Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Gloomlord]

never forget

Kind of wish you didn't bump this.

Not that he doesn't deserve mockery and insults, but more that he lacks the intelligence and maturity to acknowledge why he deserves it.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'm sorry, did you think this reply makes any sense?

The thread has exposed you long ago for the psychopathic man child you are. You would do well to bow out and never return.

I didn't even want this thread bumped again. But if you're going to make a post saying this thread "exposed the trolls", when you should have left well enough alone, then you are the most pathetic human being I've ever seen on the internet.

Just fuck off already.

Blame Toxigen for bumping the thread, not me.

When you make posts like this, you aren't doing yourself any favors, or making yourself look good. It simply proves my point.

I said you have a reading comprehension issue because it is the truth. That, or you are trolling by twisting what I said.

I did not say Shamans can out DPS a Mage in single target scenarios, which is what people are going to think when you accuse me of saying "Shamans can out DPS Mages". I said Shamans can out DPS a Mage if you can root rot multiple mobs at a time, which is a perfectly valid strategy in an XP group where you are just churning through mobs.

The zealous behavior in this thread was people saying "you can't root rot multiple mobs in a group, that isn't allowed!". This is clearly not true, but apparently people can't have Mages be in a position where they aren't out-DPSing the Shaman.

[Gloomlord]

Can you honestly tell me, throughout this thread, you weren't making some of the most disingenuous arguments imaginable? You deserved every insult and mockery thrown towards you.

We already explained more than half a year ago to you why no one is going to root rot mobs parallel to a 2 charm group sawing through one mob at a time. Do we really have to have another 300 pages explaining to you why this is insane behaviour?

Are you this insanely childish to continue with this rhetoric after this amount of time?

You knew you were wrong then, and you still know you're wrong now. Coming back after this amount of time doesn't lessen this.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Can you honestly tell me, throughout this thread, you weren't making some of the most disingenuous arguments imaginable? You deserved every insult and mockery thrown towards you.

We already explained more than half a year ago to you why no one is going to root rot mobs parallel to a 2 charm group sawing through one mob at a time. Do we really have to have another 300 pages explaining to you why this is insane behaviour?

Are you this insanely childish to continue with this rhetoric after this amount of time?

You knew you were wrong then, and you still know you're wrong now. Coming back after this amount of time doesn't lessen this.

"You can't play the game in a way that allows Shamans to do more DPS". This is why you are a troll. You are trying to force people to play the game in a specific way so you cannot be wrong on an Elf forum:)

And you are trying to claim you are the adult here?

[Gloomlord]

You remember that comment I made about having a wizard and bard doing their own thing parallel to 4 other people taking one mob at a time? You remember how I said how insanely illogical it would be for them to be engaging in a snare kite would be in this group?

Nobody said that shaman couldn't hypothetically do more damage than a mage with enough rooted targets taking DoTs -- we said it was adding unnecessary risk to this 4 man group, and that it wasn't conducive to speeding up the kills in a charm group.

Listen: I know you're not very intelligent, considering you're back here again, but can't you see how irrelevant shaman is here in a 2 enchanter 1 cleric group?

You really can't see how you're being checkmated here once again?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You remember that comment I made about having a wizard and bard doing their own thing parallel to 4 other people taking one mob at a time? You remember how I said how insanely illogical it would be for them to be engaging in a snare kite would be in this group?

Nobody said that shaman couldn't hypothetically do more damage than a mage with enough rooted targets taking DoTs -- we said it was adding unnecessary risk to this 4 man group, and that it wasn't conducive to speeding up the kills in a charm group.

Listen: I know you're not very intelligent, considering you're back here again, but can't you see how irrelevant shaman is here in a 2 enchanter 1 cleric group?

You really can't see how you're being checkmated here once again?

I am not sure why you are angry then, or disagreeing with me. You seem to agree that Shamans can out DPS a Mage when root rotting, which was my point.

I simply disagree that root rotting is risky in a group scenario, because a Shaman can do it just fine solo. It wouldn't be a very good solo strategy if it was so risky you are dying often.

Please stop trying to discourage people from playing the game in different ways simply because your ego can't handle it.

[Gloomlord]

But why would a shaman be doing that? This isn't a group with 2 necromancers and 1 bard -- this is a group with 2 enchanters and 1 cleric. Mage is the better fit for this group.

Meanwhile, in order to reach this higher DPS in order to show that mages are somehow the inferior DPS class, you're either doing very low targets to prevent a problem, which mean nothing in an exp group and a group trying to get some really juicy loot, or you get unlucky root resists which could waste time at best or spiral out of control at worst.

Why would 2 enchanters be fine with you doing this in their 2 charm group as they safely obliterate one mob at a time? Would they do it to appease your childish attempt to prove a point?

Your ego comment might have got to me if it weren't for the fact you've demonstrated over the course of this thread your complete and utter lack of sanity, intelligence and maturity.

In fact: why am I even trying to make counter arguments to you again? Despite my anger towards you, I still feel I'm being too polite by repeating myself again after more than 6 months.

You've had this told to you before, in case you've forgotten (you haven't).

[DeathsSilkyMist]

But why would a shaman be doing that? This isn't a group with 2 necromancers and 1 bard -- this is a group with 2 enchanters and 1 cleric. Mage is the better fit for this group.

Meanwhile, in order to reach this higher DPS in order to show that mages are somehow the inferior DPS class, you're either doing very low targets to prevent a problem, which mean nothing in an exp group and a group trying to get some really juicy loot, or you get unlucky root resists which could waste time at best or spiral out of control at worst.

Why would 2 enchanters be fine with you doing this in their 2 charm group as they safely obliterate one mob at a time? Would they do it to appease your childish attempt to prove a point?

Your ego comment might have got to me if it weren't for the fact you've demonstrated over the course of this thread your complete and utter lack of sanity, intelligence and maturity.

In fact: why am I even trying to make counter arguments to you again? Despite my anger towards you, I still feel I'm being too polite by repeating myself again after more than 6 months.

You've had this told to you before, in case you've forgotten (you haven't).

I think you forgot that people basically kept bouncing back and forth between XP groups and Loot groups to muddy the water because their arguments couldn't hold water.

In an XP group, the Shaman can root/rot if you want more kills, because XP groups are generally killing mobs easy enough to do so. I can't really think of a location that a group would go to where they can chainsaw mobs extremely fast, while also fighting a bunch of mobs with heavy magic resistance. It's a very specific scenario you are trying to create to prove your point, and that isn't P99 generally speaking.

In a Loot group, a Shaman provides great utility including damage mitigation, and DPS isn't that relevant when you are already doing so much of it with the 2x Enchanter pets. The difference between 200 DPS and 250 DPS on a mob with 18000 HP (Fungi King) is 90 seconds vs. 72 seconds. When you are waiting 30 minutes for a mob to respawn, saving 18 seconds is basically irrelevant. That 18 seconds is what the Mage is providing, vs. all the utility a Shaman has to offer.

Again, Mages are a great addition to the team if you are doing a lot of CoTH shenanigans, but most camps don't need that. This is more of a specific scenario where the group has agreed to do certain camps as their primary targets.

[Gloomlord]

This is a whole lot of "I know this is an insane situation I've created, but I'll be damned if I admit to being wrong" to me.

Bards can AoE kite 25 mobs in zones and can do far more DPS than mages. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that bards are the superior DPS class over mages because you fail to realise external factors in that DPS?

DSM -- one of the sorest losers I've ever seen on the internet. And I've been on the internet for more than 20 years on forums.

Just let that sink in.

Yes. He really is that insane...

[DeathsSilkyMist]

This is a whole lot of "I know this is an insane situation I've created, but I'll be damned if I admit to being wrong" to me.

Bards can AoE kite 25 mobs in zones and can do far more DPS than mages. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that bards are the superior DPS class over mages because you fail to realise external factors in that DPS?

DSM -- one of the sorest losers I've ever seen on the internet. And I've been on the internet for more than 20 years on forums.

Just let that sink in.

Yes. He really is that insane...

You are the only person trying to advocate for bard kiting in a group. Great strawman. But since you cannot rebut the other arguments I made in the last post, that is all you can do.

The amount of space you need for a bard kite is much greater than the space needed for root rotting, so I fail to see why you think you are being clever here with that comparison.

The only extreme situation being created is the one where you have an XP group that can chainsaw through mobs with 2x Enchanters, while also fighting a bunch of mobs that have so much magic resistance that root doesn't work very well. Disregarding the fact that that would influence Enchanter pets as well. You are the one who created this scenario:)

[Gloomlord]

I'm not advocating for bard kiting in a group! Jesus Christ! How could you miss the point of what I'm getting at?

I'm saying having a shaman root rot in this group is as pointless and insane as a bard AoE kiting in a group that is using charms to kill one mob at a time. Why would either of them be doing that?

You blithering imbecile!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'm not advocating for bard kiting in a group! Jesus Christ! How could you miss the point of what I'm getting at?

I'm saying having a shaman root rot in this group is as pointless and insane as a bard AoE kiting in a group that is using charms to kill one mob at a time. Why would either of them be doing that?

You blithering imbecile!

I am not missing the point at all. You are the only person who has brought up bard kiting in a group hehe.

Comparing bard kiting to root rotting simply shows how little you know about the game. It's much easier to root rot than it is to set up a bard kit. You can root rot just about anywhere.

Funnily enough, there are some zones where you could probably have a bard kite going while the group kills elsewhere. Velks is a good example. Since the first part of the zone is mostly vertical, you are probably going to be close enough to the bard to get XP if they are swarm kiting at the bottom. So your group could be sitting at frenzy and pulling from the top while the bard is swarming at the bottom. You could be on to something! Only a few zones would support it, which is why you wouldn't take a bard just for that.

[Gloomlord]

Anyone reading this now can see you just missed the point. It doesn't matter if root rotting is more viable than AoE kiting in zones.

Why would I be doing either root rotting or AoE kiting in a 2 charm group with a cleric? How does this aid their method? Why are either of those things preferable to a mage contributing to single target focus?

Read, you simpleton!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Anyone reading this now can see you just missed the point. It doesn't matter if root rotting is more viable than AoE kiting in zones.

Why would I be doing either root rotting or AoE kiting in a 2 charm group with a cleric? How does this aid their method? Why are either of those things preferable to a mage contributing to single target focus?

Read, you simpleton!

If you agree that root rotting is more viable than swarm kiting, then your comparison between root rotting and swarm kiting simply goes out the window. It is an apples to oranges comparison. This means you have no point to make.

The only person not reading is yourself. To answer your question (which I already have), you can root rot mobs while your group is killing singles. It's really not a hard concept. Bring a few mobs into camp and root them while the Shaman is DoTing the mobs that aren't being attacked by the pets. A lot of groups already do the part where they bring multiple mobs into camp and root them away from the pets while they kill one at a time. Just add some DoTs lol, its a few clicks.

[Gloomlord]

And I could be AoE kiting at the bottom of Velks as a Bard in this group, completely outstripping my other 3 teammates as I slowly destroy 25 spiders.

It doesn't matter, you complete idiot, if I completely out DPS the mage. It doesn't matter if I can root rot 3+ mobs next to 3 other teammates doing a charm group.

The point is that it's worthless to this group. You suggest it because shamans can do more DPS than mages, just like kiting mobs as bard does more DPS, but it's worthless to this composition.

The hypothetical two enchanters and one cleric would regard you as an imbecile for wasting their time with your stupid shenanigans. You're just interfering with their one target at a time method, when they possibly could have got some more sustainable DPS from a mage, that only requires hitting the assist and pet attack keybinds.

You're an idiot. I don't think there's anything more I can say here. You were the same moron who thinks warriors are better soloers than enchanters, and that COTH makes mage a "porting class". Is it surprising?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

And I could be AoE kiting at the bottom of Velks as a Bard in this group, completely outstripping my other 3 teammates as I slowly destroy 25 spiders.

It doesn't matter, you complete idiot, if I completely out DPS the mage. It doesn't matter if I can root rot 3+ mobs next to 3 other teammates doing a charm group.

The point is that it's worthless to this group. You suggest it because shamans can do more DPS than mages, just like kiting mobs as bard does more DPS, but it's worthless to this composition.

The hypothetical two enchanters and one cleric would regard you as an imbecile for wasting their time with your stupid shenanigans. You're just interfering with their one target at a time method, when they possibly could have got some more sustainable DPS from a mage, that only requires hitting the assist and pet attack keybinds.

You're an idiot. I don't think there's anything more I can say here. You were the same moron who thinks warriors are better soloers than enchanters, and that COTH makes mage a "porting class". Is it surprising?

If you are admitting that DPS doesn't matter too much in the group, then why are you bringing the Mage at all? A Shaman is the second best solo class in the game, and provides much more utility than a Mage other than if you need CoTH. As I said before, if you are only doing camps that need CoTH, bring the Mage!

I am sorry, but you don't get to decide how other people want to play the game. Your entire argument hinges on the assumption everybody wants to play the game in the exact same way as yourself. You really need to get a life if you think you can enforce such a policy by insulting other people on a forum.

It is clear you are losing the argument when you try to play a semantic game about what "teleport" means in a 20 year old elf sim:) CoTH is the only other spell in the game besides ports/evacs that allows you to teleport a player other than yourself, which is why it is not the same as something like Gate, another apples to oranges comparison you made earlier.

You also are twisting my words about Warriors and Enchanters, another sign of losing the argument. I said a low level, well twinked Warrior can solo better than a low level Enchanter. That doesn't mean I am saying "A Warrior solos better than an Enchanter", because that implies I said a level 60 Warrior can solo better than a level 60 Enchanter, which is obviously not true. I was specifically referring to the level range of about 1-30.

Again, this is why the thread is 377 pages. You twist peoples words and make strawmen to try and sound right. If that isn't trolling, it is disingenuous at best.

[Lampolo]

DSM most of what you do is point out technical vagrancies and propose strawman arguments. Most of the arguments you have are meaningless if not strawman. You are not comprehending simple concepts. You act as if you don't know some things are true.

You are either a disciplined troll or you have some mental disability combined with a higher level of narcissism than normal.

You are ripe for bullying, you egg people on because your so out of touch, vocal and stubborn. You are very unlikeable. Please evaluate your self. I mean your real self, not your shaman. And if you’re a troll, congrats, best I have ever seen.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Gloomlord, here is the flaw with your argument in the shortest summation, ignoring the irrelevant strawmen and insults:

1. You say the DPS from a Mage is important for this group.
2. At the same time, you posit that the extra DPS from a Shaman root/rotting should never be considered.

These two ideas are at odds with each other. If DPS is important to your group, there is no reason to willingly give up DPS if you care about efficiency.

You have a personal preference on play style, which is consistent DPS that is achievable with a single button click. There is nothing wrong with that personal preference. The problem is you are forcing that playstyle onto everyone else to try and win the argument. It's basically an ad populum fallacy.

Easy DPS does not automatically equal superior kill speeds in a group. If you want to make that claim, you need to bring evidence other than your personal preference.

DSM most of what you do is point out technical vagrancies and propose strawman arguments. Most of the arguments you have are meaningless if not strawman. You are not comprehending simple concepts. You act as if you don't know some things are true.

You are either a disciplined troll or you have some mental disability combined with a higher level of narcissism than normal.

You are ripe for bullying, you egg people on because your so out of touch, vocal and stubborn. You are very unlikeable. Please evaluate your self. I mean your real self, not your shaman. And if you’re a troll, congrats, best I have ever seen.

It honestly baffles me that you think this makes you look good, and me look bad. Simply insulting someone over and over just makes you look like an asshole, or a troll:) A statement like "you are ripe for bullying" is admitting you are a bully lol.

[Lysander]

Wow I just found this thread and this is a gem outside of RnF, I am surprised no one moved it.

As for my takes on it, unfortunately for all you guys trying to look good for arguing with DSM; you guys were clearly trolling him, and I don't know how some of you guys think you are angels for opposing him and losing faith in humanity because of his persistence. It's a bit much. And clearly, I think DSM should have given up on page 30 rather than on page 360. I think he has a bit of a problem for going on so long, but so do all of you clearly and you should stop pretending to be white knights like you have the high ground or something. You are not heroes of justice for opposing his (possibly) wrong views about Everquest. The projection that DSM is a autistic stubborn asshole troll but not me is baffling considering many of you also argued for a good 40-50 pages of this thread too.

If you all notice, this thread only ended when DSM stopped posting. That should be a sign that you guys were all egging him on, not the other way around. DSM's character flaw is just that doesn't know how to let others get the last word in. (I think he's learning) And he has different opinions about things. He seems cool and I would take him in my xp group any day. You guys say he's a complete moron but I haven't seen any evidence he doesn't play his shaman well.

As for the content of the thread, well I've never been in a 4 person group for optimization purposes so I think it's a dumb thing to debate. I would probably pick enc/enc/cleric/mage. Sorry DSM, they convinced me, I think you're wrong. I support your crusade and I have never been in a enc/enc/cleric/shm group in my life so i have no idea. I don't agree with everything he posts but he has his points and I enjoy reading them, and clearly most of the forum does here too because everytime he posts things they balloon to 50 pages. Y'all should be really grateful to him. You all flame him and troll him but he's still here. Most people would have left long ago.

I'm so glad to contribute to this amazing thread! BDA to Phinigel!

[Ripqozko]

Wow I just found this thread and this is a gem outside of RnF, I am surprised no one moved it.

As for my takes on it, unfortunately for all you guys trying to look good for arguing with DSM; you guys were clearly trolling him, and I don't know how some of you guys think you are angels for opposing him and losing faith in humanity because of his persistence. It's a bit much. And clearly, I think DSM should have given up on page 30 rather than on page 360. I think he has a bit of a problem for going on so long, but so do all of you clearly and you should stop pretending to be white knights like you have the high ground or something. You are not heroes of justice for opposing his (possibly) wrong views about Everquest. The projection that DSM is a autistic stubborn asshole troll but not me is baffling considering many of you also argued for a good 40-50 pages of this thread too.

If you all notice, this thread only ended when DSM stopped posting. That should be a sign that you guys were all egging him on, not the other way around. DSM's character flaw is just that doesn't know how to let others get the last word in. (I think he's learning) And he has different opinions about things. He seems cool and I would take him in my xp group any day. You guys say he's a complete moron but I haven't seen any evidence he doesn't play his shaman well.

As for the content of the thread, well I've never been in a 4 person group for optimization purposes so I think it's a dumb thing to debate. I would probably pick enc/enc/cleric/mage. Sorry DSM, they convinced me. I support your crusade and I have never been in a enc/enc/cleric/shm group in my life so i have no idea. I don't agree with everything he posts but he has his points and I enjoy reading them, and clearly most of the forum does here too because everytime he posts things they balloon to 50 pages. Y'all should be really grateful to him. Most people would have left long ago.

I'm so glad to contribute to this amazing thread! BDA to Phinigel!

Found the VQ alt

[Lampolo]

That was a nice version of what I had to say. I typed that with care for you dsm. Those were not insults. I actually retyped that cause I didn't want to be mean. The way you bate people and switch everything up and stay irrelevant makes me think you are a very diligent troll and not so dumb

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Wow I just found this thread and this is a gem outside of RnF, I am surprised no one moved it.

As for my takes on it, unfortunately for all you guys trying to look good for arguing with DSM; you guys were clearly trolling him, and I don't know how some of you guys think you are angels for opposing him and losing faith in humanity because of his persistence. It's a bit much. And clearly, I think DSM should have given up on page 30 rather than on page 360. I think he has a bit of a problem for going on so long, but so do all of you clearly and you should stop pretending to be white knights like you have the high ground or something. You are not heroes of justice for opposing his (possibly) wrong views about Everquest. The projection that DSM is a autistic stubborn asshole troll but not me is baffling considering many of you also argued for a good 40-50 pages of this thread too.

If you all notice, this thread only ended when DSM stopped posting. That should be a sign that you guys were all egging him on, not the other way around. DSM's character flaw is just that doesn't know how to let others get the last word in. (I think he's learning) And he has different opinions about things. He seems cool and I would take him in my xp group any day. You guys say he's a complete moron but I haven't seen any evidence he doesn't play his shaman well.

As for the content of the thread, well I've never been in a 4 person group for optimization purposes so I think it's a dumb thing to debate. I would probably pick enc/enc/cleric/mage. Sorry DSM, they convinced me, I think you're wrong. I support your crusade and I have never been in a enc/enc/cleric/shm group in my life so i have no idea. I don't agree with everything he posts but he has his points and I enjoy reading them, and clearly most of the forum does here too because everytime he posts things they balloon to 50 pages. Y'all should be really grateful to him. You all flame him and troll him but he's still here. Most people would have left long ago.

I'm so glad to contribute to this amazing thread! BDA to Phinigel!

Thanks!

That was a nice version of what I had to say. I typed that with care for you dsm. Those were not insults. I actually retyped that cause I didn't want to be mean. The way you bate people and switch everything up and stay irrelevant makes me think you are a very diligent troll and not so dumb

I see you realized that admitting to being a bully and insulting people is bad for your image. Glad I could help!

[Lampolo]

Telling people they are secretly admitting something they are unaware of is provocative. You do this constantly. You act so smug like your the only one that can read between the lines. This is what I mean by unlikable...etc

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Telling people they are secretly admitting something they are unaware of is provocative. You do this constantly. You act so smug like your the only one that can read between the lines. This is what I mean by unlikable...etc

There is no implication of secret admissions, or reading between the lines. You said it directly:

You are ripe for bullying

You have been acting very aggressive, so it sounds disingenuous when you try to explain yourself. You look like you are trying to weasel your way out of a mistake.

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt and believe you when you say you are trying to help me. Context does get lost in text messages.

Your recent posts are master classes on how a bully acts, and you put yourself into a trap by saying I am "ripe for bullying".

You aren't going to win any hearts and minds this way. I would advise you change tactics.

[Lampolo]

You may have needed more bullying/ass kicking as a kid. A certain degree of this can be healthy and necessary for correcting dogs shit behavior

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You may have needed more bullying/ass kicking as a kid. A certain degree of this can be healthy and necessary for correcting dogs shit behavior

You just claimed that you aren't a bully, and are now advocating that I get bullied.

Amazing. I guess I wasn't "reading between the lines".

[Lampolo]

try making sense next post

[Gloomlord]

Wow I just found this thread and this is a gem outside of RnF, I am surprised no one moved it.

As for my takes on it, unfortunately for all you guys trying to look good for arguing with DSM; you guys were clearly trolling him, and I don't know how some of you guys think you are angels for opposing him and losing faith in humanity because of his persistence. It's a bit much. And clearly, I think DSM should have given up on page 30 rather than on page 360. I think he has a bit of a problem for going on so long, but so do all of you clearly and you should stop pretending to be white knights like you have the high ground or something. You are not heroes of justice for opposing his (possibly) wrong views about Everquest. The projection that DSM is a autistic stubborn asshole troll but not me is baffling considering many of you also argued for a good 40-50 pages of this thread too.

If you all notice, this thread only ended when DSM stopped posting. That should be a sign that you guys were all egging him on, not the other way around. DSM's character flaw is just that doesn't know how to let others get the last word in. (I think he's learning) And he has different opinions about things. He seems cool and I would take him in my xp group any day. You guys say he's a complete moron but I haven't seen any evidence he doesn't play his shaman well.

As for the content of the thread, well I've never been in a 4 person group for optimization purposes so I think it's a dumb thing to debate. I would probably pick enc/enc/cleric/mage. Sorry DSM, they convinced me, I think you're wrong. I support your crusade and I have never been in a enc/enc/cleric/shm group in my life so i have no idea. I don't agree with everything he posts but he has his points and I enjoy reading them, and clearly most of the forum does here too because everytime he posts things they balloon to 50 pages. Y'all should be really grateful to him. You all flame him and troll him but he's still here. Most people would have left long ago.

I'm so glad to contribute to this amazing thread! BDA to Phinigel!

Do you enjoy being a self-righteous hypocrite? Have you not read this thread thoroughly enough to determine why people acted the way they did?

The "man" will do anything to "win" an argument by moving the goalposts, calling for evidence in the most ludicrous ways, and ignoring logic. If you've played this game long enough, you'll realise the sheer absurdity of having a shaman root rotting next to a charm group.

And why is he pushing for this argument so badly? To prove that shamans can attain a higher DPS than mages, with him purposefully ignoring how impractical and pointless it is in a realistic scenario.

He deserves everything he gets. Don't you dare deny it and say that we're "trolling".

[Gloomlord]

I am sorry, but you don't get to decide how other people want to play the game. Your entire argument hinges on the assumption everybody wants to play the game in the exact same way as yourself. You really need to get a life if you think you can enforce such a policy by insulting other people on a forum.

I think you're both a troll and an idiot here. It's not one or the other -- it's both.

Because where in my post did I suggest I get to decide how people play the game? It's more that no one sane will appreciate root rotting in a charm group of 4 people. I've never seen anyone suggest what you described in a group, because why on earth would they?

If you want to suddenly switch this to "safety is better than an extra DPS", then why wouldn't I want a druid instead? They can snare the charms, and they can get the 2 enchanters and 1 cleric faster to place they want to be. They can even throw in an extra charm if the zone allows.

Why would this group want a shaman? Shaman is a very powerful jack of all trades caster, but enchanter and cleric both have its abilities covered, and even supersede it.

How is this not obvious to everyone who has played this game for even a moderate amount of time?

You aren't going to win any hearts and minds this way. I would advise you change tactics.

And you have...?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Because where in my post did I suggest I get to decide how people play the game?


In your very next sentence:


It's more that no one sane will appreciate root rotting in a charm group of 4 people. I've never seen anyone suggest what you described in a group, because why on earth would they?


What you are doing here is making a statement of fact that my suggestion cannot work, without any evidence other than you saying so. You keep insisting you cannot be wrong, but haven't actually done anything to prove it, other than your word. I am not sure why you think people care about what you claim is insane. Root rotting isn't any more dangerous than charming pets and giving them torches + haste.


If you want to suddenly switch this to "safety is better than an extra DPS", then why wouldn't I want a druid instead?


The logic isn't hard to follow. Enchanters are the best solo class in the game. They also happen to be the number one pick in this thread, and I agree with that pick. Shamans are the second best solo class in the game. If you put the two best solo classes together, you get an extremely powerful combination. That is why Shaman/Monk/Enchanter is one of the best trios out there. You have the best solo class from each type (Priest, Melee, Int Caster).

This isn't just my opinion either. If you have played the game for a while and have been on these forums, you would know that is a common enough suggestion for trios. It's not a large logical leap to take a strong trio and tac an extra class onto it when discussing a group of four players.

[Gloomlord]

"Shamans are the second best solo class in the game, even though we're talking about a 4 man group here where 2 classes render him obsolete".

Genius! Much like a "pocket cleric" not being a 5th member, right?

My suggestion isn't that it "cannot work" -- it's that it's "meaningless".

You've lost the argument, do you realise that?

[Ripqozko]

C u all at page 400, DSM is why VQ is dead

[DeathsSilkyMist]

"Shamans are the second best solo class in the game, even though we're talking about a 4 man group here where 2 classes render him obsolete".

Genius! Much like a "pocket cleric" not being a 5th member, right?

My suggestion isn't that it "cannot work" -- it's that it's "meaningless".

You've lost the argument, do you realise that?

The reason why Enchanters are the best solo class is because they are the most powerful class overall. It's not a coincidence. Why do you think people want multiple Enchanters on the same team? The same logic follows with a Shaman and a Monk for their respective roles.

The argument that redundancy renders a class obsolete is extremely silly when you advocate for 2 Enchanters on the same team. That is the definition of redundancy, but it is still a great idea.

I think the issue here is you don't understand enough about the game to realize a 4 man group is not a very good number on P99. Most people prefer trios because you don't really expand the amount of content you can do with 4 people, and loot splits better 3 ways. You generally want 5-6 people for the harder single group content.

And yes, plenty of people have pocket clerics. Thinking otherwise is simply naïve. Guilds have cleric bots too, so you may not even need to level one up yourself.

Saying something is "meaningless" is meaningless by itself. Again, I am not sure why we have to trust you on this.

[Gloomlord]

See, the thing is: even if he's trolling, he's not anymore intelligent for doing so.

He goes around posting on other threads, thinking he possesses some sage wisdom. No trolling goes into that. He's just a very arrogant and self-righteous person who resorts to this behaviour when we inform him why his "wisdom" is not so sage.

We've all covered this before, DSM. You lost then, and you've lost now.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

See, the thing is: even if he's trolling, he's not anymore intelligent for doing so.

He goes around posting on other threads, thinking he possesses some sage wisdom. No trolling goes into that. He's just a very arrogant and self-righteous person who resorts to this behaviour when we inform him why his "wisdom" is not so sage.

We've all covered this before, DSM. You lost then, and you've lost now.

Do you read your own posts? I fail to see how you are providing anything meaningful with insults, trolling, and claiming that playing the game in ways you disagree with is "meaningless".

I don't mind if you disagree with me, but you really aren't doing anything to prove your own points. Why should people listen to you?

You are just discrediting yourself by acting this way. I am not sure why this topic upsets you so much.

[Gloomlord]

And you haven't discredited yourself with your pathological lies?

Keep telling yourself that.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

And you haven't discredited yourself with your pathological lies?

Keep telling yourself that.

Making things up is not an argument. What pathological lies?

[Gloomlord]

https://i.etsystatic.com/6782226/r/il/402b87/701495995/il_794xN.701495995_em32.jpg

[DeathsSilkyMist]

https://i.etsystatic.com/6782226/r/il/402b87/701495995/il_794xN.701495995_em32.jpg

Thank you for proving my point. You can't show one.

[Gloomlord]

Yeah, not falling for that, manchild.

No one else shall when they read this thread, either.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Yeah, not falling for that, manchild.

No one else shall when they read this thread, either.

You never fail to come up excuses when you get called out.

[Penish]

Silks a confirmed retard, just let the poor schmuck post his half baked knowledge and move on, gg folks

[Gloomlord]

You never fail to come up excuses when you get called out.

Much like your "pocket cleric" argument, right?

Discussion was for 4 people, so why bring in a 5th? It doesn't count because it's not in the group itself?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Much like your "pocket cleric" argument, right?

Discussion was for 4 people, so why bring in a 5th? It doesn't count because it's not in the group itself?

Not sure how pocket clerics are an excuse when lots of people and guilds have them.

[Gloomlord]

Yes! You've lost the argument. Topic was about 4 people, so a 5th outside is irrelevant.

Can't even concede on a point that a small child could recognise is illogical.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Yes! You've lost the argument. Topic was about 4 people, so a 5th outside is irrelevant.

Can't even concede on a point that a small child could recognise is illogical.

Lol factual statements about people having pocket clerics on this server is illogical?

I am giving people.options for play, you are forcing people into your idea of the game.

[Gloomlord]

Do I even need to continue at this point? He's pretty much done my work for me now with his reply.

You know what I hope for? That more people see this thread, and see you for the unintelligent, pathetic child you are.

You're the biggest embarrassment to this game I've ever seen.

[fortior]

380 pages to find out it's 3 enchanters and a cleric

[Gloomlord]

380 pages to find out it's 3 enchanters and a cleric

380 pages? The first 10-20 pages were most than sufficient.

We just have DSM to thank for being one of the most insecure human beings imaginable for this thread length.

[Lampolo]

No it's 4 shamans cause shamans are one of the best soloers. So therefore the best composition for all parties including raids is an all shaman one. You could argue its 4 ench cause they are best soers but sham wins cause torpor and slow

[Lampolo]

Don't you know math? 2+2 equals 4 torpor s3e?

[Gloomlord]

"Shamans are one of the best solo classes. Let's completely ignore the fact this was about 4 people in a group, in a game where some classes specialise in one aspect better than others".

Gotta love his logical reasoning, or lack thereof.

Wizards are the shittiest class in this game, yet even they have their strengths if you accrue enough of them to quickly blast down targets.

Mages are an incredibly good DPS class, despite how 2 dimensional they are as a class overall. They are far more welcome in this hypothetical group than shaman, despite shaman being a more interesting, versatile and powerful class.

[Penish]

watch his shitty solo videos for a good lolortwo

[Lysander]

Do you enjoy being a self-righteous hypocrite? Have you not read this thread thoroughly enough to determine why people acted the way they did?

The "man" will do anything to "win" an argument by moving the goalposts, calling for evidence in the most ludicrous ways, and ignoring logic. If you've played this game long enough, you'll realise the sheer absurdity of having a shaman root rotting next to a charm group.

And why is he pushing for this argument so badly? To prove that shamans can attain a higher DPS than mages, with him purposefully ignoring how impractical and pointless it is in a realistic scenario.

He deserves everything he gets. Don't you dare deny it and say that we're "trolling".

Hi, I'll play forum quest with you for a bit. No I did not read a 380 page thread that I just found yesterday thoroughly because I am not insane. You need to tone it down, calling me a self-righteous hypocrite is quite rude.

I agree that I do not want my shaman root rotting my charm pet group or a DPS shaman in my group. The fact that DSM seems extremely determined to win the argument at all costs really should have nothing to do you, you seem to take it personally as an affront to you. The correct way to deal with crazy people who won't shut up and are wrong is to leave them alone and not engage, and then eventually they will stop. Even DSM would get bored after 5 or 6 consecutive posts. I think most people learned this when they were in high school. You don't fight crazy by shouting in their ear until they give up. Are you going to start arguing with the local homeless man near you? Have the thousands of people argue with flat earth truthers gotten anywhere? No, what you do is ignore crazy and just let them fizzle out. If DSM is so batshit crazy and wrong, like literally who cares? Is it boo-hoo poor accidental reader of the forums is going to read bad advice. Good. From what I can tell classic is all about people telling people bad advice like warriors that their best stat is intelligence or whatever. And I think people are pretty good at knowing who is right or wrong in an internet argument.

DSM is pushing his argument so badly because that's the way he is and he thinks he's right. The amount of mad displayed from you by DSM moving goal posts or whatever is laughable. I agree he deserves everything he gets because he's replying back endlessly, the unfortunate thing is that he seems to be coping much better and has a lot more stamina than you, while you are so butthurt it's showing on my screen. He is definitely trolling back and maybe you should stop engaging once it gets to "sorry you don't got x", and "glad you admit you're wrong." I don't know why you think everyone has to be right all the time on the internet. Maybe you could let someone be wrong on the internet? When you get mad and start insulting him and calling him autistic, you really aren't winning, no matter how much more DPS mages do than Shamans.

I stand by my point that everyone should be grateful that DSM was willing argue for 370 pages. it was hilarious and if you didn't think it was hilarious why did you keep posting really? Did you really think you were gonna get him to stop? After 200 pages he was gonna give up on page 250? You seem like your whole goal is to get him to stop posting and admit that you're right and that he is autistic and that he owes you for showing him the truth, like this is some kind of communist struggle session. I didn't know it's wrong that people have different opinions. Is it evil to insist 2+2=3?

[Ripqozko]

Hi, I'll play forum quest with you for a bit. No I did not read a 380 page thread that I just found yesterday thoroughly because I am not insane. You need to tone it down, calling me a self-righteous hypocrite is quite rude.

I agree that I do not want my shaman root rotting my charm pet group or a DPS shaman in my group. The fact that DSM seems extremely determined to win the argument at all costs really should have nothing to do you, you seem to take it personally as an affront to you. The correct way to deal with crazy people who won't shut up and are wrong is to leave them alone and not engage, and then eventually they will stop. Even DSM would get bored after 5 or 6 consecutive posts. I think most people learned this when they were in high school. You don't fight crazy by shouting in their ear until they give up. Are you going to start arguing with the local homeless man near you? Have the thousands of people argue with flat earth truthers gotten anywhere? No, what you do is ignore crazy and just let them fizzle out. If DSM is so batshit crazy and wrong, like literally who cares? Is it boo-hoo poor accidental reader of the forums is going to read bad advice. Good. From what I can tell classic is all about people telling people bad advice like warriors that their best stat is intelligence or whatever. And I think people are pretty good at knowing who is right or wrong in an internet argument.

DSM is pushing his argument so badly because that's the way he is and he thinks he's right. The amount of mad displayed from you by DSM moving goal posts or whatever is laughable. I agree he deserves everything he gets because he's replying back endlessly, the unfortunate thing is that he seems to be coping much better and has a lot more stamina than you, while you are so butthurt it's showing on my screen. He is definitely trolling back and maybe you should stop engaging once it gets to "sorry you don't got x", and "glad you admit you're wrong." I don't know why you think everyone has to be right all the time on the internet. Maybe you could let someone be wrong on the internet? When you get mad and start insulting him and calling him autistic, you really aren't winning, no matter how much more DPS mages do than Shamans.

I stand by my point that everyone should be grateful that DSM was willing argue for 370 pages. it was hilarious and if you didn't think it was hilarious why did you keep posting really? Did you really think you were gonna get him to stop? After 200 pages he was gonna give up on page 250? You seem like your whole goal is to get him to stop posting and admit that you're right and that he is autistic and that he owes you for showing him the truth, like this is some kind of communist struggle session. I didn't know it's wrong that people have different opinions. Is it evil to insist 2+2=3?

VQ alt to the rescue

[Gloomlord]

Okay, first of all: I never called DSM autistic. My very first post on this thread last year was saying to everyone else to stop calling him autistic. This right here suggests you just want to be self-righteous.

Secondly: yes, I am angry with him. It's not laughable, you hypocrite. It makes sense why someone would be infuriated with someone arguing in the most disingenuous manner possible.

You would also do well to realise I even addressed a similar person to you making the same argument: some people have a personal desire to destroy illogical and insane behaviour. I am one such person.

DSM is equally welcome to ignore this thread if he believes us to be trolls and/or insane and stupid. That goes both ways.

Stop giving an immoral person ammunition, I beg you.

[Gloomlord]

VQ alt to the rescue

Who in their right mind would defend DSM?

He's not even a misguided nice guy. He's a complete sanctimonious arsehole in addition to the fact he has mental issues.

He thinks hiding behind faux-polite behaviour will conceal his actual personality, but he's too unintelligent to realise his sophistry completely derails that attempted deception.

[Lysander]

hope mods catch on and move this to rnf soon.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Who in their right mind would defend DSM?

He's not even a misguided nice guy. He's a complete sanctimonious arsehole in addition to the fact he has mental issues.

He thinks hiding behind faux-polite behaviour will conceal his actual personality, but he's too unintelligent to realise his sophistry completely derails that attempted deception.

Please keep posting nonsense. It just discredits you further. I can just sit back and watch.

[Gloomlord]

hope mods catch on and move this to rnf soon.

So why didn't they last year?

[magnetaress]

Enchanter + necro + druid + cleric.

[bcbrown]

I did not say Shamans can out DPS a Mage in single target scenarios, which is what people are going to think when you accuse me of saying "Shamans can out DPS Mages". I said Shamans can out DPS a Mage if you can root rot multiple mobs at a time, which is a perfectly valid strategy in an XP group where you are just churning through mobs.

I'd be really interested in hearing about your experiences trying this strategy. Say, any XP or loot groups with someone charming, and with you spending the majority of your time root rotting. What zones and groups have you had success with it?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'd be really interested in hearing about your experiences trying this strategy. Say, any XP or loot groups with someone charming, and with you spending the majority of your time root rotting. What zones and groups have you had success with it?

Oh sure, I've done it in Seb and Velks groups before. It's no different from root rotting solo in those zones. Just root rot while the Enchanters are churning away. They can target the DoTed mobs if you need to move your camp or just need to clean up. It is already a common
group strategy to simply root mobs away from the group for CC purposes. It's not a large leap to apply DoTs to those mobs. For casters it just depends on your resists. I have raid gear, so I can just resist tank the casters safely. The Enchanters don't really need to mes to stop casting. I am referring to Seb mobs for the casters, obviously different zones can have stronger casters.

The issue with this thread is a lot of people claiming it doesn't work keep switching between loot and xp groups to try and keep it unclear as to what they were talking about. They know they can't win the argument if you pin them down on the type of group.

Obviously root rotting doesn't work when you are just camping a single loot mob like Fungi King. But the point they don't want to hear is if all you are doing is killing a single mob every 30 minutes, an extra 50 DPS is irrelevant. It takes 90 seconds to kill Fungi King at 200 DPS, vs. 72 seconds with 250 DPS. Theres no point in bringing a Mage for an 18 second saving every 30 minutes.

Some Fungi King groups xp at the same time while waiting for respawn, but that still doesn't need extra dps. I've done both styles of Fungi King group before. Shaman is a popular class at that camp.

[cyxthryth]

For anyone catching back up on this thread or for new-attendees in need of a TL;DR, here is the current state of the discussion based on all available evidence (I submit this entire thread as such evidence):

DSM simply has not addressed/replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute the following:

DSM has repeatedly provided copy/pastes which simply do not contain any evidence or data of his Shaman performing DPS - or any other action/activity - in an environment/context/scenario that is (or would be) relevant to the discussion; hence his copy/pastes are irrelevant to this discussion.

While DSM is - seemingly - unable or unwilling to provide relevant evidence/data that supports his many claims/statements/positions (which change when he moves the goalposts & edits his posts), I have irrefutable proof of the following, which DSM has as of yet not addressed/replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute:

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self-evident - of DSM attempting to move the goalposts by bringing a 5th "pocket" character into his "arguments" (even though this is intended to be a civil discussion - not an argument) pertaining to the "Best 4 person all caster/priest group" discussion":

OP never said you couldn't have a pocket cleric. I am not sure why people keep thinking this is not a possible route to take. Between four people it would be trivial to level a cleric to 39. It is pretty common for people to make pocket clerics on P99.

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - that DSM attempted to accuse others of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum:

The post history is clear. You are now including cyxthryth to try and strengthen your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum argument because you have nothing else. I find it highly amusing.



Here is my reply to DSM's attempt, in which I point out to him the irrefutable fact - which cannot be refuted - that DSM himself attempted - laughably - to claim (intentionally or otherwise) that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum strengthened his argument when one (1) single other person seemed to agree with him:

I think since my post is general, then there was never a goalpost to begin with. Best is whatever you personally think best means.

Having multiple conversations simultaneously is not moving goalposts. Talking about pocket clerics when OP didn't specify that was outside of the scope is not moving goalposts. OP's question was general, and he has said as much.

Your post would seem to betray that you are aware that you have moved goalposts, because you are now attempting (disingenuously) to validate said goalpost-moving by stating that it is objectively true that the OP's post "is general" and that this somehow means "you are not moving the goalposts" by changing the basis of the discussion (from being about 4 priests/casters, to being about 4 priests/casters plus X amount of pocket Clerics, or other pocket classes). It is not objectively true that you are "not moving the goalposts" just because you and OP both agree that the OP's post "was general" and that that somehow means "you are not moving the goalposts". That is simply you - laughably - claiming you (and OP) are correct due to argumentum ad populum hehe. This really isn't hard.

Please clarify what you mean by stating OP's post "was general"?

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - that DSM has claimed:


Assuming your group plays correctly, you will DPS the same way every time, the same as if you were solo.



I am very confident it won't change in a group scenario.


Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - that DSM has also claimed:

in a group setting, there are too many variables out of your control that can skew the data


Once you add in outside variables, that changes the DPS equation NOT because of what the class can do, but because of what other players are doing.

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - of DSM's post in which he claimed Troxx's numbers were way different from Allishia's:

Also Allishia's numbers were way different from yours

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - of DSM's post to Allishia when they provided their initial data in which he claimed Allishia's numbers were the same as Troxx's:

Thanks for the data! I'll get the logs from you a bit later today. Just looking at it here, the numbers are the same as Troxx's data.

As I have repeatedly stated - it is not always clear to other posters what particular position/claim/"argument"(s) DSM is defending at any given time due to how often he has moved the goalposts & edited his posts.

For these reasons - which I have repeatedly stated - I am not sure which particular/specific belief/claim/stance/"argument"(s) that DSM is currently holding/defending/"arguing"; it would be helpful if he could elaborate/clarify/specify for the sake of civil discussion.

I am also not sure why DSM has continued to copy/paste his - irrelevant - data, after this exchange occured - which cannot be refuted & is visible and clear in the cleary visible post history - which DSM simply has as of yet not addressed/replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute


The reason why I am reposting the information is because the trolls are trying to hide the information.

No. The content of your post seems to include a claim that "the trolls" are trying to "hide the information". The first problem is that your post would seem to indicate that you believe that information will be "hidden" if additional posts are made - that is objectively false/incorrect DSM. Even if additional posts are made after a specific post, the post history is - and will remain - clear hehe.

Now that you have been advised and/or reminded of this irrefutable fact - which cannot be refuted - you should not need to continue to copy/paste to make sure your posts do not get "hidden" hehe.

I am also not sure why your post(s) would seemingly indicate that you think that the particular data/information that you keep providing in your copy/pasted posts - which includes data/information of your Shaman's performance in an environment/context/scenario that is contrary to the environment/context/scenario relevant to this discussion, as has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple posters - is somehow relevant to this discussion. It is not. It is simply irrelevant for reasons explained in multiple posts by multiple posters (including in this very post).


Even though DSM ultimately - without addressing/replying to/acknowledging/defending/challenging/attempting to refute the above - seemingly openly conceded his "argument(s)" - whatever they were at the time - by stating the following on 9/18/2022:


This will be my last post


DSM has recently returned to this thread & has proceed posting additional replies - to posters other than myself. This would seemingly indicate DSM has chosen to return to this civil discussion. DSM - of course - still has not addressed/replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute the aforementioned above quotes, and as is clearly visible in the post history DSM has continued to label me and/or my posts as "a troll"/"trolling", without providing the definition of "troll" / "trolling" that he is using (nor what he meant by stating that OP's post "was general"), and whilst providing zero evidence to support his claims of my being a troll/trolling.

The ball is - still - in DSM's court if he has relevant, factual data to support his various positions/claims/"argument"(s) - and is willing to clarify which particular position/claim/argument(s) he currently holds/"argues", as they change when he moves goalposts or edits his posts - and/or if he would like to provide the definitions he is using for "troll"/"trolling", "nonsense", "silly", "vitriol", "new" and "win" for the sake of civil discussin hehe.:)

[Gloomlord]

Oh sure, I've done it in Seb and Velks groups before. It's no different from root rotting solo in those zones. Just root rot while the Enchanters are churning away. They can target the DoTed mobs if you need to move your camp or just need to clean up. It is already a common
group strategy to simply root mobs away from the group for CC purposes. It's not a large leap to apply DoTs to those mobs. For casters it just depends on your resists. I have raid gear, so I can just resist tank the casters safely. The Enchanters don't really need to mes to stop casting. I am referring to Seb mobs for the casters, obviously different zones can have stronger casters.

The issue with this thread is a lot of people claiming it doesn't work keep switching between loot and xp groups to try and keep it unclear as to what they were talking about. They know they can't win the argument if you pin them down on the type of group.

Obviously root rotting doesn't work when you are just camping a single loot mob like Fungi King. But the point they don't want to hear is if all you are doing is killing a single mob every 30 minutes, an extra 50 DPS is irrelevant. It takes 90 seconds to kill Fungi King at 200 DPS, vs. 72 seconds with 250 DPS. Theres no point in bringing a Mage for an 18 second saving every 30 minutes.

Some Fungi King groups xp at the same time while waiting for respawn, but that still doesn't need extra dps. I've done both styles of Fungi King group before. Shaman is a popular class at that camp.

Provided you're somehow telling the truth, you pathetic creature: there's still no reason for you to take 3-4 mobs to a camp and root rot them, rather than a mage simply increasing the speed of a kill on a single mob for the price of 2 keybinds.

And you selected this scenario simply to show us that shamans can indeed do more damage than mages, which was only triggered by your cowardly refusal to admit that groups try to kill one target at a time in EQ. Why? Because it's more efficient to do so.

There are better players than you who don't root rot next to camp doing charms. It just doesn't happen.

Watching your videos, I can see you barely press keybinds either. You're telling me you're going to do more than a mage in a group without completely disrupting it by getting multiple mobs in the camp in order to root rot?

Unless I see video evidence of you doing this in a group with 2 charms, you can fuck right off.

[Duik]

Please keep posting nonsense. It just discredits you further. I can just sit back and watch.

No, you actualy cannot do that. Literally, it is demonstrably impossible for you to not have the final (and mathematically correct) word.
None of you (us) can.
4 potting rooted and dotted mobs, essentially soloing, while grouped is the height of rudeness and stupidity. It may work and even be efficient (no one cares though) but it has many ways to go sideways that a group concentrating on one actve and possibly 1-2 mezzed. You fuck ya 4 pull, root resists on one and shit hits fan, solo you gate or zone. Ya group mates could be fucked.
If you grouped with me and proceeded to "solo" 4 mobs in or near camp, you would literally be solo. Just before an accidentall memblur train on yo arse. /shrug

[DeathsSilkyMist]

No, you actualy cannot do that. Literally, it is demonstrably impossible for you to not have the final (and mathematically correct) word.
None of you (us) can.
4 potting rooted and dotted mobs, essentially soloing, while grouped is the height of rudeness and stupidity. It may work and even be efficient (no one cares though) but it has many ways to go sideways that a group concentrating on one actve and possibly 1-2 mezzed. You fuck ya 4 pull, root resists on one and shit hits fan, solo you gate or zone. Ya group mates could be fucked.
If you grouped with me and proceeded to "solo" 4 mobs in or near camp, you would literally be solo. Just before an accidentall memblur train on yo arse. /shrug

Seems like you just need to play the game more. Root rotting isn't more dangerous than Charming a pet and giving it a torch + haste. That can also backfire and wipe the party.

Saying you cannot do something that people have done before is a silly argument to make. If your group agrees to it, there is no problem. I am not sure why you are assuming I just started root rotting without group approval lol.

Most groups don't bother doing these kinds of strategies because long time players intuitively understand you don't need to maximize DPS to have efficient kill speeds. You are correct on that point. This is why Mage is unnecessary in this four man group. Two Enchanters are covering the DPS just fine. But if people admitted that, then they would admit Mage is unecessary, and they are unwilling to do that.

This is why you don't see a lot of 6 man XP groups. Six people do more DPS, but you aren't gettng enough XP in return to justify the extra DPS. The same logic applies for this four man group. The Mage's extra DPS isn't useful enough to justify wasting a group slot. If you need CoTH, that is a different story.


Unless I see video evidence of you doing this in a group with 2 charms, you can fuck right off.

You have provided zero evidence for any of your claims thus far. You need to provide some evidence for your claims first:) It is a lazy tactic to keep asking for evidence, while providing nothing in return. I have actually provided evidence in this thread.

I don't normally record group sessions because I think it is impolite to upload videos without the groups approval.

[bcbrown]

Oh sure...

What's your success rate when you pitch the idea to a group? Are you operating almost-totally separate, or still doing anything with the charm-chainsaw? I imagine monitoring a half-dozen root-rots keeps you pretty busy?


This is why you don't see a lot of 6 man XP groups. Six people do more DPS, but you aren't gettng enough XP in return to justify the extra DPS. The same logic applies for this four man group. The Mage's extra DPS isn't useful enough to justify wasting a group slot. If you need CoTH, that is a different story.

Is it fair to characterize your position as "everyone agrees enc/enc/clr is the starting three, and as the fourth slot doesn't really matter, here's my pitch for shaman"?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

What's your success rate when you pitch the idea to a group? Are you operating almost-totally separate, or still doing anything with the charm-chainsaw? I imagine monitoring a half-dozen root-rots keeps you pretty busy?


I don't have data on "success rate", as I do not play the game specifically for this discussion. When I play with a group, I am generally not in the mood to do game mechanic exploration. I just want to have some fun. I also think it is scummy to use a random group as a test subject, as the test could affect the groups progress. I don't do that.

Generally when I end up DoTing multiple rooted enemies, it is because the group is already bringing in multiple mobs and CCing with root. The group and I know which mobs are not going to be an issue if they get DoTed, so the group doesn't deny my request to DoT.

In a place like Velks, it is easy to get the group to agree to root rotting spiders. There are plenty to kill, the risk is low, and the verticality allows you to gain xp from the kills without worry. I can do that independant of what the group is doing.


Is it fair to characterize your position as "everyone agrees enc/enc/clr is the starting three, and as the fourth slot doesn't really matter, here's my pitch for shaman"?

My position is Shaman/Enchanter/Monk, with the fourth member being flexible. Due to the specific restriction of no melee classes, that changes the equation a bit.

I said Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric/Shaman or Enchanter/Enchanter/Shaman/Necro in my original post on this thread. This is because 2x Enchanters provide the DPS, and the Shaman + Cleric supply enough utility and mitigation to keep the Enchanters going without a hitch. Shamans with Torpor can also do some encounters Enchanters can't (such as WW Dragons), so you are expanding the content you can do.

You swap the Cleric for Necro if you need FD, because you don't need CH for 3-4 player content, and Necros can res. You aren't doing fights that use Warrior discs, and you can have the Shaman tank to alleviate the need to CH pets. The vast majority of 3-4 player content does not out damage Torpor + Slow. The content that does is generally safer with 5-6 people. Its risky to do something like Xenovorash with a low player count. It's better to just ask a few friends to help you so you don't lose progress. You only have about 50 minutes before the mob despawns.

[Duik]

Im the last poster.

[Gloomlord]

Is it fair to characterize your position as "everyone agrees enc/enc/clr is the starting three, and as the fourth slot doesn't really matter, here's my pitch for shaman"?

Yeah, he's a hypocrite.

More and more people are seeing him for the fool he is, but he still doesn't get the picture.

Noone is going to appreciate an idiot shaman attempting to root rot in Seb alongside two enchanters with charms. NOONE!

The man is a disgusting liar.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Noone is going to appreciate an idiot shaman attempting to root rot in Seb alongside two enchanters with charms. NOONE!


This is why you lost last year, and continue to lose today.

Your entire argument is the assumption that everybody simply agrees with you.

I am not sure why you think a delusional assumption like that is evidence of anything, other than your own narcissism getting the better of you.

[Gloomlord]

I lost, did I?

Only in your insane mind, I think.

Do you even know the definition of "narcissism"? Because the behaviour you've described doing on your shaman -- root rotting in a group not designed for it to be exact -- is nothing short of arrogant thoughtlessness.

Noone is going to believe I'm being narcissistic here. Not even you.

Don't be fooled into thinking I don't know you're trolling. I'm well aware of it -- and I'm well aware you're doing it to cover for your own insecurities.

[Dritzle]

This thread is wild. DSMs strategy is goofy and I can understand why arguing with DSM is frustrating but they’ve remained cordial about all of the personal attacks. Y’all need to chill, he’s right that calling him names isn’t helping your arguments

[cyxthryth]

This thread is wild. DSMs strategy is goofy and I can understand why arguing with DSM is frustrating but they’ve remained cordial about all of the personal attacks. Y’all need to chill, he’s right that calling him names isn’t helping your arguments

I am not arguing, and I am not sure why you believe I "need to chill" if you are including me in the category "y'all". I am - and have only ever been - merely stating irrefutable facts and asking simple questions in an attempt to engage with DSM (& others) in civil discussion relevant to this thread. What could be 'argued' to be "not helping DSM's arguments" is that DSM simply has not addressed/replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute the following:

DSM has repeatedly provided copy/pastes which simply do not contain any evidence or data of his Shaman performing DPS - or any other action/activity - in an environment/context/scenario that is (or would be) relevant to the discussion; hence his copy/pastes are irrelevant to this discussion.

While DSM is - seemingly - unable or unwilling to provide relevant evidence/data that supports his many claims/statements/positions (which change when he moves the goalposts & edits his posts), I have irrefutable proof of the following, which DSM has as of yet not addressed/replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute:

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self-evident - of DSM attempting to move the goalposts by bringing a 5th "pocket" character into his "arguments" (even though this is intended to be a civil discussion - not an argument) pertaining to the "Best 4 person all caster/priest group" discussion":

OP never said you couldn't have a pocket cleric. I am not sure why people keep thinking this is not a possible route to take. Between four people it would be trivial to level a cleric to 39. It is pretty common for people to make pocket clerics on P99.

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - that DSM attempted to accuse others of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum:

The post history is clear. You are now including cyxthryth to try and strengthen your https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum argument because you have nothing else. I find it highly amusing.

Here is my reply to DSM's attempt, in which I point out to him the irrefutable fact - which cannot be refuted - that DSM himself attempted - laughably - to claim (intentionally or otherwise) that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum strengthened his argument when one (1) single other person seemed to agree with him:


I think since my post is general, then there was never a goalpost to begin with. Best is whatever you personally think best means.

Having multiple conversations simultaneously is not moving goalposts. Talking about pocket clerics when OP didn't specify that was outside of the scope is not moving goalposts. OP's question was general, and he has said as much.


Your post would seem to betray that you are aware that you have moved goalposts, because you are now attempting (disingenuously) to validate said goalpost-moving by stating that it is objectively true that the OP's post "is general" and that this somehow means "you are not moving the goalposts" by changing the basis of the discussion (from being about 4 priests/casters, to being about 4 priests/casters plus X amount of pocket Clerics, or other pocket classes). It is not objectively true that you are "not moving the goalposts" just because you and OP both agree that the OP's post "was general" and that that somehow means "you are not moving the goalposts". That is simply you - laughably - claiming you (and OP) are correct due to argumentum ad populum hehe. This really isn't hard.

Please clarify what you mean by stating OP's post "was general"?

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - that DSM has claimed:


Assuming your group plays correctly, you will DPS the same way every time, the same as if you were solo.



I am very confident it won't change in a group scenario.


Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - that DSM has also claimed:

in a group setting, there are too many variables out of your control that can skew the data


Once you add in outside variables, that changes the DPS equation NOT because of what the class can do, but because of what other players are doing.

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - of DSM's post in which he claimed Troxx's numbers were way different from Allishia's:

Also Allishia's numbers were way different from yours

Here is irrefutable proof/evidence - which cannot be refuted, and which is self evident - of DSM's post to Allishia when they provided their initial data in which he claimed Allishia's numbers were the same as Troxx's:

Thanks for the data! I'll get the logs from you a bit later today. Just looking at it here, the numbers are the same as Troxx's data.

As I have repeatedly stated - it is not always clear to other posters what particular position/claim/"argument"(s) DSM is defending at any given time due to how often he has moved the goalposts & edited his posts.

For these reasons - which I have repeatedly stated - I am not sure which particular/specific belief/claim/stance/"argument"(s) that DSM is currently holding/defending/"arguing"; it would be helpful if he could elaborate/clarify/specify for the sake of civil discussion.

I am also not sure why DSM has continued to copy/paste his - irrelevant - data, after this exchange occured - which cannot be refuted & is visible and clear in the cleary visible post history - which DSM simply has as of yet not addressed/replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute


The reason why I am reposting the information is because the trolls are trying to hide the information.

No. The content of your post seems to include a claim that "the trolls" are trying to "hide the information". The first problem is that your post would seem to indicate that you believe that information will be "hidden" if additional posts are made - that is objectively false/incorrect DSM. Even if additional posts are made after a specific post, the post history is - and will remain - clear hehe.

Now that you have been advised and/or reminded of this irrefutable fact - which cannot be refuted - you should not need to continue to copy/paste to make sure your posts do not get "hidden" hehe.

I am also not sure why your post(s) would seemingly indicate that you think that the particular data/information that you keep providing in your copy/pasted posts - which includes data/information of your Shaman's performance in an environment/context/scenario that is contrary to the environment/context/scenario relevant to this discussion, as has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple posters - is somehow relevant to this discussion. It is not. It is simply irrelevant for reasons explained in multiple posts by multiple posters (including in this very post).


Even though DSM ultimately - without addressing/replying to/acknowledging/defending/challenging/attempting to refute the above - seemingly conceded by stating the following on 9/18/2022:


This will be my last post


DSM has recently returned to this thread & has proceeded posting additional replies - to posters other than myself. This would seemingly indicate DSM has chosen to return to this civil discussion. DSM - of course - still has not addressed/replied to/acknowledged/defended/challenged/attempted to refute the aforementioned above quotes, and as is clearly visible in the post history DSM has continued to label me and/or my posts as "a troll"/"trolling", without providing the definition of "troll" / "trolling" that he is using (nor what he meant by stating that OP's post "was general"), and whilst providing zero evidence to support his claims of my being a troll/trolling.

The ball is - still - in DSM's court if he has relevant, factual data to support his various positions/claims/"argument"(s) - and is willing to clarify which particular position/claim/argument(s) he currently holds/"argues", as they change when he moves goalposts or edits his posts - and/or if he would like to provide the definitions he is using for "troll"/"trolling", "nonsense", "silly", "vitriol", "new" and "win" for the sake of civil discussin hehe.

[fortior]

Shamans aren't even the best soloing class, what is this all about

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Shamans aren't even the best soloing class, what is this all about

They are the second best solo class. I don't think anyone said they were the best, other than random strawman arguments.

[Gloomlord]

Shamans aren't even the best soloing class, what is this all about

It's been argued that when shaman gets access to puppet strings and boatload a of high end gear, that they just manage to surpass enchanter.

That's irrelevant, though. The thing this fool is arguing about is that this hypothetical group would allow him to root rot in a 2 charm group.

They wouldn't. Noone would.

[Gloomlord]

This thread is wild. DSMs strategy is goofy and I can understand why arguing with DSM is frustrating but they’ve remained cordial about all of the personal attacks. Y’all need to chill, he’s right that calling him names isn’t helping your arguments

"They"? You mean "DSM"?

Because he hasn't remained "cordial". You're just straight up lying, now.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

"They"? You mean "DSM"?

Because he hasn't remained "cordial". You're just straight up lying, now.

To Summarize: "Everybody who disagrees with me is insane and a liar."

And you wonder why people think you are a silly troll.

You are simply unable to admit you are wrong. Come back when you can back up your points with something other than insults and nonsensical ideas like "you can't play the game in a way I disagree with, it's not possible".

I'll be happy to have an adult conversation with you when you choose to stop acting childish.

[Ripqozko]

To Summarize: "Everybody who disagrees with me is insane and a liar."

And you wonder why people think you are a silly troll.

You are simply unable to admit you are wrong. Come back when you can back up your points with something other than insults and nonsensical ideas.

17 pages to go, we know you have to get last word ill help ya get a few more

[Gloomlord]

To Summarize: "Everybody who disagrees with me is insane and a liar."

And you wonder why people think you are a silly troll.

You are simply unable to admit you are wrong. Come back when you can back up your points with something other than insults and nonsensical ideas.

I'll be happy to have an adult conversation with you when you choose to stop acting childish.

Trying to gaslight me now?

The overwhelming majority of people in this thread must also be "silly trolls" too, right?

Very cordial...

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Trying to gaslight me now?

The overwhelming majority of people in this thread must also be "silly trolls" too, right?

Very cordial...

Hey you stopped the insults when you realized what you are doing. Progress! I am not sure why you think you are the cordial person here when you have done nothing but post the same insults ad nauseum.

Glad I could help you realize where you were going wrong. Maybe we can have a normal conversation.

And yes, it is pretty obvious there are multiple trolls in this thread. You can see all the posts that are just gifs lol. Unfortunately for you the trolls aren't doing much to hide it.

[Gloomlord]

You can't claim bizarre things like "groups allow shamans to root rot in a charm group", in order to prove shaman does more DPS than mage, then proclaim anyone who calls you out on how absurd this situation is with anger and/or ridicule as "silly trolls".

I'm sorry, DSM, but you know this is patently rude and insane to do in a 2 charm group.

And if you claim the 4th member is irrelevant ultimately, then why wouldn't I want a druid? This group gets ports to where it wants to go, and may even get POTG and an extra charm.

It's checkmate. Come on! You can't get out of this.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You can't claim bizarre things like "groups allow shamans to root rot in a charm group", in order to prove shaman does more DPS than mage, then proclaim anyone who calls you out on how absurd this situation is with anger and/or ridicule as "silly trolls".

I'm sorry, DSM, but you know this is patently rude and insane to do in a 2 charm group.

And if you claim the 4th member is irrelevant ultimately, then why wouldn't I want a druid? This group gets ports to where it wants to go, and may even get POTG and an extra charm.

It's checkmate. Come on! You can't get out of this.

You are called a silly troll because you deserve it. I am not sure why you think calling everybody insane liars isn't rude lol. Why are you so special that you can be rude to others, but get hurt if they return the favor?:)

You do not get to dictate what is effective in this game just because you think it lessens the need for a Mage. You have no evidence to suggest root rotting is ineffective, and you clearly haven't tried it. It is quite bold to simply make a proclimation about something you know nothing about.

On a server with dial a port, it is a waste of space to have a dedicated porter unfortunately. You have enough DPS with 2 Enchanters, so the situational charm really isn't necessary.

[Gloomlord]

You're so right! What am I thinking?!

I should say things that I personally know are false and ridiculous, get called out on them, and then stubbornly refuse to acknowledge them whilst proclaiming my opponent to be rude.

Spare me your self-righteous hypocrisy...

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You're so right! What am I thinking?!

I should say things that I personally know are false and ridiculous, get called out on them, and then stubbornly refuse to acknowledge them whilst proclaiming my opponent to be rude.

Spare me your self-righteous hypocrisy...

If you think I am wrong, the correct approach is to provide evidence for your claims, instead of providing insults and blanket statements like "nobody can play the game in a way I dislike".

What you are doing isn't forwarding the conversation. You just look like a troll and an asshole.

I would encourage you to review your post history. You just sound insulting and agressive, while providing nothing of value.

[Gloomlord]

I think you should review yours.

Throughout this whole thread, you come across like a weaselly sociopath.

That's not some empty insult I'm throwing your way -- that's legitimately the truth.

Speaking to you in a non-hostile manner is giving you exactly what you want. Because when someone gives you an inch, which in this case is giving you the benefit of the doubt, you'll take a mile.

And why are you singling out me, for some strange reason? Most people in this thread, who have interacted with you, have shown you disdain.

You don't think that makes you look manipulative in the slightest?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I think you should review yours.

Throughout this whole thread, you come across like a weaselly sociopath.

That's not some empty insult I'm throwing your way -- that's legitimately the truth.

Speaking to you in a non-hostile manner is giving you exactly what you want. Because when someone gives you an inch, which in this case is giving you the benefit of the doubt, you'll take a mile.

And why are you singling out me, for some strange reason? Most people in this thread, who have interacted with you, have shown you disdain.

You don't think that makes you look manipulative in the slightest?

I am not sure where all of this is coming from. You have made this strange fiction in your head. I am sorry you are reading a completely different thread.

How am I singling you out when you keep responding to this thread? I am simply responding back lol. You can choose to stop at any time.

[Gloomlord]

Anyone else reading this?

Does anyone really not see how sociopathic this man is when he talks? The gaslighting is off the scales.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Anyone else reading this?

Does anyone really not see how sociopathic this man is when he talks? The gaslighting is off the scales.

Please explain why you think this is gaslighting. Just about every post you have made is insulting. There isn't any memory manipulation going on. If you aren't trolling, it is concerning that you think this sounds like normal conversation:


Throughout this whole thread, you come across like a weaselly sociopath.

You have no evidence to show that is what I sound like, other than your opinion.

[Ripqozko]

Please explain why you think this is gaslighting. Just about every post you have made is insulting. There isn't any memory manipulation going on. If you aren't trolling, it is concerning that you think this sounds like normal conversation:



You have no evidence to show that is what I sound like, other than your opinion.

15 more to go, almost there

[Gloomlord]

Please explain why you think this is gaslighting. Just about every post you have made is insulting. There isn't any memory manipulation going on. If you aren't trolling, it is concerning that you think this sounds like normal conversation:

How many people on this thread called you out?

Are they all trolls too?

Get a reality check. I beg you!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

How many people on this thread called you out?

Are they all trolls too?

Get a reality check. I beg you!

Posting a gif is calling me out in a reasonable fashion?

[Gloomlord]

And how many people did that as well?

Doesn't matter if I post Picard facepalming to you. I just really want to express my opinion about you in a non verbal manner.

Plsnoban actually went to the length of creating a character to ask people in EC if COTH truly was a port. Him, many others and myself called you out without funny memes beforehand.

You couldn't care less, though.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

And how many people did that as well?

Doesn't matter if I post Picard facepalming to you. I just really want to express my opinion about you in a non verbal manner.

Plsnoban actually went to the length of creating a character to ask people in EC if COTH truly was a port. Him, many others and myself called you out without funny memes beforehand.

You couldn't care less, though.

Creating a new character with a derogatory name and cherry picking responses is a resonable method of calling someone out? It isn't childish at all? No room for trolling there?

[Gloomlord]

He was mocking you harshly, yes.

But you deserved every bit of it, and you know it.

Because you know you're wrong, DSM. You lack the maturity to admit that.

I give up. Anyone else want to take over trying to reason with the unreasonable?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

He was mocking you harshly, yes.

But you deserved every bit of it, and you know it.

Because you know you're wrong, DSM. You lack the maturity to admit that.

I give up. Anyone else want to take over trying to reason with the unreasonable?

I am glad you are admitting there are multiple trolls here, and you think trolling is good. You want them to troll me because I "deserve it". This is why you are a troll too.

I am truly amazed that you think you sound like a good guy here lol.

You could have spent this time gathering evidence for your claims. Instead, you keep giving me evidence that you are a troll.

[Jimjam]

I’ve given this some thought. I think there is some merit in the idea that the fourth member won’t add much, particularly because one of the players is likely able to swap out to a rezzer or porter as required.

So the real question is which race/class combo adds nothing but at the smallest cost?


The answer is simple. A level 5 halfling rogue. Ostensibly useful as a dragbot, or for carrying loot, it also has such a low xp cost that it will likely increase the xp the others gain on account of group bonuses. This will take the sting off those occasional charm break deaths or group wipes.

Adding sneak also has the benefit of allowing the group to sell to any vendor as well as unlocking many more quests.

So yea thread move to resolved.

The answer was lvl 5 halfling rogue.

[Lysander]

I’ve given this some thought. I think there is some merit in the idea that the fourth member won’t add much, particularly because one of the players is likely able to swap out to a rezzer or porter as required.

So the real question is which race/class combo adds nothing but at the smallest cost?


The answer is simple. A level 5 halfling rogue. Ostensibly useful as a dragbot, or for carrying loot, it also has such a low xp cost that it will likely increase the xp the others gain on account of group bonuses. This will take the sting off those occasional charm break deaths or group wipes.

Adding sneak also has the benefit of allowing the group to sell to any vendor as well as unlocking many more quests.

So yea thread move to resolved.

The answer was lvl 5 halfling rogue.

You say that the halfling rogue is supposed to sit in group and give extra xp, except clearly this will result in the entire group getting no more xp after the teens because one group member is too low. Terrible idea, have you even considered the math? 10% group bonus of 0 xp is 0. You're spreading misinformation and lies on an everquest board and I cannot let this slide on my pride as a neckbeard. It shows a gross understanding of basic game mechanics.

The best idea is clearly a high level bard who will sit in group and sing manasong and regen song every tick but disband from the group every time they kill a monster. Also they should snare the mob and off tank, but all making sure they dont leech any xp. Before anyone says that a lvl 60 druid to port and cast POTG is better remember that the 2nd enchanter already has a pocket druid who is casting that. So a druid is totally useless as the 4th invisible member of this group, even if they sit out of group. It's just unfortunately impossible for druids to contribute on p99 because everyone has leveled a 60 druid after 12 years on the Project. People should never roll druids anymore. I hear that if you just whine enough in EC someone will give you a free dial druid bot account.

[cd288]

A year later and this argument is still going with DSM? What is wrong with you people

[Toxigen]

we're making 400 boys

[Dritzle]

People sleep on druids but enchx2, necro, druid would be fun

[7thGate]

This is actually making me kind of curious about how well Shaman/Ench/Ench/Cleric could handle Puppet show. There's some possible advantages for a Shaman in comp there:

--Shaman gives easy ability to solo Geb, so you can have one member prep multiple puppets for you without having to waste time acquiring a pet to start the cycle. (I think enchanter probably has more trouble just popping on and soloing Geb efficiently?)
--Shaman slow is effectively a 20% damage reduction, which actually matters if your plan is to spawn 3-4 puppets and tank them all concurrently
--Shaman can be pretty tanky with good gear and brings additional buffing. AC matters for this a lot but BIS shaman can probably tank 3 or 4 puppets concurrently with CH cleric backup.
--Summoning means you can't do it with just pets as easily
--Targets have so much HP shaman is efficient DPS with dots and Avatar on pets
EDIT: Malo and Malosini help reduce pet breaks and speed debuffing.

[Toxigen]

People sleep on druids but enchx2, necro, druid would be fun

id like to see a mage / enc / necro / druid in spots w/ animals - 4x different pets just goin ham

unfortunately the only spot 50+ for this is ...chardok.

[7thGate]

id like to see a mage / enc / necro / druid in spots w/ animals - 4x different pets just goin ham

unfortunately the only spot 50+ for this is ...chardok.

What about Kael? Bvellos + Wolf pet would be a ton of very tanky DPS.

[Dritzle]

Kael, Chardok, mischief, sirens come to mind. SG could get pretty saucy with 4 pets. Speaking of PoM, from what I've seen, you're right about the puppet show 7thgate - shaman is key to a smooth puppet show

[bcbrown]

I don't have data on "success rate"

I wasn't talking about "data", just a subjective sense of how often groups acquiesce to this idea you've been talking about. Sounds like you're saying there's rarely ever any pushback.

I can do that independant of what the group is doing.

Here's what I'm really curious about. Why group at all if you're going to be completely independent? What's the benefit?


My position is Shaman/Enchanter/Monk, with the fourth member being flexible. Due to the specific restriction of no melee classes, that changes the equation a bit.

I said Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric/Shaman or Enchanter/Enchanter/Shaman/Necro in my original post on this thread. This is because 2x Enchanters provide the DPS, and the Shaman + Cleric supply enough utility and mitigation to keep the Enchanters going without a hitch.

I guess I'm confused then, because earlier you said this:

I think the issue here is you don't understand enough about the game to realize a 4 man group is not a very good number on P99. Most people prefer trios because you don't really expand the amount of content you can do with 4 people, and loot splits better 3 ways. You generally want 5-6 people for the harder single group content.

If a fourth member doesn't expand what content you can do, 2 chanters are sufficient DPS (I understand and accept your argument that killing Fungi King in 90s vs 72s or whatever is pretty irrelevant), and loot splits better 3 ways, aren't you advocating that the fourth member is pretty irrelevant?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or trying to score debate points, just trying to understand your position.

[cd288]

This is actually making me kind of curious about how well Shaman/Ench/Ench/Cleric could handle Puppet show. There's some possible advantages for a Shaman in comp there:

--Shaman gives easy ability to solo Geb, so you can have one member prep multiple puppets for you without having to waste time acquiring a pet to start the cycle. (I think enchanter probably has more trouble just popping on and soloing Geb efficiently?)
--Shaman slow is effectively a 20% damage reduction, which actually matters if your plan is to spawn 3-4 puppets and tank them all concurrently
--Shaman can be pretty tanky with good gear and brings additional buffing. AC matters for this a lot but BIS shaman can probably tank 3 or 4 puppets concurrently with CH cleric backup.
--Summoning means you can't do it with just pets as easily
--Targets have so much HP shaman is efficient DPS with dots and Avatar on pets
EDIT: Malo and Malosini help reduce pet breaks and speed debuffing.

I don't think anyone would argue against that. The original argument going back to last year was that Shamans do better DPS than, say, a Charmed pet which is why they'd be better in the group. Which is just not correct over time.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I don't think anyone would argue against that. The original argument going back to last year was that Shamans do better DPS than, say, a Charmed pet which is why they'd be better in the group. Which is just not correct over time.

I challenge you to show me where I said that.

I appreciate you brought this up, because it simply shows how strawmen ruined this thread. That was the intent of course. When people got mad that they couldn't win with facts and logic, they decided to switch tactics and troll.

It amazes me that you have 100 replies in this thread and still know nothing about it since that is what you thought I was arguing.


Here's what I'm really curious about. Why group at all if you're going to be completely independent? What's the benefit?

More experience per hour. It's really that simple. XP groups are often easy and grindy, so there isn't always a need to do it together. Helping other people gain experience and talking in group chat is fun by itself.


If a fourth member doesn't expand what content you can do, 2 chanters are sufficient DPS (I understand and accept your argument that killing Fungi King in 90s vs 72s or whatever is pretty irrelevant), and loot splits better 3 ways, aren't you advocating that the fourth member is pretty irrelevant?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or trying to score debate points, just trying to understand your position.

Realistically the fourth member would be irrelevant from my experience. Shaman/Enchanter/Monk can handle basically any camp that a trio would want to do, and I can't think of many (if any) camps that are doable with 4 people specifically instead of 3.

However, this is a question about a four man group. I don't think a group of four friends is going to drop down to a trio so they can split the loot better. Therefore, I am not going to discourage OP from abandoning one of their friends.

Instead, I am suggesting you take the base concept of a powerhouse trio like Shaman/Enchanter/Monk, and add a fourth member. With the additional restriction of caster/priest only, there are a few logical choices. Shaman/Enchanter/Necromancer is the closest analogy, and also gives you twitch + resurrection. Enchanters are often comfortable doing the pulling, so Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter works fine too.

Both of these combinations hit 200 DPS, which is probably the best breakpoint for a trio. Just about every named mob a trio can kill is dying in less than 2 minutes. Most trash mobs are dying in 20-40 seconds.

Mobs killable by 3-4 players are mostly slowable and do not out-DPS Torpor + Slow. CH is rarely needed in this scenario. This is especially true since this group has the restriction of no Warriors, so you don't have the option to CH a Warrior discing.

Cleric is a strong choice for the fourth member, since this trio doesn't really need more DPS. But you could fit in just about any class. The only reason why I say putting a Druid in this group isn't a good idea is because people are saying they want to replace the Shaman with the Druid. It simply doesn't make sense to do so. Shamans can handle more content than a Druid, so you are simply sacrificing a broader range of camps for port convenience. As long as the server populations remain healthy, you shouldn't be too worried about finding a port.

[fortior]

They are the second best solo class. I don't think anyone said they were the best, other than random strawman arguments.

Nah, they’re behind druids, necros, enchanters, and bards.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Nah, they’re behind druids, necros, enchanters, and bards.

Not at all.

Necros and Druids are limited by the type of mob they can charm. There are less zones they can operate efficiently in because of this. Bards are great for clearing trash, not so much named mobs.

Enchanters are the best solo class because they can do more content in more zones than any other class. Shamans are second best in that regard. They can do a lot of content in a lot of zones solo, without a specific restriction other than slow immunity. Luckily this is fairly rare in soloable mobs.

If you are referring to solo speed while leveling, I agree Shamans aren't as fast as Druids, Necros, or Bards. However, leveling speed doesn't really matter if you don't plan on reaching 60. If you are the type of player who levels to 50 and stops, I am not sure what you are rushing for. If you are planning on reaching 60, it is more important to understand what your character is going to do at 60.

[Vivitron]

This is actually making me kind of curious about how well Shaman/Ench/Ench/Cleric could handle Puppet show. There's some possible advantages for a Shaman in comp there:

--Shaman gives easy ability to solo Geb, so you can have one member prep multiple puppets for you without having to waste time acquiring a pet to start the cycle. (I think enchanter probably has more trouble just popping on and soloing Geb efficiently?)
--Shaman slow is effectively a 20% damage reduction, which actually matters if your plan is to spawn 3-4 puppets and tank them all concurrently
--Shaman can be pretty tanky with good gear and brings additional buffing. AC matters for this a lot but BIS shaman can probably tank 3 or 4 puppets concurrently with CH cleric backup.
--Summoning means you can't do it with just pets as easily
--Targets have so much HP shaman is efficient DPS with dots and Avatar on pets
EDIT: Malo and Malosini help reduce pet breaks and speed debuffing.

Interesting, do you just have one person kill Geb a few times over a few game days and then call in the rest of the group? Maybe I've been doing puppets wrong by doing one show per game day.

[7thGate]

I usually do puppet show normally too since it's safer and more straight forward, but have done 2 at once before when it's more time efficient. 2 enchanters would be overkill for the DPS need to clear a single spawn, and a cleric is overkill for healing, so I think you would get more from your time if you did multiples in a group of 4. I'm not entirely sure that a strong shaman can tank 3 at once with a cleric backing them, but I think they probably could and would be curious to see how it panned out with that team.

[cd288]

The comment that Shamans are second best solo class comes with a huge asterisk of basically "second best if you spend hours on end getting epic, grinding to buy torpor, and getting geared up in general"

[Crede]

Not at all.

Necros and Druids are limited by the type of mob they can charm. There are less zones they can operate efficiently in because of this. Bards are great for clearing trash, not so much named mobs.

Enchanters are the best solo class because they can do more content in more zones than any other class. Shamans are second best in that regard. They can do a lot of content in a lot of zones solo, without a specific restriction other than slow immunity. Luckily this is fairly rare in soloable mobs.

If you are referring to solo speed while leveling, I agree Shamans aren't as fast as Druids, Necros, or Bards. However, leveling speed doesn't really matter if you don't plan on reaching 60. If you are the type of player who levels to 50 and stops, I am not sure what you are rushing for. If you are planning on reaching 60, it is more important to understand what your character is going to do at 60.

I'm not sure why you think that the solo ranking of a class translates into a 4 man group situation. The only reason you have an overlap in enchanters is because of charmed pet dps. If this wasn't the case, you would not want 2 enchanters in a group. Group dynamics change as the amount of group members change, with the exception of enc/cleric as this translates into all levels of play as these are pretty much the 2 most powerful classes in group content.

Also, Necros are not necessarily dependent on the type of mob they can charm for solo. If you watch some of UnchainedFury's solo videos, they get to a point where they can just face tank stuff spamming lifetap as needed. OP has not specified the level of gear associated with each class, so we have nothing to go on there. They can also fear kite when appropriate as well, and as been revealed in other threads, it's not difficult to throw fear down in dungeons in certain situations. In this composition I'd actually choose them over shaman as they are capable of outputting more dps with their superior dots, pet, and potential charm pet as well, in addition to bringing FD and Harmshield, not to mention emergency rez if needed. Their patch heal is likely sufficient enough to fill in if the cleric is busy as well. And with 2 enchanters, you could easily have 1 or even both of them on slow duty, since maintaining a charmed pet does not cost a lot of mana. A shaman would bring malo, but not having it isn't necessarily the end of the world, as pet kits can offset there and I doubt there's a mob out there that this potential 4 man group would need malo to land a slow on to win. And since you introduced pocket chars, you could easily have a pocket coth mage to drop a malo in if needed, as this class would be extremely easy to PL with enchanter aoe stun if you wanted to level one up.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'm not sure why you think that the solo ranking of a class translates into a 4 man group situation. The only reason you have an overlap in enchanters is because of charmed pet dps. If this wasn't the case, you would not want 2 enchanters in a group. Group dynamics change as the amount of group members change, with the exception of enc/cleric as this translates into all levels of play as these are pretty much the 2 most powerful classes in group content.

Also, Necros are not necessarily dependent on the type of mob they can charm for solo. If you watch some of UnchainedFury's solo videos, they get to a point where they can just face tank stuff spamming lifetap as needed. OP has not specified the level of gear associated with each class, so we have nothing to go on there. They can also fear kite when appropriate as well, and as been revealed in other threads, it's not difficult to throw fear down in dungeons in certain situations. In this composition I'd actually choose them over shaman as they are capable of outputting more dps with their superior dots, pet, and potential charm pet as well, in addition to bringing FD and Harmshield, not to mention emergency rez if needed. Their patch heal is likely sufficient enough to fill in if the cleric is busy as well. And with 2 enchanters, you could easily have 1 or even both of them on slow duty, since maintaining a charmed pet does not cost a lot of mana. A shaman would bring malo, but not having it isn't necessarily the end of the world, as pet kits can offset there and I doubt there's a mob out there that this potential 4 man group would need malo to land a slow on to win. And since you introduced pocket chars, you could easily have a pocket coth mage to drop a malo in if needed, as this class would be extremely easy to PL with enchanter aoe stun if you wanted to level one up.

It is not a coincidence that Enchanters are the best solo class, and also happen to be the number one pick for any thread on this kind of topic. If you look at how an Enchanter plays in a group, a group with 2 Enchanters is basically 2 Enchanters soloing together with support classes allowing them to play longer before a med break. An Enchanter really isn't playing differently in a group from how they would solo if they are Charming pets.

Most content 3-4 players can do is still basically content that is soloable by an Enchanter or Shaman. Grouping just allows you to do the harder solo content without using expensive clickies. Unfortunately the next level of content usually needs a full group to do it consistently, with a Warrior for discing. I honestly can't think of a lot of content that specifically needs 3-4 players, and couldn't be done with a duo, or a solo player with all the expensive clickies.

As for a Necromancer, I am not trying to downplay them at all. They are a fantastic class. The main issue they suffer from is their strongest abilities (charm and fear) are limited by mob level (fear) and location (charm). That is why they can't really solo the harder content that a Shaman or Enchanter can do. If there was a Howling Stones equivalent in Velious that dropped really nice items, then that may have been a different story.

[Gloomlord]

The comment that Shamans are second best solo class comes with a huge asterisk of basically "second best if you spend hours on end getting epic, grinding to buy torpor, and getting geared up in general"

With Puppet Strings, in addition to those things you mentioned, they surpass Enchanter.

Noone is denying they're a really good class. We're just denying they're needed in this hypothetical group.

And this fucking idiot can't concede to something even a mediocre player can figure out.

[Crede]

It is not a coincidence that Enchanters are the best solo class, and also happen to be the number one pick for any thread on this kind of topic. If you look at how an Enchanter plays in a group, a group with 2 Enchanters is basically 2 Enchanters soloing together with support classes allowing them to play longer before a med break.

Most content 3-4 players can do is still basically content that is soloable by an Enchanter or Shaman. Grouping just allows you to do the harder solo content without using expensive clickies. Unfortunately the next level of content usually needs a full group to do it consistently. I honestly can't think of a lot of content that specifically needs 3-4 players, and couldn't be done with a duo, or a solo player with all the expensive clickies.

As for a Necromancer, I am not trying to downplay them at all. They are a fantastic class. The main issue they suffer from is their strongest abilities (charm and fear) are limited by mob level (fear) and location (charm). That is why they can't really solo the harder content that a Shaman or Enchanter can do. If there was a Howling Stones equivalent in Velious that dropped really nice items, then that may have been a different story.

Actually, I think it is a coincidence. Because Enchanter charmed pet is such high dps, that they can fill the dps role quite well.

Any other decent solo class you would likely not want to double on. Shamans specifically, you will basically never have 2 in a group. Because the utility gain wouldn't be worth the dps loss. You only need so many slows, heals, roots, etc. It diminishes a lot faster than massive DPS by an enchanter pet.

I would agree though, that OP's question is so hypothetical that it never happens. I don't think I've ever seen 4 casters plowing through content, as enc/cleric can basically kill mostly anything groupable until you need to start bringing in a bigger group with a war or other classes to open up the next tier as you indicated.

[fortior]

Not at all.

Necros and Druids are limited by the type of mob they can charm. There are less zones they can operate efficiently in because of this. Bards are great for clearing trash, not so much named mobs.

Enchanters are the best solo class because they can do more content in more zones than any other class. Shamans are second best in that regard. They can do a lot of content in a lot of zones solo, without a specific restriction other than slow immunity. Luckily this is fairly rare in soloable mobs.

If you are referring to solo speed while leveling, I agree Shamans aren't as fast as Druids, Necros, or Bards. However, leveling speed doesn't really matter if you don't plan on reaching 60. If you are the type of player who levels to 50 and stops, I am not sure what you are rushing for. If you are planning on reaching 60, it is more important to understand what your character is going to do at 60.

Nah. Enchanters are the most versatile soloing class, but Necromancers and Druids at least have niches of their own in being dad-friendly (infinite use feign death) and mobile (porting around, being able to bind at a camp and port to sell/xfer) while being less versatile. Bards are the king of xp/hr with 10 plat in gear on a fresh server and deserve a mention because of that. Shamans are just worse Enchanters.

It's a class with no rez, no port, no charm spell. It's an entirely mediocre soloing class bombarded to god-like status because it can facetank and very slowly grind down impressive-looking mobs with minimal input required. You can kill a lot of mobs, but you lack the tools to efficiently get to the location of the mob, isolate the mob, and dps the mob.

Everyone looks at the time it takes to kill a mob, but you have to get there first. Druids reign supreme when there's something to charm for dps since they can just port there. Enchanters can paci down a dungeon before a shaman makes it past the first pack of mobs. I feel bad for people who kit out a Shaman and find out that they never evolve from 'facetank mob, whittle it down'. You'll never be able to port. You'll never be able to paci. You'll never be able to feign death without recharging your sky ring. You'll never be able to charm without using puppet strings clicks.

[Gloomlord]

Actually, I think it is a coincidence. Because Enchanter charmed pet is such high dps, that they can fill the dps role quite well.

Any other decent solo class you would likely not want to double on. Shamans specifically, you will basically never have 2 in a group. Because the utility gain wouldn't be worth the dps loss. You only need so many slows, heals, roots, etc. It diminishes a lot faster than massive DPS by an enchanter pet.

I would agree though, that OP's question is so hypothetical that it never happens. I don't think I've ever seen 4 casters plowing through content, as enc/cleric can basically kill mostly anything groupable until you need to start bringing in a bigger group with a war or other classes to open up the next tier as you indicated.

I think he knows this.

But he's been arguing, yet again, that shamans will root rot in this hypothetical 2 charm group. Why would they do that? To merely prove a point that shamans are better than mages at DPS.

Yes. He really is that childish.

DSM really doesn't deserve a civil discussion at this point.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Actually, I think it is a coincidence. Because Enchanter charmed pet is such high dps, that they can fill the dps role quite well.

Any other decent solo class you would likely not want to double on. Shamans specifically, you will basically never have 2 in a group. Because the utility gain wouldn't be worth the dps loss. You only need so many slows, heals, roots, etc. It diminishes a lot faster than massive DPS by an enchanter pet.

I would agree though, that OP's question is so hypothetical that it never happens. I don't think I've ever seen 4 casters plowing through content, as enc/cleric can basically kill mostly anything groupable until you need to start bringing in a bigger group with a war or other classes to open up the next tier as you indicated.

I agree you would never bring two Shamans, and that the DPS is the reason to bring two Enchanters.

But I disagree about the coincidence part. Enchanters are certainly the best solo and single group class for the same reason. They have unparalleled CC in addition to good DPS. They don't really play different solo vs. single group either. They are still Charming and CCing. They can just be a bit more ballsy since they have backup.

Most group content that 3-4 players can do is already soloable by Enchanters or Shamans. Having one of each in your group means you can basically have a single player solo a bad situation if multiple problems are occurring simultaneously. A Cleric is less able to handle an unstunnable mob beating them in the face, for example.

DPS also has diminishing returns, which I have mentioned before. At 200 DPS you are killing Fungi King in 90 seconds. At 250 DPS you are killing Fungi King in 72 seconds. The biggest issue with Everquest is 30 minute spawn timers cause DPS to fall off considerably after a certain point. 250 DPS is only saving you 18 seconds in a 30 minute wait time. Obviously raids are different, but we are discussing single group content.

A 3-4 player group is not really killing anything with more than 25000 HP, and 2 Enchanters are already hitting 200 DPS. Generally speaking even when you are churning through mobs, a bit of extra DPS needs many consecutive play hours to translate over to an additional spawn. If you take a break in between, you lose all that progress.

[Gloomlord]

Nah. Enchanters are the most versatile soloing class, but Necromancers and Druids at least have niches of their own in being dad-friendly (infinite use feign death) and mobile (porting around, being able to bind at a camp and port to sell/xfer) while being less versatile. Bards are the king of xp/hr with 10 plat in gear on a fresh server and deserve a mention because of that. Shamans are just worse Enchanters.

It's a class with no rez, no port, no charm spell. It's an entirely mediocre soloing class bombarded to god-like status because it can facetank and very slowly grind down impressive-looking mobs with minimal input required. You can kill a lot of mobs, but you lack the tools to efficiently get to the location of the mob, isolate the mob, and dps the mob.

Everyone looks at the time it takes to kill a mob, but you have to get there first. Druids reign supreme when there's something to charm for dps since they can just port there. Enchanters can paci down a dungeon before a shaman makes it past the first pack of mobs. I feel bad for people who kit out a Shaman and find out that they never evolve from 'facetank mob, whittle it down'. You'll never be able to port. You'll never be able to paci. You'll never be able to feign death without recharging your sky ring. You'll never be able to charm without using puppet strings clicks.

I think you can argue that druids, bards and necromancers are more efficient at soloing, which they indeed are, but shamans are the ones who can take on the higher end mobs which summon etc.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I think you can argue that druids, bards and necromancers are more efficient at soloing, which they indeed are, but shamans are the ones who can take on the higher end mobs which summon etc.

Agreed.

[Gloomlord]

Suppose you should also be agreeing with the fact that mages might be better at one thing than the shaman, but alas, here we are.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Suppose you should also be agreeing with the fact that mages might be better at one thing than the shaman, but alas, here we are.

I agree with you that Mages do better single target DPS when compared to a Shaman.

I simply disagree that roughly 50 extra single target DPS over a Shaman is necessary in a four man group already doing 200+ DPS with 2 Enchanters.

The Shaman's utility far outweighs DPS that has already hit significant diminishing returns, and the group can have the Shaman do more DPS via root rotting in XP groups if they care. As other people have mentioned (and I agree), that is typically overkill because players intuitively understand diminishing returns on DPS. It is the same reason why you don't normally see 6 player XP groups, because the additional DPS of 2-3 more players simply doesn't make up for the XP loss each player is getting.

[cd288]

With Puppet Strings, in addition to those things you mentioned, they surpass Enchanter.

Noone is denying they're a really good class. We're just denying they're needed in this hypothetical group.

And this fucking idiot can't concede to something even a mediocre player can figure out.

Oh I don't disagree with you at all there. They are definitely not critical for this 4 person group and the benefit they bring (unless we're talking fully geared level 60 with Torpor) can be easily provided by other classes in almost all cases. Ench can haste and slow, a Cleric for heals.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Oh I don't disagree with you at all there. They are definitely not critical for this 4 person group and the benefit they bring (unless we're talking fully geared level 60 with Torpor) can be easily provided by other classes in almost all cases. Ench can haste and slow, a Cleric for heals.

But if an Enchanter is running out of mana due to hasting, slowing, ccing, and charming, then your group is losing efficiency anyway. You still have an efficiency problem if your Cleric is FM and your Enchanter is OOM.

A Shaman can share those duties, alleviating the mana loss on an Enchanter. The Cleric cannot share those duties as easily.

[Toxigen]

If your cleric is FM and the enchanter is low, all he has to do is downrank slow for a while.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If your cleric is FM and the enchanter is low, all he has to do is downrank slow for a while.

Or you could have a Shaman, and the Enchanter isn't slowing at all:)

[Gloomlord]

I agree with you that Mages do better single target DPS when compared to a Shaman.

I simply disagree that roughly 50 extra single target DPS over a Shaman is necessary in a four man group already doing 200+ DPS with 2 Enchanters.

The Shaman's utility far outweighs DPS that has already hit significant diminishing returns, and the group can have the Shaman do more DPS via root rotting in XP groups if they care. As other people have mentioned (and I agree), that is typically overkill because players intuitively understand diminishing returns on DPS. It is the same reason why you don't normally see 6 player XP groups, because the additional DPS of 2-3 more players simply doesn't make up for the XP loss each player is getting.

The thing is: most would prefer a bit of extra DPS on a single target in a charm group than redundant utility and utterly worthless root rotting that you only brought up to childishly spite mage.

If I wanted utility here in this group, I'd take a Necromancer or a Druid.

We've already covered this over multiple pages last year.

[Toxigen]

Awww yeah we're definitely hitting 400 boys.

[Gloomlord]

Or you could have a Shaman, and the Enchanter isn't slowing at all:)

Then why can't the other enchanter take over? You're telling me two enchanters can't make a decision on how to split their mana on which tasks?

Think, DSM, think!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The thing is: most would prefer a bit of extra DPS on a single target in a charm group than redundant utility and utterly worthless root rotting that you only brought up to childishly spite mage.

If I wanted utility here in this group, I'd take a Necromancer or a Druid.

We've already covered this over multiple pages last year.

I didn't do anything to "spite Mages". That is a fabrication on your part. It is not my fault Mages are not very strong on P99, nor did I advocate to nerf them. This is the inherit problem with a time locked box, some classes get screwed more than others.

I am simply pointing out that Mage DPS is redundant in a group with high DPS, and a Shaman can increase their DPS in XP groups if necessary.

Shaman/Enchanter/Necro/Whatever is a great four man group, so I agree bringing a Necromancer is a good option, and you could even do Shaman/Enchanter/Necro/Druid. With the Shaman, Enchanter, and Necro pets the group is hitting close to 200 DPS, and you can easily get over that with Shaman/Necro/Druid spells.

Then why can't the other enchanter take over? You're telling me two enchanters can't make a decision on how to split their mana on which tasks?

Think, DSM, think!

Both Enchanters are still using a lot of mana on CCing and Charming. You aren't going to have only one Enchanter charming. If your Enchanters are at FM, I am not sure why you think the group is doing content challenging enough to need Cleric heals to begin with.

The only lack of thinking here is assuming you need maximum efficiency heals, while also claiming the Enchanters are never going to have mana problems.

[Vivitron]

I honestly can't think of a lot of content that specifically needs 3-4 players, and couldn't be done with a duo, or a solo player with all the expensive clickies.

That's an interesting question itself. Maybe Sleepers Tomb trash* clear, Chardok Royals / Cleric Epic (I'm not really sure on minimum for Chardok King, Ixiblat, and Ragefire), maybe some of the non Ayilish 6 necks (but why?).

As you've suggested before, for stuff that really requires more than 2 it is often nicer to just bring everyone than to try to do it with a minimal force. But it's still interesting to try to list. I don't mind 3-4 at some duoable camps though, can make it more stable.

* I managed to duo one of these but my method wouldn't have been good enough for a clear.

[Toxigen]

That's an interesting question itself. Maybe Sleepers Tomb trash* clear, Chardok Royals / Cleric Epic (I'm not really sure on minimum for Chardok King, Ixiblat, and Ragefire), maybe some of the non Ayilish 6 necks (but why?).

As you've suggested before, for stuff that really requires more than 2 it is often nicer to just bring everyone than to try to do it with a minimal force. But it's still interesting to try to list. I don't mind 3-4 at some duoable camps though, can make it more stable.

* I managed to duo one of these but my method wouldn't have been good enough for a clear.

Aye. GWurms and Tola/Prot/Juggs are a couple that come to mind. Certainly GWurms need 4 ish for consistency and Juggs are more chill with 3.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

That's an interesting question itself. Maybe Sleepers Tomb trash* clear, Chardok Royals / Cleric Epic (I'm not really sure on minimum for Chardok King, Ixiblat, and Ragefire), maybe some of the non Ayilish 6 necks (but why?).

As you've suggested before, for stuff that really requires more than 2 it is often nicer to just bring everyone than to try to do it with a minimal force. But it's still interesting to try to list. I don't mind 3-4 at some duoable camps though, can make it more stable.

* I managed to duo one of these but my method wouldn't have been good enough for a clear.

Yeah I would be curious to get other people's opinions on some of these camps that are kind of in the grey area. Usually for something like Ixiblat or Ragefire a full group is safer, so you don't waste the turn-in. But that doesn't mean there aren't people out there doing it with less people.

Aye. GWurms and Tola/Prot/Juggs are a couple that come to mind. Certainly GWurms need 4 ish for consistency and Juggs are more chill with 3.

Yeah GWurms might be tough with only 4 people, but probably doable. I guess the question is would a 4 man GWurms group be that much more efficient than Juggs for getting spells? I do wonder that sometimes. If it isn't a group of 4 would probably only consider GWurms if Juggs were already taken.

[fortior]

I think you can argue that druids, bards and necromancers are more efficient at soloing, which they indeed are, but shamans are the ones who can take on the higher end mobs which summon etc.

Shamans have a gimmick of very slowly killing high end summoning mobs. They do so at a snail's pace and are worse at it than enchanters. On every other aspect of soloing they are worse than other classes who actually receive transformative benefits from gear.

I guess you'd roll a Shaman if you want to perpetually be at best in second place, with a toolset that never changes from the moment you mem Torpor.

[Vivitron]

The biggest issue with Everquest is 30 minute spawn timers cause DPS to fall off considerably after a certain point.

I'll also complain here about the placeholder-spawn mechanic. If you had to clear a whole area to get a good chance at a named spawn I think farming would be more social.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'll also complain here about the placeholder-spawn mechanic. If you had to clear a whole area to get a good chance at a named spawn I think farming would be more social.

That would be an interesting mechanic. More dead mobs in an area = higher spawn chance.

[fortior]

There's also no way to add more utility to any 3 man caster/priest group than by adding a Druid. Ports alone are massive, potg is mana regen, long snare on charm pets makes breaks a breeze, and damage shield is insane dps on unslowed mobs. If you want beef you add a chanter, if you want heals you add a cleric, if you want utility you add a druid. No other class even registers.

Saying you can just grab a dial-a-port in your non-druid 4 man is essentially the same as saying you can just get outside buffs from a shaman. Any 4 man needs a porter or you're behind from the very start

[DeathsSilkyMist]

There's also no way to add more utility to any 3 man caster/priest group than by adding a Druid. Ports alone are massive, potg is mana regen, long snare on charm pets makes breaks a breeze, and damage shield is insane dps on unslowed mobs. If you want beef you add a chanter, if you want heals you add a cleric, if you want utility you add a druid. No other class even registers.

Saying you can just grab a dial-a-port in your non-druid 4 man is essentially the same as saying you can just get outside buffs from a shaman. Any 4 man needs a porter or you're behind from the very start

I am just stating the reality of the server. You generally aren't doing a ton of porting in a single play session, and other players can easily cover that (i.e. dial-a-port). It's not really a good idea to try and camp multiple things across the world, as someone can just take the camp when you are away hehe.

A Shaman is better in more combat situations than a Druid, which is why they can solo more things than a Druid.

A Necro/Shaman combo is twitching more mana to your Enchanters than PoTG. PoTG isn't a necessary buff, it's a nice to have. Torpor + Regen + Twitch is a great combo.

[fortior]

I am just stating the reality of the server. You generally aren't doing a ton of porting in a single play session, and other players can easily cover that (i.e. dial-a-port). It's not really a good idea to try and camp multiple things across the world, as someone can just take the camp when you are away hehe.

A Shaman is better in more combat situations than a Druid, which is why they can solo more things than a Druid.

A Necro/Shaman combo is twitching more mana to your Enchanters than PoTG. PoTG isn't a necessary buff, it's a nice to have. Torpor + Regen + Twitch is a great combo.

This is only valid using a definition of 'soloing' which is specifically tuned to benefit shamans. In an actual solo situation, a shaman can't solo crypt in sebilis because a rogue has to let them in. That's actual soloing. No outside help. None of this 'other people can hold me up to the net, and then I can dunk in the ball' stuff.

Saying you can just get a dial-a-port to move your 4 man group around Norrath is basically the same as saying you can just get clarity from a nearby enchanter. No druid or wizard in your 4 man = your 4 man walks. It's the only way to fairly compare class makeups.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

This is only valid using a definition of 'soloing' which is specifically tuned to benefit shamans. In an actual solo situation, a shaman can't solo crypt in sebilis because a rogue has to let them in.

Saying you can just get a dial-a-port to move your 4 man group around Norrath is basically the same as saying you can just get clarity from a nearby enchanter. No druid or wizard in your 4 man = your 4 man walks. It's the only way to fairly compare class makeups.

Except it isn't, because you are refreshing Clarity every 30 minutes. You aren't porting every 30 minutes. If you are dungeon crawling you lose your progress if you teleport out, and camping multiple spawns around the game is risky because you can kill a placeholder and come back to the camp being taken.

For your rogue example, you can get around locked doors without a rogue while soloing. But I am not sure what that has to do with Druids vs. Shamans, because a Druid can't lockpick either. I don't understand the analogy.

[bcbrown]

Most group content that 3-4 players can do is already soloable by Enchanters or Shamans. Having one of each in your group means you can basically have a single player solo a bad situation if multiple problems are occurring simultaneously. A Cleric is less able to handle an unstunnable mob beating them in the face, for example.

A shaman can't help in a bad situation if they're several floors away root rotting 4-6 mobs.

I'm pretty thoroughly convinced that enc/enc/clr/druid is the way to go. Shaman haste/slow is fully covered by two enchanters and dots don't help when engaging group content that dies quickly. I'm glad DSM can find groups that let him go off on his own and root rot stuff, but I find the whole concept pretty repulsive. Druid adds snares, ports, roots, the Skin Like line, group regen, potg at 60, and outdoors shenanigans. But really, I think if you start with a pair of enchanters, adding any combination of druid/necro/cleric will lead to a great group.

My highest level character is 45, though, so my perspective is from a leveling/adventuring group, not from someone who's spent a decade at level 60 with raid gear.

A Necro/Shaman combo is twitching more mana to your Enchanters than PoTG. PoTG isn't a necessary buff, it's a nice to have. Torpor + Regen + Twitch is a great combo.

I got to group with a necro on my shaman for the first time yesterday, and Regen + Twitch combined with canni + Pact of Shadow really is amazing.

[fortior]

You want rezzes, you want paci, you want ports, and you want dps. Shamans add literally nothing to a group that's that stacked with pure dungeon crashing power. It's a class for people who want to solo the same way in every situation, and if their one trick doesn't work they can't do the camp. Shaman is the class you bring to a group when you're carrying melees.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

A shaman can't help in a bad situation if they're several floors away root rotting 4-6 mobs.

I'm pretty thoroughly convinced that enc/enc/clr/druid is the way to go. Shaman haste/slow is fully covered by two enchanters and dots don't help when engaging group content that dies quickly. I'm glad DSM can find groups that let him go off on his own and root rot stuff, but I find the whole concept pretty repulsive. Druid adds snares, ports, roots, the Skin Like line, group regen, potg at 60, and outdoors shenanigans. But really, I think if you start with a pair of enchanters, adding any combination of druid/necro/cleric will lead to a great group.

My highest level character is 45, though, so my perspective is from a leveling/adventuring group, not from someone who's spent a decade at level 60 with raid gear.

Typically you do root/rotting in a group if the content is trivial enough to where you aren't going to be running into problems that require the group to be together. In a area like the entrance to Velks, Shamans and Enchanters are going to be destroying the place already. The only bad situation you are going to run into is if another player trains you, but that can wipe a party regardless of whether they are together or not.

With 2 Enchanters you simply don't need more DPS, so that is why the Mage is redundant. A Shaman is going to be doing more in a group than a Druid, unless you are trying to hold a bunch of camps around the world simultaneously, which isn't a good idea.

You want rezzes, you want paci, you want ports, and you want dps. Shamans add literally nothing to a group that's that stacked with pure dungeon crashing power. It's a class for people who want to solo the same way in every situation, and if their one trick doesn't work they can't do the camp. Shaman is the class you bring to a group when you're carrying melees.

You simply don't understand Shamans or group dynamics enough if you think a Shaman offers nothing. There is a reason why Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is an extremely strong trio.

[fortior]

With 2 enchanters, a cleric, and a druid, you could break any 2 camps + a chardok camp as a 4 or 3 man (3 man after leaving ench #1 at the first broken camp), and leave the druid + cleric at the easier chardok camp with a chokidai pet. You'd have rezzes, ports, and aego + potg on both enchanters. Everyone playing p99 in the real world knows being able to quickly get to a camp is invaluable.

[fortior]

You simply don't understand Shamans or group dynamics enough if you think a Shaman offers nothing. There is a reason why Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is an extremely strong trio.

The shaman and monk in this example are being carried by the enchanter, I'm sorry you had to find out this way.

[bcbrown]

With 2 Enchanters you simply don't need more DPS, so that is why the Mage is redundant. A Shaman is going to be doing more in a group than a Druid, unless you are trying to hold a bunch of camps around the world simultaneously, which isn't a good idea.

I never mentioned mage. I play both a druid and a shaman (to the 40s) and I disagree with you. That's alright. It's okay to have different opinions.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

With 2 enchanters, a cleric, and a druid, you could break any 2 camps + a chardok camp as a 4 or 3 man (3 man after leaving ench #1 at the first broken camp), and leave the druid + cleric at the easier chardok camp with a chokidai pet. You'd have rezzes, ports, and aego + potg on both enchanters. Everyone playing p99 in the real world knows being able to quickly get to a camp is invaluable.

If you want 3 charmed pets, you bring another Enchanter, unless your group basically plans on living in Chardok or SG exclusively.

3 Charmed pets really isn't that great in a 4 man group, however, because of diminishing returns on DPS. You are also adding extra risk by having more overlapping charm breaks.

Druids are generally less effective than a Shaman, other than situationally better DPS via charming. Druid heals are worse, slows nullify damage shields for the most part, and Druids don't have a monopoly on mana saving via PoTG. A Shaman is also saving this party mana by Maloing the pets (less charm breaks).

I don't think I have ever been in a group that needed more than one or two ports across the entire play session.

I never mentioned mage. I play both a druid and a shaman (to the 40s) and I disagree with you. That's alright. It's okay to have different opinions.

Of course! I do not mind if you disagree with me. I would suggest that you level your characters a bit more though, as that may change your opinion.

[fortior]

If your 4 man group doesn't have ports, you're not even competing with the ones that do. You'll still be walking to whatever thing you're trying to camp while they'll be rolling through the mobs.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If your 4 man group doesn't have ports, you're not even competing with the ones that do. You'll still be walking to whatever thing you're trying to camp while they'll be rolling through the mobs.

I have never needed to walk a four man group from Velious to Kunark, for example. We just got a port from another player.

Maybe you have just had really bad luck, but generally speaking there is someone available to port a group for a tip.

[fortior]

You can't use what you don't bring

[Ripqozko]

This is going 400 easy

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You can't use what you don't bring

This is true. You can't use a Shaman when you bring a Druid instead, and vice versa. I am not sure how that proves your point though.

[fortior]

You can't use ports if you don't bring a porter, that's the entire idea of this thought experiment. Good luck walking, hope you don't fall off the boat

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You can't use ports if you don't bring a porter, that's the entire idea of this thought experiment. Good luck walking, hope you don't fall off the boat

Thanks! Luckily there are plenty of porters available to remove the necessity of taking the boats. In my many years of playing on P99 I don't think I have ever needed to take the boat due to a lack of porters. Usually I do it for fun, or if I need to get to a zone that cannot be ported to.

[cd288]

But if an Enchanter is running out of mana due to hasting, slowing, ccing, and charming, then your group is losing efficiency anyway. You still have an efficiency problem if your Cleric is FM and your Enchanter is OOM.

A Shaman can share those duties, alleviating the mana loss on an Enchanter. The Cleric cannot share those duties as easily.

You have 3 Enchanters and a Cleric. You'll be fine.

[cd288]

You simply don't understand Shamans or group dynamics enough if you think a Shaman offers nothing. There is a reason why Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is an extremely strong trio.

Of course a Shaman doesn't offer nothing. The point is that everything it offers (outside of Torpor) is also covered by other classes that are more useful to have. Sorry about it.

[fortior]

I'm a monk and I'd rather duo with an enchanter than a shaman. The reason I duo with shamans is that I'd just slow down an enchanter, while shamans are so much worse in comparison (but really, which class isn't) that the duo feels like way more of an equitable agreement.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Of course a Shaman doesn't offer nothing. The point is that everything it offers (outside of Torpor) is also covered by other classes that are more useful to have. Sorry about it.

That argument is silly, because 2x Enchanters are also completely redundant in terms of spells. But you aren't arguing that people shouldn't take 2x Enchanters:)

Nobody would say 3x Enchanters and a Cleric is a good combination if redundancy was a problem.

You cannot actually define why the redundancy is bad. Somehow having slow on 2x Enchanters is good, but slow on 1x Enchanter and 1x Shaman is bad. What is the logic here?

Using this logic Clerics are bad too, because they have Stuns/Root/Lull, which also overlap with an Enchanter.

I am amazed people seem to forget that Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a very strong trio that has been used for years. What is the logic that has invalidated this trio?

[fortior]

Did this guy just forget you can only have 1 charm pet per character or something? Lol

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Did this guy just forget you can only have 1 charm pet per character or something? Lol

Not at all. The "redundancy" argument is simply a fuzzy term people use when they can't provide more concrete evidence.

The argument is "Shamans have some overlapping spells with an Enchanter, therefore they are useless in this group".

That logic breaks down because I can say the same thing for both a Cleric and a second Enchanter. The Cleric has Stun/Root/Lull, and the second Enchanter has the exact same spellbook.

If you think there is an issue with the redundancy, you need to concisely explain why, so it can be explored.

[Crede]

That argument is silly, because 2x Enchanters are also completely redundant in terms of spells. But you aren't arguing that people shouldn't take 2x Enchanters:)

Nobody would say 3x Enchanters and a Cleric is a good combination if redundancy was a problem.

You cannot actually define why the redundancy is bad. Somehow having slow on 2x Enchanters is good, but slow on 1x Enchanter and 1x Shaman is bad. What is the logic here?

Using this logic Clerics are bad too, because they have Stuns/Root/Lull, which also overlap with an Enchanter.

I am amazed people seem to forget that Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a very strong trio that has been used for years. What is the logic that has invalidated this trio?

Because chars are geared. You don’t need slow. And torpor slows dps and snares you. Monk/cleric has surpassed monk/sham for awhile now. Clerics have stun command. Can blur. Root. Rez. Paci. More than enough to get any job done when healing pets and monks with 5k+ hp. And if ya do need slow, enc can do it. And equip their pet with swarmcaller too.

[Dritzle]

I’m LOVING this late game Druid push.

DSM - apologies if this was already hashed out hundreds of posts ago, but what’s the case against 3x enchanters and a cleric?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Because chars are geared. You don’t need slow. And torpor slows dps and snares you. Monk/cleric has surpassed monk/sham for awhile now. Clerics have stun command. Can blur. Root. Rez. Paci. More than enough to get any job done when healing pets and monks with 5k+ hp.

Torpor snare/slow is mitigated by having the Shaman tank. You don't need the Pet or the Monk to tank. This is why CH really isn't necessary to simply heal a pet. It won't take the damage to begin with.

2 Enchanters should be able to blur/paci/stun just fine, and Shamans have other methods to deal with a terrible charm break. Slow and Root are two quick options.

I've been a part of Shaman/Enchanter/Monk trios recently, and we didn't need CH for the pet, or a Cleric's stun/paci/blur/res.

I’m LOVING this late game Druid push.

DSM - apologies if this was already hashed out hundreds of posts ago, but what’s the case against 3x enchanters and a cleric?

3x charmed pets is riskier due to having more charm breaks occur per session, and you are hitting diminishing returns on DPS with 3x Enchanters. A 3-4 player group is not killing mobs with more than 25000 HP. At 200 DPS (2 Enchanters) you are killing trash in 20-40 seconds already. You are killing Fungi King in 90 seconds.

Saving a few seconds on killing Fungi King when he takes 30 minutes to respawn is irrelevant.

[bcbrown]

That logic breaks down because I can say the same thing for both a Cleric and a second Enchanter. The Cleric has Stun/Root/Lull, and the second Enchanter has the exact same spellbook.

If you think there is an issue with the redundancy, you need to concisely explain why, so it can be explored.

A second enchanter can charm a second pet. Everythine else is redundant. If the second enchanter couldn't charm a second pet, there would be zero reason to have two enchanters in the group, I would think. But they can charm a second pet, and that's good enough.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

A second enchanter can charm a second pet. Everythine else is redundant. If the second enchanter couldn't charm a second pet, there would be zero reason to have two enchanters in the group, I would think. But they can charm a second pet, and that's good enough.

If redundancy was that bad, you would pick a Mage over an Enchanter, because they would cover the DPS and also not have redundant spells.

[bcbrown]

If redundancy was that bad, you would pick a Mage over an Enchanter, because they would cover the DPS and also not have redundant spells.

Sure you convinced me, changing my answer to enchanter/mage/cleric/druid.

[Dritzle]

Makes sense, thanks. I think I was thinking about this as a 1-60 group not farm fungi king group but I imagine the diminishing return dps argument still holds either way

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Makes sense, thanks. I think I was thinking about this as a 1-60 group not farm fungi king group but I imagine the diminishing return dps argument still holds either way

No problem! And yes, you are correct about diminishing returns on DPS. There is a point at which you aren't really getting more kills per hour without consecutive play for hours at a time.

As a quick example:

We have a mob with 4000 HP that has a 30 minute respawn timer.

At 20 DPS, it takes 200 seconds to kill the mob.

At 200 DPS, it takes 20 seconds to kill the mob.

At 400 DPS, it takes 10 seconds to kill the mob.

When you jump from 20 DPS to 200 DPS, you are getting an extra spawn cycle for this mob every 5 hours if you kill the mob without a break. In a group playing an all day session, you can see this improvement.

When you jump from 200 DPS to 400 DPS, you are getting an extra spawn cycle for this mob every 90 hours if you kill the mob without a break. Nobody is going to play this long in a single session.

The same thing applies to lower level mobs. There is simply a threshold at which increased DPS is just not worth it. This is why you don't see a lot of 6 player XP groups. The increase in DPS typically isn't worth the XP loss.

[Crede]

I’m LOVING this late game Druid push.

DSM - apologies if this was already hashed out hundreds of posts ago, but what’s the case against 3x enchanters and a cleric?

Really no good case against this. Dps is king. You could also have one enc be the dedicated puller and the other 2 focus on dps. Or 3 slows/mezzes going to lock things down quick. Malo isn’t that necessary to hold pets. Tash and pet kits work fine.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Really no good case against this. Dps is king. You could also have one enc be the dedicated puller and the other 2 focus on dps. Or 3 slows/mezzes going to lock things down quick. Malo isn’t that necessary to hold pets. Tash and pet kits work fine.

Sadly DPS is not king in a small group scenario once you hit the DPS threshold for what you are killing.

If DPS was king, every XP group would be running 6 players.

[fortior]

With that much dps a utility pick isn’t crazy but if you add a shaman that shaman is getting carried hard by just mechanically better classes

[Jimjam]

As the OP considers 1-60, presumably untwinked, having a shaman instead of an enc may do well. A levelling enc can be a bit of a paper bag, especially as part of an inexperienced group.

For 1-60 I quite like the mag,enc,cleric,druid suggestion too.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

As the OP considers 1-60, presumably untwinked, having a shaman instead of an enc may do well. A levelling enc can be a bit of a paper bag, especially as part of an inexperienced group.

For 1-60 I quite like the mag,enc,cleric,druid suggestion too.

Yeah a Mage/Ench/Cleric/Druid would work well for sure.

[bcbrown]

If redundancy was that bad, you would pick a Mage over an Enchanter, because they would cover the DPS and also not have redundant spells.

Wait, hold on...


Shaman Enchanter Enchanter Cleric. If you are planning on doing Fungi Tunic camp then probably swap 1 Enchanter for a Necro, so they can pull.

The Enchanters are providing the vast majority of the DPS via charmed pets. The Mage pet isn't doing that much hehe.

Most DPS is still coming from the Charmed pets.

Remember, I never said underpowered = bad. It just means Mages don't bring a lot to the table (which they sadly don't outside of CoTH). I wouldn't bring a Mage if that's all they can do.

The argument isn't "Mage is better because of preference", people are arguing "Mages objectively do a ton of damage, therefore bring them instead of another class."

But at least for the Seb example, the numbers aren't adding up to make Mages special at all.

The only delusion here is your assumption the game can only be played in a manner that makes Mages look good.

I am sorry, Mages really just aren't that good.

We aren't talking about Enchanters. We already agree we are bringing at least 2 lol.

When did you change your mind on mages?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

When did you change your mind on mages?

I think you might have misunderstood what I meant. I was saying if you truly believe "redundancy" is bad, you wouldn't suggest multiple Enchanters. I do not subscribe to this strange "redundancy" theory.

I am not trying to force anybody to play any class. If one of your players really likes Mage, great! A Mage won't destroy your group.

I am trying to rebut the strange argument that Shamans cannot be included in this four man group, and are a bad pick or a bad class.

The discussion has been about what the most efficient four man group is, not which groups are unplayable. I don't think anybody is saying Mage/Ench/Cleric/Druid is going to be bad.

For a highly efficient group, Mages simply don't work out, because Enchanters provide great DPS plus a bunch of extra utility. That is why people are suggesting Enchanter/Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric, and not something like Enchanter/Mage/Mage/Cleric.

This is why the "redundancy" argument is silly, because you are NOT simply picking a second Enchanter for DPS. Having 2 copies of an Enchanters spellbook is more useful than a Mage's spellbook, unless you need CoTH.

Ironically, the same people who are arguing for redundancy (3x Enchanters) use that same argument to try and say Shamans are bad because of redundancy. It is nonsensical.

My disagreement with 3x Enchanters does not stem from overlapping spellbooks. I disagree because you don't need that much DPS, and you are increasing the risk of charm breaks for not a ton of reward. 2x Enchanters is good enough to cover the DPS due to breakpoints.

[bcbrown]

Jesus, it really can be tiring to try to debate you.

> I am not trying to force anybody to play any class. If one of your players really likes Mage, great! A Mage won't destroy your group.

> I am trying to rebut the strange argument that Shamans cannot be included in this four man group, and are a bad pick or a bad class.

These two paragraphs are diametrically opposed. No one else is forcing you to not play a shaman. If you really like playing a shaman, great! It won't destroy your group. No one is saying "cannot be included" or "bad pick", especially not "bad class".

>The discussion has been about what the most efficient four man group is, not which groups are unplayable.

Yes, that's EXACTLY why no one is saying you can't play a shaman in this hypothetical group. They're saying it's not the "most efficient". They aren't saying it's a "bad pick". Saying "a mage is a better pick than a shaman" is not saying "a shaman is a bad pick."

> This is why the "redundancy" argument is silly, because you are NOT simply picking a second Enchanter for DPS. ... Ironically, the same people who are arguing for redundancy (3x Enchanters) use that same argument to try and say Shamans are bad because of redundancy. It is nonsensical.

You're aggressively misunderstanding the redundancy argument, I think. The reason redundant enchanters are good is because of the charm pet. A shaman cannot charm a pet. That's it. If a group could only have a single charm pet then absolutely no one would be advocating triple-enchanter groups.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Jesus, it really can be tiring to try to debate you.

> I am not trying to force anybody to play any class. If one of your players really likes Mage, great! A Mage won't destroy your group.

> I am trying to rebut the strange argument that Shamans cannot be included in this four man group, and are a bad pick or a bad class.

These two paragraphs are diametrically opposed. No one else is forcing you to not play a shaman. If you really like playing a shaman, great! It won't destroy your group. No one is saying "cannot be included" or "bad pick", especially not "bad class".

>The discussion has been about what the most efficient four man group is, not which groups are unplayable.

Yes, that's EXACTLY why no one is saying you can't play a shaman in this hypothetical group. They're saying it's not the "most efficient". They aren't saying it's a "bad pick". Saying "a mage is a better pick than a shaman" is not saying "a shaman is a bad pick."


You are misreading things and getting frustrated. You are the one who quoted me thinking I said Mages should be included. I am simply clarifying what my points were from all those quotes you posted. Don't blame me when you are quoting a bunch of my posts. Shamans are a top pick for efficiency, because Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a highly efficient trio. If you understand why that trio is strong, you will understand why it translates to a four man group.


> This is why the "redundancy" argument is silly, because you are NOT simply picking a second Enchanter for DPS. ... Ironically, the same people who are arguing for redundancy (3x Enchanters) use that same argument to try and say Shamans are bad because of redundancy. It is nonsensical.

You're aggressively misunderstanding the redundancy argument, I think. The reason redundant enchanters are good is because of the charm pet. A shaman cannot charm a pet. That's it. If a group could only have a single charm pet then absolutely no one would be advocating triple-enchanter groups.

I am not aggressively misunderstanding the redundancy argument. People are being very clear about it. You wouldn't put multiple Enchanters in a group if having multiple copies of a single spellbook was extremely inefficient. It is really that simple.

People would say "Enchanter/Mage/Necro/Cleric", because you are getting good DPS from the three pets, and different spellbooks.

In reality a Shaman's spellbook synergizes well with an Enchanter, and having 2x Enchanter spellbooks is great. Charming is NOT the only reason to take multiple Enchanters.

[Swish]

If you can get to an area with undead mobs with good dps (Unrest/Lower Guk/City of Mist/KC/Howling Stones) having a necro and enchanter is top tier with the charm pet options. It just depends on your leveling route...and how focused your cleric is :)

[Dritzle]

Even outside of undead zones, I really like what a necro brings to an 'all caster/priest' quartet with fd, twitch, heals, pet, rez, etc.

I change my vote to Enchx2, Necro, and Shaman/Druid

[Dritzle]

or magex4 because they are the only class where their redundancy actually un-redundants itself

[Swish]

or magex4 because they are the only class where their redundancy actually un-redundants itself

That's live TLP style for sure.

[bcbrown]

You are misreading things and getting frustrated. You are the one who quoted me thinking I said Mages should be included.

You said that a mage can replace the DPS of a second enchanter after spending 200 pages arguing that mage DPS sucks. You did not say you thought Mages could be included.

If redundancy was that bad, you would pick a Mage over an Enchanter, because they would cover the DPS and also not have redundant spells.

The "if" clause specifies that this is a hypothetical. That's crystal clear that you are not saying a mage should be included, and you are not saying a mage can replace an enchanter. You're talking about a single overlapping aspect of what they each can bring to the group.

"because they would cover the DPS" does not imply that a mage can equal an enchanter, just that the combination of a charm pet and a mage pet hits the sufficiency mark for group DPS.

I understand and accept your argument that there's a sweet spot for group DPS for named camps. I understand and accept that the sweet spot may be less than two charm pets. I understand and accept the argument that if you have two charm pets, mage DPS is overkill and doesn't add much.

But you're still now arguing that mage "covers the DPS" requirement after spending 200 pages arguing mage DPS sucks.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You said that a mage can replace the DPS of a second enchanter after spending 200 pages arguing that mage DPS sucks. You did not say you thought Mages could be included.



The "if" clause specifies that this is a hypothetical. That's crystal clear that you are not saying a mage should be included, and you are not saying a mage can replace an enchanter. You're talking about a single overlapping aspect of what they each can bring to the group.

"because they would cover the DPS" does not imply that a mage can equal an enchanter, just that the combination of a charm pet and a mage pet hits the sufficiency mark for group DPS.

I understand and accept your argument that there's a sweet spot for group DPS for named camps. I understand and accept that the sweet spot may be less than two charm pets. I understand and accept the argument that if you have two charm pets, mage DPS is overkill and doesn't add much.

But you're still now arguing that mage "covers the DPS" requirement after spending 200 pages arguing mage DPS sucks.

I apologize, you did read it correct.

Mages can do a consistent 100 DPS without Epic on a single target, assuming no resists. So Enchanter/Mage would hit the 200 DPS breakpoint. This is using https://wiki.project1999.com/Boots_of_Bladecalling and a Water Pet that is backstabbing. Damage Shield DPS is going to be reduced significantly when mobs are slowed. If you have https://wiki.project1999.com/Burnt_Wood_Staff instead, it's going to be more like 90 DPS. You can weave in mana nukes for a bit more consistent DPS, or dump your mana pool for a higher burst.

[Ripqozko]

We are almost there folks, exciting times

[Gloomlord]

I apologize, you did read it correct.

Mages can do a consistent 100 DPS without Epic on a single target, assuming no resists. So Enchanter/Mage would hit the 200 DPS breakpoint. This is using https://wiki.project1999.com/Boots_of_Bladecalling and a Water Pet that is backstabbing. Damage Shield DPS is going to be reduced significantly when mobs are slowed. If you have https://wiki.project1999.com/Burnt_Wood_Staff instead, it's going to be more like 90 DPS. You can weave in mana nukes for a bit more consistent DPS, or dump your mana pool for a higher burst.

So why can't you, for the love of sanity, not understand why most people would prefer a mage over a shaman here?

Or a druid or necromancer for utility, even.

Come on, now. It's time to concede, DSM. Let's put this argument to bed.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So why can't you, for the love of sanity, not understand why most people would prefer a mage over a shaman here?

Or a druid or necromancer for utility, even.

Come on, now. It's time to concede, DSM. Let's put this argument to bed.

Because I understand the game well enough to know that a Mage only offers DPS in a group that doesn't need more DPS. So why would you bring one? If you need CoTH, go for it. Otherwise a Shaman will be better than the Mage.

I did suggest Necromancer as well. Enchanter/Enchanter/Necromancer/Shaman is an amazing combo.

[Gloomlord]

If I had a choice between a bit more damage and useless utility, I'd pick the DPS.

We explained this whole thread why Shaman is indeed not better than Mage in this scenario. Do we really have to repeat ourselves ad infinitum?

Also, no: I'd much prefer a Cleric over Shaman. Complete Heal > Torpor.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If I had a choice between a bit more damage and useless utility, I'd pick the DPS.

We explained this whole thread why Shaman is indeed not better than Mage in this scenario. Do we really have to repeat ourselves ad infinitum?

Also, no: I'd much prefer a Cleric over Shaman. Complete Heal > Torpor.

Apparently you do, because you can't provide any evidence other than your opinion.

I am sorry, but you aren't getting any benefit from killing a mob 10 seconds faster on a 30 minute respawn. I'll take utility over useless DPS any day.

There is a reason why you don't see a lot of 6 player XP groups.

[Crede]

Apparently you do, because you can't provide any evidence other than your opinion.

I am sorry, but you aren't getting any benefit from killing a mob 10 seconds faster on a 30 minute respawn. I'll take utility over useless DPS any day.

I’m not sure why you’re basing your “dps breakpoint” and heal threshold on basically the fungi King. This is such a trivial mob. A naked cleric and half decent monk can kill it. I would assume it’s because you haven’t really stretched the limits.

Try something actually challenging like sleepers or hate. Torpor tanking isn’t going to fly. And you’re going to want as much dps as you get. Dps always leads to more kills, more safety, and potentially more downtime for player fatigue.

[Gloomlord]

But your utility as Shaman is useless, hence why extra DPS is better than nothing.

If a mob 10 seconds faster is pointless, then I'll grab a Druid for the utility that isn't redundant. You can't bring up "pocket class" or "Dial a Port" either, here. This is about 4 people trying to be the best they can possibly be.

Either way you slice it, you've lost the argument here. I call checkmate.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I’m not sure why you’re basing your “dps breakpoint” and heal threshold on basically the fungi King. This is such a trivial mob. A naked cleric and half decent monk can kill it. I would assume it’s because you haven’t really stretched the limits.

Try something actually challenging like sleepers or hate. Torpor tanking isn’t going to fly. And you’re going to want as much dps as you get. Dps always leads to more kills, more safety, and potentially more downtime for player fatigue.

Name a mob then. Obviously one a group of 4 can do.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

But your utility as Shaman is useless, hence why extra DPS is better than nothing.

If a mob 10 seconds faster is pointless, then I'll grab a Druid for the utility that isn't redundant. You can't bring up "pocket class" or "Dial a Port" either, here. This is about 4 people trying to be the best they can possibly be.

Either way you slice it, you've lost the argument here. I call checkmate.

Just saying something is useless without evidence is useless. Unlike youself, I can tell you how much benefit you can get from the extra DPS, and it is not worth taking the Mage for. You are unable to explain why a Shaman is useless.

[Gloomlord]

The evidence is right before us.

Take one look at their spell book. It's redundant in a group with an Enchanter and Cleric.

What exactly are they bringing here that makes them more efficient than Mage in this composition? Nothing!

CHECK...MATE

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The evidence is right before us.

Take one look at their spell book. It's redundant in a group with an Enchanter and Cleric.

What exactly are they bringing here that makes them more efficient than Mage in this composition? Nothing!

CHECK...MATE

2 Enchanters have the same spell book, and Clerics share Lull/Root/Stun with Enchanters. I cannot believe you think this argument makes you look good. You need to explain why the "redundancy" is a problem.

[Gloomlord]

You truly are impermeable to reason.

Yes, two enchanters share the same spell book. Yes, clerics have some overlapping spells. Guess what those two classes bring? Excellent DPS, the best CC and the best healing in the game.

A shaman is completely irrelevant here for a 4th member, for DPS, Utility and Healing.

How many times do we need to say this? Of course you're going to say "how can you prove it" when we proved it to you time and time again. But it doesn't matter, because we've already won the argument here and are only trying to make you admit the truth in vain.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You truly are impermeable to reason.

Yes, two enchanters share the same spell book. Yes, clerics have some overlapping spells. Guess what those two classes bring? Excellent DPS, the best CC and the best healing in the game.

A shaman is completely irrelevant here for a 4th member, for DPS, Utility and Healing.

How many times do we need to say this? Of course you're going to say "how can you prove it" when we proved it to you time and time again. But it doesn't matter, because we've already won the argument here and are only trying to make you admit the truth in vain.

Ah, so now redundancy isn't a bad thing?

Shamans bring excellent damage mitigation (which is why they are such good soloers) and can alleviate an Enchanter's mana problems by simply taking over some of their duties. With cannibalize their mana will last longer, which means they can do more. In an emergency situation, a Shaman is much tankier than a Cleric, and can help the group when you are fighting harder mobs, such as stun immune mobs. A Shaman can still output decent DPS without breaking a sweat to help stay above the DPS threshold, while a cleric is simply meditating. Malo reduces how many charm breaks there are too.

A group of 3-4 players without a Warrior is not fighting anything that needs CH. You aren't CH chaining a Warrior who is discing. With Slow + Torpor, you don't need to heal your pet at all, and the pet is doing more DPS because it doesn't need to tank.

You would know this if you actually had a point to make. Saying Shamans are "useless" is just a baseless opinion. I can still tell you how many seconds a Mage will save with 2x Enchanters DPSing, and it isn't relevant.

[Gloomlord]

There is no redundancy in this group. The 2nd Enchanter brings an extra charm pet. The cleric is casting CH on the charm, and faster heals on the Enchanter should they get into a bit of trouble.

There is nothing of worth Shaman brings to the table here that isn't already covered.

You know who can output decent damage whilst breaking even less of a sweat? Mage. And they don't need to expend mana to do so either. They can also cast a slightly weaker version of Malo that still does the trick.

Does anyone else want to take over? I don't see what else I can say at this point. The man is wilfully ignoring the reality here.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

There is no redundancy in this group. The 2nd Enchanter brings an extra charm pet. The cleric is casting CH on the charm, and faster heals on the Enchanter should they get into a bit of trouble.

There is nothing of worth Shaman brings to the table here that isn't already covered.

You know who can output decent damage whilst breaking even less of a sweat? Mage. And they don't need to expend mana to do so either. They can also cast a slightly weaker version of Malo that still does the trick.

Does anyone else want to take over? I don't see what else I can say at this point. The man is wilfully ignoring the reality here.

2 of the exact same spellbook is not redundancy? It is the definition, in fact! I am sorry, but you don't even know what the word means, nor can you explain why the redundancy is bad. You just keep saying it in the hopes it will make sense.

You would sound better if you didn't say "Shaman brings nothing to the table". Torpor and Malo are two things they bring to the table, are powerful spells, and aren't redundant with an Enchanter. You can't even be bothered to try and make an argument.

This is why you are almost certainly a troll.

[bcbrown]

I apologize, you did read it correct.
I appreciate and accept the apology. I apologize for getting frustrated with you.


This is why the "redundancy" argument is silly, because you are NOT simply picking a second Enchanter for DPS. Having 2 copies of an Enchanters spellbook is more useful than a Mage's spellbook, unless you need CoTH.

Ironically, the same people who are arguing for redundancy (3x Enchanters) use that same argument to try and say Shamans are bad because of redundancy. It is nonsensical.

2 Enchanters have the same spell book, and Clerics share Lull/Root/Stun with Enchanters. I cannot believe you think this argument makes you look good. You need to explain why the "redundancy" is a problem.

If you find an argument (subscribed to by most other participants in this thread) nonsensical, I would posit that either A: it's not worth interacting with those participants as they are equally nonsensical as the argument; or B: your understanding of the argument differs materially from the understanding of the other participants, who are sensible. Are you interested in the possibility of B? Are you willing to extend the debate principle of charity to me, and listen to what I say without accusing me of bad faith or not understanding what you say?

Are you willing to accept the following postulates as precondition for this discussion between the two of us?
* No "pocket characters" are to be included. The group of four casters must be completly self-sufficient, except from one port into their destination from Dial-A-Port. No pocket rez, no pocket POTG, no pocket buffs.
* The original question includes no real context. Your perspective is colored by a focus on named camps where everyone is 60 with ~more or less~ epic and full gear. My perspective is colored by a focus on leveling 1-50 untwinked, especially random adventuring through an entire dungeon, instead of camping a single named mob. Both of these perspectives are subjective.
* The group is to stay together and not to split their focus. I understand and accept your argument that a shaman can add DPS by root rotting away from or ahead of the rest of the group. I'm glad you can find groups that let you play the way you like to play, but I find the scenario abhorrent, and I do not wish to consider it any further.
* Can we agree that some spells can be almost completely redundant (two shamans can't both cast Bane Of Nife on the same mob), and some spells can be almost completely non-redundant (two wizards casting the same nuke on a mob that's not insta-killed by the first one that lands)?

[Gloomlord]

2 of the exact same spellbook is not redundancy? It is the definition, in fact! I am sorry, but you don't even know what the word means, nor can you explain why the redundancy is bad. You just keep saying it in the hopes it will make sense.

You would sound better if you didn't say "Shaman brings nothing to the table". Torpor and Malo are two things they bring to the table, are powerful spells, and aren't redundant with an Enchanter. You can't even be bothered to try and make an argument.

This is why you are almost certainly a troll.

Torpor is redundant. We have Complete Heal. Mage also brings their own version of Malo. A 2nd Enchanter is not redundant because they bring a 2nd charm. Enchanter and Cleric are the cornerstone of this group, so it's basically more DPS at that point. In which case, Enchanters bring some of the best DPS in the game, and so the 2nd Enchanter is not redundant.

What does Shaman bring? Unneeded healing and crappy damage by comparison.

Your last sentence proclaiming me to be a troll is just you projecting yourself to me when it becomes clear you've lost.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I appreciate and accept the apology. I apologize for getting frustrated with you.


No worries!


If you find an argument (subscribed to by most other participants in this thread) nonsensical, I would posit that either A: it's not worth interacting with those participants as they are equally nonsensical as the argument; or B: your understanding of the argument differs materially from the understanding of the other participants, who are sensible. Are you interested in the possibility of B? Are you willing to extend the debate principle of charity to me, and listen to what I say without accusing me of bad faith or not understanding what you say?


I am perfectly willing admit I am wrong, and have done so in the past. The issue is people are making claims without evidence. When I provide evidence, it is dismissed in favor of someone saying "I am right, and you are wrong". There is no logical reason to take that kind of argument over an argument with evidence. I have played this game for many years. I have a good understanding of it. Do I know everything? Of course not. But I have played a 60 Shaman and a 60 Cleric. I know what they are capable of.


Are you willing to accept the following postulates as precondition for this discussion between the two of us?
* No "pocket characters" are to be included. The group of four casters must be completly self-sufficient, except from one port into their destination from Dial-A-Port. No pocket rez, no pocket POTG, no pocket buffs.
* The original question includes no real context. Your perspective is colored by a focus on named camps where everyone is 60 with ~more or less~ epic and full gear. My perspective is colored by a focus on leveling 1-50 untwinked, especially random adventuring through an entire dungeon, instead of camping a single named mob. Both of these perspectives are subjective.
* The group is to stay together and not to split their focus. I understand and accept your argument that a shaman can add DPS by root rotting away from or ahead of the rest of the group. I'm glad you can find groups that let you play the way you like to play, but I find the scenario abhorrent, and I do not wish to consider it any further.
* Can we agree that some spells can be almost completely redundant (two shamans can't both cast Bane Of Nife on the same mob), and some spells can be almost completely non-redundant (two wizards casting the same nuke on a mob that's not insta-killed by the first one that lands)?

I am not willing to accept these terms.

1. OP did not specify any preconditions, so they are moot.

2. These preconditions are designed to restrict the conversation to try and make certain classes favorable for specific scenarios. This creates a situation where you inevitably compare apples to oranges. Someone will fervently try to win the argument by creating a scenario where their favorite class is the best, and then use that to claim another class can never be superior. The reality is you level characters to get to level 60. You need to think about what a level 60 character is doing. A conversation about "efficient groups" is not very useful in the lower levels. The content is so easy you can use just about any 4 man group, other than perhaps all rogues.

3. It is a fact that on a 10+ year old server, many people have druid/cleric alts, and they are also easy to create if a player wishes. Trying to say you cannot bring a pocket Cleric or Druid is nonsensical.

4. There is no reason to require the group to stay together. Your personal opinion on what a group should do is not relevant to the objective truth of what a specific group composition is capable of. If you choose not to utilize your group's capabilities, that is not the fault of the class or composition.

5. Some spells cannot be used simultaneously on the same mob, as they will simply replace one another. We agree on this. But you CAN cast the same spell on two different mobs at the same time. Having 2 people casting slow on two mobs at once can potentially save the group from wiping, as a simple example. This is why having 2 Enchanters isn't a bad thing. They can overlap stuns, mez multiple targets at the same time, slow multiple targets at the same time, etc. This is generally an emergency situation, but emergencies are when your spells really matter. If you are just mindlessly churning through easy mobs, you aren't really using your class's full strength anyway.

Torpor is redundant. We have Complete Heal. Mage also brings their own version of Malo. A 2nd Enchanter is not redundant because they bring a 2nd charm. Enchanter and Cleric are the cornerstone of this group, so it's basically more DPS at that point. In which case, Enchanters bring some of the best DPS in the game, and so the 2nd Enchanter is not redundant.

What does Shaman bring? Unneeded healing and crappy damage by comparison.

Your last sentence proclaiming me to be a troll is just you projecting yourself to me when it becomes clear you've lost.

You bring the Shaman instead of the Cleric because CH isn't really necessary for the content this group will be doing. Shaman Malo is better, and Mage DPS isn't helping.

[Gloomlord]

You're not willing to accept them because you know you've lost.

As if you bringing in root rotting in a charm group and bringing "pocket" classes wasn't already an admission of your defeat.

Now you're claiming the 2nd Enchanter is redundant. Your insanity is spiralling further and further out of control.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You're not willing to accept them because you know you've lost.

As if you bringing in root rotting in a charm group and bringing "pocket" classes wasn't already an admission of your defeat.

Now you're claiming the 2nd Enchanter is redundant. Your insanity is spiralling further and further out of control.

I didn't create the requirement of no pocket classes, nor did OP. There is no reason for me to stick to this requirement.

The issue here is you think redundancy is bad. Perhaps we are using different variations of the word? I am thinking of hardware redundancy, where you have multiple pieces of hardware to prevent a failure. Redundancy is a good thing in this case.

If you are using redundancy to mean superfluous, then you are completely wrong that a Shaman offers nothing in a group of four players. Spell overlap isn't a bad thing, as 2 Enchanters have complete spell overlap.

[Gloomlord]

They pad out the group more, sure. But then Mage, Druid and Necromancer is just a better padding.

Better DPS on single target, which requires only 2 keybinds to enact, and still brings a Malo to help the 2 Enchanters. Mage is better in this group.

It's done; it's dusted. Give up.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

They pad out the group more, sure. But then Mage, Druid and Necromancer is just a better padding.

Better DPS on single target, which requires only 2 keybinds to enact, and still brings a Malo to help the 2 Enchanters. Mage is better in this group.

It's done; it's dusted. Give up.

It's done. Give up. See? I can do the same thing.

[Gloomlord]

And yet you've beaten in logic every single time. You refuse to admit the logic.

You are not some noble hearted man on a mission to show everyone the truth. You are a psychotic man-child living in denial, then having the gall to act self-righteous.

There is nothing more to you than that.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

And yet you've beaten in logic every single time. You refuse to admit the logic.

You are not some noble hearted man on a mission to show everyone the truth. You are a psychotic man-child living in denial, then having the gall to act self-righteous.

There is nothing more to you than that.

Back to trolling I see.

[Gloomlord]

Am I trolling by harshly calling out a man engaging in childish and immoral behaviour?

Pretty sure I'm not.

[bcbrown]

Am I trolling by harshly calling out a man engaging in childish and immoral behaviour?

What makes you a troll is contributing nothing to a thread but insults while being thoroughly dislikeable in the process, with the sole purpose of getting a rise out of someone with whom you disagree.

Three more pages to go!

[Gloomlord]

What makes you a troll is contributing nothing to a thread but insults while being thoroughly dislikeable in the process, with the sole purpose of getting a rise out of someone with whom you disagree.

Three more pages to go!

I actually don't want to get a rise out of him. I want him to stop posting in this thread, because you and I and both know he's not right. I know you've called out someone before in your real life harshly, so please spare me your hypocrisy.

Have I not been making counter arguments to him in my insulting demeanour? I am contributing to the thread by vainly trying to dismantle his arguments.

And also, why are you saying "three more pages to go" whilst calling me a troll? Seems pretty damn hypocritical...

"Better do a self-righteous 180 in this thread, despite seeing the clear signs that DSM shows anti-social behaviour" :rolleyes:

[Jimjam]

2 of the exact same spellbook is not redundancy? It is the definition, in fact! I am sorry, but you don't even know what the word means, nor can you explain why the redundancy is bad. You just keep saying it in the hopes it will make sense.



1) It is a really big spell book so they can avoid stepping on toes

2) skeleton crews are terrible - some level of redundancy is good. Idk if you’ve ever gone to a bar or diner which is crewed to accommodate an average night but it is busier than normal - service is terrible. It is better to have redundancy so that when you really need it then it will be there.

Redundancies helps out when things go wrong or are too busy (interrupts, resists, summons, dirtnaps etc). Arguably a cleric covers an enchanter sufficient enough to not also require a second enc. The cost of redundancy when things go well/as expected is small. The cost to skipping redundancy can be catastrophic.

Having the right level of redundancy and contingency is important and the right level certainly is not zero.

[Gloomlord]

1) It is a really big spell book so they can avoid stepping on toes

2) skeleton crews are terrible - some level of redundancy is good. Idk if you’ve ever gone to a bar or diner which is crewed to accommodate an average night but it is busier than normal - service is terrible. It is better to have redundancy so that when you really need it then it will be there.

Redundancies helps out when things go wrong or are too busy (interrupts, resists, summons, dirtnaps etc). Arguably a cleric covers an enchanter sufficient enough to not also require a second enc. The cost of redundancy when things go well/as expected is small. The cost to skipping redundancy can be catastrophic.

Having the right level of redundancy and contingency is important and the right level certainly is not zero.

He seems to have forgotten that the 2nd Enchanter isn't redundant if he brings a charm pet, which as we know is some of the highest DPS you can muster in this game.

Shaman is redundant because his utility means nothing in this composition and his DPS, quite frankly, sucks in a 2 charm group. Shaman Dots don't last their entire duration, so are wasteful, and their nukes are mediocre at best.

That's why nearly everyone in this thread has said it's redundant. We can make arguments about whether a larger group impacts exp gains and loot, but it is indubitable that if this composition must have 4, then I'd gladly take a Mage, Druid or Necromancer over a Shaman.

[TomisFeline]

Important detail: charm pet is the highest dps (not “some of the highest” dps)

[TomisFeline]

If “best” is defined as most exp over time in a specific zone (not considering the time cost of moving around), there’s not much room for argument. It’s 4 charmers (ench or necro or mix thereof depending on zone) because 4 well controlled charm pets will be putting out the most sdps by a huge margin compared to other group comps, and therefore most exp (since those group comps also solve pulling/cc)

If “best” means something else, probably start with defining that to get to more specific answers.

[TomisFeline]

(I should mention this is excluding fringe strats like bard swarming or stun locking)

[fortior]

You basically never need a shaman, they’re just nice to have. Until melees get their raid gear and primals. It’s a good thing that a class so useless for high level grouping can solo decently, at least.

[Toxigen]

You basically never need a shaman, they’re just nice to have. Until melees get their raid gear and primals. It’s a good thing that a class so useless for high level grouping can solo decently, at least.

Eh, not true.

If you're going the untwinked route, shaman stat buffs are great for melee.

But this is a 4 person all caster/priest group. So in the context of the thread, you're correct :)

[DeathsSilkyMist]

1) It is a really big spell book so they can avoid stepping on toes

2) skeleton crews are terrible - some level of redundancy is good. Idk if you’ve ever gone to a bar or diner which is crewed to accommodate an average night but it is busier than normal - service is terrible. It is better to have redundancy so that when you really need it then it will be there.

Redundancies helps out when things go wrong or are too busy (interrupts, resists, summons, dirtnaps etc). Arguably a cleric covers an enchanter sufficient enough to not also require a second enc. The cost of redundancy when things go well/as expected is small. The cost to skipping redundancy can be catastrophic.

Having the right level of redundancy and contingency is important and the right level certainly is not zero.

I think you misread my post. I wasn't saying redundancy is bad, and I agree with what you said here. The people who are arguing against Shaman disagree with this post, because they think redundancy is bad. Its nonsense of course. They think you can't have redundancy, therefore a Shaman is bad. But they forget this argument would also mean you can't bring a second Enchanter or Cleric lol.

This is hardware redundancy, not superfluous redundancy just so everybody is on the same page.

[Ripqozko]

2 pages to go and ya know DSM has to have the last word, I'm excited

[Gloomlord]

Remember when DSM left the thread? Good times.

Guy just had the need to come in again after this thread was bumped because he knows he's embarrassed himself and wants to get the last word.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Remember when DSM left the thread? Good times.

Guy just had the need to come in again after this thread was bumped because he knows he's embarrassed himself and wants to get the last word.

Not embarassed at all. The trolls are still trolling, and people still can't explain why Shamans are bad.

This thread is simply a reminder of that. People can provide evidence for their claims or stop at any time.

[Ripqozko]

Not embarassed at all. The trolls are still trolling, and people still can't explain why Shamans are bad.

This thread is simply a reminder of that. People can provide evidence for their claims or stop at any time.

See he can never not have the last word, easy 400

[Gloomlord]

Not embarassed at all. The trolls are still trolling, and people still can't explain why Shamans are bad.

This thread is simply a reminder of that. People can provide evidence for their claims or stop at any time.

But we have. More than 10 posters have done so. Some have even provided DPS metres for Mage. You've disregarded them all, then moved the goalposts.

And I'm the troll, Brown? Right...

[DeathsSilkyMist]

But we have. More than 10 posters have done so. Some have even provided DPS metres for Mage. You've disregarded them all, then moved the goalposts.


None of this is true, but that is par for the course with a troll.

[Crede]

Not embarassed at all. The trolls are still trolling, and people still can't explain why Shamans are bad.

This thread is simply a reminder of that. People can provide evidence for their claims or stop at any time.

Nobody is saying shamans are bad. They are just simply not as needed in this state of velious with gear and especially in this composition. As I stated, Most monks would rather just duo with a cleric because you don’t have to risk torp not keeping up or with dispells and what not. Having a cleric is just safer, just toss in cheals as needed with aego. Rez if shit hits the fan. Paci bracer through dungeon. Double da, etc. blur. Just more tools than a shaman.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Nobody is saying shamans are bad. They are just simply not as needed in this state of velious with gear and especially in this composition. As I stated, Most monks would rather just duo with a cleric because you don’t have to risk torp not keeping up or with dispells and what not. Having a cleric is just safer, just toss in cheals as needed with aego. Rez if shit hits the fan. Paci bracer through dungeon. Double da, etc. blur. Just more tools than a shaman.

And I am not saying Clerics are bad either. People are simply overestimating them for the content this group will be doing. You aren't CHing a warrior discing.

Torp + Slow will keep up with whatever a Monk/Cleric duo can do. I would be happy to discuss specific camps if you had some in mind.

[Gloomlord]

None of this is true, but that is par for the course with a troll.

You can argue, idiotically, that since it is subjective why Shaman is useless in this group, that it isn't "true".

However, people did show you Mage DPS metres. That was objective. You're outright lying here.

This is why I insult you, DSM. You know you deserve every harsh callout coming your way.

[Toxigen]

I love how DSM is talking about Sham vs Cleric for monk duo in a 4 person all caster/priest thread.

[Gloomlord]

And I am not saying Clerics are bad either. People are simply overestimating them for the content this group will be doing. You aren't CHing a warrior discing.

Torp + Slow will keep up with whatever a Monk/Cleric duo can do. I would be happy to discuss specific camps if you had some in mind.

You're CHing a charm pet. Isn't that obvious? CH is far more mana efficient than Torpor, and does not slow the healed target.

It's a no brainer which is better here.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I love how DSM is talking about Sham vs Cleric for monk duo in a 4 person all caster/priest thread.

Crede brought that up, not me. I was simply responding.

You're CHing a charm pet. Isn't that obvious? CH is far more mana efficient than Torpor, and does not slow the healed target.

It's a no brainer which is better here.

It is obvious the Cleric is CHing the pet.

It is also obvious the Shaman is Slow + Torpor tanking. The pet is not tanking, so it doesn't need CH, and it doesn't get snared.

Torpor is a 6 HP to 1 Mana heal, with the possibility of 7.5 HP to 1 mana on a good server tick. Certainly not a bad ratio. The reason why a Shaman is more mana efficient in the long run is because you can cannibalize from low HP/Mana to full in 3 minutes. Raw mana efficiency is offset by extremely fast mana regeneration. CH is best when you can't slow, or just need an immediate full heal.

[Gloomlord]

And why the hell would I want a Shaman in this group tanking...?! We've got 2 charm pets to do that, and we have one of the Enchanters to cover the slows.

You are insane! You're seriously reaching now.

[cd288]

Nobody is saying shamans are bad. They are just simply not as needed in this state of velious with gear and especially in this composition. As I stated, Most monks would rather just duo with a cleric because you don’t have to risk torp not keeping up or with dispells and what not. Having a cleric is just safer, just toss in cheals as needed with aego. Rez if shit hits the fan. Paci bracer through dungeon. Double da, etc. blur. Just more tools than a shaman.

On a Monk with a fungi I would rather duo with an Ench honestly. Way better than duoing with a Shaman. If I was a human monk with no fungi, then sure Cleric or Shaman. But otherwise I'd rather have the ench, I'll never need the heals really.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

And why the hell would I want a Shaman in this group tanking...?! We've got 2 charm pets to do that, and we have one of the Enchanters to cover the slows.

You are insane! You're seriously reaching now.

Because a Shaman can Torpor + Slow tank basically all of the content this group will do, and the Charmed Pets will do more damage by hitting the mob from behind.

With the Shaman Slowing and Maloing, the Enchanters are saving mana by not slowing and having less pet breaks.

I think you simply don't understand how a Shaman works. The reason why they are the second best solo class is because of how well they can tank difficult mobs that don't need a Warrior.

[Gloomlord]

On a Monk with a fungi I would rather duo with an Ench honestly. Way better than duoing with a Shaman. If I was a human monk with no fungi, then sure Cleric or Shaman. But otherwise I'd rather have the ench, I'll never need the heals really.

Iksar at it again with their P2W bullshit.

[cd288]

That argument is silly, because 2x Enchanters are also completely redundant in terms of spells. But you aren't arguing that people shouldn't take 2x Enchanters:)

Nobody would say 3x Enchanters and a Cleric is a good combination if redundancy was a problem.

You cannot actually define why the redundancy is bad. Somehow having slow on 2x Enchanters is good, but slow on 1x Enchanter and 1x Shaman is bad. What is the logic here?

Using this logic Clerics are bad too, because they have Stuns/Root/Lull, which also overlap with an Enchanter.

I am amazed people seem to forget that Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a very strong trio that has been used for years. What is the logic that has invalidated this trio?

Yet again you missed my point (or as usual you're twisting words to fit your own argument). It's not that redundancy is a problem. It's that everything the Shaman can offer, another class does BETTER. Better haste/slows, better CC, better healing and buffs overall.

So, yes, I'd much rather have 3 Enchanters all with hasted charm pets and a Cleric mowing through shit in like 5 seconds. That is likely the top 4 person combo in this argument. There's no real combination that can be legitimately argued as better here. A Shaman brings nothing to the table in the optimal combo.

[cd288]

Because a Shaman can Torpor + Slow tank basically all of the content this group will do, and the Charmed Pets will do more damage by hitting the mob from behind.

With the Shaman Slowing and Maloing, the Enchanters are saving mana by not slowing and having less pet breaks.

I think you simply don't understand how a Shaman works. The reason why they are the second best solo class is because of how well they can tank difficult mobs that don't need a Warrior.

You don't even need to slow when you have three geared and hasted charmed pets lol. It's a blender. I've done it before, slow becomes a waste of mana.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Yet again you missed my point (or as usual you're twisting words to fit your own argument). It's not that redundancy is a problem. It's that everything the Shaman can offer, another class does BETTER. Better haste/slows, better CC, better healing and buffs overall.

So, yes, I'd much rather have 3 Enchanters all with hasted charm pets and a Cleric mowing through shit in like 5 seconds. That is likely the top 4 person combo in this argument. There's no real combination that can be legitimately argued as better here. A Shaman brings nothing to the table in the optimal combo.

Shamans have the best slow in the game, so you are incorrect there. A group without a Warrior does not need CH, and Torpor/Slow is going to mitigate the damage this group is taking just fine.

3x Enchanters are going to die more due to multiple charm breaks, which nobody wants to take into account.

You are overestimating DPS and CH for this group, while saying Shamans are bad without merit. 300 DPS vs 200 DPS is only saving you a few seconds per kill.

[Gloomlord]

You don't even need to slow when you have three geared and hasted charmed pets lol. It's a blender. I've done it before, slow becomes a waste of mana.

He's going to argue again that it's less safe the more charms you have, then input why Shaman is the best. Then we're going to say the other casters, other than Wizard, are going to be less redundant, and then he'll say we need "evidence".

It's a revolving door of insanity with this child.

Edit: Yep, see? Exactly as I predicted.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You don't even need to slow when you have three geared and hasted charmed pets lol. It's a blender. I've done it before, slow becomes a waste of mana.

If you don't need to slow mobs because they are doing so little damage, you don't need CH either:) You can't have it both ways. You cannot claim you need extremely efficient heals while also saying you are taking so little damage a Paladin could be your healer.

[Gloomlord]

So then why would we want a Shaman when we could have a Druid? We don't need extremely efficient heals? I'll get the priest that can still heal small amounts of damage whilst having utility that isn't redundant, possibly another charm, snare for the Enchanter charms, POTG and some nice mobility to move this group around.

You've lost the argument.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So then why would we want a Shaman when we could have a Druid? We don't need extremely efficient heals? I'll get the priest that can still heal small amounts of damage whilst having utility that isn't redundant, possibly another charm, snare for the Enchanter charms, POTG and some nice mobility to move this group around.

You've lost the argument.

Shamans provide more utility than a Druid in combat, and can solo mobs that Enchanters cannot due to restrictions on Charmable mobs in a zone. Shamans can save your party more mana than PoTG by taking on some of the duties an Enchanter would, while also being able to cannibalize. This means they don't need a med break.

[Toxigen]

Shamans have the best slow in the game, so you are incorrect there. A group without a Warrior does not need CH, and Torpor/Slow is going to mitigate the damage this group is taking just fine.

3x Enchanters are going to die more due to multiple charm breaks, which nobody wants to take into account.

You are overestimating DPS and CH for this group, while saying Shamans are bad without merit. 300 DPS vs 200 DPS is only saving you a few seconds per kill.

Just wrong on all levels.

You have 3 enchanters to assist on breaks. 3x stuns, mez, etc. Nobody is dying there. And if they do, who cares? Clean it up, cleric rez up, keep going.

DPS isn't overestimated. You're leveling. The more mobs you can kill per hour the better.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Just wrong on all levels.

You have 3 enchanters to assist on breaks. 3x stuns, mez, etc. Nobody is dying there. And if they do, who cares? Clean it up, cleric rez up, keep going.

DPS isn't overestimated. You're leveling. The more mobs you can kill per hour the better.

Again, you don't seem to understand how DPS works.

A level 50 mob in Sebilis has around 8000 HP.

At 200 DPS (2 Enchanters) you are killing that mob in 40 seconds.

At 300 DPS (3 Enchanters) you are killing that mob in 26 seconds.

You aren't going to be getting any more spawns per hour in an XP session by saving 14 seconds per kill. This means a group with 2x Enchanters is getting the same XP as a group with 3x Enchanters.

3x Charmed pets could gang up and kill one Enchanter more easily than 2x Charmed Pets. You are assuming perfect play at all times, someone doesn't afk for a few seconds, etc.

[Gloomlord]

Shamans provide more utility than a Druid in combat, and can solo mobs that Enchanters cannot due to restrictions on Charmable mobs in a zone. Shamans can save your party more mana than PoTG by taking on some of the duties an Enchanter would, while also being able to cannibalize. This means they don't need a med break.

If this hypothetical group were indeed going to places where there are restrictions, then they'd go for a Mage and its pet instead. Slow, Mage Malo and Cleric heals? Yes please!

Why the hell would I want a Shaman?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If this hypothetical group were indeed going to places where there are restrictions, then they'd go for a Mage and its pet instead. Slow, Mage Malo and Cleric heals? Yes please!

Why the hell would I want a Shaman?

A Shaman is much tankier than a Mage pet. There is no reason to prefer a Mage in your scenario. That is why Shamans can solo much harder mobs than a Mage.

[Crede]

Shamans have the best slow in the game, so you are incorrect there. A group without a Warrior does not need CH, and Torpor/Slow is going to mitigate the damage this group is taking just fine.

3x Enchanters are going to die more due to multiple charm breaks, which nobody wants to take into account.

You are overestimating DPS and CH for this group, while saying Shamans are bad without merit. 300 DPS vs 200 DPS is only saving you a few seconds per kill.

Just stop responding to this guy. Literally knows nothing about high end stuff and slow resistant mobs.