Final Fantasy XIV University

[Pepsi_Plunge]

Only thing that matters is the number at the end since it's the only thing we can measure. Circumstances are completely irrelevant

Yes. That's the point.

Plus week 8 and week 1 is completely different. Strats are not optimized yet, gear is completely different, etc.

Yes, that's why I made sure that all my examples were always in the same week.

[WhyAmIHere]

Yes. That's the point.


Yes, that's why I made sure that all my examples were always in the same week.

so then it is 100% irrelevant how long it took to get there. Whether it took one person 5 weeks, or it took them 35 weeks, or any number of weeks, to achieve the same or higher than someone else, is irrelevant because end of the day someone is ahead of someone else.

We're all different, learn at different rates / in different ways, and have myriad circumstances and variables that all culminate in who each person is at any given moment. Hence, the false equivalency logical fallacy.

[Pepsi_Plunge]

so then it is 100% irrelevant how long it took to get there. Whether it took one person 5 weeks, or it took them 35 weeks, or any number of weeks, to achieve the same or higher than someone else, is irrelevant because end of the day someone is ahead of someone else.

We're all different, learn at different rates / in different ways, and have myriad circumstances and variables that all culminate in who each person is at any given moment. Hence, the false equivalency logical fallacy.

You are still missing the point. Ninja A is clearly the better player when it comes to learning the content and performing on a high level. They outperformed Ninja B on all 8 weeks with better numbers in less tries. B could only catch up with A once A stopped playing. In the end B only had a higher score because A stopped competing and FFlogs would put B on #1, but everyone, even B, would usually agree that A is still the better Ninja, even if Ninja B has the log with the highest DPS score.

Or let me ask you differently:
Who would you prefere in your raid group: Ninja A who learns fast and performs on a high level with only minimum mistakes and helps you clear the content as fast as they could - or Ninja B with whom you will need thrice as long with, but has a better FFlog in the end?

[Nethereal]

You are still missing the point. Ninja A is clearly the better player when it comes to learning the content and performing on a high level. They outperformed Ninja B on all 8 weeks with better numbers in less tries. B could only catch up with A once A stopped playing. In the end B only had a higher score because A stopped competing and FFlogs would put B on #1, but everyone, even B, would usually agree that A is still the better player.

Or let me ask you differently:
Who would you prefere in your raid group: Ninja A who learns fast and performs on a high level with only minimum mistakes and helps you clear the content as fast as they could - or Ninja B with whom you will need thrice as long with, but has better FFlogs in the end?

I'm not sure I see your point, the last man standing wins.
The most important thing to achieve your dream is never quit.
The fact ninja A quit is all that matters, even if ninja A came back they wouldn't be better than ninja b because the only thing ninja a had over ninja b was learning speed.
So while many would take ninja a over ninja b because they're not interested in taking a long time to get good at something or willing to take extra time to help someone ninja b still became better than ninja a.
The issue here is that you don't seem to understand the time limit is arbitrary the fact ninja a quit isn't a fault on ninja b in fact it's the opposite, if ninja a quit before ninja b then regardless of how long you span the time ninja a was always going to quit before ninja b and lose to ninja b eventually.

ninja b would also agree that ninja a is a good player but they're better now at said fight.

This is very much a parse mentality vs a clear mentality as far as I can tell, parse mentality will eventually get you better numbers, at a cost.