Okay, I'll just post some partial statistics here, based on my analysis.

The average skill ratings so far are as follows:
Spiritual Guide: 3.78
Wind Master: 3.07
Mechanician: 3.30

Top tier skills have the highest average rating of 4.56, whereas tier 2 skills have the lowest average rating of 2.94.

The optimal skill build, ratings-wise, for Cloud [25 skill points] would average 4.57*
The optimal skill build, ratings-wise, for Angel [25 skill points] would average 3.64*
The optimal skill build, ratings-wise, for Eagle eye [25 skill points] would average 3.94*

The worst skill build, ratings-wise, for Cloud [25 skill points] would average 2.16**
The worst skill build, ratings-wise, for Angel [25 skill points] would average 1.63**
The worst skill build, ratings-wise, for Eagle eye [25 skill points] would average 2.51**

*Optimal skill build means teching to higher skills as fast as possible to get the highest skill at the lowest level, while picking the highest-rated skills on the way.
**Worst skill build means teching to higher skills as fast as possible to get the highest skill at the lowest level, while picking the lowest-rated skills on the way.

This implies that assuming the three top-tier skills are equal, the optimal tree to max first would be the Spiritual Guide tree, whereas the safest route would be the Mechanician tree. It is noteworthy that the tier 1 skills of the Spiritual Guide tree gave a big boost to the optimal-rating skill-build for Cloud.

I opted not to give out the ratings for specific skills yet, since these may unduly influence the ratings of future critics.

Rehoto a dit :

I was thinking about your formula for weighting, and I think you over-value hard mode saves.

I've also reconsidered my weighting system since I figured it gave too much emphasis for pure saves, and not so much the levels of the shamans. Right now, having just 1000 more saves can easily help you overpower someone 10 levels above you. Whereas the latter would likely have more experience using skills.

So I decided to raise the exponent of the level from 2.0 to 2.5, to give higher-level shamans more of a chance to match people who have had high save counts since before skills were added.

However, I think the shaman save section of the formula is fine. The only thing it changes is the factor by which the shaman's save count is multiplied, and not ths save count itself. My rationalization is that hard mode shamans have an inherently more difficult challenge due to the lack of spirits and B planks. And so having more hard mode saves would naturally imply having greater skills, all other things equal.

Very interesting, for some reason I only trust you with these kinds of threads because everyone else's threads of guides and what not seem biased (In my opinion, note that down).

Looking forward to seeing what this has to offer, even though I already have the last of my skills planned out but just too lazy to level. Can't wait. o/

I'd like to join.

I'd like to join, huehue. :D

Seeteegee a dit :

stats.

I personally rated the skills keeping in mind that the higher up the tree they are, the more it costs: tier 2 skills have the lowest average rating, meaning it's that much more costly to get to tier 3 and up. I'm interested in seeing if there's an identifiable pattern of, "go this high in this tree, this high in that tree, THEN get a top-tier skill," with that reasoning (but it's unlikely if I'm the only person that considered top-tier skills effectively cost 26 points).

Seeteegee a dit :

mathematics

That would also work, because it lowers the inherent relative value per save as compared to each level as a Shaman, and is a much simpler solution than my dumb idea lol.

Rehoto a dit :

I personally rated the skills keeping in mind that the higher up the tree they are, the more it costs: tier 2 skills have the lowest average rating, meaning it's that much more costly to get to tier 3 and up.

Ah, I know someone else who used that faulty logic. You made an unwarranted assumption that all the skills under the skill in discussion are basically worthless, which is why you only factored the EXP cost of tetting the skill, and not the benefit of getting the lower-tier skills.

The only thing you should be considering when rating skills is the skill itself. If/when I publish my completed ratings, people would look at the skills in tiers and decide on their own whether the higher-rated skill is worth getting, and they would have a better idea of just how much the skill is worth when they see the published ratings of the lower-tiers.

If you factor in the lower tiers to get the higher-tier skill, you may distort the ratings of the actual quality of the skill, so I stongly discourage you or anyone from doing it.

Seeteegee a dit :

Ah, I know someone else who used that faulty logic. You made an unwarranted assumption that all the skills under the skill in discussion are basically worthless, which is why you only factored the EXP cost of tetting the skill, and not the benefit of getting the lower-tier skills.

The only thing you should be considering when rating skills is the skill itself. If/when I publish my completed ratings, people would look at the skills in tiers and decide on their own whether the higher-rated skill is worth getting, and they would have a better idea of just how much the skill is worth when they see the published ratings of the lower-tiers.

If you factor in the lower tiers to get the higher-tier skill, you may distort the ratings of the actual quality of the skill, so I stongly discourage you or anyone from doing it.

I actually mostly only applied it to the top-tier skills. In reality, it's hard going up the Mechanic tree when you first start out because you don't get anything immediately beneficial unless you are under strange, specific circumstances, but in theory I think that tree stands as the best for any sort of technical shaman, being someone that actually wants to build a thing to solve a map.

It affects the top-tier skills the most, though, because I do not think any of them except maybe Cloud should be teched up to ASAP - there's a lot of skills in various trees that have a more immediate and easier gratification. Every Shaman should look to get the top-tier skills, because they are wonderfully luxurious, but there's a few skills that I find are more necessary.

(I only used that logic to determine whether or not a skill is worthy of a 5; I felt if you were to consider something worthy of being teched up to ASAP, you have to consider what you're trading away, especially in the earlier levels where you only get to dedicate yourself in one tree.)

Rehoto a dit :

consider what you're trading away

Repeating the same mistake I just talked about...

When you tech up to Cloud, you don't level 26 times playing as a normal shaman. You actually unlock OTHER skills along the way such as springs, boost, apples, revive, extra time, etc. All of these are useful so you don't really "trade away" anything to get to Cloud. You're, in fact, adding to your repertoire along the way. Nothing is lost.

Seeteegee a dit :

Repeating the same mistake I just talked about...

When you tech up to Cloud, you don't level 26 times playing as a normal shaman. You actually unlock OTHER skills along the way such as springs, boost, apples, revive, extra time, etc. All of these are useful so you don't really "trade away" anything to get to Cloud. You're, in fact, adding to your repertoire along the way. Nothing is lost.

It more applies to the Wind Master and Mechanic tree than not. At Level 11, I could spawn multiple balls, super heavy anvils, and have chocolate planks, where I consider the first two skills potentially getting in the way at times but necessary to obtain the chocolate plank. Alternatively, I could have extra time, multiple balls, and start on super heavy anvils. I value the latter build more because extra time is so incredibly valuable and ridiculously good as a first-tier skill, but the former skill puts you closer to Eagle Eye. Ultimately, you don't ever 'lose' anything because all you do is gain skills, but you lose alternatives that may have more value, and to me it's not worth getting Eagle Eye at 26 and not have Additional Time for those 26 levels.

All it really means is I rated somewhat conservatively and it'll be balanced out because others rated somewhat liberally.

Okay, so this thread isn't really active right now, but I want to ask something anyway. Do you guys think it would be better to make this rating thing on an invitation-basis, instead of an open-volunteer thing?

Invitation would be better, you can choose who fits the test

Maxxzinnn a dit :

Invitation would be better, you can choose who fits the test

Yes, that's the main thing I'm looking for. The advantage is that I can pick the ones who actually understand the skills. The disadvantage is that I may pick too many people whose opinions coincide with mine, and may not actually reflect what's best for everyone.

I want to join :D

I'd like to join.

Although they might not understand all the skills "thoroughly" because they don't play as much as you, but they have experience in shamming and know which skills should be invest in the first place. My suggestion is don't need to pick ppl with lvl 80 but only have 10,000 saves. Instead,ppl that play this game for a long time, have more saves than cheese and at lvl 50+, those are better picks.

Around Levels 40-50 Shamans have a much more difficult choice because they are just short of having two top-tier skills, too, so it's likely they've put a lot more thought into what's important as compared to a Level 80 who can basically just get everything worthwhile.

Phoeny a dit :

My suggestion is don't need to pick ppl with lvl 80 but only have 10,000 saves. Instead,ppl that play this game for a long time, have more saves than cheese and at lvl 50+, those are better picks.

I dunno about this; I know lots of people who've played for a long time, and they dislike how skills "ruined the game". I'd rather pick from those who use the skills a lot.

yes i agree
ergo
verily
i say
decrease it

This thread is from 2013. Just saying.