I assumed you were since you had no idea they were both talking about 20-5 scs not jewels.

Um. I am pretty sure he said jewel, and thought to fit the 2os with jewels.
(I just went back and read it. I saw where he put 9x 20-5's. No i didnt know he meant scs because it didnt make any sense to compare charms to pelts. Also it didn't make any sense because I don't remember a druid needing 5 res all scs since his cyclone armor will absorb almost everything, but this is off topic.)

Either way He made an irrational point because He wanted to use an additional item in conjunction with his pelt vs a helmet without an additional item.

That's a variable. In science the goal is to control variables. This shows that his thinking wasn't logically.



Good point sir. I may have made an error due to this. However, even if I had been mistaken, a Pelt would require at least 55 in life (or stats equal to this amount) to be superior to shako.

However that statement assumes that shako does not have 10% DR, or + 2 to attributes.

This post was edited by Noob_Nova on Jul 19 2010 01:45am

I still doubt pelts can be beaten by shako that easily, the reason why 2 os is always overpriced on rares is not only because it looks good to have 2 stomps in your head, it also opens up other opportunities for builds. shako will never be able to get 50% fhr on it like a pelt can do. in order to get the needed 99fhr, you could use jalalas, shaeled or a 5 nado pelt shael shael but a shako shaeled makes you end up with 55 fhr from spirit, 20 fhr from shako and 7 fhr from suicide, which totals in 82. Therefore another 17 is needed. unfortunately, you got no other open holes in your gear left to put jewels in, the only way to get fhr comes from boots or charms. either you loose 80 life because you have to repalce 4x 20life add sc for 4x 5fhr add sc or you take sandstorm trecks over a decent pair of rares however there might be some with 10fhr/20fhr depending on the realm. but i will stop argueing, I dont know enough about druids and also probably sandstormtrecks is the best choise as boots for them which makes the fhr-discussion not a that big issue anymore.

i used shadow dancers.

Anyways these are all valid points but again we need to look at the big picture.

You are suggesting shako + 1 shael vs 2x shael'd Pelt

Because you don't want to lose 20 life scs

2x Shael = 40% Fhr + the assumed 10% Fhr on the pelt

this is 50% Fhr

since a FHR Sc = 5% Fhr if we divide 50% FHR by 5 we know how many scs we need to make up the difference:

10

10 scs that could have been 20 Life Scs. Which would equal 200 Life.

So in this case, looking only at base life, then your pelt is superior, ignoring that shako has DR.

However, your argument is based on item combination out side of just the pelt alone, which really should be a new thread altogether.

My counter argument is this:

Shako
Bloodfists
Spirit
Shadow Dancers

This gives you 40 more life on the gloves, and over 99 fhr, also you still have an empty socket on shako and 135 life from shako at lvl 90 and you get to keep all of your 20 Life Scs.

The only way to really find out which one is superior is to know exactly how shako effects BOs.

This post was edited by Noob_Nova on Jul 19 2010 02:34am

I don't build any of this stuff, so the merits are tough to assess, however, one thing is for certain, and I don't care how loudly OP want's to bleat and whine about it:

Life/ level
Mana / level

are NOT BOable stats unless 1.13 fundamentally changed how BO works. Please provide patch note or shut up about it.

On a side note, I also find the +damage v + life argument completely flawed. Apples and oranges. Adding to one and subtracting from the other do NOT give a zero sum.

This post was edited by AyeCaramba on Jul 19 2010 02:33am

You get more life after BO from shako. It could be simply from the +2. Not sure yet.

Anyways your missing the concept...

Your Dmg = His Life
His Dmg = Your Life

If you studied philosophy you would know that this can be simplified to mean:

Dmg = Life

If you and your opponent have equal life, and equal dmg then the difference is Zero.

If you and your opponent have equal life plus and minus 100 respectively, and equal dmg minus and plus 100 respectively, then the difference is still zero.

So for example:

Say you have 1000 Life and do 500 Dmg when you negate (kill) your opponent that has 1000 Life and does 500 Dmg you get the following formula:

1000 Life + 500 dmg (adding them together because both of these numbers together complete your character)

Minus

1000 Life + 500 dmg (your opponent)

This Equals zero.

Now to apply this to the + 6 nado Helm you get the following formula:

(1000 Life minus 100 (oak sage)) + 500 dmg + 107 dmg (+6 nado) = 1507

Miinus

1000 Life + 500 Dmg (your opponent)

Equals:

7


Let me know if its still confusing.

This post was edited by Noob_Nova on Jul 19 2010 02:56am

No. Fundamentally flawed argument.

1) This is a game with ranges, and not fixed damage
2) This is not a turn based game
3) The argument completely ignores pretty much all other factors of builds and duelling in fact.

You simply cannot equate the two in this way and make it meaningful.

ok well go read it again. because I am tired and had to correct an error. You will see that the math is perfect.

1) The Fixed dmg is based on Max Dmg. I choose to use a Fixed dmg (the max dmg) because using max dmg as fixed dmg is in favor of a +6 helmet.

2) This may not be a turn based game, but if you weren't a fucking know it all noob you would know that this is how we have been applying pvp theory for about the past 4 patches at least.

3) The "argument" as you call it reduces all the variables down to the ones that are to be analyzed. This is pretty standard. Even for doctors.

If you would read above, I have attempted to explain how the meaning of the math actually applies to the game. I am not a teacher of math, and therefore can only attempt to explain what the numbers mean. They are correct.

This post was edited by Noob_Nova on Jul 19 2010 03:01am

I know it seems like every one in the world is wrong, but i assure you its quite the opposite.

The math disagrees with your assertion.

Validate your position.

The world is flat.