Grimrock

Empyrean wrote: Stand back, everybody! I'm about to do MATH!!!

I shall combat your math with a COMPARISON!

Caviar Vs Pie,

Some people consider Cavier to be superior does that mean Pie is bad and no one should be allowed to choose Pie, even if they like it?

I choose Pie.

Mmm Pie...

Daniel.

Darklord wrote:I shall combat your math with a COMPARISON!

Caviar Vs Pie,

Some people consider Cavier to be superior does that mean Pie is bad and no one should be allowed to choose Pie, even if they like it?

I choose Pie.

Mmm Pie...

Daniel.

Pie! Because it is good for you. And it has many more flavors than caviar. You can't have meat-, shepherds-, apple-, chicken-, blueberry-, cherry-, or blackberry-flavoured caviar. Some might say that would have been nice, but why make caviar with those flavours when you already have them in pies?

As for Athletics; perhaps it's not as usefull as other traits, but it's still usefull in its way. If you don't like Athletics then invest in something else. Just as the Pie vs Caviar; personally I don't like caviar so I choose pie, which I do like, instead.

Darklord wrote:

Empyrean wrote: Stand back, everybody! I'm about to do MATH!!!

I shall combat your math with a COMPARISON!

Caviar Vs Pie,

Some people consider Cavier to be superior does that mean Pie is bad and no one should be allowed to choose Pie, even if they like it?

I choose Pie.

Mmm Pie...

Daniel.

This isn't a matter of subjective preference between different types of things. Athletics and Armor affect a very limited set of numbers, and do so in an objective, mathematically comparable way. Making a comparison to food preferences is a really weak analogy because preference for one food over another is entirely subjective, while math is completely objective. You can't quantify flavor to make comparisons between things that do not taste the same. The short, more formal version: hit points, protection, evasion and elemental resistances are objectively known and mathematically comparable. The flavor of food is subjectively experienced and is not comparable. Thus,the argument by analogy that skills cannot be compared mathematically because food preferences are subjective fails.

I've said repeatedly that you can choose whatever skills you want. Even skills that are bad. You can even win with skills that are bad. But that doesn't mean that you've invalidated the mathematical analysis of these skills because you prefer a skill that is bad. It just means that you prefer a bad skill. I don't know where you're getting the idea that I'm insisting that people shouldn't be allowed to pick a bad skill when all I'm doing is running the numbers to demonstrate that a skill is, in fact, bad.

Is £2 bad compared to £10?

One may be worth more than the other but £2 isn't necessarily bad.

If someone let me choose a Pie worth £2 or Caviar worth £10, would the Pie be bad, just because it is worth less?

Sure the Pie may be worth less but it has nice FLAVOUR, and hey I don't mind that.

Just because one choice is mathematically better than the other does not make one choice bad.

You're argument could just as easily be that Athletics is good but a different choice is AWESOME!

Daniel.

Darklord wrote:Is £2 bad compared to £10?

One may be worth more than the other but £2 isn't necessarily bad.

Empyrean addressed this above. $2 is objectively worse than $10, when you can choose only one. It's not a choice of athletics in a vacuum - i.e., get $2 or nothing. Getting athletics means not getting something else. There's a lost opportunity cost. Why you insist on judging it in a vacuum is beyond me.

The point is just because one skill is better than the other, does not make the lesser choice a bad one.

Lesser does not necessarily mean bad.

Daniel.

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.

Empyrean wrote: 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.

Well we are getting closer to a joint understanding here.

Athletics may not be as good as some of the other choices, I just don't feel that is enough to call it bad, you disagree. Fair enough. Think we've said about all there is to say on this now!

Daniel.

Prepare thyselves, lest thine mind be blown:

Does not compute>?!!!###''';;;¬¬¬

{BOOM}