Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Just stop responding to this guy. Literally knows nothing about high end stuff and slow resistant mobs.

I already said Shamans won't work on slow immune mobs. You need to provide which camps this group wants to do that has those slow immune mobs.

[cyxthryth]

And I am not saying Clerics are bad either. People are simply overestimating them for the content this group will be doing.

You simply do not know what content this hypothetical group will be doing because OP did not specify it, remember? See your own quote below:


OP did not specify any preconditions, so they are moot.

Therefore, you simply cannot make objective claims about whether other posters are "overestimating" the Cleric class. In order to do so you would need to agree upon the content the hypothetical group would be attempting and at what level, so that you could make relevant class-to-class comparisons between those classes for that content at the levels they would be tackling that content.

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.

Your statement "You need to think about what a level 60 character is doing" is exactly NO more relevant or correct to this discussion than the statement "You need to think about what a level 1-59 character is doing".

The OP did NOT specify that this discussion is about level 60's, and it could be argued that by insisting the conversation be focused solely (or even mostly) around the capabilities of classes at level 60 with full spellbooks that you are simply specifying a precondition designed to restrict the conversation to try and make a certain class (Shaman) favorable for specific scenarios (which the OP did not specify any, remember?) and that you are simply fervently trying to win the argument by creating a scenario where your favorite class is the best, and then using that to claim other classes can never be superior.

[Gloomlord]

What exactly are they doing that makes the extra tankiness of this hypothetical Shaman more important? This seems pretty contrived.

Most things this group will be doing is not going to require a Shaman.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

What exactly are they doing that makes the extra tankiness of this hypothetical Shaman more important? This seems pretty contrived.

Most things this group will be doing is not going to require a Shaman.

The tankiness is an extra feature that the Cleric does not bring. It allows the group to do content that the Enchanters could not. WW Dragons are an example here, because they have AoE dispell, which is bad for pets.

The Mage is only offering DPS, so you would pick an Enchanter instead for the DPS slots in this group.

This discussion is about efficiency, not requirements. You don't need 2x Enchanters DPSing to do the content this group would do, and you don't need the CH from Clerics.

[Toxigen]

401 pages, we made it

and the answer is still enc / enc / enc / cleric

[Ripqozko]

We have made it to 400, see you all at 500

[Gloomlord]

The tankiness is an extra feature that the Cleric does not bring. It allows the group to do content that the Enchanters could not. WW Dragons are an example here, because they have AoE dispell, which is bad for pets.

The Mage is only offering DPS, so you would pick an Enchanter instead for the DPS slots in this group.

This discussion is about efficiency, not requirements. You don't need 2x Enchanters DPSing to do the content this group would do, and you don't need the CH from Clerics.

So you pick the most contrived circumstances in order to prove Shaman is better than Mage? Really?

This group is going to go to most likely Sebilis, KC, Velks and the like. And you're bringing up the WW Dragons?

[Gloomlord]

Also: answer Cyxthryth's post. He just poked a hole in your shoddy reasoning, and you're ignoring him.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So you pick the most contrived circumstances in order to prove Shaman is better than Mage? Really?

This group is going to go to most likely Sebilis, KC, Velks and the like. And you're bringing up the WW Dragons?

When talking about efficiency you should also be thinking about how many camps you can do. The more camps you can do, the better the composition is. Shamans enable more camps in this composition, a Mage does not.

[Crede]

The tankiness is an extra feature that the Cleric does not bring. It allows the group to do content that the Enchanters could not. WW Dragons are an example here, because they have AoE dispell, which is bad for pets.

The Mage is only offering DPS, so you would pick an Enchanter instead for the DPS slots in this group.

This discussion is about efficiency, not requirements. You don't need 2x Enchanters DPSing to do the content this group would do, and you don't need the CH from Clerics.

The enc animations along with a mage pet could easily kill ww dragons. This is a silly argument. WW dragons are child’s play.

[Crede]

Also: answer Cyxthryth's post. He just poked a hole in your shoddy reasoning, and you're ignoring him.

DSM continuously ignores him. Cyx logic is way too strong for DSM to handle.

[Gloomlord]

The enc animations along with a mage pet could easily kill ww dragons. This is a silly argument. WW dragons are child’s play.

May I ask: are there *ANY* scenarios where Shaman is superior to a Mage, Druid and Necro in a 2 Enchanter and 1 Cleric group?

Because, from what I'm gathering, it must be extremely niche.

[Toxigen]

Nobody gives a fuck about WW dragons lol.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Nobody gives a fuck about WW dragons lol.

If you can do more camps with one composition over another, why limit yourself?

DSM continuously ignores him. Cyx logic is way too strong for DSM to handle.

He did not poke any holes, nor has he ever done so in his copy/paste nonsense.

The default assumption for any group is they want to level to 60. That is the purpose of leveling. That is not a contrived precondition. If you don't plan on leveling to 60 with this group, "efficiency" doesn't really matter. Why do you need to level quickly and then stop playing at 45?

[fortior]

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 :)

Yeah, shamans are fantastic until melees start capping out their relevant stats. They don't scale well with mob numbers either due to their relative lack of CC. A cleric/enc duo can DA hold/AE mez to instantly break a whole room of mobs with 100% safety, there are things which shamans just can't ever do no matter the gear. If this was about soloing you could make the argument that shamans combine healing with slowing, but in a 4-man group you don't need to put both of those tasks on the same character. You can have the cleric heal and the enchanter slow.

If you even want a slow, that is. Underestimating damage shield dps is another classic noob mistake, especially if you're playing fast and loose with charm pets (no reason not to if you've got 2-3)

[Toxigen]

If you can do more camps with one composition over another, why limit yourself?



He did not poke any holes, nor has he ever done so in his copy/paste nonsense.

The default assumption for any group is they want to level to 60. That is the purpose of leveling. That is not a contrived precondition. If you don't plan on leveling to 60 with this group, "efficiency" doesn't really matter. Why do you need to level quickly and then stop playing at 45?

Nobody is picking one class or another over the ability to do WW dragons.

You should have used something like Puppet Show for your argument. At least thrones are worth farming.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Nobody is picking one class or another over the ability to do WW dragons.

Next.

Nobody is picking 3 Enchanters to get the same amount of XP per hour as 2 Enchanters. Next.

[Gloomlord]

But the group was for 4, genius.

[Toxigen]

Nobody is picking 3 Enchanters to get the same amount of XP per hour as 2 Enchanters. Next.

Yeah certainly 50% more dps wouldn't help at all. Ever. You're right...what was I thinking?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Yeah certainly 50% more dps wouldn't help at all. Ever. You're right.

It's simple math.

A Mob with 8000 HP is dying in 40 seconds with 2 Enchanters.

A Mob with 8000 HP is dying in 26 seconds with 3 Enchanters.

100 DPS is giving you 14 seconds back per kill. That is saving 30 seconds per hour, assuming a 30 minute respawn. You are going to run out of mobs to kill before respawns in both cases, and you aren't saving enough time to get an extra cycle of respawns in a single play session. Long spawn times cause DPS to fall off sharply after a certain amount, which is why you don't see 6 player XP groups very often.

[Crede]

It's simple math.

A Mob with 8000 HP is dying in 40 seconds with 2 Enchanters.

A Mob with 8000 HP is dying in 26 seconds with 3 Enchanters.

100 DPS is giving you 14 seconds back per kill. That is saving 30 seconds per hour, assuming a 30 minute respawn. You are going to run out of mobs to kill before respawns in both cases, and you aren't saving enough time to get an extra cycle of respawns in a single play session.

Good luck trying to clear hs west with 2 enchanters before respawns.

Bizarre theory you’ve come up with.

[fortior]

Legit pick up the druid for ports and long snares on charm pets.

[Crede]

May I ask: are there *ANY* scenarios where Shaman is superior to a Mage, Druid and Necro in a 2 Enchanter and 1 Cleric group?

Because, from what I'm gathering, it must be extremely niche.

Druid maybe. Necro no. Mage likely not either.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Good luck trying to clear hs west with 2 enchanters before respawns.

Bizarre theory you’ve come up with.

If you can't clear them before respawns with 2 Enchanters, you can't do it with 3 either. Again, you are saving 14 seconds per kill on a mob with 8000 HP.

[fortior]

A raid geared necro with willsapper is also crazy. Or staff of the silent star, that thing procs like a beast. With FD/instant clicky invis you can get to camps super fast, even in normally very hostile zones like DN rat tunnels.

The more I think about this, the more the thought that shamans add any meaningful utility compared to literally any other caster or priest is hilarious to me haha. Maaaybe mages are more onedimensional, but you can do some pretty cool pulling tricks with CotH to single pull juggs in seb etc. Nobody even mentioned track, which is something druids get a good version of and which along with ports is a huge huge W for your xping/cash camping group. You get to the camp before anyone else, you see which mobs are up before anyone else... you'll walk all over the groups who have to carry along a slow as fuck shaman.

[Crede]

A raid geared necro with willsapper is also crazy. Or staff of the silent star, that thing procs like a beast. With FD/instant clicky invis you can get to camps super fast, even in normally very hostile zones like DN rat tunnels.

The more I think about this, the more the thought that shamans add any meaningful utility compared to literally any other caster or priest is hilarious to me haha. Maaaybe mages are more onedimensional, but you can do some pretty cool pulling tricks with CotH to single pull juggs in seb etc. Nobody even mentioned track, which is something druids get a good version of and which along with ports is a huge huge W for your xping/cash camping group. You get to the camp before anyone else, you see which mobs are up before anyone else... you'll walk all over the groups who have to carry along a slow as fuck shaman.

They don’t. Dsm is just defending this to the death.

[Crede]

Nobody is picking one class or another over the ability to do WW dragons.

You should have used something like Puppet Show for your argument. At least thrones are worth farming.

Just dsm reaching again. Ww dragons are easy. 3 enc animations could kill them. They just don’t because they are off doing better things.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Just dsm reaching again. Ww dragons are easy. 3 enc animations could kill them. They just don’t because they are off doing better things.

It's not reaching. I would love to see a video of this if you have it. The 55 Enchanter animation is barely better than the 55 Shaman pet, and it cannot tank a slowed WW Dragon. You would be doing a lot of pet resummoning.

[Gloomlord]

I mean, if the moment came where I needed a tanky class in order to do some mob in a zone, screw the caster only composition, because I'm grabbing myself a Warrior or knight.

Why would I need a completely redundant Shaman?

[fortior]

Well there's a period on the server where shamans are fantastic, but that window pretty much closes permanently once velious releases. Massive stats on items, unslowable mobs, and charm doesn't get reeled in until later.

DSM sounds like someone who has been stuck with the very limited toolbox of a shaman for a long time, and he probably just doesn't even know about the crazy things other classes can do (together). Like there's no way this dude knows about coth pulling.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I mean, if the moment came where I needed a tanky class in order to do some mob in a zone, screw the caster only composition, because I'm grabbing myself a Warrior or knight.

Why would I need a completely redundant Shaman?

If you lost the restriction on cloth casters Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is an extremely efficient trio, and you could add whichever fourth class you wanted to it.

Well there's a period on the server where shamans are fantastic, but that window pretty much closes permanently once velious releases. Massive stats on items, unslowable mobs, and charm doesn't get reeled in until later.

DSM sounds like someone who has been stuck with the very limited toolbox of a shaman for a long time, and he probably just doesn't even know about the crazy things other classes can do (together). Like there's no way this dude knows about coth pulling.

I understand CoTH pulling. The question is simply how many camps actually need it? Very few as far as I am aware. Chardok Royals is what comes to mind.

[Crede]

It's not reaching. I would love to see a video of this if you have it. The 55 Enchanter animation is barely better than the 55 Shaman pet, and it cannot tank a slowed WW Dragon. You would be doing a lot of pet resummoning.

Wrong. Much Higher level. Has over 1k more hp. Much better. I’ve killed many nameds with the animation. This would be easy with slow and a cleric in this group. Or if you want to put a mage in. Even easier.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Wrong. Much Higher level. Has over 1k more hp. Much better. I’ve killed many nameds with the animation. This would be easy with slow and a cleric in this group. Or if you want to put a mage in. Even easier.

Would love to see a video!

[Toxigen]

It's simple math.

A Mob with 8000 HP is dying in 40 seconds with 2 Enchanters.

A Mob with 8000 HP is dying in 26 seconds with 3 Enchanters.

100 DPS is giving you 14 seconds back per kill. That is saving 30 seconds per hour, assuming a 30 minute respawn. You are going to run out of mobs to kill before respawns in both cases, and you aren't saving enough time to get an extra cycle of respawns in a single play session. Long spawn times cause DPS to fall off sharply after a certain amount, which is why you don't see 6 player XP groups very often.

This world of paper napkin math you choose to exist in is comical.

[Gloomlord]

He should provide one as soon as you provide one where a charm group is perfectly fine with you doing some moronic root rotting.

Seems fair, right?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

This world of paper napkin math you choose to exist in is comical.

You could provide a video to prove me wrong. So far you haven't provided any evidence. I am not sure how your world of saying "you're wrong" is any better lol.

[fortior]

I understand CoTH pulling. The question is simply how many camps actually need it? Very few as far as I am aware. Chardok Royals is what comes to mind.

It's not about needing things, it's about you not realizing how good having certain options is because you don't play with those options. The first clue this was happening was when you said having in-group ports isn't a big deal. Anyone who plays with in-group ports being readily available instantly knows how misguided this take is. It enables chasing timed repops across Norrath instead of sitting at the same camp grinding mobs.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

It's not about needing things, it's about you not realizing how good having certain options is because you don't play with those options. The first clue this was happening was when you said having in-group ports isn't a big deal. Anyone who plays with in-group ports being readily available instantly knows how misguided this take is. It enables chasing timed repops across Norrath instead of sitting at the same camp grinding mobs.

Ports aren't a big deal on these servers. Have you ever been in a position where you couldn't find a porter? I haven't. We aren't talking about a fresh server where there are no dial-a-port characters yet.

[Crede]

He should provide one as soon as you provide one where a charm group is perfectly fine with you doing some moronic root rotting.

Seems fair, right?

Not gonna happen. I’d boot a shaman trying to do this.

[cyxthryth]

If you can do more camps with one composition over another, why limit yourself?

Why "limit" the conversation to being about level 60 with full spellbooks?

It could be argued that by insisting the conversation be focused solely (or even mostly) around the capabilities of classes at level 60 with full spellbooks - because that particular/specific specification can allow you to say "Shaman adds WW dragons to the list of camps this group can possibly do" - that you are simply specifying a precondition designed to restrict the conversation to try and make a certain class (Shaman) favorable for specific scenarios (which the OP did not specify any, remember?) and that you are simply fervently trying to win the argument by creating a scenario where your favorite class is the best, and then using that to claim other classes can never be superior.


He did not poke any holes, nor has he ever done so in his copy/paste nonsense.

The default assumption for any group is they want to level to 60. That is the purpose of leveling. That is not a contrived precondition.

What definition of "nonsense" are you using again?

There are more reasons to play the game than "wanting to level to 60" even if eventually becoming level 60 is a product/result of playing the game. Regardless, even if "wanting to get to level 60" and "will eventually reach level 60" are accepted preconditions, the discussion is simply about the "best" 4 person all caster/priest group - and such a group will simply begin at level 1, without full spellbooks. Therefore:

it could be argued that by insisting the conversation be focused solely (or even mostly) around the capabilities of classes at level 60 with full spellbooks that you are simply specifying a precondition designed to restrict the conversation to try and make a certain class (Shaman) favorable for specific scenarios (which the OP did not specify any, remember?) and that you are simply fervently trying to win the argument by creating a scenario where your favorite class is the best, and then using that to claim other classes can never be superior.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Not gonna happen. I’d boot a shaman trying to do this.

Your personal preference is irrelevant to what a group can objectively do. Limiting yourself on strategies is the fault of the player, not the class or composition.

[fortior]

Ports aren't a big deal on these servers. Have you ever been in a position where you couldn't find a porter? I haven't. We aren't talking about a fresh server where there are no dial-a-port characters yet.

Yeah this is what I mean, no creativity. You only see ports as services to get from one druid ring/wizard spire to the other. You're basically playing EQ on the most basic of basic levels, which is why you think a very boring class with a very limited utility toolbox is a good addition to a group which is already filled to the gills with survivability and dps. Basically you'll never be in a truly great group and you'll spend your entire P99 career root rotting/face tanking mobs that slowly get dotted down.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Yeah this is what I mean, no creativity. You only see ports as services to get from one druid ring/wizard spire to the other. You're basically playing EQ on the most basic of basic levels, which is why you think a very boring class with a very limited utility toolbox is a good addition to a group which is already filled to the gills with survivability and dps.

Due to how this game works with camp rules, you cannot hold multiple camps across multiple zones generally speaking. You aren't going to be porting a lot during a play session in most cases. You simply don't need a dedicated porter. Whenever your group is not porting, the Druid is simply going to be doing less than a Shaman.

[Gloomlord]

Not gonna happen. I’d boot a shaman trying to do this.

I mean, anyone with a brain would.

If you're in Sebilis, for example: what mobs are you going to root rot that are worth root rotting anyway in a 2 charm group? As soon a one root breaks, the Shaman is wasting time, and if another breaks he won't be getting bailed from the Enchanters who can't mesmerise dotted targets.

[Vivitron]

I would also like to see this 4 man summoned-pet tanked 6 neck attempt.

[Gloomlord]

Due to how this game works with camp rules, you cannot hold multiple camps across multiple zones generally speaking. You aren't going to be porting a lot during a play session in most cases. You simply don't need a dedicated porter. Whenever your group is not porting, the Druid is simply going to be doing less than a Shaman.

Wouldn't it be nice for the Druid to succor and/or port this group after they're done in a deep dungeon? You can't rely on DAP for that.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I mean, anyone with a brain would.

If you're in Sebilis, for example: what mobs are you going to root rot that are worth root rotting anyway in a 2 charm group? As soon a one root breaks, the Shaman is wasting time, and if another breaks he won't be getting bailed from the Enchanters who can't mesmerise dotted targets.

Most mobs in Seb aren't breaking root like crazy. You would know this if you have fought there.

If you are XPing, you are killing trash. If you are camping Fungi King, that is your primary objective. Pulling mobs for XP is just a bonus, not something you are doing at a breakneck pace.

[Gloomlord]

So what are the mobs worth root rotting parallel to the charms in there, scumbag?

[cyxthryth]

Ports aren't a big deal on these servers. Have you ever been in a position where you couldn't find a porter? I haven't.

The above Quote could simply suggest that you do not port as often as other posters here while grouping, which could be true for a variety of reasons such as: maybe you play less often than posters who find more value in in-group porters, maybe you group up less often, maybe you tackle comparatively fewer camps in a given play-period (or in general) than other posters here. Maybe a combination of all of these things.

Regardless of your own personal anecdotal history of port frequency and availability, being in a position where you have to find and then wait for a porter is - inarguably - less efficient than having a porter in your group, if your goal is to be ported. When considering which 4 person all caster/priest group is the "best" this is a factor that merits consideration. Especially considering my following point:

We aren't talking about a fresh server where there are no dial-a-port characters yet.

The majority of posters in this thread are aligned in that the capabilities of the FOUR PERSON group should be considered based on the capabilities of the classes composing said hypothetical FOUR PERSON group - WITHOUT additional out-of-group players (DAP) or additional "pocket" toons involved - as the ONLY specification that the OP DID provide is "best 4 person all caster/priest group", and speaking strictly mathematically, 4 =/= 5 (or any other # higher than 4).

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So what are the mobs worth root rotting parallel to the charms in there, scumbag?

The trash mobs when you are XPing are worth root rotting. When you are not XPing (like camping Fungi King), you aren't trying to maximize DPS for more kills per hour. You are camping Fungi King, and bringing in some mobs between spawns to kill the time.

[fortior]

Due to how this game works with camp rules, you cannot hold multiple camps across multiple zones generally speaking. You aren't going to be porting a lot during a play session in most cases. You simply don't need a dedicated porter. Whenever your group is not porting, the Druid is simply going to be doing less than a Shaman.

You don't know the camp rules either, which isn't a big surprise. You can hold multiple camps across multiple zones as long as you maintain a presence, which ports let you do. Break camp, leave ench behind, port to other camp, break, leave, druid and cleric duo camp something else. Enchs are bound at a druid ring for easy regrouping via gate.

The thing about ports is that you never use them (because you are presumably a mediocre player playing with bad players, which is how you have developed your false sense of knowledgability), so you don't know what they enable. This cleric/druid/2*ench group can complete Ring 8 in between pulls of whatever they're camping. It can snipe high-value nameds in low-value areas (i.e. Djarn, Tranix) through the power of track and leaving 1 ench behind to hold the camp if you expect to be away for longer than the repop timer.

It's genuinely inconceivable to me that you think shamans are useful in this setup lol.

[Gloomlord]

The trash mobs when you are XPing are worth root rotting. When you are not XPing (like camping Fungi King), you aren't trying to maximize DPS for more kills per hour. You are camping Fungi King, and bringing in some mobs between spawns to kill the time.

Oh, so pretty much irrelevant mobs? Glad we have that covered.

Don't see why I wouldn't prefer a Mage over that, despite having "lower DPS" on account of just focusing one mob, but sure.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Oh, so pretty much irrelevant mobs? Glad we have that covered.

Don't see why I wouldn't prefer a Mage over that, despite having "lower DPS" on account of just focusing one mob, but sure.

The Mage is also only providing DPS for the "irrelevant mobs" in an attempt to get more kills per hour during an XP group. Sadly this attempt will fail with 2x Enchanters already on the team. You don't need to kill Fungi King 18 seconds faster on a 30 minute respawn timer with a Mage.

[Dritzle]

I wonder how this question changes if you break it down by leveling tranches, e.g.:

1 - 38: 4x mage
39 - 55: 3x ench, 1 cleric
55 - 59: 2x ench, 1 necro, 1 cleric
60: 2x ench, 1 necro, 1 sham

assuming you are optimizing for exp to 60 and loot at 60

[Gloomlord]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the higher level the mobs are, the more likely they are to break root, right? Some mobs have higher magic resistance, and rooted mobs can't be casters. This isn't looking good for Shaman trying to earn his keep in this group.

And how many of them do you plan to have in one camp? All this just to try and surpass a Mage?

[Crede]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the higher level the mobs are, the more likely they are to break root, right? Some mobs have higher magic resistance, and rooted mobs can't be casters. This isn't looking good for Shaman trying to earn his keep in this group.

And how many of them do you plan to have in one camp? All this just to try and surpass a Mage?

Root rotting is a strat for absolutely trivial stuff. Like velks ent which is as easy as it’s gets. Mage would be infinitely better for focusing actually difficult mobs.

DSM is just resilient in never ending hypothetical theory defense which is the only reason this thread is still going.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Root rotting is a strat for absolutely trivial stuff. Like velks ent which is as easy as it’s gets. Mage would be infinitely better for focusing actually difficult mobs.

DSM is just resilient in never ending hypothetical theory defense which is the only reason this thread is still going.

When you are XPing, you are generally killing the "trivial stuff". The whole argument of bringing a Mage is they assist in killing the "trivial stuff".

A Mage isn't better for focusing difficult mobs in a group with 2x Enchanters. Please name a camp where the extra DPS is going to get you more kills per hour. Fungi King has 18000 HP, and the Mage is saving 18 seconds on a 30 minute respawn. You keep claiming there are harder camps out there than need the extra DPS, but you haven't named one.

[fortior]

My eyes are glazing over at people considering fungi king to be the be all end all of cash/xp/whatever

[DeathsSilkyMist]

My eyes are glazing over at people considering fungi king to be the be all end all of cash/xp/whatever

I didn't say that Fungi King is the end all be all camp. I am simply using it as an example of a camp this group would probably want to do. I doubt you are claiming it is a bad camp though lol.

If you think another example is better, provide one! I have been waiting. Simply saying "your example is bad", and then refusing to provide a better one is a silly argument.

[Crede]

When you are XPing, you are generally killing the "trivial stuff". The whole argument of bringing a Mage is they assist in killing the "trivial stuff".

A Mage isn't better for focusing difficult mobs in a group with 2x Enchanters. Please name a camp where the extra DPS is going to get you more kills per hour. Fungi King has 18000 HP, and the Mage is saving 18 seconds on a 30 minute respawn. You keep claiming there are harder camps out there than need the extra DPS, but you haven't named one.

The fact that you consider fungi King the pinnacle and/or use it as your yard stick tells me you need to go out and actually experience difficult content.

Then we can chat.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The fact that you consider fungi King the pinnacle tells me you need to go out and actually experience difficult content.

Then we can chat.

I never said that lol. Please show me where I said that. Fungi King is simply an easy to understand example, as most people have probably done it.

You are creating a strawman argument because you can't win with facts and logic.

I am still waiting on your example camp that we can run the numbers on.

You can literally pick any camp you want that a four man group can do.

[fortior]

Ench/clr kills puppets in PoM, druid ports around and uses (pet) track to check for Phinny, Tranix, MQables like VP key mobs, other ench kills in SG, group gates and meets up to kill scout, epic mobs.

Swap the druid for a wizard and you unlock plane of hate minis, which this group can easily do.

[Jimjam]

Ngl druid is better for everything except hate (and sky?). Maybe just bind on safe spot in hate to eliminate need for wizard assistance. Perfectly safe…. It is selfbindable?

[fortior]

You'd want a wizard because of server rules. Need to port up. Besides, wizards are cool, you just need a bit more gear/clickies on them.

[Toxigen]

Wiz is probably the best option honestly because it opens up Hate sniping.

[fortior]

I believe a non-bard can kite in fear effectively for at least a little while, so in Classic a 4-man with a porter can snipe 8-hour spawn golems to bag tears as well (using Irak as a charm). You can farm tears and sell them to shamans for 100k a pop later!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I believe a non-bard can kite in fear effectively for at least a little while, so in Classic a 4-man with a porter can snipe 8-hour spawn golems to bag tears as well (using Irak as a charm). You can farm tears and sell them to shamans for 100k a pop later!

Unless the raiding dynamic/rules have changed recently, a group porting over to Fear is probably not going to snipe a Fear Golem from a guild. Typically you are preparked for that.

It's been years since you could easily farm crew the golems, since you can no longer just camp in fear and pop in when they spawn. People used Shamans for those farm crews by the way!

[fortior]

Nah, I'm talking about Classic, as in, pre-Fear revamp. I wouldn't use that as a serious example of something to do now with a 4-man, but Hate is definitely up there as a seriously good opportunity. You'd need a wizard, but wizards with the right clickies can still be a boon to an ench/ench/cleric team. You'd need the cleric because otherwise your recovery sucks huge balls, and 2 enchanters makes it a lot easier/safer.

The wizard could be for porting up to hate only, and zip around looking for targets or empty camps afterwards. TL to bind would let enchanters bound at convenient camp locations quickly move back between hate snipes.

[bcbrown]

DSM, if you had to pick a favorite 4-person all-caster group with no shaman, what would it be? Doesn't have to be "optimal", just, can you think of any fun and good group that didn't have a shaman?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

DSM, if you had to pick a favorite 4-person all-caster group with no shaman, what would it be? Doesn't have to be "optimal", just, can you think of any fun and good group that didn't have a shaman?

Oh sure. Enchanter/Enchanter/Necromancer/Cleric would be awesome. As I stated before, I am not claiming a Cleric is not a good pick in this group. We are simply debating the finer points of what a Cleric vs. Shaman bring.

[Jimjam]

Nah, I'm talking about Classic, as in, pre-Fear revamp. I wouldn't use that as a serious example of something to do now with a 4-man, but Hate is definitely up there as a seriously good opportunity. You'd need a wizard, but wizards with the right clickies can still be a boon to an ench/ench/cleric team. You'd need the cleric because otherwise your recovery sucks huge balls, and 2 enchanters makes it a lot easier/safer.

The wizard could be for porting up to hate only, and zip around looking for targets or empty camps afterwards. TL to bind would let enchanters bound at convenient camp locations quickly move back between hate snipes.

If it is a farming crew then planar ports and TL to bind sells it.

[fortior]

If it is a farming crew then planar ports and TL to bind sells it.

Yeah, I think the silence from DSM's side is deafening here lol. I expected someone with a decade of p99 under their belt to be able to think of more than just camping fungi king tbh

[Toxigen]

shaman soloing WW dragons is the pinnacle of DSM's play on p99

[fortior]

Ench/ench/shaman/cleric could maybe do sleeper's tomb trash? But you'd struggle super hard to sell that stuff without ports lol. It's the only thing I can think of where the shaman is actually truly useful though, since the cleric has 2 deadly pets to watch and you do NOT want to wipe in there.

[Penish]

^ that

has shaman, can't play it

cool

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Yeah, I think the silence from DSM's side is deafening here lol. I expected someone with a decade of p99 under their belt to be able to think of more than just camping fungi king tbh

I am not sure what you want me to say. That is a strawman argument that you are using, because you literally have nothing else lol.

Please show me where I said Fungi King is the pinnacle, or WW Dragons. They are examples lol, not statements of what I think the hardest content is.

The only deafening silence is the people who still aren't providing "better camps". The ones mentioned like PoM puppets and Tranix are doable with Shamans.

[Ripqozko]

Ench/ench/shaman/cleric could maybe do sleeper's tomb trash? But you'd struggle super hard to sell that stuff without ports lol. It's the only thing I can think of where the shaman is actually truly useful though, since the cleric has 2 deadly pets to watch and you do NOT want to wipe in there.

Sleepers is laughable easy with just a pally and cleric and any type of slow +1 dps, they don't flurry anymore. Don't even really have to have pet tanks there although I get that have more hp.

[fortior]

I mean, or you could do a camp everyone has done for ages, which is always taken, and play with 1 hand while using the other one to jerk off on the forums. I GUESS. Lmfao.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I mean, or you could do a camp everyone has done for ages, which is always taken, and play with 1 hand while using the other one to jerk off on the forums. I GUESS. Lmfao.

I see you still aren't willing to provide a camp name:) Should be easy for you!

[fortior]

Sleepers is laughable easy with just a pally and cleric and any type of slow +1 dps, they don't flurry anymore. Don't even really have to have pet tanks there although I get that have more hp.

Yeah but no melee allowed, I'd do it with a monk tanking with aggro clickies + a cleric.

DSM, it's super obvious to everyone else participating in this conversation that you fizzled out after getting epic and torpor on your shaman, basically turning into every other soloing shaman player: someone who has 1 good tool, learns how to use it, and forgets everything else about the game.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Yeah but no melee allowed, I'd do it with a monk tanking with aggro clickies + a cleric.

DSM, it's super obvious to everyone else participating in this conversation that you fizzled out after getting epic and torpor on your shaman, basically turning into every other soloing shaman player: someone who has 1 good tool, learns how to use it, and forgets everything else about the game.

Still haven't named a camp you think is better. Nice trolling. Nice Strawman.

[fortior]

I see you still aren't willing to provide a camp name:) Should be easy for you!

I did? Hate minis? With the wizard TLing the crew to SG in between I suppose. Or any other farming spot, PoM works fine too.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I did? Hate minis? With the wizard TLing the crew to SG in between I suppose. Or any other farming spot, PoM works fine too.

You do know that something like Magi is soloable by an Enchanter, right? You don't need a Cleric to be there.

PoM is soloable by a Shaman, and Shamans work fine for puppets.

SG is also soloable by an Enchanter, so again you don't need the Cleric there.

What else you got?

[bcbrown]

Oh sure. Enchanter/Enchanter/Necromancer/Cleric would be awesome. As I stated before, I am not claiming a Cleric is not a good pick in this group. We are simply debating the finer points of what a Cleric vs. Shaman bring.

Are there any camps that Enc/Enc/Necro/Cleric can't do, that Enc/Enc/Necro/Shaman can? Or Enc/Enc/X/Shaman?

[Toxigen]

we're about to divide by 0 here, folks

[fortior]

You do know that something like Magi is soloable by an Enchanter, right? You don't need a Cleric to be there.

PoM is soloable by a Shaman, and Shamans work fine for puppets.

SG is also soloable by an Enchanter, so again you don't need the Cleric there.

What else you got?

Dude, it's a farm crew. The goal isn't to just skate by, it's to effectively farm things. Even the best farmer dies in hate, and even the best solo ench will agree that having a second ench makes the whole trip exponentially easier and faster. Which is what you want, because it's a competitive zone, and there's entire continents of other targets to farm.

I think you're out of your depth, you should just play more EQ, maybe dip out of your comfort zone (torporing yourself while dots tick on a slowed mob) a little.

[Crede]

Are there any camps that Enc/Enc/Necro/Cleric can't do, that Enc/Enc/Necro/Shaman can? Or Enc/Enc/X/Shaman?

No. The Shaman adds nothing. Just redundant utility. If they were that good, enc would prefer them over clerics.

Better off stacking better dps for faster kills. Or as someone suggested a porter for high mobility for camps. With a mage, you could aoe mobs with cleric da pulls and enc stunning too. Just so many more options.

Ask yourself, do you want a mage for an epic pet, rods, coth, DS, or a shaman to go around clicking jbb and/or trying to pull 4+ mobs in your camp to root rot them with epic?

[Ripqozko]

To be fair all DSM has left is ww dragons , VQ is a dead guild. Not too surprising when the guild is full of DSM personalities.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Are there any camps that Enc/Enc/Necro/Cleric can't do, that Enc/Enc/Necro/Shaman can? Or Enc/Enc/X/Shaman?

Chardok Royals perhaps, which I have mentioned multiple times already. That is one camp I haven't done enough of to fully understand what compositions you could theoretically bring. I've generally been in groups that bring a Cleric + Warrior for tanking, so that is outside of the scope of this thread's requirement. A Cleric has soloed the Queen with clickies if memory serves. If someone can solo something with clickies, a four man group could probably do it without a Cleric strictly speaking.

Dude, it's a farm crew. The goal isn't to just skate by, it's to effectively farm things. Even the best farmer dies in hate, and even the best solo ench will agree that having a second ench makes the whole trip exponentially easier and faster. Which is what you want, because it's a competitive zone, and there's entire continents of other targets to farm.

I think you're out of your depth, you should just play more EQ, maybe dip out of your comfort zone (torporing yourself while dots tick on a slowed mob) a little.

Again, the thing you are missing is that if something can be soloed by an Enchanter, you probably don't need a Cleric for CH. You can take a Shaman for superior utility. You have 2x Enchanters already covering Lull/Stun.

If your group is dying a lot and needs the reses, it isn't a very good farm crew. You could also just do Enchanter/Enchanter/Necromancer/Shaman.

[bcbrown]

A Cleric has soloed the Queen with clickies if memory serves. If someone can solo something with clickies, a four man group could probably do it without a Cleric strictly speaking.

If a cleric can solo it, then I bet the best four-man caster group to take it on should include a cleric!

[fortior]

You can take a Shaman for superior utility

Lmfao

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If a cleric can solo it, then I bet the best four-man caster group to take it on should include a cleric!

Again, I am not saying a Cleric is bad here. The question is does the Cleric significantly increase the groups capabilities compared to a Shaman.

Typically if you can solo something with expensive clickies, it isn't tough enough to be extremely challenging for four players.

[fortior]

Again, I am not saying a Cleric is bad here. The question is does the Cleric significantly increase the groups capabilities compared to a Shaman.

Yes, next question

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Yes, next question

Evidence please, before moving on.

[fortior]

Lmfao, this thread full of people calling you wrong not enough peer review for you?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Lmfao, this thread full of people calling you wrong not enough peer review for you?

People are saying Shamans offer nothing when grouped with an Enchanter, which is blatantly false. Quite a few people on this thread are trolling as well.

Just because people agree with you, it doesn't mean you are correct.

[bcbrown]

Evidence please, before moving on.

You have made quite clear that there is no evidence that you will accept.

Have a good day!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You have made quite clear that there is no evidence that you will accept.

Have a good day!

I am not sure where you think I said that. The trouble is simply that the people who disagree with me have provided no evidence so far.

I have provided video and math evidence. Simply saying "other people agree with me" isn't evidence.

[bcbrown]

I am not sure where you think I said that.

I'm using my critical reading skills to infer that conclusion from the 1307 posts you've made in this thread, just 147 less than the next three people combined.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'm using my critical reading skills to infer that conclusion from the 1307 posts you've made in this thread, just 147 less than the next three people combined.

You didn't use your critical reading skills to see the hundreds of pages of people posting gifs and simply trolling. There are more troll posts here than my posts. These are the same people who are trying to argue they are right.

You may want to improve those critical reading skills.

[bcbrown]

You may want to improve those critical reading skills.

You've already acknowledged those skills (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3621217&postcount=3937).

There's a huge number of trolls, shitposts, and copy-pasta in this thread, yes. There's also innumerable attempts, in vain, to reason with you. You declined (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3621285&postcount=3955) my offer to discuss with you.

Have a good day!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You've already acknowledged those skills (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3621217&postcount=3937).

There's a huge number of trolls, shitposts, and copy-pasta in this thread, yes. There's also innumerable attempts, in vain, to reason with you. You declined (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3621285&postcount=3955) my offer to discuss with you.

Have a good day!

Saying "I am right and you are wrong" is not an attempt at reasoning with someone.

If your entire premise is I can never make a mistake, that is a silly premise. Are you applying that to everybody else here equally? Are you going to discredit everybody else who made a mistake who disagrees with me?

I declined to have a discussion with you based on preconditions I don't agree with. I would be happy to have a discussion with you if you can remove the unnecessary preconditions.

OP did not specify any of the mentioned preconditions, so they are completely arbitrary to be honest.

[cyxthryth]

Saying "I am right and you are wrong" is not an attempt at reasoning with someone.

If your entire premise is I can never make a mistake, that is a silly premise. Are you applying that to everybody else here equally? Are you going to discredit everybody else who made a mistake who disagrees with me?

I declined to have a discussion with you based on preconditions I don't agree with. I would be happy to have a discussion with you if you can remove the unnecessary preconditions.


Yet you yourself continuously apply preconditions to the discussion (such as "You have to think about what a level 60 is doing") as my previous posts have already illustrated. You - still - seemingly cannot engage with my posts in this thread, presumably because your only option is direct, outright concession.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Yet you yourself continuously apply preconditions to the discussion (such as "You have to think about what a level 60 is doing") as my previous posts have already illustrated. You - still - seemingly cannot engage with my posts in this thread, presumably because your only option is concession.

The entire premise of leveling a character is to get to max level. That is not an arbitrary precondition. It is the goal of the leveling system, and why the game programmers put it in. Everquest was not designed around the concept that players will level to 30 and stop.

There is no purpose in efficiently leveling to 40 and then stopping. Trying to argue otherwise is nonsensical. If your group wants to do it for fun, great! It can be done with most 4 man groups without a problem.

[bcbrown]

If your entire premise is I can never make a mistake, that is a silly premise. Are you applying that to everybody else here equally? Are you going to discredit everybody else who made a mistake who disagrees with me?

Yes, in fact, anyone who uses incorrect factual information or poor reasoning will result in me viewing them as less credible. I've applied that to everyone else in this thread, as well, and I view some of them as more credible than others. Jimjam, for example, is among the most credible in my mind. Raj, too. In fact, perhaps a good proxy for credibility would be sorting by post count in ascending order, the least posts being the most credible. I view the factual information that you, DSM, provide as credible, but I find your reasoning less credible. Your arguments do not persuade me.

For an example of flawed reasoning, I'm not sure why you think my premise is that you can never make a mistake. One of the things I like about you is that you don't hesitate to acknowledge mistakes when you recognize them!

The incredibly frustrating flip side of that is that you seem unable to recognize any mistakes that may threaten your premise that a shaman belongs in "best 4 person all caster/priest group".

[cd288]

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.

If you have 3 Enchanters then the only way anyone should be dying to a charm break is if you're killing an unstunnable mob. And even then low level root has a very short cast. Your comment makes no sense lol.

I've done 3 Enchanter groups before multiple times and not a single death happened due to a Charm break. The only time I ever had a death in that group was due to whacky Velks pathing causing a massive train.

[cyxthryth]

The entire premise of leveling a character is to get to max level. That is not an arbitrary precondition. It is the goal of the leveling system, and why the game programmers put it in. Everquest was not designed around the concept that players will level to 30 and stop.

There is no purpose in efficiently leveling to 40 and then stopping. Trying to argue otherwise is nonsensical. If your group wants to do it for fun, great! It can be done with most 4 man groups without a problem.


How are your reading comprehension skills? Where has anybody indicated they are arguing that a group will get to a particular level and stop? I believe you may have constructed that man of straw yourself to argue against. If I am mistaken, please provide evidence to prove/justify your insinuation, otherwise it is unsubstantiated - and likely false as well as indeed a strawman.

Additionally, I provided the below direct responses already:

There are more reasons to play the game than "wanting to level to 60" even if eventually becoming level 60 is a product/result of playing the game. Regardless, even if "wanting to get to level 60" and "will eventually reach level 60" are accepted preconditions, the discussion is simply about the "best" 4 person all caster/priest group - and such a group will simply begin at level 1, without full spellbooks. Therefore:

it could be argued that by insisting the conversation be focused solely (or even mostly) around the capabilities of classes at level 60 with full spellbooks that you are simply specifying a precondition designed to restrict the conversation to try and make a certain class (Shaman) favorable for specific scenarios (which the OP did not specify any, remember?) and that you are simply fervently trying to win the argument by creating a scenario where your favorite class is the best, and then using that to claim other classes can never be superior.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Yes, in fact, anyone who uses incorrect factual information or poor reasoning will result in me viewing them as less credible. I've applied that to everyone else in this thread, as well, and I view some of them as more credible than others. Jimjam, for example, is among the most credible in my mind. I view the factual information that you, DSM, provide as credible, but I find your reasoning less credible. Your arguments do not persuade me.

For an example of flawed reasoning, I'm not sure why you think my premise is that you can never make a mistake. One of the things I like about you is that you don't hesitate to acknowledge mistakes when you recognize them!

The incredibly frustrating flip side of that is that you seem unable to recognize any mistakes that may threaten your premise that a shaman belongs in "best 4 person all caster/priest group".

I may have misunderstood what you meant by:

You've already acknowledged those skills (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3621217&postcount=3937).

To me, that sounds like you are saying "you read one post incorrectly, therefore you are probably reading many incorrectly, and thus are not understanding the other posters".

This is the problem with posting very short sentences, you are making an assumption that I understand the context you have in your mind when you are typing it out.

I agree JimJam is a sensible poster. Crede is a sensible poster too, but he is clearly getting frustrated for some reason.

I am perfectly happy to admit I am wrong if someone can provide evidence other than "Clerics are better, Shamans offer nothing", and having a bunch of people just agree with that argument.

But I am not going to let people simply trample the discussion because they think ad populum fallacies are logically sound.

If you have 3 Enchanters then the only way anyone should be dying to a charm break is if you're killing an unstunnable mob. And even then low level root has a very short cast. Your comment makes no sense lol.

I've done 3 Enchanter groups before multiple times and not a single death happened due to a Charm break. The only time I ever had a death in that group was due to whacky Velks pathing causing a massive train.

It makes sense if you understand 3x Enchanters aren't giving you much return. The DPS from 2x Enchanters is all you need. It's better to increase utility and safety to improve consistency, instead of adding more DPS to a group that doesn't need it.

[bcbrown]

How are your reading comprehension skills? Where has anybody indicated they are arguing that a group will get to a particular level and stop? I believe you may have constructed that man of straw yourself to argue against. If I am mistaken, please provide evidence to prove/justify your insinuation, otherwise it is unsubstantiated - and likely false as well as indeed a strawman.

Naw, that's actually fairly close to my position (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3621279&postcount=3953). I'm at 45 now, probably won't stop at 50, but I definitely don't expect to reach 60.

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.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Naw, that's actually fairly close to my position (https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3621279&postcount=3953). I'm at 45 now, probably won't stop at 50, but I definitely don't expect to reach 60.

If you don't plan on reaching 60, there is little reason to worry about efficiency. Just have fun and play until you get bored. That is my point. There is nothing wrong with this play style either.

You worry about efficiency if you plan on doing the harder content where it actually matters.

[bcbrown]

I may have misunderstood what you meant by:

Oh, you absolutely did! My bad, I can see how my short replies make it harder for you to understand.

You questioned my critical reading skills, and I was pointing out that you've already acknowledged those skills. I wasn't trying to point out that you had made a mistake, because I already understand that the post of mine you read mistakenly was easy to misunderstand.

Not your fault! Have a great day!

[bcbrown]

If you don't plan on reaching 60, there is little reason to worry about efficiency. Just have fun and play until you get bored. That is my point. There is nothing wrong with this play style either.

Given that in 1999 I played a troll shadowknight to 17 before getting sick of the absolute misery that was the hybrid experience penalty, I absolutely do think it's worth worrying about efficiency while leveling. Understanding the meta around min/maxing allows me to make my own choices around whether to consciously follow that meta or make some less-efficient choice because I think I will enjoy it more.

For example, for my cleric I rolled dwarf and put all my points into charisma. Probably not min/max optimal! I really enjoy it!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Given that in 1999 I played a troll shadowknight to 17 before getting sick of the absolute misery that was the hybrid experience penalty, I absolutely do think it's worth worrying about efficiency while leveling. Understanding the meta around min/maxing allows me to make my own choices around whether to consciously follow that meta or make some less-efficient choice because I think I will enjoy it more.

For example, for my cleric I rolled dwarf and put all my points into charisma. Probably not min/max optimal! I really enjoy it!

I apologize. I didn't mean to say you shouldn't try to improve your play while leveling, or that you shouldn't research your class. Obviously you should try to get better at your class, and this will naturally increase the speed of your progression.

I am simply saying that a group worried about leveling as fast as humanly possible is generally going to be trying to reach max level. That is why you want an efficient group. The longer it takes to level, the longer it will take you to start farming the good stuff at 60.

Players who are more casual like yourself (they don't think they will hit 60) are typically just enjoying the experience of the game. If they get invited to a group that isn't optimally built, they will be more likely to play with that group anyway. The experience of playing with the group trumps the loss of efficiency.

[bcbrown]

Players who are more casual like yourself (they don't think they will hit 60) are typically just enjoying the experience of the game. If they get invited to a group that isn't optimally built, they will be more likely to play with that group anyway.

You're telling me how people like me should enjoy the game, and I find that highly offensive. You refuse to accept my viewpoint as valid: it's possible for a casual player to care deeply about min/max optimal theory-crafting. It's possible to care about optimal group composition because it will impact my enjoyment of casually crawling through guk in a trio of mid-30s. It's possible that when considering "optimal", the perspective of 4 untwinked new players who want to level together and have some fun is a valid perspective.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You're telling me how I should enjoy the game, and I find that highly offensive. You refuse to accept my viewpoint as valid: it's possible for a casual player to care deeply about min/max optimal theory-crafting. It's possible to care about optimal group composition because it will impact my enjoyment of casually crawling through guk in a trio of mid-30s. It's possible that when considering "optimal", the perspective of 4 untwinked new players who want to level together and have some fun is a valid perspective.

I think you are misreading what I said. It may be my fault for the way I worded it. I am not forcing you to play the game a specific way, nor am I saying your perspective is invalid.

I am simply pointing out that lower level content is easier than high level content. If you are mostly expecting to reach level 55 and stop, there are plenty of great group compositions that can take you there quickly. As long as you don't pick something extremely off like 4 Rogues, you will be fine.

If your group plans on just having some fun, 4 Mages is a great composition in the low levels. You will churn through mobs and level quickly. Unfortunately that group doesn't work too well once you hit 60, so you end up paying the price for that decision if you change your mind about reaching 60. That is why it is better to think about what you are going to do at 60, even if you never reach it. Then you won't have the problem of leveling a class to 60 and realizing you can't do the things you wanted with that particular class.

This is one downside to leveling a Cleric in this four man group. If you reach 60 and your group disbands, you won't be able to solo as well as a Shaman. I am not saying having a level 60 Cleric is bad in any way, but it is something you should think about. Those 3x Enchanters are going to be doing great in terms of soloing good stuff.

[cyxthryth]

I think you are misreading what I said. It may be my fault for the way I worded it. I am not forcing you to play the game a specific way, nor am I saying your perspective is invalid.

I am simply pointing out that lower level content is easier than high level content. If you are mostly expecting to reach level 55 and stop, there are plenty of great group compositions that can take you there quickly. As long as you don't pick something extremely off like 4 Rogues, you will be fine.

If your group plans on just having some fun, 4 Mages is a great composition in the low levels. You will churn through mobs and level quickly. Unfortunately that group doesn't work too well once you hit 60, so you end up paying the price for that decision if you change your mind about reaching 60. That is why it is better to think about what you are going to do at 60, even if you never reach it. Then you won't have the problem of leveling a class to 60 and realizing you can't do the things you wanted with that particular class.

This is one downside to leveling a Cleric in this four man group. If you reach 60 and your group disbands, you won't be able to solo as well as a Shaman. I am not saying having a level 60 Cleric is bad in any way, but it is something you should think about. Those 3x Enchanters are going to be doing great in terms of soloing good stuff.

This thread & discussion is simply not about whether low level content is easier than high level content (which is obvious), it is not about whether "4 mages in a group together are fun or 'great' in low levels", it is not about the downsides of 1 person's class choice if the hypothetical group disbands, it is not about what group you will "be fine" with.
This discussion is simply about the "best" 4 person all caster/priest group - and a Rogue (or 4) have absolutely no place in such a group at all simply because they are NOT a Caster or a Priest, so I am not sure why you brought that class up in this discussion or what relevance you think those other particular points above have to this discussion.

Objectively, "Best" does not necessarily mean "fastest to hit level 60 (via exclusively doing constant xp grinding or otherwise)" - although that may certainly be some players'/posters' opinion of what would define the best group!

The objective "best" group MIGHT happen to get to 60 faster compared to other group compositions (particularly if the hypothetical "best" group members are all neckbeards who work from home and/or are unemployed/retired that play 8-16+ hours a day, presumably they'll get to 60 faster than groups consisting of players who play less frequently and/or for shorter play-sessions), but it certainly doesn't have to be (and is not necessarily going to be) the case that the "best" group will level up as fast as possible for sole purpose of levelling up fast / getting to 60.

The objective "best" group just might play together as a static 4-man group that only logs in one night a week for 2-6 hours and they might be more interested in experiencing particular camps or dungeons they enjoy (or that some of them don't have much experience with on Live, etc.) rather than being concerned with farming in the best ZEM zone. Regardless of the specifics, there will likely be classes (some combination of 1-4) that are able to provide the group the "best" tools to achieve the goals of the group.

In order to have a MEANINGFUL discussion about what class is or isn't OBJECTIVELY best for a given scenario and move past OPINIONS of classes in general, we simply have to start with a scenario / some agreed upon starting conditions. It is unhelpful to the discussion and hypocritical to say "I decline your preconditions" when a particular poster attempts to actually directly engage with you in discussion that is/would be RELEVANT to the thread, and it is unhelpful to the discussion & hypocritical to meanwhile continue attempting to apply your own specifications to the discussion (such as "You have to think about what a level 60 is doing" as a recent example) when the question of what is "best" remains ENTIRELY subjective and undefined at this point in the discussion due to your refusal, because if you can't agree upon a scenario/starting point, then to use your (DSM's) own verbiage "you are comparing Apples to Oranges" and you will continue to be "comparing apples to oranges" unless/until a direct comparison can actually be made in an at least somewhat defined scenario wherein one class vs another class can be measured/judged/scored etc. in some capacity, and thereby be proven/disproven to be "best" for the group's needs (again, based on what each of the FOUR characters/classes in question offers & the group's overall and/or specific goals).

Another poster (Troxx I believe it was?) wanted to compare Mage vs Shaman parses in high level group with you months ago, but you conceded / opted out / chose not to participate.... it's all in the post history. I am not sure why you adamantly refused to simply go join a group & do the things your (tens of? hundreds of?) posts were fervently claiming you could/can do. Meanwhile, you yourself - intentionally or not & knowingly or not - actively try to limit the discussion to specific scenarios which favor the Shaman class that you like to play, such as suggesting/implying that only level 60 activities matter/are relevant so that the hypothetical Shaman in the hypothetical group can have Torpor spell and gear/DPS clickies, and claiming such things as you previously claimed in earlier retorts you have posted in this thread, like essentially saying "if your group cares about doing DPS, then you have to let a Shaman root rot adjacent to the main/rest of the group otherwise you don't really care about DPS" (despite you also arguing the DPS isn't relevant anyway due to not being enough to achieve additional kills per hour), when to this day you have - still - not provided ANY evidence (even though evidence has been requested from you multiple times, by multiple posters) that you have EVER done such a thing with your Shaman in a group a single time, much less it being a common occurrence. Instead you copy/pasted a bunch of raw math which doesn't translate into real life. Many posters (myself including) communicated this information to you multiple times. It appeared that after being advised/reminded that the "data" you kept providing was irrelevant data enough times, you finally seemed to understand that simple irrefutable fact... and yet...

Here and now once again, you are back in this thread and have the nerve to make posts claiming that OTHERS need to prove you wrong and provide you with evidence.

Evidence please, before moving on.

You are trying to demand evidence while you have yourself provided NO relevant data/evidence of your class performing in conditions relevant to the discussion as you claimed it can/could over tens? hundreds? of posts? (Reminder: We were specifically discussing being in a HIGH level, fast-paced DPS group, with the at-the-time goal being to compare the performances of Mage vs. Shaman and you were free to use all your 60 Shaman tools/spells/clickies in that scenario, and even could've shown off your oft-mentioned root-rotting group tactic, but you opted out / conceded / chose not to participate.)

You are trying to demand evidence while you have quite clearly demonstrated - by making 1,300+ posts none of which containing any relevant evidence - that you will gladly continue to "argue" fervently and make hundreds of posts while continuing to NEVER provide ANY relevant evidence yourself?

You demanding evidence from others is almost as laughable as the following Quotes of your own blatant flip-flopping, goal-post moving & hypocrisy which you have yet to address/reply to/acknowledge/defend/challenge/attempt to refute:

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.

[Gloomlord]

If people like PlsNoBan were "trolls", then he was only giving you a taste of your own medicine.

I can tell that DSM is one those arseholes in real life who passive-aggressively hide behind a mask whenever someone criticises him over the smallest things.

[Toxigen]

essay

yikes that was as bad as dsm

[Gloomlord]

There is a good takeaway from this thread as I've said before:

People believe whatever they want to believe -- they don't care about the truth.

Doesn't matter how strong your reasoning is. Doesn't matter if twenty people or more unite against you. Doesn't matter if you present the most objective facts and show the numbers. Doesn't matter how inconsequential the topic is.

A person will want to believe they're their own hero, no matter the circumstances. And that, to me, is very depressing. This is why a person like DSM inspires so much hatred within me.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

People believe whatever they want to believe -- they don't care about the truth.

Doesn't matter how strong your reasoning is. Doesn't matter if twenty people or more unite against you. Doesn't matter if you present the most objective facts and show the numbers. Doesn't matter how inconsequential the topic is.

A person will want to believe they're their own hero, no matter the circumstances. And that, to me, is very depressing. This is why a person like DSM inspires so much hatred within me.

This is basically you in a nutshell. Unlike yourself, I can provide evidence for my claims. You fervently believe something and have no ability to back it up. Instead, you resort to trolling and hatred to try and force other people into submission.

It doesn't matter if multiple people disagree with you. That doesn't automatically mean they are correct and you are incorrect. That is an ad populum fallacy.

People can simply look at your post history, it just looks like an angry person ranting for the most part.

[Gloomlord]

Do you think I'm obsessed with a class to such a degree that I'm going to place them in a situation where they're made redundant and weak, and then call them an excellent class? Even though the vast majority of us in this thread proclaimed them to be the 2nd most powerful class in the game, and where even I stated they surpassed Enchanter with enough gear and Puppet Strings.

Come now, DSM. I call your bluff. The power of the lie has its limits. It has worn thin by now. You're just a coward with too frail of an ego to admit something so inconsequential it baffles me.

People fight feverishly over religion and politics. People fight to survive and to be recognised and cherished. What are you fighting over so zealously about?

About an innocuous discussion about a composition in a very old game that is easy to figure out. This is why you've dragged a thread out so long despite nearly everyone disagreeing with you? You couldn't be more pathetic if you tried...

Edit: Oh, yes. I am very angry with you. Why? Does pointing that out make you look less pathetic?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Do you think I'm obsessed with a class to such a degree that I'm going to place them in a situation where they're made redundant and weak, and then call them an excellent class? Even though the vast majority of us in this thread proclaimed them to be the 2nd most powerful class in the game, and where even I stated they surpassed Enchanter with enough gear and Puppet Strings.

Come now, DSM. I call your bluff. The power of the lie has its limits. It has worn thin by now. You're just a coward with too frail of an ego to admit something so inconsequential it baffles me.

People fight feverishly over religion and politics. People fight to survive and to be recognised and cherished. What are you fighting over so zealously about?

About an innocuous discussion about a composition in a very old game that is easy to figure out. This is why you've dragged a thread out so long despite nearly everyone disagreeing with you? You couldn't be more pathetic if you tried...

Thank you for proving my point yet again.

300+ Trolling posts.
0 Evidence based posts.

You can start to improve your score at any time.

[Gloomlord]

Notice how you didn't try to deconstruct a single thing I said?

Because you know I'm right about you.

P.S Stop stealth editing. It makes you look even more manipulative than you already are.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Notice how you didn't try to deconstruct a single thing I said?

Because you know I'm right about you.

You aren't saying anything of value. That is why I don't need to deconstruct it.

If you think I am wrong, please provide evidence for your claims.

Providing sufficient evidence to back up your claim will convince everybody I am wrong, even if you think I won't admit it. So far you don't have any evidence for that assumption, since I have admitted to being wrong plenty of times on this forum already.


P.S Stop stealth editing. It makes you look even more manipulative than you already are.

You are always so negative. I edit my posts because people here typically seem to misread what I say. I need to try and be as clear as possible.

[Gloomlord]

Why are you here, then?

There's no purpose for you being here now than to protect your fragile ego.

Am I wrong?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Why are you here, then?

There's no purpose for you being here now than to protect your fragile ego.

Am I wrong?

You should be asking yourself this question. If you really thought I was wrong, you would have provided evidence long ago to prove it.

Instead, you keep posting the same psychoanalytic nonsense in an attempt to undermine the argument because you have no evidence.

[Gloomlord]

Noone is agreeing with you, you understand that? Even the people who defended you think you're incorrect.

If we're all idiots, then why stay any longer?

Oh, that "psychoanalytic nonsense"? You mean calling out a vile personality when I see it?

I don't need a degree to figure you out.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Noone is agreeing with you, you understand that? Even the people who defended you think you're incorrect.

If we're all idiots, then why stay any longer?

Oh, that "psychoanalytic nonsense"? You mean calling out a vile personality when I see it?

I don't need a degree to figure you out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum - It's a fallacy.

I will be happy to admit I am wrong if you can provide evidence. Everybody wins. People reading this forum get concrete data, and you can gloat that I was wrong. I really don't care about being correct. I just want people to have the correct information.

[Crede]

You should be asking yourself this question. If you really thought I was wrong, you would have provided evidence long ago to prove it.

Instead, you keep posting the same psychoanalytic nonsense in an attempt to undermine the argument because you have no evidence.

Troxx provided real mage group dps data.

The ball has always been in your court. You never provided anything similar other than a single mob solo video which has nothing to do with anything relevant/requested.

So until that point, nobody needs to provide you with evidence. The more you continue to not provide this, the less credible you become.

I am still willing to provide my enchanter to test this. So as soon as you want to set this up, let me know.

[Gloomlord]

I knew you were going to say that. But you're missing the point, which you can't seem to address:

Why are you still here if we're all wrong?

Forget the appeal to the majority fallacy. Answer the question. I'm not arguing that more people = truth here.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Troxx provided real mage group dps data.

The ball has always been in your court. You never provided anything similar other than a single mob solo video which has nothing to do with anything relevant/requested.

So until that point, nobody needs to provide you with evidence. The more you continue to not provide this, the less credible you become.

I provided better evidence than he did, video evidence with logs. He posted a screenshot that he admits was incorrect.

Allishia provided real evidence via logs with the Epic Pet, and I used that evidence later on in the discussion.

It is up to Troxx to prove his theory that solo DPS cannot translate to group DPS, for example. He is making that claim, not me.

If you understood how the game works, you would know this is nonsense. Grouping doesn't change a mob's stats. If you can do 50 DPS to it solo, you can do 50 DPS to it grouped.

I knew you were going to say that. But you're missing the point, which you can't seem to address:

Why are you still here if we're all wrong?

Forget the appeal to the majority fallacy. Answer the question. I'm not arguing that more people = truth here.

I am here to show people that your argument is not based on facts, and therefore you shouldn't assume it to be true. Why are you here?

[Gloomlord]

I'm here to tell you you're only here because you're too egotistical for your own good.

You're here because you can't admit to being wrong over the pettiest thing imaginable.

You're not here to show my argument isn't based on facts. Because if you truly believed we're beyond all hope at reasoning with, you wouldn't have responded to Toxigen's bump.

[Crede]

I provided better evidence than he did, video evidence with logs. He posted a screenshot that he admits was incorrect.

Allishia provided real evidence via logs with the Epic Pet, and I used that evidence later on in the discussion.

It is up to Troxx to prove his theory that solo DPS cannot translate to group DPS, for example. He is making that claim, not me.

If you understood how the game works, you would know this is nonsense. Grouping doesn't change a mob's stats. If you can do 50 DPS to it solo, you can do 50 DPS to it grouped.



I am here to show people that your argument is not based on facts, and therefore you shouldn't assume it to be true. Why are you here?

If you understood how the game worked, you would know that solo dps does not always translate to group dps. When soloing you are guaranteed your epic will hit full duration. You cannot guarantee this in a group.

So unfortunately, all your evidence is invalid, and we will continue to wait for real evidence by you.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'm here to tell you you're only here because you're too egotistical for your own good.

You're here because you can't admit to being wrong over the pettiest thing imaginable.

You're not here to show my argument isn't based on facts. Because if you truly believed we're beyond all hope at reasoning with, you wouldn't have responded to Toxigen's bump.

You are not egotistical by constantly trolling this thread in the hopes that I say "I am wrong"?

Why do you need that in your life? Especially if you can't even prove you are correct?

[Gloomlord]

If you understood how the game worked, you would know that solo dps does not always translate to group dps. When soloing you are guaranteed your epic will hit full duration. You cannot guarantee this in a group.

So unfortunately, all your evidence is invalid, and we will continue to wait for real evidence by you.

He thinks he hasn't lost if he's the one that gets the last word.

I can't lie and say I'm laughing. I'm just exasperated how a person could be this way. I have never seen anyone be this stubborn over such an innocuous issue before.

[Crede]

He thinks he hasn't lost if he's the one that gets the last word.

I can't lie and say I'm laughing. I'm just exasperated how a person could be this way. I have never seen anyone be this stubborn over such an innocuous issue before.

DSM is a unique kind of troll.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If you understood how the game worked, you would know that solo dps does not always translate to group dps. When soloing you are guaranteed your epic will hit full duration. You cannot guarantee this in a group.

So unfortunately, all your evidence is invalid, and we will continue to wait for real evidence by you.

If you had watched my videos, you would know I am not using Epic:) It was simply DDs and my pet.

Nor have I claimed that Epic DoT specifically is always going to tick all the way up. You are not guaranteed to get a full Epic DoT in solo situations too, so I am not sure what you are trying to say there. It just proves my point that soloing and grouping is still the same.

For a consistent DoT like Bane or Poxx, it is doing the same damage every 6 seconds.

[Gloomlord]

You are not egotistical by constantly trolling this thread in the hopes that I say "I am wrong"?

Why do you need that in your life? Especially if you can't even prove you are correct?

I'm not a troll because you don't like me and that, yes, I want you to have the gall to admit you're wrong. If you feel that's too much, then leave.

You're not scoring internet points either way being here, and I know full well you're not scoring points with yourself.

You don't need to be here anymore. Noone cares about your self-proclaimed wisdom.

[Crede]

If you had watched my videos, you would know I am not using Epic:) It was simply DDs and my pet.

Nor have I claimed that Epic DoT specifically is always going to tick all the way up. You are not guaranteed to get a full Epic DoT in solo situations too, so I am not sure what you are trying to say there. It just proves my point that soloing and grouping is still the same.

For a consistent DoT like Bane or Poxx, it is doing the same damage every 6 seconds.

Trust me, you’d run oom quickly trying to bane/pox/canni to keep up with dps. You’d also have no mana for slows, diminishing your utility.

So you’d likely just be clicking jbb.

Again, we’re still waiting for you provide group evidence to dispute otherwise. We don’t care what you did solo. And we don’t care if you think solo dps equals group dps. If you continue to disregard our requests, then there’s no reason for you to be in this thread anymore.

[Fammaden]

When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Precisely. When you only play with Clerics, you don't know how other support classes work.

[Ripqozko]

Easy 500, DSM should join PL, he has the same personality as deso

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Trust me, you’d run oom quickly trying to bane/pox/canni to keep up with dps. You’d also have no mana for slows, diminishing your utility.

So you’d likely just be clicking jbb.

Again, we’re still waiting for you provide group evidence to dispute otherwise. We don’t care what you did solo. And we don’t care if you think solo dps equals group dps. If you continue to disregard our requests, then there’s no reason for you to be in this thread anymore.

Asking me for evidence of a claim you are making is silly. You need to show proof that DPS differs between solo and group situations. That is not my claim, it is yours.

[Crede]

Asking me for evidence of a claim you are making is silly. You need to show proof that DPS differs between solo and group situations. That is not my claim, it is yours.

I don’t need to prove anything. You came into a group discussion claiming solo shaman dps is equivalent. This is an inherently false claim, as you would have to know what shaman group dps is to know that solo dps is different.

So the ball remains in your court. I’m willing to offer my enchanter to support your claims.

[Gloomlord]

Asking me for evidence of a claim you are making is silly. You need to show proof that DPS differs between solo and group situations. That is not my claim, it is yours.

Does this even need to be pointed out why this is illogical reasoning? Considering we've covered this before in many pages prior?

This is a counter argument meant to exhaust the opponent.

Edit: A person could show video evidence to prove DSM wrong, but it's just not worth it. DSM is an unscrupulous sociopath who will secretly think "Wow! You're actually stupid enough to go this distance".

Trust me. That is exactly the kind of person he is.

[cyxthryth]

I provided better evidence than he did, video evidence with logs. He posted a screenshot that he admits was incorrect.

The evidence you provided was not relevant evidence because the environment the captured/collected data came from was not relevant to the discussion. This is why your evidence was, and has been, and remains, irrelevant. This was already explained to you multiple times by multiple posters months ago.

To address the below post:

It is up to Troxx to prove his theory that solo DPS cannot translate to group DPS, for example. He is making that claim, not me.

If you understood how the game works, you would know this is nonsense. Grouping doesn't change a mob's stats. If you can do 50 DPS to it solo, you can do 50 DPS to it grouped.


I simply present the following irrefutable evidence - which cannot be refuted:

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.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I don’t need to prove anything. You came into a group discussion claiming solo is equivalent. This is an inherently false claim, as you would have to know what group dps to know that solo dps is different.

So the ball remains in your court. I’m willing to offer my enchanter to support your claims.

It is a fact that mob stats do not change in a group vs. solo scenario, so you have no basis for the claim that DPS will change.

I don't mind grouping up if people want to actually get some numbers in! That is probably the only way you would believe me.

If I provided evidence that a Shaman out-DPSed a Mage in a group, people would say the Mage isn't playing correctly. The inherit problem with trying to measure group DPS is you have to assume everybody is playing correctly in both groups being compared. Any class can out DPS another class in a group under the right conditions.

You really need the same players to play in both groups to try and alleviate those concerns, doing the exact same content.

[Gloomlord]

It is a fact that mob stats do not change in a group vs. solo scenario, so you have no basis for the claim that DPS will change.

Guys...

Do you actually think he believes this?

Seriously! You think someone who has played the game for years on end can't see why this makes no sense?!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Guys...

Do you actually think he believes this?

Seriously! You think someone who has played the game for years on end can't see why this makes no sense?!

It makes complete sense. If you can do 50 DPS solo, you can do 50 DPS grouped if the mob's stats do not change. It's quite a simple concept.

[Gloomlord]

Gaslighting isn't your strong suit, DSM.

Stick to playing Shaman, and leave this thread.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Gaslighting isn't your strong suit, DSM.

Stick to playing Shaman, and leave this thread.

I am not sure how stating a fact is gaslighting. But when you are trolling, the things you say don't have to make sense.

[Gloomlord]

Do you have the slightest shred of integrity within you?

Do you honestly not see why someone should pay you no respect when you state such a blatant lie?

[cyxthryth]

It is a fact that mob stats do not change in a group vs. solo scenario, so you have no basis for the claim that DPS will change.

Hehe, did you forget these - direct - Quotes? :)

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.


If I provided evidence that a Shaman out-DPSed a Mage in a group, people would say the Mage isn't playing correctly. The inherit problem with trying to measure group DPS is you have to assume everybody is playing correctly in both groups being compared. Any class can out DPS another class in a group under the right conditions.

The above is simply you providing the reason for why you have - still - not provided relevant evidence, and the fact that you are providing an explanation indicates you are aware of / acknowledging this simple irrefutable fact.


The ball is - still - in your court should you be interested in providing any relevant evidence/data of your Shaman performing in a high level fast paced DPS group like you fervently argued it could for tens? hundreds? of posts.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Do you have the slightest shred of integrity within you?

Do you honestly not see why someone should pay you no respect when you state such a blatant lie?

What is a blatant lie?

[cyxthryth]

It makes complete sense. If you can do 50 DPS solo, you can do 50 DPS grouped if the mob's stats do not change. It's quite a simple concept.

Hehe, did you forget these - direct - Quotes? :)

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.

[Gloomlord]

What is a blatant lie?

You're the "genius" here. I'm sure you can figure it out.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Hehe, did you forget these - direct - Quotes? :)

No. If you quoted the rest of my post I said the same thing as these quotes.

[cyxthryth]

What is a blatant lie?

What is the truth? :)

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.

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.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You're the "genius" here. I'm sure you can figure it out.

Ah, so you will just say I "lied", but will never actually say what the "lie" is.

Because if I can show you it wasn't a lie, then your argument that I am a liar falls apart.

[cyxthryth]

Ah, so you will just say I "lied", but will never actually say what the "lie" is.

Because if I can show you it wasn't a lie, then your argument that I am a liar falls apart.

So what is the truth? :)


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.

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.

[Gloomlord]

What is the truth? :)

Damn, you actually went to the trouble of getting his contradictory quotes.

Too bad that still won't be enough...

[cyxthryth]

I am not sure how stating a fact is gaslighting. But when you are trolling, the things you say don't have to make sense.

Which facts are true?

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.

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.

What definition of "trolling" are you using?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Damn, you actually went to the trouble of getting his contradictory quotes.

Too bad that still won't be enough...

Lol it is pretty amazing that you think the quotes are contradictory. People can literally read them. This is gaslighting.

[cyxthryth]

Lol it is pretty amazing that you think the quotes are contradictory. People can literally read them. This is gaslighting.

So couldn't you simply advise which of the following 4 - direct - Quotes are true for the sake of civil discussion?

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.

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.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So couldn't you simply advise which of the following 4 - direct - Quotes are true for the sake of civil discussion?

They are all true. Luckily you are not very good at gaslighting, because there are no contradictions if you read them.

The first quote is making an assumption the group plays correctly, not a guarantee.

For the second quote, if you can do 50 DPS to a mob solo, you can do 50 DPS to a mob grouped. The stats of the mob do not change.

For the third quote, as I stated a few posts ago, you can get data that shows a Shaman out-DPSing a Mage, because the Mage isn't playing well, and the final quote is another variation of the same idea. Group DPS is harder to quantify when comparing class DPS, because there are more factors involved that are out of the classes control. If the Mage pet keeps dying due to bad pulls, that doesn't mean a Mage does bad DPS.

[Gloomlord]

Alright, I'll humour you. Don't know why, since I'm giving you exactly what you want.

If variables exist in a group, then this means data for solo DPS is irrelevant.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Alright, I'll humour you. Don't know why, since I'm giving you exactly what you want.

If variables exist in a group, then this means data for solo DPS is irrelevant.

No, it doesn't mean the solo DPS data is irrelevant.

Let me ask you a question. If a Mage does 20 DPS in a group because their pet keeps dying, and a Shaman does 50 DPS because they are DoTing, does that mean a Mage does less DPS than a Shaman?

[cyxthryth]

No, it doesn't mean the solo DPS data is irrelevant.

Let me ask you a question. If a Mage does 20 DPS in a group because their pet keeps dying, and a Shaman does 50 DPS because they are DoTing, does that mean a Mage does less DPS than a Shaman?

Let me ask you a question. Does the cause NEGATE the effect/result?

[Gloomlord]

I hope the people who were polite see you for what you truly are now. I hope I've vindicated myself to all the people who said I went too far.

You people defended a lying sociopath. This isn't even stupidity at this point. He knows full well this is blatantly false.

[cyxthryth]

They are all true. Luckily you are not very good at gaslighting, because there are no contradictions if you read them.

The first quote is making an assumption the group plays correctly, not a guarantee.

If you can do 50 DPS to a mob solo, you can do 50 DPS to a mob grouped. The stats of the mob do not change.

As I stated a few posts ago, you can get data that shows a Shaman out-DPSing a Mage, because the Mage isn't playing well, and the final quote is another variation of the same idea.

No player can play "perfectly" because even a single human being adds variance - I assume you are not cheating / using scripts, correct? This is a simple fact which cannot be refuted: you WILL NOT time every spell-cast perfectly, sit for perfect ticks, etc. over an extended gameplay session.
If you refute this I happily await the evidence you will provide to prove you can play perfectly. :)
If you did not mean "perfectly" when you said "correctly" please provide a detailed explanation of what you mean by "play(ing) correctly" for civil discussion.

If "you can get data that shows a Shaman out-DPSing a Mage", then it is irrelevant that the reason is that the Mage is not playing well. The irrefutable fact would simply be that, during that particular comparison/example, the Shaman out-DPSed the Mage.

I am not sure how you think this somehow means the following - direct - Quotes are not contradictory.

Can you explain in detail - for the sake of civil discussion - how the following 4 - direct - Quotes are not contradictory?

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.

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.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I hope the people who were polite see you for what you truly are now. I hope I've vindicated myself to all the people who said I went too far.

You people defended a lying sociopath. This isn't even stupidity at this point. He knows full well this is blatantly false.

You didn't answer my question, because you know I am correct:)

If a Mage ends up doing less DPS in a group than a Shaman because the puller was bad, that doesn't mean Mages do less DPS than Shamans.

You compare DPS in a vacuum, to show the highest potential each class can do. People do not say that Rangers out-DPS Rogues simply because they saw a parse showing a Ranger out-DPSing a Rogue in a group.

[Gloomlord]

I mean, even an idiot can figure this out.

A Shaman will not output the same DPS on a solo target as he will on a mob being destroyed by two hasted charms. He will also be wasting mana with dots, because they can't unleash their full duration.

It's so obvious it's irrelevant. The man is exhausting us so we get fed up with trying to talk sense into him.

[Gloomlord]

You didn't answer my question, because you know I am correct:)

If a Mage ends up doing less DPS in a group than a Shaman because the puller was bad, that doesn't mean Mages do less DPS than Shamans.

You compare DPS in a vacuum, to show the highest potential each class can do. People do not say that Rangers out-DPS Rogues simply because they saw a parse showing a Ranger out-DPSing a Rogue in a group.

I actually did answer this exact question hundreds of pages ago.

You'd probably like to forget about that, right? Best pretend you weren't already defeated back then.

Careful, sociopath! Your mask is slipping!

[cyxthryth]

You didn't answer my question, because you know I am correct:)

Is that why you have dodged the vast majority of mine? :)

If a Mage ends up doing less DPS in a group than a Shaman because the puller was bad, that doesn't mean Mages do less DPS than Shamans.

Nobody said it did? Nice Straw Man.

You compare DPS in a vacuum, to show the highest potential each class can do. People do not say that Rangers out-DPS Rogues simply because they saw a parse showing a Ranger out-DPSing a Rogue in a group.

A vacuum of class comparison is simply irrelevant, we are not discussing automation or "what are classes capable of independent of a player actually playing the character", the OP did NOT make that specification.

You have still not provided the definition you are using for "playing correctly", nor have you explained how the following 4 - direct - Quotes are not contradictory:

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.

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.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I mean, even an idiot can figure this out.

A Shaman will not output the same DPS on a solo target as he will on a mob being destroyed by two hasted charms. He will also be wasting mana with dots, because they can't unleash their full duration.

It's so obvious it's irrelevant. The man is exhausting us so we get fed up with trying to talk sense into him.

You are correct that a Mage will generally out DPS a Shaman on a solo target. But how did you know that a Mage will do higher DPS on a solo target?

The answer is people /pet attack a single mob and record the DPS. You can do that in a group, or solo:) This is how DPS parsing works for class comparisons.

I actually did answer this exact question hundreds of pages ago.

You'd probably like to forget about that, right? Best pretend you weren't already defeated back then.

Careful, sociopath! Your mask is slipping!

It should be easy for you to repost or retype your answer if this is true.

[cyxthryth]

You are correct that a Mage will generally out DPS a Shaman on a solo target. But how did you know that a Mage will do higher DPS on a solo target?

The answer is people /pet attack a single mob and record the DPS. You can do that in a group, or solo:) This is how DPS parsing works for class comparisons.

When DPS parsing there are typically actual players playing the classes that are parsing. Raw math and/or vacuum class capabilities simply do not translate into actual DPS as calculated during actual gameplay, so Raw math and vacuum "player-less" class capabilities are irrelevant to this discussion.

Please explain in detail how "the DPS will remain the same" in a group environment when "the DPS equation has been changed by outside variables" as you noted in the - direct- Quote(s) below?

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.

[cyxthryth]

It should be easy for you to repost or retype your answer if this is true.

It should be easy for you to explain in detail how/why the following 4 - direct - Quotes are NOT contradictory if that is true.

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.

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.

[Gloomlord]

"You were right. I'm sorry"

This is a simple sentence, DSM. You're a big man, right?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

"You were right. I'm sorry"

This is a simple sentence, DSM. You're a big man, right?

I will happily say that if you can provide evidence for your claims.

You still haven't answered my question:

If a Mage does 20 DPS in a group because the puller keeps killing their pet, and a Shaman does 50 DPS because they aren't relying on their pet for DPS, does that mean a Mage has lower DPS than a Shaman?

[cyxthryth]

I will happily say that if you can provide evidence for your claims.

You still haven't answered my question:

If a Mage does 20 DPS in a group because the puller keeps killing their pet, and a Shaman does 50 DPS because they aren't relying on their pet for DPS, does that mean a Mage has lower DPS than a Shaman?

It would absolutely mean THAT particular Mage performed lower Damage Per Second than THAT particular Shaman in THAT particular instance.

Again I will ask:

Let me ask you a question. Does the cause NEGATE the effect/result?

And again I will note that you have still not provided the definition you are using for "playing correctly", nor have you explained how the following 4 - direct - Quotes are not contradictory:

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.

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.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

It would absolutely mean THAT particular mage performed lower Damage Per Second than THAT particular Shaman in THAT particular instance.


Agreed. But that says nothing about the class's capabilities. It would still be factually true that Rogues are generally considered to be the highest average DPS class on P99, even if all of the Rogues on the server sucked and were out-DPSed by Shamans every time.

I already showed how your gaslighting of my comments is incorrect and poorly executed https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3621728&postcount=4165 . You aren't making your case any stronger by constant reposting those quotes. It just makes you look silly.

[cyxthryth]

Agreed. But that says nothing about the class's capabilities. It would still be factually true that Rogues do more DPS than other classes most of the time, even if all of the Rogues on the server sucked and were out-DPSed by Shamans every time.

Yes, a shitty player will probably have a shitty parse, but that is not news to anybody in this thread and is not particularly relevant to the discussion.... unless... WAIT!

Are you low-key insinuating that you have refused to provide parses of yourself playing your Shaman in an environment relevant to this thread, simply because, you are afraid that might expose that you as a PLAYER simply CANNOT perform as you have fervently/adamantly argued that THE SHAMAN CLASS can; and possibly even NO PLAYER can perform on the Shaman class in the way you have fervently/adamantly argued it that could for tens? hundreds of posts?

Does this all basically boil down to You vs. Everyone "comparing Apples to Oranges" simply because you are choosing to act like there will be NO players actually piloting the characters in this hypothetical group - which is an unrealistic and laughable specification for you to attempt to apply to the conversation when OP did NOT specify any - is that what's going on here?

Can you please explain for the understanding of myself and the rest of the posters/participants and passersby who read this thread and for the sake of civil discussion, why/how the following - direct - Quotes are "not contradictory"?

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.

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.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Are you low-key insinuating that you have refused to provide parses of yourself playing your Shaman in an environment relevant to this thread, simply because, you are afraid that might expose that you as a PLAYER simply CANNOT perform as you have fervently/adamantly argued that THE SHAMAN CLASS can; and possibly even NO PLAYER can perform on the Shaman class in the way you have fervently/adamantly argued it that could for tens? hundreds of posts?


I am not afraid of that at all. The "standard of evidence" in this thread is an incorrect pixelated screenshot of a DPS parse in a single group. It is silly to think people who have been trolling me for hundreds of pages are going to believe me if I posted a pixelated screenshot of a DPS parse in a single group showing a Shaman doing respectable DPS.

If my detractors want to actually group up and get video recorded with me, that would be great! This would really be the only way to actually prove this one way or another, because neither party can make excuses if they are both present in the group.

So far nobody has seriously taken up this offer.

I am responding to you for the sake of people who haven't read this thread, not because you are saying anything new. It is clear you are trolling, just as you have been for the last 300+ posts.

[cyxthryth]

I am not afraid of that at all. The "standard of evidence" in this thread is an incorrect pixelated screenshot of a DPS parse in a single group. It is silly to think people who have been trolling me for hundreds of pages are going to believe me if I posted a pixelated screenshot of a DPS parse in a single group showing a Shaman doing respectable DPS.

If my detractors want to actually group up and get video recorded with me, that would be great! This would really be the only way to actually prove this one way or another, because neither party can make excuses if they are both present in the group.

So far nobody has seriously taken up this offer.

Sorry, but I am not sure how the above Quote addresses the remaining content of my previous Post, therefore, I will re-post it and await your response:

Does this all basically boil down to You vs. Everyone "comparing Apples to Oranges" simply because you are choosing to act like there will be NO players actually piloting the characters in this hypothetical group - which is an unrealistic and laughable specification for you to attempt to apply to the conversation when OP did NOT specify any - is that what's going on here?

Can you please explain - in detail - for the understanding of myself and the rest of the posters/participants and passersby who read this thread and for the sake of civil discussion, why/how the following - direct - Quotes are "not contradictory"?

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.

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.

[bcbrown]

I hope the people who were polite see you for what you truly are now. I hope I've vindicated myself to all the people who said I went too far.

Nope you're still obnoxious, and you still do nothing but make insults.

I wish you'd stop posting in this thread. You're not helping anything.

[Toxigen]

Guys, in DSM's world adding a 3rd enc to enc/enc/cleric doesn't add any dps.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Guys, in DSM's world adding a 3rd enc to enc/enc/cleric doesn't add any dps.

I am not saying that. Nice strawman. I am saying DPS does not always translate to more kills per hour, which is true.

A group killing 20 mobs in 10 minutes and then waiting 20 minutes for respawns is getting the same XP per hour as a group killing 20 mobs in 15 minutes and then waiting 15 minutes for respawns.

This is why you don't typically see 6 man XP groups. The added DPS of 2-3 more players is not offsetting the XP loss each group member is getting.

[Toxigen]

I am not saying that. Nice strawman. I am saying DPS does not always translate to more kills per hour, which is true.

A group killing 20 mobs in 10 minutes and then waiting 30 minutes for respawns is getting the same experience per hour as a group killing 20 mobs in 15 minutes and then waiting 30 minutes for respawns.

This is why you don't typically see 6 man XP groups. The added DPS of 2-3 more players is not offsetting the XP loss each group member is getting.

Sure, if you're leveling in CoM / KC during peak hours not during a quake.

If you're a pre-made group like this, you're likely gonna be in places where there are tons of mobs. If you're mob-capped in a static premade, ya doin it wrong.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Sure, if you're leveling in CoM / KC during peak hours not during a quake.

If you're a pre-made group like this, you're likely gonna be in places where there are tons of mobs. If you're mob-capped in a static premade, ya doin it wrong.

You could provide an example and we can count how many mobs you can do, and then extrapolate the DPS requirements.

There are also external factors, like how popular the zone is. You aren't going to be pulling half way across the zone when another group is going to get trained because of that.

[Crede]

I am not saying that. Nice strawman. I am saying DPS does not always translate to more kills per hour, which is true.

A group killing 20 mobs in 10 minutes and then waiting 20 minutes for respawns is getting the same XP per hour as a group killing 20 mobs in 15 minutes and then waiting 15 minutes for respawns.

This is why you don't typically see 6 man XP groups. The added DPS of 2-3 more players is not offsetting the XP loss each group member is getting.

So you’re thinking about dps wrong.

Let me explain. Dps isn’t just about xp per hour. You’re valuing this too much in this discussion. If you want to maximize xp per hour, an optimized duo is typically best.

There are other less obvious advantages to more dps. The quicker you kill something, the more time you can rest. Player fatigue is real, as we being humans have various reasons to need breaks. More dps can also mean The less chance something goes wrong and potentially rng kills you. Or it allows you to go after more mobs. You can kill a ww dragon quicker for example, and then move onto something else.

OP did not specify whether best meant xp per hour or something else. So we have to look at the full spectrum of what more dps can bring. There’s almost no downside to having more dps as long as utility is met. This is why a mage is better than a shaman in this group. There’s no shortage of utility here.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So you’re thinking about dps wrong.

Let me explain. Dps isn’t just about xp per hour. You’re valuing this too much in this discussion. If you want to maximize xp per hour, an optimized duo is typically best.

There are other less obvious advantages to more dps. The quicker you kill something, the more time you can rest. Player fatigue is real, as we being humans have various reasons to need breaks. More dps can also mean The less chance something goes wrong and potentially rng kills you. Or it allows you to go after more mobs. You can kill a ww dragon quicker for example, and then move onto something else.

OP did not specify whether best meant xp per hour or something else. So we have to look at the full spectrum of what more dps can bring. There’s almost no downside to having more dps as long as utility is met. This is why a mage is better than a shaman in this group. There’s no shortage of utility here.

As I asked Toxigen, can you provide example camps so we can run the numbers? I am not saying you are wrong when it comes to player fatigue being a factor, but you cannot simply use that as an excuse to always justify more DPS. There is a threshold where the DPS in your party is sufficient for maximum XP per hour, while also not being too stressful on the players.

Again, this is why you don't see 6 player XP groups that often. Even though that situation provides an easier play experience, it is basically "too easy", which translates to people getting annoyed that they aren't getting as much XP per hour. They prefer to increase the challenge to increase XP gains.

You are also underestimating utility in my view. Utility provides consistency, which can also translate to more kills over multiple hours. If your group can handle an emergency situation easier, that also reduces player fatigue and the chance of a wipe. A group wipe offsets the benefits of the extra DPS.

It simply doesn't make sense to say "player fatigue is a factor that can lead to mistakes", while also saying a 3x Enchanter group is not going to have problems. Enchanters are more complex than most if not all other classes. You are constantly paying attention to make sure your pet doesn't break, and you are casting a lot of spells. It is a higher fatigue composition if you want to bring fatigue into the discussion as a factor.

[Ripqozko]

I apologize to Deso, DSM is worse. Sorry

[bcbrown]

Who wants to make the thread "best 4-person all caster/priest group without shamans"?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Who wants to make the thread "best 4-person all caster/priest group without shamans"?

We could make a thread called "best 4-person all caster/priest group without Clerics" and a thread called "best 4-person all caster/priest group without Enchanters" too!

[Crede]

Ench/clr kills puppets in PoM, druid ports around and uses (pet) track to check for Phinny, Tranix, MQables like VP key mobs, other ench kills in SG, group gates and meets up to kill scout, epic mobs.

Swap the druid for a wizard and you unlock plane of hate minis, which this group can easily do.

I actually think you might have convinced me that the wizard is the best 4th member for this group. plus vp robe is 56 free dps for trash which is a totally acceptable tradeoff for gaining mobility for faster sniping.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I actually think you might have convinced me that the wizard is the best 4th member for this group. plus vp robe is 56 free dps for trash which is a totally acceptable tradeoff for gaining mobility for faster sniping.

If the idea is to have a Wizard porting solo players around the world farm crew style, the best composition would be Enchanter/Enchanter/Enchanter/Wizard. You want the best solo class working in 3 separate areas.

I think the issue is we are breaking the thread into two topics: "Best four man group that is in the same zone together" and "Best solo farm crew that can spread out". Those two types of groups operate differently.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3499874&postcount=1419

Based on how OP was describing their play style with their group, it's pretty clear they were doing the "Best four man group that is in the same zone together" route. Everybody else is assuming this as well, which is why the topic has never turned to thinking about a solo farm crew before.

[Crede]

If the idea is to have a Wizard porting solo classes around the world farm crew style, the best composition would be Enchanter/Enchanter/Enchanter/Wizard. You want the best solo class working in 3 separate areas.

I think the issue is we are breaking the thread into two topics: "Best four man group that is in the same zone together" and "Best solo farm crew that can spread out". Those two types of groups operate differently.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3499874&postcount=1419

Based on how OP was describing his play style with his group, it's pretty clear they were doing the "Best four man group that is in the same zone together" route. Everybody else is assuming this as well, which is why the topic has never turned to thinking about a solo farm crew before.

Not necessarily. If you’re porting up to hate, you will almost certaintly want a cleric. You want one in sleepers as well. I think cleric/enc/enc/wiz is the perfect balance of power and mobility at 60. This thread has been solved for me.

Thanks all!

[Lampolo]

Warriors can bind wound!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Not necessarily. If you’re porting up to hate, you will almost certaintly want a cleric. You want one in sleepers as well. I think cleric/enc/enc/wiz is the perfect balance of power and mobility at 60. This thread has been solved for me.

Thanks all!

Enchanters can solo the minis. Having 3 separate camps is going to be more lucrative in my opinion. This type of group is going to be comprised of veteran players, or it wouldn't work.

In a solo farm crew that prefers a priest duo option, a Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter/Wizard group would be better, because the Shaman can be used to solo something like A4 if there are no targets up that need a duo while the other two Enchanters solo elsewhere. That is the main issue with taking a Cleric for a split group, they can't do too much soloing on their own, so you are stuck doing a duo + solo split. The Shaman opens up the possibility of doing a three way solo split, without losing the duo options.

Honestly for the "Best solo farm crew that can spread out" group, it is a tossup between Enchanter/Enchanter/Enchanter/Wizard or Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter/Wizard. I am genuinely curious to see what would net more plat per hour. 3 players working separately consistently, or having a duo come together for something like Fungi King, Minis, Puppets occasionally.

[Toxigen]

Enc *can* solo the minis but there are few enc actually soloing them on the reg. Far easier with backup.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Enc *can* solo the minis but there are few enc actually soloing them on the reg. Far easier with backup.

For sure. I am not trying to say it is easy. But it's an option if you want the other players doing something else.

I am now thinking about the solo crew. It is an interesting thought about what would be more efficient.

With the Enchanter/Enchanter/Enchanter/Wizard group, having 3 solo Enchanters at easier spots like Chardok, SG, Velks, etc. would probably be a bit more consistent, and you would be spending less time porting around.

With the Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter/Wizard group, you can scoop up the Shaman/Enchanter to do harder camps for bigger ticket items like Puppets, Minis, Fungi King, etc. The Shaman can solo much better than a Cleric, so you still have the option of having every group member out soloing while there are no good duo targets up.

The question becomes how much plat are you losing by taking the risk of removing two of your members out of their current camps to try and bag a better duo camp?

[Gloomlord]

Nope you're still obnoxious, and you still do nothing but make insults.

I wish you'd stop posting in this thread. You're not helping anything.

Did you somehow ignore the other things I was saying? Just had to single out on the insults that were utterly deserved.

You're obnoxious for acting self-righteous, child. I wish you'd stop giving this manipulative liar ammunition.

Take your own advice and fuck off.

[Gloomlord]

If you or anyone missed the post, I'm pointing out he said something he knows is false. There is no way he doesn't know a parse for solo DPS on Shaman is irrelevant. You know this makes him look incredibly bad, and yet here you are engaging some pointless ego inflation by lying and saying I do "nothing but make insults". I'm quite clearly backing up those insults pretty thoroughly.

I wanted to make this an edit, but it seems I ran out of time.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If you or anyone missed the post, I'm pointing out he said something he knows is false. There is no way he doesn't know a parse for solo DPS on Shaman is irrelevant. You know this makes him look incredibly bad, and yet here you are engaging some pointless ego inflation by lying and saying I do "nothing but make insults". I'm quite clearly backing up those insults pretty thoroughly.

I wanted to make this an edit, but it seems I ran out of time.

You still haven't answered my question:

If I showed you a parse where a Shaman out-DPSed a Mage in a group scenario, would you then say Shamans are a better DPS class?

[Gloomlord]

You'd need to show the context of the scenario.

You give us a parse of solo DPS, then pretend that it has merit in a discussion where 4 people are forming a group. The context you provided is irrelevant.

You know that, of course.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You'd need to show the context of the scenario.

You give us a parse of solo DPS, then pretend that it has merit in a discussion where 4 people are forming a group. The context you provided is irrelevant.

You know that, of course.

Troxx didn't provide the context of his scenario either. It was just a screenshot, but you accepted his data. Why is that?

If I did the same thing, would you believe me?

[Gloomlord]

Alright then, get a shaman DPS parse in a 2 charm group, if you think Troxx was taking things out of context.

At least he didn't try to pass solo DPS off like it has merits in a group.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Alright then, get a shaman DPS parse in a 2 charm group, if you think Troxx was taking things out of context.

At least he didn't try to pass solo DPS off like it has merits in a group.

I have video and log evidence. It is far superior to Troxx's data, which you admit you don't have the proper context for. This means your side has nothing.

Come back when you have evidence showing DPS will differ in a group, and that you cannot do DPS parsing solo.

[Gloomlord]

Be thankful Troxx has clearly left P99 so that he can't clarify his parse.

Not that it would make a difference, right? Considering how we spent last year trying to make you admit to the truth.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Be thankful Troxx has clearly left P99 so that he can't clarify his parse.

Not that it would make a difference, right? Considering how we spent last year trying to make you admit to the truth.

I honestly wish he would. I asked him to many times. He responded with silly gifs. He could have easily provided more data such as logs.

[Gloomlord]

As I've said before: someone could go completely out of their way to show you parses, and even provide video evidence. It doesn't matter, though.

You're never going to admit to the truth, anyway. And, despite the fact you'll claim otherwise, you'll clearly think the person is an idiot deep down for going this length to prove you wrong.

All it takes is some common sense to realise that Shaman is not going to sustain the same DPS as a Mage pet in a charm group, which costs no mana and simply requires hitting the keybind for assist and the keybind for pet attack. Shaman dots will not tick their full duration, and they will run out of mana eventually.

All a Shaman can do to earn their keep is, if they possess it, click JBB. Shaman with JBB vs Mage with max water pet. Who do you think wins here?

I repeat, for the nth time: why remain here in this thread when noone, not even that self-righteous imbecile BcBrown, is agreeing with you?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

As I've said before: someone could go completely out of their way to show you parses, and even provide video evidence. It doesn't matter, though.
You're never going to admit to the truth, anyway.


Considering I provided both of those things and you think it doesn't matter, this description seems to fit you better right now.

[Gloomlord]

How many times do we have to tell you that a solo DPS parse is meaningless here?

How many times do we have to tell you the exact same things without you moving the goalposts and shifting the focus?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

How many times do we have to tell you that a solo DPS parse is meaningless here?

How many times do we have to tell you the exact same things without you moving the goalposts and shifting the focus?

You can say it as many times as you want. It won't make it true.

Providing evidence might do something though!

[Gloomlord]

You can say we haven't made sound counter arguments to you as much as you want. It won't make it true.

Forgive me for playing "psychoanalyst" again with you, but...yeah, I have every reason to call you a sociopath and whatever else.

You're hoping that, this time, we are the ones getting exhausted and move on. Having the last word proves that you are "right" in your mind.

Going to let someone else take over now.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You can say we haven't made sound counter arguments to you as much as you want. It won't make it true.


You are 100% correct. The difference is I have evidence for my claims, and you don't.

[Lysander]

are you guys getting married soon? you guys have been at it in the time normal people have already tied the knot. So much for hating him you two can't resist each other.

Go on.....kiss.

[Gloomlord]

are you guys getting married soon? you guys have been at it in the time normal people have already tied the knot. So much for hating him you two can't resist each other.

Go on.....kiss.

Must be a lot of people, then, in this thread who want to marry him.

If DSM left and never returned, I'd be glad. The community shouldn't be filled with a guy so obsessed over his own ego and the class he plays that he can't admit to an innocuous thing.

[cyxthryth]

Come back when you have evidence showing DPS will differ in a group, and that you cannot do DPS parsing solo.

If DPS captured/performed by a solo player will be the same as DPS captured/performed by a player in a group who is actively grouped with 3 others (not solo), please elaborate why you mentioned (and what you meant when you mentioned) "variables out of your control" and "once you add in outside variables, that changes the DPS equation" in regards to group DPS performance in the below - direct - Quotes?

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.

I anticipate you will not respond/answer this question, because your only option would appear to be - outright - concession.

[Jimjam]

Don’t enchanters have a lot of cripple type spells that lower target str/agi/ac?

Could these realistically be in a spell bar when grouping with a magician? Would they noticeably impact the dps for magician pets?

Do encs have similar synergies to make shaman dps proportionally more improved too? Especially considering doggo basically has cripple advantage already built in (the enchanter wouldn’t be able to make the same improvement a second time)?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Don’t enchanters have a lot of cripple type spells that lower target str/agi/ac?

Could these realistically be in a spell bar when grouping with a magician? Would they noticeably impact the dps for magician pets?

Do encs have similar synergies to make shaman dps proportionally more improved too? Especially considering doggo basically has cripple advantage already built in (the enchanter wouldn’t be able to make the same improvement a second time)?

Shamans and Enchanters get Cripple. Sadly it's not worth casting for the most part on solo/group mobs. It works best on raid mobs, or mobs that proc something. The -DEX can reduce proc rate.

[cyxthryth]

Shamans and Enchanters get Cripple. Sadly it's not worth casting for the most part on solo/group mobs. It works best on raid mobs, or mobs that proc something. The -DEX can reduce proc rate.

I noticed you have responded to a post that was posted AFTER my below post; I assume you have not responded to/answered this because your only option would appear to be - outright - concession (as I anticipated):




Come back when you have evidence showing DPS will differ in a group, and that you cannot do DPS parsing solo.

If DPS captured/performed by a solo player will be the same as DPS captured/performed by a player in a group who is actively grouped with 3 others (not solo), please elaborate why you mentioned (and what you meant when you mentioned) "variables out of your control" and "once you add in outside variables, that changes the DPS equation" in regards to group DPS performance in the below - direct - Quotes?


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.

I anticipate you will not respond/answer this question, because your only option would appear to be - outright - concession.

[7thGate]

I feel like the Shaman contribution to an XP group has a problem in that Shamans get much more efficient in several ways at 60, but you also don't really XP at 60.

I actually suspect that at 60, a Shaman could potentially outdps a Mage in an grinding group, depending on context and how you're structuring the fights. You get a few things that are hard to quantify from this.

--The shaman can tank with Torpor which lets you turn the mobs and prevent riposte/dodge/parry effects. This can be a +10% or so DPS from the charm pets. It can also make charming a summoning pet much safer if that's an option for what you're doing.
--A shaman can keep Avatar up on the two charm pets. Avatar's effect is generally noticeable but hard to directly quantify because of the natural variance in DPS and because it gets lumped in with the rest of the melee damage. As a rogue I usually get 10-15 dps boost from Avatar, I would expect a similar magnitude on a charmed pet.
--Shamans do get their own pet which, while not great, isn't nothing.

I suspect Avataring two charm pets closes the gap in DPS between shaman and mage pets, but it does cost plat unless you actually have Primal Avatar.

However, to actually pull significantly ahead, you would need to find a camp that has a lot of properties that favor shaman, since you probably also need to leverage Spear of Fate and the mana efficiency of Pox of Bertoxxulous.

If you really want to find a situation where a Shaman can outdps a mage, I would look at parsing the Blam stick camp with this group comp and kill 2 halflings at once continually. You can't run out of mobs, they're tough enough that if you engage them in pairs you will get the full 2 minute duration for each kill to allow maximum DoT DPS, they summon so the shaman tanking is helpful for managing pet breaks, and Torpor relieves pressure on the cleric to allow for smoother grinding for a longer time.

[Crede]

I feel like the Shaman contribution to an XP group has a problem in that Shamans get much more efficient in several ways at 60, but you also don't really XP at 60.

I actually suspect that at 60, a Shaman could potentially outdps a Mage in an grinding group, depending on context and how you're structuring the fights. You get a few things that are hard to quantify from this.

--The shaman can tank with Torpor which lets you turn the mobs and prevent riposte/dodge/parry effects. This can be a +10% or so DPS from the charm pets. It can also make charming a summoning pet much safer if that's an option for what you're doing.
--A shaman can keep Avatar up on the two charm pets. Avatar's effect is generally noticeable but hard to directly quantify because of the natural variance in DPS and because it gets lumped in with the rest of the melee damage. As a rogue I usually get 10-15 dps boost from Avatar, I would expect a similar magnitude on a charmed pet.
--Shamans do get their own pet which, while not great, isn't nothing.

I suspect Avataring two charm pets closes the gap in DPS between shaman and mage pets, but it does cost plat unless you actually have Primal Avatar.

However, to actually pull significantly ahead, you would need to find a camp that has a lot of properties that favor shaman, since you probably also need to leverage Spear of Fate and the mana efficiency of Pox of Bertoxxulous.

If you really want to find a situation where a Shaman can outdps a mage, I would look at parsing the Blam stick camp with this group comp and kill 2 halflings at once continually. You can't run out of mobs, they're tough enough that if you engage them in pairs you will get the full 2 minute duration for each kill to allow maximum DoT DPS, they summon so the shaman tanking is helpful for managing pet breaks, and Torpor relieves pressure on the cleric to allow for smoother grinding for a longer time.

If you’re going to turn mobs though, you could then just argue get a Necro. With slow and gear they can tank just fine. Better dots, taps, and much better pet. You also get fd snare and a da puller. Not to mention emergency fd for crs. Cleric can easily keep them up when slowed since they won’t be healing pets at that point.

[7thGate]

If you’re going to turn mobs though, you could then just argue get a Necro. With slow and gear they can tank just fine. Better dots, taps, and much better pet. You also get fd snare and a da puller. Not to mention emergency fd for crs. Cleric can easily keep them up when slowed since they won’t be healing pets at that point.

Necromancers bring a lot of nice things, but there are benefits from the Shaman as well.

Torpor is a lot more efficient than tapping for healing. Avatar helps close the pet quality gap, and shamans are going to be significantly tougher with equivalent gearing. You don't have some of the other utlitity, but you get Malo/Malosini to help slow hard targets quickly and reduce the frequency of pet breaks. DoTs are fairly equivalent betweem the two.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If you’re going to turn mobs though, you could then just argue get a Necro. With slow and gear they can tank just fine. Better dots, taps, and much better pet. You also get fd snare and a da puller. Not to mention emergency fd for crs. Cleric can easily keep them up when slowed since they won’t be healing pets at that point.

A Shaman is way tankier than a Necromancer with Torpor + Slow. With Cannibalize they can sustain the tank much longer too, whereas a Necromancer is going to run out of mana for taps. Lich is a great spell, but it isn't as good as Torpor, and it hurts your HP regen while tanking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPxeOVuX0G8 - A Necromancer is not tanking Ionat for 20 minutes straight with taps.

7thGate brings up some good points with Avatar on Charmed pets as well, I honestly never though of that before. Just bring some emerald stacks and double avatar. Since this thread has started to include clearing ST trash, the Shaman will probably have Primal Avatar, since they are already ST keyed.

[Crede]

A Shaman is way tankier than a Necromancer with Torpor + Slow. With Cannibalize they can sustain the tank much longer too, whereas a Necromancer is going to run out of mana for taps. Lich is a great spell, but it isn't as good as Torpor, and it hurts your HP regen while tanking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPxeOVuX0G8 - A Necromancer is not tanking Ionat for 20 minutes straight with taps.

7thGate brings up some good points with Avatar on Charmed pets as well, I honestly never though of that before. Just bring some emerald stacks and double avatar. Since this thread has started to include clearing ST trash, the Shaman will probably have Primal Avatar, since they are already ST keyed.

Stop using solo videos. Seriously, just fucking stop. Nobody except you believes solo = group, even after you've contradicted yourself multiple times. You aren't adding anything to this discussion anymore.

This trivial WW dragon will be dead long before the necro, cleric, or 2 enchanters goes oom. And it will also be slowed.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Stop using solo videos. Seriously, just fucking stop.

This trivial WW dragon will be dead long before the necro, cleric, or 2 enchanters goes oom. And it will also be slowed.

Again, you really don't understand the game lol. Stop thinking mob stats will change in group vs. solo play. The amount of DPS the Dragon is doing is not going to change, only the duration of the fight changes.

[Crede]

Again, you really don't understand the game lol. Stop thinking mob stats will change in group vs. solo play. The amount of DPS is not going to change, just the duration of the fight.

It will 100% change. Literally nobody but you believes this. You don't understand the game.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

It will 100% change. Literally nobody but you believes this. You don't understand the game.

You are admitting you think mob stats change in group vs. solo play?

The thing that changes is the duration of the fight, NOT the DPS of the mob. If a WW Dragon is doing 50 DPS, it will do 50 DPS every second for 20 minutes, or 50 DPS every second for 5 minutes.

If you fight 4 WW Dragons at 5 minutes each, you have taken the SAME damage as that solo video.

It's basic math.

[Crede]

You are admitting you think mob stats change in group vs. solo play?

The thing that changes is the duration of the fight, NOT the DPS of the mob. If a WW Dragon is doing 50 DPS, it will do 50 DPS every second for 20 minutes, or 50 DPS every second for 5 minutes.

If you fight 4 WW Dragons at 5 minutes each, you have taken the SAME damage as that solo video.

It's basic math.

Stop using solo videos. Seriously, just fucking stop. Nobody except you believes solo = group, even after you've contradicted yourself multiple times. You aren't adding anything to this discussion anymore.

This trivial WW dragon will be dead long before the necro, cleric, or 2 enchanters goes oom. And it will also be slowed.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I am sorry Crede, but you are wrong here, and you have no evidence to back it up. I am sorry that you have backed yourself into a corner, because if you admit solo videos are valid, it invalidates your argument in this thread.

Please stop telling people nonsense because you can't admit to being wrong.

[Crede]

I am sorry Crede, but you are wrong here, and you have no evidence to back it up. I am sorry that you have backed yourself into a corner, because if you admit solo videos are valid, it invalidates your argument in this thread.

Please stop telling people nonsense because you can't admit to being wrong.

I am sorry, but you are wrong. Keep posting those 20 minute solo videos. Nobody gives a fuck.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I am sorry, but you are wrong. Keep posting those 20 minute solo videos. Nobody gives a fuck.

I have evidence of how the game actually works in video and log form. You have nothing other than bad assumptions. It's ok to be wrong.

[Crede]

I have evidence of how the game actually works in video and log form. You have nothing other than bad assumptions. It's ok to be wrong.

Keep those solo videos coming. Nobody cares. It's evidence that you know how a shaman solos. It's ok, we still don't believe you.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Keep those solo videos coming. Nobody cares. It's evidence that you know how a shaman solos. It's ok, we still don't believe you.

You have no solo videos, and no group videos. Why do you think you are in a better position here? You have zero evidence to back up what you are saying in ANY situation.

[Crede]

You have no solo videos, and no group videos. Why do you think you are in a better position here? You have zero evidence to back up what you are saying in ANY situation.

I don't need to provide evidence. Troxx already did. A group screenshot is more valid than a useless solo video.

Balls still in your court. We''re waiting. I even offered up my enc for you.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I don't need to provide evidence. Troxx already did. A group screenshot is more valid than a useless solo video.

Balls still in your court. We''re waiting. I even offered up my enc for you.

Lol ok. It is amazing how hard you cling on to a screenshot that has no context and can be photoshopped. I am not saying it is, but you are really stretching here by trying to say that is credible evidence while a video is not.

Also, we were talking about Necromancer tanking vs. Shaman tanking. Not sure how a parse of a group without either class is any evidence for the current topic. A video of a Shaman Torpor Tanking a tough mob IS evidence.

[Crede]

Lol ok. It is amazing how hard you cling on to a screenshot that has no context and can be photoshopped. I am not saying it is, but you are really stretching here by trying to say that is credible evidence while a video is not.

Also, we were talking about Necromancer tanking vs. Shaman tanking. Not sure how a parse of a group without either class is any evidence for the current topic.

For all I know, you could have edited the video and logs. At least the screenshot was in a group context. Your solo video was not.

So until you agree to actually do it, unfortunately, you're clinging to uselessness. The more you continue to not test this in person, as you have with other topics, then you simply have nothing.

I've offered plenty of times to test this in person. Since you continuously do not agree to do this, I will consider this your concession.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

For all I know, you could have edited the video and logs. At least the screenshot was in a group context. Your solo video was not.

So until you agree to actually do it, unfortunately, you're clinging to uselessness. The more you continue to not test this in person, as you have with other topics, then you simply have nothing.

I've offered plenty of times to test this in person. Since you continuously do not agree to do this, I will consider this your concession.

Clearly you have no concept of how difficult it would be for me to doctor a video like that. I urge you to try. You can double check the logs by watching the video, all of the text is coming up on the screen. It would be trivial to catch me doctoring the logs.

Conversely, anybody can put some numbers in a spreadsheet and screenshot it.

I've said multiple times I am willing to test it in person, lets do it! You just never actually commit. If you are actually willing to test in person, just PM me and we can set up a date + time. I just posted a video yesterday of myself and Pint doing some testing with SKs. It was fun! So you have proof that I am willing to do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJwu-fFy0dk

[cyxthryth]

Please stop telling people nonsense because you can't admit to being wrong.

The thing that changes is the duration of the fight, NOT the DPS of the mob.

The DPS that the MOB is able to perform CAN ABSOLUTELY be affected by variables introduced by other players doing things such as Stunning, Fearing, Mezzing, Kiting or Slowing the mob etc., and I am not sure why you are acting like you are not aware of that simple fact. Again, we are NOT comparing "class capabilities in a vacuum" nor assuming "perfect" play (which would only be possible by automated play/scripting, which is against the rules), nor pretending that the players in the hypothetical group are letting their groupmate solo a mob simply so that it can be argued "the DPS is the same group or solo!" :)

But also, that is simply NOT the ONLY thing that changes when comparing Solo vs Group environment hehe. :) The simple fact of the matter is in a group environment, variables introduced by each player affect the DPS a given PLAYER in the group will be performing / will be able to perform on a given MOB, because - UNLIKE in SOLO situations - what other players are doing "changes the DPS equation" (to use your own words).

Again, simply for the sake of civil discussion I must ask you (DSM):

If DPS captured/performed by a solo player will be the same as DPS captured/performed by a player in a group who is actively grouped with 3 others (not solo), please elaborate why you mentioned (and what you meant when you mentioned) "variables out of your control" and "once you add in outside variables, that changes the DPS equation" in regards to DPS performance while grouped in the below - direct - Quotes?


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.

[Crede]

I've said multiple times I am willing to test it in person, lets do it! You just never actually commit. If you are actually willing to test in person, just PM me and we can set up a date + time. I just posted a video yesterday of myself and Pint doing some testing with SKs. It was fun! So you have proof that I am willing to do it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJwu-fFy0dk

The problem here is that the SK was a trivial test. This test is much more complex, and we'd need to establish multiple points of measurement. I think it's fair to say nothing of this magnitude has ever been attempted before. Also, we have no idea what "Best" means in the context of the OP. Does this mean best for farming xp, best for sniping nameds across the world, etc.

For example, if this is a raw xp/hour test, shaman's need very specific conditions to optimize their group dps. Things like killing mobs slowly enough to regen pox/bane mana, epic being able to run it's full duration, etc. This is why most shaman's just click jbb when they are in groups. The other group members would effectively have to leave your mobs alone to truly optimize Shaman dps. This is why most shaman's just end up soloing, where they have 100% control of the situation.

This is really a matter of dps vs utility. You'd effectively need to prove that a shaman's utility can offset the increased dps of a mage(it's already been established that mages are superior group dps). Since the group would already have 3 rooters, 2 slowers, and mala with an cleric/enc/enc/mage, we'd need to try and compile a list of mobs that we believe either needs torpor to win, or needs a 4th rooter, or a 3rd slower, or a slightly tankier class, or all of the above or some combination of those.

I honestly don't know how we could test this, but willing to discuss criteria. I don't believe we should be talking about splitting up group members for optimizing named mob kills. In 99.9% of situations a "group" stays together in the same zone, so I think we should at least make that rule.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The problem here is that the SK was a trivial test. This test is much more complex, and we'd need to establish multiple points of measurement. I think it's fair to say nothing of this magnitude has ever been attempted before. Also, we have no idea what "Best" means in the context of the OP. Does this mean best for farming xp, best for sniping nameds across the world, etc.

For example, if this is a raw xp/hour test, shaman's need very specific conditions to optimize their group dps . Things like killing mobs slowly enough to regen pox/bane mana, epic being able to run it's full duration, etc. This is why most shaman's just click jbb when they are in groups. The other group members would effectively have to leave your mobs alone to truly optimize Shaman dps. This is why most shaman's just end up soloing, where they have 100% control of the situation.

This is really a matter of dps vs utility. You'd effectively need to prove that a shaman's utility can offset the increased dps of a mage(it's already been established that mages are superior group dps). Since the group would already have 3 rooters, 2 slowers, and mala with an cleric/enc/enc/mage, we'd need to try and compile a list of mobs that we believe either needs torpor to win, or needs a 4th rooter, or a 3rd slower, or a slightly tankier class, or all of the above or some combination of those.

I honestly don't know how we could test this, but willing to discuss criteria.

The first test will be easy enough. We can do some DPS comparisons solo vs. group in a time sliced manner. You don't need to play for 2 hours straight to get a good estimate. 15-30 minutes of an example group will do the trick. You can simply extrapolate how the group would continue doing. We could do this as a duo.

That will solve the basic disagreement that solo DPS is somehow vastly different from group DPS. As long as both of us agree to how we want to time slice the group vs. solo play, it shouldn't be a big deal.

I don't think there is much point in trying to measure something as nebulous as player fatigue, since everybody is different. We would need to somehow survey the entire server to get an idea of how lazy people are on average hehe.

[Crede]

The first test will be easy enough. We can do some DPS comparisons solo vs. group in a time sliced manner. You don't need to play for 2 hours straight to get a good estimate. 15-30 minutes of an example group will do the trick. You can simply extrapolate how the group would continue doing. We could do this as a duo.

That will solve the basic disagreement that solo DPS is somehow vastly different from group DPS. As long as both of us agree to how we want to time slice the group vs. solo play, it shouldn't be a big deal.

I don't think there is much point in trying to measure something as nebulous as player fatigue, since everybody is different. We would need to somehow survey the entire server to get an idea of how lazy people are on average hehe.

A duo would not suffice in the context of this discussion, unfortunately. That would actually start to favor the shaman more since mobs wouldn't be dieing as fast. And shamans are typically their strongest either solo/duo. Given this is a 4 person discussion thread, we have to stick to 4. No more, no less.

I propose a 1 hour clear to disco two with enc/enc/cleric/mage, and then repeat with enc/enc/cleric/shaman. I have a cleric on a separate account that you could also play when not driving the shaman, or welcome to log one of your own if you happen to have one. Depending on the results of this test, we could expand this to an even harder zone. We could try an HS South crawl. This would be fun to make a video of, but we would need willing participants.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

A duo would not suffice in the context of this discussion, unfortunately. That would actually start to favor the shaman more since mobs wouldn't be dieing as fast. And shamans are typically their strongest either solo/duo. Given this is a 4 person discussion thread, we have to stick to 4. No more, no less.

I propose a 1 hour clear to disco two with enc/enc/cleric/mage, and then repeat with enc/enc/cleric/shaman. I have a cleric on a separate account that you could also play when not driving the shaman, or welcome to log one of your own if you happen to have one.

If you can find those other people, let me know, and we can coordinate.

By ourselves we can at least show the difference between a solo player and a duo. If you are indeed correct that DPS will vastly change, we should see some sort of noticeable change with two people. It would help to move the needle at least.

Worst case we have some videos on how a Shaman/Enchanter duo together.

[7thGate]

If you're up for it and have enchanters who don't mind breaking SG faction, I would be really curious how the two comps handle the temple area at the bottom of the tube in SG.

There's 56 mobs down there on a 28 minute respawn cycle, and its a pretty challenging area with a lot of opportunities to flex. I've led raid forces and an all-rogues group (with factioned cleric for healing between fights and pocket buffers) at that camp, but I haven't been very involved with cleric/chanter stuff there since I don't play those classes.

[Crede]

If you're up for it and have enchanters who don't mind breaking SG faction, I would be really curious how the two comps handle the temple area at the bottom of the tube in SG.

There's 56 mobs down there on a 28 minute respawn cycle, and its a pretty challenging area with a lot of opportunities to flex. I've led raid forces and an all-rogues group (with factioned cleric for healing between fights and pocket buffers) at that camp, but I haven't been very involved with cleric/chanter stuff there since I don't play those classes.

Probably a better test for sure, given the increased difficulty of the mobs, we want to see the full power of each composition. I'm up for it.

[Jimjam]

That reads like a good place to flex a shaman. As I understand mage pets start to get outshined by higher level mobs, whereas spells once landed don’t get mitigated which plays into the shaman’s favour.

Will the mobs being 51+ be problematic for this suggested rootrot strategy as they’ll likely be able to summon? How many can be tankrotted with slow/torp while the groups pets chew down maintarget mobs?

An interesting experiment.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Probably a better test for sure, given the increased difficulty of the mobs, we want to see the full power of each composition. I'm up for it.

Yeah let me know when you want to duo and we can coordinate. I am excited!

For the 4 man group, you will need to find the other players. Based on the simple truth that people have discarded my evidence in this thread so far, I don't think people will believe me if I put together the group. I will be accused of telling the other players to play poorly or something. That is why I haven't done a video before, it seemed pretty pointless.

There is no way I can doctor the evidence if the group is assembled by someone who disagrees with me. It will also probably make it more challenging for myself, which is fun!

[Crede]

That reads like a good place to flex a shaman. As I understand mage pets start to get outshined by higher level mobs, whereas spells once landed don’t get mitigated which plays into the shaman’s favour.

Will the mobs being 51+ be problematic for this suggested rootrot strategy as they’ll likely be able to summon? How many can be tankrotted with slow/torp while the groups pets chew down maintarget mobs?

An interesting experiment.

I think root rotting will become less valid here but given the increased difficulty it might allow shaman utility to shine more which is essentially what this thread has come down to mage dps Vs shaman utility.

I also have access to an enc with wrecked sg faction so definitely like this idea.