Darklord wrote:Is £2 bad compared to £10?
Assuming you want money, and the only difference between two mutually exclusive options is that one of them gets you $10 and the other gets you $2, then the one that gets you $2 is bad. It gets you an economic loss of $8. Assuming you want those numbers on your character sheet for hit points, protection, evasion, etc to go up by more rather than less with the end goal of creating the "ultimate tank" or whatever, putting points in Athletics instead of Armor is a bad choice.
Darklord wrote:If someone let me choose a Pie worth £2 or Caviar worth £10, would the Pie be bad, just because it is worth less?
Skills that affect the same set of numbers can be objectively compared. Food preferences are subjective and cannot be objectively compared. We've been over this.
Darklord wrote:Just because one choice is mathematically better than the other does not make one choice bad.
You just equated price with utility. That is not even close to how things work. I'd give you a crash course in economics to explain the variety of ways in which your claim is absolutely nutters, but I think a simple "things do not work that way" suffices since I suspect you're just being facetious anyway.
Darklord wrote:You're argument could just as easily be that Athletics is good but a different choice is AWESOME!
My argument could just as easily be that Athletics is good and a different choice is awesome. That's exactly the point. Choosing the good at the expense of the awesome is a bad choice
. I recognize this because I have a working grasp of opportunity cost and it seems that you do not. If you could get points in Athletics for free, that would be great, but you can't. The only way to get points in Athletics is to forgo points in Armor, which is why we get into all this business with comparing the benefits of each to determine whether the opportunity cost of one choice is greater than the gains you get by choosing it. The results of the comparison are pretty clear, and only your boundless determination to not understand opportunity cost (along with your casual use of a few other fallacies, which I mentioned above) allows you to keep insisting otherwise.