Are the numbers too high?

[Kaeko]

Ok going to actually respond to Zangetsu's attempt to debunk the testing, specifically on VIT.

In the "initial testing on R52 Mongrels", it shows that for VIT of 178 all the way up to R269, the damage floor or "cap" as you refer to, is the SAME. So going from 178 VIT to 269 VIT did NOT change the cap.

Regarding your belief that we did not test VIT high enough, you are mistaken. You believed that we only tested to 269, but if you look at the post, it CLEARLY states in the actual body of the post AND the conclusions that the tested VIT range was 252 to 345. If you want to make the argument that a tier exists beyond 345 go for it, but going beyond 345 starts to border on the realm of impracticality in game.

Regarding the argument that DEF is somehow tiered (your example of going from 599 to 600 produces a 30 damage decrease)... First of all, we have offered an extremely large data set that would practically flood this thread if we were to post the raw data here. It clearly showed for at least 40 cases that there was a steady linear decline, not some sort of tier function. Not to be snarky or anything but I have never seen you offer any data in any of your posts suggesting anything regarding any stat at any time. Even a basic methodology like what mob, what level, etc. is not present.

We have the same goal in that we want to know how stats work. We offer our methodology in detail so that players like yourself may attempt to debunk it. That is what you are trying to do and we appreciate this. However, in your attempts to debunk it, you offer no alternative that has any test, data, or logical observational conclusion to support your counter-argument. As such, I (with all due respect), personally cannot take your theory(ies) all that seriously. This is not some personal attack on you. I only mean that if you expect us to defend our findings and detail our methods to be picked at, we only ask you produce the same.

****

Regarding the actual topic, I'm happy everyone has differing opinions. I just find it frustrating when they base their opinions of false or generally unproven ideas. If you're going to argue 1 way or the other, at least try to have the most accurate depiction of how things really work before you go at it. I stated this on like the 3rd page of this thread (buried somewhere in there), but

It's like we have to stand up before we can learn to walk - we have to know and AGREE on how stats work before we can complain about how they are broken.

Cheers