The Tavern

Yes, you read it right. Trog is not great, it is not the best god. If you doubt, try SpEn, DECj, DrWz, TeFE, DDEE, HEAE, MuSu, OpTm, MfSk, VpNe, FeVM etc. and tell me that it is optimal to join Trog.
So please stop that stupid claim that spells can be OP because they can't be used with Trog. Trog is the most overrated god in crawl. If you have problems with non-Be play style, don't think other players have the same problems too.

trog powerful reason is the most useful starting God.

And, if you do not select the background of the zealot, because God always does nothing in the pre-temple, you will lose the advantage is useful God in pre-temple.

Starting gods are extremely powerful (except Xom of course). FoAK and MuAK are even more powerful than Be.

yeah you red that right. lipstick is not that great,. if you think so that it is, try use the lipstick on your arms, armspit, fingernails, the hair, the hair below, the chin, the areas between. what do all think of that. lipstick is the most overrated cosmetic. try deoderant, nail polish, and shampoo then tell me lipstick is optimal. so please stop that stupid claim that makeup remover is op because it can`t be used with lipstick. lipstick is the most overrated cosmetic in l`oreals product line. if you have problems with non-lipstick lifestyle, don`t think other ladies (and what have you else who use it) have the same problems too

Good post, twelwe. This is what I have in mind when someone says "Animate Skeleton is fine, you cannot use it with Trog anyway".

There was a thread about this a long time ago where I tried to say that Trog wasn't that strong (except as a starting god), and gammafunk proved me quite wrong using some sophisticated Sequell queries. Trog is among the strongest few gods, in first place IIRC in gammafunk's queries, and it's perhaps the strongest. Be is the strongest background.

Berder wrote:There was a thread about this a long time ago where I tried to say that Trog wasn't that strong (except as a starting god), and gammafunk proved me quite wrong using some sophisticated Sequell queries. Trog is among the strongest few gods, in first place IIRC in gammafunk's queries, and it's perhaps the strongest. Be is the strongest background.

I don't think sequel can prove it. For example, it can be explained by hypothesis that many players have problems with non-Be play style (they are too impatient, no luring, no retreating, escaping too late etc.). The best god for a bad player helps to recover from mistakes, the best god for a good player helps to survive unlucky situations (those can be different gods).

Counterpoint: Trog is great. Also, the fact that you can't cast any given spell and have Trog is a relevant balance consideration as long as Trog remains the best god in crawl.

trog isn't the best god though, fedhas is

Actually, fedhas is only the second best god. They're close though and reasonable people could disagree, imo.

Trog is still the best god. Even FeBe is op.

Yeah, I admit few characters(very few) shouldn't worship trog.
But still trog is the best god. No doubt.

If you play Human, HuBe is the best Human. It's most optimal and No doubt.
I like Chei, but at D:1, you can't worship Chei.(anyway D:1 Chei is bad)

"Trog is overrated" is very very *stupid* opinion.
Don't underrate Trog. It's the most powerful and optimal god except Chei.

Note to everyone, it is not about Be, it is about Trog. Be is the best background, no contest about that. Yes, Fedhas is much better than Trog with book backgrounds though Ne will still be unhappy. Some characters like SpEn don't need help early game so they can take Kiku, for example.

Sandman25 wrote: If you doubt, try SpEn, DECj, DrWz, TeFE, DDEE, HEAE, MuSu, OpTm, MfSk, VpNe, FeVM etc. and tell me that it is optimal to join Trog.
.

Okay, so that's 11 out of 600+ combinations

I never choose trog, but that's not because he's not good.

I am talking about both trog and Be!

You are talking about mummy??
at mummy, Mu^Okawaru is better than Mu^Trog, yeah.
But still Mummy^Trog is viable because trog is op.

You are talking about extended game?
yeah, makhleb is better choice, but still trog is strong.

Here's your reply.

I still prefer running a (Ho,Mi)Gl who has passive god abilities and a bunch of low and mid-level spells I hardly ever use anyway because I never remember to even use any of that stuff in the middle of my tab-n-o fest....

Trog, you say? Hmmm....

radinms wrote:I am talking about both trog and Be!

You are talking about mummy??
at mummy, Mu^Okawaru is better than Mu^Trog, yeah.
But still Mummy^Trog is viable because trog is op.

You are talking about extended game?
yeah, makhleb is better choice, but still trog is strong.

Everything is viable, even OpSu of Xom who trains nothing but Summoning. Because Xom is OP, yeah

greedo wrote:Okay, so that's 11 out of 600+ combinations I never choose trog, but that's not because he's not good.

Those were examples which I personally tried. I even tried one of them with Trog (DEWz/DECj who cast no spells). You can add most/all book backgrounds with magic species like DE/HE/Te/Fe/Op/DD/Gr/Dr/Na etc. Trog's problem is that it is bad after you have just joined it and now you cannot use your level 2-3 spells (and corresponding skills) which are superior to berserk. Also most spells are ranged, it is easier to block Sigmund with Conjure Flame or kill with Call Imps/Canine, for example.

My only reaction to this thread is disappointment that there was no discussion of Christopher Hitchens here.

bel wrote:My only reaction to this thread is disappointment that there was no discussion of Christopher Hitchens here.

I highly recommend Oolon Colluphid's trilogy of Where Trog Went Wrong, Some More of Trog's Greatest Mistakes, and Who is this Trog Person Anyway?

Berder wrote:There was a thread about this a long time ago where I tried to say that Trog wasn't that strong (except as a starting god), and gammafunk proved me quite wrong using some sophisticated Sequell queries. Trog is among the strongest few gods, in first place IIRC in gammafunk's queries, and it's perhaps the strongest. Be is the strongest background.

I'd love to see that post... Cum hoc ergo propter hoc

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=15338

On rereading, it appears what he actually proved is that Trog is probably the strongest god for melee backgrounds. I showed earlier in the thread that it's strong, but not the strongest, when you look at all backgrounds.

Berder wrote:proved

I mean, if that thread shows anything, it shows how difficult it is to find objective "proof" (that everyone can agree on!) when it comes to Crawl.

Of course, I think it's incredibly obvious that Trog is a bad choice if and only if a) you've selected a book background and b) you've only trained casting skills between D:1 and the Temple. If you don't fit both of those criteria, Trog is probably one of the top 3 gods for every species and background.

my recently records

MfIE Chiller D blasted by an orc priest
MfIE Chiller D slain by a hobgoblin
MfIE Chiller D blasted by Jessica
MfAs Spear-Bearer D succumbed to sayami's ghost's poison
HOFi Beogh Cleaver D slain by an orc warrior
FeBe Trog Sabretooth D escaped with the Orb

that shows how trog is absurdly powerful.
Mf or HO is strong race, but not op. but trog is op even felid. sadly, that is the fact.

radinms wrote:my recently records

MfIE Chiller D blasted by an orc priest
MfIE Chiller D slain by a hobgoblin
MfIE Chiller D blasted by Jessica
MfAs Spear-Bearer D succumbed to sayami's ghost's poison
HOFi Beogh Cleaver D slain by an orc warrior
FeBe Trog Sabretooth D escaped with the Orb

that shows how trog is absurdly powerful.
Mf or HO is strong race, but not op. but trog is op even felid. sadly, that is the fact.

You need boring walk.

radinms wrote:my recently records

MfIE Chiller D blasted by an orc priest
MfIE Chiller D slain by a hobgoblin
MfIE Chiller D blasted by Jessica
MfAs Spear-Bearer D succumbed to sayami's ghost's poison
HOFi Beogh Cleaver D slain by an orc warrior
FeBe Trog Sabretooth D escaped with the Orb

that shows how trog is absurdly powerful.
Mf or HO is strong race, but not op. but trog is op even felid. sadly, that is the fact.

No, that shows that Fe is OP (streak stat "proves" it AFAIR).

Edit. Sorry, you play IE in a wrong way. You should not ignore Throw Frost.

Edit2. HO death was completely avoidable too.

The Trog ban on spellcasting is actually a bonus, because it prevents players from spending their xp wrong.

Trog is the best god for players who hate magic, just as Chei is the best god for players who hate luring.

archaeo wrote:
Berder wrote:proved

I mean, if that thread shows anything, it shows how difficult it is to find objective "proof" (that everyone can agree on!) when it comes to Crawl.

As a philosophical objection - finding objective proof, and having everyone agree on it, are two entirely different things. Take global warming, for example, or evolution.

You're comparing apples and oranges. If you poll subject matter experts, anthropogenic climate change and the theory of evolution are overwhelmingly accepted by climatologists and biologists, respectively. Conversely, Crawl "experts" (which is to say developers and respected players) have been pretty forthright in disagreeing with your interpretations of Crawl statistics.

archaeo wrote:You're comparing apples and oranges. If you poll subject matter experts, anthropogenic climate change and the theory of evolution are overwhelmingly accepted by climatologists and biologists, respectively. Conversely, Crawl "experts" (which is to say developers and respected players) have been pretty forthright in disagreeing with your interpretations of Crawl statistics.

Your "experts" aren't actual experts in analyzing data. Nor am I, but I am better educated on the subject than most. I am also one of the few players who has made a concerted effort to actually look at the data rather than just repeat commonly held beliefs. Most of my critics are not my peers in that respect.

You're trying to reduce the truth to a social dynamic. It doesn't work like that.

(By the way, your picture of the social dynamic has a blind spot. There are also some others - less strident - who do recognize the value of looking at the data. Let's not confuse who is loud with who is right.)

Berder wrote:Your "experts" aren't actual experts in analyzing data. Nor am I, but I am better educated on the subject than most. I am also one of the few players who has made a concerted effort to actually look at the data rather than just repeat commonly held beliefs. Most of my critics are not my peers in that respect.

I am not an expert in mathematics but I believe math methods are useless with wrong data. I feel like you are trying to find a reason of death of many people by looking at their weight at the moment of death. While it does look like it makes some sense, the conclusions can be absolutely wrong if you include people who died in car accidents, during birth and from age in the same data set without splitting into age/sex/etc. baskets.
Crawl is a complicated game - death of a confused Mu on D2, from distortion on D1, due to running out of MP vs a pack of jackals or a Fo who is two-shot by A.Lich in Zot5 are too different, and we can add consumables, strategic skilling errors, tactical error, loot (Maxwell's Patent Armor etc.) to complicate it even more.

Berder wrote:Your "experts" aren't actual experts in analyzing data. Nor am I, but I am better educated on the subject than most. I am also one of the few players who has made a concerted effort to actually look at the data rather than just repeat commonly held beliefs. Most of my critics are not my peers in that respect.

I have a college education that included courses covering statistics and experimental methods, which I think gives me a sufficient background in statistical analysis to say that yours are often bunk. I have very little doubt that most of those who are disagreeing with you, including Crawl devs, are better educated than I.

The assertion that you're "one of the few players who has made a concerted effort to actually look at the data" is not true; I won't go looking for "proof" that I'm right, but I know that gammafunk literally wrote objstat in order to make that kind of concerted effort.

You're trying to reduce the truth to a social dynamic. It doesn't work like that.

You're trying to claim as "true" something that isn't, in fact, objectively true. The fact that your argument has numbers in it doesn't make it right.

My argument has nothing to do with social dynamics. The social dynamic argument is that your style of argumentation bothers people enough that a forum moderator literally just recommended that people ignore you. There's nothing inherently wrong with that; Crawl has a rich collection of people with unpopular opinions, many of whom continue posting even though it's obvious that their ideas won't make it into the game. But if you actually want to influence the direction of the game's development, it might be a good idea to try a different strategy.

archaeo wrote:I have a college education that included courses covering statistics and experimental methods, which I think gives me a sufficient background in statistical analysis to say that yours are often bunk. I have very little doubt that most of those who are disagreeing with you, including Crawl devs, are better educated than I.

I'm not impressed.

archaeo wrote:The assertion that you're "one of the few players who has made a concerted effort to actually look at the data" is not true; I won't go looking for "proof" that I'm right, but I know that gammafunk literally wrote objstat in order to make that kind of concerted effort.

gammafunk is another of the few players who has made a concerted effort to actually look at the data. gammafunk and I have only talked about dcss data a few times but he has always had something valuable to add to the discussion.

A funny note, you quoted my word "proved" and said the discussion shows how "hard it is to find objective proof." Who was I using that word "proved" in reference to? gammafunk, not myself.

Berder wrote:I'm not impressed.

No, nor should you be; I'm not very impressive. But I'm statistically literate enough to know bad statistical analysis when I see it.

gammafunk is another of the few players who has made a concerted effort to actually look at the data. gammafunk and I have only talked about dcss data a few times but he has always had something valuable to add to the discussion.

A funny note, you quoted my word "proved" and said the discussion shows how "hard it is to find objective proof." Who was I using that word "proved" in reference to? gammafunk, not myself.

Except I don't think gammafunk "proved" anything either. All he showed was that lots of players win when they worship Trog. I don't think that says anything concrete about Trog's strength, just that lots of players enjoy winning with Trog, in part because Trog's a popular god we frequently recommend to newbies. When you factor in other analyses, including the opinion of experienced players and an understanding of what "strength" means in the context of Crawl gods, you can say Trog is strong; you can't say so based on the fact that Trog has a high winrate.

I quoted "proved" because you often use that word to refer to statistical analysis despite the fact that even a moron like me knows that "proof" in the context of statistics requires significantly more scientific rigor than you've applied, and even then, a good statistician understands cliches like "correlation does not equal causation." Are your results statistically significant? Have you actually polled a representative sample? Are there confounding factors that you've eliminated from your analysis?

I last took a stats course nearly a decade ago, Berder; given that you're "better educated on the subject than most," I would expect that you'd understand the limitations of statistics.

Is this what it feels like to be in a love triangle?

gamma I'd suggest trying a love line segment first before jumping straight to triangles

archaeo wrote:Except I don't think gammafunk "proved" anything either. All he showed was that lots of players win when they worship Trog. I don't think that says anything concrete about Trog's strength, just that lots of players enjoy winning with Trog, in part because Trog's a popular god we frequently recommend to newbies. When you factor in other analyses, including the opinion of experienced players

The opinion of anybody has no place in data analysis, unless you're taking an opinion survey.

I quoted "proved" because you often use that word to refer to statistical analysis

No I don't. Find another time when I used it in that context.

despite the fact that even a moron like me knows that "proof" in the context of statistics requires significantly more scientific rigor than you've applied,

than gammafunk applied, you mean. Yes, it was an exaggeration to say that he "proved" the strength of Trog, but his analysis is good enough to convince me.

Berder wrote:The opinion of anybody has no place in data analysis, unless you're taking an opinion survey.

Which is totally reasonable, if that "data analysis" is a question about winrate. If it's a question like "Is Trog a strong god," though, there are a bunch of really obvious confounding factors in the winrate data, which is all I see being discussed. Maybe there's some objective set of data that would conclusively show, one way or another, that Trog is a strong god; I expect that said data set would be a lot more comprehensive than raw data about winrates, no matter how you sample the winrate data.

When it comes to evaluating hazy things like game design, opinions do matter. Crawl isn't a machine, it's a game.

I quoted "proved" because you often use that word to refer to statistical analysis

No I don't. Find another time when I used it in that context.

ok.

Edited to add: I feel compelled to point out that that's the first hit in Google when you search "site:crawl.develz.org berder proof," fwiw.

than gammafunk applied, you mean. Yes, it was an exaggeration to say that he "proved" the strength of Trog, but his analysis is good enough to convince me.

Oh, right, I see gammafunk talking about how he's "proving" stuff with winrate data all the time.

ok.

Try again. In that thread I didn't claim anything actually had been proved; quite the opposite.

archaeo wrote:gamma I'd suggest trying a love line segment first before jumping straight to triangles

sick dunk b

It may be time to resurrect the dunk of the month.

Berder wrote:
ok.

Try again. In that thread I didn't claim anything actually had been proved; quite the opposite.

Ah, dang, you're right, I got that one wrong, my bad. And after looking further, you haven't actually said you've "proved" anything w/r/t your analyses, at least not that I can find, so yep. Fair enough.

Man at least this turned into an opportunity for a solid gammadunk, right?

*opens mouth as an unfathomable amount of cockroaches pour out*

Arrhythmia wrote:*opens mouth as an unfathomable amount of cockroaches pour out*

You don't see many oppurtunities to use this image!

You need to eat a large roach to survive.

The Tavern

Trog is not great

Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great

Re: Trog is not great