Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Crede]

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!

We could duo a lower dogs velk crawl and hope we get khelkar to spawn which would be a neat mob to try because enc cleric does this quite easily. Enc/shaman would be highly more dependent on slow landing which might be ok considering malo is in play. Enchanters can solo this mob but it’s pretty difficult so could be a good demo at least.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

We could duo a lower dogs velk crawl and hope we get khelkar to spawn which would be a neat mob to try because enc cleric does this quite easily. Enc/shaman would be highly more dependent on slow landing which might be ok considering malo is in play.

That works for me, I haven't done lower dogs in a long time. Would be fun to go there again! You can PM me when you have time.

[Vivitron]

We could duo a lower dogs velk crawl and hope we get khelkar to spawn which would be a neat mob to try because enc cleric does this quite easily. Enc/shaman would be highly more dependent on slow landing which might be ok considering malo is in play.

Khelk seems to go smoother for me when I rapture pre-slow it.

[Ripqozko]

We are well on the way to 500, exciting times.

[Toxigen]

you guys are retarded

[DeathsSilkyMist]

you guys are retarded

Nothing to contribute, as usual.

[Crede]

you guys are retarded

Bro you bumped this thread the most. You wanted it back

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Bro you bumped this thread the most. You wanted it back

Lol very true!

[Gloomlord]

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

Oh, he does understand he's full of shit.

He's just an arsehole, Crede.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Oh, he does understand he's full of shit.

He's just an arsehole, Crede.

Basic math doesn't change, no matter how much you want it to:)

[Gloomlord]

You probably are going to get the last word. Before long, we're going to get too exhausted with your sociopathic bullshit.

It's a power born of madness, you see?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You probably are going to get the last word. Before long, we're going to get too exhausted with your sociopathic bullshit.

It's a power born of madness, you see?

You can provide evidence for your claims or stop posting at any time.

[cyxthryth]

You can provide evidence for your claims or stop posting at any time.

You can reply to the below or stop posting at any time:

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.

[Toxigen]

If this isn't at 500 pages by the time I get back from vacation I'll be very disappointed.

Keep it up you beautiful spergs.

[Jimjam]

If this isn't at 500 pages by the time I get back from vacation I'll be very disappointed.

Keep it up you beautiful spergs.

Pretty obvious you’re just stepping back to play on your shaman more now that you have been enlightened.

[fortior]

lol, incredible that this is still going. i suppose shaman mains don't have much to do now that we're in velious and everyone has capped stats

[DeathsSilkyMist]

lol, incredible that this is still going. i suppose shaman mains don't have much to do now that we're in velious and everyone has capped stats

There's 16 level 60 Shamans on Blue, 10 level 60 Enchanters, and 10 level 60 Clerics on blue atm. Zero 60 Mages.

[Gloomlord]

So is this what it's really all about?

No championing Shamans, but slandering Mages?

[Vexenu]

I'm really appreciating the 11th hour advocacy of the Wizard (with Rend Robe ofc) specifically for porting around and sniping.

The Chad Wizard vs. the virgin Shaman.

I love this thread.

[Gloomlord]

I'm really appreciating the 11th hour advocacy of the Wizard (with Rend Robe ofc) specifically for porting around and sniping.

The Chad Wizard vs. the virgin Shaman.

I love this thread.

You know it's bad when Wizard is more useful than Shaman in this group.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

https://youtu.be/jG1Aat1XdbI - This is a video of me grouping with a 54 Necro and a 56 Enchanter, both of whom are charming pets. These two players are people I met today, and we are not coordinating over discord. This is an example of a pickup group.

In the description of the video you should find the logs. In this play session, we kill 77 mobs, and I cast Ice Strike 76 times, and used JBB once instead. The average kill speed is around 40 seconds per mob.

It is almost like you could create a solo video https://youtu.be/5XwiGKTuu2E and translate that DPS in to a group scenario. X Ice Strikes per average encounter of Y seconds results in Z DPS per fight on average.

That is the thing about averages. Some fights you may cast Ice Strike multiple times, some fights you don't cast it at all, but the average smooths this out.

I am really not sure why this wasn't obvious already, or why it needed hundreds of pages of trolling. The idea that you "cannot use solo videos for group scenarios" is debunked.

[Crede]

https://youtu.be/jG1Aat1XdbI - This is a video of me grouping with a 54 Necro and a 56 Enchanter, both of whom are charming pets. These two players are people I met today, and we are not coordinating over discord. This is an example of a pickup group.

In the description of the video you should find the logs. In this play session, we kill 77 mobs, and I cast Ice Strike 76 times, and used JBB once instead. The average kill speed is around 40 seconds per mob.

It is almost like you could create a solo video https://youtu.be/5XwiGKTuu2E and translate that DPS in to a group scenario. X Ice Strikes per average encounter of Y seconds results in Z DPS per fight on average.

That is the thing about averages. Some fights you may cast Ice Strike multiple times, some fights you don't cast it at all, but the average smooths this out.

I am really not sure why this wasn't obvious already, or why it needed hundreds of pages of trolling. The idea that you "cannot use solo videos for group scenarios" is debunked.

So what you’ve basically told us is that you did 15 dps in this group. Why even bother with ice strike? Just use jbb. Ice strike isn’t for static dps. It’s for burning a mob. You just caused more work for yourself to make up that mana Vs just clicking jbb.

Solo has nothing to do with group. In solo you can also regen mana much quicker since you aren’t moving around as much and shammys need to be stationary to regen mana unlike a necromancer or enchanter.

Unfortunately you just spent 2 hours to prove essentially what we already know - shamans put out shit dps in a fast kill grouped scenario. Their best feature is torpor tanking. Problem with this is that doesn’t work well on mobs that are difficult or impossible to slow. Which is why enchanters prefer clerics instead.

So you’ve just confirmed what we already know. Swap in a cleric and add a mage or another enc for more dps.

Edit: also mobs dieing in 40 seconds means your epic will do like 5-6 dps per mob. And if you charge ahead trying to root more mobs, you will die and there will be no cleric to rez you and the the Necro will be pissed that they had to burn an EE to rez your greedy self. But had you tried to do that it would have at least had some more relevance to our discussion, lol.

Just so much disconnect between this video and this entire thread, lol. Nice try though!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So what you’ve basically told us is that you did 15 dps in this group. Why even bother with ice strike? Just use jbb. Ice strike isn’t for static dps. It’s for burning a mob. You just caused more work for yourself to make up that mana Vs just clicking jbb.

Solo has nothing to do with group. In solo you can also regen mana much quicker since you aren’t moving around as much and shammys need to be stationary to regen mana unlike a necromancer or enchanter.

Unfortunately you just spent 2 hours to prove essentially what we already know - shamans put out shit dps in a fast kill grouped scenario. Their best feature is torpor tanking. Problem with this is that doesn’t work well on mobs that are difficult or impossible to slow. Which is why enchanters prefer clerics instead.

So you’ve just confirmed what we already know. Swap in a cleric and add a mage or another enc for more dps.

Edit: also mobs dieing in 40 seconds means your epic will do like 5-6 dps per mob. And if you charge ahead trying to root more mobs, you will die and there will be no cleric to rez you and the the Necro will be pissed that they had to burn an EE to rez your greedy self. But had you tried to do that it would have at least had some more relevance to our discussion, lol.

Just so much disconnect between this video and this entire thread, lol. Nice try though!

I proved that you can use solo videos to show group DPS scenarios. Which you said was impossible, and was the cause of hundreds of pages of trolling. If you don't understand basic DPS calculations, maybe you should pause before assuming other things:) Also, I had a pet for a good chunk of the video, so it would be 15 DPS + Pet DPS, so around 30 DPS plus all of the utility and tanking.

You are also saying nothing about utility vs. DPS. What evidence to you have to show those classes would have given us more kills per hour?

Now that I provided group evidence, you are doing exactly what I said you would do, which is make excuses as to why the video doesn't fit whatever you think you are trying to argue. It was nonsense hundreds of pages ago, and still is nonsense.

You need to provide evidence for your claims now. No more excuses.

[Lampolo]

Why HS west?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Why HS west?

Why not HS West? I was doing a pickup group, so finding people is the hard part. I happened to find those players in HS. They were great btw, shout out to them for a great group!

[Vexenu]

Your DPS in that video is absolutely terrible. You're pulling, slowing, tanking and healing while casting the occasional nuke.

This is literally what everyone has been telling you for the past 400+ pages: Shamans are great at doing the things you did in that video, and you do a commendable job playing efficiently. But they are not a group DPS class. Thank you for providing evidence toward that fact.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Your DPS in that video is absolutely terrible. You're pulling, slowing, tanking and healing while casting the occasional nuke.

This is literally what everyone has been telling you for the past 400+ pages: Shamans are great at doing the things you did in that video, and you do a commendable job playing efficiently. But they are not a group DPS class. Thank you for providing evidence toward that fact.

Thanks for the compliment!

You need to realize I was playing with two players who weren't as experienced, and not even level 60. I am not complaining either, they did great! It was a really fun group.

For context, I was keeping an Enchanter alive when they didn't use Rune at all, or have Bedlam. Of course my DPS is going to be lower. This is what I was saying by group conditions changing things. The Enchanter and Necromancer were doing lower DPS as well, due to being lower level. They had a bunch of charm breaks. That doesn't mean Charm DPS is bad.

And you keep misunderstanding my arguments. I didn't say Shamans were a group DPS class. I said they do decent enough DPS in an efficient group, and can increase DPS with root/rotting if the group is just XPing. The utility a Shaman brings to the group is non-trivial, as I demonstrated in the video. Simply bringing more DPS is not always the answer to an efficient group.

As for why I chose to use Ice Strike, it is because I wanted to prove the point that my previous DPS video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XwiGKTuu2E was valid. It used Ice Strike as the example. This rebuts the claim that solo videos cannot be used to show how DPS works in a grouping scenario. This shows that the people who were trolling for 100s of pages did so for no reason.

[Vexenu]

Thanks for the compliment!
And you keep misunderstanding my arguments. I didn't say Shamans were a group DPS class. I said they do decent enough DPS in an efficient group, and can increase DPS with root/rotting if the group is just XPing. The utility a Shaman brings to the group is non-trivial. Simply bringing more DPS is not always the answer to an efficient group.

For a large portion of this thread you were claiming that a Shaman could out-DPS a Mage in a 4 man, all-caster/priest group (as per the title of the thread).

But as your very own video clearly shows, a Shaman cannot come close to putting out Mage DPS because he is too busy doing all the other things a Shaman has to do in order to be efficient and bring value to the group: slow, Torpor, canni, spot heal, malo, and in this case, tank and pull.

Again, no one is saying that Shamans are not a powerful class, and that they do not add value and utility to certain group compositions (as you did in this trio). But these are simple facts:

1) Shamans are not a group DPS class, and will never out-DPS a Mage on group content
2) Shamans, while a powerful class in their own right, do not fit into every group composition, and become largely redundant in the presence of an Enchanter/Cleric duo that does not benefit from the Shaman's unique strength of combining slows, heals, and slow/steady DPS in one package

[DeathsSilkyMist]

For a large portion of this thread you were claiming that a Shaman could out-DPS a Mage in a 4 man, all-caster/priest group (as per the title of the thread).

But as your very own video clearly shows, a Shaman cannot come close to putting out Mage DPS because he is too busy doing all the other things a Shaman has to do in order to be efficient and bring value to the group: slow, Torpor, canni, spot heal, malo, and in this case, tank and pull.

Again, no one is saying that Shamans are not a powerful class, and that they do not add value and utility to certain group compositions (as you did in this trio). But these are simple facts:

1) Shamans are not a group DPS class, and will never out-DPS a Mage on group content
2) Shamans, while a powerful class in their own right, do not fit into every group composition, and become largely redundant in the presence of an Enchanter/Cleric duo that does not benefit from the Shaman's unique strength of combining slows, heals, and slow/steady DPS in one package

Please show me specific examples of what I said and we can talk about it. You are probably thinking of my root/rotting examples, not single target examples. A Shaman can out-DPS a Mage when root/rotting. Shamans generally cannot out-DPS a Mage when fighting a single target.

Unfortunately people put so many strawmen in this thread it is hard to tell if you misread my argument, or read someone else's strawman.

And again, you have no evidence to suggest a Shaman cannot perform very well with an Enchanter instead of a Cleric. I am the only person providing evidence here. You are just assuming Cleric is better basically. Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a powerful trio for example.

[Ripqozko]

This is why VQ failed, you have a guild full of DSM

[Vexenu]

I am personally all-in on the Enc/Enc/Clr/Wiz train now. How can an Ogre with 60 Intelligence (literally a retard-level IQ) from the swamps of Oggok hope to compete with a Wizard with 255 INT (god-tier IQ) from the upper echelons of Felwithe or Neriak? The Ogre has almost certainly never touched a woman, and probably can't even tie his own shoes, assuming he can even find a pair that fit on his fat, elephant-like feet. Meanwhile, the Wizard is effortlessly spitting out 56 DPS with a Rend Robe, snaring, stunning, bursting down nameds, staff pulling, TLing and porting all over the world AND TO OTHER PLANES OF EXISTENCE ENTIRELY.

And the Chad Wizard does all of this before the virgin Ogre can even remember what class he is, and while maintaining a levitation spell on the slutty Human chick from South Qeynos he keeps hidden under his flowing, majestic robe.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I am personally all-in on the Enc/Enc/Clr/Wiz train now. How can an Ogre with 60 Intelligence (literally a retard-level IQ) from the swamps of Oggok hope to compete with a Wizard with 255 INT (god-tier IQ) from the upper echelons of Felwithe or Neriak? The Ogre has almost certainly never touched a woman, and probably can't even tie his own shoes, assuming he can even find a pair that fit on his fat, elephant-like feet. Meanwhile, the Wizard is effortlessly spitting out 56 DPS with a Rend Robe, snaring, stunning, bursting down nameds, staff pulling, TLing and porting all over the world AND TO OTHER PLANES OF EXISTENCE ENTIRELY.

And the Chad Wizard does all of this before the virgin Ogre can even remember what class he is, and while maintaining a levitation spell on the slutty Human chick from South Qeynos he keeps hidden under his flowing, majestic robe.

I accept your story as a concession that you cannot back up your claims. I do find the story amusing for sure! I also think Wizards are a fine class.

However, if you wanted a solo crew with a dedicated Wizard, a Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter/Wizard group would be an even stronger option in that scenario. The Shaman can solo something like A4 while there are no duo targets available. The Cleric cannot solo as much as a Shaman, so you are restricting your options by forcing a duo + solo split with Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter/Wizard. You could have a 3 player solo split with a Shaman. Nobody seems to be disagreeing with the idea that Shamans are a very strong solo class. When an Enchanter does need backup for a harder target, the Shaman will work just fine. That is the whole purpose of the Wizard after all, being able to gather up the group members quickly to hit a target.

You can also just roll Barbarian if you care so much about looking like a human as a Shaman.

[Vexenu]

https://www.project1999.com/forums/image.php?u=112282&dateline=1609282158

How can you trust anything a guy who looks like this says???

[DeathsSilkyMist]

https://www.project1999.com/forums/image.php?u=112282&dateline=1609282158

How can you trust anything a guy who looks like this says???

Evidence trumps physical appearance. Never judge a book by it's cover, as they say.

[Vexenu]

https://wiki.project1999.com/images/Salvarae%27s1.jpg

Now here's a face you can trust. Behold, the Chad Wizard.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

https://wiki.project1999.com/images/Salvarae%27s1.jpg

Now here's a face you can trust. Behold, the Chad Wizard.

Looking good! Nice Epic.

[fortior]

I'm really appreciating the 11th hour advocacy of the Wizard (with Rend Robe ofc) specifically for porting around and sniping.

The Chad Wizard vs. the virgin Shaman.

I love this thread.

I like thinking outside of the box. Wizard is a fantastic class which I didn’t fully appreciate before I started raiding. Now I think they’re amazing.

[Ripqozko]

Ngl after watching New metas I want to roll a wizard

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Ngl after watching New metas I want to roll a wizard

Agreed! I played one on TLP with a Pre-Nerf Fungi Staff just for a taste of what that feels like. It's fun to quad and then regenerate quickly for the next bout.

[Vexenu]

I like thinking outside of the box. Wizard is a fantastic class which I didn’t fully appreciate before I started raiding. Now I think they’re amazing.
Speaking as a guy with a 60 Wiz, I'd definitely agree, with the caveat that they really do feel pretty terrible to level in a group. You just can't contribute much in those scenarios. Quadding is great for leveling, though, and if you're looking for a 4th wheel for a Enc/Enc/Clr/xxx named target sniping group at endgame like you talked about, then a Wizard is definitely a very legit choice, if not tops. So while I would never advocate anyone play a Wizard in a 1-60 leveling group, they can definitely make sense in certain endgame group comps.

Wizard quadding itself is pretty unique from anything else in EQ with the instacast Flux staff and the AE Bonds of Force snare, and feels sort of like a combination of Bard kiting and Druid quadding (prob cuz the mobs are running at you full speed while you get them grouped up before snaring). But it's almost meditative once you discover a new quad spot and get good at pulling it. Strongly rec a Wizard alt to anyone who's never gotten around to playing one. Can quad up to 50 pretty easily and be a port/TL bot at least, and if you feel like a total boss the first time you drop an Ice Comet (it's hard not to), that alone may given you enough juice to hit 60.

[Crede]

I accept your story as a concession that you cannot back up your claims. I do find the story amusing for sure! I also think Wizards are a fine class.

However, if you wanted a solo crew with a dedicated Wizard, a Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter/Wizard group would be an even stronger option in that scenario. The Shaman can solo something like A4 while there are no duo targets available. The Cleric cannot solo as much as a Shaman, so you are restricting your options by forcing a duo + solo split with Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter/Wizard. You could have a 3 player solo split with a Shaman. Nobody seems to be disagreeing with the idea that Shamans are a very strong solo class. When an Enchanter does need backup for a harder target, the Shaman will work just fine. That is the whole purpose of the Wizard after all, being able to gather up the group members quickly to hit a target.

You can also just roll Barbarian if you care so much about looking like a human as a Shaman.

This was another sad strawman attempt to flex shamans. If you all want to separate, there’s no group. You just all solo/duo and pay dials as needed.

The reality is even a wizard brings more than a shaman. Nobody wants a shaman being the main healer when you’re fighting non trivial mobs. The wizard with vp robe can out dps a shaman, it can port, it can rip better, snare, aoe, and has a better root. Also has better nukes and lure nukes as well. With aoe snare they can safely pull groups of mobs too. Much better puller than a shaman.

Shamans are only needed in this group if torpor and cheal is needed. I’ve said this many times. No mob needs cheal and torp that is 4 mannable.

This is no contest, I’m sorry shamans don’t fit into every composition. Still a great class.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

This was another sad strawman attempt to flex shamans. If you all want to separate, there’s no group. You just all solo/duo and pay dials as needed.

The reality is even a wizard brings more than a shaman. Nobody wants a shaman being the main healer when you’re fighting non trivial mobs. The wizard with vp robe can out dps a shaman, it can port, it can rip better, snare, aoe, and has a better root. Also has better nukes and lure nukes as well. With aoe snare they can safely pull groups of mobs too. Much better puller than a shaman.

Shamans are only needed in this group if torpor and cheal is needed. I’ve said this many times. No mob needs cheal and torp that is 4 mannable.

This is no contest, I’m sorry shamans don’t fit into every composition. Still a great class.

I am not the one who suggested the farm crew Wizard group that separates for more loot. That was fortior. I agree it is a separate group type, and I said as much earlier. As per usual, you aren't really sure what we are talking about in this thread.

You can at least admit I proved you wrong with your strange ideas about solo videos vs. group videos. You can extrapolate group DPS from solo videos just fine.

It is time you show something besides words for your claims. You have provided nothing in this thread so far other than some weird obsession with downplaying Shamans for no apparent reason.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Nobody wants a shaman being the main healer when you’re fighting non trivial mobs.

Also on this point specifically you are just wrong. Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a very strong trio, and has been suggested on this forum for years. It can take non trivial mobs just fine. I don't know why you keep making blanket statements with nothing to back it up. It's easy to find evidence that contradicts it by simply searching the forums. You are weakening your position when you do this.

[Gloomlord]

I am not the one who suggested the farm crew Wizard group that separates for more loot. That was fortior. I agree it is a separate group type, and I said as much earlier. As per usual, you aren't really sure what we are talking about in this thread.

You can at least admit I proved you wrong with your strange ideas about solo videos vs. group videos. You can extrapolate group DPS from solo videos just fine.

It is time you show something besides words for your claims. You have provided nothing in this thread so far other than some weird obsession with downplaying Shamans for no apparent reason.

You have a weird obsession with glorifying Shamans and downplaying Mages. Two can play at that game.

Well done for making a video that completely missed the point of what we were talking about.

[fortior]

Why is the ‘farm crew’ setup invalid, it’s not a different type of group, it’s just the best way to setup your group. Sorry you don’t plan for moving around lol. Sorry DSM but you’re still playing tic tac toe while everyone else moved on to chess years ago. EQ1 is an extremely easy game, playing a solo shaman should be laughed at, its the EQ class version of ‘dude who peaked in high school’. All the melees have velious gear and primals now, enchanters have 2k life unbuffed, it’s over, you have no purpose anymore

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Why is the ‘farm crew’ setup invalid, it’s not a different type of group, it’s just the best way to setup your group. Sorry you don’t plan for moving around lol. Sorry DSM but you’re still playing tic tac toe while everyone else moved on to chess years ago. EQ1 is an extremely easy game, playing a solo shaman should be laughed at, its the EQ class version of ‘dude who peaked in high school’. All the melees have velious gear and primals now, enchanters have 2k life unbuffed, it’s over, you have no purpose anymore

It's not an invalid setup, but it is a different setup. Having people solo in different places isn't a "group" in the way people think, it is players pooling their resources.

Playing a Shaman is fine, and there are a lot of 60 Shamans that still play. Not sure why you are just saying random stuff that can be disproven with a /w all 60 shaman lol. You are making my point by saying EQ is easy. You don't need to CH pets to be efficient, precisely for that reason.

You have a weird obsession with glorifying Shamans and downplaying Mages. Two can play at that game.

Well done for making a video that completely missed the point of what we were talking about.

Mages are a fun class. I don't dislike them at all. The class just has a double whammy of having an extremely hard to get Epic combined with no real CC. They often end up as CoTH bots because of their limitations. I wish it wasn't so.

My video didn't miss the point at all. People were claiming solo videos can't be used to show how gameplay works in a group scenario, such as DPS, and they are wrong. That was the whole reason for hundreds of pages of trolling. Sorry you wasted your time with the trolling. Now you need to bring evidence showing proof of your claims that a Shaman is going to be vastly inferior to a Cleric or Mage when grouping with an Enchanter.

[Gloomlord]

Can a Shaman heal a 2 charm group? Yes.

Are they the most optimal healer for it? No.

Do they output the same DPS as a Mage? No.

Are they better than a Mage in 4th spot over when a Cleric is available? No.

As Troxx said: this isn't rocket science, DSM.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Can a Shaman heal a 2 charm group? Yes.

Are they the most optimal healer for it? No.

Do they output the same DPS as a Mage? No.

Are they better than a Mage in 4th spot over Shaman when a Cleric is available? No.

As Troxx said: this isn't rocket science, DSM.

All words no evidence. Time to prove what you say!

It also isn't rocket science as to how DPS calculations work, but here we are at page 400 where you realize you were wrong the whole time.

With your track record of trolling without evidence, you need to redeem yourself with some videos and logs showing this superior group.

[Gloomlord]

"I'm going to make a video where I heal 2 charm classes and do some paltry DPS. That'll show 'em that I was right all along about how Shamans are better than Mages in the 4th spot"

I'm the troll? LOL!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

"I'm going to make a video where I heal 2 charm classes and do some paltry DPS. That'll show 'em that I was right all along about how Shamans are better than Mages in the 4th spot"

I'm the troll? LOL!

You missed the entire point of the video. Remember when you said you can't use solo videos to show how game mechanics worked in groups? You were wrong, and so was Troxx. You can indeed parse class DPS solo, and it will reflect in a group scenario.

This invalidates the hundreds of pages of trolling.

[Gloomlord]

I said you can't use solo DPS parses as an indication of how well they fair in groups with multiple people doing DPS.

Crede just told you your DPS was lacklustre. What more do you want? You've lost the argument.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I said you can't use solo DPS parses as an indication of how well they fair in groups with multiple people doing DPS.

Crede just told you your DPS was lacklustre. What more do you want? You've lost the argument.

Do you need me to pull up the quotes? The post history is still here.

I am not sure why you think your hasty attempt to reword the argument will save you. I was in a group with multiple people doing DPS. My solo DPS video numbers matched my group DPS video numbers. You should be adult enough to admit you are wrong.

[Gloomlord]

I would humour you here, and say you were somehow able to get close to your solo DPS parse (I think you're lying anyway), but then I realised:

1. You contradicted yourself and flip-flopped. You claimed there were too many variables for a group DPS parse to mean anything, but now you're claiming they "matched"?

2. Are you telling me that, when heals are available, Mages can't do more in this situation?

3. Your video was completely irrelevant to what this discussion was about, which is if they are a viable 4th member. The answer is: "yes, if noone else is available".

I know this video was just a pathetic attempt at trying to correlate something irrelevant to the relevant issue.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I would humour you here, and say you were somehow able to get close to your solo DPS parse (I think you're lying anyway), but then I realised:

1. You contradicted yourself and flip-flopped. You claimed there were too many variables for a group DPS parse to mean anything, but now you're claiming they "matched"?

2. Are you telling me that, when heals are available, Mages can't do more in this situation?

3. Your video was completely irrelevant to what this discussion was about, which is if they are a viable 4th member. The answer is: "yes, if noone else is available".

I know this video was just a pathetic attempt at trying to correlate something irrelevant to the relevant issue.

You still don't understand what I meant by too many variables. The point of that quote is simply that you can have a group where a Mage does terrible DPS. That doesn't mean the Mage class does terrible DPS, or they can't match solo DPS in a group scenario. This is a huge stretch on your part.

The point of the video is to show you are incorrect about being unable to use solo videos to show things like DPS in group scenarios, which was the cause of the hundreds of pages of trolling.

Stop trying to change the subject.

[Gloomlord]

Aren't you the one changing the subject?

You can have someone doing solo DPS mechanics on any class incorrectly. What difference does that make?

In order for this discussion to finally be put to bed, we need a parse with a Shaman doing DPS with 2 Enchanters and 1 Cleric, and another parse with a Mage substituted.

What on Earth is a video about a 3 man group with 1 Necromancer and 1 Enchanter, where you're healing, prove Shaman do more than Mage in a 4 man group with 2 Enchanters and 1 Cleric?

And if this point was to prove you matched your solo parse, then that's just stupid anyway. You can't sustain that DPS for very long, and you're healing in a trio. Put that in a 4 man, and Shamans quickly become useless compared to a Mage -- who are going to sustain higher DPS for much much longer.

Someone else want to take over now? Jesus Christ, this guy is insane.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Aren't you the one changing the subject?

You can have someone doing solo DPS mechanics on any class incorrectly. What difference does that make?

In order for this discussion to finally be put to bed, we need a parse with a Shaman doing DPS with 2 Enchanters and 1 Cleric, and another parse with a Mage substituted.

What on Earth is a video about a 3 man group with 1 Necromancer and 1 Enchanter, where you're healing, prove Shaman do more than Mage in a 4 man group with 2 Enchanters and 1 Cleric?

And if this point was to prove you matched your solo parse, then that's just stupid anyway. You can't sustain that DPS for very long, and you're healing in a trio. Put that in a 4 man, and Shamans quickly become useless compared to a Mage -- who are going to sustain higher DPS for much much longer.

Someone else want to take over now? Jesus Christ, this guy is insane.

I am not changing the subject at all. The hundreds of pages of trolling in this thread stemmed from the idea that you cannot use a solo video to describe how a class's DPS works in a group scenario.

Early in the thread, I created https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XwiGKTuu2E , showing me casting at least 1 Ice Strike per 36 second average monster encounter.

In my latest video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG1Aat1XdbI you have 77 dead mobs, 77 Ice Strikes, and 40 second average monster encounters over a 2 hour period. This is sustained DPS over a long period of time, while I was also doing my other Shaman duties.

I was correct that you can create a solo DPS video that mimics sustained group DPS. Therefore, you cannot simply invalidate the evidence I have provided thus far.

It is now time that you provide evidence showing how a Cleric or Mage will be superior to a Shaman in a four man group. It is not reasonable for you to keep asking other people for evidence, while providing nothing in return.

[Guesty07]

I'll take mage every time. And I'm a 60 shaman!

[Karanis]

We're back!

22200

22202

22201

[fortior]

Lol check his magelo

[Vexenu]

In my latest video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG1Aat1XdbI you have 77 dead mobs, 77 Ice Strikes, and 40 second average monster encounters over a 2 hour period. This is sustained DPS over a long period of time, while I was also doing my other Shaman duties.

Do you really think that landing a single 675 DD nuke per kill on mobs with 6-10k HP counts as "sustained DPS"?

In the video, you made plenty of other contributions to the trio besides DPS, so throwing out a nuke here and there is perfectly fine. But in a theoretical 4 man group with 2 Enchanter pets DPSing/tanking and a Cleric healing, you aren't needed for anything but slowing, buffing pets and DPSing. And given that spamming JBB is your best sustained DPS, along with your pet and the occasional Bane of Nife or Ice Strike, you won't even be maintaining 50 DPS over a long grind.

[Gloomlord]

https://media.tenor.com/BavBK3M7Be0AAAAM/man-talking.gif

This is what it's like talking to DSM, Karanis. I concur.

Reason cannot penetrate this creature.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Do you really think that landing a single 675 DD nuke per kill on mobs with 6-10k HP counts as "sustained DPS"?


The definition of sustained is "continuing for an extended period or without interruption".

Landing one Ice Strike per mob on average is indeed the definition of sustained DPS.

This is why you can create a solo video mimicking a group situation. You just need to math out how many offensive spells you can cast on a mob per fight. This is just a question of average fight duration, average time between pulls, and respawn timers.


In the video, you made plenty of other contributions to the trio besides DPS, so throwing out a nuke here and there is perfectly fine. But in a theoretical 4 man group with 2 Enchanter pets DPSing/tanking and a Cleric healing, you aren't needed for anything but slowing, buffing pets and DPSing. And given that spamming JBB is your best sustained DPS, along with your pet and the occasional Bane of Nife or Ice Strike, you won't even be maintaining 50 DPS over a long grind.

Let me ask you this. If DPS is a primary factor for your play preferences, Wouldn't Enchanter/Enchanter/Enchanter/Shaman be better since the Shaman is providing DPS, while a Cleric is not?

I clearly showed in my video that the Shaman can do all of the tanking for the pets, so you don't need CH to keep the pets up. This means in this group the Shaman is providing at least 30 DPS over a Cleric. DPS will be a bit higher with buffing the Charmed pets with Avatar, and having the pets attack from behind for the entire fight. I just haven't parsed that yet to know the exact amount.

[Crede]

The definition of sustained is "continuing for an extended period or without interruption".

Landing one Ice Strike per mob on average is indeed the definition of sustained DPS.

This is why you can create a solo video mimicking a group situation. You just need to math out how many offensive spells you can cast on a mob per fight. This is just a question of average fight duration, average time between pulls, and respawn timers.



Let me ask you this. If DPS is a primary factor for your play preferences, Wouldn't Enchanter/Enchanter/Enchanter/Shaman be better since the Shaman is providing DPS, while a Cleric is not?

I clearly showed in my video that the Shaman can do all of the tanking for the pets, so you don't need CH to keep the pets up. This means in this group the Shaman is providing at least 30 DPS over a Cleric. DPS will be a bit higher with buffing the Charmed pets with Avatar, and having the pets attack from behind for the entire fight. I just haven't parsed that yet to know the exact amount.

It’s funny and also embarrassing to watch you cherry pick quotes to try to win an argument.

“I sustained dps”. “Solo dps = group dps, I debunked you fools! Muahah.”

You’ve just shown us that shamans are shit tier group dps, which we already know. And people would rather take cleric heals. It’s safer than torpor, and you also get rez, aego, and aoe stun. Better overall utility. So shaman loses to a cleric in heals. And shaman loses to a mage in dps by a large margin. This is a 4 man group, so we don’t have to settle for shaman inferiority. We can pick the best of the best.

It’s really that simple, I’m not sure why you think shamans have to fit into every group composition just because they’re good soloers.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

It’s funny and also embarrassing to watch you cherry pick quotes to try to win an argument.

“I sustained dps”. “Solo dps = group dps, I debunked you fools! Muahah.”

You’ve just shown us that shamans are shit tier group dps, which we already know. And people would rather take cleric heals. It’s safer than torpor, and you also get rez, aego, and aoe stun. Better overall utility. So shaman loses to a cleric in heals. And shaman loses to a mage in dps by a large margin. This is a 4 man group, so we don’t have to settle for shaman inferiority. We can pick the best of the best.

It’s really that simple, I’m not sure why you think shamans have to fit into every group composition just because they’re good soloers.

A lot of random accusations with no merit. Still no evidence of any kind to back up your claims.

People can see the hundreds of pages of trolling wasn't worth it, considering it was trivial to show that you can use solo videos to mimic group situations when determining class DPS. The trolling is what was embarrassing here.

The only people trying to force a class into every composition are the people claiming you cannot be efficient unless you pick a Cleric. They are doing this without evidence, and have yet to provide any. I am not claiming Cleric is a bad pick here, nor am I forcing people to pick Shaman. This group is not doing content that requires a Warrior discing, it doesn't have a Warrior.

[Ripqozko]

DSM is the new face of kittens, I feel kinda bad for them.

[Vexenu]

I clearly showed in my video that the Shaman can do all of the tanking for the pets, so you don't need CH to keep the pets up. This means in this group the Shaman is providing at least 30 DPS over a Cleric. DPS will be a bit higher with buffing the Charmed pets with Avatar, and having the pets attack from behind for the entire fight. I just haven't parsed that yet to know the exact amount.
If you want to talk about a Shaman Torpor tanking, slowing, healing and pulling like you did in that video, that's a different conversation than a Shaman DPSing. Obviously a Shaman can do those things well. But a Shaman cannot do those things and also DPS at the same time. Casting one nuke per mob is NOT sustained DPS by any reasonable definition. It's the exact reason why nobody invites Wizards to their leveling groups: because even at low levels, casting one nuke per mob is very poor DPS, and this already woeful DPS gets even worse as you level and mob HP increases. The absolute best DPS you can maintain as a Shaman will be from JBB spam + pet, which is around 47 sustained DPS. And the moment you start casting other spells like canni, Torpor, slow, etc... that DPS goes straight into the toilet, because the 32 DPS of the JBB spam is doing the bulk of the work.

A theoretical Enc/Enc/Enc/Shm group with the Shaman tanking could work fine at 60, but would be MUCH weaker from 1-59 and until the Shaman is raid geared and has Torpor. Conversely, a group with a Cleric has access to CH from level 39 on, and the Cleric requires basically no gear to be effective.

The Necro/Ench you trioed with in your video would have done just as well with a skilled 60 Cleric supporting them. Plenty of healing, stuns on charm breaks, can even toss in some undead nukes. They also would have done basically as well with a 55 Cleric supporting them. But if your Shaman was level 55, guess what? It would have been SHIT, because you rely entirely on Torpor for your strategy to be even marginally effective.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

A theoretical Enc/Enc/Enc/Shm group with the Shaman tanking could work fine at 60.


You seem to be agreeing with me then. I have always been talking about the four man group at level 60. I don't see the benefit of min/maxing the group from 1-59 since it is easy to level to 60 with a four man group, unless you do something odd like four Rogues. You want to build your group around what you want to do at level 60. If you are the type of player that never gets to 60, this thread isn't as relevant. You can level quickly with 4 Mages, and stop in your 50s or where-ever you typically end up stopping if you just want to play with friends and not worry about end game content.


but would be MUCH weaker from 1-59 and until the Shaman is raid geared and has Torpor. Conversely, a group with a Cleric has access to CH from level 39 on, and the Cleric requires basically no gear to be effective.


I disagree here. The Shaman only needs Torpor, they don't need raid gear to Torpor Tank. Enchanter spells are expensive as well, so the group is planning on buying quite a few expensive spells anyway.

Also, people don't really think about the math of CH at lower levels. Here is a post I made in a different thread:

Let me put it another way. Looking at my parses, my 51 Monk took 1200 damage from fighting a level 42 guard. My Monk has 1800 HP, so that would have been CH'ed. That means CH is a 3 to 1 mana ratio in this scenario.

With https://wiki.project1999.com/Tagar%27s_Insects , a 51 Shaman is slowing for around 45% at 125 mana. That reduces the 1200 damage to 660 damage. If you spend 250 mana on Superior Healing, that reduces the total damage taken to 136. At level 52 with Regrowth, that 136 is reduced to zero if the fight lasted a minute.

For 395 mana (including 20 mana a minute for Regrowth) the Shaman mitigated the same damage as the CH. CH costs 400 mana.

Realistically a Cleric isn't even doing that much better than a Shaman until the group is in it's 50s in terms of healing. CH efficiency is dependent on max HP, which a lower level player or lower level charmed pet has less of.

[Vexenu]

You seem to be agreeing with me then. I have always been talking about the four man group at level 60.
Ok, but if you're optimizing the group just for performance at 60, then the comp should be Enc/Enc/Clr/Wiz, as fortior pointed out. The two Enchanters provide tanking, slowing, pulling and sustained DPS, the Cleric provides healing, buffing and rezzing, and the Wizard provides snare, ports (incl. to Hate) and massive burst DPS for named (as well as sustained mana-free 56 DPS if we assume a Rend Robe).

Since you won't be grinding XP at 60, you aren't really interested in a theoretical "kills per hour" group efficiency rating, rather, you would logically be more interested in a "how many valuable targets can we safely and reliably kill per play session" rating. The Wizard greatly enhances the latter rating with his ports, snare and burst DPS, while the Shaman adds basically nothing.

In conclusion, we can thus safely say that:

1-59 you'd want Enc/Enc/Clr/Mag or Nec (tossup depending on player preference/zone choice/etc...)

60 you'd want Enc/Enc/Clr/Wiz

The question has now been officially settled and the thread can be closed. DSM, you may return to Oggok.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Ok, but if you're optimizing the group just for performance at 60, then the comp should be Enc/Enc/Clr/Wiz, as fortior pointed out. The two Enchanters provide tanking, slowing, pulling and sustained DPS, the Cleric provides healing, buffing and rezzing, and the Wizard provides snare, ports (incl. to Hate) and massive burst DPS for named (as well as sustained mana-free 56 DPS if we assume a Rend Robe).

Since you won't be grinding XP at 60, you aren't really interested in a theoretical "kills per hour" group efficiency rating, rather, you would logically be more interested in a "how many valuable targets can we safely and reliably kill per play session" rating. The Wizard greatly enhances the latter rating with his ports, snare and burst DPS, while the Shaman adds basically nothing.

In conclusion, we can thus safely say that:

1-59 you'd want Enc/Enc/Clr/Mag or Nec (tossup depending on player preference/zone choice/etc...)

60 you'd want Enc/Enc/Clr/Wiz

The question has now been officially settled and the thread can be closed. DSM, you may return to Oggok.

Shaman is better in Fortior's "solo farm crew" idea because the Shaman with Torpor can solo something like A4 when there are no duo targets available to snipe. With a Cleric you would be forced to have a Cleric/Enchanter or Cleric/Wizard duo, so you can't spread out as much. Having a Shaman is much more flexible. I can't think of anything that a Cleric/Enchanter duo could do that a Shaman/Enchanter duo could not do at 60. The Shaman's strength at soloing is a bigger factor in the "solo farm crew" idea.

You would want Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter/Wizard for the level 60 "solo farm crew".

If you never plan on getting to level 60, group composition doesn't matter as much. Four Mages will level quickly if you are worried about leveling speed, for example.

[cyxthryth]

Shaman is better in fortior's solo farm crew idea because the Shaman with Torpor can solo something like A4 when there are no duo targets available to snipe. With a Cleric you would be forced to have a Cleric/Enchanter or Cleric/Wizard duo, so you can't spread out as much. Having a Shaman is much more flexible. I can't think of anything that a Cleric/Enchanter duo could do that a Shaman/Enchanter duo could not do at 60. The Shaman's strength at soloing is a bigger factor in the solo farm crew idea.

You would want Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter/Wizard.

It seems you might have missed where Vexenu said "how many valuable targets can we safely and reliably kill" in their post. Even discounting stuns and CH, a Cleric is simply safer and more reliable than a Shaman because the Cleric class can Pacify, Atone & Rez and therefore, even if the group nearly wipes they can camp the cleric & log back in to rez & recover. This means even if the Cleric is the only person in the 4-man group who survived, the group with Cleric healer has a non-zero chance to recover their entire group then-and-there, without needing to find and/or wait (AND/OR PAY) for rezzes, drags or corpse summons, etc. The Shaman toolkit doesn't have an answer for this scenario and the Cleric's does. It's as simple as that.

[Vexenu]

Shaman is better in fortior's solo farm crew idea because the Shaman with Torpor can solo something like A4 when there are no duo targets available to snipe. With a Cleric you would be forced to have a Cleric/Enchanter or Cleric/Wizard duo, so you can't spread out as much. Having a Shaman is much more flexible. I can't think of anything that a Cleric/Enchanter duo could do that a Shaman/Enchanter duo could not do at 60. The Shaman's strength at soloing is a bigger factor in the solo farm crew idea.

You would want Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter/Wizard.
I think most players who do not maintain a permanent residence in Oggok would agree that the Cleric brings more value to this group than the Shaman, if only for the fact that if you are running around attempting risky stuff all the time you are inevitably going to die on a regular basis. Having rez in that case is obviously very desirable. Maintaining Aego on charming Enchanters is also very helpful for preventing death in the first place, as are the Cleric's stuns. The idea that the Shaman is preferable for the group "because he solos better" is asinine. We're all the way back to your ridiculous argument about a Shaman DPSing by rooting rotting mobs next to the charm killing group.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I think most players who do not maintain a permanent residence in Oggok would agree that the Cleric brings more value to this group than the Shaman, if only for the fact that if you are running around attempting risky stuff all the time you are inevitably going to die on a regular basis. Having rez in that case is obviously very desirable. Maintaining Aego on charming Enchanters is also very helpful for preventing death in the first place, as are the Cleric's stuns. The idea that the Shaman is preferable for the group "because he solos better" is asinine. We're all the way back to your ridiculous argument about a Shaman DPSing by rooting rotting mobs next to the charm killing group.

I don't think it is asinine that the Shaman can solo A4 when you don't need a duo. Getting a 40K drop in PoM while your Enchanter is soloing in SG seems pretty good to me!

A farm crew like that can easily level a pocket cleric if they want res on demand. Or the Wizard can just port a Cleric to the bodies. It's really not difficult to do this with a dedicated porter.

[Vexenu]

I don't think it is asinine that the Shaman can solo A4 when you don't need a duo. Getting a 40K drop in PoM while your Enchanter is soloing in SG seems pretty good to me!

A farm crew like that can easily level a pocket cleric if they want res on demand. Or the Wizard can just port a Cleric to the bodies. It's really not difficult to do this.
Conversely, the farm crew could maintain a pocket Shaman parked at A4!

Checkmate.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Conversely, the farm crew could maintain a pocket Shaman parked at A4!

Checkmate.

It's much easier/cheaper/faster to level a pocket cleric to 49, instead of leveling a Shaman to 60 with Torpor. That is a silly argument. You want your main characters to be the classes that benefit from being level 60 the most. If you are part of a guild you may even have cleric bots already leveled and available!

[Vexenu]

It's much easier/cheaper/faster to level a pocket cleric to 49, instead of leveling a Shaman to 60 with Torpor. That is a silly argument. You want your main characters to be the classes that benefit from being level 60 the most.
Of course it's a silly argument, the point is it's inherently a silly argument to start talking about pocket ANYTHING when you're discussing a 4 man group, because at that point it becomes an entirely different conversation altogether. The discussion must be limited to the abilities of the 4 classes in question, otherwise it's meaningless, because most serious players have multiple geared level 60 characters they can bring in if needed, meaning that a "4 man group" theoretically has access to every class, which renders the entire discussion moot.

[cyxthryth]

most serious players have multiple geared level 60 characters they can bring in if needed

Vexenu is absolutely 100% correct about this. I wonder how many geared level 60's DSM has!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Of course it's a silly argument, the point is it's inherently a silly argument to start talking about pocket ANYTHING when you're discussing a 4 man group, because at that point it becomes an entirely different conversation altogether. The discussion must be limited to the abilities of the 4 classes in question, otherwise it's meaningless, because most serious players have multiple geared level 60 characters they can bring in if needed, meaning that a "4 man group" theoretically has access to every class, which renders the entire discussion moot.

No, that is not correct at all. It takes a lot longer to level and gear multiple level 60s. Converesly, plenty of people level pocket Clerics instead of making a new level 60 character. You can stop leveling the cleric at 49. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

And again, since you have a Wizard, it isn't difficult to get a random Cleric to help you out. You aren't including a Necromancer for corpse summons, even though that would be convenient. Why? Because you can ask other people to help! The same principle applies for resing.

I wonder how many geared level 60's DSM has!

That is my point exactly. I have only 1 level 60 character, and plenty of characters around level 50 lol. Why? because leveling from 1-50 is much easier and faster. It is a silly argument to say you can make a "pocket Torpor Shaman".

[Vexenu]

No, that is not correct at all. It takes a lot longer to level and gear multiple level 60s. Converesly, plenty of people level pocket Clerics instead of making a new level 60 character.

It's an apples to oranges comparison. And again, since you have a Wizard, it isn't difficult to get a random Cleric to help you out.
Tell me if I'm understanding your thinking correctly. Here is basically what you've been saying, as far as I can tell:

1) Shamans are great group DPS, because they can root rot different mobs off to the side of the group to take full advantage of their long duration DoTs.

2) Shamans are great in a farm group because they can split off and solo mobs while the rest of the group does something else.

3) Shamans are overall better than Clerics in a 4 man group because you can always just log on a pocket Cleric to provide a rez.

Is this a fair assessment of your views?

[cyxthryth]

It seems you might have missed where Vexenu said "how many valuable targets can we safely and reliably kill" in their post. Even discounting stuns and CH, a Cleric is simply safer and more reliable than a Shaman because the Cleric class can Pacify, Atone & Rez and therefore, even if the group nearly wipes they can camp the cleric & log back in to rez & recover. This means even if the Cleric is the only person in the 4-man group who survived, the group with Cleric healer has a non-zero chance to recover their entire group then-and-there, without needing to find and/or wait (AND/OR PAY) for rezzes, drags or corpse summons, etc. The Shaman toolkit doesn't have an answer for this scenario and the Cleric's does. It's as simple as that.

Cleric is simply safer & more reliable than Shaman, because a Cleric's superior utility over a Shaman's simply offers safer & more reliable solutions to inevitable deaths/wipes, which Shaman's toolkit simply has no answer for.

DSM agrees:

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.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Tell me if I'm understanding your thinking correctly. Here is basically what you've been saying, as far as I can tell:

1) Shamans are great group DPS, because they can root rot different mobs off to the side of the group to take full advantage of their long duration DoTs.

2) Shamans are great in a farm group because they can split off and solo mobs while the rest of the group does something else.

3) Shamans are overall better than Clerics in a 4 man group because you can always just log on a pocket Cleric to provide a rez.

Is this a fair assessment of your views?

1) In an XP group where the mobs are trivial and the Enchanters do not need a Cleric/Shaman for backup, the Shaman can Root Rot for more DPS if the group wants it. This is not always necessary because 2x Enchanters are already doing a ton of DPS. DPS has diminishing returns after a certain point due to 30 minute spawn timers in most zones. That is why brining more DPS, such as a Mage, will not always translate into more kills per hour. If there is a small gain in kills per hour, maybe 5 mobs or something, the Shaman's extra utility is still going to be better, because it reduces the chance of a group wipe, and you are sacrificing very little XP for that benefit. There is a reason why you don't see a lot of 6 player XP groups. The extra DPS from adding 2-3 players simply does not translate to enough XP to justify the extra DPS.

2) A Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter/Wizard solo farm crew can split off and solo at 3-4 separate camps when there are no duo/group targets in window. If you are sniping something like Magi in Hate, he has a long respawn timer, so it isn't like you are always in a situation where you are camping something that requires a duo or group. With a Cleric, you reduce the possible split to 2-3 separate camps, which means you have less flexibility. Fortior's idea is to have the group split up into solo players to maximize gains. The Shaman is NOT the only solo player in this scenario.

3) It is a fact that pocket Clerics are a common strategy on P99, because leveling to 49 is not difficult. Individual players and guilds do it. Denying this fact is not benefiting the conversation. If you are opposed to creating a pocket Cleric for some strange reason, you can usually find a Cleric who is willing to res you if you tip them. The Wizard can provide the ports, so it isn't a problem.

[cyxthryth]

1) In an XP group the Shaman can Root Rot. This is not necessary

Even though you argued fervently for tens? hundreds? of posts that you did/could/can, to this day you - still - have provided zero evidence that you have ever done such a thing to multiple mobs parallel to a group (that you are currently in), let alone that such a thing occurs often/frequently,

2) A Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter/Wizard solo farm crew can split off and solo at 3-4 separate camps when there are no duo/group targets in window. If you are sniping something like Magi in Hate, he has a long respawn timer, so it isn't like you are always in a situation where you are camping something that requires a duo or group. With a Cleric, you reduce the possible split to 2-3 separate camps, which means you have less flexibility. Fortior's idea is to have the group split up into solo players to maximize gains.

To "maximize gains" you simply need a Cleric's utility to offset inevitable deaths/wipes. Friendly reminder:


Cleric is simply safer & more reliable than Shaman, because a Cleric's superior utility over a Shaman's simply offers safer & more reliable solutions to inevitable deaths/wipes, which Shaman's toolkit simply has no answer for.

DSM agrees:

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.

3) It is a fact that pocket Clerics are a common strategy on P99, because leveling to 49 is not difficult. Individual players and guilds do it. Denying this fact is not benefiting the conversation. If you are opposed to creating a pocket Cleric for some strange reason, you can usually find a Cleric who is willing to res you if you tip them.

It is a fact that this conversation is about a 4-player group consisting of only casters/priests, arguing for the inclusion of pocket characters in addition to the 4 players which make up said hypothetical group in order to decide what is "best" is not benefiting the conversation. If you are opposed to staying on-topic for this thread for some strange reason, you can find plenty of other threads which do not specify this ONE (1) singular specification. Just like when someone else tried to start on "apples to apples" or "oranges to oranges" terms with you and you rejected/declined their starting conditions, I reject your attempt at insisting the starting condition be "for the purposes of this discussion you can include pocket characters".

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You have provided zero evidence that you have ever done such a thing, let alone that such a thing occurs often/frequently.


You have provided zero evidence for all of your claims thus far. I have actually provided evidence for multiple claims in this thread, while you have not.

You don't have to believe me when I say I have root rotted in a group before, just like nobody else has to believe you when you say Shamans are a not a good option, and inferior to Clerics in this scenario:)

[Vexenu]

I think the general problem is that:

1) You overestimate the abilities of the Shaman class. You do this through a bit of rhetorical slight of hand, whereby you change your arguments in favor of the Shaman based on the various different roles the Shaman can play. On the surface this makes sense, because the Shaman is a generalist class with a decent amount of utility. But the problem is that the Shaman cannot perform all of these roles at the same time, and in a 4 man group all of the roles the Shaman fills best are already filled by the Enchanter and Cleric, leaving the Shaman either to tank or DPS, neither of which it does better than other available classes (or charm pets).

2) You underestimate the abilities of the Cleric class. Clerics provide more than just rezzing, and a level 49 Pocket Cleric is not the same thing as a well-played and geared level 60 Cleric in group. Beyond CH, which is inarguably superior to Torpor, Clerics also bring substantial HP buffs and stuns, both of which make charming (which, I will remind you, is the bread and butter of a group with two Enchanters) much safer. A Cleric also requires much less APM than a Shaman and thus is much less susceptible to make mistakes due to player fatigue/laziness.

3) You discount the value of group synergy and assume the Shaman's strength as a soloer makes it fit for every group composition. Yes, the Shaman is very good at soloing using certain specific tactics. But solo tactics do not always translate to group tactics, i.e. a Necro can solo well by fear kiting, but fear kiting becomes extremely annoying and impractical if you have melee players in the group. Your love for the Shaman class makes you want to shoehorn it into every conceivable place it might fit, while ignoring the obvious fact that other classes would often perform better in its place.

[cyxthryth]

You have provided zero evidence for all of your claims thus far. I have actually provided evidence for multiple claims in this thread, while you have not.

You don't have to believe me when I say I have root rotted in a group before, just like nobody else has to believe you when you say Shamans are a not a good option, and inferior to Clerics in this scenario:)

I have made no claims, merely stated irrefutable facts and asked simple questions.

You have provided irrelevant evidence - the former/older was irrelevant because you were solo, the current/newer is irrelevant because not only were you in a 3-man group but you were simply not DPSing like you argued you can/could for tens? hundreds? of posts.

Nobody "has to believe" anything, irrefutable facts will remain irrefutable facts.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I think the general problem is that:

1) You overestimate the abilities of the Shaman class. You do this through a bit of rhetorical slight of hand, whereby you change your arguments in favor of the Shaman based on the various different roles the Shaman can play. On the surface this makes sense, because the Shaman is a generalist class with a decent amount of utility. But the problem is that the Shaman cannot perform all of these roles at the same time, and in a 4 man group all of the roles the Shaman fills best are already filled by the Enchanter and Cleric, leaving the Shaman either to tank or DPS, neither of which it does better than other available classes (or charm pets).

2) You underestimate the abilities of the Cleric class. Clerics provide more than just rezzing, and a level 49 Pocket Cleric is not the same thing as a well-played and geared level 60 Cleric in group. Beyond CH, which is inarguably superior to Torpor, Clerics also bring substantial HP buffs and stuns, both of which make charming (which, I will remind you, is the bread and butter of a group with two Enchanters) much safer. A Cleric also requires much less APM than a Shaman and thus is much less susceptible to make mistakes due to player fatigue/laziness.

3) You discount the value of group synergy and assume the Shaman's strength as a soloer makes it fit for every group composition. Yes, the Shaman is very good at soloing using certain specific tactics. But solo tactics do not always translate to group tactics, i.e. a Necro can solo well by fear kiting, but fear kiting becomes extremely annoying and impractical if you have melee players in the group. Your love for the Shaman class makes you want to shoehorn it into every conceivable place it might fit, while ignoring the obvious fact that other classes would often perform better in its place.

1) I think the problem is reversed. You underestimate the abilities of the Shaman class. I have multiple videos showing a Shaman's capabilities, while you have no evidence showing the equivalent for a Cleric. You cannot back up anything you are saying, while I can.

2) I am not underestimating Clerics at all. They are a fantastic class. The simple truth is most content that doesn't require a Warrior discing is tankable with Torpor + Slow. Therefore you do not need CH, and pocket clerics are an easy solution for resing. Please do not bring fatigue into this. Enchanters are also a high stress class. You are always paying attention to make sure your pet doesn't break, you are casting a lot of spells, etc. If that was a serious factor here, people wouldn't suggest Enchanter/Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric.

3) I think Shamans synergize very well with groups. That is why I am suggesting it! Again, you are the person claiming Shamans bring little to a group. You need to provide evidence for this claim. You are simply misunderstanding my argument about why the best solo classes are also great group classes. Enchanters are the best solo class because they can manipulate the game better than any other class, both in solo and group situations. Shamans can also manipulate the game very well, because they have a unique method to tank and quickly recover mana. That is why they are very strong in both solo and group situations. Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a very strong trio for this reason.

[cyxthryth]

1) I think the problem is reversed. You underestimate the abilities of the Shaman class. I have multiple videos showing a Shaman's capabilities, while you have no evidence showing the equivalent for a Cleric. You cannot back up anything you are saying, while I can.

# of posts about Shamans improving the DPS of their group via Root-Rotting mulitple mobs parallel to the group: tens? hundreds?
# of posts including evidence of such: 0

2) I am not underestimating Clerics at all. They are a fantastic class. The simple truth is most content a group that doesn't need a Warrior is doing is tankable with Torpor + Slow. Therefore you do not need CH, and pocket clerics are an easy solution for resing. Please do not bring fatigue into this. Enchanters are also a high stress class. You are always paying attention to make sure your pet doesn't break, you are casting a lot of spells, etc.

Constantly cannibalizing over long periods/gameplay sessions = fatigue

Stress because a Charm might break =/= fatigue from constantly Cannibalizing

Paying attention because a Charm might break =/= fatigue from constantly Cannibalizing

Enc is casting a lot of spells =/= fatigue of equivalently "casting a lot of spells" Shaman who will be constantly Cannibalizing in addition to "casting a lot of spells"


3) I think Shamans synergize very well with groups. Again, you are the person claiming they bring nothing to a group. You need to provide evidence for this claim. You are simply misunderstanding my argument about why solo classes are also good group classes. Enchanters are the best solo class because they can manipulate the game better than any other class, both in a solo and group situation. Shamans can also manipulate the game very well, because they have a unique method to tank and quickly recover mana.

Did you forget about the tens? hundreds? of posts you made claiming Shaman can improve group DPS by Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group? None of your "evidence" has included your Shaman doing this. Again, you are the person claiming you can do this. You need to provide evidence for this claim.

[Vexenu]

You have stated your arguments repeatedly, but the vast majority of the fellow EQ veterans who comprise this forum have not found them compelling. If this were a trial, you would lose, and a jury of your peers would find you guilty of Shaman fanboyism to a unhealthy degree. The punishment is having your character permanently exiled to Oggok, where you will live out the rest of your days buffing the Bouncers and killing the wandering level 2 Armadillo. Eventually, you will run out of banked plat and no longer be able to afford food and water, at which point you will be forced to beg from the players who come in to farm the guards.

"Please, sir, can you spare a plat for a starving Ogre, I am hungry," you will say. The player, probably some upstart level 40 Mage or Necro, will stare at you curiously, before finally saying. "Aren't you that DSM fella? The guy who got exiled here for Shaman fanboyism?" at which you will be forced to nod meekly. They will laugh and drop transfer you a fine steel short sword (refusing to even sully themselves by opening a trade window with such an infamous character as yourself), which you will delightedly run off and vendor for a few plat, relieved to be able to afford the loaves of bread and bottles milk that sustain you in your exile.

This is the fate you chose. It didn't have to be this way, DSM. But you just couldn't help yourself.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

# of posts about Shamans improving the DPS of their group via Root-Rotting mobs parallel to the group: tens? hundreds?
# of posts including evidence of such: 0



Constantly cannibalizing over long periods/gameplay sessions = fatigue

Stress because a Charm might break =/= fatigue from constantly Cannibalizing

Paying attention because a Charm might break =/= fatigue from constantly Cannibalizing




Did you forget about the tens? hundreds? of posts you made claiming Shaman can improve group DPS by Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group? None of your "evidence" has included your Shaman doing this. Again, you are the person claiming you can do this. You need to provide evidence for this claim.

The number of posts you have in this thread is 376, which is basically your entire post count.

You have no posts that contain any evidence for anything you are saying. I am not sure what you are trying to argue here. If your point is that every claim needs some evidence, you need to start that first. I have provided multiple pieces of evidence for multiple claims thus far.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You have stated your arguments repeatedly, but the vast majority of the fellow EQ veterans who comprise this forum have not found them compelling. If this were a trial, you would lose, and a jury of your peers would find you guilty of Shaman fanboyism to a unhealthy degree. The punishment is having your character permanently exiled to Oggok, where you will live out the rest of your days buffing the Bouncers and killing the wandering level 2 Armadillo. Eventually, you will run out of banked plat and no longer be able to afford food and water, at which point you will be forced to beg from the players who come in to farm the guards.

"Please, sir, can you spare a plat for a starving Ogre, I am hungry," you will say. The player, probably some upstart level 40 Mage or Necro, will stare at you curiously, before finally saying. "Aren't you that DSM fella? The guy who got exiled here for Shaman fanboyism?" at which you will be forced to nod meekly. They will laugh and drop transfer you a fine steel short sword (refusing to even sully themselves by opening a trade window with such an infamous character as yourself), which you will delightedly run off and vendor for a few plat, relieved to be able to afford the loaves of bread and bottles milk that sustain you in your exile.

This is the fate you chose. It didn't have to be this way, DSM. But you just couldn't help yourself.

When you can't rebut my arguments or evidence, you go back to simply saying "I am right and you are wrong, because other people agree with me". Ad populum fallacies are not compelling.

Your comparison to a jury trial is also irrelevant. A trial can find an innocent man guilty, or vice versa. The truth of a matter is not tied to the result of a jury trial.

A lot of these "veterans" who disagreed with me were also trolling for hundreds of pages. I am not sure why you think people who turned to trolling for hundreds of pages are credible. If my argument was so easy to rebut, someone would have made a video by now.

[cyxthryth]

The number of posts you have in this thread is 376, which is basically your entire post count.

You have no posts that contain any evidence for anything you are saying. I am not sure what you are trying to argue here. If your point is that every claim needs some evidence, you need to start that first. I have provided multiple pieces of evidence for multiple claims thus far.

The evidence which proves you have made tens? hundreds? of posts claiming that Shamans can improve group DPS by Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group - while providing exactly zero evidence that your Shaman has ever done such a thing, much less that it is a common/frequent occurrence - is this entire thread.

Furthermore, I have made no claims in this thread, I have only stated irrefutable facts - like the above - and asked simple questions.

[cyxthryth]

my evidence


# of posts about Shamans improving the DPS of their group via Root-Rotting mulitple mobs parallel to the group: tens? hundreds?

# of posts including evidence of such: 0


The evidence which proves you have made tens? hundreds? of posts claiming that Shamans can improve group DPS by Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group - while providing exactly zero evidence that your Shaman has ever done such a thing, much less that it is a common/frequent occurrence - is this entire thread.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The evidence which proves you have made tens? hundreds? of posts claiming that Shamans can improve group DPS by Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group - while providing exactly zero evidence that your Shaman has ever done such a thing, much less that it is a common/frequent occurrence - is this entire thread.

Furthermore, I have made no claims in this thread, I have only stated irrefutable facts - like the above - and asked simple questions.

Simply saying you haven't made any claims doesn't mean anything. You seem to have forgotten what you posted two pages ago:

Cleric is simply safer & more reliable than Shaman, because a Cleric's superior utility over a Shaman's simply offers safer & more reliable solutions to inevitable deaths/wipes, which Shaman's toolkit simply has no answer for.


Where is your evidence for that?

I predict your next post will not contain any evidence, and you will simply try to redirect asking for evidence back to me.

[cyxthryth]

Simply saying you haven't made any claims doesn't mean anything. You seem to have forgotten what you posted two pages ago:
Where is your evidence for that?

Perhaps you ignored my previous post in which I explained that the reason I stated the objective fact that Clerics are safer & more reliable (than Shaman in particular) is that Clerics simply have tools (Paci, Atone, Rez) which Shamans simply do not have, that make Clerics safer and more reliable for their group in the face of - inevitable - deaths & wipes:


It seems you might have missed where Vexenu said "how many valuable targets can we safely and reliably kill" in their post. Even discounting stuns and CH, a Cleric is simply safer and more reliable than a Shaman because the Cleric class can Pacify, Atone & Rez and therefore, even if the group nearly wipes they can camp the cleric & log back in to rez & recover. This means even if the Cleric is the only person in the 4-man group who survived, the group with Cleric healer has a non-zero chance to recover their entire group then-and-there, without needing to find and/or wait (AND/OR PAY) for rezzes, drags or corpse summons, etc. The Shaman toolkit doesn't have an answer for this scenario and the Cleric's does. It's as simple as that.

Additional evidence can be found in Cleric spellbooks (and NOT Shaman spellbooks) or I guess you can refer to the Wiki for the level at which Cleric receives the relevant spells if that is important to you. :)

I predict your next post will not contain any evidence, and you will simply try to redirect asking for evidence back to me.

Just in case you also ignored these -


# of posts about Shamans improving the DPS of their group via Root-Rotting mulitple mobs parallel to the group: tens? hundreds?

# of posts including evidence of such: 0


The evidence which proves you have made tens? hundreds? of posts claiming that Shamans can improve group DPS by Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group - while providing exactly zero evidence that your Shaman has ever done such a thing, much less that it is a common/frequent occurrence - is this entire thread.

:)

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Perhaps you ignored my previous post in which I explained that the reason I stated the objective fact that Clerics are safer & more reliable (than Shaman in particular) is that Clerics simply have tools (Paci, Atone, Rez) which Shamans simply do not have, that make Clerics safer and more reliable for their groups in the face of - inevitable - deaths & wipes:



Additional evidence can be found in Cleric spellbooks or I guess you can refer to the Wiki for the level at which Cleric receives the relevant spells if that is so important to you. :)



Just in case you also ignored these -




:)

Thanks for doing exactly what I predicted.

You are not simply stating an objective fact that certain spells are available to Clerics and not Shamans.

You are making the claim that a Cleric's unique spells are superior to a Shaman's unique spells when it comes to safety and reliability. You need evidence for that claim, which I know you will not provide.

This is why I do not need to continue responding to you. If you actually provide evidence for the claim that a Cleric's spells are superior to a Shaman's when it comes to safety and reliability, we can talk.

[cyxthryth]

Thanks for doing exactly what I predicted.

I provided the evidence you requested, you simply have not done the same. You're welcome?

You are not simply stating an objective fact that certain spells are available to Clerics and not Shamans.

Huh? those spells exist in Cleric spellbooks, and not Shamans. It's an objective fact.


You are making the claim that a Cleric's unique spells are superior to a Shaman's unique spells when it comes to safety and reliability. You need evidence for that claim, which I know you will not provide.

If I were to make a claim it would be that Clerics unique spells are superior to a Shaman's unique spells when it comes to safety and reliability AND the hypothetical group which the Shaman or Cleric are being compared/judged/assessed the capabilities for already consists of 2 Enchanters - which has been an accepted part of this discussion for many - hundreds? thousands? - of posts. I cannot help it if context is lost on you amidst of all of your goalpost moving, flip-flopping and disingenuous arguing while providing zero relevant evidence to support your claims lol.

This is why I do not need to continue responding to you. If you actually provide evidence for the claim that a Cleric's spells are superior to a Shaman's when it comes to safety and reliability, we can talk.

You do not need to continue responding at all. :)

If you do though, you might consider posting evidence of your Shaman improving group DPS by Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group, as you fervently argued you can/could for tens? hundreds? of posts. If you can actually provide evidence for that claim, we can talk. :)


# of posts about Shamans improving the DPS of their group via Root-Rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group: tens? hundreds?

# of posts including evidence of such: 0


The evidence which proves you have made tens? hundreds? of posts claiming that Shamans can improve group DPS by Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group - while providing exactly zero evidence that your Shaman has ever done such a thing, much less that it is a common/frequent occurrence - is this entire thread.

[Crede]

Thanks for doing exactly what I predicted.

You are not simply stating an objective fact that certain spells are available to Clerics and not Shamans.

You are making the claim that a Cleric's unique spells are superior to a Shaman's unique spells when it comes to safety and reliability. You need evidence for that claim, which I know you will not provide.

This is why I do not need to continue responding to you. If you actually provide evidence for the claim that a Cleric's spells are superior to a Shaman's when it comes to safety and reliability, we can talk.

Oh this one is easy.

Complete heal is superior to torpor. It can’t be dispelled, and heals for much more And scales better with velious gear and charmed mob health. Also depending on server ticks it might actually land before torpor does.

Clerics also have stun command. Arguably the best tool for a charm break. Shamans can’t really do much there, especially with disease aggro nerfed. Much safer to stun and recharm then try to out torpor a quadding fully hasted pet. And they can give the enchanter a much bigger hp pool as well for extra safety.

Clerics simply have more utility at their disposal than a shaman. Shamans biggest thing is Slow. But this is largely irrelevant with an enchanter. And If you really need malo, just Invite a mage for mala and superior dps. A cleric can also blur a mob and reset an entire fight if needed.

It’s really that simple. There’s simply no need for a shaman in this group comp. This is why you see the majority of shamans soloing in the end game.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Oh this one is easy.

Complete heal is superior to torpor. It can’t be dispelled, and heals for much more And scales better with velious gear and charmed mob health. Also depending on server ticks it might actually land before torpor does.

Clerics also have stun command. Arguably the best tool for a charm break. Shamans can’t really do much there, especially with disease aggro nerfed. Much safer to stun and recharm then try to out torpor a quadding fully hasted pet. And they can give the enchanter a much bigger hp pool as well for extra safety.

Clerics simply have more utility at their disposal than a shaman. Shamans biggest thing is
Slow. But this is largely irrelevant with an enchanter. And If you really need malo, just
Invite a mage for mala and superior dps.

It’s really that simple. There’s simply no need for a shaman in this group comp. This is why you see the majority of shamans soloing in the end game.

Complete Heal is better in certain scenarios. Torpor + Slow will work just fine for the vast majority of content this group will be doing. You aren't healing a discing Warrior. It's mostly used to keep the same pet, which can be accomplished by a Shaman tanking. You need to give specific examples of a camp that is unslowable and need a Cleric to CH the pet for survivability purposes.

Stun Command is a great spell, but it has a 30 second cooldown. Shamans can slow the charm break if it's bad, root, or heal. Stuns also don't work on mobs level 55+, so it isn't like you can use it in every scenario.

Slow is not irrelevant when you can slow instead of the Enchanter. It saves them mana, and allows them to cast other spells while you are slowing. More Enchanter mana means the Enchanter can cast more spells in an emergency. Shamans also have a better slow than Enchanters. Same with Malo, Shaman Malo is better than Mage Mala.

Enchanters also do a lot of soloing at 60, that doesn't mean they are bad in groups.

I am still waiting on evidence for these kinds of claims. Again, I am not saying Clerics are bad. They are a great option. You are the one making the claim that Clerics will be far superior, and Shamans can't compete.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3610378&postcount=6

Level a cleric and have people log it in as needed. I have an epic cleric that’s been 54 since 2014 and he has done countless rezzes. Just a phenomenal class that everyone should have at least one of.

Thanks for agreeing with me about pocket Clerics by the way.

[cyxthryth]

I am still waiting on evidence for these kinds of claims.

I am still waiting on evidence of your Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to your group - and have been waiting on that evidence for nearly a year now.


# of posts about Shamans improving the DPS of their group via Root-Rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group: tens? hundreds?

# of posts including evidence of such: 0

The evidence which proves you have made tens? hundreds? of posts claiming that Shamans can improve group DPS by Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group - while providing exactly zero evidence that your Shaman has ever done such a thing, much less that it is a common/frequent occurrence - is this entire thread.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I am still waiting on evidence of your Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to your group - and have been waiting on that evidence for nearly a year now.

I didn't record any of those sessions, so it is up to you whether you believe me or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gdAIheodtY - This is what it looks like for a Shaman to root rot in Velks. You can see it is safe, and wouldn't affect a nearby group. You don't see any evidence of bad pathing, heavy resists, trains, etc.

There would be no difference between this video and a video of me grouping. The group would simply be in a nearby part of the zone.

You are going to claim my evidence isn't valid, but I do have evidence. Unfortunately you cannot claim every piece of evidence someone provides is invalid. That isn't an argument.

[cyxthryth]

I didn't record any of those sessions, so it is up to you whether you believe me or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gdAIheodtY - This is what it looks like for a Shaman to root rot in Velks. You can see it is safe, and wouldn't affect a nearby group. You don't see any evidence of bad pathing, heavy resists, trains, etc.

There would be no difference between this video solo and grouped, the group would simply be in a nearby part of the zone.

You are going to claim my evidence isn't valid, but I do have evidence. Unfortunately you cannot just simply claim every piece of evidence someone provides is invalid. That isn't an argument.

I am not particularly interested in beliefs and you have already shared your beliefs many times in your 1,300+ posts in this thread.

That video you linked is definitely 100% valid evidence of SOLO Root Rotting and naturally Shaman can Root Rot mobs easily (esp. ones that don't summon). It's the doing that while being part of a 4 person priest/caster group containing 2 Encs using Charmed pets & being beneficial / more beneficial than a Mage w/non-Epic pet that I have hard time accepting. You would need to have access to the additional mobs/such mobs have to exist, you'd have to kill the additional mobs while within range of your groupmates in order for them to get experience. This doesn't even mention that MORE mobs have to be available for you to continue to pull 3-6 more of them, and where are those mobs coming from? Is the group pulling/crawling in a direction that ALLOWS you to continue to pull additional mobs and stay in range? This, additionally, is all assuming you are able to handle the mobs without any devastating root breaks, summons, etc. A simple video - provided by you - actually doing this in the relevant environment could settle/answer all of these questions & help lay the issue to rest.

Since your gameplay in that video was SOLO & specifically not in a group in the specific scenario where your Root Rotting is benefitting said group because your Root Rotting is achieving additional kills / experience for the group like you claimed it would/could/does, it is objectively IRRELEVANT evidence, which WOULD/COULD be relevant, if you were simply in a group & improving their DPS via your Root Rotting like your tens? hundreds? of posts fervently claimed it did/does/would/could.

It really wouldn't be hard to prove your group is getting experience from your Root Rotting kills in such a group, as you should in turn be receiving experience from their 2 Enc Pet blender. I don't see the point in your reluctance to comply honestly. If you truly do this Root Rotting method/tactic parallel to the group and - as is obvious - you enjoy recording your gameplay & sharing videos, it seems like you would just simply provide the evidence even if it were just to shut your opposition up lol.

Also, if you DON'T actually do this in groups & were just saying that Shaman the CLASS is theoretically CAPABLE of doing that, where a Mage is not, it would also be fine to just clarify that & I doubt anybody is going to think less of you for it. (I wouldn't.)

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I don't see the point in your reluctance to comply honestly. If you truly do this Root Rotting method/tactic parallel to the group and - as is obvious - you enjoy recording your gameplay & sharing videos, it seems like you would just simply provide the evidence even if it were just to shut your opposition up lol.

You have made it clear you will not accept any evidence I have provided or will provide. It's far too late to try and deny it or cover it. You are just going to make an excuse for why my video doesn't work, and make me record another video. This is an "appeal to ignorance". You will not admit you are wrong or provide counter evidence, you will simply keep asking me to prove my evidence is valid. You are always shifting the burden of proof away from yourself.

That is not fair to me, as it does take time and energy to make these videos.

If you feel my evidence is invalid, you need to provide counter evidence. For example, show a video of root rotting going wrong and wiping a group. Then we can analyze it and see if the issue is due to root rotting, skill, high mob resists, etc.

If I am so obviously wrong, it should be equally trivial for any of my detractors to provide counter evidence. So far not one video showing I am wrong has been posted in 436 pages.

[cyxthryth]

You have made it clear you will not accept any evidence provided.

How can you make such a statement in good conscience/faith when the only evidence you have provided thus far has been objectively irrelevant?

It's far too late to try and deny it or cover it.

How so? Cover for what?

You are just going to make an excuse for why my video doesn't work, and make me record another video.

You have no example of my reaction to RELEVANT evidence provided by yourself because you haven't ever provided it to begin with - so your above Quoted assumption is baseless (and also incorrect).

This is an "argument from ignorance". You will not admit you are wrong or provide counter evidence, you will simply keep asking me to prove my evidence is valid. You are always shifting the burden of proof away from yourself.

I told you - the evidence you provided most recently was VALID, just not relevant. It is up to you to provide relevant evidence to support your claims. The specific burden of proof to prove your claim that Shaman can Root Rot multiple mobs parallel to the group (providing a benefit to the group, and/or more of a benefit than a non-Epic pet Mage) has been solely yours for almost a year.

That is not fair to me, as it does take time and energy to make these videos.

Sorry, life is not fair. It also takes others' time to review the evidence you've provided & confirm that it is not relevant/does not prove/validate/justify your previous claim made over tens? hundreds? of posts claiming that Shaman can Root Rot multiple mobs parallel to the group (providing a benefit to the group, and/or more of a benefit than a non-Epic pet Mage).

If you feel my evidence is invalid, you need to provide counter evidence. For example, show a video of root rotting going wrong and wiping a group. Then we can analyze it and see if the issue is due to root rotting, skill, high mob resists, etc.

I need only point out the irrefutable fact that the evidence you have provided contains zero evidence of your Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group and thereby providing a benefit to the group, and/or more of a benefit than a non-Epic pet Mage.

Again, to be clear: the specific burden of proof to prove your claim that Shaman can Root Rot multiple mobs parallel to the group (providing a benefit to the group, and/or more of a benefit than a non-Epic pet Mage) has been solely yours for almost a year.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

How can you make such a statement in good conscience/faith when the only evidence you have provided thus far has been objectively irrelevant?



How so? Cover for what?



You have no example of my reaction to relevant evidence provided by yourself because you haven't ever provided it to begin with - so your above Quoted assumption is baseless (and also incorrect).



I told you - the evidence you provided most recently was VALID, just not relevant. It is up to you to provide relevant evidence to support your claims. The specific burden of proof to prove your claim that Shaman can Root Rot multiple mobs parallel to the group (providing a benefit to the group, and/or more of a benefit than a non-Epic pet Mage) has been solely yours for almost a year.



Sorry, life is not fair. It also takes others' time to review the evidence you've provided & confirm that it is not relevant/does not prove/validate/justify your previous claim made over tens? hundreds? of posts claiming that Shaman can Root Rot multiple mobs parallel to the group (providing a benefit to the group, and/or more of a benefit than a non-Epic pet Mage).



I need only point out the irrefutable fact that the evidence you have provided contains zero evidence of your Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group and thereby providing a benefit to the group, and/or more of a benefit than a non-Epic pet Mage.

Again, to be clear: the specific burden of proof to prove your claim that Shaman can Root Rot multiple mobs parallel to the group (providing a benefit to the group, and/or more of a benefit than a non-Epic pet Mage) has been solely yours for almost a year.

Thank you for proving my point. Let me know when you want to provide some counter evidence. Simply claiming another person's evidence is not relevant is... not relevant:) I'll talk to you again when you have provided some counter evidence.

[Karanis]

I don't know about you guys, but what I got from that video was; no UI, no GINA, 1st person half the time, staring at a mob's face while your casters were getting beat to shit, that enchanter literally would have died twice in the first 20 or so minutes if he hadn't saved himself with a stun/aoe mez due to DSM 1st person tanking, looking the wrong way, and clicking most of his spells. Large oof.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I don't know about you guys, but what I got from that video was; no UI, no GINA, 1st person half the time, staring at a mob's face while your casters were getting beat to shit, that enchanter literally would have died twice in the first 20 or so minutes if he hadn't saved himself with a stun/aoe mez due to DSM 1st person tanking, looking the wrong way, and clicking most of his spells. Large oof.

You still haven't shown any videos of how you play. I would love to see your professional style! It's quite easy to criticize when there is nothing to compare against.

I am not sure why you think this helps your argument anyway. Me being bad at the game simply means a Shaman can perform even better when played correctly. I can play well enough to counter the points in this thread.

[cyxthryth]

Thank you for proving my point. Let me know when you want to provide some counter evidence. Simply claiming another person's evidence is not relevant is... not relevant:)

The above Quote is simply your opinion that "claiming another person's evidence is not relevant is not relevant" - which is simply your opinion, and does not change the objective facts.

I will remind you of those objective facts - which I just posted a few seconds ago, and which you did not acknowledge/argue/challenge/defend/attempt to refute - again:

I told you - the evidence you provided most recently was VALID, just not relevant. It is up to you to provide relevant evidence to support your claims. The specific burden of proof to prove your claim that Shaman can Root Rot multiple mobs parallel to the group (providing a benefit to the group, and/or more of a benefit than a non-Epic pet Mage) has been solely yours for almost a year.

Sorry, life is not fair. It also takes others' time to review the evidence you've provided & confirm that it is not relevant/does not prove/validate/justify your previous claim made over tens? hundreds? of posts claiming that Shaman can Root Rot multiple mobs parallel to the group (providing a benefit to the group, and/or more of a benefit than a non-Epic pet Mage).

I need only point out the irrefutable fact that the evidence you have provided contains zero evidence of your Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group and thereby providing a benefit to the group, and/or more of a benefit than a non-Epic pet Mage.

Again, to be clear: the specific burden of proof to prove your claim that Shaman can Root Rot multiple mobs parallel to the group (providing a benefit to the group, and/or more of a benefit than a non-Epic pet Mage) has been solely yours for almost a year.

:)

[cyxthryth]

You still haven't shown any videos of how you play. I would love to see your professional style! It's quite easy to criticize when there is nothing to compare against.

It is quite disingenuous to submit evidence of, say, an Apple, and attempt to present it as an Orange. :)

[Swish]

Do we have a winner yet?

[Crede]

Complete Heal is better in certain scenarios. Torpor + Slow will work just fine for the vast majority of content this group will be doing. You aren't healing a discing Warrior. It's mostly used to keep the same pet, which can be accomplished by a Shaman tanking. You need to give specific examples of a camp that is unslowable and need a Cleric to CH the pet for survivability purposes.

Stun Command is a great spell, but it has a 30 second cooldown. Shamans can slow the charm break if it's bad, root, or heal. Stuns also don't work on mobs level 55+, so it isn't like you can use it in every scenario.

Slow is not irrelevant when you can slow instead of the Enchanter. It saves them mana, and allows them to cast other spells while you are slowing. More Enchanter mana means the Enchanter can cast more spells in an emergency. Shamans also have a better slow than Enchanters. Same with Malo, Shaman Malo is better than Mage Mala.
Enchanters also do a lot of soloing at 60, that doesn't mean they are bad in groups.

I am still waiting on evidence for these kinds of claims. Again, I am not saying Clerics are bad. They are a great option. You are the one making the claim that Clerics will be far superior, and Shamans can't compete.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3610378&postcount=6



Thanks for agreeing with me about pocket Clerics by the way.

It’s cute that you are searching other non related threads to try and gain some ground in this on me. It shows me how pathetically desperate you are, while still failing to provide any relevant data, despite going completely out of your way. I won’t even grace you with a rebuttal to that, I’ll let others discover the truth if they so choose.

Nice try failing to downplay clerics. Stun command lasts 9 seconds, so you’d have to get another break in 21 seconds for it to not work again, but even then they have multiple other stuns they can use for backup. It is objectively true that stun is the best defense against charm breaks compared to anything the shaman offers. And in the event that the mob is stun immune, the cleric can both rip/heal better than the shaman if needed, and root as well.

The fact that you think the shaman is saving the mana of an enchanter by slowing tells me You know nothing about enchanter play. If an enchanter is allowed to keep a pet, they have no mana issues. Between c2, tot, wandering mind, etc they are more than fine. They can also use lower level slows, like tepid, or give their pet a swarm caller if they need to save some mana for some rare reason. In fact I used tepid for majority of content as 70+% slow is usually overkill.

Enchanters translate into all group compositions because of their charm dps. I’m not sure why you keep failing to realize this, or just purposely neglect it which you’re likely doing. So yes, you can scale them indefinitely from solo to group play. 6 enchanters in a group is perfectly fine. 6 shamans would just be all clicking their jbb in desperation.

Again, shamans are an acceptable class. If you want to roll with one, that’s fine. It’s just that clerics are objectively better in this group comp.

[fortior]

Nobody is doing hate minis without a rez at their beck and call, everyone knows this except for the loser who leveled one class to 60 and now has to keep arguing that it’s the bestest, most special one. You’re all arguing with a dude who has 1 lv60 with mediocre raid gear on a 13 year old eq1 server. The most elite camps he can think of are fungi king and PoM static rooms. It’s extremely funny when he gets wound up and tries to be witty but please don’t take him seriously.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

It’s cute that you are searching other non related threads to try and gain some ground in this on me. It shows me how pathetically desperate you are, while still failing to provide any relevant data, despite going completely out of your way. I won’t even grace you with a rebuttal to that, I’ll let others discover the truth if they so choose.


I am not sure why you need to act so hostile. I agree with what you said about pocket clerics. They are great for resing when you don't have a Cleric in the group.


Nice try failing to downplay clerics. Stun command lasts 9 seconds, so you’d have to get another break in 21 seconds for it to not work again, but even then they have multiple other stuns they can use for backup. It is objectively true that stun is the best defense against charm breaks compared to anything the shaman offers. And in the event that the mob is stun immune, the cleric can both rip/heal better than the shaman if needed, and root as well.


I am not attempting to downplay Clerics. I am saying there are weaknesses to Stun Command, and that is true. You are also gaining things from a Shaman's utility, so it isn't a straight loss. You already have 2 overlapping stuns for a charm break with the Enchanters. Malosini reduces the changes of a Charm Break, which factors into the equation. Shamans are also a lot tankier than a Cleric. If the Cleric is getting beaten on while the Enchanters also have a Charm Break, your group could be in trouble. A Shaman can generally power through those situations while helping out the other team members at the same time.


The fact that you think the shaman is saving the mana of an enchanter by slowing tells me You know nothing about enchanter play. If an enchanter is allowed to keep a pet, they have no mana issues. Between c2, tot, wandering mind, etc they are more than fine. They can also use lower level slows, like tepid, or give their pet a swarm caller if they need to save some mana for some rare reason. In fact I used tepid for majority of content as 70+% slow is usually overkill.


I understand Enchanter play just fine. Enchanters can spend a lot of mana on occasion, and it's better for them to have more mana when that occurs. It increases survivability, and reduces med breaks.


Enchanters translate into all group compositions because of their charm dps. I’m not sure why you keep failing to realize this, or just purposely neglect it which you’re likely doing.


Enchanters are the best because of their unrestricted Charming + unbeatable CC. They have two things that no other class has, and they combine well together. An Enchanter uses both of these things in solo situations, and the same solo strategies translate into a group. This is why it isn't a coincidence that they are an amazing solo class + an amazing group class.

The same logic applies with Shamans. They get unparalleled mana regeneration and are great at tanking. They allow your group to play longer without med breaks because they don't need med breaks, and can share some of the duties of an Enchanter.


So yes, you can scale them indefinitely from solo to group play. 6 enchanters in a group is perfectly fine. 6 shamans would just be all clicking their jbb in desperation.


A group of 6 Enchanters would be getting bad experience, and wouldn't be getting more named mob kills per hour. It is why you don't see groups of 6 people XPing, or groups of 6 Enchanters killing named mobs. If you have played on this server for a length of time, you would notice this trend. People know about the DPS limitations intuitively, even if they don't know how to describe it.

I understand why it is easy to fall into this trap. DPS scales linearly. If you can kill a mob every 40 seconds without pause for an hour, you get 90 kills per hour. If you can kill a mob every 20 seconds without pause for an hour, you get 180 kills per hour. On paper that sounds like more DPS = more kills. Unfortunately, there are no areas in the game where you could pull 180 mobs in an hour. Respawn times cause DPS to fall off after a certain point, depending on the camp. As a quick example, lets say you are camping a mob on a 5 minute timer, and you take a full minute to kill it. That means you are getting 10 kills per hour. If you double your DPS and kill the mob in 30 seconds, you are only getting 11 kills an hour. You are doubling your DPS, but only getting a 10% boost in experience. Everquest 1 is simply not built to handle groups killing 180 mobs per hour.


Again, shamans are an acceptable class. If you want to roll with one, that’s fine. It’s just that clerics are objectively better in this group comp.

You still haven't provided any evidence to back this claim up.

Nobody is doing hate minis without a rez at their beck and call, everyone knows this except for the loser who leveled one class to 60 and now has to keep arguing that it’s the bestest, most special one. You’re all arguing with a dude who has 1 lv60 with mediocre raid gear on a 13 year old eq1 server. The most elite camps he can think of are fungi king and PoM static rooms. It’s extremely funny when he gets wound up and tries to be witty but please don’t take him seriously.

When you can't win with facts and logic, you resort to straw men. You would know that it is easy to get a Cleric for a res, even in Hate. If you can get into hate, you have a porter. As you said earlier, this game is easy. You don't need a dedicated Cleric just for that. It is the same reason you aren't suggesting a dedicated Necromancer for corpse summons.

[Ripqozko]

This man is now in kittens, im sorry all kittens.

[fortior]

They took him, it’s their own fault

[7thGate]

Unfortunately, there are no areas in the game where you could pull 180 mobs in an hour.

While there are few, there are multiple camps where you can pull 180 mobs an hour if you can kill them.

Blam Stick camp, Plate House, Siren's Grotto can all do 180 mobs an hour most of the time since the first two have unlimited spawns and SG just has enough untouched stuff in it most of the time that you can do 180 mobs an hour. The hole can also support 180 mobs/hour while crawling depending on how many other people are XPing in the zone. I suspect you can also do a skyshrine crawl with that much DPS and be able to continue to find things to kill, but I'm less certain there.

Also, 55+ stun immunity isn't really very often relevant for charm breaks, as you need to be using dictate on anything 54+. And while dictate is awesome and lets you do some super cool stuff, it tends to be more special case and highly structured in how you use it.

[Crede]

I am not sure why you need to act so hostile. I agree with what you said about pocket clerics. They are great for resing when you don't have a Cleric in the group.



I am not attempting to downplay Clerics. I am saying there are weaknesses to Stun Command, and that is true. You are also gaining things from a Shaman's utility, so it isn't a straight loss. You already have 2 overlapping stuns for a charm break with the Enchanters. Malosini reduces the changes of a Charm Break, which factors into the equation. Shamans are also a lot tankier than a Cleric. If the Cleric is getting beaten on while the Enchanters also have a Charm Break, your group could be in trouble. A Shaman can generally power through those situations while helping out the other team members at the same time.



I understand Enchanter play just fine. Enchanters can spend a lot of mana on occasion, and it's better for them to have more mana when that occurs. It increases survivability, and reduces med breaks.



Enchanters are the best because of their unrestricted Charming + unbeatable CC. They have two things that no other class has, and they combine well together. An Enchanter uses both of these things in solo situations, and the same solo strategies translate into a group. This is why it isn't a coincidence that they are an amazing solo class + an amazing group class.

The same logic applies with Shamans. They get unparalleled mana regeneration and are great at tanking. They allow your group to play longer without med breaks because they don't need med breaks, and can share some of the duties of an Enchanter.



A group of 6 Enchanters would be getting bad experience, and wouldn't be getting more named mob kills per hour. It is why you don't see groups of 6 people XPing, or groups of 6 Enchanters killing named mobs. If you have played on this server for a length of time, you would notice this trend. People know about the DPS limitations intuitively, even if they don't know how to describe it.

I understand why it is easy to fall into this trap. DPS scales linearly. If you can kill a mob every 40 seconds without pause for an hour, you get 90 kills per hour. If you can kill a mob every 20 seconds without pause for an hour, you get 180 kills per hour. On paper that sounds like more DPS = more kills. Unfortunately, there are no areas in the game where you could pull 180 mobs in an hour. Respawn times cause DPS to fall off after a certain point, depending on the camp. As a quick example, lets say you are camping a mob on a 5 minute timer, and you take a full minute to kill it. That means you are getting 10 kills per hour. If you double your DPS and kill the mob in 30 seconds, you are only getting 11 kills an hour. You are doubling your DPS, but only getting a 10% boost in experience. Everquest 1 is simply not built to handle groups killing 180 mobs per hour.



You still haven't provided any evidence to back this claim up.



When you can't win with facts and logic, you resort to straw men. You would know that it is easy to get a Cleric for a res, even in Hate. If you can get into hate, you have a porter. As you said earlier, this game is easy. You don't need a dedicated Cleric just for that. It is the same reason you aren't suggesting a dedicated Necromancer for corpse summons.

So much nonsense, trolling, and goalpost shifting here. Nobody believes any of this, it’s sad you have to resort to this when you’ve clearly lost. When your group dps failed miserably, you now attempt to troll out clerics as well.

Come back when you’ve actually played the game and understand how group dynamics work.

[Crede]

Nobody is doing hate minis without a rez at their beck and call, everyone knows this except for the loser who leveled one class to 60 and now has to keep arguing that it’s the bestest, most special one. You’re all arguing with a dude who has 1 lv60 with mediocre raid gear on a 13 year old eq1 server. The most elite camps he can think of are fungi king and PoM static rooms. It’s extremely funny when he gets wound up and tries to be witty but please don’t take him seriously.

He’s just a troll that tries harder than most trolls when he’s lost an argument.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So much nonsense, trolling, and goalpost shifting here. Nobody believes any of this, it’s sad you have to resort to this when you’ve clearly lost. When your group dps failed miserably, you now attempt to troll out clerics as well.

Come back when you’ve actually played the game and understand how group dynamics work.

Still waiting on some evidence for any of your claims. You don't just get to say someone lost. I could do the same thing, and we would be at an impasse.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

While there are few, there are multiple camps where you can pull 180 mobs an hour if you can kill them.

Blam Stick camp, Plate House, Siren's Grotto can all do 180 mobs an hour most of the time since the first two have unlimited spawns and SG just has enough untouched stuff in it most of the time that you can do 180 mobs an hour. The hole can also support 180 mobs/hour while crawling depending on how many other people are XPing in the zone. I suspect you can also do a skyshrine crawl with that much DPS and be able to continue to find things to kill, but I'm less certain there.

Also, 55+ stun immunity isn't really very often relevant for charm breaks, as you need to be using dictate on anything 54+. And while dictate is awesome and lets you do some super cool stuff, it tends to be more special case and highly structured in how you use it.

You make a good point that there are a few areas that have scripted spawns on demand. But you can't get 180 kills an hour at platehouse unless you bring multiple groups, and that isn't an XP group scenario.

As for SG and Hole, it would still be tough to get 180 mobs due to travel time between mobs. I would love to see something like that though! I think a video showing a high speed SG crawl would be really fun to watch.

I think you would agree that the vast majority of XP groups are not doing 180 mobs an hour, and the vast majority of XP camps don't support that many kills.

As for stun immunity, I was referring to the mobs you are fighting moreso than the charmed mob. You can't use stun command in an emergency situation with a tougher mob, but you can have the Shaman slow the mob.

[cyxthryth]

Still waiting on evidence

# of posts about Shamans improving the DPS of their group via Root-Rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group: tens? hundreds?

# of posts including evidence of such: 0

[Fragged]

4 Shadow Knights.

3 of them meditate while the last one chain casts level 4 necro spells until OOM. Rotate one by one for INFINITE level 4 necro spells.

[Ripqozko]

4 Shadow Knights.

3 of them meditate while the last one chain casts level 4 necro spells until OOM. Rotate one by one for INFINITE level 4 necro spells.

This SK meta is where i want to be, only DESK allowed

[DeathsSilkyMist]

4 Shadow Knights.

3 of them meditate while the last one chain casts level 4 necro spells until OOM. Rotate one by one for INFINITE level 4 necro spells.

I think you are on to something here. Fill all your bags with bone chips and take turns summoning pets. Mages aren't the only ones who can chain pets now!

[fortior]

He’s just a troll that tries harder than most trolls when he’s lost an argument.

He's not a troll, he's been like this for literal years

[Gloomlord]

He's not a troll, he's been like this for literal years

If so, he resorts to tactics likened to a troll when he can't concede.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If so, he resorts to tactics likened to a troll when he can't concede.

You have no proof for this claim. On the other hand, it is trivial to see actual troll behavior here from a lot of posters, including yourself. Your post history has no evidence for your claims, most of your posts are insults.

It is not troll behavior to ask people for evidence when they make a claim. It IS troll behavior to keep asking a person providing evidence to prove their evidence is valid. That is https://www.txst.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Appeal-to-Ignorance.html - An appeal to ignorance. The proper way is to provide counter-evidence that disproves the evidence provided. Thus far, nobody has been willing or able to do so.

[Gloomlord]

When you bring the idea of "proof" into something like this, then it should be clear you're guilty as sin. It's like a criminal saying "you ain't got nothing on me and you know it".

Isn't it time you left this thread, already? You could have spent all this time and energy arguing on another forum for making a better world rather than Shaman being better in a hypothetical group where they're completely redundant.

Not even lying when I say this is depressing.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

When you bring the idea of "proof" into something like this, then it should be clear you're guilty as sin. It's like a criminal saying "you ain't got nothing on me and you know it".

Isn't it time you left this thread, already? You could have spent all this time and energy arguing on another forum for making a better world rather than Shaman being better in a hypothetical group where they're completely redundant.

Not even lying when I say this is depressing.

The only thing that is depressing is your idea that you don't need evidence to prove a claim.

I am not sure why you think you can simply say "I am right", and expect people to comply.

Your analogy to the legal system doesn't really make sense. A verdict in a legal trial is not the same thing as the truth. A person can be convicted of a crime when they are innocent, and vice versa. The truth doesn't change based on the verdict.

[Gloomlord]

You're not as clever as you think you are. Read what I typed again...

The criminal in this cliche is bragging to the police or someone else that he's guilty as sin, but since noone has physical proof, he'll get off free.

Wasn't that obvious?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You're not as clever as you think you are. Read what I typed again...

The criminal in this cliche is bragging to the police or someone else that he's guilty as sin, but since noone has physical proof, he'll get off free.

Wasn't that obvious?

It was obvious, and my response is the correct one for that kind of analogy.

The issue here is you are making the assumption that I am guilty and bragging that you cannot prove I am guilty. I chose to ignore that part, because it is silly lol.

You are making a claim about me being guilty and bragging about it, with no evidence to back it up.

[Gloomlord]

Didn't seem obvious to you if you talked about a court verdict, rather than the fact it's someone bragging about lack of evidence. You embarrass yourself constantly in some desperate attempt to seem more clever than you actually are.

I mean, how can one procure "proof" that you resort to sophistry? It's just an opinion, just like you calling most people and myself "trolls" for giving you disparaging remarks is an opinion.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Didn't seem obvious to you if you talked about a court verdict, rather than the fact it's someone bragging about lack of evidence. You embarrass yourself constantly in some desperate attempt to seem more clever than you actually are.

I mean, how can one procure "proof" that you resort to sophistry? It's just an opinion, just like you calling most people and myself "trolls" for giving you disparaging remarks is an opinion.

Thank you for admitting you are just claiming I am a troll without actually having any method to prove it.

I can prove you are a troll simply by asking people to look at your post history in this thread. It is almost exclusively insults and fallacies.

Other posters here have hundreds of posts that are just silly gif images.

Please don't try and claim that kind of behavior could not be considered trolling lol.

[Gloomlord]

But it's an opinion that must have merit if you're bringing in "proof" to something that is just an opinion. We can't "prove" such a thing, and we can't prove whether you're being wilfully obtuse or not. We just think you've clearly lost the argument, so now you need to resort to immoral tactics.

The gifs and/or images we posted was a way to express ourselves and lighten the anguish when one speaks to you. Just give it a rest already. If you think you've had it bad, then you clearly haven't been to the Blizzard forums. The people in those forums are there to control dissent, and they'll look for any excuse to get you banned.

We, on the other hand, just some people fed up with your bullshit, child. The EverQuest community is pretty peaceful compared to most communities out there, but you've managed to stir up some serious rage and mockery. That's no easy feat.

Just come off your high horse, you psychotic manchild.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The gifs and/or images we posted was a way to express ourselves and lighten the anguish when one speaks to you. Just give it a rest already. If you think you've had it bad, then you clearly haven't been to the Blizzard forums. The people in those forums are there to control dissent, and they'll look for any excuse to get you banned.


Your idea is if you believe the trolling is justified, then it isn't trolling?

This is the definition of trolling https://www.endsleigh.co.uk/blog/post/what-is-internet-trolling/

If I say something that makes you angry, that doesn't mean it is trolling. You can be angry at me for disagreeing with you, even if I am correct.

You specifically calling me an immoral child for no particular reason does match the definition of trolling:)

Nice try.

[cyxthryth]

you are just claiming I am a troll without actually having any method to prove it

Irrefutable & undeniable evidence exists in this thread in the form of posts made by yourself "claiming" that others - including myself - are trolls.

You - still - have not provided evidence of me trolling, despite me making multiple requests that you provide such evidence, and therefore it could be argued that:

You are just claiming I am a troll without actually having any method to prove it.

I can prove you are a troll simply by asking people to look at your post history in this thread. It is almost exclusively insults and fallacies.

You asking others to look at something does not equate to "proof", unfortunately, and your opinion that Gloomlord's posts are almost exclusively insults and fallacies COULD be true - depending entirely on the definitions of "insults" and "fallacies" that you are using (which you did not specify).

My post history does not almost exclusively contain insults and fallacies, it simply contains irrefutable facts & simple questions. You cannot prove that I am a troll by asking people to look at my post history, as asking people to look at something is not "proof", and therefore it could be argued that:

You are just claiming I am a troll without actually having any method to prove it.

Other posters here have hundreds of posts that are just silly gif images.

I do not have hundreds of posts of GIF images, and you have - still - not provided the definition you are using for "silly".

Please don't try and claim that kind of behavior could not be considered trolling lol.

Please do not try to claim or otherwise imply that "kinds of behavior can be considered trolling" without specifying the kinds of behavior. Otherwise, others could simply argue that your "kind of behavior" can be considered trolling, and we would be at an Impasse.

[cyxthryth]

Your idea is if you believe the trolling is justified, then it isn't trolling?

This is the definition of trolling https://www.endsleigh.co.uk/blog/post/what-is-internet-trolling/

If I say something that makes you angry, that doesn't mean it is trolling. You can be angry at me for disagreeing with you, even if I am correct.

You specifically calling me an immoral child for no particular reason does match the definition of trolling:)

Nice try.

Thank you for providing the definition of "trolling" that you are using! Please indicate how/where/why you applied that definition to my posts which you multiple times have claimed are "trolling" / make me "a troll".

Furthermore, you have not provided any evidence - and likely cannot provide any- that Gloomlord was "specifically calling you an immoral child for no particular reason", and therefore, that claim is baseless - and likely incorrect.

[cyxthryth]

I'm moving a conversation over from another thread, our fellow poster/P99 community member DSM said he won't reply to me on the other thread & asked me to take it back to this one, even though he already hasn't replied to my most recent 2 posts in this thread from several hours ago, and has additionally ignored multiple tens? hundreds? of my posts in this thread, presumably because his only other option besides ignoring my posts would be - outright - concession. Regardless, for the sake of civil discussion I will move the conversation forward thusly:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3621728&postcount=4165

This is the latest example of me answering the same questions you keep asking over and over again.

Please move the discussion back to that thread. I won't be responding to these questions again here, as it is off topic.

Conversation moved here as requested! :)

Where - specifically/exactly - in the above linked post did you address/explain/justify the fact that you have claimed the 4 below Quotes are NOT contradictory, even though the content in 2 of the Quotes includes your belief that DPS performance will be THE SAME solo vs. group and contrarily/contrary-wise the content in the other 2 Quotes demonstrates that you are fully aware of & have acknowledged the irrefutable fact that group members introduce outside variables - which are outside of a given player's control - that are able to affect a given player's DPS performance ("skew the data") & therefore the 4 Quotes are simply irrefutably 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

If you believe the DPS will be "the same" / "won't change" in a group vs solo please clarify, are there or are there not outside variables introduced via the addition of group-mates which can "skew the data" / "change the DPS equation"?

You simply cannot claim "it (DPS) will be the same solo vs group, it (DPS) won't change" while simultaneously claiming "outside variables when grouping (which do not exist/apply when solo) "skew the data " / "change the DPS equation" (affect DPS), as the statements are simply contradictory.


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 you believe there are variables out of your control introduced by each group-mate which can "skew the data" and "change the DPS equation" please clarify, how can a given player's DPS be "the same every time" / "won't change in a group" when taking the aforementioned variables into consideration/account?

You simply cannot claim "outside variables when grouping (which do not exist/apply when solo) skew the data " / "change the DPS equation" (affect DPS) while simultaneously claiming "it (DPS) will be the same solo vs group, it (DPS) won't change", as the statements are simply contradictory.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Where - specifically/exactly - in the above linked post did you address/explain/justify the fact that you have claimed the 4 below Quotes are NOT contradictory


In the link you provided in your own post https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3621728&postcount=4165 .

I am not going to answer you on this question again, because it is clear you are refusing to read anything given to you.

Just to clarify what quotes I am talking about in the link posted above:


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


This quote is making an assumption the group plays correctly. In both group and solo situations, a Mage will be doing less DPS than what is possible for their class to do if their pets keep dying mid-fight due to an issue with the player, or the group.


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


This quote is simply saying 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 based on your grouping status.


3. In a group setting, there are too many variables out of your control that can skew the data.
4. 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.


Both of these quotes are variations on the same idea. You could parse a group in which a Shaman does more DPS than a Mage, because the Mage's pet keeps dying due to the puller consistently pulling poorly. This doesn't indicate the Mage class does poor DPS, it indicates the group was performing poorly. It is more difficult to parse class DPS accurately in a group because of these variables.

If you want to make the claim that a specific class does less DPS in a group due to specific conditions, you need to provide evidence showing those specific conditions, so we can see if it is a restriction of the class in that specific scenario, or simply a result of inefficient play.

[cyxthryth]

In the link you provided in your own post https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3621728&postcount=4165 .

Simply claiming you provided the justification/explanation - when you haven't - does not make it so; you would have to actually provide the justification/explanation. Nor does claiming you've provided the justification/explanation negate the irrefutable fact that the 4 Quotes in question are simply, contradictory. :)

I am not going to answer you on this question again, because it is clear you are refusing to read anything given to you.

How is it clear that I'm refusing to read anything given to me exactly?

Furthermore, I don't really care at this point whether or not you reply to that particular question, because currently I'm far more interested in your reply to the following 2 (which I noticed you happened to ignore :)):



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

If you believe the DPS will be "the same" / "won't change" in a group vs solo please clarify, are there or are there not outside variables introduced via the addition of group-mates which can "skew the data" / "change the DPS equation"?

You simply cannot claim "it (DPS) will be the same solo vs group, it (DPS) won't change" while simultaneously claiming "outside variables when grouping (which do not exist/apply when solo) "skew the data " / "change the DPS equation" (affect DPS), as the statements are simply contradictory.


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 you believe there are variables out of your control introduced by each group-mate which can "skew the data" and "change the DPS equation" please clarify, how can a given player's DPS be "the same every time" / "won't change in a group" when taking the aforementioned variables into consideration/account?

You simply cannot claim "outside variables when grouping (which do not exist/apply when solo) skew the data " / "change the DPS equation" (affect DPS) while simultaneously claiming "it (DPS) will be the same solo vs group, it (DPS) won't change", as the statements are simply contradictory.




I eagerly & patiently await your next reply! :)

[fortior]

439 pages to find out that wizards are better than shamans

[DeathsSilkyMist]

439 pages to find out that wizards are better than shamans

Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter/Wizard is indeed awesome for your solo farm crew idea. Thanks for bringing it up!

[Duik]

Fuck me.
This is awesome(ly stupid and insane to argue with someone who just has to be correct, be the last poster proving correctness and clearly trolling the absolute fuck outta yas).
Just let DSM have last word and get on with your lives.
Best 4 slot team? Dru Dru Nec Pal. Cuz root rotting just 4 mobs is never enough.

[fortior]

Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter/Wizard is indeed awesome for your solo farm crew idea. Thanks for bringing it up!

Hmm something seems not right here...

Could shaman/enchanter/cleric/cleric clear sleeper's tomb trash in 2 hours? Because that might be the actual highest tier of loot attainable by a 4 priest group if so, priceless weapons are raid tier and prismatic scale turn-ins can be BIS.
You need 2 clerics because a 6 second chain isn't enough whenever the shaman is offtanking and 1 has to watch the enchanter full time as well since the pet will need to be hasted and weaponized. You need malo on the Newly Created Sentry to actually charm it, and on the trash to slow it since it's all dark dark red.

[Toxigen]

DSM went to HS to farm trash mobs with mid 50s to prove a point.

The enc and necro would have made more XP in that 2 hour session as a duo without a 60 sucking off the top.

Poor lil fellas.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

DSM went to HS to farm trash mobs with mid 50s to prove a point.

The enc and necro would have made more XP in that 2 hour session as a duo without a 60 sucking off the top.

Poor lil fellas.

You seem to have forgotten the idea that some people simply like to have fun in groups.

We had a great time, even after a few wipes. We got to learn HS West a bit better, and the Enchanter got a Mask of Obtenebration for their bard, which was the item they were looking for in HS West.

[Crede]

You seem to have forgotten the idea that some people simply like to have fun in groups.

We had a great time, even after a few wipes. We got to learn HS West a bit better, and the Enchanter got a Mask of Obtenebration for their bard, which was the item they were looking for in HS West.

So much for all that “utility” a shaman brings.

Let me guess, pet broke and ya wiped. Ya cleric woulda been better for aoe stuns and rezzes.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So much for all that “utility” a shaman brings.

Let me guess, pet broke and ya wiped. Ya cleric woulda been better for aoe stuns and rezzes.

No, it was bad HS pathing each time. Train of 20+ mobs coming in to kill us. Cleric wouldn't have saved us either.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

... and rezzes.

For that specifically, I will let your own words speak for themselves:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3610378&postcount=6

Level a cleric and have people log it in as needed. I have an epic cleric that’s been 54 since 2014 and he has done countless rezzes. Just a phenomenal class that everyone should have at least one of.

[fortior]

No, it was bad HS pathing each time. Train of 20+ mobs coming in to kill us. Cleric wouldn't have saved us either.

Uh. You know that this is exactly the sort of scenario you use a DA class for, right? Your shaman could have saved the day too with a frozen skull clicky. It's on your magelo! Yours probably goes unclicked a lot.

Target a mob in the train, /assist, heal/buff/secondary clicky whatever or whoever it's on. Then DA and run the pack away, either back to zoneline or until the rest gates. You can cap out after.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Uh. You know that this is exactly the sort of scenario you use a DA class for, right? Your shaman could have saved the day too with a frozen skull clicky. It's on your magelo! Yours probably goes unclicked a lot.

Target a mob in the train, /assist, heal/buff/secondary clicky whatever or whoever it's on. Then DA and run the pack away, either back to zoneline or until the rest gates. You can cap out after.

I guess you don't know how HS works. The zoneline is in the east wing, which we didn't have a key for. Also, I am not going to run a train back to HS ent so it can kill other groups lol. If you have a problem in HS, you die or FD so you don't kill other people in the zone, and then you recover.

[Crede]

For that specifically, I will let your own words speak for themselves:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3610378&postcount=6

Your desperation is pathetic. That was a thread about how a solo enchanter goes about getting rezzes.

In a 4 man group, you would just have the cleric with you at all times.

Nice try though, deathsstrawman.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Your desperation is pathetic. That was a thread about how a solo enchanter goes about getting rezzes.

In a 4 man group, you would just have the cleric with you at all times.

Nice try though, deathsstrawman.

Ah, so people can only have pocket clerics when they are solo Enchanters? Got it:D /sarcasm

I am not sure why you think people can't have pocket clerics in other scenarios. It's a stretch.

[fortior]

The advice was for general use. You can hold the train with DA and let people gate out as well, which is better in HS. On a cleric, you could DA hold in a position close enough for dragging and recovering your own corpse.

This is one of the reasons why clr/enc rules so hard. With AE mez and multiple free DAs in your toolbox, you CAN actually recover from a massive train of mobs. It's the only class combination that can look a 20 mob train in the eyes and keep on trucking. But yeah you could have totally saved the group and looked like a hero, you just don't know how to play well, don't take it out on us lol

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The advice was for general use. You can hold the train with DA and let people gate out as well, which is better in HS. On a cleric, you could DA hold in a position close enough for dragging and recovering your own corpse.

This is one of the reasons why clr/enc rules so hard. With AE mez and multiple free DAs in your toolbox, you CAN actually recover from a massive train of mobs. It's the only class combination that can look a 20 mob train in the eyes and keep on trucking. But yeah you could have totally saved the group and looked like a hero, you just don't know how to play well, don't take it out on us lol

I am not taking it out on you at all. You are simply claiming we could have DA trained it out in HS lol. Don't blame me for you giving people bad advise in that situation.

[fortior]

You could have DA held it and just capped out. Given a more optimized group setup, you could have held and recovered. This isn't just theory. I've done it with more dangerous mobs on melees using a DA idol. I've done it on a cleric. I've done it on a necromancer. I haven't done it on a shaman, but earring of the frozen skull is almost free to recharge and easier to use than a casted DA.

You don't HAVE to make clutch plays and save the day, but it's cool to do so, and it shows presence of mind. A DA earring recharges for less than a plat. You get 18 seconds to stop, look around, and figure out a plan--or to let your teammates gate out.

Instead, you all probably just panicked, froze up, and let the train kill you because that's what is 'supposed to happen' when 'bad pathing' occurs. Because you are playing P99 on what is essentially a very basic level.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You could have DA held it and just capped out. Given a more optimized group setup, you could have held and recovered. This isn't just theory. I've done it with more dangerous mobs on melees using a DA idol. I've done it on a cleric. I've done it on a necromancer. I haven't done it on a shaman, but earring of the frozen skull is almost free to recharge and easier to use than a casted DA.

You don't HAVE to make clutch plays and save the day, but it's cool to do so, and it shows presence of mind. A DA earring recharges for less than a plat. You get 18 seconds to stop, look around, and figure out a plan--or to let your teammates gate out.

Instead, you all probably just panicked, froze up, and let the train kill you because that's what is 'supposed to happen' when 'bad pathing' occurs. Because you are playing P99 on what is essentially a very basic level.

I am not saying you are incorrect on the point about using DA to hold the train while other people gate. Nor am I saying I played perfectly in that group.

This thread isn't about whether or not I make mistakes while playing the game. It is a pretty silly argument to say "you made a mistake in a video game, therefore you know nothing about said video game". I am sorry you have to resort to such a poor argument when you can't provide anything more tangible.

[Ripqozko]

Easy 500 pages

[Crede]

Ah, so people can only have pocket clerics when they are solo Enchanters? Got it:D /sarcasm

I am not sure why you think people can't have pocket clerics in other scenarios. It's a stretch.

OP didn’t specify having pocket chars. And even if he did, that just blows the discussion wide open. I’d still take the cleric for their superior utility over a shaman, and if I really needed malo I could just log a pocket mage for mala which is nearly just as good. A cleric/enc/enc/wiz group could PL a mage in no time.

You simply don’t understand group/raid dynamics if you think a shaman brings more to the table than a cleric does. Solo rank != duo rank != trio rank != 4 man rank != 5 man rank != 6 man rank != raid rank.

Edit: even your beloved monks have moved onto clerics when velious geared. Monk/cleric is just safer in most situations Vs relying on slow/torpor as higher tier mobs get harder to slow.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

OP didn’t specify having pocket chars. And even if he did, that just blows the discussion wide open. I’d still take the cleric for their superior utility over a shaman, and if I really needed malo I could just log a pocket mage for mala which is nearly just as good. A cleric/enc/enc/wiz group could PL a mage in no time.

You simply don’t understand group/raid dynamics if you think a shaman brings more to the table than a cleric does. Solo rank != duo rank != trio rank != 4 man rank != 5 man rank != 6 man rank != raid rank.

OP didn't explicitly ban pocket characters either, so I am not sure what your point is.

I am not sure why you are bringing raid dynamics into a group of 4 people without a Warrior for a tank.

For group dynamics I understand them just fine. It is why Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is such a strong trio. I am sorry you simply don't understand why this is a strong trio.

[Crede]

OP didn't explicitly ban pocket characters either, so I am not sure what your point is.

I am not sure why you are bringing raid dynamics into a group of 4 people without a Warrior for a tank.

For group dynamics I understand them just fine. It is why Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is such a strong trio. I am sorry you simply don't understand why this is a strong trio.

I am not sure why you’re bringing in monks when this is a caster discussion.

It’s not a matter of “strong”. The thread is about “best”.

It’s really that simple

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I am not sure why you’re bringing in monks when this is a caster discussion.

It’s not a matter of “strong”. The thread is about “best”.

It’s really that simple

Agreed. So far, you haven't shown any evidence as to why the Cleric is bringing more than the Shaman in a group of four 60s without a Warrior, when OP didn't specify that you cannot have pocket Clerics for reses.

[Crede]

Agreed. So far, you haven't shown any evidence as to why the Cleric is bringing more than the Shaman in a group of 60s without a Warrior, when OP didn't specify that you cannot have pocket Clerics for reses.

You’re focusing too much on rez. That’s just the cherry on top.

Clerics just synergieze better with enchanters. Better overall spellbook in this situation. Shaman is more geared to niche drawn out solo battles.

It’s not uncommon for people to run multiple clerics too. You could have a cleric in your main group and just have a pocket one parked in case you do wipe.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You’re focusing too much on rez. That’s just the cherry on top.

Clerics just synergieze better with enchanters. Better overall spellbook in this situation. Shaman is more geared to niche drawn out solo battles.

It’s not uncommon for people to run multiple clerics too. You could have a cleric in your main group and just have a pocket one parked in case you do wipe.

I am not disagreeing with the point that Clerics synergize well with Enchanters.

You could also have a Shaman/Cleric if you want two healers.

If you want to make the claim that Clerics are better for a four man caster/priest group, you need to provide some evidence so we can compare it to a Shaman.

[fortior]

It is a pretty silly argument to say "you made a mistake in a video game, therefore you know nothing about said video game".

Sure. But it's not the only thing to point at. Speaking as someone who only entered this thread recently, there are a lot of signs that you (and some others) are firmly playing EQ as it's 'intended' to be played. That is to say, like we used to play it in 1999. Back then there were no farm crews, planes were 100% the domain of raiding guilds and definitely not any small unaffiliated groups, and a Ring War was finished maybe once every few months. Your tactics, ideas, and gameplay mirror what someone who never progressed from 1999-era EQ1 would come up with.

You slow, malo, canni/torpor, and dot mobs. No DA earring to save the day, your Magelo doesn't show a FD ring, nothing in your videos even alludes to 'advanced' gameplay using clickies and the like. It's just all very standard, and then when something unexpected like a train happens, you just shrug, chalk it up to 'bad pathing', and wipe.

If people take anything from this thread, it should be this: always try to find a way to solve a sticky situation in EQ1. Usually there's a clicky you could've had, a spell you could've had memmed, or a strategy you could have tried. I guarantee you that you would have made those 2 inexperienced players' day if you DA held like a boss and told them to gate out while you held the line.

Even if all the mobs were firmly locked on 1 of the others, the other one could have gated out and while the end result would have been similar (needed a cleric to rez), you would have been a hero. And that's with minimal effort--just a DA earring clicky and a buff/heal on whoever the mobs were on.

People trash talk your videos because they're just very basic. They could have been made in 1999 if people had the hardware/software. Now a video of a shaman using AE slow combined with a DA earring into idol DA to rip a huge train off of his party, into the party successfully escaping... that would have gotten you some props I bet.

But you can't come up with a plan like that because I think you just don't really care about becoming better or coming up with original ideas. You're the type of guy who spends 10 years optimizing malo slow torpor dot canni-ing mobs down without ever peeking outside of that cramped little box.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Sure. But it's not the only thing to point at. Speaking as someone who only entered this thread recently, there are a lot of signs that you (and some others) are firmly playing EQ as it's 'intended' to be played. That is to say, like we used to play it in 1999. Back then there were no farm crews, planes were 100% the domain of raiding guilds and definitely not any small unaffiliated groups, and a Ring War was finished maybe once every few months. Your tactics, ideas, and gameplay mirror what someone who never progressed from 1999-era EQ1 would come up with.

You slow, malo, canni/torpor, and dot mobs. No DA earring to save the day, your Magelo doesn't show a FD ring, nothing in your videos even alludes to 'advanced' gameplay using clickies and the like. It's just all very standard, and then when something unexpected like a train happens, you just shrug, chalk it up to 'bad pathing', and wipe.

If people take anything from this thread, it should be this: always try to find a way to solve a sticky situation in EQ1. Usually there's a clicky you could've had, a spell you could've had memmed, or a strategy you could have tried. I guarantee you that you would have made those 2 inexperienced players' day if you DA held like a boss and told them to gate out while you held the line.

Even if all the mobs were firmly locked on 1 of the others, the other one could have gated out and while the end result would have been similar (needed a cleric to rez), you would have been a hero. And that's with minimal effort--just a DA earring clicky and a buff/heal on whoever the mobs were on.

People trash talk your videos because they're just very basic. They could have been made in 1999 if people had the hardware/software. Now a video of a shaman using AE slow combined with a DA earring into idol DA to rip a huge train off of his party, into the party successfully escaping... that would have gotten you some props I bet.

But you can't come up with a plan like that because I think you just don't really care about becoming better or coming up with original ideas. You're the type of guy who spends 10 years optimizing malo slow torpor dot canni-ing mobs down without ever peeking outside of that cramped little box.

I would be happy to see videos of yourself doing all of these super pro things! The difference between me and you is I can provide in-game evidence to back up my points, where you simply criticize others while providing no videos yourself.

Again, making the claim that a player doesn't understand the game simply because they made a mistake is nonsense, which is what you are attempting to do here.

[fortior]

I'm not going to make a video because you can't click your earring, dude. You've gotten lots of good advice from experienced players here, but your answer is always to plug up your ears and demand 'evidence', aka for other people to do the legwork for you.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'm not going to make a video because you can't click your earring, dude. You've gotten lots of good advice from experienced players here, but your answer is always to plug up your ears and demand 'evidence', aka for other people to do the legwork for you.

It is always convenient that you can simply say "I don't need evidence for my claims".

I am not sure why you think I am ignoring other people's advise. Maybe you should unplug your ears a bit and listen to other people:)

[fortior]

It's truly a mystery how Vanquish could have failed with playmakers like you in their ranks. Demanding 'video evidence' of someone clicking a DA earring, like it's never been done. Mindboggling.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

It's truly a mystery how Vanquish could have failed with playmakers like you in their ranks. Demanding 'video evidence' of someone clicking a DA earring, like it's never been done. Mindboggling.

I am not saying you need to make a video showing how to click a DA earring lol. Nice strawman.

I am saying you should make some videos of yourself showing how pro you are, because your argument simply boils down to "I am better at the game than you, therefore I am right".

Thus far, you can't even prove you are good at the game, so this terrible argument falls flat.

[Crede]

I am not disagreeing with the point that Clerics synergize well with Enchanters.

You could also have a Shaman/Cleric if you want two healers.

If you want to make the claim that Clerics are better for a four man caster/priest group, you need to provide some evidence so we can compare it to a Shaman.

No evidence needed, it’s an objective truth. Clerics are simply a better class than a shaman. A hybrid in classic eq is essentially settling for inferiority.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

No evidence needed, it’s an objective truth. Clerics are simply a better class than a shaman. A hybrid in classic eq is essentially settling for inferiority.

"No evidence needed, it’s an objective truth. Shamans are simply a better class than a Cleric."

Hey look, I can do it too!

[fortior]

Why would I put any more effort into teaching you anything about the game. It's been a complete waste of time so far.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Why would I put any more effort into teaching you anything about the game. It's been a complete waste of time so far.

If you can show evidence, the whole community benefits. Whenever these kinds of discussions come up again, we can simply point to that.

It's a win/win scenario, since I don't care about being wrong. If you prove me wrong, everybody learns something. If I am right, hopefully you reduce your trolling.

[Crede]

"No evidence needed, it’s an objective truth. Shamans are simply a better class than a Cleric."

Hey look, I can do it too!

Opinions don’t change facts, sorry 😢

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Opinions don’t change facts, sorry ��

Agreed! Bring the facts please. Simply saying "the facts are out there" is not a collection of facts.

[cyxthryth]

If you can show evidence, the whole community benefits. Whenever these kinds of discussions come up again, we can simply point to that.

It's a win/win scenario, since I don't care about being wrong. If you prove me wrong, everybody learns something. If I am right, hopefully you reduce your trolling.

Since evidence is so important to the community, please kindly provide evidence which support your claims made over tens? hundreds? of posts that your Shaman can improve a group's DPS (providing benefit to the group and/or more of a benefit than a non-Epic Magician).


# of posts about Shamans improving the DPS of their group via Root-Rotting mulitple mobs parallel to the group: tens? hundreds?

# of posts including evidence of such: 0


Additionally, I am still eagerly and patiently awaiting your response to the following 2 simple questions I asked in my previous post - which you are (seemingly) ignoring:



If you believe the DPS will be "the same" / "won't change" in a group vs solo please clarify, are there or are there not outside variables introduced via the addition of group-mates which can "skew the data" / "change the DPS equation"?

You simply cannot claim "it (DPS) will be the same solo vs group, it (DPS) won't change" while simultaneously claiming "outside variables when grouping (which do not exist/apply when solo) skew the data " / "change the DPS equation" (affect DPS), as the statements are simply contradictory.


If you believe there are variables out of your control introduced by each group-mate which can "skew the data" and "change the DPS equation" please clarify, how can a given player's DPS be "the same every time" / "won't change in a group" when taking the aforementioned variables into consideration/account?

You simply cannot claim "outside variables when grouping (which do not exist/apply when solo) skew the data " / "change the DPS equation" (affect DPS) while simultaneously claiming "it (DPS) will be the same solo vs group, it (DPS) won't change", as the statements are simply contradictory.

[Crede]

Agreed! Bring the facts please. Simply saying "the facts are out there" is not a collection of facts.

Sure it is. The facts are out there, doesn’t mean I need to tell you what they are. You are certaintly capable of going out and discovering them.

You still have a lot to learn about this game. I wouldn’t take that experience away from you!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Sure it is. The facts are out there, doesn’t mean I need to tell you what they are. You are certaintly capable of going out and discovering them.

You still have a lot to learn about this game. I wouldn’t take that experience away from you!

Nice excuse! Let me do the same thing:

"The facts are out there, doesn’t mean I need to tell you what they are. You are certaintly capable of going out and discovering them.

You still have a lot to learn about this game. I wouldn’t take that experience away from you!"

Guess we are at an impasse again. What will your next "I am right, you are wrong" argument variation be I wonder? Should we take bets?

[Crede]

Nice excuse! Let me do the same thing:

"The facts are out there, doesn’t mean I need to tell you what they are. You are certaintly capable of going out and discovering them.

You still have a lot to learn about this game. I wouldn’t take that experience away from you!"

Guess we are at an impasse again. What will your next "I am right, you are wrong" argument variation be I wonder? Should we take bets?

Since you have resorted to copy/pasting everything I say, I can only assume you are a troll at this point

I will continue this discussion once you have gone out and discovered these facts for yourself :)

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Since you have resorted to copy/pasting everything I say, I can only assume you are a troll at this point

I will continue this discussion once you have gone out and discovered these facts for yourself :)

Please come back when you can provide any evidence for any of your claims. I have provided multiple videos showing how the game works and how Shamans work. You have provided "I am right, you are wrong" arguments. I am sorry, but logical fallacies do not count as valid methods of debate.

Claiming I am a troll because you refuse to provide evidence for your own claims is quite a stretch.

As I said before, I would be happy to group with you Crede so we can make some videos! You can see a video of me grouping up with Pint to help move the discussion along about a Shadowknight debate, so you have proof that I am not simply saying this.

For those interested, you can check out the youtube channel in my signature for the videos and make up your own minds. Trolls like Cyxthryth will continue to use the argument that all evidence is invalid, because they can't provide anything better.

[cyxthryth]

I don't care about being wrong

It could argued that since you (DSM) "don't care about being wrong" even if you know that you are objectively wrong you simply don't care, & will simply continue to argue despite being objectively wrong indefinitely. The evidence in this thread (& the above Quote) supports this argument very well, as you have made 1,300+ posts which simply provided no evidence which supported your specific claims made over tens? hundreds? of posts that your Shaman could improve a group's DPS and provide benefit and/or more benefit than a non Epic Mage by Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group, as one simple example.

[cyxthryth]

Trolls like Cyxthryth will continue to use the argument that all evidence is invalid, because they can't provide anything better.

I've never argued that all evidence is invalid lol. That's simply another DSM Straw Man, which supports the below:

I don't care about being wrong

It could be argued that since you (DSM) "don't care about being wrong" even if you know that you are objectively wrong you simply don't care, & will simply continue to argue despite being objectively wrong indefinitely. The evidence in this thread (& the above Quote) supports this argument very well, as you have made 1,300+ posts which simply provided no evidence which supported your specific claims made over tens? hundreds? of posts that your Shaman could improve a group's DPS and provide benefit and/or more benefit than a non Epic Mage by Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group, as one simple example.

[Crede]

Please come back when you can provide any evidence for any of your claims. I have provided multiple videos showing how the game works and how Shamans work. You have provided "I am right, you are wrong" arguments. I am sorry, but logical fallacies do not count as valid methods of debate.

Claiming I am a troll because you refuse to provide evidence for your own claims is quite a stretch.

As I said before, I would be happy to group with you Crede so we can make some videos! You can see a video of me grouping up with Pint to help move the discussion along about a Shadowknight debate, so you have proof that I am not simply saying this.

For those interested, you can check out the youtube channel in my signature for the videos and make up your own minds. Trolls like Cyxthryth will continue to use the argument that all evidence is invalid, because they can't provide anything better.

How can one make up their mind when you continuously provide contradicting Claims that multiple users have pointed out?

Agreed. So far, you haven't shown any evidence as to why the Cleric is bringing more than the Shaman in a group of four 60s without a Warrior, when OP didn't specify that you cannot have pocket Clerics for reses.

So you suggested using a pocket cleric, but yet you originally included clerics in the discussion, so clearly you see their value in the group, or else you wouldn’t have initially suggested it.

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

It’s hard to keep track of everything with all the goalpost shifting. Since you can clearly see the value of a cleric, you’ll need to provide evidence that a shaman is still needed when you could just add a mage for mala and more dps.

Seems like you’re still unsure about clerics too which confirms my assumptions that you need to go out and acquire more experience!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

How can one make up their mind when you continuously provide contradicting Claims that multiple users have pointed out?



So you suggested using a pocket cleric, but yet you originally included clerics in the discussion, so clearly you see their value in the group, or else you wouldn’t have initially suggested it.



It’s hard to keep track of everything with all the goalpost shifting. Since you can clearly see the value of a cleric, you’ll need to provide evidence that a shaman is still needed when you could just add a mage for mala and more dps.

Seems like you’re still unsure about clerics too which confirms my assumptions that you need to go out and acquire more experience!

These are not contradictions. They are separate discussions you are taking out of context to try and make them contradictions:) It is grasping at straws instead of providing evidence.

I never claimed Clerics are bad in this scenario. You can see I advocated for them on the first page! You are the one claiming Shamans are bad in this scenario, and can never be considered over a Cleric. Thus you need to back up your claim about Shamans being bad in this scenario.

It is not "goal post shifting" when there are multiple discussions going on in a thread, and I am responding to each of them. To say that this thread has been on one single topic without variation is obviously laughable.

For the specific topic of pocket Clerics, that was a discussion on the merits of picking a Cleric over a Shaman if you had to choose one. I said Shaman and Cleric in the same group was a fine idea on page one.

I provided evidence as to why a Shaman is a good pick. So far you have provided zero evidence as to why a Cleric is a good pick, or a Mage.

[cyxthryth]

I provided evidence as to why a Shaman is a good pick. So far you have provided zero evidence as to why a Cleric is a good pick, or a Mage.

Huh?

For the sake of civil discussion can you please provide the definition that you are using for "evidence" and/or specify the criteria that must be met to be able to consider something "evidence" (of something)?

[Gloomlord]

I am not disagreeing with the point that Clerics synergize well with Enchanters.

You could also have a Shaman/Cleric if you want two healers.

If you want to make the claim that Clerics are better for a four man caster/priest group, you need to provide some evidence so we can compare it to a Shaman.

Like, what...? What the fuck?

Do you even play this game?!?!?!

Of course Clerics are better than Shaman for a 4 man caster group, you ridiculous man.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Like, what...? What the fuck?

Do you even play this game?!?!?!

Of course Clerics are better than Shaman for a 4 man caster group, you ridiculous man.

Still waiting on the evidence for this claim!

[7thGate]

I would actually really love to see the DA train rip redirecting a train off someone else, if anyone has a video of this working. As described this goes against my understanding of how DA operates and doesn't sound like it would work. As far as I know you will immediately temporarily drop to the bottom of the hate list when DA activates, preventing you from holding aggro on anyone since DA tanking could potentially be a thing otherwise.

Every time I've seen someone go DA they immediately shed aggro back, whether its a paladin emergency DAing in halls of testing or a rip off a DA kite bringing everything until DA wears off causing the pack to split as the untagged mobs re-aggro the initial DA trainout person. For this to work as described, I must be missing some aspect of how this mechanic works. Hm...

...is it that the mob doesn't check for a new top hate entry to potentially target switch until someone does something to it? Maybe I should test this.

I have blocked a train as described with Nimble by sitting down in the path of a train before it hits camp to sit aggro the train on inbound and Nimble kite it away to give time to log out, but Nimble doesn't change your aggro order.

Also as a note, you get between 12 and 18 seconds off DA since its 3 server ticks duration. I was reminded of that the hard way while working out splitting triplets.

[Crede]

I provided evidence as to why a Shaman is a good pick. So far you have provided zero evidence as to why a Cleric is a good pick, or a Mage.

What is your definition of a "good pick"?

You provided a video where you averaged 15 dps & your group wiped multiple times. You were also criticized by your ability to assist others in charm breaks. This is by no means evidence of anything you have claimed in this thread, lol, and in fact directly contradicts all of what you have previously claimed.

Please come back with something actually meaningful to this discussion, for all intensive purposes, nobody would consider your "evidence" as signs for why a shaman would be a "good pick".

I don't need to provide evidence as to why a cleric is appropriate in this group, considering the entire thread, including yourself, already included them as part of the original discussion, I think we can put that to rest that they are guaranteed a spot here.

[Guesty07]

444 pages to learn than mage damage > shaman

[DeathsSilkyMist]

What is your definition of a "good pick"?

You provided a video where you averaged 15 dps & your group wiped multiple times. You were also criticized by your ability to assist others in charm breaks. This is by no means evidence of anything you have claimed in this thread, lol, and in fact directly contradicts all of what you have previously claimed.

Please come back with something actually meaningful to this discussion, for all intensive purposes, nobody would consider your "evidence" as signs for why a shaman would be a "good pick".

You are either purposely straw manning my arguments, or simply not reading what I am saying. Neither of these tactics are helping your position, and make you look like a troll.

The arguments below are assuming you only have 1 slot left in the group, and are trying to determine which class is best for that remaining slot.

Here are some common arguments for a Cleric, and my rebuttals thus far:

1a. Argument: Clerics have Resurrection and Shamans do not.
1b. Rebuttal: Pocket Clerics are a common tactic when it comes to Resurrection, which you agree with: https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3610378&postcount=6

2a. Argument: Clerics have CH, which is a better tool for keeping Charmed Pets alive.
2b. Rebuttal: With Torpor + Slow, Shamans can tank the mobs instead of the Charmed Pets. This removes the need to CH pets, and it allows the pets to do a bit more DPS, because they can both be behind the mob. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG1Aat1XdbI - Here is an example of this, and you can go on my youtube channel to see other examples of Shaman tanking.

3a. Argument: Clerics have Stun Command, which is a useful spell during Charm breaks.
3b. Rebuttal: Stun Command is not required to properly handle Charm breaks. You need to show evidence as to why this is a huge benefit over Malo/Malosini on a pet for Charm breaks, for example. Shamans have quite a few tools to use when helping out with a Charm break.

4a. Argument: This group of 4 players without a Warrior need at least one cleric for CH when dealing with slow immune mobs.
4b. Rebuttal: People making this claim have yet to name a camp where they think this will be an issue. They are assuming there are camps that a group of 4 players without a Warrior could reasonably do by CHing the pet, since the mob cannot be slowed. We could test if this camp isn't doable by a Shaman, and we could debate the merits of trying to do this camp to begin with in a four man caster/priest group. Also, if you have a pocket Cleric at level 49, you will be able to swap to them for CHing one or two very specific camps.

Here are some common arguments for a Mage, and my rebuttals thus far:

5a. Argument: You cannot use solo DPS videos to mimic group DPS when trying to determine which classes are better/worse for DPS.
5b. Rebuttal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG1Aat1XdbI this video shows you can use a solo video such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XwiGKTuu2E to mimic group DPS. This means you can get an accurate idea about what the DPS difference is between a Shaman and a Mage, to better understand what the tradeoff is between a Mage and a Shaman. Crede didn't watch the video I posted, which is why he thought I was only doing 15 DPS. With a Shaman pet and 1x Ice Strike, I am doing 30ish DPS minimum, not including the DPS boost from avataring the Charmed pets, and the DPS boost from having the Charmed pets hitting the mob from behind. This group was also not an example of a "perfect group", as the Enchanter and Necromancer were not level 60. This means there is room for improvement. I also would have been able to root/rot in HS west if the group wanted more kills per hour.

6a. Argument: The DPS advantage a Mage can provide in a group out weights the Utility of a Shaman.
6b. Rebuttal: DPS has diminishing returns, based on the camp you are currently doing. As as simple example, if you are camping a mob on a 5 minute timer and it takes 1 minute to kill the mob, you are getting 10 kills per hour. If you double your DPS to where you are killing the mob in 30 seconds, you are getting 11 kills per hour. While you did double your DPS, you did not double your XP gains, you only boosted them by 10%. In a group that is camping a single high priority mob, such as Fungi King, you are not getting any more kills per hour by increasing your DPS via bringing a Mage. At 200 DPS you kill him in 90 seconds. At 300 DPS you kill him in 60 seconds. Saving 30 seconds per 30 minute respawn timer would require you to camp him for 30 hours to get an extra spawn. If your group is killing a lot of trivial mobs for XP, that camp/area has a limit on how many mobs are killable per hour. You may already be at that limit with 2x Enchanters. A Shaman can also increase their DPS by root rotting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gdAIheodtY This is what that would look like in Velks. The Shaman would be root rotting in one area, while the group is in another nearby area killing other spiders.

Thus far, No evidence has been provided for any of these 6 arguments that dismantle my rebuttals.

The idea that I said Shamans will typically out-DPS Mages is a strawman, and thus not one of the points mentioned here. Mages will generally out-DPS a Shaman in single target scenarios and burst scenarios. Shamans can out-DPS Mages in root/rotting scenarios.

[bcbrown]

3a. Argument: Clerics have Stun Command, which is a useful spell during Charm breaks.
3b. Rebuttal: Stun Command is not required to properly handle Charm breaks. You need to show evidence as to why this is a huge benefit over Malo/Malosini on a pet for Charm breaks, for example. Shamans have quite a few tools to use when helping out with a Charm break.

I'd like to hear you restate your case for how a shaman can help out on a charm break, because I usually feel kinda useless on charm breaks when playing my shaman. Malo line, of course, but what can you actually do to give the enchanter some space to re-charm?

On the cleric, the level 5 Stun gives a couple seconds for the enchanter to react, and won't override a successful mez. The DD stuns are less useful because they can break mez, but can sometimes be helpful. Stun Command, obviously helpful.

Both shamans and clerics can root or heal. What other tricks would a shaman use? There's slows, but that makes the pet more of a hastle to get back into fighting form after re-charming. Sometimes I use Flash of Light to steal aggro, but I always worry about it landing while no one is in melee range, causing the mob to run off in a random direction.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'd like to hear you restate your case for how a shaman can help out on a charm break, because I usually feel kinda useless on charm breaks when playing my shaman. Malo line, of course, but what can you actually do to give the enchanter some space to re-charm?

On the cleric, the level 5 Stun gives a couple seconds for the enchanter to react, and won't override a successful mez. The DD stuns are less useful because they can break mez, but can sometimes be helpful. Stun Command, obviously helpful.

Both shamans and clerics can root or heal. What other tricks would a shaman use? There's slows, but that makes the pet more of a hastle to get back into fighting form after re-charming. Sometimes I use Flash of Light to steal aggro, but I always worry about it landing while no one is in melee range, causing the mob to run off in a random direction.

Root/Slow/Blind/Heal are the tools. Most charm breaks aren't bad enough (at least from my experience) to require extra stuns from a second or third class. When you play with an experienced enough Enchanter, they are already quite good at handling the initial stuns.

On a bad break you can slow the mob and dispel it afterwards. Otherwise Root/Blind/Heal have been good enough. I don't remember having enough bad breaks to actually need to slow the mob more than a handful of times. I wouldn't consider Stun Command to be something I couldn't live without. I've grouped with quite a few Enchanters over the years, luckily most have been experienced.

Malo reduces the number of charm breaks per hour, which helps make up for the time you may lose if a bad break occurs once in a session that requires a slow/dispel.

[Crede]

You are either purposely straw manning my arguments, or simply not reading what I am saying. Neither of these tactics are helping your position, and make you look like a troll.

The arguments below are assuming you only have 1 slot left in the group, and are trying to determine which class is best for that remaining slot.

Here are some common arguments for a Cleric, and my rebuttals thus far:

1a. Argument: Clerics have Resurrection and Shamans do not.
1b. Myth: Pocket Clerics are a common tactic when it comes to Resurrection, which you agree with: https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3610378&postcount=6
1c. Fact: This is a 4 man discussion. Pocket Clerics are not relevant. Pathetic attempt to pull in a non related thread about a solo enchanter getting help with rezzes. If multiple group members were allowed, the cleric would have been included.

2a. Argument: Clerics have CH, which is a better tool for keeping Charmed Pets alive.
2b. Myth: With Torpor + Slow, Shamans can tank the mobs instead of the Charmed Pets. This removes the need to CH pets, and it allows the pets to do a bit more DPS, because they can both be behind the mob. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG1Aat1XdbI - Here is an example of this, and you can go on my youtube channel to see other examples of Shaman tanking.
2b. Fact: Quite a lot of mobs are either hard to slow, or slow immune. sebilite protector for example, if slow cannot land, the shaman will be dead in a matter of seconds. Torpor is inferior to Cheal. This thread is about best, no need to settle for an inferior heal. Safer to just cheal an 8k hp pet

3a. Argument: Clerics have Stun Command, which is a useful spell during Charm breaks.
3b. Myth: Stun Command is not required to properly handle Charm breaks. You need to show evidence as to why this is a huge benefit over Malo/Malosini on a pet for Charm breaks, for example. Shamans have quite a few tools to use when helping out with a Charm break.
3c. Fact: Nor is malo or slow required for charm breaks. Stun is the best defense against Charm breaks, this is how enchanters do it, cleric stun only supports this even more. This thread is about best, stun command can lock down both the pet & multiple other mobs at once too. It is the best arguably the defense against charm breaks, including anything the enchanter can offer, as it lasts longer than any enchanter stun. Clerics also have multiple single target slows. You'd be silly to pass this up for something like a shaman slow which no enchanter wants their pet slowed.

4a. Argument: This group of 4 players without a Warrior need at least one cleric for CH when dealing with slow immune mobs.
4b. Myth: People making this claim have yet to name a camp where they think this will be an issue. They are assuming there are camps that a group of 4 players without a Warrior could reasonably do by CHing the pet, since the mob cannot be slowed. We could test if this camp isn't doable by a Shaman, and we could debate the merits of trying to do this camp to begin with in a four man caster/priest group. Also, if you have a pocket Cleric at level 49, you will be able to swap to them for CHing one or two very specific camps.
4c. Fact: See 2b. Torpor is not needed either, and is inferior to CH. Certain mobs can out dps Torpor. CH opens up options, especially if you do want to invite a warrior to attempt some harder mobs. Ie. no downside to losing Torpor, only upside to adding Cheal.

Here are some common arguments for a Mage, and my rebuttals thus far:

5a. Argument: You cannot use solo DPS videos to mimic group DPS when trying to determine which classes are better/worse for DPS.
5b. Myth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG1Aat1XdbI this video shows you can use a solo video such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XwiGKTuu2E to mimic group DPS. This means you can get an accurate idea about what the DPS difference is between a Shaman and a Mage, to better understand what the tradeoff is between a Mage and a Shaman. Crede didn't watch the video I posted, which is why he thought I was only doing 15 DPS. With a Shaman pet and 1x Ice Strike, I am doing 30ish DPS minimum, not including the DPS boost from avataring the Charmed pets, and the DPS boost from having the Charmed pets hitting the mob from behind. This group was also not an example of a "perfect group", as the Enchanter and Necromancer were not level 60. This means there is room for improvement. I also would have been able to root/rot in HS west if the group wanted more kills per hour.
5c. Fact: DSM claimed that a shaman could put out dps similar to a 60 focused water pet mage in a group. 15/30 dps is not remotely close. This video is irrelevant to the discussion. DSM assumes shaman has everything. Give mage everything(epic pet) this DPS gap only gets larger.

6a. Argument: The DPS advantage a Mage can provide in a group out weights the Utility of a Shaman.
6b. Myth: DPS has diminishing returns, based on the camp you are currently doing. As as simple example, if you are camping a mob on a 5 minute timer and it takes 1 minute to kill the mob, you are getting 10 kills per hour. If you double your DPS to where you are killing the mob in 30 seconds, you are getting 11 kills per hour. While you did double your DPS, you did not double your XP gains, you only boosted them by 10%. In a group that is camping a single high priority mob, such as Fungi King, you are not getting any more kills per hour by increasing your DPS via bringing a Mage. At 200 DPS you kill him in 90 seconds. At 300 DPS you kill him in 60 seconds. Saving 30 seconds per 30 minute respawn timer would require you to camp him for 30 hours to get an extra spawn. If your group is killing a lot of trivial mobs for XP, that camp/area has a limit on how many mobs are killable per hour. You may already be at that limit with 2x Enchanters. A Shaman can also increase their DPS by root rotting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gdAIheodtY This is what that would look like in Velks. The Shaman would be root rotting in one area, while the group is in another nearby area killing other spiders.
6c. Fact: DPS has diminishing returns after a certain level of DPS. DPS provides more downtime for player fatigue. A lot of things in this game have diminishing returns. Doesn’t stop people from seeking more of said diminished return. Utility has no returns after a certain level of utility. A cleric and 2 enchanters bring enough utility to render the shaman's utility useless.

Thus far, No evidence has been provided for any of these 6 arguments that dismantle my rebuttals.

The idea that I said Shamans will typically out-DPS Mages is a strawman, and thus not one of the points mentioned here. Mages will generally out-DPS a Shaman in single target scenarios and burst scenarios. Shamans can out-DPS Mages in root/rotting scenarios.

Fact: You have yet to provide evidence of shamans out-DPS mages in root/rotting scenarios. Evidence which has been requested far more than anything else in this thread

[DeathsSilkyMist]

1c. Fact: This is a 4 man discussion. Pocket Clerics are not relevant. Pathetic attempt to pull in a non related thread about a solo enchanter getting help with rezzes. If multiple group members were allowed, the cleric would have been included.


OP did not specify you cannot bring pocket Clerics. You can bring a pocket Cleric if you want to, and it is a common tactic on P99. Nobody needs to listen to your forced requirements that are simply applied to win the argument.


2b. Fact: Quite a lot of mobs are either hard to slow, or slow immune. sebilite protector for example, if slow cannot land, the shaman will be dead in a matter of seconds. Torpor is inferior to Cheal. This thread is about best, no need to settle for an inferior heal. Safer to just cheal an 8k hp pet


You can run the mobs around before you engage them to slow them. You need to show evidence that you have a Cleric/Enchanter duo doing this type of mob faster than a Shaman/Enchanter duo.


3c. Fact: Nor is malo or slow required for charm breaks. Stun is the best defense against Charm breaks, this is how enchanters do it, cleric stun only supports this even more. This thread is about best, stun command can lock down both the pet & multiple other mobs at once too. It is the best arguably the defense against charm breaks, including anything the enchanter can offer, as it lasts longer than any enchanter stun. Clerics also have multiple single target slows. You'd be silly to pass this up for something like a shaman slow which no enchanter wants their pet slowed.


You need to show some evidence for this instead of just assuming it's better in the long run.


4c. Fact: See 2b. Torpor is not needed either, and is inferior to CH. Certain mobs can out dps Torpor. CH opens up options, especially if you do want to invite a warrior to attempt some harder mobs. Ie. no downside to losing Torpor, only upside to adding Cheal.


Please name some mobs that out-DPS Torpor and a group of 4 people would want to kill. Torpor also opens up options where using charmed pets is more difficult, like WW Dragons.


5c. Fact: DSM claimed that a shaman could put out dps similar to a 60 focused water pet mage in a group.


Please quote me where I said any of this. The entire purpose of comparing a Mage's DPS to a Shaman's DPS is to get an idea of what the gap is. This makes it easier to determine the what the DPS loss is vs. the utility gained.


6c. Fact: DPS has diminishing returns after a certain level of DPS. DPS provides more downtime for player fatigue. Utility has no returns after a certain level of utility. A cleric and 2 enchanters bring enough utility to render the shaman's utility useless.


Enchanters are also a high fatigue class, this really isn't a good argument. If you want easier to play classes, you wouldn't be suggesting Enchanters.


Fact: You have yet to provide evidence of shamans out-DPS mages in root/rotting scenarios


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gdAIheodtY - Here is an example of root rotting in Velks. You can provide a video of a Mage killing the same mobs, and we can see who wins!

[cyxthryth]

Here are some common arguments for a Cleric, and my rebuttals thus far:

1a. Argument: Clerics have Resurrection and Shamans do not.
1b. Rebuttal: Pocket Clerics are a common tactic when it comes to Resurrection, which you agree with: https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3610378&postcount=6

1. Your solution for the specific scenario of needing Cleric skills is to bring Cleric - got it. That is not a particularly strong argument in favor of taking a Shaman over a Cleric. In fact isn't an argument for the Shaman at all. The objective fact is that Clerics are able to resurrect and Shaman's class toolkit doesn't have an equivalent/comparable/better solution. It's really that simple in this particular case / when concerning res'ing. Your "rebuttal" does not change the objective fact.


2a. Argument: Clerics have CH, which is a better tool for keeping Charmed Pets alive.
2b. Rebuttal: With Torpor + Slow, Shamans can tank the mobs instead of the Charmed Pets. This removes the need to CH pets, and it allows the pets to do a bit more DPS, because they can both be behind the mob. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG1Aat1XdbI - Here is an example of this, and you can go on my youtube channel to see other examples of Shaman tanking.

2. You have proposed Shaman as an OPTION in the above quote, and obviously that implies that you believe Shaman is a comparable, equivalent, or better option than Cleric, but your post does NOT contain ANY evidence of a Shaman actually performing comparably, equivalently or better than a Cleric. The irrefutable fact is that you are merely sharing your opinion, just like the other poster(s) who you are claiming have made this claim. Provide evidence that Shaman is comparable or better than Cleric if you want to claim Shaman is comparable, equivalent or better, otherwise, if you are merely sharing opinions and disagree with others' opinions, you simply need to accept the fact that you have simply reached an impasse as your opinion is no more valuable than any other poster's, and you certainly have no authority with which to claim your opinion is "the correct opinion" over other poster's and demand others provide some undefined "evidence" while you yourself have provided no such thing to support the claims you've made.


3a. Argument: Clerics have Stun Command, which is a useful spell during Charm breaks.
3b. Rebuttal: Stun Command is not required to properly handle Charm breaks. You need to show evidence as to why this is a huge benefit over Malo/Malosini on a pet for Charm breaks, for example. Shamans have quite a few tools to use when helping out with a Charm break.

3. Stun command not being required does NOT refute the objective fact that "Clerics have Stun Command, which is a useful spell during Charm breaks" which is what you claim to be "rebutting". Yes, Charm breaks can be handled without Stun Command, but it is still a useful spell and your "rebuttal" simply does not change that objective fact. If you want to make the objective claim a Shaman's tools make them comparable, equivalent or better than Cleric then YOU need to show evidence to support that claim. Otherwise, you are once again simply sharing your opinion that Shaman's tools (Malo, Slow) are comparable, equivalent or better. But that's all you provided - your opinion - no "evidence" - and nobody owes any to you for their opinion either.



4a. Argument: This group of 4 players without a Warrior need at least one cleric for CH when dealing with slow immune mobs.
4b. Rebuttal: People making this claim have yet to name a camp where they think this will be an issue. They are assuming there are camps that a group of 4 players without a Warrior could reasonably do by CHing the pet, since the mob cannot be slowed. We could test if this camp isn't doable by a Shaman, and we could debate the merits of trying to do this camp to begin with in a four man caster/priest group. Also, if you have a pocket Cleric at level 49, you will be able to swap to them for CHing one or two very specific camps.

4. Where did someone claim CH is "needed"? I'll admit I may have missed such a statement somewhere in the many posts in this thread but I highly doubt anybody made that claim. Show evidence to support your claim otherwise I call BS and provide this as irrefutable evidence that you are using - yet ANOTHER - straw man argument.


Here are some common arguments for a Mage, and my rebuttals thus far:

5a. Argument: You cannot use solo DPS videos to mimic group DPS when trying to determine which classes are better/worse for DPS.
5b. Rebuttal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jG1Aat1XdbI this video shows you can use a solo video such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XwiGKTuu2E to mimic group DPS. This means you can get an accurate idea about what the DPS difference is between a Shaman and a Mage, to better understand what the tradeoff is between a Mage and a Shaman. Crede didn't watch the video I posted, which is why he thought I was only doing 15 DPS. With a Shaman pet and 1x Ice Strike, I am doing 30ish DPS minimum, not including the DPS boost from avataring the Charmed pets, and the DPS boost from having the Charmed pets hitting the mob from behind. This group was also not an example of a "perfect group", as the Enchanter and Necromancer were not level 60. This means there is room for improvement. I also would have been able to root/rot in HS west if the group wanted more kills per hour.

5. Nice Straw Man. The "argument" is that a video of your Shaman root rotting mobs SOLO or a video in which you tank & heal & your group wipes multiple times (lol) and you DO NOT Root Rot multiple mobs parallel to the group, are NOT evidence of your Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to a group. This is simply an objective fact, and one that your "rebuttal" does not change. It's really that simple.


6a. & 6b. A Shaman can also increase their DPS by root rotting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gdAIheodtY This is what that would look like in Velks. The Shaman would be root rotting in one area, while the group is in another nearby area killing other spiders.

You have attempted to make the objective claim that Shaman can Root Rot multiple mobs parallel to a group and thereby increase DPS (providing benefeit, and/or more benefit than a non Epic Mage) but in nearly a year you have provided no evidence of your (or any) Shaman doing so - even once - let alone that it is a common or frequent occurrence. Tens? Hundreds? of posts claiming it, no evidence. This ultimately calls into question whether you are objectively correct or not (probably not), but you don't care about that, right? :)


Thus far, No evidence has been provided for any of these 6 arguments that dismantle my rebuttals.

You have provided no evidence which would demonstrate that "your rebuttals" have dismantled the claims you believe you are arguing against. If you believe you have, that is simply your opinion - which is likely objectively wrong/incorrect. But you don't care about that, right?

The idea that I said Shamans will typically out-DPS Mages is a strawman, and thus not one of the points mentioned here. Mages will generally out-DPS a Shaman in single target scenarios and burst scenarios. Shamans can out-DPS Mages in root/rotting scenarios.

You've presented evidence of your Shaman solo Root Rotting, but as has been pointed out to you possibly hundreds of times by now, you have provided no evidence of your Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group (thereby providing a benefit, much less more benefit than a non Epic Mage) - and it's been nearly a year.

[Ripqozko]

Kittens be trolling like crazy these days

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You have provided no evidence which would demonstrate that "your rebuttals" have dismantled the claims you believe you are arguing against. If you believe you have, that is simply your opinion - which is likely objectively wrong/incorrect. But you don't care about that, right?

You can keep making posts that basically say this over and over, but it doesn't change the fact that you have no evidence. I have videos, you do not. I am sorry, but it is not a valid tactic to simply keep claiming all evidence is invalid, and you do not need to provide any of your own.

[cyxthryth]

You can keep making posts that basically say this over and over, but it doesn't change the fact that you have no evidence. I have videos, you do not. I am sorry, but it is not a valid tactic to simply keep claiming all evidence is invalid, and you do not need to provide any of your own.

You can attempt to ignore my posts and the objective facts I've stated, but that does not and will not change the objective facts.

I could also link irrelevant videos that do not contain a Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to their group just like you did, and just like when you did it, it would simply not be evidence of a Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to their group.

The irrefutable proof that your evidence has been irrelevant is your evidence; everybody can see what it is, and more importantly what it is not: it is simply not evidence of a Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to their group. It is as simple as that, and I am not sure why you seem to have such a hard time with this.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You can attempt to ignore my posts and the objective facts I've stated, but that does not and will not change the objective facts.

I could also link irrelevant videos that do not contain a Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to their group just like you did, and just like when you did it, it would simply not be evidence of a Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to their group.

The irrefutable proof that your evidence has been irrelevant is your evidence; everybody can see what it is, and more importantly what it is not: it is simply not evidence of a Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to their group. It is as simple as that, and I am not sure why you seem to have such a hard time with this.

It's up to you to show that root rotting with a group vs. solo changes at all. You are making that claim, not me. Mobs do not change their stats based on your grouping status, so I am not sure why you think it would look any different. My video shows that you can safely root/rot, which is the important part of the equation.

[cyxthryth]

It's up to you to show that root rotting with a group vs. solo changes at all. You are making that claim, not me. Mobs do not change their stats based on your grouping status, so I am not sure why you think it would look any different. My video shows that you can safely root/rot, which is the important part of the equation.

No, nowhere have I claimed that root rotting with a group vs. solo 'will change", and if you wish to claim I have you simply need to provide evidence that I made that claim. You will not find such evidence, because this is simply an example of a DSM Straw Man argument.

I'm simply asking for you to prove what you have tens? hundreds? of times objectively claimed - that a Shaman can improve a group's DPS and thereby provide a benefit comparable to or better than a non Epic Mage by Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to their group - which, for almost a year now, you have provided no proof of. The burden of proof to justify/prove your objective claim has been solely on you - for almost a year, and I have told you this plenty of times by now. Again, this is very simple and I am not sure why you have such a hard time understanding.

To help you picture it in your mind in case this benefits your understanding:
Imagine Root Rotting solo is an Apple
Imagine Root Rotting parallel to a group is an Orange
What differentiates these two fruits is that one is simply solo, the other is simply in a group.
Obviously, is not helpful to submit an Apple and present it as an Orange, as to do so would simply be objectively false/incorrect/wrong. (But you don't care about that, right? :))

[DeathsSilkyMist]

No, nowhere have I claimed that root rotting with a group vs. solo 'will change", and if you wish to claim I have you simply need to provide evidence that I made that claim. You will not find such evidence, because this is simply an example of a DSM Straw Man argument.

I'm simply asking for you to prove what you have tens? hundreds? of times objectively claimed - that a Shaman can improve a group's DPS and thereby provide a benefit comparable to or better than a non Epic Mage by Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to their group - which, for almost a year now, you have provided no proof of. The burden of proof to justify/prove your objective claim has been solely on you - for almost a year, and I have told you this plenty of times by now. Again, this is very simple and I am not sure why you have such a hard time understanding.

You did make the claim.


I could also link irrelevant videos that do not contain a Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to their group just like you did, and just like when you did it, it would simply not be evidence of a Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to their group.


You are saying this video of shaman root rotting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gdAIheodtY is irrelevant because it can't be used to describe a group scenario. This means are claiming that root rotting looks different in a group vs. soloing. I won't be responding again to you on this silly semantic game you are playing where you keep saying you aren't making claims, while you are clearly making claims.

[bcbrown]

5c. Fact: DSM claimed that a shaman could put out dps similar to a 60 focused water pet mage in a group.
Please quote me where I said any of this. The entire purpose of comparing a Mage's DPS to a Shaman's DPS is to get an idea of what the gap is. This makes it easier to determine the what the DPS loss is vs. the utility gained.

In total that means I can do 152 DPS sustained pretty consistently in an easier area like Seb. Shamans aren't even a DPS class.

Remember, I never said underpowered = bad. It just means Mages don't bring a lot to the table (which they sadly don't outside of CoTH). I wouldn't bring a Mage if that's all they can do. Shamans can output your DPS if necessary, have a decently tanky pet with Torpor, and they have a lot more utility to boot. This is talking about level 60 grouping.

Even with 2 mobs root rotted while the Enchanters are killing with Charm pets a Shaman will hit the Mage's minimum DPS.

DPS is the key argument for bringing a Mage, and they can't even hit higher numbers than a Shaman. Their lack of utility means they are just sub-par compared to a Shaman in Seb. That isn't to say you can't play with a Mage. If you want to that's great! Most people aren't Min/Maxing their groups to begin with, regardless of what other people try to claim hehe. Remember this is level 60 we are talking about.

But at least for the Seb example, the numbers aren't adding up to make Mages special at all. At best they can DPS at the same level as a Shaman. [...] Having Torpor/Epic means a Shaman can sustain the DPS longer, without needing a break.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Thanks for the quotes bcbrown!


In total that means I can do 152 DPS sustained pretty consistently in an easier area like Seb. Shamans aren't even a DPS class.


This is an example of root rotting DPS.


Even with 2 mobs root rotted while the Enchanters are killing with Charm pets a Shaman will hit the Mage's minimum DPS.


This was when Troxx was showing his average DPS as 70 DPS. His numbers were off, which means the discussion changed once better evidence was provided.


DPS is the key argument for bringing a Mage, and they can't even hit higher numbers than a Shaman. Their lack of utility means they are just sub-par compared to a Shaman in Seb.


This is root rotting again.


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


This is root rotting again.

[cyxthryth]

You did make the claim.



You are saying this video of shaman root rotting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gdAIheodtY is irrelevant because it can't be used to describe a group scenario. This means are claiming that root rotting looks different in a group vs. soloing. I won't be responding again to you on this silly semantic game you are playing where you keep saying you aren't making claims, while you are clearly making claims.

No, you are attempting to equate what I DID say with that particular claim so that you can argue against it - which is simply YET ANOTHER example of a Straw Man argument. What I AM ACTUALLY saying - objectively and irrefutably - is that the video linked is simply NOT EVIDENCE of a Shaman Root Rotting multiple mobs parallel to the group and thereby improving the group's DPS providing a benefit comparable to or better than a non Epic Mage. Period. It's really that simple.

This is the simple objective fact that you seem to have difficulty understanding, and your above post does not change that simple fact. The burden of proof to provide evidence/proof supporting your objective claim is simply - still - squarely and firmly on your shoulders, for nearly a year now.

You do not get to try to put words in my mouth / say I said something I didn't say, and then accuse me of "silly semantic games" when I call you out for it. Nice try.

[bcbrown]

This is an example of root rotting DPS.


Why are you calling out root rotting? Are you saying root rotting doesn't matter?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Why are you calling out root rotting? Are you saying root rotting doesn't matter?

No, I am saying all the quotes you provided were quotes of me talking about DPS in a root rotting scenario. That isn't me saying a Shaman is out DPSing a Mage on a single target situation.

When people claim that I am saying Shamans out DPS Mages, they never put it in the context of root rotting. This leads to the false assumption that I am saying Shamans out DPS Mages in a single target scenario.

[bcbrown]

No, I am saying all the quotes you provided were quotes of me talking about DPS in a root rotting scenario. That isn't me saying a Shaman is out DPSing a Mage on a single target situation.

5c. Fact: DSM claimed that a shaman could put out dps similar to a 60 focused water pet mage in a group.

You disputed this quote, but it's not about a single target situation, this is just about grouping. Do you still dispute this?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You disputed this quote, but it's not about a single target situation, this is just about grouping. Do you still dispute this?

When he says "grouping", he leaves it vague. He claims that you can never root rot in a group, so I doubt he is including that into his equation. If he wants to admit a Shaman can root rot in a group, that will change my assumption on what he means.

If a group is doing trivial mobs for XP and the Shaman is allowed to root/rot the whole time, the Shaman can give a Mage a run for their money DPS wise. In these kinds of scenarios you don't need a Cleric to be healing the Charmed pets. You are basically soloing in a group at that point.

[bcbrown]

When he says "grouping", he leaves it vague. He claims that you can never root rot in a group, so I doubt he is including that into his equation.

If a group is doing trivial mobs for XP and the Shaman is allowed to root/rot the whole time, the Shaman can give a Mage a run for their money DPS wise. In these kinds of scenarios you don't need a Cleric to be healing the Charmed pets. You are basically soloing in a group at that point.

Are you affirming this position then?

a shaman could put out dps similar to a 60 focused water pet mage in a group.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Are you affirming this position then?

In the specific case of a Shaman being allowed to Root/Rot while doing little else, yes.


The idea that I said Shamans will typically out-DPS Mages is a strawman, and thus not one of the points mentioned here. Mages will generally out-DPS a Shaman in single target scenarios and burst scenarios. Shamans can out-DPS Mages in root/rotting scenarios.

That is why I said this earlier. The problem is when people accuse me of saying "Shamans out-DPS Mages", they leave it vague, and it becomes a strawman argument. To someone who is just joining the thread, that puts the assumption in their mind I am talking about a single target scenario, or a burst DPS scenario.

[bcbrown]

You were already talking about root-rotting in the same post when you claimed you never said that.

Thank you for conceding that you did and do claim that "a shaman could put out dps similar to a 60 focused water pet mage in a group."


Please quote me where I said any of this. The entire purpose of comparing a Mage's DPS to a Shaman's DPS is to get an idea of what the gap is. This makes it easier to determine the what the DPS loss is vs. the utility gained.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gdAIheodtY - Here is an example of root rotting in Velks. You can provide a video of a Mage killing the same mobs, and we can see who wins!

[Vexenu]

In the specific case of a Shaman being allowed to Root/Rot while doing little else, yes.

Can you think of any conceivable scenario where it would be beneficial to have the Shaman join the group only to "root/rot [mobs off to the side] while doing little else"?

Wouldn't the Shaman and the group each be better off if the Shaman were just soloing, in that case? Since the Shaman is providing no utility value to the group, and the group is doing nothing to increase the Shaman's kill speed?

Do you see how ridiculous this idea is now?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You were already talking about root-rotting in the same post when you claimed you never said that.

Thank you for conceding that you did and do claim that "a shaman could put out dps similar to a 60 focused water pet mage in a group."

This is a silly attempt at a gotcha. Look at the two quotes below:

1. "A shaman could put out dps similar to a 60 focused water pet mage in a group."

2. "A Shaman could put out dps similar to a 60 focused water pet mage in a group while root rotting is their primary function in a group killing XP mobs".

To claim the two quotes are the same is simply nonsense. The first quote is too vague, and doesn't describe the situation in which a Shaman can increase their DPS. It's an attempt to make it sound like I was saying Shamans out DPS Mages in all scenarios, which isn't true.

Can you think of any conceivable scenario where it would be beneficial to have the Shaman join the group only to "root/rot [mobs off to the side] while doing little else"?

Wouldn't the Shaman and the group each be better off if the Shaman were just soloing, in that case? Since the Shaman is providing no utility value to the group, and the group is doing nothing to increase the Shaman's kill speed?

Do you see how ridiculous this idea is now?

Sure. A group of level 60s getting some XP to make up for the 4-10% loss in XP you get for being resurrected. You don't need to do advanced group tactics to kill mobs that a Shaman or Enchanter could quickly solo.

[bcbrown]

You can either concede that when talking about "grouping", no one (including you!) is talking about a shaman root-rotting off on the side, or you can concede that when Crede described your position as "a shaman could put out dps similar to a 60 focused water pet mage in a group", it was accurate.

You can't have it both ways.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You can either concede that when talking about "grouping", no one (including you!) is talking about a shaman root-rotting off on the side, or you can concede that when Crede described your position as "a shaman could put out dps similar to a 60 focused water pet mage in a group", it was accurate.

You can't have it both ways.

I can have it both ways, in fact. There is nothing in the game that stipulates you cannot root rot in a group, nor has any evidence been provided to suggest it is a problem.

I'm glad DSM can find groups that let him go off on his own and root rot stuff, but I find the whole concept pretty repulsive.

I know you personally don't like the idea of root rotting in a group, but that isn't relevant to the fact that you can root rot in a group. I was specifically talking about root rotting in a group.

Crede was not describing my position as "A Shaman could put out dps similar to a 60 focused water pet mage in a group while root rotting is their primary function in a group killing XP mobs". I am not sure why you think I have to accept his generic statement of: "A shaman could put out dps similar to a 60 focused water pet mage in a group", when it is incorrect and brings with it incorrect assumptions about what I said.

To give an example, let's say you agreed with me that root rotting is a viable method for soloing. You might say something like "I enjoy root rotting". If I simply posted that as your view on root rotting, it would exclude your opinion that root rotting in a group is bad. As you can see, your position isn't simply "I enjoy root rotting", it is "I enjoy root rotting in solo scenarios, not group scenarios".

[bcbrown]

To give an example, let's say you agreed with me that root/rotting is a viable method for soloing. You might say something like "I enjoy root rotting". If I simply posted that as your view on root rotting, it would exclude your opinion that root rotting in a group is bad. As you can see, your position isn't simply "I enjoy root rotting", it is "I enjoy root rotting in solo scenarios, not group scenarios".

This is entirely off-topic to the point I was litigating, but I have in fact made my position clear on root-rotting, both grouping and soloing:

It's also a lot more interesting to me. Root rotting is sitting around waiting for the mob to die, then sitting around waiting to med up. I'd rather be standing up and swinging a club.

Have a chuckle with me at this amusing coincidence!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

This is entirely off-topic to the point I was litigating, but I have in fact made my position clear on root-rotting, both grouping and soloing:



Have a chuckle with me at this amusing coincidence!

Ah yes, I remember that thread:)

I agree with you that root/rotting is less exciting than melee. It does produce good results, however, which is why people use it.

One of the reasons why I like Shadowknights is because they have a heavier focus on melee, while also having access to some nice Necro spells. It would be nice if the game balance was more in favor of melee instead of casters. But alas, here we are.

[Duik]

Not a chance. I need at least one more reply.

[Vexenu]

Sure. A group of level 60s getting some XP to make up for the 4-10% loss in XP you get for being resurrected. You don't need to do advanced group tactics to kill mobs that a Shaman or Enchanter could quickly solo.
Ok, but can you admit that even in this scenario, both the Shaman and the other members of the group would each be getting better XP if the Shaman were just root rotting solo?

What you are suggesting is literally no different than a Bard joining an XP group and swarm kiting off to the side, or a Wizard doing the same while quadding. It is completely asinine as well as dishonest to suggest that anyone in the history of EQ has ever "grouped" in this manner (with the obvious exception of PLing), much less that this sort of grouping arrangement is somehow ideal. The reason it is NOT done is very obvious: the player killing mobs off to the side of the group might as well be soloing and keeping all the XP for himself rather than sharing it with three other players. Further, said player offers NOTHING of value to the group otherwise if playing in this manner, and a Shaman playing in this manner brings no utility or synergy since he is endlessly canni dancing/Torporing/DoTing and has no time to slow, heal, tank, etc...

This latest argument of yours perfectly illustrates how you endlessly shift the goalposts and dishonestly argue that the Shaman is capable of performing 10 different group roles at the same time.

[Seducio]

Min/Maxing was figured out long before Green dropped.

This silly thread of opinion vs opinion is designed to never end.

If you get stuck in this thread realize you have better things to do with your time.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Ok, but can you admit that even in this scenario, both the Shaman and the other members of the group would each be getting better XP if the Shaman were just root rotting solo?

What you are suggesting is literally no different than a Bard joining an XP group and swarm kiting off to the side, or a Wizard doing the same while quadding. It is completely asinine as well as dishonest to suggest that anyone in the history of EQ has ever "grouped" in this manner (with the obvious exception of PLing), much less that this sort of grouping arrangement is somehow ideal. The reason it is NOT done is very obvious: the player killing mobs off to the side of the group might as well be soloing and keeping all the XP for himself rather than sharing it with three other players. Further, said player offers NOTHING of value to the group otherwise if playing in this manner, and a Shaman playing in this manner brings no utility or synergy since he is endlessly canni dancing/Torporing/DoTing and has no time to slow, heal, tank, etc...

This latest argument of yours perfectly illustrates how you endlessly shift the goalposts and dishonestly argue that the Shaman is capable of performing 10 different group roles at the same time.

Saying a valid strategy you can do in the game is "dishonest and asanine" is silly. You still haven't told me what goal post have been moved.

[Seducio]

If you notice DSM being stuck in any thread. He actually doesn't have anything else to do with his time.

[Toxigen]

back from vaca and you beautiful spergs are still going strong

[cd288]

back from vaca and you beautiful spergs are still going strong

How was the Flori-bama shore

[Ripqozko]

How was the Flori-bama shore

Was there early June and it was great, caught our limit in red snapper .

[Toxigen]

How was the Flori-bama shore

was actually in NH but ty veddi gucci

[Troxx]

Oh holy shit balls. I step away from this forum for nearly 10 months and this thread is still alive as of July 2023?!?

I got some catch up reading to do!

[Troxx]

https://media.tenor.com/KNXNk79w3PsAAAAC/the-office-lol.gif

[Toxigen]

sup budday

[eqravenprince]

It WAS DEAD by December of last year, then someone resurrected 4 months later and it grew another 50 pages!

[Crede]

Cyxthryth's posts were the best

[Troxx]

Well. I got caught up on the reading.

Poor DSM

[Toxigen]

What is dead may never die.

[Troxx]

I am pretty sure this is the longest thread on these forums that discusses anything eq related (excluding the off topic forum).

I wonder how many of these 4500 posts are/were from DSM. I know there had to be at least a few hundred posts about him parallel root rotting 4-5 mobs - much less all the other equally shameful posts.

An epic thing was accomplished here.

[Troxx]

https://media.tenor.com/6IZKGSu4bSoAAAAM/accomplishment.gif

[Ripqozko]

I am pretty sure this is the longest thread on these forums that discusses anything eq related (excluding the off topic forum).

I wonder how many of these 4500 posts are/were from DSM. I know there had to be at least a few hundred posts about him parallel root rotting 4-5 mobs - much less all the other equally shameful posts.

An epic thing was accomplished here.

nope the BDA to phinny thread went 1k pages + which they had to eventually lock cause of that

[Troxx]

nope the BDA to phinny thread went 1k pages + which they had to eventually lock cause of that

https://media.tenor.com/3A7_9-cqv4AAAAAM/disappointed-sigh.gif

[TomisFeline]

What happened in the bad phony thread / link plz

[Troxx]

What is dead may never die.

[Seducio]

How long does a thread have to go without a post before it closes out?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

How long does a thread have to go without a post before it closes out?

I am not sure. But trolls like Troxx will keep necroing this thread when they lose an argument elsewhere on the forums. It's very predictable. I am not sure why, since it shows their bad behavior on full display. It continues to baffle me that they think this thread helps them or hurts me.

[cd288]

Troxx stfu already

[fortior]

enc/enc/clr/wiz

[Gloomlord]

Troxx, don't rebump the thread. I don't want you to give feed that narcissistic idiot more attention.

[Toxigen]

what is dead may never die

[Crede]

enc/enc/clr/wiz

I’m in support of this. Checks all the boxes. Could have some aoe fun too.

[Toxigen]

upheaval op

[enjchanter]

Enc enc enc clr

[Ripqozko]

Mage mage mage mage

[Toxigen]

Mage mage mage mage

on quarm, yes