Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[Troxx]

Again this was never about whether a shaman can duo or handle charming chanters. They can, just with a much lower margin of safety and with no way of bringing back the dead when it happens. If you level long enough with charming chanters - sooner or later death can be considered an inevitability.

This is less safe than having a cleric but also higher DPS, which is basically the tradeoff with a shaman. Shaman does more damage than a cleric in a few ways, but is somewhat less safe.

Bingo. Now or triple the degrees of “less safe”. You’ve got 2-3 charmers to juggle. Remember we are talking ench/ench/x/y

X = your healer. Pretty much everyone thinks this should be a cleric. DSM says use a shaman and violate the theme of this thread by just pocketing a cleric bot

Y= your 4th caster. If it’s a mage you have a dedicated no-risk backup tank. If you have a necro it could be a summon pet (same as for mage) or a charm (more risk). If the 4th is another enchanter - you’ve got even more risk.

More charms equals higher frequency of “pickle” moments. More charms also means the small chance of “pickle squared” moments where multiple pets can get loose at once. DSM has already proven himself an incapable of keeping one enchanter topped off on health or saving him when shit hits the fan. You really want him watching 2, potential 3 charmers …. And for more challenging content than xp group trash?

Yikes.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Again this was never about whether a shaman can duo or handle charming chanters. They can, just with a much lower margin of safety and with no way of bringing back the dead when it happens. If you level long enough with charming chanters - sooner or later death can be considered an inevitability.



Bingo. Now or triple the degrees of “less safe”. You’ve got 2-3 charmers to juggle. Remember we are talking ench/ench/x/y

X = your healer. Pretty much everyone thinks this should be a cleric. DSM says use a shaman and violate the theme of this thread by just pocketing a cleric bot

Y= your 4th caster. If it’s a mage you have a dedicated no-risk backup tank. If you have a necro it could be a summon pet (same as for mage) or a charm (more risk). If the 4th is another enchanter - you’ve got even more risk.

More charms equals higher frequency of “pickle” moments. More charms also means the small chance of “pickle squared” moments where multiple pets can get loose at once. DSM has already proven himself an incapable of keeping one enchanter topped off on health or saving him when shit hits the fan. You really want him watching 2, potential 3 charmers …. And for more challenging content than xp group trash?

Yikes.

More personal attacks, and more nonsense like claiming pocket clerics are not allowed in this thread. Your persistent basless claim on this point is not helping your credibility. Pocket Clerics exist, and will continue to exist, regardless of your denial.

For someone who frequently accuses others of misreading, it is somewhat ironic how often you misread others. I was clearly referring to Jimjam there.

"You called Jimjam a troll, and all Jimjam did was disagree with you. Sorry you can't see that."

Sorry you can't see that.

Longer response incoming! It's pretty stupid and funny but also quite serious. Just need to give it a proofread so I don't have to edit my post a dozen times.

I asked about Troxx, and you responded with "him". Maybe you need to be a bit more clear next time if you are going to talk about someone else that is not related to the direct question I asked you repeatedly.

[Toxigen]

you can square my pickle

[Troxx]

I’d rather cube it


Still laughing at DSM for violating the spirit of this theorycraft exercise. He wants to be allowed to pocket a cleric because he knows it’s the only way he can rationalize not including one. Why not just pocket a druid so we can skip those too! Always have aoe/ports/potg and clicky RoTg! Why consider a wizard when you can just pocket one to rationalize not giving up hate/sky?

Lol

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I’d rather cube it


Still laughing at DSM for violating the spirit of this theorycraft exercise. He wants to be allowed to pocket a cleric because he knows it’s the only way he can rationalize not including one. Why not just pocket a druid so we can skip those too! Always have aoe/ports/potg and clicky RoTg! Why consider a wizard when you can just pocket one to rationalize not giving up hate/sky?

Lol

Please show where OP prohibited pocket characters. Making up rules to support your argument is silly. Pocket characters are a normal part of the game, and there is nothing that is excluding them. Same with mules, mules are allowed too.

You continue to show you don't understand what a pocket character is by claiming you'd have a pocket potg druid.

[bcbrown]

I don't often get to use my training in semiotics and semantics, so I had a little fun with this. I'm well aware DSM isn't going to engage substantively with anything I write here.

One of the primary tensions in lexicography is between prescriptive versus descriptive definitions. A google search gave me this summary, which I like: Descriptive lexicography involves describing the words and meanings as currently used. Prescriptive lexicography suggests how words should be used correctively. In other words, prescriptivists believe words can be used incorrectly, while descriptivists believe words are used, and all we can do is describe how they are used.

I tend to be side with the descriptivists. The Oxford English Dictionary's distinctive feature is the extensive examples of how a word has been used historically, which is descriptive. And the use of an examplar is a pillar of child language aquisition; if a child asks "what is a stop sign?", and you answer by pointing and saying "that is a stop sign", you are using the object you are pointing at as an examplar of the linguistic/semiotic concept "stop sign".

So when trying to approach the concept of trolling, I think it's perfectly appropriate to point at a language example and say "that is not trolling" or "that is trolling", and that action of pointing is the action of definition. When I point to the quote from Jimjam and say "this not trolling" I am providing a part of my definition of trolling.

But I do also think there is value in providing a more explicit definition. More definitive, if you will. For that task I turn to etymology. I ground my definition in the context of the Usenet era, and acknowledge the evolution through the forum era (of which this is a living relic), into the social media era. In the Usenet era the name for offensive messages was "flaming", and I'll provide a loose definition of "excessively insulting disagreement". To flame someone was to disagree with them using offensive and deliberately insulting language to demean.

I feel like the word "troll" is more associated with the forum era, although I'm sure it has its antecedents in the Usenet era. To troll someone is to use minimal effort in writing bad-faith posts to elicit maximal emotional response in the target. It's asymmetric posting; to win at trolling is to care very little while making your target care a lot.

An important part of trolling, in this context, is effectively affecting an ironic voice. It's employing double-speak, intended to be interpreted sincerely and authentically by the target, while those "in on the joke" need to be able to interpret it ironically. If no one sees the ironic interpretation the poster comes across as a fool, and the troll is ineffective. If the target can access the ironic interpretation than no one is fooled, and the troll is ineffective. So a good troll has to create a double effect - the right people interpret it seriously and the other right people interpret it ironically.

As an aside, I found David Foster Wallace's essay E Unibus Pluram: Television and Fiction to be very influential on my understanding of irony, and highly recommend it: "I want to convince you that irony, poker-faced silence, and fear of ridicule are distinctive of those features of contemporary US culture that enjoy any significant relation to the television whose weird pretty hand has my generation by the throat. I'm going to argue that irony and ridicule are entertaining and effective, and at the same time they are agents of a great despair and stasis in US culture." Available here: https://jsomers.net/DFW_TV.pdf

Irony is especially relevant to the concept introduced in the social media era: shitposting. I would describe it as weaponizing bad faith arguments to advance a message that is the inverse of the naive interpretation of the message. Another definition that I think could bear fruitful exploration is that shitposting is an artistic form exploring the boundaries of poe's law: any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.

In the social media era trolling acquired a new meaning, that of the "troll farms" of Russia: posting disinformation and misinformation on social media in service of an ulterior aim. That meaning is not relevant here.

To summarize: Flaming is saying "you're so wrong that you're clearly an idiot". Trolling is engaging in asymmetrical emotional warfare. Shitposting is communicating a message in the bad-faith form of its negation.

From here we need to take a decidedly more academic turn. One important linguistic distinction I've been careful to make is to almost exclusively refer to trolling as an action, not a descriptive label. DSM's descriptive language frequently privileges adjectives, labels. When you label someone, you obliterate all of their other attributes in order to emphasize one. It occludes the multitudes that comprise a person behind a single aspect. To explore this we need to discuss the General Semantics of Count Korzybski, especially as interpreted by S.I Hayakawa. Korzybski opposed the use of the verb "to be" for identity and predication functions.

The downside of using "is" is that it collapses all the possibilities of reality into two binary options, "is" and "is not". It also hides all the other contexts within which the subject can exist. This can be hard to understand. I'll try to give an example. In college I occasionally smoked cigarettes. At my peak one winter, I smoked 4-5 cigarettes a month, at one or two parties a month. Otherwise, rarely more than one every other month. One night, leaving a party with a couple friends, I bummed a smoke from someone for the walk home. One of my friends, clearly disapproving, said something like "so you're a smoker, huh?". I responded that I was not a smoker, and I still maintain that. It would be accurate to say I occasionally smoked, though. The difference is between adjective/noun and verb.

The only aphorism from Korzybski to permeate the popular consciousness is "the map is not the territory". This was best illustrated in the short story by Borges, On Exactitude in Science, which I shall quote in full:

...In that Empire, the Art of Cartography attained such Perfection that the map of a single Province occupied the entirety of a City, and the map of the Empire, the entirety of a Province. In time, those Unconscionable Maps no longer satisfied, and the Cartographers Guilds struck a Map of the Empire whose size was that of the Empire, and which coincided point for point with it. The following Generations, who were not so fond of the Study of Cartography as their Forebears had been, saw that that vast Map was Useless, and not without some Pitilessness was it, that they delivered it up to the Inclemencies of Sun and Winters. In the Deserts of the West, still today, there are Tattered Ruins of that Map, inhabited by Animals and Beggars; in all the Land there is no other Relic of the Disciplines of Geography.

So, if a map is an exact replica of the territory, it becomes useless; a map's value is as much in the information it elides as the information it provides. The humor of the story is in the absurdity of a map that elides no information. As an aside, the primary source, Sience and Sanity by Korzybsky is thoroughly unreadeable. But Language in Thought and Action by S.I. Hayakawa is very accessible and well worth reading. The Tyranny of Words by Stuart Chase attempt a similar popularization, and is more accessible while being less insightful. There's also some wiki links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Korzybski#%22To_be%22; the "Anecdotes" section in the second link is well worth reading.

And, so it is when one says "A is a B". By labeling A as B, one elides all information from A except the B-ness. It's reductive. Much more informative is instead to describe behavior. And so I prefer to interpret trolling as a behavior, an action, a verb. Not a label, an adjective.

This is why I prefer to approach your question as "has Troxx trolled", or "does Troxx sometimes troll", or something along those lines. I would note that in the example I provided, the quote from DSM to Jimjam was "Please stop trolling threads" - an action, not a label. Troxx provided this definition: Trolling is the act of intentionally stirring the pot to get a reaction while having no actual interest in the topic at hand. This is also an action, not a label.

So now we can approach your question. Is Troxx a troll? Well, I reject the premise, as I wrote above. Has Troxx trolled? Well, he once said he's engaged in that sort of behavior in the past, and I take him at his word. In this thread, though? He's certainly done some flaming, and you've both engaged in shitposting in the form of repetitive no-information posts.

[Toxigen]

well said threads dead

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I am disappointed. In the end Bcbrown wrote a lot, which I read, and dodged the question on Troxx almost completely.

His post is mostly about trying to prove why he thinks the word describing Troxx should be "flamer" or "shitposter", rather than "troll". We disagree on the definition of troll, and honestly that is irrelevant to Troxx's factual behavior.

At least he admits Troxx has trolled, flamed, and shit posted. But he is trying to significantly downplay it, hence the long meandering discussion about the word troll first.

The behavior is the core problem, and Troxx is behaving very poorly. If he doesn't attack me, I don't need to defend myself. It is really that simple. It is pretty obvious Troxx is a troll, and Bcbrowns's word games are not enough to change Troxx's past actions, which are easy to look up in the post history.

[eqravenprince]

Holy crap, I was killed by a wall of text

[Toxigen]

https://kea-learning.nz/warfighting-functions/military-grade-autism-how-people-with-autism-can-enhance-operational-effectiveness/

[bcbrown]

https://kea-learning.nz/warfighting-functions/military-grade-autism-how-people-with-autism-can-enhance-operational-effectiveness/

Hell yeah brother!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Holy crap, I was killed by a wall of text

You're not missing anything in that wall of text either. The only relevant point Bcbrown made was that he agreed Troxx has trolled, flamed, and shitposted. He tried to obfuscate this as much as possible via text wall, but I consider it progress. People are slowly seeing reality.

[Troxx]

I am disappointed. In the end Bcbrown wrote a lot, which I read, and dodged the question on Troxx almost completely.

Nah. He answered you. You asked him what his definition of a troll was. He gave it to you quite brilliantly. Then he answered.

So now we can approach your question. Is Troxx a troll? Well, I reject the premise, as I wrote above. Has Troxx trolled? Well, he once said he's engaged in that sort of behavior in the past, and I take him at his word. In this thread, though? He's certainly done some flaming, and you've both engaged in shitposting in the form of repetitive no-information posts.

Bcbrown that was a wonderful read. I did enjoy your example regarding smoking, the is vs is not and the noun vs verb. Unfortunately I don’t know that DSM has the requisite number of functioning neurons to comprehend that totality of your response.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Nah. He answered you. You asked him what his definition of a troll was. He gave it to you quite brilliantly. Then he answered.



Bcbrown that was a wonderful read. I did enjoy your example regarding smoking, the is vs is not and the noun vs verb. Unfortunately I don’t know that DSM has the requisite number of functioning neurons to comprehend that totality of your response.

He did admit you were trolling, flaming, and shitposting, so the question was answered in that sense. Remember I asked him if you were a troll or not.He just encapsulated that admission in a wall of text to obfuscate this point as much as possible.

And yes, it is clear you would agree with him, as he used your definition of trolling. It is a silly definition you are using to walk back your admission of trolling. Bcbrown's bias also shows when he simply takes your definition of trolling wholecloth.

https://www.esafety.gov.au/young-people/trolling#:~:text=Something%20has%20happened-,What%20is%20trolling%3F,believe%2C%20just%20to%20 cause%20drama

Here is a better definition of trolling:


Trolling is when someone posts or comments online to ‘bait’ people, which means deliberately provoking an argument or emotional reaction. In some cases they say things they don’t even believe, just to cause drama. In other cases, they may not agree with the views of another person or group online, so they try to discredit, humiliate or punish them. This may include online hate – personal attacks that target someone because of their race, culture, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability. The troll may also encourage mob mentality, urging others to join in the attack so it becomes a pile on


This describes your behavior perfectly, including attacking autistic people lol.

[eqravenprince]

Simple definition of a troll - a person trying to provoke and upset others online for their own amusement. A whole lot of people guilty of this and didn't need a wall of text to do it. But I find it amusing, so I guess that makes me a troll if this post provoked or upset someone.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Simple definition of a troll - a person trying to provoke and upset others online for their own amusement. A whole lot of people guilty of this and didn't need a wall of text to do it. But I find it amusing, so I guess that makes me a troll if this post provoked or upset someone.

Agreed on the simple definition, but no, you aren't a troll. As far as I can tell that is not your intent.

[Troxx]

Sorry you didn’t get the answer out of him you wanted.

Can we get back to the topic at hand? You have not made a compelling case why, given the choice between a shaman and a cleric, the a group of 3 casters (2 of which at least will be charming) would choose the shaman.

We are aware of what shamans can do - to include measures to protect the casters on charm breaks. I would like for you to explain why you think that would be preferable to a 1 second targeted aoe stun (or a single target stun - both of which will be on the competent cleric’s casting bar in this group) followed by superior blast heals.

Let’s get back on topic. We would appreciate less off-topic shit posting from you.

Discuss.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Sorry you didn’t get the answer out of him you wanted.

Can we get back to the topic at hand? You have not made a compelling case why, given the choice between a shaman and a cleric, the a group of 3 casters (2 of which at least will be charming) would choose the shaman.

We are aware of what shamans can do - to include measures to protect the casters on charm breaks. I would like for you to explain why you think that would be preferable to a 1 second targeted aoe stun (or a single target stun - both of which will be on the competent cleric’s casting bar in this group) followed by superior blast heals.

Let’s get back on topic. We would appreciate less off-topic shit posting from you.

Discuss.

Lol it is amazing you are accusing me of going off topic and shit posting. You are always the one who starts this. Check the post history. If you don't attack me, I don't defend myself. I never start this. You have the power to stop the nonsense, as you are the cause. Even Bcbrown admits you troll, shit post, and flame.

Remember randomly posting off topic nonsense in a thread that was dead for 6 months yesterday?

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3691813&postcount=163

Let's get back on topic indeed.

If you can agree to control yourself, we can discuss the matter normally. I won't continue the discussion without this agreement from you. No attacks in your agreement post either please.

[Trexller]

who else thinks DSM and Troxx should just fuck already?

[Troxx]

Remember randomly posting off topic nonsense in a thread that was dead for 6 months yesterday?

Are you referring to the thread that you have been quoting and have linked somewhere between 30-50 times in the last week or so? As far as I’m concerned if you want to keep referencing that entire discussion… it’s fair game for everyone to read and laugh about.

Stop accusing people of trolling any time they disagree with you. For the love of god, quit thanking people for concessions they never made.

Stop shit posting and get back on topic.

who else thinks DSM and Troxx should just fuck already?

I’m two steps ahead of you. Check my location.

:p

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Are you referring to the thread that you have been quoting and have linked somewhere between 30-50 times in the last week or so? As far as I’m concerned if you want to keep referencing that entire discussion… it’s fair game for everyone to read and laugh about.

Stop accusing people of trolling any time they disagree with you. For the love of god, quit thanking people for concessions they never made.

Stop shit posting and get back on topic.



I’m two steps ahead of you. Check my location.

:p

Still waiting for your agreement to stay on topic before we discuss.

You are an admitted troll.


Look guys, I’m an honest fella. I will readily admit to having engaged in trolling behavior with regards to DSM. You all have functioning brain cells … so I know that you all already know this. I also know that many of you also have done this. I’m not apologetic in the slightest sense of the word either.


I am not calling you a troll because we disagree. You have no evidence for this claim.

If you want to stop being called a troll, stop trolling lol. It's very simple.

If you can agree to discuss the matter normally without attacking me and derailing the thread, we can continue.

If you keep trolling, you will continue to be called out for it.

And yes, when you resort to trolling in a debate, you are conceding. A person confident in their ability to win a debate does not need to troll. They can win on merit, preserving their reputation too.

[Troxx]

I swear to god like 1/3 of the last 100 pages of this thread have you been whining about trolling.

Quit shit posting.

I will stay on topic. If you are being an idiot about the topic, I will probably point it out. If you do something stupid that is on topic, I won’t promise not to laugh at you for it.

Best bet is to try to be normal for once.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I swear to god like 1/3 of the last 100 pages of this thread have you been whining about trolling.

Quit shit posting.

I will stay on topic. If you are being an idiot about the topic, I will probably point it out. If you do something stupid that is on topic, I won’t promise not to laugh at you for it.

Best bet is to try to be normal for once.

You need to promise to stay on topic and not attack me.

You can disagree with me in a respectful manner. Attacking me is going off topic, and not relevant to the discussion at hand.

If you agree to these terms, please post that you promise to stay on topic and not attack me. Repeat the question you are asking in the same post. This will prevent an initial misunderstanding. Then we can start discussing the topic.

[Snaggles]

Enchanter
Enchanter
Cleric
Mage

Server legends if you Quad-Gnome it.

[Duik]

It's a Trollocaust.

[Troxx]

You need to promise to stay on topic and not attack me …. … … If you agree to these terms, please post that you promise to stay on topic and not attack me.

I will stay on topic. Beyond that I will embrace my first amendment rights within the scope of the actual topic of discussion. I will continue to talk to you however I feel the circumstance reasonably dictates. If that bothers you, I’m sure there’s more than a few hyper-liberal hippy communes in western Oregon that will gladly respect your need for a ‘safe space’.

It’s time to nut up bro.

‘Murica

Now quit shit posting, whining about being attacked after you say and do stupid things, and calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll.

Stay on topic.

[Trexller]

I will embrace my first amendment rights.

‘Murica

Fuck yeah

[Duik]

We're guards. We're guards.
Kiss Me. Kiss Me.
I promise to never die.
Act Gary, act.

[Trexller]

https://i.makeagif.com/media/8-06-2015/n9iZ16.gif

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I will stay on topic. Beyond that I will embrace my first amendment rights within the scope of the actual topic of discussion. I will continue to talk to you however I feel the circumstance reasonably dictates. If that bothers you, I’m sure there’s more than a few hyper-liberal hippy communes in western Oregon that will gladly respect your need for a ‘safe space’.

It’s time to nut up bro.

‘Murica

Now quit shit posting, whining about being attacked after you say and do stupid things, and calling everyone who disagrees with you a troll.

Stay on topic.

I am not asking for a safe space. Your insults have no effect on me. The reason why I ask you to avoid insults and trolling is because you lose focus very easily in conversations. You often go on off topic rants where you spout nonsense and lies. This derails the conversation and the thread. This very post being quoted is a good example.

You are already off topic and spouting nonsense by talking about hippies, safe spaces, Oregon, etc. You are lying about me whining, shit posting, and calling people trolls without cause. You say you will stay on topic, and then go wildly off topic in the very same post.

Until you can stay on topic and act like an adult, this is a waste of time.

When you want to have the conversation, repost the question you want to ask without the lies and off-topic nonsense, and we can start.

[Duik]

I know you are but what am I?

[Vear99]

Gentlemen, your root problem here is your method of competition: debating does not work. When the other person doesn't want to lose an argument, they can either write walls of semi-relevant rationalizations or take emotional shots or both. Your resolutions to be more polite will not really help, because your egos will still be on the line, the conflict will not be resolved, and you will both get frustrated again.

So, stop arguing and actually put your statements to the test, i.e. try ENC/ENC/CLR with MAG and SHM and measure. Of course there are still problems - the choice of zone and players will definitely matter - but over time the answer should become much more clear. I think you will find it a much more interesting and fun way to proceed.

[Troxx]

I am not asking for a safe space.

Except you are. Grow a pair of balls and stay on topic. No more shit posting.

In an attempt to get back on topic I will quote my previous question.

Can we get back to the topic at hand? You have not made a compelling case why, given the choice between a shaman and a cleric, the a group of 3 casters (2 of which at least will be charming) would choose the shaman.

We are aware of what shamans can do - to include measures to protect the casters on charm breaks. I would like for you to explain why you think that would be preferable to a 1 second targeted aoe stun (or a single target stun - both of which will be on the competent cleric’s casting bar in this group) followed by superior blast heals.

Bear in mind the above question only relates to dealing with oh shit moments and doesn’t address the list below. If you can make a compelling case for the above we will move on to the other bullets below.

1) fact that cleric can buff everyone up a good 750-850 hp with their unique line above what FoS/stamina can give a caster (minus their self shield line that does not stack)
2) the inherent value and superiority of complete heal when you’re eventually going to be hunting with pets with >7k hp
3) the actual fact that giving up on cleric this 4 group that it LIMITED to only 4 characters and all have to be casters … does not have rez.

If you can make a COMPELLING case on the quote above, we can move on to 1, 2, then 3. Please do not get distracted with bullshit about pocket clerics … at least until we get to 3. It’s time to take a systematic approach to this. Stay on topic and no shit posting or whining.

You have your work cut out for you. You lost so miserably in the first hundreds of pages that the only way to shoehorn a shaman in here is to make it the healer (and thus boot the cleric).

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Except you are. Grow a pair of balls and stay on topic. No more shit posting.


Incorrect. I am trying to get you out of the safe space you try to create for yourself. That is why you shit post, lie, go off topic, troll, insult, etc. You want a place to hide when the conversation isn't going you way, and it often doesn't go your way.

I also believe you are hiding in the safe space of the word "compelling". I am guessing you will simply dismiss anything I say and make the excuse that it is not "compelling". Hopefully you have the courage to debate this time in an adult manner.

Let's see if you can stay on topic for even one post. Considering you already went off-topic by talking about safe spaces, I am concerned.

Now, as for why I think you should pick a Shaman, I already gave a long post here, which you ignored. You'll need to actually read it this time instead of ignoring it and trolling:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3690058&postcount=4843

I did forget to account for the Resolution line of spells in the HP buff section, so you can take that into account when reading it.

For oh shit moments, 7thgate made a good post here, which you also basically ignored, you just cherry picked one sentence:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3691887&postcount=5245

Please read these two posts and then write a proper counter argument. Simply dismissing everything as "not compelling" is not an argument.

You cannot continue to ignore everything, go off topic, troll, and then ask the same questions. You need to actually read what other people have said already, and counter these points before we can move on.

[Troxx]

Instead of linking prior posts that have already been read and were not previously compelling … try again to form a compelling and coherent argument. If all you are going to do is quote what you have already written, then we the community who were not convinced the first time will gladly consider you to have run out of ideas and given up.

Let’s tackle this one issue at a time.

Deal with the above quote first. Then we’ll move on top points 1, 2, and finally 3(one at a time).

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Instead of linking prior posts that have already been read and were not previously compelling … try again to form a compelling and coherent argument. If all you are going to do is quote what you have already written, then we the community who were not convinced the first time will gladly consider you to have run out of ideas and given up.

Let’s tackle this one issue at a time.

Deal with the above quote first. Then we’ll move on top points 1, 2, and finally 3(one at a time).

I was correct:


I also believe you are hiding in the safe space of the word "compelling". I am guessing you will simply dismiss anything I say and make the excuse that it is not "compelling". Hopefully you have the courage to debate this time in an adult manner.

As you can see, Troxx doesn't read the answers to his questions, and just keeps asking over and over. He did not counter these posts previously when they were made. This is a troll tactic designed to dodge having to provide a counter argument. He has retreated to his safe space again.

He will simply dismiss everything out of hand, while providng no points of his own to support his argument.

As it stands, Troxx has lost the debate by using these tactics. If he wants to continue, he needs to actually read these posts so he can address the answers to his questions:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3690058&postcount=4843 - please note I forgot the resolution line of spells in the hp buff section. You can add the HP accordingly to see the differences.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3691887&postcount=5245

If you want to pretend you have won and just claim victory without cause, you can do that if you wish. The readers will be able to read the posts above and come to their own conclusions. They will also see you have no counter arguments that they can read. They have no idea why you are claiming victory for no reason. I doubt you'll convince people you are correct when you can't even explain your own position.

[Trexller]

https://y.yarn.co/f1b26f7c-5ae0-4aa6-b7ae-242f5d3051d1_text.gif

[Ripqozko]

This is why you can't compete kittens, you have a guild full of DSM

[Troxx]

If all you are going to do is quote what you have already written, then we the community who were not convinced the first time will gladly consider you to have run out of ideas and given up.

So is the above to be considered true DSM? Why won’t you specifically address post 5282? Tell us why or how any of the tools shamans have to mitigate risk on an enchanter charm break is preferable to a 1 second cast aoe stun that immediately locks down the situation followed by far more potent blast healing.

If and when you can make that case we will be open to discuss:

-having 750-850 more hp (resolution line and symbol) vs FoS and no self shielding
-why complete heal is cool when your charm pets have over 7k hp
-why NOT having rez is not ideal

But please. One thing at a time and let us start with the first point above. Start from the top. No more dodging like you did when you claimed you could name several camps that NEED a shaman (lol)

Simply linking prior posts constitutes a concession of defeat.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So is the above to be considered true DSM? Why won’t you specifically address post 5282? Tell us why or how any of the tools shamans have to mitigate risk on an enchanter charm break is preferable to a 1 second cast aoe stun that immediately locks down the situation followed by far more potent blast healing.

If and when you can make that case we will be open to discuss:

-having 750-850 more hp (resolution line and symbol) vs FoS and no self shielding
-why complete heal is cool when your charm pets have over 7k hp
-why NOT having rez is not ideal

But please. One thing the above at a time. Start from the stop. No more dodging like you did when you claimed you could name several camps that NEED a shaman (lol)

Simply linking prior posts constitutes a concession of defeat.

I did address these points in the posts you didn't read. What are your counter arguments?

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3690058&postcount=4843 - please note I forgot the resolution line of spells in the hp buff section. You can add the HP accordingly to see the differences.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3691887&postcount=5245

Are you suggesting you've won the debate simply because I didn't retype a post you didn't read and didn't counter?

If you want to make up rules that say I've lost, you can do that too. It is childish, and everybody can see it's silly. You are digging a hole for yourself.

[Elizondo]

DSM's sunken cost fallacy has become legendary

[Troxx]

Simply linking prior posts constitutes a concession of defeat.

So you are done then DSM?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So you are done then DSM?

As you can see, Troxx refuses to read answers given to him. You can check the post history, he did not provide a rebuttal for either of these posts:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3690058&postcount=4843 - please note I forgot the resolution line of spells in the hp buff section. You can add the HP accordingly to see the differences.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3691887&postcount=5245

In the end, the readers will be able to read these two posts above, and see the answers to Troxx's questions.

Nobody knows what Troxx's positon is, as he just keeps dodging the answers given.

Please note he could have spent this time providing a counter argument, or linking previous posts he made that already rebut these arguments if he thinks he has done so. Instead, he just keeps dodging and spamming the thread.

[Trexller]

This is why you can't compete kittens, you have a guild full of DSM

DSM's sunken cost fallacy has become legendary

Initiate chloroblast chain 222 GO

[Trexller]

Someone find that gnome celestial heal flash movie

[Troxx]

Ah … so I guess we are done.

Thank you for conceding DSM. No group would take a shaman over a cleric giving up safety on charm breaks, superior buffs, superior emergency healing, complete heal, and the ability to rez.

Best 4 person all caster group is:

Enchanter, enchanter, cleric, X

X can be variable depending on the situation but contenders:

Mage: probably most well rounded for both leveling and safely. Weakness is that they don't open up content that the other 3 couldn't do without the mage.

Necro: not much behind mage for leveling, points for backup rez, FD pulls, and baller in undead areas. Strength is opening up content that really does benefit from having FD.

Enchanter: fastest leveling by far - but doesn't add any additional "extras".

Druid: ultimate quality of life 4th leg. Sows, ports, regens. Will mostly be riding others coat tails but mobility and potential for animal charm.

Wizard: opens up hate/sky. Other than that probably the weakest pick other than the class below.

Least potent X?

Shaman. For this exercise in theorycrafting, the 2nd strongest solo class in the game unfortunately does not make the cut. Yes shaman will add more to the group on average than a wizard or druid but unlike those two classes you don’t really add the QoL mobility of porting. Very powerful class but what the class does do is redundant to what the group already has.

[Keebz]

If there's anything I've learned from this thread, it's that Druid is underrated.

[Elizondo]

If there's anything I've learned from this thread, it's that Druid is underrated.

They can't main heal KC sh*tter groups very well so off to gulag

[Penish]

its allllll in the hips

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Ah … so I guess we are done.

Thank you for conceding DSM. No group would take a shaman over a cleric giving up safety on charm breaks, superior buffs, superior emergency healing, complete heal, and the ability to rez.

Best 4 person all caster group is:

Enchanter, enchanter, cleric, X

X can be variable depending on the situation but contenders:

Mage: probably most well rounded for both leveling and safely. Weakness is that they don't open up content that the other 3 couldn't do without the mage.

Necro: not much behind mage for leveling, points for backup rez, FD pulls, and baller in undead areas. Strength is opening up content that really does benefit from having FD.

Enchanter: fastest leveling by far - but doesn't add any additional "extras".

Druid: ultimate quality of life 4th leg. Sows, ports, regens. Will mostly be riding others coat tails but mobility and potential for animal charm.

Wizard: opens up hate/sky. Other than that probably the weakest pick other than the class below.

Least potent X?

Shaman. For this exercise in theorycrafting, the 2nd strongest solo class in the game unfortunately does not make the cut. Yes shaman will add more to the group on average than a wizard or druid but unlike those two classes you don’t really add the QoL mobility of porting. Very powerful class but what the class does do is redundant to what the group already has.

I am glad to see Troxx was able to craft a post without any personal attacks, trolling etc. This is what I was asking for originally, and it took him quite a few tries to get here. This shows he is hopefully learning the lesson that being an internet troll does not pay off in the long run.

It is clear that Troxx hasn't read the answers I provided him, or many of the posts that are in this thread. Hence he keeps asking the same questions over and over. The proof of this behavior has been provided by all of the dodging he has done. He cannot simply hand-wave away the entire thread and declare victory.

I will try to summarize the answers already given (that he hasn't read) once more in an attempt to get Troxx to stop dodging. If he does not read this post, I cannot help him.


I would like for you to explain why you think that would be preferable to a 1 second targeted aoe stun (or a single target stun - both of which will be on the competent cleric’s casting bar in this group) followed by superior blast heals.


The way you are phrasing this question is incorrect. The thread is about the best four person caster/priest group, not the best group that deals with charm breaks. Dealing with charm breaks is merely one facet of the discussion. I am looking at everything the Shaman has to offer vs. the Cleric, and making my decision based on that.

I kind of agree actually that Malo is the correct response to a normal, single mob charm break in many situations. The assumption should be that the enchanter can recover correctly themselves, and the primary goal should be getting a malo refresh in before they recharm it in order to minimize charm breaks. If the enchanter hasn't landed stun by the time malo finishes, you probably need to get in melee and flash of light it. If they're going to die before you can land malo + flash of light (which I believe DSM has correctly noted should not be the case if you're using Rune and Bedlam), you need to see he's dying super fast and duck Malo to flash of light immediately.


This explains my position quite well. When I look at this group, I am making the assumption that it is full of level 60s, and the players are skilled. Enchanters can solo a lot of the content this four player group is going to be doing. Throwing out a rough number, I'd say a skilled Enchanter could handle at least 70% of charm breaks on their own, without any outside help. If you have a second Enchanter in the group, the odds of handling a bad charm break increases, as you have two Enchanters stunning instead of one. So you could argue the Cleric is only helping maybe 20% of the time for those few bad charm breaks that go terribly wrong.

Let's look at Allure, which has a 19 minute duration at level 60, assuming no charm breaks. This means you are getting 3 charm breaks minimum per hour. Let's say the average charm break per hour is 10 times, including the three charm break minimum. This means the Cleric's blast heals and stuns were only helping on 2 out of the 10 charm breaks, using the numbers above. Most of the charm breaks could have been handled without the Cleric. Malo reduces the number of breaks per hour, so it is reducing the odds of getting a bad charm break naturally. Both Shamans and Clerics are helping out with reducing the odds of a bad charm break, just through different means.

Based on my experience playing with skilled Enchanters (and it seems like 7thgate's experience too), I'd take less charm breaks per hour over a bit more charm break security any day. We've already explained the ways in which Shamans can handle bad charm breaks in previous posts, and they have a lot of tools to handle these scenarios too. It is incorrect to claim a Shaman cannot save an Enchanter during a bad charm break. On the rare occasion an Enchanter does die, a pocket Cleric can handle the res. Many solo Enchanters already have pocket Clerics to do this. It is no different in a group of four players.


1) fact that cleric can buff everyone up a good 750-850 hp with their unique line above what FoS/stamina can give a caster (minus their self shield line that does not stack)


Remember that a Shaman will be Torpor Tanking in a group of level 60s. Let's look at a situation where you have one mob charmed, and one mob being attcked. If a bad charm break occurs, the mob being attacked would continue to attack the Shaman, rather than go to the Enchanter. If you were doing a Cleric/Enchanter combination, both mobs would go to the Enchanter in the worst scenario of a root break on the mob being attacked. The Enchanter is saving hundreds of HP by only getting hit by one mob instead of two. They are also increasing the chances of their stun spell going off, as they are getting attacked by one mob instead of two. This reduces the gap between Shaman and Cleric HP buffs in the scenario of a bad charm break.

Based on my years of playing P99, max HP is often a bit overrated when it comes to most single group content. It is generally doing nothing in a skilled group that can control their environment, and only comes into play in the occasional bad moment. A skilled group can reduce the odds of a bad moment occurring via skill. This is especially true when you have Enchanters in the group. Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a powerful trio that doesn't use Cleric HP buffs or Cleric healing, and they do just fine.


2) the inherent value and superiority of complete heal when you’re eventually going to be hunting with pets with >7k hp


A Shaman Torpor Tanking means the pets do not need to be CH'ed most of the time. In the rare occurrence where a really bad break occurs and a pet takes a lot of damage, you can swap over to a pocket cleric and CH the pet. Or just heal the pet with Torpor while the group recovers if the situation was bad enough to cause the group downtime. Or you can temporarily uncharm the pet and let it recover it's HP naturally.


3) the actual fact that giving up on cleric this 4 group that it LIMITED to only 4 characters and all have to be casters … does not have rez.


A skilled group is not generally going to be doing a lot of resing to begin with. When you need it, a Pocket Cleric or including a Necro is the answer here. Leveling a Cleric to 49 is not difficult, and many players already have pocket clerics. People are not going stop using pocket clerics simply because they have limited themselves to a group of four casters/priests. If you don't want to use a pocket cleric for whatever reason, you could go Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter/Necromancer instead. Two Enchanters are providing more than enough DPS already. If you want to kill Vaniki, Shaman/Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter should work, and that is a great group combo too.

Unlike yourself, I am not closed to the possibility of taking both a Shaman and a Cleric. I said as much in the first page of this thread. The Shaman vs. Cleric debate is only in the scenario where a group wants to take one or the other. Luckily pocket Cleric's exist. You can level a Shaman to 60 and a pocket Cleric to 49 no problem if you do not want a Cleric and Shaman as two mains in the group.

[Penish]

i disagree

[Troxx]

The way you are phrasing this question is incorrect. The thread is about the best four person caster/priest group, not the best group that deals with charm breaks. Dealing with charm breaks is merely one facet of the discussion. I am looking at everything the Shaman has to offer vs. the Cleric, and making my decision based on that.

“The best” 4 person all caster/priest group is going to be centered around the overpowered nature and capabilities of charmed pets. Dealing with charm breaks is therefore not “merely one facet” … it is a core aspect and absolutely critical to the success of a “the best” 4 person all caster/priest group.

Remember that a Shaman will be Torpor Tanking

For the first 59 levels of playing the shaman quite literally will not be Torp tanking. Once you hit 60, unless you are a pleb tier player you will be hunting in areas where the charm pets will have 4500 hp on the low end and 7k to 9k+ on the high end. The shaman won’t be torp tanking because you won’t have a shaman - you’ll have a cleric complete healing pets for absurd values.

By the by, a torp shaman laser focused on torp tanking really nasty hitting high level mobs isn’t going to have the same reaction capabilities to help on charm breaks when help is needed.

By the by Id love to see you torp tank a protector of Zek in Kael arena. A cleric would not have a hard time keeping a big nasty pet up with complete heal

i disagree

Concur with Penish. I find the argument not compelling. His insistence on pocketing a 5th toon because the shaman cannot actually safely get the job done on all scenarios is laughable.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

“The best” 4 person all caster/priest group is going to be centered around the overpowered nature and capabilities of charmed pets. Dealing with charm breaks is therefore not “merely one facet” … it is a core aspect and absolutely critical to the success of a “the best” 4 person all caster/priest group.


It is just a facet. One that can be handled by the Enchanters the majority of the time. Dedicated Cleric support is not necessary, and you have provided no evidence to suggest otherwise.


For the first 59 levels of playing the shaman quite literally will not be Torp tanking. Once you hit 60, unless you are a pleb tier player you will be hunting in areas where the charm pets will have 4500 hp on the low end and 7k to 9k+ on the high end. The shaman won’t be torp tanking because you won’t have a shaman - you’ll have a cleric complete healing pets for absurd values.


The first 59 levels will be easy with the four player group, and Shamans can slow tank before Torpor. You seem to forget most XP mobs do not hit hard, especially after they are slowed. I slow tanked soloing all the way to 60.

Once you hit 60, most camps this group will be doing can be Torpor Tanked. For the camps that can't be Torpor Tanked, you can either use a Pocket Cleric, or run Shaman/Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter if you want to do soemthing like Vaniki. That is already a camp at the upper limit of what a four player caster/priest group would be doing.


By the by, a torp shaman laser focused on torp tanking really nasty hitting high level mobs isn’t going to have the same reaction capabilities to help on charm breaks when help is needed.


You'll need to provide evidence for this claim. I can Torpor tank and react to other situations just fine.


By the by Id love to see you torp tank a protector of Zek in Kael arena. A cleric would not have a hard time keeping a big nasty pet up with complete heal


Are you claiming a group of four casters/priests is going to be doing this mob?


Concur with Penish. I find the argument not compelling. His insistence on pocketing a 5th toon because the shaman cannot actually safely get the job done on all scenarios is laughable.

Troxx will continue to hand wave everything away because he cannot counter my points. He continues to prove this with every post. His debate performance is poor thus far.

With that said, I commend Troxx's self control by not attacking me or trolling me. Great job!

[Troxx]

You'll need to provide evidence for this claim. I can Torpor tank and react to other situations just fine.

Your posted video is direct evidence to the contrary.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Your posted video is direct evidence to the contrary.

If you want to claim one moment in one video is proof of a player's entire career and is the peak of their skill, you are free to do so. I doubt people agree with you though. You would be held to the same standard, and I hope you are not going to claim you play perfectly 100% of the time.

You are just attacking me, rather than the argument. You are backsliding a little bit. Be careful.

https://youtu.be/oPxeOVuX0G8?feature=shared - Here is a video of me Torpor Tanking and doing other things just fine.

[Vear99]

Gentlemen, your root problem here is your method of competition: debating does not work. When the other person doesn't want to lose an argument, they can either write walls of semi-relevant rationalizations or take emotional shots or both. Your resolutions to be more polite will not really help, because your egos will still be on the line, the conflict will not be resolved, and you will both get frustrated again.

So, stop arguing and actually put your statements to the test, i.e. try ENC/ENC/CLR with MAG and SHM and measure. Of course there are still problems - the choice of zone and players will definitely matter - but over time the answer should become much more clear. I think you will find it a much more interesting and fun way to proceed.

[Zuranthium]

"swap over to a pocket cleric" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: That is not a 4 character group. It's insane this idiocy has been going for 2 years now.

If there's anything I've learned from this thread, it's that Druid is underrated.

Enchanter + Druid is the most efficient power duo for people who want to be self-reliant adventurers. Very relevant for a new server or a server with less of a population, where porters aren't just sitting around. By the same token, a self-reliant 4 person playgroup will want Enchanter + Enchanter + Druid + (x).

[DeathsSilkyMist]

"swap over to a pocket cleric" :rolleyes: :rolleyes: That is not a 4 character group. It's insane this idiocy has been going for 2 years now.


Are you claiming there are no groups in p99 that use pocket clerics?

Or are you claimimg OP said pocket clerics weren't allowed?

I see no evidence for either claim.

[Duik]

Jesus fucking christ.
I wonder if dsm realises he comes off as a douche canoe instead of "Diseminator of Safe Meta" and "Department of Safe Moderation" he tries to pass himself off as.

[Snaggles]

The debate for the forth seat rages on. Glad to see it.

If all a mage could ever do is make a stack of .66% mana/hp coverters, juggle to keep them from rotting, sini pets and mala the target for quicker slows that’s enough.

I’d consider a Druid for QoL ports, sow, and harmony but otherwise for raw performance the mage is only rivalled by a 3rd ench. IMHO

[Trexller]

i disagree

I agree

Now we have to fight

[Duik]

So, what people are saying is that he went straight to the top, with a bullet?
https://usdictionary.com/idioms/number-one-with-a-bullet/

[Trexller]

bullets were grammar way back in the day, long before they won elections

[Rimitto]

enchanter enchanter cleric necro is clearly the best grouping.

Why? Necro has Twitch.
Alongside the clerics ability to heal him from lich, and clarity, it basically ensure that the party can handled most if not any situation that ANY caster party would ever be able to handle.

The prime problem of a full caster party is always going to be mana. Necro is the solution to that.

[Duik]

Bot bot bot bot bot

[Troxx]

As a sidebar discussion, I’ve always wondered if the bard class would be best classified as a caster - not a hybrid. Rangers are half warrior/druid. Paladins are half warrior/cleric. SKs are half war/necro. Bards aren’t really half/half anything. What they DO do best doesn’t involve their weapons. Their weapons aside from having epic for the proc and instrument mods is unrelated to anything substantial they do - and this very unlike any of the other hybrids or the melee characters.

Having said that, they are neither intelligence casters nor wisdom casters. I question how our discussion would be different if bards were part of our consideration in this thread.

Rimitto, you are very much correct. I am inclined to agree. The lack of malo on high level slow-able targets could be painful, but generally in the locations you will find these targets, the available pets to charm have massive hp so you could just push through healing the pet(s) without a slow.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

enchanter enchanter cleric necro is clearly the best grouping.

Why? Necro has Twitch.
Alongside the clerics ability to heal him from lich, and clarity, it basically ensure that the party can handled most if not any situation that ANY caster party would ever be able to handle.

The prime problem of a full caster party is always going to be mana. Necro is the solution to that.

When it comes to mana issues, Shaman/Necro solves mana problems better, due to Torpor + Canninalize, Slow, and Regen. You still get the great combo of being able to heal the Necro via Torpor, and the Necro gets Regen too. The Shaman can take on slow duty for example, so the Enchanters don't have to. This saves the Enchanters mana, and the Shaman has a much larger mana pool to work with than the Cleric. This also allows Enchanters to put another spell on bar if they want, and it allows them to focus on maintaining their pets more.

Shaman/Necro/Enchanter/Enchanter would be great. Have the Necro swap to a pocket Cleric for one of the rare targets that would need to CH the pet like Vaniki. Honestly though you don't really see people selling Vaniki loot rights. It's not a normal group camp.

[Snaggles]

The conversion rate on twitch is absolute garbage. Mod rods are more efficient than Cani4. They can be stacked and juggled until needed.

DS’s on an unhasted mob(s) is tons of DPS.

Necros don’t have a -60 MR debuff that lasts 19 mins.

[Penish]

so in short, mage is winner by a mile

ty for the 532 pages

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The conversion rate on twitch is absolute garbage. Mod rods are more efficient than Cani4. They can be stacked and juggled until needed.

DS’s on an unhasted mob(s) is tons of DPS.

Mod rods themselves have a better conversion rate than canni, but remember the Mage is spending 200 mana to make a single rod, and you only get 150 mana back from using one. The Mage is losing a lot of time and mana to make them, juggle them, and move them when the group changes position.

Or you could just save an Enchanter 225 mana per pull by having the Shaman slow instead, and the Shaman can maintain their mana pool with Torpor + Canni. Malo saves the Enchanters mana via less Charm breaks.

If the group really wants DS, the Shaman can make potions. The Shaman will be Torpor Tanking anyway. But slowed mobs don't produce great DS damage anyway.

[Troxx]

I see we are still using pocket cleric concept to rationalize bringing an inferior priest (for this party) to the party

Funny how the shaman needs a pocket cleric to make the group viable yet the cleric doesn’t need a pocket shaman.

Truly giggle worthy

Thanks for conceding DSM.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I see we are still using pocket cleric concept to rationalize bringing an inferior priest (for this party) to the party

Truly giggle worthy

Troxx still cannot explain why pocket clerics aren't allowed, when it has been a common practice for many years.

Under his logic, the group cannot use mules either. I doubt this group would not use mules because they are sticking to four characters only.

Troxx is just being silly now.

[Snaggles]

Torp is such a tickle of a heal on a charmed pet it’s not worth it.
Helping an ench slow is nice, as is malo/sini. A 2nd ench splitting slow duty and a mage takes up this slack and adds spades of utility.

In a normal group with melee PC’s, or a scrappy duo, shamans are power players. CH gets better the more it heals. Dropping a CH at half health on a dog pet in Velk’s is 5k hps. At 10% it’s closer to 10k.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Torp is such a tickle of a heal on a charmed pet it’s not worth it.
Helping an ench slow is nice, as is malo/sini. A 2nd ench splitting slow duty and a mage takes up this slack and adds spades of utility.

In a normal group with melee PC’s, or a scrappy duo, shamans are power players. CH gets better the more it heals. Dropping a CH at half health on a dog pet in Velk’s is 5k hps. At 10% it’s closer to 10k.

The Shaman Torpors themselves, slows the mob, and tanks. Then you don't really need to heal the pets, as they generally aren't taking damage.

Vaniki could be done with Shaman/Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter if you really want to build a group around doing very hard targets for this kind of group. I mentioned this group on page 1, having a Shaman and Cleric is a great choice too.

[Snaggles]

The Shaman Torpors themselves, slows the mob, and tanks. Then you don't really need to heal the pets, as they generally aren't taking damage.

There will be things that torp won’t keep up with. Unslowed stuff and multi-pulls.

The mage gameplay is shockingly simple. Literally all they need to do is debuff, DS, and wait.

I have done a ton of duo velks. The sham is a luxury without a second ench. It’s passable but painful without the cleric. Rods and twitch are a red herring, neither are likely needed. Sini and malo/a are a huge deal. I’d take DS over dots. An air pet over EoT or a wolf.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

There will be things that torp won’t keep up with. Unslowed stuff and multi-pulls.

The mage gameplay is shockingly simple. Literally all they need to do is debuff, DS, and wait.

I have done a ton of duo velks. The sham is a luxury without a second ench. It’s passable but painful without the cleric. Rods and twitch are a red herring, neither are likely needed. Sini and malo/a are a huge deal. I’d take DS over dots. An air pet over EoT or a wolf.

Can you name a camp this four player group would be doing that can't be Torpor Tanked? I named Vaniki, but that fight wants Malo for slow. One Cleric cannot keep up with CH either. You Torpor the pet so the Cleric can med longer betweeen CH's. Vaniki slows your pet by 35% anyway via Willsapper, so Torpor isn't affecting thr pets DPS anyway.

Cleric/Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter is the group for Vaniki.

[Troxx]

Funny how the shaman needs a pocket cleric to make the group viable yet the cleric doesn’t need a pocket shaman.

This really is worth foot stomping. We haven’t even begun to discuss how the cleric will have access to an earth-shatteringly overpowered clicky that is effective from the newbie yard onward.

https://wiki.project1999.com/Greaves_of_Forbidden_Rites

Another question is whether or not this group intends to be fully group-found and/or funded. Even if self funded from scratch … unless we stipulate all gear must be self found … it wouldn’t be hard for a group of 4 casters to scrounge up the coin to buy the MQ relatively early in their collective careers.

Of course if we are talking fully self found without buying things in EC - it’s gonna be a long painful slog to even get a copy of torpor - hunting those mobs with just a shaman healer and no torpor will be painful to say the least

[DeathsSilkyMist]

This really is worth foot stomping. We haven’t even begun to discuss how the cleric will have access to an earth-shatteringly overpowered clicky that is effective from the newbie yard onward.

https://wiki.project1999.com/Greaves_of_Forbidden_Rites

Unless this group intends to be fully group-found and/or funded. Even if self funded from scratch … unless we stipulate all gear must be self found … it wouldn’t be hard for a group of 4 casters to scrounge up the coin to buy the MQ relatively early in their collective careers.

Of course if we are talking fully self found without buying things in EC - it’s gonna be a long painful slog to even get a copy of torpor - hunting those mobs with just a shaman healer and no torpor will be painful to say the least

If you want to talk about spell costs, Enchanter spells aren't cheap either. Torpor costs 35k on blue at the moment. Bedlam + Dictate alone is going to cost around 18k per Enchanter. If you can farm that cash for the Enchanters, you can do so for other group members too.

[Snaggles]

Can you name a camp this four player group would be doing that can't be Torpor Tanked? I named Vaniki, but that fight wants Malo for slow. One Cleric cannot keep up with CH either. You Torpor the pet so the Cleric can med longer betweeen CH's. Vaniki slows your pet by 35% anyway via Willsapper, so Torpor isn't affecting thr pets DPS anyway.

Cleric/Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter is the group for Vaniki.

I cannot barely name a single camp a single ench cannot solo. Let alone two with a cleric and a utility player.

As a +4 you want a class that fills in the gaps and doesn’t try to be the quarterback. A mage doesn’t impose its style on others, just accents. Having a third class that can slow is nice but again with a 10k hp pool, slowed or not, you have plenty of time for two Ench’s to get to work. Hell…or don’t. Heal through it and let the DS add like 50 dps. Let the cleric eat all the rods.

I have no beef in this fight. I don’t have a 60 ench or necro but have all the rest in question. I feel a mage is a better pick. Others would work just fine. They just might not be optimal if measuring with a micrometer.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I can barely name a single camp a single ench cannot solo. Let alone two with a cleric and a utility player.

As a +4 you want a class that fills in the gaps and doesn’t try to be the quarterback. A mage doesn’t impose its style on others, just accents. Having a third class that can slow is nice but again with a 10k hp pool, slowed or not, you have plenty of time for two Ench’s to get to work. Hell…or don’t. Heal through it and let the DS add like 50 dps. Let the cleric eat all the rods.

Yes, many camps this group would be doing can be soloes by an Enchanter. Adding a Shaman to unlocl a few camps the Enchanters cannot solo, like Vaniki, sounds like a good deal to me. West Waste Dragons and Fungi King are easier with a Shaman too.

Two Enchanters have the DPS covered already. Respawn timers create DPS thresholds. Killing Fungi King in 90 seconds instead of 120 seconds does not give you more Kings per session. When leveling, a four player caster group with an Enchanter is going to be fast already without a Mage.

[Snaggles]

Vaniki is not a normal “camp”.

I’m not an enchanter nor have any experience at it past low 50’s solo. IMHO we should ask some experts here what class they want as a 4th. Unless people ignored their feedback over the prior 500 pages to posture and pout…

[Troxx]

I am not convinced a group of 4 casters can kill Vaniki - period. I’ve healed a pretty beefy raid tank warrior under discipline. We had 2 clerics, a torpor shaman, it was preslowed and we had several raid level melee dps. Vaniki damage spikes are insane enough that the most reliable way of not having the warrior die was to start the cheal after the first round the warrior took damage.

A single cleric very realistically would run out of mana before 2 charm pets would get him dead. Both pets would end up slowed to Willsapper as the one that started tanking would quickly lose aggro to the one not actively tanking. Heaven forbid you toss a charm break into the mix … and beyond that how do precisely to plan to even pull him, rip him from the train, and how - with this type of crew - would you manage to kite him until a slow lands. He is a caster and can and will root, prematurely aggro pets …

The more I consider Vaniki - the more I consider him beyond the capabilities of any 4 casters. If a viable strat does exist it likely would involve each enchanter having 3-4 mezzed back-up pets lined up to throw at him when their pet inevitably dies.

For Vaniki, I’ll believe it when I see it.

Funny how the shaman needs a pocket cleric to make the group viable yet the cleric doesn’t need a pocket shaman.

Still foot stomping this. Our resident retard has no rebuttal to this.

[Snaggles]

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=432936

Official poll. Please vote if you have a 60 ench. If not, nobody cares what you think. I’m not voting for the same reason :)

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I am not convinced a group of 4 casters can solo Vaniki - period. I’ve healed a pretty beefy raid tank warrior under discipline. We had 2 clerics, a torpor shaman, it was preslowed and we had several raid level melee dps. Vaniki damage spikes are insane enough that the most reliable way of not having the warrior die was to start the cheal after the first round the warrior took damage.

A single cleric very realistically would run out of mana before 2 charm pets would get him dead. Both pets would end up slowed to Willsapper as the one that started tanking would quickly lose aggro to the one not actively tanking. Heaven forbid you toss a charm break into the mix … and beyond that how do precisely to plan to even pull him, rip him from the train, and how - with this type of crew - would you manage to kite him until a slow lands. He is a caster and can and will root, prematurely aggro pets …

The more I consider Vaniki - the more I consider him beyond the capabilities of any 4 casters.



Still foot stomping this. Our resident retard has no rebuttal to this.

Troxx is back to attacking autistic people because he lost the debate. He was doing so well too. Hopefully he can recover from this and explain his position rationally.

The only person who has been unable to explain their position on pocket clerics is Troxx. He says they aren't allowed, but cannot say why. There is no rule OP made, people use pocket clerics in normal play, and mules would be restricted too if he wants to pretend you can only use the four main characters. I doubt anyone would adhere to this.

[Snaggles]

Do you cleric much, DSM? If I have to pick my shaman over my cleric it’s not even a debate unless my cleric is parked for raids.

Aego, stun command, CH, divine light+remedy combo for charm break Hp recovery. I don’t even mem Celestial Elixir. Edit: forgot to mention rez, lol.

Even the mana savings for a duo slowing with a sham is way more dangerous. Can’t help spot heal as well when taking hits. Less HP’s to buff. No targeted AoE non-damaging stun with a 1 sec cast.

Stun command is so good it makes a cleric fun to play…

/target “enchanter name”
/stand
/cast # (stun command gem)

From medding to stunning a charm break and the kill target in one click. Lasts up to 8 seconds.

[Snaggles]

Again though, I don’t think anyone is trying to seriously debate a sham OR cleric. The 4th seat is up for debate here.

[Troxx]

Again though, I don’t think anyone is trying to seriously debate a sham OR cleric.

Yes. DSM is doing precisely that. He is advocating for not bringing a cleric and taking a shaman instead. Hence his argument for pocket clerics to log in for rezzes. It’s absurd.

Troxx is back to attacking autistic people

I referred to you as our resident retard. Intellectual disability (mental retardation) and autism are very different things.

Swing and a miss …

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Do you cleric much, DSM? If I have to pick my shaman over my cleric it’s not even a debate unless my cleric is parked for raids.

Aego, stun command, CH, divine light+remedy combo for charm break Hp recovery. I don’t even mem Celestial Elixir. Edit: forgot to mention rez, lol.

Even the mana savings for a duo slowing with a sham is way more dangerous. Can’t help spot heal as well when taking hits. Less HP’s to buff. No targeted AoE non-damaging stun with a 1 sec cast.

Stun command is so good it makes a cleric fun to play…

/target “enchanter name”
/stand
/cast # (stun command gem)

From medding to stunning a charm break and the kill target in one click. Lasts up to 8 seconds.

I could ask the same thing to you about Shamans. Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a powerful trio that doesn't use a Cleric at all, and has a Charmed pet. This is because most content a single small group without a Warrior can do is Torpor tankable. Enchanters can handle most charm breaks solo too.

When you have played the game enough, you realize only a small portion of desireable group content is unslowable, or does enough damage even when slowed to become untankable with Torpor.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Yes. DSM is doing precisely that. He is advocating for not bringing a cleric and taking a shaman instead. Hence his argument for pocket clerics to log in for rezzes. It’s absurd.



I referred to you as our resident retard. Intellectual disability (mental retardation) and autism are very different things.

Swing and a miss …

Remember I said Shaman/Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter page one. Please stop twisting my words because you are a troll.

Pocket Clerics are a reality though, so a group can use that instead if they want a different class from Cleric. A Torpor Shaman isn't a pocket character. Nor is a 60 Enchanter with full spellbook. Some classes are pocketable, like Cleric. They only need to be level 49 for CH and 90% res.

[Snaggles]

Thanks for responding with a veiled dig.

Ok, do you have a 60 cleric?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Thanks for responding with a veiled dig.

Ok, do you have a 60 cleric?

What veiled dig?

I've played level 60 Clerics and have grouped with plenty. I hope your argument isn't "you can't understand how a class works unless you level it to 60". How many people on these forums have actually leveled every class to 60? It's not many I'd wager. This is just an argument from authority fallacy.

[Troxx]

I could ask the same thing to you about Shamans. Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a powerful trio that doesn't use a Cleric at all, and

You have a short memory. This was already addressed. Shaman/monk is a powerful duo. It stands to reason that adding the single most capable solo class to an admittedly powerful duo is going to be even stronger. Unfortunately, this is just a distraction from the topic at hand and entirely irrelevant to the discussion of which 4 characters, all casters, provide the best synergy.

/facepalm

[Troxx]

When you have played the game enough, you realize….

That veiled dig. The implication that Snaggles just hasn’t played the game enough to understand what he is talking about.

[bcbrown]

As a sidebar discussion, I’ve always wondered if the bard class would be best classified as a caster - not a hybrid. Rangers are half warrior/druid. Paladins are half warrior/cleric. SKs are half war/necro. Bards aren’t really half/half anything. What they DO do best doesn’t involve their weapons. Their weapons aside from having epic for the proc and instrument mods is unrelated to anything substantial they do - and this very unlike any of the other hybrids or the melee characters.


I think of them as being enchanter/warrior hybrids. They have haste, slow, mez, lull, charm, mana regen. But they’re less like enchanters are than any of the other hybrids are from their “parent” caster classes.

Early on in this thread when bards came up you made a persuasive case that a bard wouldn’t be a good fit in this group, but I’m not gonna try to find it.

[Vivitron]

Another definition that I think could bear fruitful exploration is that shitposting is an artistic form exploring the boundaries of poe's law: any parodic or sarcastic expression of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of those views.

That effort post was a surprise 500+ pages deep. I like this definition of shitposting. I've chuckled at some gems from Jimjam in particular that fit this definition and still come across as friendly and in good faith.

As a sidebar discussion, I’ve always wondered if the bard class would be best classified as a caster - not a hybrid. Rangers are half warrior/druid. Paladins are half warrior/cleric. SKs are half war/necro. Bards aren’t really half/half anything. What they DO do best doesn’t involve their weapons. Their weapons aside from having epic for the proc and instrument mods is unrelated to anything substantial they do - and this very unlike any of the other hybrids or the melee characters.

Having said that, they are neither intelligence casters nor wisdom casters. I question how our discussion would be different if bards were part of our consideration in this thread.

Rimitto, you are very much correct. I am inclined to agree. The lack of malo on high level slow-able targets could be painful, but generally in the locations you will find these targets, the available pets to charm have massive hp so you could just push through healing the pet(s) without a slow.

Bards having unique songs instead of a base-class-caster's spells is a big difference for sure. Despite that I've thought of them as an enchanter/ranger hybrid. Kind of a hybrid-hybrid, taking them one step closer to caster.

But Jimjam made a good post in the best melee/hybrid group thread; "I don’t know about you guys, but I’ve always viewed shaman as more of a melee hybrid than a pure caster so …" And bards are a bit closer to the melee side than shaman, so maybe shaman and bard should both be disqualified here;)

Can you name a camp this four player group would be doing that can't be Torpor Tanked?

Chardok Overking and sleepers trash.

I see we are still using pocket cleric concept to rationalize bringing an inferior priest (for this party) to the party

Funny how the shaman needs a pocket cleric to make the group viable yet the cleric doesn’t need a pocket shaman.

Truly giggle worthy

Thanks for conceding DSM.

Did the OP specify a timeline? We've only been planning for two years, so I would still call the pocket cleric a major investment. But I think if we drag the prep stage out to 5 years or so we can start calling it a minor cost, relatively speaking.

[Snaggles]

It’s sunken cost vs authority fallacy then.

You assume playing a shaman for thousands of hours instead of tens of thousands of hours means someone can’t crack the cypher of alternating torp and canni.

My point is having more toons makes someone more objective and less biased. They all have flaws. I’m not proud of my 8.9 level 60’s. It’s very sad, TBH.

If a buddy has an enchanter, or two of them do, I will pick my class based on the need of the group. Not the need for me to prove I’m right about my favorite class. I can play a good ranger but am not so deluded to think it’s optimal.

I’ll let the poll I posted vote for me. I know how to best support enchanters based on my perspective but would appreciate theirs. Frankly, the best four person group is likely 4 enchanters with a cleric parked out.

[Troxx]

Early on in this thread when bards came up you made a persuasive case that a bard wouldn’t be a good fit in this group, but I’m not gonna try to find it.

Sounds like something I would do. Regen is obviously powerful - but probably not needed. Chant dots add dps but not by much. They can pull - but you all ready have 3 classes with pacify. They can provide CC but you already have 2 enchanters.

Ok ok … you convinced me Bcbrown. I find myself agreeing with myself :D

[Snaggles]

I think of them as being enchanter/warrior hybrids. They have haste, slow, mez, lull, charm, mana regen. But they’re less like enchanters are than any of the other hybrids are from their “parent” caster classes.

Early on in this thread when bards came up you made a persuasive case that a bard wouldn’t be a good fit in this group, but I’m not gonna try to find it.

A bard would be quite good, just didn’t fit the caster/priest requirement. A good drum OOS debuff is on par with Malo. Mana regen for days making rods and twitches looks sad. Run speed isn’t ports but it’s something (and damn fun!).

Note: Bards lacking pet debuff (sini) may or may not be a big deal. Deferring to the enchs if 19 mins of -60 MR is worth it.

[Zuranthium]

Again though, I don’t think anyone is trying to seriously debate a sham OR cleric. The 4th seat is up for debate here.

It does become a debate of Shaman vs Cleric if a group is playing on a server where the only ports available is if your group has it, therefore making Druid a necessity if you don't want to waste a ton of time running on foot around the entire world.

A bard would be quite good, just didn’t fit the caster/priest requirement.

Bards are casters, tbh

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You have a short memory. This was already addressed. Shaman/monk is a powerful duo. It stands to reason that adding the single most capable solo class to an admittedly powerful duo is going to be even stronger. Unfortunately, this is just a distraction from the topic at hand and entirely irrelevant to the discussion of which 4 characters, all casters, provide the best synergy.

/facepalm

I don't have short term memory. Troxx just dismisses anything out of hand he cannot rebut. Shaman/Enchanter synnergy does not go away when you remove the Monk.

[Snaggles]

Bards are casters, tbh

Agreed, if not a segment of itself. I just didn’t know if we were bending the rule and didn’t read the rest of this novel to confirm :)

[bcbrown]

The OP confirmed that bards are out of scope at the same point when Troxx analysed bards. It was in the first 50 pages I think but I’m not gonna look it up.

[Troxx]

I don't have short term memory. Troxx just dismisses anything out of hand he cannot rebut. Shaman/Enchanter synnergy does not go away when you remove the Monk.

Uhhh it was never the shaman/enchanter synergy that makes that group great … It was monk/shaman synergy which is well established. Adding an enchanter just made what was already a powerhouse duo even better.

Cleric/enchanter is undeniably a far superior duo than shaman/ench.

When you duo with an enchanter you are mostly there to support them in the overpowered crap they are already doing by themselves.

Perhaps you should try actually playing a cleric? I’ve got all classes to 60 but ench/wiz/sk/rog. I’ve clocked thousands of hours on my cleric and my shaman. I would never dream of playing my shaman over my cleric duo with an enchanter. I’ve also never gotten a cold-call tell from an enchanter asking to duo with my shaman. I have gotten such tells unsolicited across multiple zones dozens of times on my cleric. Heck - I’ve even gotten tells on my PALADIN asking to duo with an enchanter.

Shamans and ench are just fine. They can get by. Cleric and ench is simply better.

You’re a funny fella

[DeathsSilkyMist]

It’s sunken cost vs authority fallacy then.

You assume playing a shaman for thousands of hours instead of tens of thousands of hours means someone can’t crack the cypher of alternating torp and canni.

My point is having more toons makes someone more objective and less biased. They all have flaws. I’m not proud of my 8.9 level 60’s. It’s very sad, TBH.

If a buddy has an enchanter, or two of them do, I will pick my class based on the need of the group. Not the need for me to prove I’m right about my favorite class. I can play a good ranger but am not so deluded to think it’s optimal.

I’ll let the poll I posted vote for me. I know how to best support enchanters based on my perspective but would appreciate theirs. Frankly, the best four person group is likely 4 enchanters with a cleric parked out.

I am just explaining the mechanics of the game. It is not sunken cost. You are assuming I am biased without evidence it sounds like.

A person who has an Enchanter or Cleric would also be biased under your logic, but I don't see you complaining about players with Enchanters or Clerics speaking up about how their classes work.

It always seems like the bias argument is alway levied at me, and never at the Cleric or Enchanter players. It is quite strange.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Uhhh it was never the shaman/enchanter synergy that makes this duo great … It was monk/shaman synergy which is well established. Adding an enchanter just made what was already a powerhouse duo even better.

Cleric/enchanter is undeniably a far superior duo than shaman/ench.

When you duo with an enchanter you are mostly there to support them in the overpowered crap they are already doing by themselves.

Perhaps you should try actually playing a cleric? I’ve got all classes to 60 but ench/wiz/sk/rog. I’ve clocked thousands of hours on my cleric and my shaman. I would never dream of playing my shaman over my cleric duo with an enchanter. I’ve also never gotten a cold-call tell from an enchanter asking to duo with my shaman. I have gotten such tells unsolicited across multiple zones dozens of times on my cleric.

You’re a funny fella

Are you suggesting the Monk/Shaman synnergy is the reason why the group can maintain an Enchanter pet without a Cleric lol? The Shaman/Enchanter is the cornerstone. The Monk is the least needed of the three.

I've been asked by Enchanters to do Fungi King without a Cleric, if you want to talk about personal experience.

[Troxx]

I've been asked by Enchanters to do Fungi King without a Cleric, if you want to talk about personal experience.

Derp - and most of the times I’ve done fungi king we didn’t have a shaman! Fungi king is not a hard mob. The only thing remotely challenging about the camp is managing the pull.

/Enchanter is the cornerstone.

Fixed that for you. When you duo/trio with a competent enchanter, everyone else is secondary. The question then becomes how best do you support the enchanter.

There is no magical synergy between ench and shaman. Ench and druid would be every bit as effective - maybe more so depending on location. Egress/Succor, snare, free clicky regrowth, PoTG, and animal charm potential.

Clerics have a unique toolkit neither of the other priests have.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Derp - and most of the times I’ve done fungi king we didn’t have a shaman! Fungi king is not a hard mob. The only thing remotely challenging about the camp is managing the pull.

You still can't name a camp where a Cleric would be better. Shaman makes Fungi King easier compared to Cleric, for example.

He's not that hard, but most mobs aren't that hard.

With regards to Enchanter/Shaman synnergy compared to Enchanter druid synnergy, you forgot about Torpor Tanking again.

[Troxx]

This post from this thread nearly 13 months ago is still solid gold.

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

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

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

[DeathsSilkyMist]

This post from this thread nearly 13 months ago is still solid gold.

Troxx has lost the debate and gone back to being a troll. Unfortunate.

Please note he is still dodging the question about naming a camp where a Cleric is better. He was asked this many pages ago and still refuses to answer.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

There is no magical synergy between ench and shaman. Ench and druid would be every bit as effective - maybe more so depending on location. Egress/Succor, snare, free clicky regrowth, PoTG, and animal charm potential.


I find it interesting that Troxx seems to think a Druid/Enchanter would be able to do just fine in terms of pet health without Torpor Tanking or CH. Is he saying it's fine to not have CH now?

[Troxx]

Please note he is still dodging the question about naming a camp where a Cleric is better.

Everywhere you go with 2 enchanters charming hasted, quadding, high hp and obscene dps output pets. Literally everywhere you’ve got that much raw potential and risk is a camp where a cleric is better. Why? Because shit will inevitably hit the fan and when it does the cleric absolutely will do a better job mitigating the mayhem and keeping people alive. In the event of a player death (1 or more or all), the cleric can actually fix that situation for you.

I have never dodged that question, you are simply too stupid to read words and apply basic comprehension.

Now if you were to ask me to name a camp that requires complete heal - well that would be significantly more challenging. There are mobs that a small group would only be able to do utilizing charm pets with huge hp pools (ie Capt Bvellos as the pet and tank in Kael) - but the follow-on debate would then be whether 4 casters without outside assistance pulling would be able to tackle the content to begin with.

I will say, though, that anything a shaman can heal - the cleric could manage it just fine even pretending they didn’t have complete heal. Elixir and non-cheal direct heals are every bit as good as what a shaman can manage with Torp + chloroplast … without slowing down the thing that is tanking.

I find it interesting that Troxx seems to think a Druid/Enchanter would be able to do just fine in terms of pet health without Torpor Tanking or CH. Is he saying it's fine to not have CH now?

Read the above. Then rub your brain cells together for a few minutes. Consider your next reply contemplatively for a few minutes and then write your post. Proof read it before submitting it so you do not have to stealth edit it for the next 30 minutes.

Have I healed an enchanter charm pet with my druid in challenging xp content? Yes. With my shaman? Yes. With my cleric? Yes. On all 3 priests both before and after 60? Yes!

Who does it best? Cleric by a college mile.

(And yes I have Torp ranked with a charming chanter too).

[Keebz]

I'm behind on my DSM-lore, where did this "Shaman always torp tanks" narrative come from and what happened to "root adds and dot them" narrative go?

[Troxx]

I'm behind on my DSM-lore, where did this "Shaman always torp tanks" narrative come from and what happened to "root adds and dot them" narrative go?

He is all over the place. First it was he’s gonna root rot 4-6 mobs in parallel to the group to try and keep up with mage dps. When that fell apart he switched tactics.

We have now booted the cleric from the group so the shaman will be torp tanking, providing dps … … all while perfectly protecting his enchanters from their 120-240dps pets when they break.

Oh … and warping reality to allow a 5th character into this 4 man group so we can rez the dead when things don’t go smoothly.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Everywhere you go with 2 enchanters charming hasted, quadding, high hp and obscene dps output pets. Literally everywhere you’ve got that much raw potential and risk is a camp where a cleric is better. Why? Because shit will inevitably hit the fan and when it does the cleric absolutely will do a better job mitigating the mayhem and keeping people alive. In the event of a player death (1 or more or all), the cleric can actually fix that situation for you.

I have never dodged that question, you are simply too stupid to read words and apply basic comprehension.

Now if you were to ask me to name a camp that requires complete heal - well that would be significantly more challenging. There are mobs that a small group would only be able to do utilizing charm pets with huge hp pools (ie Capt Bvellos as the pet and tank in Kael) - but the follow-on debate would then be whether 4 casters without outside assistance pulling would be able to tackle the content to begin with.

I will say, though, that anything a shaman can heal - the cleric could manage it just fine even pretending they didn’t have complete heal. Elixir and non-cheal direct heals are every bit as good as what a shaman can manage with Torp + chloroplast … without slowing down the thing that is tanking.



Read the above. Then rub your brain cells together for a few minutes. Consider your next reply contemplatively for a few minutes and then write your post. Proof read it before submitting it so you do not have to stealth edit it for the next 30 minutes.

Have I healed an enchanter charm pet with my druid in challenging xp content? Yes. With my shaman? Yes. With my cleric? Yes. On all 3 priests both before and after 60? Yes!

Who does it best? Cleric by a college mile.

(And yes I have Torp ranked with a charming chanter too).

Yes, you dodged the question many times, and the post history shows it. Can you link to a past post in this thread where you answered the question directly?

I am glad you finally answered the question directly. We've already gone over how a Shaman and Enchanters can handle charm breaks just fine without a Cleric:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3692090&postcount=5300

You said "everywhere", but Shamans make some camps like Fungi King and West Waste Dragons easier than with a Cleric. Shaman/Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter could potentially do Vaniki. I am open to including a Cleric as I said on page 1, only you are trying to claim a Shaman doesn't fit. If you had to get rid of either the Cleric or the Shaman, the Cleric is the clear choice because it can be pocketed.

Clearly your "everywhere" idea is exaggurated and not quite objective. Thanks for finally coming out and saying that though. It makes it easier for people to see that you probably just have a Cleric bias, which is clouding your judgement to some degree.

Troxx also still can't admit that pocket clerics exist on p99, or that his idea about only using the four main characters would exclude mules too. I doubt anyone is going to stop using mules or pocket clerics because of Troxx commenting in this thread. Mules and pocket clerics are the reality on p99, and will contiue to exist.

[Troxx]

Yes, you dodged the question many times, and the post history shows it. Can you link to a past post in this thread where you answered the question directly?

No no no … no revisionist history. You stated you could could name “a few camps” that “need” a shaman and challenged others to name a camp that “needs” a cleric. This was absurd and it was pointed out to you. Then you tried to argue about the actual definition of words (lol) for a few pages.

Ultimately you resigned yourself to have done a whoopsie and amended your wording to “is better with”.

To which I still maintain - the question was never dodged. I have been (figuratively) slapping you in your fat cheeks a couple dozen pages with my answer. In all circumstances where you have multiple nasty charm mobs with the potential to cut loose and wreck fragile cloth casters a cleric is always the superior choice vs shaman if the two are mutually exclusive - can’t take both. This includes fungi king, WW dragons … you name it.

It’s not my fault if you’re to stupid to know, after 500+ pages, what my answer has always been.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

No no no … no revisionist history. You stated you could could name “a few camps” that “need” a shaman and challenged others to name a camp that “needs” a cleric. This was absurd and it was pointed out to you. Then you tried to argue about the actual definition of words (lol) for a few pages.

Ultimately you resigned yourself to have done a whoopsie and amended your wording to “is better with”.

To which I still maintain - the question was never dodged. I have been (figuratively) slapping you in your fat cheeks a couple dozen pages with my answer. In all circumstances where you have multiple nasty charm mobs with the potential to cut loose and wreck fragile cloth casters a cleric is always the superior choice vs shaman if the two are mutually exclusive - can’t take both. This includes fungi king, WW dragons … you name it.

It’s not my fault if you’re to stupid to know, after 500+ pages, what my answer has always been.

As you can see, Troxx cannot link the post, and has proven he was dodging the question by bringing up his many posts trying to argue what the word "need" means, instead of just answering the question about which camps a Cleric is better at.

The thread wouldn't be 500+ pages if Troxx wasn't bloating the thread by apparently trying to spread his answer out for not reason, while trolling and dodging at the same time.

[Snaggles]

Torp works so slowly that it’s better to just reset and blur a pet to let it naturaly regen.

Clerics can stun casters from healing or slowing their pet
Clerics can AoE stun in one second two npcs in route to kill the enchanter
Clerics can recover hps quicker with a DL/Remedy combo
Clerics can rez
Clerics can buff 2x more hitpoints than shaman
Clerics can heal 10k hps in 10 seconds for 2x the cost of a torp

This is probably just my bias showing though. Whenever I bring a Druid or Shaman to duo, my ench buddy is glad to have me. When I bring my cleric he genuinely gets excited.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Torp works so slowly that it’s better to just reset and blur a pet to let it naturaly regen.

Clerics can stun casters from healing or slowing their pet
Clerics can AoE stun in one second two npcs in route to kill the enchanter
Clerics can recover hps quicker with a DL/Remedy combo
Clerics can rez
Clerics can buff 2x more hitpoints than shaman
Clerics can heal 10k hps in 10 seconds for 2x the cost of a torp

This is probably just my bias showing though. Whenever I bring a Druid or Shaman my buddy is glad to have me. When I bring my cleric he genuinely gets excited.

A Shaman Torpor tanking means you don't have to heal the pet generally speaking. You aren't Torporing the pet generally speaking. And yes, you can let the pet naturally regen on the rare occasion the pet takes damage due to some weird scenario.

[Snaggles]

For sake of my sanity, to clarifying are you arguing shaman > cleric?
I started in trying to justify a sham for the 4th fill. Not the 3rd let alone as a trio.

Cleric is stronger with two charm classes than slow already. It’s the benefit they get for otherwise being horribly boring.

If this was two monks, sure, shaman all day long.

[Snaggles]

A Shaman Torpor tanking means you don't have to heal the pet generally speaking. You aren't Torporing the pet generally speaking. And yes, you can let the pet naturally regen on the rare occasion the pet takes damage due to some weird scenario.

But…why? With c2 no cleric is going to struggle unless pet breaks are like every 2 mins. In which case the shaman is going to be screwed too.

Tossing heals for 5k+ is a pretty relaxed game.

[Troxx]

Lol reading this thread from the beginning is actually fascinating. DSM advocating for cleric in the group until it became obvious the shaman was going to be excluded for a helpful caster. Not initially claiming pocket clerics until he needed to find a way to have the shaman fill the one job that can’t be replaced: healing.

Also now we have moved on to minimizing the risk of the danger of charm breaks or how “with good play” - competent players won’t really run into this ….

Yet on page 5 we find this gem

Having 3 charm breaks will probably kill your party. Stuns can be resisted, and 3 charmed/hasted pets will melt cloth casters fast. Once one Enchanter dies, you now have an uncharmed pet in camp. This can easily wipe your party.

So … charms are so risky that you wouldn’t want 3 of them with a dedicated set of enchanters and a cleric ready to intervene - god damn we better bring a shaman for back up heals! ….. but are magically now not so risky that a shaman focusing on pulling tanking and torp-tank healing doesn’t have to worry about 2 …. Possibly 3 charms without a cleric at all?

The unexpected turns in this thread have been truly mind boggling. DSM has redefined his stance, outlook, angle of attack … has moved the goalposts so many times … has added the idea of pocket clerics to the mix, etc. It’s hard to keep up. I’m reading from page 1 for shits and giggles …

My how his opinions have all changed with the exception of one thing: ya better bring a shaman!

Lol

[Troxx]

For sake of my sanity, to clarifying are you arguing shaman > cleric?.

Yes. He is. There is no sanity when it comes to DSM. He’s got such a massive boner for shamans that there isn’t any blood flow left to go to his brain.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

For sake of my sanity, to clarifying are you arguing shaman > cleric?
I started in trying to justify a sham for the 4th fill. Not the 3rd let alone as a trio.

Cleric is stronger with two charm classes than slow already. It’s the benefit they get for otherwise being horribly boring.

If this was two monks, sure, shaman all day long.

Both Shamans and Clerics work well with Enchanters, as both parties have explained in detail. That is why I said Shaman/Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter on the first page.

In the scenario where you can only pick one, the Shaman is a better choice, because making a level 49 pocket cleric to handle the occasional res and pet CH is easier and faster than making a level 60 Torpor Shaman for something like Vaniki or West Waste Dragons.

Now, I am not sure why people keep saying pocket clerics are not allowed. OP didn't say you can't use them, and they are a common practice on P99. If the idea is you can only use the four main characters and no other character, this would mean you can't use mules either. People are not going to stop using Pocket Clerics or Mules because of this thread.

[Elizondo]

The video of DSM failing so badly trying to heal enchanters has convinced me enc / enc / cleric / anything but shaman is the way to go

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The video of DSM failing so badly trying to heal enchanters has convinced me enc / enc / cleric / anything but shaman is the way to go

More trolling and no substance. The trolls just band together when they cannot win the debate with substance, logic, and reason.

It just scares people away from the forums and maybe P99.

[cyxthryth]

….. but are magically now not so risky that a shaman focusing on pulling tanking and torp-tank healing doesn’t have to worry about 2 …. Possibly 3 charms without a cleric at all?

Don't forget the 4-6 adds the Shaman is root-rotting parallel to the rest of the group. Hehe. :)

[Troxx]

More trolling and no substance.

#whine a lot
#claim anyone who disagrees is a troll
#make a fool of self
#always thank folks for conceding when no concession was given
#”As you can see” … talk to imaginary readers that are not there
#any class can tank AoW with enough clerics
#warriors solo faster than enchanters
#there is no message for FD
#shamans can dps better than mages
#shamans can protect enchanters on charm breaks as well as clerics
#groups want their shamans root-rotting 4-6 mobs parallel to the group
#baby shadowknights should ignore str and focus on intelligence
#pocket clerics
#Fungi King and WW dragons are the ultimate test of Powah and Skillzzz

🤔

[Elizondo]

More trolling and no substance. The trolls just band together when they cannot win the debate with substance, logic, and reason.

It just scares people away from the forums and maybe P99.

Nobody needs to debate with you

Your own video with fail game play settled the argument

[DeathsSilkyMist]

It is clear the trolls are simply piling on now in the desparate hope the appearance of consensus means they are correct.

It is unfortunate civil discussion cannot be had on these forums.

[Elizondo]

It is clear the trolls are simply piling on now in the desparate hope the appearance of consensus means they are correct.

It is unfortunate civil discussion cannot be had on these forums.

Says the guy with a consensus of 1

lol

[Troxx]

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=406923&page=5

lol like seriously this entire page is mostly DSM talking about how dangerous enchanter charms are and how bad things happen and will set you back.

Compare that to now where he considers himself as a shaman to be Jesus, the flash and Batman …. Simultaneously capable of doing all the things/utility you want a shaman for and magically bippityboppityboop_ing away the risk cause he can handle that too. lol!

It happens. If you are in an easy area it doesn't really matter what your group comp is. But in a riskier/higher level zone like Chardok 3x breaks are going to be bad news. That's the point. Nobody cares about what level 40 Enchanters can do hehe, because it's all easy content.

The reality is if you get one of those wipe situations it will seriously set you back in terms of how many kills you are getting per hour. The average is what matters at the end of the day, not how far you can push the game at the cost of having too much risk of a wipe.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=406923&page=5

lol like seriously this entire page is mostly DSM talking about how dangerous enchanter charms are and how bad things happen and will set you back.

Compare that to now where he considers himself as a shaman to be Jesus, the flash and Batman …. Simultaneously capable of doing all the things/utility you want a shaman for and magically bippityboppityboop_ing away the risk cause he can handle that too. lol!

Troxx seems to forget (or didn't read) that discussion was about 3 Enchanters, which I am not advocating for lol.

[cyxthryth]

It is unfortunate civil discussion cannot be had on these forums.

You could try responding to people's posts instead of simply calling them trolls or ignoring them, I tried to engage in a civil discussion with you and you simply ignored or dismissed my posts as trolling, without addressing the actual content of the posts.

For example, I'll again point out the true objective fact that you DSM have not provided evidence of your (or any) Shaman root rotting adds parallel to their group. Stating this fact is not me "trolling", it is simply stating an irrefutable fact (which cannot be refuted).

If you were truly interested in civil discussion and supporting your claim (which you argued for tens/hundreds/thousands of posts), you could address this by simply providing evidence to support your claim. This should be a simple point to start or continue the civil discussion, if you were actually interested in having one. :) I am not sure why you seem to have such a problem providing evidence to support your claims, especially considering you continually demand others provide evidence to support their claims. The ball is in your court!

[Troxx]

Cyxth,

He has never been interested in having a civil discussion about any topic he’s made up his mind on. When confronted with logic/information that erodes his understanding of reality it’s like his brainstem kicks in and enacts subconscious defensive countermeasures to protect his terminally frail sense of self.

Countermeasures thus far observed (in order or frequency seen)

-call the person a troll
-refuse to confront reality and smokescreen with a strawman counter-question as a flare, refuse to engage in the topic at hand until other parties play by his rules and answer demanded questions
-move a goalpost
-thank people for concessions not given
-“as you can see” … talk to an imaginary audience that isn’t there
-change the parameters of reality and/or redefine the situation/question

[DeathsSilkyMist]

People can look at the post history and decide for themselves. It is not on your side I am afraid. People can see for themselves what you are doing. They don't need to take my word for it, or yours.

If you think calling people you disagree with "retarded" in hundreds of different posts as a simple example is civil, you have a strange definition of the term.

[cyxthryth]

People can look at the post history and decide for themselves. It is not on your side I am afraid.

I am only on the side of the truth.

Unfortunately the truth is, people simply can't look at any post history in which you provide any evidence of a Shaman root rotting adds parallel to their group because you simply never provided any such evidence, even though you argued for tens/hundreds/thousands of posts that by doing so a Shaman would/could improve a group's DPS more than a non-Epic Mage. I fear you are not going to convince many logical, rational people to believe your claims if you cannot provide evidence to support the claims.

[cyxthryth]

Cyxth,

He has never been interested in having a civil discussion about any topic he’s made up his mind on. When confronted with logic/information that erodes his understanding of reality it’s like his brainstem kicks in and enacts subconscious defensive countermeasures to protect his terminally frail sense of self.

Countermeasures thus far observed (in order or frequency seen)

-call the person a troll
-refuse to confront reality and smokescreen with a strawman counter-question as a flare, refuse to engage in the topic at hand until other parties play by his rules and answer demanded questions
-move a goalpost
-thank people for concessions not given
-“as you can see” … talk to an imaginary audience that isn’t there
-change the parameters of reality and/or redefine the situation/question

I think you're spot on. Many posters have tried to engage in discussion, to simply be called a troll, their arguments dismissed and/or ignored while DSM constructs straw men to argue against instead, and then demands the other person provide evidence to support the straw man DSM created (LOL!). Wild when he won't or can't even provide evidence to support his own claims.

[bcbrown]

Countermeasures thus far observed (in order or frequency seen)


You left out one of my favorites, dismissing a reasonable counterpoint as “silly” instead of engaging seriously.

[Troxx]

Ahhh a walk down memory lane

I'll throw in another vote for Enc/Enc/Clr/Nec. The utility you gain from the Necro will likely outweigh the additional DPS from the Mage over the long term. And when you really want to go ham you have the option for the third charm pet in many zones. Under no circumstances would you ever want a Shaman. DSM seriously making the argument that a Shaman can out-DPS a Mage because he root rots four mobs at a time is one of the most breathtaking displays of autism ever seen on these boards. He keeps falling back on the math. Well, that's kind of like saying that because you can shotgun a single beer in five seconds, you're capable of drinking 720 beers per hour. The math checks out, but in practice this is not how real life works. Shamans are not a group DPS class because no group wastes time root rotting four mobs at a time. If you're killing that slowly why even have a group in the first place?

Page 14 (first post) … first mention of DSM’s DSM-V condition and it wasn’t even me.

I’m McLuvin the read-through

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You can choose to believe that if you wish.

It seems like the debate is over, as trolls like troxx and cyxthryth are posting nonsense and agreeing with each other.

This happens when points have been made that they cannot rebut. They seem to think flooding the thread with these posts makes them look good, and me look bad. The post history disproves the nonsense.

And they wonder why the thread is 500+ pages.

[Troxx]

Ah … a walk down memory lane

DSM, we've already established that your appeals to "the math" are bullshit. I gave you the example of shotgunning a beer: just because you can drink a beer in five seconds that way does not mean you can extrapolate out and claim you can drink 720 beers per hour. It doesn't matter if you're spamming Canni and Torpor non-stop, with C2, bard song and your Ogre grandma's magical pair of mana-regenerating panties on your head. You are not going to out-DPS a Mage over the length of an average group. You aren't even going to come close. You're going to sit there root rotting mobs for over 800 mana a pop (you conveniently ignore root mana cost in your calc despite claiming you will kill four a time) while the Mage just has to refresh pet haste and DS every few minutes. He can just sit there spamming Burnt Wood Staff/Lord Bob boots for additional mana-free damage. He can do that all day long. Meanwhile you're blowing 800 mana per kill and claiming you can keep up the same kill rate. You're positively demented.

There's a reason literally no one has ever seen the following sentence uttered in the entire history of P1999: "Group looking for Shaman for DPS".

Page 23. Goalposts have moved. All actual commentary/debate worth having has been lost in the quagmire of hilarious claims about shaman DPS. If memory serves correctly it’s only gonna get weirder.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Troxx is posting these things due to a number of points he cannot rebut. He wants to dodge by bloating the thread.

One point he cannot rebut is why he thinks pocket clerics aren't allowed. This doesn't make sense for a number of reasons:

1. OP did not say they were prohibited.
2. Pocket clerics are a common practice on P99 already.
3. If you claim OP meant that you can only play four main characters and nothing else, then that would exclude mules too. OP didn't say this either.
4. Why would a normal person take a thread who's only rule is "best four person all caster group", and stop using mules and pocket clerics when they've already used them in the past?

[Troxx]

Funny how shamans need pocket clerics but clerics do not need pocket shamans.

I’m up to page 27 and so far it’s getting spicy with literally everyone disagreeing with you. Danth took perhaps the most “you friendly” approach but even he had to put you in your place - and for the record he advocated for a 3rd ench or a necro - debating that shaman vs mage was a debate amongst inferior choices.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Funny how shamans need pocket clerics but clerics do not need pocket shamans.

See? He dodged again. The question wasn't "Do Shamans need Pocket Clerics?" or "Do Clerics need Pocket Shamans?"

The question is "Why are Pocket Clerics not allowed?"

[Zuranthium]

Troxx has lost the debate and gone back to being a troll. Unfortunate.

Please note he is still dodging the question about naming a camp where a Cleric is better.

Troxx hasn't "lost the debate", stop repeating that nonsense over and over, 99% of the time you're the one who is wrong, but you just keep going on and on with spam, ignoring what has been said and creating some fake narrative, pretending you've won a discussion when someone no longer wastes energy replying to your bullshit.

Stop trying to talk about a "pocket Cleric", that's not the point of the thread and everyone doesn't have one.

Stop acting like "torpor tanking" is some kind of special thing over a Cleric. The 4th member of the party can already be the tank if we want both pets hitting from behind. Enchanters already have slow and the Cleric already has efficient healing. This isn't the best strategy all the time anyway, because of how difficult it can be for slow to land on some targets and because of how much more damage casters take compared to a charm pet. It's often better to have the charm pets tanking and C-heal them with a Cleric.

It's obvious there are camps that benefit from the pets tanking and having a Cleric to C-heal them (including something like running around PoM and farming as many cards as possible), stop trying to act like someone is dodging a question when you're posing idiotic/pedantic questions that are generally strawmans.

The OP confirmed that bards are out of scope

Who cares about the fuggin OP, they don't own the discussion. BARDS ARE CASTERS

I'm most interested in the universe where dial-a-port doesn't exist and a group is starting on a server together. Therefore, the "best" group is Enchanter + Enchanter + Druid + Cleric.

[Troxx]

The question is "Why are Pocket Clerics not allowed?"

Best 4 person all caster/priest group

It is right in the title.

Why are you so bricked-up about wanting a pocket cleric? Perhaps it’s because shamans are gonna need a pocket cleric while Clerics don’t need or want a pocket shaman when grouped with 2x enchanters + a third caster?

Up to page 31 now. We have gotten to the point where you were challenged to join a fast paced, high dps xp group (of any composition) and show how you could sustain anything close to mage-level dps. If memory serves correctly- you never did. I would have then and still would bet good money you and your pet combined would fail to actually out out as much dps as the mage pet by itself, much less the mage’s nukes and DS.

[cyxthryth]

See? He dodged again.
The question is "Why are Pocket Clerics not allowed?"

The question is also "Where is the evidence that supports DSM's tens/hundreds/thousands of posts claiming a Shaman can/does improve a group's DPS more than a non-Epic Mage by root rotting multiple mobs parallel to their group?"

Is DSM going to dodge again? Call me a troll? A combination?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Troxx hasn't "lost the debate".

When you troll, you lose the debate. If Troxx was able to prove his points via logic and facts, he wouldn't need to do this.


This isn't the best strategy all the time anyway, because of how difficult it can be for slow to land on some targets


Good thing Shamans have Malo to make this much easier.

[Troxx]

I'm most interested in the universe where dial-a-port doesn't exist and a group is starting on a server together. Therefore, the "best" group is Enchanter + Enchanter + Druid + Cleric.

I would actually agree. If you had a blank server - no outside anything - and were limited to 4 characters only - all have to be casters.

This group would probably fare best and have the highest absolute quality of life. If you’re fine killing slower while still being a boss - sub in 1 ench for a necromancer. Early levels would blast by with fear kiting and you have all the backup utility, rez, corpse summon etc the necro brings along with a pet that can take some hits when charm breaks at higher levels. In the right area, 3 of 4 casters can charm.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I would actually agree. If you had a blank server - no outside anything - and were limited to 4 characters only - all have to be casters.

This group would probably fare best and have the highest absolute quality of life. If you’re fine killing slower while still being a boss - sub in 1 ench for a necromancer.

You could make a pocket druid for ports too. A lot of dial-a-port druids are just that. Help the server early on. You have yet to answer the question of why pocket characters are not allowed.

[cyxthryth]

You have yet to

You have yet to name a camp that needs a Shaman despite your claim that you could name more than one, and you have provided zero evidence of a Shaman root-rotting multiple mobs parallel to their group, despite your tens/hundreds/thousands of posts claiming a Shaman can do so to improve their group's DPS more than a non-Epic Mage could/would.

[Troxx]

Ahhh … a walk down memory lane

Burnt Wood Staff = 25 DPS clickie nuke, OR
Boots of Bladecalling = 35 DPS clickie nuke
Mage Velious Robe = clickie Shield of Lava (25 point DS)
Mage Velious Pants = clickie Burnout III (pet haste)

A Mage can pump out massive sustained DPS for hours on end using literally no mana and by pressing two buttons per mob. Throw in C2 and downtime medding and the Mage can also toss in regular nukes for even higher DPS. A focused 60 water pet positioned for backstabbing is very close if not greater than epic pet DPS and is very attainable for every Mage main.

The Mage is easily maintaining over 100 DPS while day trading, doing laundry, gardening and lifting weights. Meanwhile DSM's keyboard is catching on fire from pressing buttons so fast trying to Canni/Torpor back the 800 mana he is blowing each kill. StarCraft world champions literally salivating over this man's sustained APM and click speed. Korean teenagers making pilgrimages to his house to learn his secrets (he tells them nothing, he just whispers "I did it all for the Fungi"). Even still, despite his best efforts, he is easily smoked by the Mage's DPS in real world scenarios.But his quixotic crusade persists. He must spread the gospel of Bane and Pox. It's worth it to him to be recognized as the only DPS Shaman in the history of EverQuest (in his delusional mind at least).

A pattern has emerged as I find the funniest yet most on-point posts. It’s the same person each time …

As of the bottom of 34, DSM is up to his eyeballs and arguing with literally everyone but Danth who has struck a neutral and somber/mature/balanced tone.

Pocket clerics have not yet entered the discussion. DSM still arguing for shaman being the 4th, not the third thus replacing the cleric. Why did his mind change so thoroughly as to discount the value of the cleric? Hmmm…

[DeathsSilkyMist]

People can check the post history to find out about cyxthryth, and decide how truthful he is about the post history.

He will continue to bloat the thread by reposting these things over and over, regardless of what the post history actually says.

430 out of 437 of his posts are in this thread alone.

Troxx continues to dodge the question about poclet characters.

[Troxx]

Why do you need pocket characters so badly? You have yet to answer that question.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Why do you need pocket characters so badly? You have yet to answer that question.

I've answered that many times already. You can check the post history.

Pocket characters are a common part of P99. Anybody who wants to min/max their solo game, static group, etc. is going to have them.

I'm sure you know at least one Enchanter who has a pocket cleric camped nearby for a res. Why would said Enchanter suddenly give that up in a static group?

[cyxthryth]

People can check the post history to find out about cyxthryth, and decide how truthful he is about the post history.

He will continue to bloat the thread by reposting these things over and over, regardless of what the post history actually says.

430 out of 437 of his posts are in this thread alone.

Troxx continues to dodge the question about poclet characters.

I'm glad someone is doing a re-read & can point out exactly when you provide evidence of Shaman root-rotting and let us know precisely which page it's on. I'm sure that's something they'll be watching for! :)
The camps that "need" Shaman too!

[Troxx]

I'm glad someone is doing a re-read & can point out exactly when you provide evidence of Shaman root-rotting and let us know precisely which page it's on. I'm sure that's something they'll be watching for! :)

I’ve read the whole thread I think twice - plus skip backs and smaller re-reads. He never provided anything other than napkin math and solo fights. He never, to my knowledge, ever demonstrated root rotting multiples adjacent to a fast moving group … even for a short period of time. For dozens of pages we encouraged him to go join a fast moving group and show what he could do - and did not. Only napkin math divorced from reality.

Of the videos he showcased, he shows himself almost letting his group wipe out with 2 enchanters in Howling stone in a breathtaking display of god-awful asshattery - i think it was even in the first 2-5 minutes of the video.

If you haven’t read this thread from the start, the first 50 pages are eye-opening. The other 460-480 pages are mostly recycled arguments from the community and an endless amount of dodging, making of demands, goal post movings etc

[Troxx]

Pocket characters are a common part of P99. Anybody who wants to min/max their solo game, static group, etc. is going to have them.

Stipulations:
-4 characters
-all have to be casters or priests

Not 4 characters + a bunch of pockets. That’s as absurd to the point of this thread as changing the other stipulation to allow for a tank, melee or hybrid.

Why do you so strongly need to have pockets? Is it because the shaman will need a pocket cleric? Cause the cleric does not need a pocket shaman for the group to be 100% successful.

It’s ok bro. We know the reason you are dying on pocket_cleric hill. You’re just too proud to be honest about it.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I’ve read the whole thread I think twice - plus skip backs and smaller re-reads. He never provided anything other than napkin math and solo fights. He never, to my knowledge, ever demonstrated root rotting multiples adjacent to a fast moving group … even for a short period of time. For dozens of pages we encouraged him to go join a fast moving group and show what he could do - and did not. Only napkin math divorced from reality.

Of the videos he showcased, he shows himself almost letting his group wipe out with 2 enchanters in Howling stone in a breathtaking display of god-awful asshattery - i think it was even in the first 2-5 minutes of the video.

If you haven’t read this thread from the start, the first 50 pages are eye-opening. The other 460-480 pages are mostly recycled arguments from the community and an endless amount of dodging, making of demands, goal post movings etc

See? He dodged again about pocket characters.

This goes back to Troxx's false claim that solo videos cannot be translated into group scenarios. This is part of his tactic to dismiss all evidence. This false claim is why he says I have no evidence for root rotting, which is untrue.

The howling stones video he keeps referencing actually disproves this claim, which was the actual point of the video. I showed I could sustain Direct Damage DPS across a two hour group session while doing other Shaman duties, in the same manner I showed Shaman Direct Damage DPS in a solo video.

Thank you for bringing that up, and showing you didn't read that part of the thread.

[Troxx]

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=406923&page=38


Ooo page 38. Zura has so thoroughly debunked DSM that we see the first episode of caustic copy/paste reposting. 3x on one page we see a copy/paste of wall-of-text garbage.

Danth spanks him lightly for this at the top of page 39

The howling stones video he keeps referencing actually disproves this claim, which was the actual point of the video. I showed I could sustain Direct Damage DPS across a two hour group session while doing other Shaman duties, in the same manner I showed Shaman Direct Damage DPS in a solo video.

All other duties? Like how you failed to heal the enchanter less than 5 minutes in and left him at 3%, saved only by the skin of his teeth because someone else saved him? We all saw that video.

As for you sustaining damage, I can promise you it was less than what a mage pet (probably even unhasted) could do.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=406923&page=38


Ooo page 38. Zura has so thoroughly debunked DSM that we see the first episode of caustic copy/paste reposting. 3x on one page we see a copy/paste of wall-of-text garbage.

Danth spanks him lightly for this at the top of page 39

More dodging.

As you can see, he can't explain why pocket characters are allowed.

He can't admit I disproved his claim solo videos could not be translated into group scenarios, even though the howling stones video proved him wrong.

[Troxx]

Ps please stop respamming my parses tethered to your idiocy.

Don’t make me spam GIFs in response … cause I will

Bottom of page 39 - it was a threat I delivered on. It was about this time that DSM starts referring to me as a troll.

[cyxthryth]

This goes back to Troxx's false claim that solo videos cannot be translated into group scenarios. This is part of his tactic to dismiss all evidence.


You already acknowledged these objective facts:

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

So I am not sure why you still seem to be trying to attempt to claim solo can be translated to group when clearly it cannot, because 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.

[Troxx]

I think someone else said it before but the autism really do be breathtaking

Many gifs later … I’m now a troll (so is Zura)

Top of page 44 others are starting to see the pathology as well

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Except for you already acknowledged these objective facts:

Neither of those quotes disprove what I have said, or the howling stones video showing solo videos can be used in group scenanrios. They support what I have said, so thank you.

[Troxx]

He really did have some of the best posts. Kudos to Vex (page 48)


Example of DSM math:

DSM: Did you know that Usain Bolt can run 100 meters in approximately ten seconds?
Non-autist: Cool.
DSM: By my calculations that means Usain Bolt can run from New York to Los Angeles in just 5.2 days.
Non-autist: No man, that's not how that works.
DSM: Clearly you just don't understand math.

[cyxthryth]

Neither of those quotes disprove what I have said, or the howling stones video showing solo videos can be used in group scenanrios.

Solo play simply cannot be directly translated to group play because what the other players are doing have the ability affect what each other given player is able to do to include how much damage they are able to deal/how much DPS they are able to perform how much healing they are able to provide, etc. You know this to be true, per:


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

One particular thing which might be exactly the same solo vs in a group is something like root rotting multiple mobs parallel to a group, but unfortunately there's simply been no evidence provided to prove that Shamans do that, or would be able to improve their group's DPS by doing that (perhaps as much as or more than a non-Epic Mage).

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Solo play simply cannot be directly translated to group play because what the other players are doing have the ability affect what each other given player is able to do to include how much damage they are able to deal/how much DPS they are able to perform how much healing they are able to provide, etc. You know this to be true, per:






One particular thing which might be exactly the same solo vs in a group is something like root rotting multiple mobs parallel to a group, but unfortunately there's simply been no evidence provided to prove that Shamans do that, or would be able to improve their group's DPS by doing that (perhaps as much or more than a non-Epic Mage).

The howling stones video shows you can translate solo dps into group dps. You have yet to provide counter evidence. As usual, you are hand waving away all evidence. Your claim about solo videos not translating to groups has been disproven so far.

It is also true that groups can skew your DPS data. A Shaman could do more damage than a Mage if the Mage Pet keeps dying due to another group member messing up, as a simple example. That doesn't mean the Mage DPS is actually that low if the group was playing properly. This is why logs or videos are better than parses, as they provide context.

This was all said before, and the post history shows it. You just keep spamming the thread.

[Troxx]

If a mage is dying because of an another member - the whole group is dead and nobody is doing any dps.

Playing a mage is so lazy and out-of-the way that they’ll be the last one to die most likely (excluding FD classes)

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If a mage is dying because of an another member - the whole group is dead and nobody is doing any dps.

Playing a mage is so lazy and out-of-the way that they’ll be the last one to die most likely (excluding FD classes)

I meant to say Mage Pet, I fixed that in the post. If a group member keeps getting the Mage Pet killed, the Mage's DPS will look low on paper.

That doesn't mean that is the actual DPS numbers a Mage could do, but without logs you'd only see the DPS parses. Thats one reason why I ask for logs, they provide context.

[Vexenu]

A pattern has emerged as I find the funniest yet most on-point posts. It’s the same person each time …


He really did have some of the best posts. Kudos to Vex (page 48)

Korean teenagers making pilgrimages to his house to learn his secrets (he tells them nothing, he just whispers "I did it all for the Fungi").

https://i.imgflip.com/8x02mi.jpg

[Troxx]

God bless you Vex.

I’m now 64 pages in and you are the reigning champion.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

God bless you Vex.

I’m now 64 pages in and you are the reigning champion.

Troxx continues to dodge that the howling stones video disproves his claim about solo videos not translating to group scenarios.

Trroxx continues to dodge the question about why pocket clerics are not allowed.

When Troxx cannot rebut points made, he spams the thread.

[Troxx]

Gamparse is a good program. There are others out there but it does a good job. It has different viewing tabs to include one that gives you the spam of the raw logs. I recommend you turn on other’s damage hits so you can parse your group mates as well. Remember, the goal here is to see how much dps a shaman can do in a fast paced, fast killing full group. Mine included charm pet (most of the time), another mage with epic, and a tunare/ST monk other than myself.

That is the scope of this topic, this thread, and therefore the burden of proof is to show us how great your shaman is at doing it.

Regarding your disputable/undisputable jab, I can unfortunately predict where this is going. Once you fail to show that a shaman can keep up with respectable dps (or at least as good as you think you can) under these conditions I fully expect your next angle will to say that what I’ve provided (took all of 5 minutes to compile and another 5 to screenshot a jpg of) is “disputable”. I hope my prediction is wrong.

Sad thing is I have a shaman with all the same spells/levels and the same pet it’s yours. Your best bet is going to be slinging your highest hitting ice nuke repeatedly if mobs are dying fast. Bane and especially Pox are going to be underperforming mana hogs with high speed fights.

The question is will you be able to sling enough ice nukes frequently/fast enough (with canni mana regeneration advantage). Remember: mage nukes cast faster, hit harder, are more mana efficient. You’ll have more mana to play with but unlike your pet, the level 60 mage water pet isn’t a joke.

I’m interested in what you can put out over a long hall dps session sustainably fight after fight after fight and how it stacks up.

(Unfortunately I already know … because my 60 epic troll shaman has done this kind of exercise in the past).

Ps I recommend against spamming JBB as its dps won’t be nearly enough.

PPS: chain casting ice strike precisely every 7 seconds with no lag, fizzle, or partial resist has a 96 dps potential. Unfortunately you’ll have to be taking time to canni and torpor, so actual expected dps is going to be lower. Remember you got about 50dps worth of “bad pet” to make up the difference for before you actually start competing with mage DS and mage nukes.

I wish you luck and am very interested to see your findings. And remember!! While you are furiously mashing buttons non stop trying to put out these numbers, my mage did it causally chatting and peacefully meditating and checking the stock market … standing up to sling a few nukes. Super chill, very relaxing xp and loot grind session.

Page 64. In the most comprehensive manner yet DSM is encouraged to actually try to do the thing he said he could do. I have a 60 shaman with all the same spells. I even gave him advice.

Sadly, he never even attempted it.

I’m curious when we will shift to the new approach of instead kicking the cleric out of the group … but I think it’s probably somewhere after page 400. Who knows …. well I guess I will when we get there!

Thanks for entertaining me on a lazy Sunday. Feet up watching them put in a new fence while sipping Diet Coke. Otherwise I’d be supervising some teenagers with nothing else to do.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Page 64. In the most comprehensive manner yet DSM is encouraged to actually try to do the thing he said he could do. I have a 60 shaman with all the same spells. I even gave him advice.

Sadly, he never even attempted it.

I’m curious when we will shift to the new approach of instead kicking the cleric out of the group … but I think it’s probably somewhere after page 400. Who knows …. well I guess I will when we get there!

Thanks for entertaining me on a lazy Sunday. Feet up watching them put in a new fence while sipping Diet Coke. Otherwise I’d be supervising some teenagers with nothing else to do.

Troxx has never provided video evidence or logs of him playing in a group with his Mage. We don't actually know if the parses he provided were in a group, due to the lack of context.

He doesn't live up to his own standard of providing evidence of him grouping. He simply dismisses evidence out of hand and demands more.

I provided the howling stones video, which shows a Shaman can output consistent direct damage DPS in a group while doing other Shaman duties in a two hour session. This consistent direct damage can be seen in the solo video too. This disproves his claim that solo videos cannot translate to group content.

So far I am the only one to show conclusive evidence of me in a group, and I have provided more evidence than Troxx.

He just keeps dodging, dismissing, trolling, and bloating the thread.

[Troxx]

I am a bit embarrassed by my posting frequency from the mid 60s to early 70s

Oh well

[Elizondo]

2 years

550 pages in

30 seconds of video dunks on all of that effort

Comedy ensues

[Troxx]

As a recap: the 80s have been dominated by DSM copy pasting the same wall of text repeatedly.

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3497781&postcount=880

Bottom of page 88….

[DeathsSilkyMist]

It looks like Troxx will continue to spam the thread, talking to himself. And he thinks this makes him look good somehow.

Meanwhile he is still dodging questions. They should be easy to answer, but this dodging shows otherwise.

We can just leave him here to talk to himself I guess. After his nonsensical and skewed recap is over, the post history will still be there, just now with more evidence of Troxx bloating the thread.

[Troxx]

I’m not going to answer you again on why pocket characters are not allowed in a thought-discussion that places very strict limitations on how many can come, what they can and can’t be, and which 4 (precisely 4) constitutes the best combination. I have already answered you.

Riddle me this? If the OP had stipulated that no pockets are allowed - would that change your answer? Or would you still drop the cleric?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

pocket characters are not allowed in a thought-discussion that places very strict limitations on how many can come, what they can and can’t be, and which 4 (precisely 4) constitutes the best combination. I have already answered you.


Where did this restriction come from? You are just claiming this is the case without evidence. This is the question you keep dodging.

1. OP did not say they were prohibited.
2. Pocket clerics are a common practice on P99 already.
3. If you claim OP meant that you can only play four main characters and nothing else, then that would exclude mules too. OP didn't say this either.
4. Why would a normal person take a thread who's only rule is "best four person all caster group", and stop using mules and pocket clerics when they've already used them in the past?

[Troxx]

Page 100!

https://c.tenor.com/9im1YQbtaw4AAAAC/we-did-a-thing-worth.gif

Up to page 100 and nothing noteworthy new other than … damn 100 pages. It may be a while before further recaps. Iirc Gloomlord arrives fully and the back and forth goes on for …. well … a long time.

Riddle me this? If the OP had stipulated that no pockets are allowed - would that change your answer? Or would you still drop the cleric?

It’s a simple question that deserves a simple question. Care to answer?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Up to page 100 and nothing noteworthy new other than … damn 100 pages. It may be a while before further recaps. Iirc Gloomlord arrives fully and the back and forth goes on for …. well … a long time.

Troxx dodged the question on pocket characters again. He has yet to tell us where this restriction of no pocket clerics came from. I can answer his question when he answers mine. He always does this, where he deflects with another question.

Where did this restriction come from? You are just claiming this is the case without evidence. This is the question you keep dodging.

1. OP did not say they were prohibited.
2. Pocket clerics are a common practice on P99 already.
3. If you claim OP meant that you can only play four main characters and nothing else, then that would exclude mules too. OP didn't say this either.
4. Why would a normal person take a thread who's only rule is "best four person all caster group", and stop using mules and pocket clerics when they've already used them in the past?

[Troxx]

Page 101

100 pages is a huge accomplishment. I have never seen so little said in so many words. Special thanks to those who kept things rolling along. DSM should receive special recognition for his accomplishments within the field of Pathological Absurdity.

My only regret is that DSM never actually attempted to do the one thing he spent so long claiming he could do with his napkin math.

Jolly good job fellas.

https://c.tenor.com/6IZKGSu4bSoAAAAC/accomplishment.gif

Troxx’s closing diagnostic impression of DSM

https://c.tenor.com/P8hafwvLyo4AAAAC/things-that-make-you-go-bluh-ron-white.gif

Purpose achieved. Fun times we’re had but now it’s time to

https://c.tenor.com/aaOpE-gJdUwAAAAM/cats-abandon-thread.gif

Little did we know 440+ more pages would follow

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Another dodge, with Troxx continuing to talk to himself. It appears that Troxx has conceded the point. He does not have an answer for where the restriction of no pocket characters came from. He has made it up out of thin air.

Here is the evidence that supports Troxx has made the pocket character restriction up out of thin air:

1. OP did not say pocket characters were prohibited.
2. Pocket characters are a common practice on P99 already.
3. If you claim OP meant that you can only play four main characters and nothing else, then that would exclude mules too. OP didn't say this either.
4. Why would a normal person take a thread who's only rule is "best four person all caster/priest group", and stop using mules and pocket characters when they've already used them in the past?

His arguments against pocket characters are invalid until he can show where this restriction came from.

[Troxx]

Riddle me this? If the OP had stipulated that no pockets are allowed - would that change your answer? Or would you still drop the cleric?

Simple question. Answers are binary in nature. Yes or no?

I’m still betting on you won’t answer. We all know why.

Edit: At page 112 - you spent the last 10ish pages talking about how your low level warrior without fungi is leveling faster than your enchanter with raid gear

Page 113:

Hey guys did you know warriors solo better than enchanters? I'm DSM and I definitely do not have autism

[Elizondo]

550 pages in and DSM still can't admit he's wrong even though a video of him playing shaman so badly refutes all of his 'arguments'

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Simple question. Answers are binary in nature. Yes or no?

I’m still betting on you won’t answer. We all know why.

Dodging by asking another question. I'll answer your question, but you need to answer mine first. You do not get to ask another question to avoid a question.

Thus far Troxx hasn't provided any evidence that supports a pocket character restriction is in place for this thread. I have evidence against his claim too.

Another dodge, with Troxx continuing to talk to himself. It appears that Troxx has conceded the point. He does not have an answer for where the restriction of no pocket characters came from. He has made it up out of thin air.

Here is the evidence that supports Troxx has made the pocket character restriction up out of thin air:

1. OP did not say pocket characters were prohibited.
2. Pocket characters are a common practice on P99 already.
3. If you claim OP meant that you can only play four main characters and nothing else, then that would exclude mules too. OP didn't say this either.
4. Why would a normal person take a thread who's only rule is "best four person all caster/priest group", and stop using mules and pocket characters when they've already used them in the past?

His arguments against pocket characters are invalid until he can show where this restriction came from.

[Troxx]

lol he still won’t answer the simplest yes/no question

Btw I made myself laugh. Thank you me from years ago

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3499069&postcount=1177

[DeathsSilkyMist]

lol he still won’t answer the simplest yes/no question

Btw I made myself laugh. Thank you me from years ago

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3499069&postcount=1177

The post history shows that I asked him about where the pocket character restriction came from first. He then asked this question later in an attempt to dodge it.

I will answer his question (which has been already answered in this thread) after he answers the pocket character restriction question.

If I answer his question now, he will just pivot to that topic to avoid the pocket character restriction question. He always does this when he cannot answer a question.

Thus far the evidence shows Troxx has made up this pocket character restriction: https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3692418&postcount=5435

[Troxx]

Riddle me this? If the OP had stipulated that no pockets are allowed - would that change your answer? Or would you still drop the cleric?

If you can’t have a picket cleric. Would you still commit this group to not having a cleric.

Yes or no

This is really easy and as far as most of are concerned - we know the answer.

[Snaggles]

Again, if someone wants to play a shaman…fine. It’s just not bringing much that any other class can’t bring.

- Worse heal than Celestial Elixir (probably won’t mem for this group)
- Debuff line similar to a Mage
- Pet that does like 1/4th dps of a Mage air without a 3-4 second stun
- No premium or free DS
- No way to share their mana with anyone

Outside the quad-ench path I like the Ench/Ench/Cleric/Mage since there is very little overlap of abilities and it mixes two stressful and two very relaxed jobs. The shaman in comparison has to work very hard to be a very committed (and poor) tank. They are doing horrible DPS since it’s likely anything they would survive tanking won’t last the time for the epic to go full-course. Meaning they will have to Bane to maybe keep up with a robe-click DS.

If not for the mage (depending on how helpful mala/o and Malasini is), I would much rather mix in a necro or druid over the shaman if only for snare and more CC, let alone the treasure trove of utility they bring to the table. If hunting outdoors you have three classes that can fear and none that snare. Hell…a SK or ranger would be better than a shaman.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

If you can’t have a picket cleric. Would you still commit this group to not having a cleric.

Yes or no

This is really easy and as far as most of are concerned - we know the answer.

If I answer your question now, you will simply dodge the previous question I asked you.

This is your normal tactic for avoiding tough questions, which has been proven more and more with every message you post.

The question that Troxx is dodging: "Where does the no pocket character restriction come from?"

Thus far, we can conclude Troxx has made the restriction up, due to the evidence already provided here:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3692418&postcount=5435

[Snaggles]

At least Troxx doesn’t assume anyone with an opposing opinion is likely just a bad shaman player.

I could ask the same thing to you about Shamans. Shaman/Enchanter/Monk is a powerful trio that doesn't use a Cleric at all, and has a Charmed pet. This is because most content a single small group without a Warrior can do is Torpor tankable. Enchanters can handle most charm breaks solo too.

When you have played the game enough, you realize only a small portion of desireable group content is unslowable, or does enough damage even when slowed to become untankable with Torpor.

[Troxx]

Yep. He will not answer and we all know why. If he or anyone is not allowed to pocket a cleric no 4 man restricted all caster/priest group would never, in their right mind, ever consider leaving rez behind - and this ignores the fact that DSM knows (as do we all) that shamans cannot help on charm breaks nearly as well as clerics.

Your refusal to answer is functionally a concession of defeat.

Pras.

By the by, I am at page 120 of our thread highlight recap. I will continue to post highlights and synopses.

The question that Troxx is dodging: "Where does the no pocket character restriction come from?"


From the god damn title of this thread along with the first 100+ pages of the thread.

The more important question is why you are dodging the most obvious question.

I have answered yours. I still bet you are too pussy shit to answer mine.

[Vexenu]

If not for the mage (depending on how helpful mala/o and Malasini is), I would much rather mix in a necro or druid over the shaman if only for snare and more CC, let alone the treasure trove of utility they bring to the table.
This is really the most amusing thing - the fact that you can argue, quite convincingly, for filling that fourth spot with either a Mage, Druid or Necro. Depending on the group's specific goals and playstyle, each of those three choices is perfectly viable and could work very well. And in fact, as fortior pointed out, you could even make a compelling case for a Wizard if the group wanted to specialize in Hate minis.

But what you simply cannot do - unless you are DSM - is argue that a Shaman is the best pick for that 4th slot. Because with this particular group composition the class simply does not bring enough to the table compared to the other choices. The Shaman toolkit has far too much practical overlap with the combined abilities of the Enchanter and Cleric to make an ideal fourth man. His contributions are thus largely redundant, and he is mostly dead weight, bringing none of the Mage's DPS or the considerable utility of the Druid and Necro. Therefore the Shaman pick simply does not compute for any knowledgeable and objective player. It never has. And it never will, even if this thread goes another thousand pages.

[Troxx]

But what you simply cannot do - unless you are DSM - is argue that a Shaman is the best pick for that 4th slot.

You fool! We are no longer debating who is the 4th. We are debating who is the 3rd! Ditch the cleric and take a shaman instead!!

Lol

[Penish]

another vid of dsm being bad? someone link it, to lazy to look ty ty

also lol

[Troxx]

Now … if you asked for the best all caster/priest 4 man group that can’t utilize charm and/or enchanters? I’d totally bring a shaman.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Troxx has officially admitted he was wrong about the pocket character restriction. His only evidence is his interpretation of the title, which is completely subjective.

Objectively speaking the restriction does not exist. The OP did not say pocket characters are restricted. There are no player agreements on P99 against pocket characters, and there is no evidence to suggest people will give up their pocket characters for this group.

To answer Troxx's question, Cleric/Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter could potentially do Vaniki, so this is a great combination for doing encounters at the limit of what this four player group of casters/priests could do.

At least Troxx doesn’t assume anyone with an opposing opinion is likely just a bad shaman player.

You're the one that asked me if I had a 60 cleric first. And I responded by saying I could ask you the same question. Why is that offensive when you started it?

Troxx does indeed use player skill against other posters, so that assessment is incorrect too.

[Troxx]

We def making 200

Page 129.

If only Rip could have known. The last 30 pages were really painful to read.

DSM … your behavior in this thread has been beyond belief.

[Troxx]

To answer Troxx's question, Cleric/Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter could potentially do Vaniki, so this is a great combination for doing encounters at the limit of what this four player group of casters/priests could do.

Oh no no no … that is NOT the question I asked.

IF YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO POCKET A CLERIC, WOULD YOU EVER ACTUALLY CONSIDER REPLACING THE CLERIC (permanently) WITH A SHAMAN.

Answer the question.

The answer, of course, is no … but I want to either hear you say it or commit to saying otherwise.

It is literally a yes/no question.

https://64.media.tumblr.com/7336fff8fe2098c224f777216d3e7426/tumblr_inline_nolc8jml4J1t1pnr5_500.gifv

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Troxx continues to talk to himself.

I am glad to see he admitted he was wrong about the pocket character restriction. It is simply his subjective opinion on the title.

He has no objective evidence to supoort his claim. I have multiple pieces of objective evidence showing there is no pocket character restriction.

This means any arguments he has around pocket characters being restricted are invalid.

I answered his question when he answered mine, even though my answer has already been given.

[Snaggles]

You're the one that asked me if I had a 60 cleric first. And I responded by saying I could ask you the same question. Why is that offensive when you started it?

Troxx does indeed use player skill against other posters, so that assessment is incorrect too.

I’m not offended, trust me.

Also, in the post right before that I literally said I had a shaman. I’ve mentioned it for years, you know I do. Meanwhile I’ve never heard you mention a cleric outside why a shaman is better so I genuinely was curious if you were familiar with the class.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I’m not offended, trust me.

Also, in the post right before that I literally said I had a shaman. I’ve mentioned it for years, you know I do. Meanwhile I’ve never heard you mention a cleric outside why a shaman is better so I genuinely was curious if you were familiar with the class.

Thank you for clarifying your post. I did not read it as genuine curiousity, so I apologize for that.

[Troxx]

I will repeat:

Riddle me this? If the OP had stipulated that no pockets are allowed - would that change your answer? Or would you still drop the cleric?

Why are you so scared to answer? No evidence is needed. In an alternative thread where the above were true … what is your answer?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I will repeat:

Riddle me this? If the OP had stipulated that no pockets are allowed - would that change your answer? Or would you still drop the cleric?

Why are you so scared to answer? No evidence is needed. In an alternative thread where the above were true … what is your answer?

The answer is irrelevant to this thread, as we both know there is no objective restriction on pocket characters. You admitted your pocket character restriction is completely subjective.

I said Shaman/Cleric/Enchanter/Enchanter on page one. For someone who is supposedly rereading the entire thread, I am suprised you picked that question as your dodge. Did you skip the first page?

[Troxx]

So your answer is that absent pocket clerics you would never drop the cleric. Good to know. Damn that took long enough.

So we really aren’t debating cleric vs shaman at all? Ok so it’s back to ench/ench/cleric/X

Glad we cleared that up.

If that wasn’t your answer, feel free to clarify what your answer actually is or admit that you are unwilling to provide an answer at all.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So we really aren’t debating cleric vs shaman at all? Ok so it’s back to ench/ench/cleri/X

Glad we cleared that up.

This is not correct, because pocket characters are allowed in this thread. You admitted the pocket character restriction was completely subjective. Objectively it doesn't exist, and you agree.

You can swap the Cleric for another class and pocket the cleric for the occasional CH and res.

[Troxx]

https://64.media.tumblr.com/7336fff8fe2098c224f777216d3e7426/tumblr_inline_nolc8jml4J1t1pnr5_500.gifv

I swear we could make it to 1000 pages just asking this clown to answer a very straightforward question every time he posts a non-answer

[DeathsSilkyMist]

https://64.media.tumblr.com/7336fff8fe2098c224f777216d3e7426/tumblr_inline_nolc8jml4J1t1pnr5_500.gifv

I swear we could make it to 1000 pages just asking this clown to answer a very straightforward question every time he posts a non-answer

Troxx is talking about himself again. It took many pages of trolling and dodging just to get Troxx to admit his pocket character restriction was completely subjective.

His question about pocket characters being restricted is irrelevant to this thread.

This means all of his arguments insisting you can't have a pocket cleric are invalid, by his own admission. Please disregard them moving forward.

[Troxx]

The last 40+ pages have been a chore

Thanks Tox - page 168

Dear Diary,

Over this Labor Day weekend I contributed to a 168 page elf sim thread arguing for the value of a shaman in a 4 man caster group. I presented my data which supported a shaman doing as much damage as a mage.

It seems as though my fellow elves do not agree with me. Yet the data simply shows I am correct. I wonder why this is? How can I post more to convince my colleagues that I am correct in everything I say on elforums?

I cannot think of a better way to spend a long weekend. Surely I will prevail.

Until next time, diary.

If there's one good thing we can get out of this thread, it's that DSM is never going to be taken seriously again. He has completely tarnished his reputation as a voice of wisdom.

His "victory" is going to be a pyrrhic one, at the very least.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The last 40+ pages have been a chore

Thanks Tox - page 168

They were indeed. Thank you for finally admitting you were wrong after tens of pages of trolling and dodging one simple question: "Is there a restriction on pocket characters in this thread?"

Troxx admitted he has no objective evidence for this restriction, it is just his subjective opinion.

All arguments insisting pocket clerics are not allowed from Troxx are now invalid, by Troxx's own admission.

[Troxx]

The last 40 pages as in 120ish to page 168

God you are dense

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Troxx is back to talking to himself. I wonder how long he will go. We shall see.

At least we are in agreement that pocket characters are allowed in the discussion. It took long enough for Troxx to admit he was wrong. Many pages of trolling and dodging were required for Troxx to admit he was wrong. But I say this is progress!

This removes a point of contention, making future debates smoother. One less question for Troxx to dodge.

[Duik]

Thank god.
Someone finally "won" can we kill this fucker (the thread) now?

[Toxigen]

whew lads did we have a good weekend?

[Troxx]

At least we are in agreement that pocket characters are allowed in the discussion.

Literally nobody thinks this is or should be the case but you. Why are you claiming people are in agreement when they aren’t? Is this the same delusional tactic you take when you thank people for conceding when no concession was given?

Has this thread broken your brain?

[Toxigen]

1,766 replies

1000x just repeating the same thing over and over about pocket clerics and other irrelevant things

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Literally nobody thinks this is or should be the case but you. Why are you claiming people are in agreement when they aren’t? Is this the same delusional tactic you take when you thank people for conceding when no concession was given?

Has this thread broken your brain?

Not at all. You admitted you have no objective evidence to support the pocket character restriction.


From the god damn title of this thread along with the first 100+ pages of the thread.


The title of the thread does not say "no pocket characters", nor does OP say it in the first 100+ pages.

This means you are subjectively interpreting the title, and have no objective evidence supporting the no pocket character restriction.

Thank you for admitting there is no actual pocket character restriction. You made it up. We are in agreement.

Moving forward, all arguments regarding a pocket character restriction are invalid.

[Duik]

We finished now?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

We finished now?

Ask Troxx and Toxigen. They keep necroing the thread. They keep embarassing themselves whenever this happens too.

[Troxx]

about pocket clerics and other irrelevant things

Quoted for emphasis.

Guys, unfortunately DSM has backed himself so far into a corner that he is having to create his own little “safe space” of alternate reality where he is the only arbiter of some imaginary rule set. I am concerned for his emotional and cognitive wellbeing at this point - I think we have more than a just loose screw at this point.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Quoted for emphasis.

Guys, unfortunately DSM has backed himself so far into a corner that he is having to create his own little “safe space” of alternate reality where he is the only arbiter of some imaginary rule set. I am concerned for his emotional and cognitive wellbeing at this point - I think we have more than a just loose screw at this point.

Troxx is the one backed into a corner. Instead of admitting he was wrong for once, he hides in his safe space of insults, trolling, lies, etc. It makes him feel better, even though he continues to trash his reputation.

Thank you for admitting you made up the pocket character restriction. You have no objective evidence for it. It is not in the title of the thread, or the first 100+ pages.

Here is objective evidence supporting there is no pocket character restriction:

1. OP did not say they were prohibited.
2. Pocket characters are a common practice on P99 already.
3. If you claim OP meant that you can only play four main characters and nothing else, then that would exclude mules too. OP didn't say this either.
4. Why would a normal person take a thread who's only rule is "best four person all caster group", and stop using mules and pocket characters when they've already used them in the past?

Moving forward, all arguments Troxx made claiming there is a pocket character restriction are invalid, as are any future ones.

[Troxx]

A trip down memory lane …

DSM (and only DSM): The thought of shamans in everquest give me an erection. I believe they are the best answer to every question. The only thing that makes me harder than shamans is posting bad data and doing lots of math on it to prove why shamans are the answer to every question. I will come up with every possible niche situation/circumstance to further this point that I possibly can. I will post about this 600+ times in 1 thread being extremely obtuse and obnoxious about my outlandish claims until everyone is so fed up with my bullshit that they can no longer respond politely. I will continue posting the same shit 1000+ times if I have to. I won't stop posting til everyone else gives up out of frustration and that is how I will win this internet battle. Centuries from now people will look at the post history and one thing will be clear: I am correct and shamans are the best.

Everyone else: That's retarded

DSM: Stop calling me names. Post history is clear. Look at all my bad copy pasted data and faulty logic. Everyone is wrong and I am right. Here's more copy pasted useless data that doesn't matter and everyone knows is wrong. I bet this will convince everyone that I am correct.

Page 173. I figure will have caught up to the present day sometime by this weekend. Re-reading this thread is a hoot

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Troxx is talking to himself again. He will continue to highlight other troll comments people have made in the thread. How he thinks this will help him is beyond me. It just shows yet again how a large portion of this thread is just nonsense.

It is very sad to watch to be honest. He can't convince people with facts, evidence, and logic, so he is reduced to this.

At least he has admitted there is no pocket character restriction. One contentious point out of the way.

[Ripqozko]

I honestly feel really bad for kittens for having DSM in their guild.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I honestly feel really bad for kittens for having DSM in their guild.

Ripqozko randomly posts the same troll message over and over, which continues to be ignored.

He occassionally changes the message when he grows tired of it. I am interested to see what his next repeated troll message will be. Thus far none of them have been good sadly.

He is an admitted troll, who doesn't like be disagreed with:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3634510&postcount=367

I troll lot but even I tried having a normal conversation with some good info based on my experience with gear. Sta is not as easy to max on a DE. If I went int I’d be in a super hole. Even atm I need like vulak bracer to cap with 1h.

Edit: all he did was shit on it even tho I showed what I have

[Toxigen]

not even lavitzz train thread got this many replies

[Duik]

The only good thing about a massively convoluted and constantly derailed discussion like this is that nobody who values their sanity who needs actual info will be fucked reading it past page 12. (May not be exactly 12 but it will be close to being answered if not).
In closing, even if you were correct dsm, you fail to get your point across cuz you basically cannot exist with others who don't share your particular brand of douche.

[Troxx]

Never has so little been said in so many words. If you condensed all the actual information, discrete opinions and concisely summarized the debate points, you could probably fit it into 3-4 pages.

It would resemble this thread:

https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=432801

Or maybe that thread only resembles itself because DSM hasn’t fouled it up? Same general concept. Same vague directions at the start. Obvious differences of opinions but no DSM in there to make it nasty. No DSM advocating for pocket paladin for buffs and 90% rez … to rationalize bringing the SK instead.

Oh well. I’m a masochist who is enjoying the experience of a wall to wall read through. I should pass page 200 sometime later today.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The only good thing about a massively convoluted and constantly derailed discussion like this is that nobody who values their sanity who needs actual info will be fucked reading it past page 12. (May not be exactly 12 but it will be close to being answered if not).
In closing, even if you were correct dsm, you fail to get your point across cuz you basically cannot exist with others who don't share your particular brand of douche.

It is always intersting when you call me a douche. I never attack people in threads. I don't start this. I simply defend myself from attacks. If you don't like me defending myself from attacks and lies, don't attack me.

The reality is the behavior from the posters attacking and trolling is the problem. If they can fix themselves, it will be easy to have a civil discussion on these forums.

It is unfortunate that this forum has multiple posters who will bully other people when they disagree. This doesn't mean they are correct.

Obvious differences of opinions but no DSM in there to make it nasty. No DSM advocating for pocket paladin for buffs and 90% rez … to rationalize bringing the SK instead.

As you can see, Troxx thinks people saying things he doesn't agree with is "nasty". He cannot have other posters posting things that don't align with his understanding of the game. If you say an SK could bring something to a theorerical group, you are "retarded". He does attack autistic people often unfortunately.

[Toxigen]

i wanna get DSM near-blackout drunk and bring him to the strip club

[Troxx]

My little brother is autistic. I got him near blackout drunk and he started spouting a bunch of Neonazi white supremacist BS lamenting that no girl would help him pass his superior genetics on the the next generation.

Between episodes of throwing up he tried to spear tackle me in the bathroom and put a hole in my drywall with his head.

Be careful what you wish for Tox

[Penish]

glad it only took seeing four posts from dsm to figure out hes delusional

this thread is epic

lol

[DeathsSilkyMist]

glad it only took seeing four posts from dsm to figure out hes delusional

this thread is epic

lol

Op [Penish] you are too old to be trying to bully someone.
You also aren’t very good at it.

TomisFeline makes a good point.

[Elizondo]

DSM's 2 year sunken cost fallacy is nothing more than a desperate 'pick me' campaign but nobody wants him because he plays the shaman class so badly

[Troxx]

A walk down memory lane ….

Everyone: Sky is blue
DSM: Nope it's red
Everyone: Prove it
DSM: Here's a picture of a squirrel
Everyone: That isn't evidence for what we were discussing
DSM: Prove it

Page 190. Good lord this is getting tedious. Nothing new in the last 90 pages other than a few zingers

https://i.imgflip.com/1u5zeo.gif

Is it deliberate?

[Toxigen]

DSM is the Kim Jong Un of p99 forums.

[Duik]

TomisFeline is a bot.

[Jimjam]

The funny thing about "sky is blue" allegory is if you go out side you will see that the sky in fact, indeed, interestingly, is actually often not blue. At all.

[Duik]

Like right now. 4:59am. Black sky with a chance of snow.

[Troxx]

Once again for the people in the back: They aren't incorrect. They proved you wrong. You refused to admit it so the people who proved you wrong started trolling you over your immature stubbornness.

You then used that as a way to try to discredit them and basically render anything they've said meaningless because "see they're trolls". And like I said before, you never admit you're incorrect. It's a theme with you.

Lmao and now the guy who never admits when he's wrong is going "show me where I've been proven wrong" as though it will work to show him the countless posts in the thread where he was proven wrong. If that was capable of working we wouldn't be here in the first place because you would have admitted you're wrong, which you're unable to ever do. The fact that I just had to explain that is simply astounding lol.

Sometimes you say shit that is so shockingly stupid that there isn't a good way to respond without coming off as a troll. Cd288 makes an excellent point. Nobody started out trolling. Your absurd behavior and the way you argue brings it out cause there's no other way to express how ridiculous you're being. You're almost forcing people into trolling with your behavior then going "I can't believe everyone is just trolls!" Rofl. It's a failure of a strategy. People can see right through it.


…. Page 210

I think my eyes are gonna start bleeding soon. 210 pages in, DSM hasn’t said anything new in the past 180 pages.

At this point we still have not yet started advocating for pocket clerics and rolling just with a shaman. I’m curious when this inflection point will be reached

[Troxx]

The main reason why you would want a Cleric is because charmed pets have a lot of HP in later levels. The level 49 Sebilis mob I was testing DPS on has at least 8000 HP. Having CH is really convenient for healing a pet quickly. Also, Torporing a pet will slow the pet, so they deal less damage. Torpor does work fine on healing the casters, since they do not melee the mobs anyway. The slow is irrelevant.

I agree with you though, you could probably just have a pocket cleric sitting around for Res and CH when needed. Just have the Shaman swap to the Cleric so the Enchanters don't lose their pets.

OP doesn't have a cleric in his group, he has a Necro and a Shaman. That will be good enough for any normal healing situation. It doesn't take long to heal a pet with Torpor or Necro heals in-between pulls, or waiting for respawns. If you are close to the mobs respawn point, you could also just break charm, lull, mem blur, and let the pet heal itself.

Page 213 ….

The first legit mention of pocket clerics 2125 posts in. Ironically at this time DSM is still seeing the value of complete heal on massive hp pets and there is no mention of torpor tanking as the strategy the group will favor employing.

My my my how the sands of time have shifted DSMs arguments

#MovingGoalposts

Page 215:

Mages do way more dps then shaman, sorry I didn't read all the 200 pages but I saw somewhere someone said a mage only does a little more dps then shaman... crazy, fluffy alone can wreck rog dps in some areas, combine chain nukes and look out!

This one made me truly giggle and smile. Not only is Allishia correct, she so innocently doesn’t know that “somewhere someone said a mage only does a little more dps than a shaman” . Somewhere? Someone? Lol the entire 200 pages leading up to this post were about mostly only that.

Kudos Allishia for being simultaneously correct and mercifully unaware of the dumpster fire she wandered into.

:D

Rofl

Hey rogues have said my pet makes them feel 2nd rate cause lot of times I'll let him off tank andhis innate dmg sheild the mob he is on usually dies before the one that has 3 melee on it :p

I have a 60 shaman too but I've never considered her to be dps...the dots are fun but...mob dead before they even land sometimes lol + I really hate they took away dot messages, it's just not the same without seeing the dmg...

[Troxx]

A walk down memory lane …

this fuckin guy acting like dps doesnt matter because you wont get an extra fungi king for 100 hours

Page 220 and a succinct zinger from he who has BiS avatar

What benefit are you getting from killing the mob 9 seconds faster if your group is good enough to not wipe anyway? The benefit to heavily increasing DPS would be to get more kills in the same session. If you aren't achieving that goal, a DPS increase is irrelevant.

9 seconds is awfully close to the time of a complete heal cast

you're not considering the myriad of variables that happen during any given group....and you cannot paper napkin math your way out of it

you're so fucking obtuse its ridiculous

the fact of the matter is: a mage is a far better 4th to an enc / enc / cleric group than a shaman....you could go on for another 500 replies you aren't convincing anyone otherwise

… and the follow-on!

[Troxx]

INFLECTION POINT!

having thoroughly lost the argument raging for the past 221 pages, we see see (practically in real time) the hamster wheels turning in DSM’s head …. Pocket cleric! Arguments around pocket clerics start to coalesce …

Honestly it depends on the camp at that point. If you want to do Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric/X, it would depend on what you want to do. Mage would be better for something like Chardok Royals, where CoTH is necessary. Necro would be better for pulling at Fungi King Camp. Shaman would be better at Ixiblat Fer for the better Malo -> Malosini -> Slow.

If you want everything at once, Shaman/Necro/Enchanter/Mage + pocket cleric would be the best. You hit the 200 DPS breakpoint, you have enough utility/safety to do every camp, and the Shaman can swap to the Cleric for res or occasional CH to save the Necro/Mage spell reagents. That is what OP ended up picking, possibly minus the pocket cleric.

And immedy, hilarity ensues!

No pocket cleric you’re just inventing variables at this point. It’s a 4 person caster only group, if you want a cleric it has to be one of the 4. As you said above the best would be three enchanters and a cleric, zero need for shaman in your own words

Nobody said you can't have a pocket Cleric. OP didn't specify this. Please stop making stuff up.


The whole topic of the thread is best 4 person caster group. Now you’re just making up reasons to take the shaman “well you could have a pocket cleric”. If no pocket cleric best group is three enchanters and a cleric, that’s what you said…or should I quote it for you?

Where does it say "Best 4 person all caster/priest group without a pocket cleric"?

Holy fucking shit :rolleyes:


It’s amazing I got him to make my argument for me so he invents a new variable “WELL IF YOU HAD A POCKET CLERIC” lol

4 person group, the cleric is either in the group as 1 of the 4, or doesn't exist. Where does it say Best 4 person caster/priest group with pocket alts?

By that logic, one of the members can literally have a geared 60 of every single class to swap in, and at that point it doesn't fucking matter what comp the group has because they can change it.


Yup, because obviously pocket clerics are just as common as having level 60 characters lol. /sarcasm.

I don't think you realize you can have a pocket cleric that is level 49 for the 90% res and Complete Heal. Between four people it wouldn't be tough to level one up during the downtime between groups.

DSM, it's over for you, my friend. You've been thoroughly defeated in this thread. Your fat, Ogre corpse lies here disgraced on page 224. Luckily for you, however, I am able to rez you back to the forum index with my pocket Cleric.

Tips appreciated.

You're excluding a cleric to heal the charm pet which would be tanking. You're going to heal it with torpor and slow the biggest source of your DPS? This is even dumber than your enc/enc/shm/clr argument you've been making for 700 posts.

Just fucking give it up already. You fucking lost. Get over it.

… and as quickly as the idea was born it seemed to fizzle by page 225. Don’t worry folks, it’ll make a come back

Wait wait … edit update… Now page 229. conversation has moved on and Vex slays the room with another zinger!

Is that a Cleric in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?

[Troxx]

Please ignore PlsNoBan, Troxx, Cyxthryth, Gloomlord, Karanis, Toxigen, Ripqozko, and Chortles Snortles in this thread.

Page 247.

Who have been the only active participants in the last 200 pages other than DSM?

PlsNoBan
Troxx
Cyxthryth
Gloomlord
Karanis
Toxigrn
Ripqozko
ChortlesSnortles

And Crede (who also has disagreed with him in every post)


Basically DSM is telling all those silent invisible readers to ignore literally everyone else disagreeing with him except him and this one other guy who also disagrees with him … which constitutes 100% of the posters in the thread. This plea to just ignore everyone but him is copied and pasted a great many times over the following pages.

[bcbrown]

those silent invisible readers

Pocket audience.

[Troxx]

Pocket audience.

https://media3.giphy.com/media/9idmMMOJlD9kc/200w.gif?cid=6c09b952j4y9ctr4o6oawfnv5oft8iw5sjcad r6bfkqf4e3d&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200w.gif&ct=g

That was almost as good as Malopractice

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Looks like Troxx had a full-blown meltdown. 5 nonsense posts in a row.

The post history still exists, regardless of his nonsense. Troxx has simply added more evidence he is a troll, and has extreme delusions about this thread. He can't change the post history this way sadly. He was trying to walk back his admission of being a troll too. Trolling harder is not how you walk that back.

I asked Troxx if he could name a camp where a Cleric would be better than a Shaman at least 60 pages ago. He couldn't answer. In a different thread PatChapp could name Chardok Royals right off the bat. I have been waiting for Troxx to say "Chardok Royals" for 60+ pages now, but he couldn't do it.

He wonders why his credibility is in the trash. He dodges a question for 60+ pages via trolling, when it could be answered immediately if he knew as much about the game as he claims. Or he could have said he didn't know. There is nothing wrong with that. He just can't be wrong though. He hides in his safe space by trolling when he can't answer a question.

PatChapp also said he did Chardok Royals with a 52 Cleric. More evidence for using a pocket cleric!

Thank you Troxx for previously admitting there is no objective restriction on pocket characters in this thread. Troxx is simply interpreting the title subjectively. He fabricated the no pocket character restriction out of thin air. All of Troxx's arguments against pocket characters are invalid. He cannot use an imaginary rule as an argument.

It is sad that Troxx tries so hard, but can't make progress. Perhaps he should change tactics and address the topic for once. Clearly his current tactics are backfiring.