Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8054214" data-attributes="member: 6795602">I made the claim that because the data we could get wouldn't actually answer the questions we are trying to answer that the actual data doesn't matter in this situation.&nbsp; I never would make a claim that data doesn't matter.&nbsp; It always matters for something.&nbsp; So please stop trying to twist my position into anit-analyitic/anti-statistical.&nbsp; It's not.&nbsp; My position is that before you waste all this time gathering data to answer a question - you need to be sure the data you are gathering can tell you what you want to know.I do understand why you suggest them.&nbsp; You don't seem to understand why I say they are bad for this.&nbsp; How many different fighter builds are there?&nbsp; You can't monte carlo and design good tactics into the sum for each one over a vast array of situations.&nbsp; And that's just fighters.&nbsp; We have ever other class to do.&nbsp; We have every other combination of 4 classes to do.&nbsp; Now one might could make a learning AI that optimizes party tactics over an adventuring day toward whatever goals you predefine.&nbsp; That's not monte carlo though.&nbsp; That's machine learning.What you are suggesting is actually worse than DPR.&nbsp; It doesn't actually more accurately answer the questions we want answered and it is more misleading because people will believe it is more accurate in answering those questions.DPR is the simplest and most useful metric we have and outside of attempting to use machine learning to tackle the problem it's probably the best single metric we ever will have.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 8054214, member: 6795602"] I made the claim that because the data we could get wouldn't actually answer the questions we are trying to answer that the actual data doesn't matter in this situation. I never would make a claim that data doesn't matter. It always matters for something. So please stop trying to twist my position into anit-analyitic/anti-statistical. It's not. My position is that before you waste all this time gathering data to answer a question - you need to be sure the data you are gathering can tell you what you want to know. I do understand why you suggest them. You don't seem to understand why I say they are bad for this. How many different fighter builds are there? You can't monte carlo and design good tactics into the sum for each one over a vast array of situations. And that's just fighters. We have ever other class to do. We have every other combination of 4 classes to do. Now one might could make a learning AI that optimizes party tactics over an adventuring day toward whatever goals you predefine. That's not monte carlo though. That's machine learning. What you are suggesting is actually worse than DPR. It doesn't actually more accurately answer the questions we want answered and it is more misleading because people will believe it is more accurate in answering those questions. DPR is the simplest and most useful metric we have and outside of attempting to use machine learning to tackle the problem it's probably the best single metric we ever will have. [/QUOTE]

Verification