member: 6920677">I have no problem with Treantmonk at all.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The thread on GITP is called &quot;Treantmonk on Monks in 5e&quot; 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.&nbsp; A scientist that responds to questions raised regarding methodology and interpretations of data in their study by stating &quot;well it is just&nbsp; my personal opinion anyway&quot;,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.&nbsp; 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 &quot;a chucker&quot;....because well....scoreboard, baby! <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="😉" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" title="Winking face&nbsp; &nbsp; :wink:" data-shortname=":wink:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />(that and 20 year old basketball beefs are best forgotten and forgiven)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Todd Roybark, post: 8053930, member: 6920677"] 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 [I]DPS Calculation being an Art[/I] 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 [I]someone else.[/I] 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) [/QUOTE]

Verification