Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[PlsNoBan]

The post history shows otherwise. The conversation started off normal. People got angry because I used the data provided to make easily provable mathematical facts, and then started trolling me. I am not sure where you think the thread looks good for you.

You have fooled yourself into justifyinf your trolling because more people agree with you than me. That is a fallacy. "Everybody agrees, therefore you are wrong" is not an argument.

Alright fuck it. Tried to have a sincere moment and make you realize how silly this all is but you once again proved how impossible it is to communicate with you. Keep feedin the trolls DSM. I'm sure it'll be a very successful use of your time and energy. Droves and droves of silent readers will greatly benefit I'm sure. 1000+ troll feeding posts here we come!

https://i.imgur.com/DXvUHQm.gif

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Alright fuck it. Tried to have a sincere moment and make you realize how silly this all is but you once again proved how impossible it is to communicate with you. Keep feedin the trolls DSM. I'm sure it'll be a very successful use of your time and energy. Droves and droves of silent readers will greatly benefit I'm sure. 1000+ troll feeding posts here we come!

https://i.imgur.com/DXvUHQm.gif

This is exactly what I was describing. I made a point you can't counter, so you go back to trolling lol.

Seriously, you can check the post history. People got mad really fast for no reason other than I used the data provided to do some basic math that still hasn't been disproven. Troxx can claim his data is wrong, but he still hasn't provided data he claims is correct.

[PlsNoBan]

This is exactly what I was describing. I made a point you can't counter, so you go back to trolling lol.

Seriously, you can check the post history. People got mad really fast for no reason other than I used the data provided to do some basic math that still hasn't been disproven. Troxx can claim his data is wrong, but he still hasn't provided data he claims is correct.

You believe every poster here but you is wrong and a troll. You have responded to those trolls over six hundred times thus "feeding the trolls" as the kids say. Do you believe this a good use of your time? Do you believe you're teaching lessons to silent readers about how to feed trolls? You haven't posted any data or arguments about EQ in multiple pages now. You've just been going back and forth with trolls all night not saying anything that anyone could learn from.

What are you ACTUALLY trying to accomplish here? By feeding the trolls the trolls win. You aren't doing anything else.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You believe every poster here but you is wrong and a troll. You have responded to those trolls over six hundred times thus "feeding the trolls" as the kids say. Do you believe this a good use of your time? Do you believe you're teaching lessons to silent readers about how to feed trolls? You haven't posted any data or arguments about EQ in multiple pages now. You've just been going back and forth with trolls all night not saying anything that anyone could learn from.

What are you ACTUALLY trying to accomplish here?

What I am trying to accomplish is simple. Provide the correct information, and show bullies can't win by drowning information they dislike in troll posts.

If you think you can prove me wrong, please do. Honestly I enjoy the Mage class, and would love nothing more than to learn they have significantly higher DPS. It would mean they could do camps and other things people probably haven't tried yet. It would be fun to see where that goes.

Right now the data shows their DPS is in an unfortunate position. It is right in between Shamans and Rogues. A Shaman won't cause you to lose enough DPS for you to pick a Mage instead, and a Rogue wins by a landslide if they have Epic and a good offhand, which are both easy to get.

[PlsNoBan]

Provide correct information to whom? Everyone reading/responding has been classified as a troll by you. Every single post you make is feeding trolls and nothing else. You've fed them 600+ times BY YOURSELF. You have to lump like 10 posters together to get a higher post count than you.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Provide correct information to whom? Everyone reading/responding has been classified as a troll by you. Every single post you make is feeding trolls and nothing else. You've fed them 600+ times BY YOURSELF. You have to lump like 10 posters together to get a higher post count than you.

Your claim that nobody else reads this thread is completely unfounded.

The reason why new people do not post is because they see the 700+ troll posts and know they will just get trolled if they say something you don't like.

[PlsNoBan]

Your claim that nobody else reads this thread is completely unfounded.

The reason why new people do not post is because they see the 700+ troll posts and know they will just get trolled if they say something you don't like.

The reason new people do not post is because they see this thread is a dumpster fire and want no part of it. They stopped reading a long time ago. People still here are reading for the entertainment and arguing. You're sincerely hopeless if you really believe anyone is coming to this thread and skimming through 175+ pages of bullshit to find your turd nuggets of wisdom. You can't really believe this shit right? Look me in my elf eyes and tell me you TRULY BELIEVE there's random people coming here and reading your posts 175+ pages in to learn about EQ and shamans. I refuse to believe you actually believe that. Nobody is that fucking stupid. Not even you. You continue posting cause you can't help yourself. You know nobody is taking you seriously but you can't stop yourself from hitting the reply button. Keep feedin the trolls. I have a big appetite.

[Karanis]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jp9puUq4SE

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The reason new people do not post is because they see this thread is a dumpster fire and want no part of it. They stopped reading a long time ago. People still here are reading for the entertainment and arguing. You're sincerely hopeless if you really believe anyone is coming to this thread and skimming through 175+ pages of bullshit to find your turd nuggets of wisdom. You can't really believe this shit right? Look me in my elf eyes and tell me you TRULY BELIEVE there's random people coming here and reading your posts 175+ pages in to learn about EQ and shamans. I refuse to believe you actually believe that. Nobody is that fucking stupid. Not even you.

Then stop posting. This isn't RnF, so you are just being an asshole by trolling people like myself who want to have an honest conversation.

You aren't supposed to troll threads and attack people outside of RnF. You and the other trolls are the reason why this thread is bloated.

[Gloomlord]

https://www.slashfilm.com/img/gallery/captain-picard-facepalm-bust/intro-import.jpg

[Gloomlord]

Then stop posting. This isn't RnF, so you are just being an asshole by trolling people like myself who want to have an honest conversation.

You aren't supposed to troll threads and attack people outside of RnF. You and the other trolls are the reason why this thread is bloated.

I'm sorry, I can't keep my word here when you have the audacity to act indignant and then proclaim you want an "honest conversation".

Just shut your pathetic mouth, you self-righteous hypocrite. You have no right to call anyone "arsehole", you vile petulant cretin.

[cyxthryth]

Then stop posting. This isn't RnF, so you are just being an asshole by trolling people like myself who want to have an honest conversation.

You aren't supposed to troll threads and attack people outside of RnF. You and the other trolls are the reason why this thread is bloated.

You want to have an honest conversation?

All I can do is re-state the facts in continued effort to attempt to continue the discussion(s) in a civil manner. The ball is in DSM's court.

as the data shows


You called me "silly" when you were backed into a corner by my replies to you on the below thread too, and you stopped replying (like a little bitch): https://www.project1999.com/forums/showthread.php?t=401629&page=37.


How's it going in that corner you've been backed into?


I am maintaining civility in this discussion, and my position is founded on hard evidence. The only insults I throw are thrown in defense.


No, you have not maintained civility in this discussion.

I have maintained civility in my posts to you - in which I have ONLY stated facts and asked questions - and despite my civility you have (repeatedly) called me a troll, called me silly, accused me of doing/posting things I have not done/posted, and meanwhile have continued to ignore my simple questions and avoided responding to the many facts I've stated. I present both of our posts - from this thread and elsewhere - as evidence of my civility, and you have provided no counterevidence despite me requesting you provide it (multiple times).

Why do you opt out of partaking in a civil discussion with me, and meanwhile claim that you are maintaining civility in this discussion (yet choose to continue to call me names for [seemingly] no reason)?


Why do you feel the need to "defend yourself" from any of the facts I have stated or questions I have asked?

[Gloomlord]

I find it strange you're the only one he ignores.

[Karanis]

He started ignoring me as well, he didn't like my hiking friends example I guess :(

[Troxx]

He started ignoring him the moment he stole page from DSMs playbook of copy pasting.

Let’s go 200!

[Toxigen]

https://i.imgur.com/zx0b59B.png

[PlsNoBan]

people like myself who want to have an honest conversation.

You never wanted an honest conversation. An honest conversation is one where all parties involved are willing and able to change their mind. Your thinking is so concrete you could lay down a sidewalk. You're just as much of a troll as anyone else here. Posting a bunch of shitty data and math doesn't change that. I could do the same and I'd still be trolling.


Keep feeding my friend. Everyone is learning many valuable lessons from your posts.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You never wanted an honest conversation. An honest conversation is one where all parties involved are willing and able to change their mind. Your thinking is so concrete you could lay down a sidewalk. You're just as much of a troll as anyone else here. Posting a bunch of shitty data and math doesn't change that. I could do the same and I'd still be trolling.


Keep feeding my friend. Everyone is learning many valuable lessons from your posts.

You have admitted to being a troll, so you have no credibility in this discussion. You don't get to dismiss data just because you say so lol. You haven't disproven the data.

The only lesson people are learning is just how silly trolls like yourself look. The majority of you post history is now just silly trolling because you are too childish to admit you are wrong.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Please ignore PlsNoBan, Troxx, Cyxthryth, Gloomlord, Karanis, Toxigen, Ripqozko, and Chortles Snortles in this thread. They are just trolling. They have accumulated 700+ posts that are literally just memes and insults between them. They shouldn't since this isn't RnF, but they seem to enjoy being silly in this thread.

Reposting an overview of the discussion. This is the data given, so it is all we can use. It would be great if someone else posted some data.

============================Mage DPS===================================

This data is reportedly from a group Troxx had in Sebilis Crypt:

https://images4.imagebam.com/94/02/9b/MECCRK4_o.png

https://images4.imagebam.com/a1/ba/b2/MECDEYY_o.png

https://images4.imagebam.com/6a/07/fa/MECDEYZ_o.png

https://images4.imagebam.com/c9/a2/8b/MECDEZ3_o.png

https://images4.imagebam.com/fb/d3/16/MECDEZ5_o.png

https://images4.imagebam.com/e2/a6/8c/MECDEZ7_o.png

https://images4.imagebam.com/77/a5/43/MECDEZ9_o.png

https://images4.imagebam.com/d8/83/a6/MECDF2B_o.png

https://images4.imagebam.com/3e/cc/60/MECDF2D_o.png

https://images4.imagebam.com/34/2a/e4/MECDF2F_o.png

According to Troxx, his pet is buffed with Burnout IV, and it is a level 60 Water Pet Unfocused. Pet level is guessed at 1 level under max, since a few parses show the max hit of 58.

Average pet DPS: (36 + 50 + 45 + 51 + 30 + 49 + 56 + 60 + 55) / 9 = 48 DPS.

A Mage with max Meditate and Clarity II is regenerating mana at 31 mana per tick sitting and 12 mana per tick standing. Let's assume this Mage has 3000 Mana to start with.

Max mana per hour: (31 mana x 10 ticks per minute x 60 minutes) + 3000 = 21600.

Shock of Steel costs 275 mana. Let's assume the Mage has Conjuration Specialization. This reduces the cost to 248. Since the Mage will most likely lose 1 meditation tick due to the 6 second cast time, the mana cost goes back up to 268, to account for the 20 mana lost from not meditating. This means you can cast Shock of Steel 80 times per hour, assuming that is the only thing you do.

Troxx's average casts per individual fight: (5 + 5 + 4 + 5 + 5 + 4 + 6 + 4 + 8) / 9 = 5. To pull this off, that means he is spending 1340 - 290 (9 med ticks + 1 standing tick) = 1050 mana per encounter. After 3 encounters he would be out of mana, so there is no way he can sustain the DPS numbers provided. This is why we use the average of 1 nuke per minute, as it is not realistic to be nuking at a high DPS consistently. 74.22 is also close to the overall encounter of 80 DPS, so there is no reason to doubt the individual sets vs. the whole set.

Average player DPS without clickies: (825 damage x 80 nukes) / 3600 seconds = 18.33 DPS.

Using a https://wiki.project1999.com/A_Sebilite_Golem , which is a level 49 Sebilis mob and similar to Crypt mobs, an unslowed mob did 74 hits in 144 seconds. (74 x 33) / 144 = 16.95 DPS

Slowing the same mob above https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XwiGKTuu2E , the DPS of the damage shield is reduced to 3.9 DPS. 26 hits x 33 Damge over 220 seconds = 3.9 DPS. This makes sense, since the mob was slowed 75%, and 4 is 25% of 16.

Average Damage Shield DPS: 16.95 DPS.

Average Damage Shield DPS with slow: 3.9 DPS.

The data below will show average DPS over a slower kill of 1 minute and 30 seconds or more:

Average Total DPS without clickies: 48 + 18.33 + 16.95 = 83.28 DPS

Average Total DPS with https://wiki.project1999.com/Boots_of_Bladecalling : 48 + 35.29 + 16.95 = 100.24 DPS

Average Total DPS with https://wiki.project1999.com/Burnt_Wood_Staff : 48 + 24.66 + 16.95 = 89.61 DPS

Average Total DPS without clickies on a slowed mob: 48 + 18.33 + 3.9 = 70.23 DPS

Average Total DPS with https://wiki.project1999.com/Boots_of_Bladecalling on a slowed mob: 48 + 35.29 + 3.9 = 87.19 DPS

Average Total DPS with https://wiki.project1999.com/Burnt_Wood_Staff on a slowed mob: 48 + 24.66 + 3.9 = 76.56 DPS

The data below will show average DPS over the average 36 second kill speed of the group, assuming no slow:

Average Total DPS in 36 seconds without clickies: 48 + 18.33 + 11.45 = 77.78 DPS
The Direct damage number is lower because you would realistically only be able to nuke once per minute due to mana, so ((825 * 0.5) / 36) = 11.45 DPS

Average Total DPS in 36 seconds with https://wiki.project1999.com/Boots_of_Bladecalling : 48 + 16.66 + 16.95 = 81.61 DPS
The DPS is halved on this due to it being difficult to realistically get two 17 second casts off in 36 seconds.

Average Total DPS in 36 seconds https://wiki.project1999.com/Burnt_Wood_Staff : 48 + 18.5 + 16.95 = 83.45 DPS

============================Shaman DPS===================================

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-g8Ywibztg - Pet DPS video, logs are attached in description.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjZxMlJSCDc - Shaman Torpor Mana Recovery Video.

Pet DPS is using a max level pet with Celerity (50% haste), Maniacal Strength, and Focus of Spirit.

Average pet DPS: 7321 damage over 414 seconds = 17.7 DPS

A Shaman with max Torpor and Clarity II is regenerating mana at rougly 16 mana per second. Let's assume this Shaman has 3000 Mana to start with.

Max mana per hour: (16 x 3600) + 3000 = 60600.

Bane of Nife + Envenomed Bolt cost 745 mana total. This means you could cast this combination 81 a maximum of times per hour. You would not be using Conjuraton Specialization typically, so the number doesn't change.

Average player DPS without clickies (Bane of Nife + Envenomed Bolt): ((1648 + 1278) x 60) / 3600 seconds = 48.76 DPS.

The data below will show average DPS over a slower kill of 1 minute and 30 seconds or more:

Average Total DPS without clickies: 17.7 + 48.76 = 66.46 DPS

Average Total DPS with JBB: 17.7 + 32.88 = 50.58 DPS

Average Total DPS with 1 Epic Click + 1x Pox + 2x Bane of Nife: 17.7 + 63 = 80.7 DPS

The data below will show average DPS over the average 36 second kill speed of the group, assuming no slow:

Average Total DPS in 36 seconds without clickies (2x Ice Strike): 17.7 + 37.5 = 55.2 DPS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XwiGKTuu2E - Shaman Quick DPS video, logs are attached in description.

Average Total DPS in 36 seconds with JBB: 17.7 + 29.22 = 46.92 DPS

Average Total DPS in 36 seconds with 1x JBB and 1x Bane of Nife: 17.7 + 35.25 = 52.95 DPS
This would be a bit more mana efficient than 2x Ice Strikes, could do more DPS if the mob takes longer to kill, and is the same cast time as 2x Ice Strikes.

============================Difference in DPS===================================

The data below will show average DPS over a slower kill of 1 minute and 30 seconds or more:

Average Total DPS difference without clickies: 83.28 DPS (Mage) - 66.46 DPS (Shaman) = 26.82 DPS

Average Total DPS difference with best clickies: 100.24 DPS - 80.7 DPS = 19.54 DPS

Average Total DPS difference with best clickies on a slowed mob: 87.19 DPS - 80.7 DPS = 6.49 DPS

The data below will show average DPS over the average 36 second kill speed of the group, assuming no slow:

Average Total DPS in 36 seconds difference without clickies: 77.78 DPS (Mage) - 55.2 DPS (Shaman) = 22.58 DPS

Average Total DPS in 36 seconds difference with best clickies: 83.45 DPS - 52.95 DPS = 30.5 DPS

The Difference is between 6.49 DPS and 30.5 DPS, depending on the setup of the Mage vs. the Shaman, the killspeed, and if a mob is slowed.

============================Conclusion============ =======================

The reason for this breakdown is because the debate is choosing between Mage/Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric or Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric for OP's question. The argument for Mage is DPS + Malo + Charm Break Safety.

A Shaman has both Charm Break Safety (Pet + Torpor) and a better Malo -> Malosini chance, due to Malo being better than Mala. This is why they are much better at high end level 60 camps such as Ixiblat Fer, Fungi King, Cliff Golems, West Waste Dragons, etc. They can tank better and they can slow better. This is also where Shamans can increase their DPS, since a mob with more HP is going to take longer to kill. This means you can use your DoTs to full effect.

When looking at DPS, you can see that you will only lose 7-30 DPS when picking a Shaman over a Mage, depending on the situation. Using Troxx's Data, you can see that two charmed level 47 mobs with a Torch and Haste would do 86x2 = 172 DPS. This means you are looking at a difference between 255 DPS and 225 DPS at best. When killing a mob with 8000 HP, the difference would be 31 seconds vs. 36 seconds. The Mage is only saving 5 seconds per kill, and offers very little else. If your group is killing 20 mobs on a 30 minute timer, you are saving roughly 3 minutes per hour. To get an extra mob cycle, you would need to be at that camp for 10 hours. DPS loses efficiency as you stack more. For example, 2x Enchanters and 2x other group members would easily have a total of 200 DPS. At 200 DPS, it takes 40 seconds to kill a mob with 8000 HP. If you simply had 4x Enchanters to increase your DPS to 400, you would only decrease the kill time to 20 seconds. Even though you doubled your DPS, you only got half of the time decrease.

The other debate that spawned was whether to take a Shaman or not based on them being less useful at low levels. It is true Shamans don't come into their own until level 30 or so, but this is true for Enchanters and clerics too. https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3499420&postcount=1273 This post shows a level 24 warrior out-DPSing a level 27 charmed pet with 37% haste and a Torch. Enchanter charm isn't as powerful as people think at lower levels, plus Enchanters have to deal with more meditating, lower mana pool, more fizzles, more interrupts, resists, etc. The 2x Enchanters in this group aren't going to be as good as melees with 2k worth of gear. The cleric is also going to bring fairly little to the table. This shouldn't deter you from bringing these classes, as they are well worth the wait once you get to level 30 or so. Luckily leveling from 1-30 is going to be super easy with any group of 4, so this shouldn't be a big consideration.

Finally, this debate is looking at all level ranges, from 1-60, including level 60 item farming. It is up to the user to decide whether they want to pick a Mage for slightly faster kill speeds from levels 1-60 and during level 60 farming, or pick a Shaman for their superior utility and safety. This is very useful when farming level 60 camps like Fungi King and Ixiblat Fer. Honestly a group of 4 casters is already going to level extremely quickly, so I do not believe the Mage is worth it. A slightly better leveling experience does not make up for a Mage bringing very little at the end. OP has already chosen his group (Shaman/Enchanter/Necro/Mage), so it is a draw in terms of the debate. I personally would go for Shaman/Enchanter/Necro/Cleric.

[PlsNoBan]

Hi I'm DSM, I post faulty data and bad arguments and feed trolls 600+ times. I pretend it's cause I want imaginary silent readers to learn from me. Secretly I just can't help myself but continuing to post feeding trolls

I KNEW IT. The post history was clear the whole time.

[Gloomlord]

Please ignore PlsNoBan, Troxx, Cyxthryth, Gloomlord, Karanis, Toxigen, Ripqozko, and Chortles Snortles in this thread. They are just trolling.

Who are you talking to, exactly? Your imaginary friends?

[PlsNoBan]

Who are you talking to, exactly? Your imaginary friends?

He listed everyone that reads this thread and labeled them trolls and pretends in his broken brain that there's just tons and tons of other people reading that aren't posting so he can justify spamming his nonsense in hopes that all those people that don't exist will read it and agree with him and/or learn from his beloved data. It's sad really.

[Troxx]

I’m afraid that with his last post we are gonna go back to him copy/pasting the same post over and over again.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I’m afraid that with his last post we are gonna go back to him copy/pasting the same post over and over again.

Indeed! The conversation still hasn't progressed past this. I am sorry you sincerely think 700+ posts of just insults/memes are an actual argument.

Please ignore PlsNoBan, Troxx, Cyxthryth, Gloomlord, Karanis, Toxigen, Ripqozko, and Chortles Snortles in this thread. They are just trolling. They have accumulated 700+ posts that are literally just memes and insults between them. They shouldn't since this isn't RnF, but they seem to enjoy being silly in this thread.

Reposting an overview of the discussion. This is the data given, so it is all we can use. It would be great if someone else posted some data.

============================Mage DPS===================================

This data is reportedly from a group Troxx had in Sebilis Crypt:

https://images4.imagebam.com/94/02/9b/MECCRK4_o.png

https://images4.imagebam.com/a1/ba/b2/MECDEYY_o.png

https://images4.imagebam.com/6a/07/fa/MECDEYZ_o.png

https://images4.imagebam.com/c9/a2/8b/MECDEZ3_o.png

https://images4.imagebam.com/fb/d3/16/MECDEZ5_o.png

https://images4.imagebam.com/e2/a6/8c/MECDEZ7_o.png

https://images4.imagebam.com/77/a5/43/MECDEZ9_o.png

https://images4.imagebam.com/d8/83/a6/MECDF2B_o.png

https://images4.imagebam.com/3e/cc/60/MECDF2D_o.png

https://images4.imagebam.com/34/2a/e4/MECDF2F_o.png

According to Troxx, his pet is buffed with Burnout IV, and it is a level 60 Water Pet Unfocused. Pet level is guessed at 1 level under max, since a few parses show the max hit of 58.

Average pet DPS: (36 + 50 + 45 + 51 + 30 + 49 + 56 + 60 + 55) / 9 = 48 DPS.

A Mage with max Meditate and Clarity II is regenerating mana at 31 mana per tick sitting and 12 mana per tick standing. Let's assume this Mage has 3000 Mana to start with.

Max mana per hour: (31 mana x 10 ticks per minute x 60 minutes) + 3000 = 21600.

Shock of Steel costs 275 mana. Let's assume the Mage has Conjuration Specialization. This reduces the cost to 248. Since the Mage will most likely lose 1 meditation tick due to the 6 second cast time, the mana cost goes back up to 268, to account for the 20 mana lost from not meditating. This means you can cast Shock of Steel 80 times per hour, assuming that is the only thing you do.

Troxx's average casts per individual fight: (5 + 5 + 4 + 5 + 5 + 4 + 6 + 4 + 8) / 9 = 5. To pull this off, that means he is spending 1340 - 290 (9 med ticks + 1 standing tick) = 1050 mana per encounter. After 3 encounters he would be out of mana, so there is no way he can sustain the DPS numbers provided. This is why we use the average of 1 nuke per minute, as it is not realistic to be nuking at a high DPS consistently. 74.22 is also close to the overall encounter of 80 DPS, so there is no reason to doubt the individual sets vs. the whole set.

Average player DPS without clickies: (825 damage x 80 nukes) / 3600 seconds = 18.33 DPS.

Using a https://wiki.project1999.com/A_Sebilite_Golem , which is a level 49 Sebilis mob and similar to Crypt mobs, an unslowed mob did 74 hits in 144 seconds. (74 x 33) / 144 = 16.95 DPS

Slowing the same mob above https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XwiGKTuu2E , the DPS of the damage shield is reduced to 3.9 DPS. 26 hits x 33 Damge over 220 seconds = 3.9 DPS. This makes sense, since the mob was slowed 75%, and 4 is 25% of 16.

Average Damage Shield DPS: 16.95 DPS.

Average Damage Shield DPS with slow: 3.9 DPS.

The data below will show average DPS over a slower kill of 1 minute and 30 seconds or more:

Average Total DPS without clickies: 48 + 18.33 + 16.95 = 83.28 DPS

Average Total DPS with https://wiki.project1999.com/Boots_of_Bladecalling : 48 + 35.29 + 16.95 = 100.24 DPS

Average Total DPS with https://wiki.project1999.com/Burnt_Wood_Staff : 48 + 24.66 + 16.95 = 89.61 DPS

Average Total DPS without clickies on a slowed mob: 48 + 18.33 + 3.9 = 70.23 DPS

Average Total DPS with https://wiki.project1999.com/Boots_of_Bladecalling on a slowed mob: 48 + 35.29 + 3.9 = 87.19 DPS

Average Total DPS with https://wiki.project1999.com/Burnt_Wood_Staff on a slowed mob: 48 + 24.66 + 3.9 = 76.56 DPS

The data below will show average DPS over the average 36 second kill speed of the group, assuming no slow:

Average Total DPS in 36 seconds without clickies: 48 + 18.33 + 11.45 = 77.78 DPS
The Direct damage number is lower because you would realistically only be able to nuke once per minute due to mana, so ((825 * 0.5) / 36) = 11.45 DPS

Average Total DPS in 36 seconds with https://wiki.project1999.com/Boots_of_Bladecalling : 48 + 16.66 + 16.95 = 81.61 DPS
The DPS is halved on this due to it being difficult to realistically get two 17 second casts off in 36 seconds.

Average Total DPS in 36 seconds https://wiki.project1999.com/Burnt_Wood_Staff : 48 + 18.5 + 16.95 = 83.45 DPS

============================Shaman DPS===================================

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-g8Ywibztg - Pet DPS video, logs are attached in description.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjZxMlJSCDc - Shaman Torpor Mana Recovery Video.

Pet DPS is using a max level pet with Celerity (50% haste), Maniacal Strength, and Focus of Spirit.

Average pet DPS: 7321 damage over 414 seconds = 17.7 DPS

A Shaman with max Torpor and Clarity II is regenerating mana at rougly 16 mana per second. Let's assume this Shaman has 3000 Mana to start with.

Max mana per hour: (16 x 3600) + 3000 = 60600.

Bane of Nife + Envenomed Bolt cost 745 mana total. This means you could cast this combination 81 a maximum of times per hour. You would not be using Conjuraton Specialization typically, so the number doesn't change.

Average player DPS without clickies (Bane of Nife + Envenomed Bolt): ((1648 + 1278) x 60) / 3600 seconds = 48.76 DPS.

The data below will show average DPS over a slower kill of 1 minute and 30 seconds or more:

Average Total DPS without clickies: 17.7 + 48.76 = 66.46 DPS

Average Total DPS with JBB: 17.7 + 32.88 = 50.58 DPS

Average Total DPS with 1 Epic Click + 1x Pox + 2x Bane of Nife: 17.7 + 63 = 80.7 DPS

The data below will show average DPS over the average 36 second kill speed of the group, assuming no slow:

Average Total DPS in 36 seconds without clickies (2x Ice Strike): 17.7 + 37.5 = 55.2 DPS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XwiGKTuu2E - Shaman Quick DPS video, logs are attached in description.

Average Total DPS in 36 seconds with JBB: 17.7 + 29.22 = 46.92 DPS

Average Total DPS in 36 seconds with 1x JBB and 1x Bane of Nife: 17.7 + 35.25 = 52.95 DPS
This would be a bit more mana efficient than 2x Ice Strikes, could do more DPS if the mob takes longer to kill, and is the same cast time as 2x Ice Strikes.

============================Difference in DPS===================================

The data below will show average DPS over a slower kill of 1 minute and 30 seconds or more:

Average Total DPS difference without clickies: 83.28 DPS (Mage) - 66.46 DPS (Shaman) = 26.82 DPS

Average Total DPS difference with best clickies: 100.24 DPS - 80.7 DPS = 19.54 DPS

Average Total DPS difference with best clickies on a slowed mob: 87.19 DPS - 80.7 DPS = 6.49 DPS

The data below will show average DPS over the average 36 second kill speed of the group, assuming no slow:

Average Total DPS in 36 seconds difference without clickies: 77.78 DPS (Mage) - 55.2 DPS (Shaman) = 22.58 DPS

Average Total DPS in 36 seconds difference with best clickies: 83.45 DPS - 52.95 DPS = 30.5 DPS

The Difference is between 6.49 DPS and 30.5 DPS, depending on the setup of the Mage vs. the Shaman, the killspeed, and if a mob is slowed.

============================Conclusion============ =======================

The reason for this breakdown is because the debate is choosing between Mage/Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric or Shaman/Enchanter/Enchanter/Cleric for OP's question. The argument for Mage is DPS + Malo + Charm Break Safety.

A Shaman has both Charm Break Safety (Pet + Torpor) and a better Malo -> Malosini chance, due to Malo being better than Mala. This is why they are much better at high end level 60 camps such as Ixiblat Fer, Fungi King, Cliff Golems, West Waste Dragons, etc. They can tank better and they can slow better. This is also where Shamans can increase their DPS, since a mob with more HP is going to take longer to kill. This means you can use your DoTs to full effect.

When looking at DPS, you can see that you will only lose 7-30 DPS when picking a Shaman over a Mage, depending on the situation. Using Troxx's Data, you can see that two charmed level 47 mobs with a Torch and Haste would do 86x2 = 172 DPS. This means you are looking at a difference between 255 DPS and 225 DPS at best. When killing a mob with 8000 HP, the difference would be 31 seconds vs. 36 seconds. The Mage is only saving 5 seconds per kill, and offers very little else. If your group is killing 20 mobs on a 30 minute timer, you are saving roughly 3 minutes per hour. To get an extra mob cycle, you would need to be at that camp for 10 hours. DPS loses efficiency as you stack more. For example, 2x Enchanters and 2x other group members would easily have a total of 200 DPS. At 200 DPS, it takes 40 seconds to kill a mob with 8000 HP. If you simply had 4x Enchanters to increase your DPS to 400, you would only decrease the kill time to 20 seconds. Even though you doubled your DPS, you only got half of the time decrease.

The other debate that spawned was whether to take a Shaman or not based on them being less useful at low levels. It is true Shamans don't come into their own until level 30 or so, but this is true for Enchanters and clerics too. https://www.project1999.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3499420&postcount=1273 This post shows a level 24 warrior out-DPSing a level 27 charmed pet with 37% haste and a Torch. Enchanter charm isn't as powerful as people think at lower levels, plus Enchanters have to deal with more meditating, lower mana pool, more fizzles, more interrupts, resists, etc. The 2x Enchanters in this group aren't going to be as good as melees with 2k worth of gear. The cleric is also going to bring fairly little to the table. This shouldn't deter you from bringing these classes, as they are well worth the wait once you get to level 30 or so. Luckily leveling from 1-30 is going to be super easy with any group of 4, so this shouldn't be a big consideration.

Finally, this debate is looking at all level ranges, from 1-60, including level 60 item farming. It is up to the user to decide whether they want to pick a Mage for slightly faster kill speeds from levels 1-60 and during level 60 farming, or pick a Shaman for their superior utility and safety. This is very useful when farming level 60 camps like Fungi King and Ixiblat Fer. Honestly a group of 4 casters is already going to level extremely quickly, so I do not believe the Mage is worth it. A slightly better leveling experience does not make up for a Mage bringing very little at the end. OP has already chosen his group (Shaman/Enchanter/Necro/Mage), so it is a draw in terms of the debate. I personally would go for Shaman/Enchanter/Necro/Cleric.

[Gloomlord]

He listed everyone that reads this thread and labeled them trolls and pretends in his broken brain that there's just tons and tons of other people reading that aren't posting so he can justify spamming his nonsense in hopes that all those people that don't exist will read it and agree with him and/or learn from his beloved data. It's sad really.

Let's call his bluff, then.

If we're all "trolls", then he can just stop responding to any of us.

Anyone who is willing to concur with his data and "wisdom" shall be left alone. You have my solemn vow on that.

That's not going to happen, though. Even the most unorthodox player will not be root rotting insignificant targets in Seb, whilst 2 enchanters charm kill. It just doesn't happen. Nobody in their right mind would pick a shaman in this hypothetical group if they were trying to maximise their potential with 4 casters.

Does he even play this game? We've seen his videos, so I would assume he himself knows basic protocol in groups. He should know mages completely blow shamans out of the water in a DPS role in groups.

How many times do multiple people have to say this for him to finally admit defeat?

[Gloomlord]

Indeed! The conversation still hasn't progressed past this. I am sorry you sincerely think 700+ posts of just insults/memes are an actual argument.

You're just proving his point, you horrible human being...

[Troxx]

Troxx's average casts per individual fight: (5 + 5 + 4 + 5 + 5 + 4 + 6 + 4 + 8) / 9 = 5. To pull this off, that means he is spending 1340 - 290 (9 med ticks + 1 standing tick) = 1050 mana per encounter.

I actually read through your post DSM. You do realize shock of steel deals 825 damage right.

4 casts = 3300 damage
5 casts = 4125 damage
6 casts = 4950 damage
8 casts = 6600 damage

Clearly you are reading this wrong. You know that pet spell procs (the water pet has a good one) are logged as “hits” for Ailowen right? I’m having a hard time understanding how you are so dense. You can very easily see how many casts I had per fight by looking at total damage done and dividing by 825 (rounding up/down for partial resists and to factor in pet dd.

I had 2 fights where I logged upper 2000s damage. Those were 3 nuke fights with lucky strings of extra pet procs. Most fights were 1-2 nukes.

For shame. I would have expected more from a math guru.

[Troxx]

I am eagerly awaiting your response and expect you to revise your posts lol. Furthermore you can get a good idea of how often the mage pet is firing said nuke if you look at Ailowen’s average “hit” per fight. I’m only casting the 825dd yet you see my average hit is lower.

Lol you’re counting the pet procs

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I actually read through your post DSM. You do realize shock of steel deals 825 damage right.

4 casts = 3300 damage
5 casts = 4125 damage
6 casts = 4950 damage
8 casts = 6600 damage

Clearly you are reading this wrong. You know that pet spell procs (the water pet has a good one) are logged as “hits” for Ailowen right? I’m having a hard time understanding how you are so dense. You can very easily see how many casts I had per fight by looking at total damage done and dividing by 825 (rounding up/down for partial resists and to factor in pet dd.

I had 2 fights where I logged upper 2000s damage. Those were 3-4 nuke fights. Most fights were 1-2 nukes.

For shame. I would have expected more from a math guru.

This is why I say you guys don't read.


Average player DPS without clickies: (825 damage x 80 nukes) / 3600 seconds = 18.33 DPS.


Your parser is including procs and backstabs, so it's included in the DPS.

I have said multiple times anybody can increase their DPS temporarily by draining their mana. Shamans can do it too.

[Troxx]

Look at the first from the breakaway. Ailowen logged 2891 damage with 8 hits.
3x 825 = 2475 damage
5x 116 = 580 damage
Adds up to 3055 so either me or my pet got a partial resist

Jesus you are dense.

Here you are thinking I’m nuking 4, 5, 6, 8 times per fight and doing mental backflips trying to figure out how I’m keeping up with mana?

Most fights I’m spending 240-480 mana (1-2 nukes). Biggest burn was 720 mana (3 nukes) … and nothing lives long enough for a 4th nuke ever

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Look at the first from the breakaway. Ailowen logged 2891 damage with 8 hits.
3x 825 = 2475 damage
5x 116 = 580 damage
Adds up to 3055 so either me or my pet got a partial resist

Jesus you are dense.

I am not the dense one. You do not understand average DPS. You just are trying to boost your numbers on a single encounter. That isn't how average DPS works. You have a fixed mana pool. If you spend all your mana on one mob, then you have 0 DPS on the next mob because you are recovering mana.

A Shaman can also spam nukes for a temporary boost in DPS on a single encounter.

[Troxx]

So much for “math” and “logic”. You don’t even know how to properly analyze data.

[Troxx]

https://c.tenor.com/cd_DLjd9w4MAAAAM/yoda-jedi.gif

This is basic arithmetic with a side splash of basic analytical reasoning.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So much for “math” and “logic”. You don’t even know how to properly analyze data.

What? You are the one claiming your average DPS is higher because you spammed nukes on one encounter. That is nonsense lol.

If I spammed Ice Strike, I could do (4 x 675) / 30 = 90 DPS in 30 seconds. But that also costs 1000 mana, so it isn't as sustainable. If you do 0 DPS on the next 30 second encounter, your average goes to 45 DPS. It's really not hard.

[Ripqozko]

21 more pages of DSM swapping logic to fit his narrative, we get it bro, you play a shaman.

[Troxx]

1-2 nukes per fight is sustainable in crypt indefinitely.

https://c.tenor.com/bCu3VuAfuvUAAAAC/supernatural-rufus.gif

[DeathsSilkyMist]

1-2 nukes per fight is sustainable in crypt indefinitely.

This isn’t rocket surgery

1 nuke per minute is sustainable.

Shock of Steel costs 275 mana and takes 6 seconds to cast. With specialization the mana cost drops to 248.

With C2 you are regenerating 310 mana per minute assuming you are meditating the entire time. In reality you lose 1 tick due to the nuke cast, so you are spending 248 and regaining 290.

If you spend 496 mana per minute (2 nukes), you will be out of mana after 15 minutes because you are losing 200 mana per minute, assuming you have a mana pool of 3000.

[Troxx]

We still have yet to see you join a fast paced group with your dog pet and log any modicum of respectable sustained dps on your shaman.

It’s sad you were too chicken-liver’d to try as hard in game as you blow-hard in this thread. I know you won’t and I’m pretty sure I know why: you will get data that doesn’t fit your narrative and would effectively prove yourself wrong.

[Ripqozko]

hes about to post his post again to fit his narrative then say, you gotta prove it

[Troxx]

1 nuke per minute is sustainable.

Shock of Steel costs 275 mana and takes 6 seconds to cast. With specialization the mana cost drops to 248.

With C2 you are regenerating 310 mana per minute assuming you are meditating the entire time. In reality you lose 1 tick due to the nuke cast, so you are spending 248 and regaining 290.

If you spend 496 mana per minute (2 nukes), you will be out of mana after 15 minutes because you are losing 200 mana per minute, assuming you have a mana pool of 3000.

I promise you in crypt we will run out of mobs long before I run out of mana. Then you’re back squatting at ICGs waiting on repops.

Down time is an actual thing that happens in actual groups ya know. Whether waiting on repops, the next pull, or your cleric who took a 1 minute afk to get a beer.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

We still have yet to see you join a fast paced group with your dog pet and log any modicum of respectable sustained dps on your shaman.

It’s sad you were too chicken-liver’d to try as hard in game as you blow-hard in this thread. I know you won’t and I’m pretty sure I know why: you will get data that doesn’t fit your narrative and would effectively prove yourself wrong.

I see you have conceded that the math is correct.

I have provided better evidence than you have. There is no way to prove the DPS data you provided matches your standards, so you need to provide better data first.

[Gloomlord]

21 more pages of DSM swapping logic to fit his narrative, we get it bro, you play a shaman.

But someone is bound to agree with him! Right? Right...?

Any second now, someone is going to come through this thread and vouch for this "poor man". He clearly has the best intentions for being here, right?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I promise you in crypt we will run out of mobs long before I run out of mana. Then you’re back squatting at ICGs waiting on repops.

Down time is an actual thing that happens in actual groups ya know. Whether waiting on repops, the next pull, or your cleric who took a 1 minute afk to get a beer.

Precisely. This means a Shaman can increase their DPS too, because they can also cast more spells due to the mobs running out before your mana pool empties.

I was not the one trying to argue groups are chain pulling indefinitely.

[Ripqozko]

UCF +DSM had to be the worst combo of guildies ever, the data proves it.

[Troxx]

DSM you can’t even appropriately interpret the data you’ve been given. The only “data” you provided was you solo root dotting a lv 40 jin frog and then you solo root dotting one zone in golem. Beyond that it’s broken napkin math.

You have provided precisely zero actual real life data/evidence of how much damage your shaman could do in a fast killing group competing with the relative dps of 2 hasted quadding enchanter pets.

I gave you real life samplings of myself with a tunare equipped monk, a raid geared sk, an epic mage and at times we had it a charmed enchanter pet all competing for finite damage per mob before it was dead. In some cases we had mobs dead before you could realistically land your third ice strike if chain cast as soon as tank engaged.

Mage pets are strong dps. I doubt you would be able to sustainably keep up with just the pet nevermind my own nukes.

[Troxx]

20 more pages to go!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

DSM you can’t even appropriately interpret the data you’ve been given. The only “data” you provided was you solo root dotting a lv 40 jin frog and then you solo root dotting one zone in golem. Beyond that it’s broken napkin math.

You have provided precisely zero actual real life data/evidence of how much damage your shaman could do in a fast killing group competing with the relative dps of 2 hasted quadding enchanter pets.

I gave you real life samplings of myself with a tunare equipped monk, a raid geared sk, an epic mage and at times we had it a charmed enchanter pet all competing for finite damage per mob before it was dead. In some cases we had mobs dead before you could realistically land your third ice strike if chain cast as soon as tank engaged.

Mage pets are strong dps. I doubt you would be able to sustainably keep up with just the pet nevermind my own nukes.

It is up to you to prove DPS somehow changes in a group. It doesn't. A mob with 8000 HP you solo is still going to have 8000 HP in a group. Why do you think the math is going to change? You have never given an answer to this question.

If your group is killing mobs on an average of 36 seconds, you can easily determine how many nukes you can cast per encounter, and average DPS of pets.

My data is video evidence with logs you can cross reference. Your data is screenshots of a parser you keep claiming isn't correct for some reason.

[Troxx]

We still have yet to see you join a fast paced group with your dog pet and log any modicum of respectable sustained dps on your shaman.

It’s sad you were too chicken-liver’d to try as hard in game as you blow-hard in this thread. I know you won’t and I’m pretty sure I know why: you will get data that doesn’t fit your narrative and would effectively prove yourself wrong.

https://c.tenor.com/X2zRv3xs3toAAAAd/time-to-nut-up-or-shut-up-get-ready.gif

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You need to provide better data first. But you won't, because you know it will just show the same math I have been providing.

[Ripqozko]

You need to provide better data first. But you won't, because you know it will just show the same math I have been providing.

called it

[DeathsSilkyMist]

called it

Precisely. You are quite perceptive. Video evidence with logs you can cross reference are superior to screenshots from a parser we can't prove is working correctly, since Troxx says it isn't.

He needs to provide better evidence first. But he clearly won't based on his 200+ troll posts. He doesn't want to be the one to admit he is wrong.

He will just keep claiming my data is skewed, because that is easier lol. Unfortunately for him anybody can look at the videos I provided, cross reference them to the logs, and parse the data themselves. My data is undeniable, while his could easily be wrong.

[Troxx]

Indeed you did lol.

[Gloomlord]

Now, I haven't looked at the maths here, but I am intelligent enough to realise:

If a mob is often dying so quick that a nuke won't be worth casting, doesn't it stand to reason that a mage pet completely outclasses both the shaman pet, and everything else he can do?

It's checkmate. Just shut up already, DSM. Troxx didn't even need to post any data, because anyone with common sense can figure this out.

[PlsNoBan]

Now, I haven't looked at the maths here, but I am intelligent enough to realise:

If a mob is often dying so quick that a nuke won't be worth casting, doesn't it stand to reason that a mage pet completely outclasses both the shaman pet, and everything else he can do?

It's checkmate. Just shut up already, DSM. Troxx didn't even need to post any data, because anyone with common sense can figure this out.

NO COMMON SENSE ALLOWED. PLEASE POST FAULTY DATA AND MATH SO DSM CAN DO MENTAL GYMNASTICS TO PROVE HOW HE'S STILL RIGHT!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Now, I haven't looked at the maths here, but I am intelligent enough to realise:

If a mob is often dying so quick that a nuke won't be worth casting, doesn't it stand to reason that a mage pet completely outclasses both the shaman pet, and everything else he can do?

It's checkmate. Just shut up already, DSM. Troxx didn't even need to post any data, because anyone with common sense can figure this out.

If a mob is dying in 5 seconds, that means your group is dealing 1600 DPS (somehow). 48 DPS from a pet isn't going to make any noticeable difference lol. It's a difference of 0.16 seconds. So no, a Mage is literally useless in that situation too.

It's the same issue if you mean mobs are dying in 10 seconds. That means your group is doing 800 DPS, and the difference between 800 DPS and 750 DPS on a mob with 8000 HP is 0.66 seconds.

[Troxx]

https://images4.imagebam.com/d8/83/a6/MECDF2B_o.png

My parse pulled right out of DSMs stupidly long post.

This is one of my favorites for showcasing a lazy mage by the way. It’s a one nuke fight where the mage out-dps’d everyone including the chanter charm. Other epic mage was slow on the draw sending in his pet. I can’t comment on whether he nukes more than once. If he did he beat me but yeah … one nuke fight with a scaled dps of 111 combined mage + pet not counting in DS.

1 825dd nuke, 4 pet procs (lucky string but I’ll take it … though he missed all of his backstab attempts so it evens out) combined damage of 2313 damage (ench pet did 2188).

With 2 charmed and torched enchanter pets this is about how long you can expect a fight to last lol

[DeathsSilkyMist]

https://images4.imagebam.com/d8/83/a6/MECDF2B_o.png

My parse pulled right out of DSMs stupidly long post.

This is one of my favorites for showcasing a lazy mage by the way. It’s a one nuke fight where the mage out-dps’d everyone including the chanter charm. Other epic mage was slow on the draw sending in his pet. I can’t comment on whether he nukes more than once. If he did he beat me but yeah … one nuke fight with a scaled dps of 111 combined mage + pet not counting in DS.

1 825dd nuke, 4 pet procs (lucky string but I’ll take it) combined damage of 2313 damage (ench pet did 2188).

With 2 charmed and torched enchanter pets this is about how long you can expect a fight to last lol

Again, on a single parse a Shaman can do higher DPS too. This encounter is 21 seconds, so a Shaman could do 2x Ice Strikes and a Winter's Roar in 21 seconds.

That is ((675 x 2) + 263 / 21) = 76 DPS. With pet that is a total of 94 DPS.

The math really isn't hard here. The difference is only 25 DPS in that case, and you are not averaging 4 procs per encounter, so the number is lower on average.

[Troxx]

We still have yet to see you join a fast paced group with your dog pet and log any modicum of respectable sustained dps on your shaman.

It’s sad you were too chicken-liver’d to try as hard in game as you blow-hard in this thread. I know you won’t and I’m pretty sure I know why: you will get data that doesn’t fit your narrative and would effectively prove yourself wrong.

https://c.tenor.com/X2zRv3xs3toAAAAd/time-to-nut-up-or-shut-up-get-ready.gif

[Ripqozko]

DSM has basically been saying, no you, for 180 pages.

[PlsNoBan]

DSM has basically been saying, no you, for 180 pages.

/thread

Napkin math perfectly matches real life situations at all times right guys? Raise your hand if you've ever been in a group where a shaman has done anywhere near a mage's dps. I'll wait. DSM's hand doesn't count.

[Troxx]

Again, on a single parse a Shaman can do higher DPS too. This encounter is 21 seconds, so a Shaman could do 2x Ice Strikes and a Winter's Roar in 21 seconds.

That is ((675 x 2) + 263 / 21) = 76 DPS. With pet that is a total of 94 DPS.

The math really isn't hard here. The difference is only 25 DPS in that case, and you are not averaging 4 procs per encounter, so the number is lower on average.

Cool I could have lobbed 3x 825 nukes … except it would have been dead before I could land the third at a 6 second cast cause it would have been dead in under 15 seconds.

825 x 2 divided by 15 = 110dps plus my 56 dps mage is 166 dps.

If it did live 18 seconds that’s 825 x3 divided by 18 = 137.5 dps plus my 56dps pet = 193.5 dps.

See? I can napkin math too!

This is why napkin math sucks. Real gameplay doesn’t work out that way. Can you chain nuke? Yep. But you’re going to run your mana dry or spend more time casting cannibalize and torporing yourself than nuking. Your functional/actual dps will be garbage over the long haul unless there’s a lot of down time. If there’s a lot of down time for you, there would be for the mage as well and downtime favors the mage more than the shaman.

We have already established mages can lay down serious damage if not constrained by mana. Far superior to what a shaman can manage.

This is why we have more or less begged you to get out there in a fast paced group and prove it.

But you won’t.

[Gloomlord]

We get it: shamans are the 2nd best class in the game. Nobody is denying they're awesome.

But they do not, and should not, be outdpsing a mage -- a class made almost exclusively for DPS.

What is wrong with conceding your point, DSM? Have some fucking grace, and bow out of this thread already.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

/thread

Napkin math perfectly matches real life situations at all times right guys? Raise your hand if you've ever been in a group where a shaman has done anywhere near a mage's dps. I'll wait.

In a game yes, you can easily math this stuff out. I am still waiting on your answer as to why you think being in a group changes the math.

[plzrelax]

Anecdotal, but I was in a Chardok CE group with a shaman, Druid(me), and two gnome mages. Those two mages were absolutely blasting everything. I had done a few different groups and compositions at that camp for a while but that one really sticks out to me as crazy high DPS

[Gloomlord]

Isn't it obvious, you fool?!

There are other people contributing to the DPS.

If this group contains a bard in full mana pumping mode, and an enchanter giving clarity, then mage blows shaman even harder out of the water.

Are you insane?!

[plzrelax]

What about a bard and three wizards?

[Troxx]

So we already saw a lazy mage fight. Here’s what a 2 nuke fight looks like:

https://images4.imagebam.com/fb/d3/16/MECDEZ5_o.png

Total med time necessary to create this magic? 90 seconds.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Isn't it obvious, you fool?!

There are other people contributing to the DPS.

If this group contains a bard in full mana pumping mode, and an enchanter giving clarity, then mage blows shaman even harder out of the water.

Are you insane?!

Why are you taking my question so literally? Of course DPS increases in a group. That wasn't what I was asking, and I havent said otherwise.

You can still math this stuff out lol. If your group does 200 DPS, it can kill a mob with 8000 HP in 40 seconds. That means you cab determine average DPS of nukes and pet DPS in that time.

[Gloomlord]

Because you completely ignore surrounding elements whilst you calculate DPS for shaman.

It's why you said root rotting was a good idea, and even entertained my analogy about bard and wizard doing some quadding in a 6 man group, whilst the other 4 do the regular stuff that any sane person would do.

Situations like this do not, and should not, happen within this game.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

What are the surrounding elements? That is what I am asking. What do you think is changing the math in a group that cant be captured solo?

[Ripqozko]

threads get locked after it hits 1000 pages, we should be there in a month, DSM will carry this to 1000.

[Troxx]

We still have yet to see you join a fast paced group with your dog pet and log any modicum of respectable sustained dps on your shaman.

It’s sad you were too chicken-liver’d to try as hard in game as you blow-hard in this thread. I know you won’t and I’m pretty sure I know why: you will get data that doesn’t fit your narrative and would effectively prove yourself wrong.

https://c.tenor.com/X2zRv3xs3toAAAAd/time-to-nut-up-or-shut-up-get-ready.gif

[PlsNoBan]

"Shamans are better DPS than Mages" brought to you by the genius that also claimed warriors can solo better than enchanters. The post history is clear and the napkin math is flawless. Anyone saying otherwise is obviously a troll.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You need to provide better data first. Your data is currently inferior to mine.

[Ripqozko]

You have no warder loot, you are clearly inferior to me. Sorry you werent there when competition mattered.

[cd288]

You could say the same thing about all the other fequent posters here. Curious how you continue to only target me with silly things like this.

The trolls could stop at any time, or bring evidence to back up their claims.

The only emberassing thing here is the 700+ posts that are literally just memes and insults due to adults being unable to accept they are wrong. This isn't RnF, so there is no excuse.

Well because you’re coming up on 700 posts going back to the beginning of the thread and one or two others are like 200. 700 is an absurd number you rally should move on. You’re just as childish as they are at this point because you can’t even accept the idea of someone telling you you’re wrong. If you’re so confident you’re right just move on and go live your life…nearing 700 posts because you’re obsessed with trying to be right should be a flag for yourself

[Ripqozko]

Well because you’re coming up on 700 posts going back to the beginning of the thread and one or two others are like 200. 700 is an absurd number you rally should move on. You’re just as childish as they are at this point because you can’t even accept the idea of someone telling you you’re wrong. If you’re so confident you’re right just move on and go live your life…nearing 700 posts because you’re obsessed with trying to be right should be a flag for yourself

Self awareness is not his strong suit, prepare to be told how flawless his data is and that you are a troll

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The only lack of self awareness is from the people calling me stubborn and childish, when over half of their post history is literally memes and insults. I am tryng to have a discussion, which keeps getting derailed by these kinds of posters.

[cyxthryth]

I made a point you can't counter, so you go back to trolling lol.

I made multiple points you could not counter and posed multiple questions that you were seemingly too embarrassed to answer or that you are genuinely *incapable* of answering without revealing your motives or true level of understanding (or lack thereof) so you stopped replying. This really isn't hard hehe. :)

Seriously, you can check the post history.

Correct.

People got mad really fast for no reason

You do not know how other players/posters feel. You may think you do, but your thoughts do not equate to facts; no matter what you choose to post or how you feel about it, it isn't going to change this irrefutable fact.

I used the data provided to do some basic math

... of your Shaman root-rotting things, specifically NOT as part of a high-level, fast-paced killing DPS Group. This really isn't hard hehe. :)

that still hasn't been disproven.

It has, and I present the entirety of this thread, but specifically the posts that you have ignored, misunderstood or misconstrued (intentionally or otherwise) as evidence of the irrefutable fact that it has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people.

Troxx can claim his data is wrong

Anybody CAN claim that (Troxx has not). Claiming it does not make it true. It has to actually be true hehe. :) This really isn't hard.

but he still hasn't provided data he claims is correct.

You have provided no evidence that Troxx claims his data is incorrect, and I present the entirety of this thread, but specifically the posts that you have ignored, misunderstood or misconstrued (intentionally or otherwise) as evidence of the irrefutable fact that it has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people.

I am tryng to have a discussion

By ignoring factual statements that do not fit your narrative & questions directly posed to you? Hehe. :)

[Troxx]

The only thing I stated is that calculated dps gets weird when you compile dozens of fights. It can log a lot of time not spent fighting and drag down everyone’s dps. It is still useful for comparison sake ie relative dps of one player compared to another.

I acknowledged this with the posting of the very first parse.

The data isn’t wrong, you just have to understand the break point and work within the confines of this issue. This is also why I broke out a good sampling of those dozens of fights to demonstrate that. Fights which DSM has summarily ignored because it doesn’t fit his narrative. Individual fights are generally as close to 100% accurate as is possible.

[PlsNoBan]

I am tryng to have a discussion

https://i.imgur.com/8UZ5ffp.gif

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The only thing I stated is that calculated dps gets weird when you compile dozens of fights. It can log a lot of time not spent fighting and drag down everyone’s dps. It is still useful for comparison sake ie relative dps of one player compared to another.

I acknowledged this with the posting of the very first parse.

The data isn’t wrong, you just have to understand the break point and work within the confines of this issue. This is also why I broke out a good sampling of those dozens of fights to demonstrate that. Fights which DSM has summarily ignored because it doesn’t fit his narrative. Individual fights are generally as close to 100% accurate as is possible.

Thanks for a fairly civil post this time.

The thing you don't understand about your own data is you haven't given us all of the individual fights. Because of this, we cannot prove your claim that the average DPS on the top image is incorrect (you are claiming your average DPS is higher than the total of 79). Giving out a few individual fights does not reflect the average DPS you are actually doing. I could also play in a group for hours and cherry pick the best data.

The other problem is you are constrained by mana. For your specific group situation, we need to know the average downtime you had between fights. That determines how much mana the Shaman can spend/recover compared to a Mage. Since you haven't provided that data, we have to make assumptions. You simply have too many gaps in your data for us to just use it verbatim.

At absolute minimum you need to provide the data for all of the fights, so we can do the average ourselves. Otherwise, you data is simply incomplete, and we can't use it effectively.

[cyxthryth]

The thing you don't understand about your own data is you haven't given us all of the individual fights.

Says the "conversation participant" who has provided ZERO data of any individual fights which include his Shaman DPSing in a high level fast-paced killing DPS group hehe. :)
The thing you don't seem to understand (or are misconstruing your true understanding of) is that you have provided zero individual fights which include your Shaman DPSing in a high level fast-paced killing DPS group.

Because of this, we cannot prove your claim that the average DPS on the top image is incorrect (you are claiming your average DPS is higher than the total of 79). Giving out a few individual fights does not reflect the average DPS you are actually doing. I could also play in a group for hours and cherry pick the best data.

You giving out a few individual SOLO root-rotting math napkin posts does not reflect the average DPS you are actually doing as part of a high level fast-paced killing DPS group (as has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people). This really isn't hard hehe. :)

Yes, you COULD play for hours and cherry pick the best data, but why would you do that? Are you suggesting Troxx has done that - and if not, why are you bringing it up / using it to seemingly avoid having to provide the relevant/requested data? :)

Since you haven't provided that data, we have to make assumptions. You simply have too many gaps in your data for us to just use it verbatim.

You have not provided the requested/relevant data (despite 700 posts), are we to assume that you will provide it at some point in the future?


At absolute minimum you need to provide the data for all of the fights, so we can do the average ourselves. Otherwise, you data is simply incomplete, and we can't use it effectively.

Again, as has been stated to you multiple times by multiple people, you have provided zero evidence/data of your Shaman DPSing in a high level fast-paced killing DPS group. I present the entirety of this thread, but specifically the posts that you have ignored, misunderstood or misconstrued (intentionally or otherwise) as evidence of the irrefutable fact that this has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people.

[PlsNoBan]

God I wish I had a 60 mage to post a metric fuckton of data showing what we all know to be true. It's too bad P99 doesn't have test dummies for DPS benchmarking.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

God I wish I had a 60 mage to post a metric fuckton of data showing what we all know to be true. It's too bad P99 doesn't have test dummies for DPS benchmarking.

I wish you did too. It would be much more productive than trolling, and everybody would learn something. I honestly wish you can prove me wrong if you are correct. I don't care who is right. I simply do not concede to trolling and "I am right, you are wrong" arguments. So far the data isn't really in the favor of Mages.

[Gloomlord]

I don't care who is right.

:rolleyes:

[PlsNoBan]

So far the data is garbage and not applicable to the question being asked so unfortunately you don't really have a good leg to stand on and you're in the position of trying to argue against common sense which requires greater than average proof which you haven't even come close to providing. Many many people have explained this to you and you ignore it and repeat the same 5 things over and over about how everyone is trolling and only you post data.etc but refuse to acknowledge your data is bad and isn't the data needed to prove the point you're trying to make. I can post a bunch of irrelevant data too but that doesn't prove anything so I choose not to do that. I wish you would do the same.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So far the data is garbage and not applicable to the question being asked so unfortunately you don't really have a good leg to stand on and you're in the position of trying to argue against common sense which requires greater than average proof which you haven't even come close to providing. Many many people have explained this to you and you ignore it and repeat the same 5 things over and over about how everyone is trolling and only you post data.etc but refuse to acknowledge your data is bad and isn't the data needed to prove the point you're trying to make. I can post a bunch of irrelevant data too but that doesn't prove anything so I choose not to do that. I wish you would do the same.

Claiming the data is garbage means nothing because you can't explain why that is.

I could do the same thing to you, and we wouldn't make any progress to discovering the truth.

Saying "your data is bad" without evidence is your "I am right, you are wrong" argument.

[PlsNoBan]

It's been explained why your data isn't relevant probably a dozen times now and you don't acknowledge it. Or if you do acknowledge it you just say dumb shit about how soloing is the same thing as DPSing in a fast killing group environment. Why bother trying to explain it again? Either go get data from a similar environment (2 charm pets. Chain pulling group) or shut up. Your solo data is trash and doesn't answer the question.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

It's been explained why your data isn't relevant probably a dozen times now and you don't acknowledge it. Or if you do acknowledge it you just say dumb shit about how soloing is the same thing as DPSing in a fast killing group environment. Why bother trying to explain it again?

It hasn't been explained at all. You simply don't like the data, so you keep trolling and saying it's bad.

You have no evidence to show why killing in a group invalidates data gathered while solo.

If your group does 100 DPS on average, a mob with 8000 HP dies in 80 seconds.

If you can do 100 DPS on average solo, a mob with 8000 HP also dies in 80 seconds.

You recover a fixed amount of mana per hour, both solo and grouped. The maximum amount of mana you have available per hour doesn't change.

[Gloomlord]

"Why would the DPS be different in a group" he says, unironically.

Do we even need to say more? The man is a complete fool.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

"Why would the DPS be different in a group" he says, unironically.

Do we even need to say more? The man is a complete fool.

You still haven't answered why you think the numbers change.

Please do not straw man me with saying "more members = more DPS". Nobody is suggesting otherwise.

You need to explain why 100 DPS solo differs from 100 DPS in a group.

You need to explain why spending 275 mana solo differs from spending 275 mana in a group.

[Gloomlord]

Are you serious right now?

Haven't we explained to you how shaman dots don't mean anything in a fast-killing exp group? The mob dies too quickly

Haven't we explained to you how the mage's pet will still contribute meaningful damage in a fast-killing exp group? They don't need mana to function after summoning them.

Haven't we explained to you the stupidity that is root rotting greens in a 4-6 man group that contains charms?

How many times do we have to say this?!?!

[Gloomlord]

https://c.tenor.com/iRRAJt3llV4AAAAC/its-time-to-stop-stop.gif

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Are you serious right now?

Haven't we explained to you how shaman dots don't mean anything in a fast-killing exp group? The mob dies too quickly

Haven't we explained to you how the mage's pet will still contribute meaningful damage in a fast-killing exp group? They don't need mana to function after summoning them.

Haven't we explained to you the stupidity that is root rotting greens in a 4-6 man group that contains charms?

How many times do we have to say this?!?!

This is why I say people don't read. You really don't even know what I have been talking about by asking these questions.

For your DoTs question, that only applies to chain pulling mobs that die in 30 seconds or so. Shamans can use their DoTs on any mobs that die in a minute or slower.

For your "Mages Pet" DPS point, Shamans can also contribute meaningful damage in a fast-killing exp group. You can check out the numbers I have posted many times, I posted videos too.

Your opinion on how groups should work is irrelevant. You cannot claim your group cares about DPS, but will not let their members DPS. If a group is killing mobs in 30 seconds, the Shaman can root/rot without any risk to the group. You simply do not like this point because you want Mages to look better.

[Gloomlord]

How can you guys tolerate this creature? I'm literally facepalming at the pure insanity of this man.

I've already answered those questions before, as has everyone else.

[Troxx]

We still have yet to see you join a fast paced group with your dog pet and log any modicum of respectable sustained dps on your shaman.

It’s sad you were too chicken-liver’d to try as hard in game as you blow-hard in this thread. I know you won’t and I’m pretty sure I know why: you will get data that doesn’t fit your narrative and would effectively prove yourself wrong.

https://c.tenor.com/X2zRv3xs3toAAAAd/time-to-nut-up-or-shut-up-get-ready.gif

[PlsNoBan]

Oh boy we're back to root rotting adds :rolleyes:

[DeathsSilkyMist]

How can you guys tolerate this creature? I'm literally facepalming at the pure insanity of this man.

I've already answered those questions before, as has everyone else.

The problem here is your hubris in assuming your "answers" are correct. You don't back up your points with data. You simply yell at me and hope that somehow convinces me you are correct.

The root/rot opinion is a perfect example. You are somehow absolutely sure that nobody can play the game in any other way than the way you prefer. It's just silly frankly. But I guess you need to keep piling on the constraints to make Mages look good.

[Troxx]

Oh boy we're back to root rotting adds :rolleyes:

That’s always what I want in shamans I group with. Root rot adds parallel to the actual mobs the rest of the group is fighting. Quintuple the risk for no actual gains. All so the shaman can still do less dps (actual vs functional) than a half decent mage.

And when it hits the fan the enchanters will love love LOVE not being able to mez something that has shaman epic clicks on it.

Shamans are not a group dps class.

Still waiting on DSM to join a fast group and show us what he can do.

[Gloomlord]

Guys: have you ever had a group where a shaman asked to root rot adds on the side of whatever else the group was doing?

No? Then I rest my case.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Guys: have you ever had a group where a shaman asked to root rot adds on the side of whatever else the group was doing?

No? Then I rest my case.

The reason why people don't do this is because most groups can hit the optimal DPS threshold for what they are fighting easily. It is not because people dislike root/rotting.

The reality is it is very easy to hit the optimal DPS threshold on P99 because most people are experienced players with gear that is above a mob's tuned average.

This is why bringing a Mage for only 7-30 DPS is generally silly. You will often times lose 7-30 DPS just by not gear checking players when making a public group.

[Troxx]

Guys: have you ever had a group where a shaman asked to root rot adds on the side of whatever else the group was doing?

No? Then I rest my case.

Never. Not once. Ever.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The reason why people don't do this is because most groups can hit the optimal DPS threshold for what they are fighting easily. It is not because people dislike root/rotting.

The reality is it is very easy to hit the optimal DPS threshold on P99 because most people are experienced players with gear that is above a mob's tuned average.

This is why bringing a Mage for only 7-30 DPS is generally silly. You will often times lose 7-30 DPS just by not gear checking players when making a public group.

[Gloomlord]

The reason why people don't do this is because most groups can hit the optimal DPS threshold for what they are fighting easily. It is not because people dislike root/rotting.

The reality is it is very easy to hit the optimal DPS threshold on P99 because most people are experienced players with gear that is above a mob's tuned average.

This is why bringing a Mage for only 7-30 DPS is generally silly. You will often times lose 7-30 DPS just by not gear checking players when making a public group.

https://i0.wp.com/jerz.setonhill.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/picard-facepalm.png?fit=479%2C473&ssl=1

[Troxx]

Lol at this joker still insisting shamans are only 7-30dps lower than a mage.

I’d be impressed if sustained over time in a fast moving group a shaman and it’s pet could beat only a level 60 hasted/buffed/mask’s backstabbing water pet chain casting 116 dd proc nukes with the mage otherwise afk and not nuking.

No more napkin math. Do it. Prove it.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Lol at this joker still insisting shamans are only 7-30dps lower than a mage

That is what your own data is showing:) You could provide more at any time.

[cyxthryth]

You still haven't answered why you think the numbers change.

You still haven't provided any relevant/requested data of your Shaman DPSing in a high level fast-paced killing DPS group.

Please do not straw man me with saying "more members = more DPS". Nobody is suggesting otherwise.

Nobody is requesting solo root rot information, yet that is all you seem willing (or able) to provide. Please do not straw man us with irrelevant data.

You need to explain why 100 DPS solo differs from 100 DPS in a group.

The problem is you have provided zero evidence of your Shaman DPSing in a group, you need to provide requested/relevant data/evidence.

You need to explain why spending 275 mana solo differs from spending 275 mana in a group.

What you seem to misunderstand (or perhaps you are [intentionally or otherwise] misconstruing your true understanding?) is that nobody is stating "275 mana solo differs from 275 mana in a group". Why does someone need to explain this to you, precisely? Please do not straw man us with irrelevant data.

[cyxthryth]

That is what your own data is showing:) You could provide more at any time.

You have misunderstood/misinterpreted and are continuing to ignore the data, as has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people. This really isn't hard hehe. :)

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You have misunderstood/misinterpreted and are continuing to ignore the data, as has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people. This really isn't hard hehe. :)

You could do your own math and show it, instead of copy/pasting nonsense.

The problem is every time other people try to do the math themselves, they do it wrong, and I prove that they did it wrong. Troxx still hasn't been able to counter the points I made earlier today.

[PlsNoBan]

Guys guys guys. Root soloing mobs is the same thing as killing mobs in a fast killing chain pulling group. Shaman dps is obviously amazing in groups. Mages are garbage. The post history and data couldn't possibly be clearer. DSM was right all along.

(lol)

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Trolling doesn't magically make the data change.

[PlsNoBan]

Trolling doesn't magically make the data change.

Correct. It's just as irrelevant before the trolling as it is after the trolling. This might be the first correct thing you've said in this thread! Congrats DSM you're making progress!

[Gloomlord]

Hark at the pot calling the kettle black.

[cyxthryth]

You could do your own math and show it, instead of copy/pasting nonsense.

Thank you for the reply! :)

I am not copy/pasting nonsense and I never did, despite your (repeated) claims and name-calling. The problem is you seem not to realize - or are seemingly misconstruing that you do realize it, if you do - that you claiming something does not make it true. It has to actually be true hehe. :)


The problem is every time other people try to do the math themselves, they do it wrong.

You have provided zero evidence that they have done it wrong, while providing irrelevant data/evidence of your Shaman root rotting mobs. The problem is you seem not to realize - or are seemingly misconstruing that you do realize it, if you do - that you claiming something does not make it true. It has to actually be true hehe. :)

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Correct. It's just as irrelevant before the trolling as it is after the trolling. This might be the first correct thing you've said in this thread! Congrats DSM you're making progress!

Incorrect. The data is still the same, regardless of your trolling.

[Troxx]

Trolling doesn't magically make the data change.

What data? You have thus far submitted nothing relevant.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

What data? You have thus far submitted nothing relevant.

My data is 100% relevant. Please explain how 100 DPS in a solo situation is different from 100 DPS in a group situation.

You have yet to explain why you think being in a group will change the data drastically. A mob with 8000 HP is dying in 80 seconds if you deal 100 DPS, regardless of whether it is solo DPS or group DPS.

[cyxthryth]

My data is 100% relevant.

Incorrect.

Please explain how 100 DPS in a solo situation is different from 100 DPS in a group situation.

Why are you requesting an explanation? Please provide relevant/requested data/evidence.

You have yet to explain why you think being in a group will change the data drastically. A mob with 8000 HP is dying in 80 seconds if you deal 100 DPS, regardless of whether it is solo DPS or group DPS.

You have yet to provide a reason that you require this explanation.

[PlsNoBan]

Incorrect. The data is still the same, regardless of your trolling.

We agree here DSM. The data doesn't change regardless of trolling or not trolling. It's still bad data that isn't relevant to the situation we're discussing. No amount of trolling or lack thereof will make your data relevant until you provide data under the proper conditions that apply to the situation being discussed. This is very easy. I'm glad we agree the data is still the same irrelevant data.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

My data is 100% relevant. Please explain how 100 DPS in a solo situation is different from 100 DPS in a group situation.

You have yet to explain why you think being in a group will change the data drastically. A mob with 8000 HP is dying in 80 seconds if you deal 100 DPS, regardless of whether it is solo DPS or group DPS.

[Gloomlord]

Because the shaman won't be able to enact that DPS in a group killing situation, you nincompoop.

[PlsNoBan]

Doesn't require an explanation it's very obvious to anyone not being purposely obtuse. Do you have no understanding of how testing is done? If you do all the math and physics calculations to determine the top speed of a car and someone asks what the top speed is in a different environment do you think they just go "Oh the data is the data its the same"? Different conditions change the result in a variety of ways that can't always be calculated.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You have nothing to back up that claim lol. A video game is not as complex as a real life physics. Such a bad comparison.

[PlsNoBan]

You have nothing to back up that claim lol. A video game is not as complex as a car crash. Such a bad comparison.

You're fucking helpless. Do you have someone that takes care of you IRL? I have no idea how you can possibly get through life with the thoughts that rattle around in your head. Have you done any computer programming before? I would guess no

[Gloomlord]

Love that stealth edit backfiring upon him...

[DeathsSilkyMist]

It doesn't change the facts. A car crash is even more complex hehe.

[PlsNoBan]

It doesn't change the facts. A car crash is even more complex hehe.

It's called an analogy DSM. You can google it if you don't understand what that word means.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The problem is if you want to include variables that lower your DPS, both the Shaman and Mage lose DPS.

[PlsNoBan]

The problem is if you want to include variables that lower your DPS, both the Shaman and Mage lose DPS.

Mage and Shaman deal damage in different ways. Outside variables will not necessarily affect them in identical ways. I can't believe this has to be explained. A mage and a shaman that are both completely oom will deal VASTLY different amounts of damage. Shaman dps drops to absolute shit. Mage pet still provides respectable damage with no mana whatsoever.

Edit: Excluding clickies in this hypothetical

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Because the shaman won't be able to enact that DPS in a group killing situation, you nincompoop.

You need to prove this, and you haven't so far.

[Gloomlord]

Just to reiterate what Pls is saying:

The data and math you make is irrelevant if it discounts other environments.

Even a child could figure this out!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Just to reiterate what Pls is saying:

The data and math you make is irrelevant if it discounts other environments.

Even a child could figure this out!

The problem is you are overestimating the effects of grouping. If a group is DPSing 20% slower due to pull speeds, that affects both the Shaman and Mage equally. You need to define the situations in which you think that may not be the case.

[PlsNoBan]

Just to reiterate what Pls is saying:

The data and math you make is irrelevant if it discounts other environments.

Even a child could figure this out!

It's so fucking frustrating trying to converse with (I assume an adult?) that doesn't seem to grasp the most fucking basic of concepts and so stubbornly insists they are correct when they are VERY CLEARLY making a flawed argument at best.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

The problem is you are overestimating the effects of grouping. If a group is DPSing 20% slower due to pull speeds, that affects both the Shaman and Mage equally. You need to define the situations in which you think that may not be the case.

[PlsNoBan]

Maybe DSM isn't an adult. I guess we could've been arguing with a child this whole time. That would explain a lot.

[cyxthryth]

A mob with 8000 HP is dying in 80 seconds if you deal 100 DPS, regardless of whether it is solo DPS or group DPS.

You have stated this, but you have not proven it. Just because you (repeatedly) state something doesn't make it true. It has to actually be true hehe. :)

[cyxthryth]

The problem is you are overestimating the effects of grouping.

You have provided zero evidence that others are overestimating the effects of grouping. The problem is you are underestimating the effects of grouping. I present this thread (and specifically the posts that you have ignored, misunderstood, or [intentionally or otherwise] misconstrued your true understanding of) as evidence that this has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple people.

If a group is DPSing 20% slower due to pull speeds, that affects both the Shaman and Mage equally.

You have provided zero evidence that pull speeds affect both a Shaman and Mage equally.


You need to define the situations in which you think that may not be the case.

You need to define the situations in which you think that may be the case. This really isn't hard hehe. :)

[PlsNoBan]

Do you know what the term "burden of proof" means DSM? As I understand it (please correct me if I'm wrong) the burden of proof generally lies with the person making a claim. The commonly accepted stance is that mages do considerably more damage than shamans in groups. DSM you are making a claim that is opposite of the vast majority of players belief. You may in fact be correct. However, the burden of proof lies solely with you. Your "proof" of your claim revolves around data you gathered from a solo encounter and is not applicable to the question at hand. If you wish to go gather some data under similar conditions as what is being discussed here then come back and present it. We could all take a look for ourselves and evaluate it and determine if you have a point or not. As it stands you have made an outlandish claim and provided questionable at best evidence for it. You have stubbornly repeated the same handful of talking points probably close to 700? times now. It wasn't convincing then and it isn't convincing now. If you're truly interested in making your case and having an honest discussion then it falls on your shoulders to provide actual evidence. No more of this napkin math theoretical bullshit. That's not how real testing works. Go get some real evidence and come talk to us. Maybe you'll be right and we'll all have to apologize and admit defeat. I'm guessing that's not going to be the case and I think a HUGE part of the reason you're unwilling to gather that data is because you know it won't go in your favor. But I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt and take an honest look at data that is relevant to the discussion.

Until then you're doing nothing but feeding trolls and copy pasting nonsense. You're basically just a troll right now.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I do understand burden of proof just fine. You are the one making the claim that my data is invalid because solo and group DPS differ significantly. I am not making that claim at all. It is up to you to prove solo DPS and group DPS differ to the point where my data is invalid.

You also need to provide evidence to support your claim my math is not applicable to the real game, which is why you refer to it as "napkin math". I am not sure how you can even do that. If you regenerate 20 mana per tick (6 seconds), you factually will recieve 200 mana per minute, unless you stand up or reach maximum mana. I am not sure where the room for doubt is there.

I have provided more data than all the posters combined. It is not my responsibility to gather your data too lol.

[cyxthryth]

You are the one making the claim that my data is invalid because solo and group DPS differ significantly.

I present the above quote as evidence that DSM continues to misinterpret/misunderstand the posts of his peers, or is [intentionally or otherwise] misconstruing his understanding.

Your data is invalid because it is irrelevant, and this has already been stated to you multiple times by multiple people. Ignoring the facts will not make them go away hehe. :) I am also not sure why your posts would indicate that you think claiming that others have made claims (whether true or not) somehow changes the irrefutable fact that the only data you have provided is not relevant to the context of this discussion and to the challenge Troxx presented to you in it (as has been explained to you multiple times by multiple posters).

I am not making that claim at all. It is up to you to prove solo DPS and group DPS differ to the point where my data is invalid.

The problem is you seem to think that "others need to prove solo DPS and group DPS differ to the point where your data is invalid", when in reality the data/evidence that you have thus far provided is simply irrelevant (read: not the requested/relevant data) for the reasons already provided (this thread and the posts in it are evidence, particularly the posts you have ignored, misunderstood or [intentionally or otherwise[ misconstrued your true understanding of), and it is simply up to you to provide relevant/requested data.

I have provided more data than all the posters combined.

You have not provided the relevant/requested data. Irrelevant data (such as data pertaining to the DPS of a Shaman root-rotting mobs for example) might be meaningful to you, and you might think it has value/relevance in the context of this discussion, but unfortunately (for you) it is not meaningful to this discussion or to the other posters engaged in this discussion (as has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple posters).

It is not my responsibility to gather your data too lol.

You have provided zero evidence that others have requested you to "gather their data for them", so I am not sure what point you think you're making or why you seemingly believe that this straw man you've built changes the facts (such as that you have not provided the relevant/requested information) - it doesn't.

[PlsNoBan]

I do understand burden of proof just fine

It seems you do not. You're making a claim that everyone thus far unanimously disagrees with and goes against what is generally considered common sense. It's not up to US to prove the default stance. That's like if both of us walked outside and looked up and you said the sky is red and I disagreed and said it's blue. Would it then be my burden of proof to prove it's blue or yours to prove it's red? The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. You attempted to do so but fell short of adequate proof with data that was acquired under different conditions than the ones being discussed. You may feel like the conditions don't matter and the data will be the same but I respectfully disagree and so does everyone else thus far. You can't just claim it'll be the same you have to prove it and you have not done so.

[PlsNoBan]

I'm not a professional but I do a fair bit of programming. I can assure you variables matter and no matter how many times you go over something in your head sometimes things just don't play out the way you think they will. This is why testing is important and you do not test for what happens under a specific condition by doing something different and assuming it'll be the same. Very often it will not and for reasons you can't or didn't think about ahead of time.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

It seems you do not. You're making a claim that everyone thus far unanimously disagrees with and goes against what is generally considered common sense. It's not up to US to prove the default stance. That's like if both of us walked outside and looked up and you said the sky is red and I disagreed and said it's blue. Would it then be my burden of proof to prove it's blue or yours to prove it's red? The burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. You attempted to do so but fell short of adequate proof with data that was acquired under different conditions than the ones being discussed. You may feel like the conditions don't matter and the data will be the same but I respectfully disagree and so does everyone else thus far. You can't just claim it'll be the same you have to prove it and you have not done so.

No. You do not understand.

The debate is about Shaman DPS vs. Mage DPS. Both sides made a claim about DPS, and both sides provided evidence backing up the claim. After the data was reviewed, a new claim was made that my data is invalid.

That new claim needs evidence, or it remains an unfounded claim. You do not get to just keep claiming "your evidence is wrong" without proof. Otherwise it doesn't matter how much data the other side provides, you can just keep making that argument indefinitely.

If you say "your photo was photoshopped!", it is not up to the person who provided the photo to prove it is genuine. That is trying to prove a negative. It is up to the side making the claim that "the photo is photoshopped" to provide evidence showing this is the case.

[PlsNoBan]

No. You do not understand.

The debate is about Shaman DPS vs. Mage DPS. Both sides made a claim about DPS, and both sides provided evidence backing up the claim. After the data was reviewed, a new claim was made that my data is invalid.

That new claim needs evidence, or it remains an unfounded claim. You do not get to just keep claiming "your evidence is wrong" without proof. Otherwise it doesn't matter how much data the other side provides, you can just keep making that argument indefinitely.

If you say "your photo was photoshopped!", it is not up to the person who provided the photo to prove it is genuine. That is trying to prove a negative. It is up to the side making the claim that "the photo is photoshopped" to provide evidence showing this is the case.

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

[PlsNoBan]

If you're going to make a ridiculous outlandish claim then do it. But be prepared to provide evidence under similar conditions to the topic at hand. Otherwise people can (and should) dismiss your claims as bullshit.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

I explained burden of proof correctly. I would urge you to read it again more carefully. You are asking me to prove a negative by asking me to provide evidence that my evidence is valid lol. You need to provide evidence as to why my evidence is invalid. So far you haven't shown why group DPS will differ significantly.

[cyxthryth]

No. You do not understand.

No. You seemingly continue to ignore irrefutable facts, and/or you seemingly misunderstand or (intentionally or otherwise) are misconstruing your true understanding.

The debate is about Shaman DPS vs. Mage DPS.

In a high level, fast-paced killing DPS group hehe. This really isn't hard. :)

Both sides made a claim about DPS, and both sides provided evidence backing up the claim.

Your data is invalid because it is irrelevant, and this has already been stated to you multiple times by multiple people. Ignoring the facts will not make them go away hehe. I am also not sure why your posts would indicate that you think claiming that others have made claims (whether true or not) somehow changes the irrefutable fact that the only data you have provided is not relevant to the context of this discussion and to the challenge Troxx presented to you in it (as has been explained to you multiple times by multiple posters).


After the data was reviewed, a new claim was made that my data is invalid.

Your data is invalid because it is irrelevant, and this has already been stated to you multiple times by multiple people. Ignoring the facts will not make them go away hehe. I am also not sure why your posts would indicate that you think claiming that others have made claims (whether true or not) somehow changes the irrefutable fact that the only data you have provided is not relevant to the context of this discussion and to the challenge Troxx presented to you in it (as has been explained to you multiple times by multiple posters).

That new claim needs evidence, or it remains an unfounded claim.

No. You seemingly continue to ignore irrefutable facts, and/or you seemingly misunderstand or (intentionally or otherwise) are misconstruing your true understanding.

You do not get to just keep claiming "your evidence is wrong" without proof. Otherwise it doesn't matter how much data the other side provides, you can just keep making that argument indefinitely.

No. You seemingly continue to ignore irrefutable facts, and/or you seemingly misunderstand or (intentionally or otherwise) are misconstruing your true understanding. You have simply provided irrelevant data as has been explained to you multiple times by multiple posters. No further evidence is required - the posts are self-evident hehe. :)

If you say "your photo was photoshopped!", it is not up to the person who provided the photo to prove it is genuine. That is trying to prove a negative. It is up to the side making the claim that "the photo is photoshopped" to provide evidence showing this is the case.

No. You seemingly continue to ignore irrefutable facts, and/or you seemingly misunderstand or (intentionally or otherwise) are misconstruing your true understanding. You have provided irrelevant data as has been explained to you multiple times by multiple posters.

The post history is clear and viewable by all hehe. :)

[PlsNoBan]

You need to provide evidence as to why my evidence is invalid.

This has been provided to you many times now. If you teleported to a different dimension where the sky was red and took a picture then came back and said "Here look at my evidence" it doesn't make it valid evidence for the claim that you're making. You claimed the sky was red in this dimension. Your claim is about shaman dps in a fast killing chain pulling group with 2+ charm pets. Your evidence is you soloing a mob. How the jesus fuck can you not understand this?

[Gloomlord]

https://i.imgflip.com/1u5zeo.gif

Is it deliberate?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

This has been provided to you many times now. If you teleported to a different dimension where the sky was red and took a picture then came back and said "Here look at my evidence" it doesn't make it valid evidence for the claim that you're making. You claimed the sky was red in this dimension. Your claim is about shaman dps in a fast killing chain pulling group with 2+ charm pets. Your evidence is you soloing a mob. How the jesus fuck can you not understand this?

If I do 50 DPS solo, and a group of 2x Enchanters does 170 DPS with two pets, then the total DPS of the group becomes 170 + 50 = 220 DPS. It is really that simple. The formulas for DPS do not change when you group.

It is up to you to prove why there are a bunch of random factors that will change the DPS for a Shaman specifically in the group, but would not affect the Mage in the same way.

You mentioned both players being OOM earlier, but you haven't provided the situation in which a Shaman would go OOM. Remember, a Torpor Shaman can recover mana faster.

[PlsNoBan]

Thank god you aren't in the software field. Who needs to run tests? I can just predict the outcomes of all possible conditions in my head. What could possibly go wrong?

[PlsNoBan]

You mentioned both players being OOM earlier, but you haven't provided the situation in which a Shaman would go OOM. Remember, a Torpor Shaman can recover mana faster.

A torpor shaman cannot DPS while they regain mana aside from their measly pet dps. A mage provides fairly substantial dps while sitting down (and possibly afk or semi afk)

This is just one of MANY possible conditions your data does not account for

[cyxthryth]

If I do 50 DPS solo, and a group of 2x Enchanters does 170 DPS with two pets, then the total DPS of the group becomes 170 + 50 = 220 DPS. It is really that simple. The formulas for DPS do not change when you group.

No. The problem is you seem to think we are discussing DPS formulas for some reason. We are not. :)

It is up to you to prove why there are a bunch of random factors that will change the DPS for a Shaman specifically in the group, but would not affect the Mage in the same way.

No. You seemingly continue to ignore irrefutable facts, and/or you seemingly misunderstand or (intentionally or otherwise) are misconstruing your true understanding. You have simply provided irrelevant data as has been explained to you multiple times by multiple posters. No further evidence is required - the posts are self-evident hehe. :)

You mentioned both players being OOM earlier, but you haven't provided the situation in which a Shaman would go OOM. Remember, a Torpor Shaman can recover mana faster.

Regardless of the reason for being OOM, it has been factually stated to you multiple times by multiple posters that a Mage's pet continues to deal its portion of the Mage's DPS when OOM, and you have seemingly ignored this irrefutable fact among countless others. I wonder why that might be hehe. :)

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Thank god you aren't in the software field. Who needs to run tests? I can just predict the outcomes of all possible conditions in my head. What could possibly go wrong?

Lol this is incorrect. I did run tests. I provided two videos, with logs that can be cross referenced to the videos. It shows the variability that occurs during combat. You are the one making the claim those tests are somehow invalid, and thus you need to provide evidence showing why that is.

So far you haven't provided anything other than the vague notion being in a group would drastically change the outcomes.

[PlsNoBan]

Dude you are fucking braindead. I honestly don't even know what to say anymore.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Dude you are fucking braindead. I honestly don't even know what to say anymore.

You haven't been able to say anything of note for 200+ posts now. It isn't anything new.

[cyxthryth]

Lol this is incorrect. I did run tests. I provided two videos, with logs that can be cross referenced to the videos. It shows the variability that occurs during combat. You are the one making the claim those tests are somehow invalid, and thus you need to provide evidence showing why that is.

So far you haven't provided anything other than the vague notion being in a group would drastically change the outcomes.

The problem is your posts would seem to imply that you think certain irrefutable facts (which have been stated to you by mulitple posters, multiple times) are simply vague notions. They are not hehe. :) This really isn't hard.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Let me give you a simple example as to why your vague ideas aren't something we can easily quantify.

You can say a Shaman will go OOM more often, and thus have lower DPS. You haven't shown the situations where it would occur, but let's take it at face value.

I could say a Mage pet keeps dying because of charm breaks, and thus the Mage has lower DPS. I haven't shown the situations where it would occur, but let's take it at face value.

Both situations would drastically alter DPS, but it's difficult to quantify how often one would happen over the other. If you want to go down that route, both sides would need to provide hours of data that span multiple groups. Neither side has provided that data yet, and I doubt they will because it is too much work to do.

[cyxthryth]

Let me give you a simple example as to why your vague ideas aren't something we can easily quantify.

You can say a Shaman will go OOM more often, and thus have lower DPS. You haven't shown the situations where it would occur, but let's take it at face value.

I could say a Mage pet keeps dying because of charm breaks, and thus the Mage has lower DPS. I haven't shown the situations where it would occur, but let's take it at face value.

Both situations would drastically alter DPS, but it's difficult to quantify how often one would happen over the other. If you want to go down that route, both sides would need to provide hours of data that span multiple groups. Neither side has provided that data yet, and I doubt they will because it is too much work to do.

We can say the sky is red too. Irrelevant claims or irrelevant hypotheticals - whether true or not - are still irrelevant. The problem is you seem to think you're making a point, but you are not hehe. This really isn't hard. :)

[Gloomlord]

When Green merges with Blue eventually, I'm going to hate being on the same server with this idiot.

[Ripqozko]

When Green merges with Blue eventually, I'm going to hate being on the same server with this idiot.

we are hoping he goes to green and it never merges

[DeathsSilkyMist]

When Green merges with Blue eventually, I'm going to hate being on the same server with this idiot.

That says more about you than it does about me. If you are willing to carry a grudge against someone simply because they didn't agree with you, that is pretty silly, especially since this is just a game. It honestly doesn't matter if I am right or wrong, that is just a weird thing to say. It isn't like you have the high ground either.

I don't hold grudges against anyone here, and would gladly group with them.

[PlsNoBan]

Let me give you a simple example as to why your vague ideas aren't something we can easily quantify.

You can say a Shaman will go OOM more often, and thus have lower DPS. You haven't shown the situations where it would occur, but let's take it at face value.

I could say a Mage pet keeps dying because of charm breaks, and thus the Mage has lower DPS. I haven't shown the situations where it would occur, but let's take it at face value.

Both situations would drastically alter DPS, but it's difficult to quantify how often one would happen over the other. If you want to go down that route, both sides would need to provide hours of data that span multiple groups. Neither side has provided that data yet, and I doubt they will because it is too much work to do.

https://i.imgur.com/6NEAtxa.gif

[cyxthryth]

That says more about you than it does about me. If you are willing to carry a grudge against someone simply because they didn't agree with you, that is pretty silly, especially since this is just a game.

Your assertion/implication that Gloomlord is "willing to carry a grudge against [you; DSM] simply because they didn't agree with you" is simply yet another example of you misunderstanding or (intentionally or otherwise) misconstruing your understanding of another poster's post(s) hehe. :)

The (irrefutable) fact which your continued attempts have consistently failed to refute is that you did NOT "simply disagree" with the other posters (such as Gloomlord, Troxx, PlsNoBan & myself), you in (irrefutable) fact carried on for 700+ posts of copy/pasting irrelevant math, making irrelevant statements & suggesting irrelevant hypotheticals and making unrealistic demands of other posters while consistently ignoring irrefutable facts (from multiple posters) and dodging simple questions directed toward you (from multiple posters) and repeatedly calling other posters names & making accusations of those others "trolling". You have also still not provided the relevant/requested data/evidence of your Shaman's DPS performance in a high level fast-paced killing DPS group. Why might that be?

I present this entire thread as evidence, and you have provided no counter-evidence.

[Knuckle]

4 druids because you can forage a stack of food very quickly and ensure survival in the harshest weathers.

[Karanis]

I could also play in a group for hours and cherry pick the best data.

Please for the love of god do this. At least then we actually get data/video of you in a group dpsing for an extended period, rather than 2 minute solo videos.

[Gloomlord]

Please for the love of god do this. At least then we actually get data/video of you in a group dpsing for an extended period, rather than 2 minute solo videos.

But he won't, because then we'd be proven right.

We can't have that, can we?!

[DeathsSilkyMist]

But he won't, because then we'd be proven right.

We can't have that, can we?!

l have already provided sufficient evidence. It is up to you to prove my evidence is invalid, which you have yet to do.

Simply claiming my evidence is invalid because you don't like it is not a valid argument.

[Karanis]

18659

[Ripqozko]

im gonna go on a wild guess and say that DSM is single

[PlsNoBan]

l have already provided sufficient evidence.


https://i.imgur.com/zJZXGwH.gif

[DeathsSilkyMist]

It's your burden of proof to show my evidence isn't sufficient. You are making the claim that my evidence is invalid.

I am sorry you are unable to do so.

[Toxigen]

jesus titty fuckin christ

[cyxthryth]

It's your burden of proof to show my evidence isn't sufficient. You are making the claim that my evidence is invalid.

I am sorry you are unable to do so.

No. You seemingly continue to ignore irrefutable facts, and/or you seemingly misunderstand or (intentionally or otherwise) are misconstruing your true understanding. You have provided irrelevant data as has been explained to you multiple times by multiple posters.

That apology is just as irrelevant as your root rotting data.

[PlsNoBan]

It's your burden of proof to show my evidence isn't sufficient. You are making the claim that my evidence is invalid.

I am sorry you are unable to do so.

Your evidence for DPS under conditions A was gathered under conditions B. Evidence is not sufficient for conditions A. This is proof by any sane definition.

Does it really not set off any red flags in your head that this entire thread nobody agrees with you and almost everyone can't stop saying how dumb you're acting? I kinda wish I had that much confidence in myself. If 15 people were calling me a retard and nobody was on my side I'd probably give up. Ya know cause like... I'd think its possible I'm wrong?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Your evidence for DPS under conditions A was gathered under conditions B. Evidence is not sufficient for conditions A.

Does it really not set off any red flags in your head that this entire thread nobody agrees with you and almost everyone can't stop saying how dumb you're acting? I kinda wish I had that much confidence in myself. If 15 people were calling me a retard and nobody was on my side I'd probably give up.

No red flags are set off when the people who are posting have accumulated 700+ posts that are just insults and memes. I am not sure how that doesn't qualify as dumb. If you had confidence in your point of view, you wouldn't need to resort to that. You clearly lack the confidence to provide evidence or simply move on. The math is really simple, and nobody has been able to provide alternate calculations that weren't wrong.

What you don't understand is once you are in a group setting, there are too many variables out of your control that can skew the data (which is a favored phrase around here). If your Enchanters suck and your Mage pet keeps dying, your Mage's DPS will suffer. That doesn't mean Mage DPS is actually that low. You just had bad luck with a group. Getting good group data that everybody can agree upon is tough. I can guarantee you even if I did provide what you are asking for, you would just say it isn't good enough. That is currently what you do with everything I provide anyway.

The videos I presented are the best way to parse DPS. A Mage could copy what I did in my videos and we would be able to see the cleanest data we can get, which would provide the DPS of the class, NOT the player. Again, it's too difficult to try and reproduce identical variables across two different groups to get clean data. Otherwise the excuse could always be "my DPS was low because of my group", and you wouldn't be able to disprove that theory.

[Ripqozko]

7 pages to go, we can do it fellas

[PlsNoBan]

The math is really simple


I agree

You + Data = Wrong

Really simple!

[Gloomlord]

That says more about you than it does about me. If you are willing to carry a grudge against someone simply because they didn't agree with you, that is pretty silly, especially since this is just a game. It honestly doesn't matter if I am right or wrong, that is just a weird thing to say. It isn't like you have the high ground either.

I don't hold grudges against anyone here, and would gladly group with them.

And yet you won't gladly concede your point, you hypocrite.

[Gustoo]

Best group is 4 rogues. Kill one mob, talk about it at local bar for a while. Get a comission to kill another mob. Rinse and repeat. By the time you’re level 60 you’ll be running the thieves guild.

[cyxthryth]

No red flags are set off when the people who are posting have accumulated 700+ posts that are just insults and memes.

You have claimed that "the people [other than you] who are posting have accumulated 700+ posts that are just insults and memes", but you stating that (repeatedly) does not make it true. It has to actually be true hehe. :)

In (irrefutable) fact several of us have been here simply challenging your irrelevant data, irrelevant hypotheticals and unrealistic demands repeatedly, however, you seemingly continue to ignore irrefutable facts, and/or you seemingly misunderstand or (intentionally or otherwise) are misconstruing your true understanding. You have provided irrelevant data as has been explained to you multiple times by multiple posters. This really isn't hard hehe. :)

I am not sure how that doesn't qualify as dumb.

It certainly does qualify as dumb that you alone have provided irrelevant data in ~700+ posts and continue to not understand (or [intentionally or otherwise] continue to misconstrue your understanding of) that irrefutable fact.

If you had confidence in your point of view, you wouldn't need to resort to that. You clearly lack the confidence to provide evidence or simply move on. The math is really simple, and nobody has been able to provide alternate calculations that weren't wrong.

No. What you seemingly don't understand (or are [intentionally or otherwise] misconstruing your true understanding of) is that in the above quoted post you are simply hypocritically projecting what YOU yourself do upon those you are (very selectively :)) replying to; and this (among many other) irrefutable fact(s) has been pointed out to you multiple times, by multiple posters, and the above quote is just one of many examples of you displaying such behavior. I present the posts in this thread as evidence of this irrefutable fact, and you have not provided (and cannot provide) any counter-evidence. The post history speaks for itself, and is visible to all.

We have confidence in our factually correct point of view, so we can simply state irrefutable facts in this thread - which you cannot refute - or we can pose simple questions to you - which you seemingly cannot or will not answer. :) We have continued to do this, and you seemingly continue to ignore irrefutable facts, and/or you seemingly misunderstand or (intentionally or otherwise) are misconstruing your true understanding.

In direct response to this "The math is really simple, and nobody has been able to provide alternate calculations that weren't wrong".:

No. The math you provided is really simply irrelevant, for reasons already explained to you multiple times by multiple posters. I present the posts in this thread (but especially the ones you have ignored, misunderstood, or [intentionally or otherwise] misconstrued your understanding of) as evidence of this irrefutable fact.

Again, your data is, was, and continues to be invalid simply because it is irrelevant, this simple irrefutable fact has already been stated to you multiple times by multiple people and explained multiple times by mulitple people. Ignoring the facts will not make them go away hehe. :)

What you don't understand is once you are in a group setting, there are too many variables out of your control that can skew the data (which is a favored phrase around here). If your Enchanters suck and your Mage pet keeps dying, your Mage's DPS will suffer. That doesn't mean Mage DPS is actually that low. You just had bad luck with a group. Getting good group data that everybody can agree upon is tough. I can guarantee you even if I did provide what you are asking for, you would just say it isn't good enough. That is currently what you do with everything I provide anyway.

No. The problem is that your post quoted above would seemingly indicate that you believe that the rest of us are not aware of these variables, when, in irrefutable fact (which - again - you cannot refute) these very same variables (among other examples) are what others have (repeatedly) attempted to point out to you in previous posts are reasons that your Shaman solo root rotting data (which you have copy/paste repeated ad nauseum) is not, and cannot be, an accurate representation of what would be occurring / how much DPS you would be doing in an actual high level fast-paced killing DPS group setting; again, this is an irrefutable fact, which you have (intentionally or otherwise) now finally acknowledged via the above quote hehe. :)

The videos I presented of my Shaman solo root rotting mobs are the best way to parse DPS of my Shaman solo root rotting mobs.

Fixed that for you. :) Unfortunately, a Shaman solo root rotting mobs is irrelevant to this discussion, as I and many other posters have already pointed out to you multiple times.

A Mage could copy what I did in my videos and we would be able to see the cleanest data we can get, which would provide the DPS of the class, NOT the player.

You could copy what Troxx did, or you could have accepted any of the multiple requests requested of you to provide data of your Shaman DPSing in a high level fast-paced killing DFPS group... but you did not.

Players, including each individual groupmate when grouped, are variables themselves and/or each acts as a sort of source of multiple additional variables as your post has admitted, and since botting/automated play is against the rules of Project 1999, it makes no sense to remove players from the equation. This is a game after all DSM, being played by players. This game, and the already-laid-out context of this discussion (Shaman vs. Mage in a high level fast-paced killing DPS group) is not a perfectly executed simulation, and such an example would be irrelevant. It is simply asinine of you to imply that presumed/calculated/napkin-mathed-assumptions of what "classes NOT players" are hypothetically capable of are or somehow could be valuable/relevant to this discussion, which is about real life, and not a perfectly executed simulation, which would be against the rules anyway hehe. :)


Again, it's too difficult to try and reproduce identical variables across two different groups to get clean data. Otherwise the excuse could always be "my DPS was low because of my group", and you wouldn't be able to disprove that theory.

You have provided zero evidence that anybody has requested that you produce identical variables, and you are the only one bringing up "clean data". What WAS factually requested of you by Troxx and any/all other posters is visible in the posts of this thread. You cannot refute these irrefutable facts, and it is not everybody else's fault if you have ignored or misunderstood those posts or are (intentionally or otherwise) misconstruing your true understanding.

[Troxx]

Any necromancer worth their salt knows there is a big difference in potential dps vs functional dps in a fast moving group. We (necros) are kings of dots and massive mana regen passively sitting on our asses.

DSM equating solo root dot dps to what is capable in a fast moving group? Lol no.

Necros can pet + nuke in fast groups better than shamans .. and fall behind mages unless necros are charming.

[Troxx]

Mages are top tier group dps.

Necros are fairly ok group dps if they can't charm.

Shamans are lol no.

I have all 3 classes at level 60 with full spell kits.

[Troxx]

I am legit embarrassed I have to point this out.

[Troxx]

We still have yet to see you join a fast paced group with your dog pet and log any modicum of respectable sustained dps on your shaman.

It’s sad you were too chicken-liver’d to try as hard in game as you blow-hard in this thread. I know you won’t and I’m pretty sure I know why: you will get data that doesn’t fit your narrative and would effectively prove yourself wrong.

https://c.tenor.com/X2zRv3xs3toAAAAd/time-to-nut-up-or-shut-up-get-ready.gif

[Troxx]

5 more pages! We can do it unless this salty autistic bitch stops posting.

Remember us on page 73 banking on 100?

We now are closing in on 200 pages and nothing new has been said.

[Troxx]

https://c.tenor.com/xTLmstyFRzEAAAAC/autism-letters.gif

[Raj]

Best group is 4 rogues. Kill one mob, talk about it at local bar for a while. Get a comission to kill another mob. Rinse and repeat. By the time you’re level 60 you’ll be running the thieves guild.

[Troxx]

Ok i just spent a few hours on my 60 shaman doing stuff.

Time spent casting Canni IV and torpor was most of my time

Solo capability = great

Effective dps in a group = barely there

DSM prove us wrong. Do the foot work. Prove me wrong.

Want "data"? Provide it

[Toxigen]

love that woody gif

[PlsNoBan]

I bet I can guess what DSM is gonna say

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Ok i just spent a few hours on my 60 shaman doing stuff.

Time spent casting Canni IV and torpor was most of my time

Solo capability = great

Effective dps in a group = barely there

DSM prove us wrong. Do the foot work. Prove me wrong.

Want "data"? Provide it

I already provided the videos. Please use your Mage to make a similar video so we can see the DPS.

https://youtu.be/9-g8Ywibztg

https://youtu.be/5XwiGKTuu2E

The only person who has yet to provide proper data is yourself.

And yet you won't gladly concede your point, you hypocrite.

Why would I concede when the data supports my point? Troxx can provide proper DPS data any time. So far he hasn't, because he knows it won't change.

[cyxthryth]

I already provided the videos.

No. What you have thus far provided is data/video/napkin math of your Shaman solo, which is wholly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. This has been pointed out to you multiple times by multiple posters. Ignoring the irrefutable facts does not refute them or make them go away hehe. :)

Please use your Mage to make a similar video so we can see the DPS.

https://youtu.be/9-g8Ywibztg

https://youtu.be/5XwiGKTuu2E

No. Videos/data of a Mage soloing mobs would be just as irrelevant to the discussion at hand as the (completely irrelevant) videos/data of your Shaman soloing mobs hehe. :) This really isn't hard.

The only person who has yet to provide proper data is yourself.

No. You have provided zero evidence that Troxx has yet to provide proper data.

[Karanis]

https://youtu.be/1jp9puUq4SE

[PlsNoBan]

I bet I can guess what DSM is gonna say
I already provided the videos. Please use your Mage to make a similar video so we can see the DPS.

https://youtu.be/9-g8Ywibztg

https://youtu.be/5XwiGKTuu2E

The only person who has yet to provide proper data is yourself.



Why would I concede when the data supports my point? Troxx can provide proper DPS data any time. So far he hasn't, because he knows it won't change.

https://i.imgur.com/54f2ucE.gif

[PlsNoBan]

I have never in my life witnessed someone cling so strongly to an obviously wrong opinion with garbage arguments to support it before. It's wild to watch. Every time people point out how bad his reasoning is and he doubles down without saying anything new it continues to shock me. I don't know why it shocks me anymore. I guess I just expect people to have some semblance of reason. Silly me.

[PlsNoBan]

I wonder if I log on a 60 mage on a TLP and post a bunch of parses from that if it'll convince DSM. Apparently we can gather data under completely different conditions and it translates 1:1 to the conditions we're discussing. Why wouldn't this be the same?

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I have never in my life witnessed someone cling so strongly to an obviously wrong opinion with garbage arguments to support it before. It's wild to watch. Every time people point out how bad his reasoning is and he doubles down without saying anything new it continues to shock me. I don't know why it shocks me anymore. I guess I just expect people to have some semblance of reason. Silly me.

That is yourself. The only thing you can do is keep claiming my data is bad, but you haven't provided any evidence for the claim. You have provided hundreds of insult/meme posts though.

[PlsNoBan]

That is yourself. The only thing you can do is keep claiming my data is bad, but you haven't provided any evidence for the claim. You have provided hundreds of insult/meme posts though.

I'll get some parses from a 60 mage on a TLP and provide data for you. We've established data gathered under different conditions is valid for some reason. Give me a day or two. At work and can't login atm.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I'll get some parses from a 60 mage on a TLP and provide data for you. We've established data gathered under different conditions are valid. Give me a day or two. At work and can't login atm.

Thanks for letting us know ahead of time that the data you are going to provide is useless. TLP is not P99.

[PlsNoBan]

Thanks for letting us know ahead of time that the data you are going to provide is useless. TLP is on P99.

Oh data that was gathered under different conditions than the topic of discussion is useless? That's weird... It's almost like you've said the opposite like 700 times?

[Jimjam]

Go outside and watch a sunset guys.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Oh data that was gathered under different conditions than the topic of discussion is useless? That's weird... It's almost like you've said the opposite like 700 times?

Its not different conditions, DPS on P99 is the same in groups and solo. Mob stats do not change, and you haven't provided evidence to prove my data would change in a group.

[cyxthryth]

Its not different conditions, DPS on P99 is the same in groups and solo. Mob stats do not change, and you haven't provided evidence to prove my data would change in a group.

No. I present the above quoted post as evidence that you continue to misunderstand or are (intentionally or otherwise) misconstruing your level of understanding.

What you don't understand is once you are in a group setting, there are too many variables out of your control that can skew the data (which is a favored phrase around here). If your Enchanters suck and your Mage pet keeps dying, your Mage's DPS will suffer. That doesn't mean Mage DPS is actually that low. You just had bad luck with a group. Getting good group data that everybody can agree upon is tough. I can guarantee you even if I did provide what you are asking for, you would just say it isn't good enough. That is currently what you do with everything I provide anyway.

I present the above quoted post as evidence that you are in (irrefutable) fact fully aware that there are variables which would effect your Shaman's DPS ("skew the data") if you were in a group with other players. Again, this is an irrefutable fact, which you cannot refute hehe. :) This really isn't hard.

Thank you for providing evidence that you are in (irrefutable) fact fully aware that your post/statement/claim that "DPS on P99 is the same in groups and solo" is in (irrefutable) fact false. :)

[PlsNoBan]

Its not different conditions, DPS on P99 is the same in groups and solo. Mob stats do not change, and you haven't provided evidence to prove my data would change in a group.

P99 and TLP are both EverQuest. The conditions are totally the same. My data is completely valid and you have not provided evidence that it isn't.

(do you see how dumb this sounds?)

[DeathsSilkyMist]

P99 and TLP are both EverQuest. The conditions are totally the same. My data is completely valid and you have not provided evidence that it isn't.

(do you see how dumb this sounds?)

Yes it is dumb because they aren't the same lol. Way to prove an obvious point.

You haven't proven my data is on the same level though, and you cant.

[cyxthryth]

Yes it is dumb because they aren't the same lol. Way to prove an obvious point.

I present the above quoted post as evidence that you continue to misunderstand or are (intentionally or otherwise) misconstruing your level of understanding.

You haven't proven my data is on the same level though, and you cant.


I present the below quoted post as evidence that you are in (irrefutable) fact fully aware that there are variables which would effect your Shaman's DPS ("skew the data") if you were in a group with other players. Again, this is an irrefutable fact, which you cannot refute hehe. :) This really isn't hard.

What you don't understand is once you are in a group setting, there are too many variables out of your control that can skew the data (which is a favored phrase around here). If your Enchanters suck and your Mage pet keeps dying, your Mage's DPS will suffer. That doesn't mean Mage DPS is actually that low. You just had bad luck with a group. Getting good group data that everybody can agree upon is tough. I can guarantee you even if I did provide what you are asking for, you would just say it isn't good enough. That is currently what you do with everything I provide anyway.


What you don't seem to understand is that you have already (intentionally or otherwise) provided the above quote, which I present as evidence that you are in (irrefutable) fact fully aware that your post/statement/claim that "DPS on P99 is the same in groups and solo" is in (irrefutable) fact false. :)

Ignoring the (irrefutable) facts (and the majority of my posts in this thread) does not refute them, and will not make them (or me) go away hehe. :)

[PlsNoBan]

Yes it is dumb because they aren't the same lol. Way to prove an obvious point.

You haven't proven my data is on the same level though, and you cant.

I originally said the word "retarded" instead of dumb in that post. I edited it and am going to attempt to not use retarded and autistic in conversation with you. I know mentally retarded and autistic people and it's an insult to them to equate you. They could easily put together a better more coherent argument and argue it more honestly. You might be the least intelligent person most stubborn person I've encountered on these forums. An impressive feat to say the least.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I originally said the word "retarded" instead of dumb in that post. I edited it and am going to attempt to not use retarded and autistic in conversation with you. I know mentally retarded and autistic people and it's an insult to them to equate you. They could easily put together a better more coherent argument and argue it more honestly. You might be the least intelligent person most stubborn person I've encountered on these forums. An impressive feat to say the least.

I am not the one that tried to compare TLP and P99, two separate games. This shows how little you know about P99 if you think this is an apt comparison.

You are asking me to prove a negative. I am asking you to prove your claim my DPS data isn't valid. You can't do that, so you resort to nonsense.

If you want to go down the nonsense route of trying to prove a negative, then you need to prove Troxx's data is from P99. It could be from TLP, there is not data to disprove that theory so far.

[Karanis]

What you don't understand is once you are in a group setting, there are too many variables out of your control that can skew the data

you haven't provided evidence to prove my data would change in a group.

18666

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Yes Karanis, the variables would effect Mages and Shamans lol. This really isn't hard. You could parse a Mage at 10 DPS if they keep dying. That doesn't mean Mages have 10 DPS.

[Ripqozko]

I don’t know why y’all still bother with DSM I’m just glad folks get to see his personality

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I don’t know why y’all still bother with DSM I’m just glad folks get to see his personality

The only people exposing their personality are the trolls. They would rather insult than converse.

You are giving the people who literally just post insults/memes when someone disagrees with them a pass, because you yourself are trolling this thread.

It's not a good look, but most of your posts are just silly flexes on your bad Warder loot anyway.

[cyxthryth]

Yes Karanis, the variables would effect Mages and Shamans lol.

You have provided zero evidence that other posters have claimed the variables would effect Mages and Shamans differently hehe. :) This really isn't hard.

You have provided zero evidence that the variables would effect Mages and Shamans the same hehe. :) This really isn't hard.

If you were not intending to imply (on the above quoted post) that other posters (such as Karanis, for example) have suggested/stated/claimed or otherwise implied that two particular classes (such as Mage and Shaman) would be affected equally by the aforementioned variables (which you have [intentionally otherwise] provided evidence that you are fully aware of) then I am not sure what point you think you are making. :)


You could parse a Mage at 10 DPS if they keep dying. That doesn't mean Mages have 10 DPS.

You have provided zero evidence that parsing a Mage at 10 DPS somehow doesn't mean that Mage has performed 10 DPS.

What you don't understand is once you are in a group setting, there are too many variables out of your control that can skew the data (which is a favored phrase around here). If your Enchanters suck and your Mage pet keeps dying, your Mage's DPS will suffer. That doesn't mean Mage DPS is actually that low. You just had bad luck with a group. Getting good group data that everybody can agree upon is tough. I can guarantee you even if I did provide what you are asking for, you would just say it isn't good enough. That is currently what you do with everything I provide anyway.

Again, I present the above quoted post as evidence that you are in (irrefutable) fact fully aware that there are variables which would effect DPS ("skew the data") if you were in a group with other players. Again, this is an irrefutable fact, which you cannot refute hehe. :) This really isn't hard.

Thank you for providing evidence that you are in (irrefutable) fact fully aware that your post/statement/comment/claim that "DPS on P99 is the same in groups and solo" is in (irrefutable) fact, false. :)

[Karanis]

18667

[PlsNoBan]

I am not the one that tried to compare TLP and P99, two separate games. This shows how little you know about P99 if you think this is an apt comparison.

You are asking me to prove a negative. I am asking you to prove your claim my DPS data isn't valid. You can't do that, so you resort to nonsense.

If you want to go down the nonsense route of trying to prove a negative, then you need to prove Troxx's data is from P99. It could be from TLP, there is not data to disprove that theory so far.

It's quite clear the point I was trying to make went COMPLETELY over your head. Which I should have expected. Again your data was acquired under different conditions than the argument at hand. If you can't understand this you legitimately cannot be helped. You can't just say "My data under different conditions will be the same as if it was under the proper conditions for the argument" you have to prove it and you have not done so and CAN NOT do so without providing data in the correct context. You're doing the equivalent of what you complain about "I'm right because I said so". Your data is meaningless to literally every other human being on planet earth besides you.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

It's quite clear the point I was trying to make went COMPLETELY over your head. Which I should have expected. Again your data was acquired under different conditions than the argument at hand. If you can't understand this you legitimately cannot be helped. You can't just say "My data under different conditions will be the same as if it was under the proper conditions for the argument" you have to prove it and you have not done so and CAN NOT do so without providing data in the correct context. You're doing the equivalent of what you complain about "I'm right because I said so". Your data is meaningless to literally every other human being on planet earth besides you.

It didn't go over my head. The problem is you are using a faulty comparison, while trying to pretend it isn't a faulty comparison.

Trying to compare DPS in two different games is not even remotely the same as comparing DPS in the same game.

This shows more about you than it does about me. You truly believe 2 casts of Ice Strike in a solo situation on P99 is not going to equal 1350 damage in a group, and that a mob with 8000 HP on P99 changes their HP in a group.

If the Enchanters in your group suck and the Mage pet keeps dying, that doesn't mean a Mage Pet's DPS is bad because it parses low. That is something outside the control of the Mage.

[PlsNoBan]

Trying to compare DPS in two different games is not even remotely the same as comparing DPS in the same game.

1: it's the same game on different servers
2: Trying to compare DPS in two totally different situations is not even remotely the same as trying to compare DPS in similar situations and conditions

[DeathsSilkyMist]

1: it's the same game on different servers
2: Trying to compare DPS in two totally different situations is not even remotely the same as trying to compare DPS in similar situations and conditions

I really hope you are kidding here. TLP doesn't have the same mana recovery rate, spell costs, spell damages, pet damages, etc. as P99. You will parse differently.

On P99 if I do 1350 damage solo against a mob, I will also do 1350 damage in a group against the same mob.

[Chortles Snortles]

https://i.imgur.com/CzSD7bc.jpg

[PlsNoBan]

I really hope you are kidding here. TLP doesn't have the same mana recovery rate, spell costs, spell damages, pet damages, etc. as P99. You will parse differently.

On P99 if I do 1350 damage solo, I will also do 1350 damage in a group against the same mob.

You dumb motherfucker lol. YOU CANNOT PREDICT ALL POSSIBLE VARIABLES. You can't just say "I tested my DPS solo so it'll be the same in a group" and know with certainty it will work out that way. That claim is fucking ABSURD

[cyxthryth]

On P99 if I do 1350 damage solo, I will also do 1350 damage in a group against the same mob.

You have provided zero evidence to support the above quoted claim hehe. :) This really isn't hard.

What you don't understand is once you are in a group setting, there are too many variables out of your control that can skew the data (which is a favored phrase around here). If your Enchanters suck and your Mage pet keeps dying, your Mage's DPS will suffer. That doesn't mean Mage DPS is actually that low. You just had bad luck with a group. Getting good group data that everybody can agree upon is tough. I can guarantee you even if I did provide what you are asking for, you would just say it isn't good enough. That is currently what you do with everything I provide anyway.

I present the above quoted post as evidence that you are in (irrefutable) fact fully aware that there are variables which would effect your Shaman's DPS ("skew the data") if you were in a group with other players. Again, this is an irrefutable fact, which you cannot refute hehe. :) This really isn't hard.

Thank you for providing evidence that you are in (irrefutable) fact fully aware that your posts/statements/claims that "DPS on P99 is the same in groups and solo" and "if I do 1350 damage solo, I will also do 1350 damage in a group against the same mob" are in (irrefutable) fact, false. :)

Ignoring the (irrefutable) facts will not refute them or make them go away hehe. :)

[DeathsSilkyMist]

You dumb motherfucker lol. YOU CANNOT PREDICT ALL POSSIBLE VARIABLES. You can't just say "I tested my DPS solo so it'll be the same in a group" and know with certainty it will work out that way. That claim is fucking ABSURD

What variables are you referring to? Just saying "variables change stuff" doesn't mean anything.

The way you test DPS is the way I showed in my videos. That's how you compare class DPS.

In a group you could be doing half of your normal DPS due to the Enchanters sucking and your pet keeps dying. That isn't an accurate representation of a Mage's DPS, even if you had 100 data sets of the same unlucky Mage getting his pet killed every other pull lol. This is the point you are missing. If Troxx provides a parse where his group sucks, and I provide a parse where my group is comprised of the best players on the server, you will get an inaccurate picture of DPS differences between the classes.

[Karanis]

18668

[cyxthryth]

What variables are you referring to? Just saying "variables change stuff" doesn't mean anything.

The very variables which you (irrefutably) have (intentionally or otherwise) acknowledged the existence of in the below quoted post of course. This really isn't hard hehe. :)


What you don't understand is once you are in a group setting, there are too many variables out of your control that can skew the data (which is a favored phrase around here). If your Enchanters suck and your Mage pet keeps dying, your Mage's DPS will suffer. That doesn't mean Mage DPS is actually that low. You just had bad luck with a group. Getting good group data that everybody can agree upon is tough. I can guarantee you even if I did provide what you are asking for, you would just say it isn't good enough. That is currently what you do with everything I provide anyway.

I present the above quoted post as evidence that you are in (irrefutable) fact fully aware that there are variables which would effect your Shaman's DPS ("skew the data") if you were in a group with other players. Again, this is an irrefutable fact, which you cannot refute hehe. :) This really isn't hard.

Thank you for providing evidence that you are in (irrefutable) fact fully aware that your posts/statements/claims that "DPS on P99 is the same in groups and solo" and "if I do 1350 damage solo, I will also do 1350 damage in a group against the same mob" are in (irrefutable) fact, false. :)

Ignoring the (irrefutable) facts will not refute them or make them go away hehe. :)

The way you test solo DPS is the way I showed in my videos. That's how you compare solo class DPS.

Fixed that for you! :)

Unfortunately, soloing is irrelevant to the discussion as we are discussing Mage vs Shaman DPS output in the specific environment of a high level fast-paced killing DPS group.

In a group you could be doing half of your normal DPS due to the Enchanters sucking and your pet keeps dying. That isn't an accurate representation of a Mage's DPS, even if you had 100 data sets of the same unlucky Mage getting his pet killed every other pull lol.

You have provided zero evidence that "doing half of your normal DPS" (for whatever reason[s]) somehow isn't or wouldn't be an accurate representation of the DPS that has performed during the testing/parsing/recording which resulted in that "half normal DPS" performance. You claiming that it isn't or wouldn't be an accurate representation doesn't mean it isn't an accurate representation just because you say so, that would be an unsubstantiated claim hehe. :) This really isn't hard.

[Troxx]

That is yourself. The only thing you can do is keep claiming my data is bad, but you haven't provided any evidence for the claim. You have provided hundreds of insult/meme posts though.

Your data isn’t bad. It is nonexistent (for the purpose and scope of this discussion).

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Your data isn’t bad. It is nonexistent (for the purpose and scope of this discussion).

You have yet to prove this claim.

If you want to ask people to prove a negative, then you need to prove your own parse data isn't simply photoshopped.

I can play this silly game too, but it goes nowhere.

If you want to claim my data isn't valid for the discussion, you need to prove the claim.

The other thing you are avoiding is this question: How do you determine your group sucked (which affects DPS), when all you have is some images of DPS data? If I provided DPS data using a group of the best players on the server, and they let me root/rot, wouldn't the data be "skewed" in a way that makes Shamans look even better? This is why your insistence on asking me for group DPS data is silly. It can skew heavily just based on the group, not on the class itself.

The videos I provided are the cleanest way to judge DPS differences between classes, and are immune to these outside variables such as your pet constantly dying due to bad group members.

[cyxthryth]

You have yet to prove this claim.

No. I present the above quoted post as evidence that you simply seemingly continue to misunderstand or are (intentionally or otherwise) misconstruing your level of understanding. I present the posts in this thread (and particularly the ones you have ignored, misunderstood, or [intentionally or otherwise] misconstrued your true understanding of) as evidence that this has been proven to you multiple times by multiple posts (from multiple posters) in this thread.

You seemingly do not understand that you ignoring irrefutable facts does not refute them, does not mean they do not exist and will not make them go away hehe. :) This really isn't hard.

If you want to ask people to prove a negative, then you need to prove your own parse data isn't simply photoshopped.

You have provided zero evidence that anybody else (such as Troxx) has asked people (such as you) to "prove a negative", so I am not sure what point you think you are making or why your post would seem to indicate that you believe this straw man you have built somehow makes your solo Shaman root rotting data relevant to a discussion that is specifically about Shaman vs Mage DPS in the context/setting/environment of a high level fast-paced killing DPS group hehe. :)

I can play this silly game too, but it goes nowhere. If you want to claim my data isn't valid for the discussion, you need to prove the claim.

The problem is your posts would imply that you have forgotten that you have already admitted - intentionally or otherwise hehe :) - that you are aware of the variables that exist when a character is played in a group.
You might have forgotten that you have (irrefutably) acknowledged the existence of these variables, but I have not forgotten, and will post a quote of it below for all to view. :) If you have not forgotten about the below post that you made today, I am not sure why you are seemingly continuing to allude to the fact that you are unaware of these variables existence , or the fact that they - in your own words - "skew data", as if you have indeed forgotten. :)

If you want to claim your data is valid for the discussion, it needs to be relevant data hehe. :) This really isn't hard.

What you don't understand is once you are in a group setting, there are too many variables out of your control that can skew the data

[cd288]

So we went from "in a group there are too many variables that can skew data" to "if I do X DPS solo I will 100% do the exact same DPS in a group"

So you've basically changed your entire argument at random

[DeathsSilkyMist]

So we went from "in a group there are too many variables that can skew data" to "if I do X DPS solo I will 100% do the exact same DPS in a group"

So you've basically changed your entire argument at random

I did not change my argument. People just don't read, and make straw mans of what they skimmed or thought they read. The post history is clear if you cared enough to read through it carefully.

The reason why you test DPS the way I showed in my videos is because that removes variables outside of the player's control. Assuming your group plays correctly, you will DPS the same way every time, the same as if you were solo.

Once you add in outside variables, that changes the DPS equation NOT because of what the class can do, but because of what other players are doing. If your Enchanters suck and your pet keeps dying, that isn't an indication Mage Pet DPS is 24 instead of 48. That just means variables outside your control are affecting your DPS.

You could literally have 1000 data sets of players playing the game poorly (which would reduce overall DPS), but that doesn't mean the class actually does that much DPS normally. Troxx cannot even prove how good/bad his group was doing since he hasn't provided videos/logs. All we have is some DPS data.

[cd288]

I did not change my argument. People just don't read, and make straw mans of what they skimmed or thought they read. The post history is clear if you cared enough to read through it carefully.

The reason why you test DPS the way I showed in my videos is because that removes variables outside of the player's control. Assuming your group plays correctly, you will DPS the same way every time, the same as if you were solo.

Once you add in outside variables, that changes the DPS equation NOT because of what the class can do, but because of what other players are doing. If your Enchanters suck and your pet keeps dying, that isn't an indication Mage Pet DPS is 24 instead of 48. That just means variables outside your control are affecting your DPS.

You could literally have 1000 data sets of players playing the game poorly (which would reduce overall DPS), but that doesn't mean the class actually does that much DPS normally. Troxx cannot even prove how good/bad his group was doing since he hasn't provided videos/logs. All we have is some DPS data.

Except one of your arguments previously when people have asked you to join a chain pulling group was that there are too many variables and therefore it would be invalid. You literally said that.

And then now you say that your solo DPS is 100% what you would be able to do in a group.

Those statements are in complete conflict with each other and if you try to dispute that then you're definitely not arguing in good faith and have therefore become the same person you've accused others in this thread of being. So which option is true? The group having too many variables and being irrelevant or the latter comment about solo dps 100% equaling group?

[PlsNoBan]

Imagine being this stubborn and illogical

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Except one of your arguments previously when people have asked you to join a chain pulling group was that there are too many variables and therefore it would be invalid. You literally said that.

And then now you say that your solo DPS is 100% what you would be able to do in a group.

Those statements are in complete conflict with each other and if you try to dispute that then you're definitely not arguing in good faith and have therefore become the same person you've accused others in this thread of being. So which option is true? The group having too many variables and being irrelevant or the latter comment about solo dps 100% equaling group?

Please re-read my posts, because you are simply mistaken. My previous post has been my argument.

Since I am having a conversation with like 10 people, often times my posts may be missing context if you just read them in a vaccum.

If your group is playing correctly (which has been the assumption throughout this conversation), then you will DPS the same as if you were solo, because you are not losing DPS due to other player's mistakes.

If your group is not playing correctly, the DPS data you get will be skewed. Again, you could have 1000 data sets of people playing terribly, and it wouldn't reflect the actual DPS of the class.

Comparing one single set of group data for a Mage vs. a Shaman doesn't tell you much, unless you could somehow prove both groups played similarly. This is why you test DPS in a situation without outside variables. That shows your DPS ceiling, assuming the group is working correctly. This lets you know what the average DPS difference is between the two classes.

[cyxthryth]

I did not change my argument.

You changed your argument (and moved goalposts) multiple times, as has been pointed out to you multiple times, by multiple people. I present your posts in this thread as evidence. You have not provided (and you cannot provide) any counter-evidence.

People just don't read, and make straw mans of what they skimmed or thought they read.

No. You have not proven that "people just don't read".


The post history is clear if you cared enough to read through it carefully.

There is plenty of evidence of you creating straw men in said post history - I present your posts in which you have created straw men as evidence. You have not provided (and you cannot provide) any counter-evidence.

The reason why you test DPS the way I showed in my videos is because that removes variables outside of the player's control.

So you knowingly tested/recorded/captured/napkin-math'ed your DPS in an environment/situation/context that is contrary to the environment/situation/context of the discussion and are attempting to claim that your data is relevant? It is not. This really isn't hard hehe. :)

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

Then why did you (correctly, factually) state that the variables have (at bare minimum, the potential to have) an effect on DPS (or in your own words "skew the data") in the below quote?

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

Once you add in outside variables, that changes the DPS equation NOT because of what the class can do, but because of what other players are doing. If your Enchanters suck and your pet keeps dying, that isn't an indication Mage DPS is 20 instead of 40. That just means variables outside your control are affecting your DPS.

No. The "DPS equation" does not change and you have provided zero evidence that it does, so I am not sure what point you believe you are making hehe. :)

It is factually correct that variables outside of a specific player's control are affecting/can affect your DPS when in a group setting. In (irrefutable) fact, multiple other posters have provided this (irrefutable) fact (among others) to you already in attempts/efforts to explain to you that your solo Shaman root rotting data is not relevant to the discussion about Shaman vs Mage DPSing, in which context/environment these variables DO in fact exist and are inescapable as this is not a simulation, it is a game played by players. That you seem to be ignoring this, or acting like you have forgotten it, will not change the (irrefutable) facts (which you cannot refute).

You could literally have 1000 data sets of players playing the game poorly

You could also call the sky red, or repeatedly provide irrelevant math or repeatedly accuse others of trolling... but why would you, and why would that be relevant to this discussion?

[Gloomlord]

Please re-read my posts, because you are simply mistaken. My previous post has been my argument.

Since I am having a conversation with like 10 people, often times my posts may be missing context if you just read them in a vaccum.

If your group is playing correctly (which has been the assumption throughout this conversation), then you will DPS the same as if you were solo, because you are not losing DPS due to other player's mistakes.

If your group is not playing correctly, the DPS data you get will be skewed. Again, you could have 1000 data sets of people playing terribly, and it wouldn't reflect the actual DPS of the class.

Comparing one single set of group data for a Mage vs. a Shaman doesn't tell you much, unless you could somehow prove both groups played similarly. This is why you test DPS in a situation without outside variables. That shows your DPS ceiling, assuming the group is working correctly. This lets you know what the average DPS difference is between the two classes.

Do you have a shred of integrity?

If the group is playing correctly, then no, the DPS will not be the same as solo.

Are you entirely incapable of seeing why that is? I call your bluff.

You're just a troll, you sociopath.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

Do you have a shred of integrity?

If the group is playing correctly, then no, the DPS will not be the same as solo.

Are you entirely incapable of seeing why that is? I call your bluff.

You're just a troll, you sociopath.

Again, you have yet to explain why the DPS would be different if the group is playing correctly.

If I can do 1350 damage solo, what changes when I deal 1350 damage in a group?

If you want to say the mob is dying so quickly I can't cast 2 Ice Strikes, for example, then the Mage's DPS will be effected too, because they would not be able to cast 2 Shock of Steel.

If your Enchanters keep killing the party, that is NOT an indicator of average class DPS. It does not give you a proper analysis of the Mage's DPS, the Shaman's DPS, or the Enchanter's DPS.

[cyxthryth]

If your group is playing correctly (which has been the assumption throughout this conversation), then you will DPS the same as if you were solo, because you are not losing DPS due to other player's mistakes.

No. There exist variables that are outside of each individual players' control such that even if each player believes they are "playing correctly" their DPS ("data" in your words) can be affected ("skewed" in your words).

This really isn't hard hehe. :)

If your group is not playing correctly, the DPS data you get will be skewed. Again, you could have 1000 data sets of people playing terribly, and it wouldn't reflect the actual DPS of the class.

No. There exist variables that are outside of each individual players' control such that even if each player believes they are "playing correctly" their DPS ("data" in your words) can be affected ("skewed" in your words).


This is why you test DPS in a situation without outside variables. That shows your DPS ceiling, assuming the group is working correctly. This lets you know what the average DPS difference is between the two classes.

No. In (irrefutable) fact, your data is irrelevant to the discussion, as the context/environment/basis for this discussion (about Shaman vs Mage in a high level fast-paced killing DPS group) includes the existence of variables outside of each players' control, which are inescapable when grouping with other players.

You can continue to seemingly ignore these irrefutable facts, but you cannot refute them, and they will not go away hehe. :)

[cd288]

Please re-read my posts, because you are simply mistaken. My previous post has been my argument.

Since I am having a conversation with like 10 people, often times my posts may be missing context if you just read them in a vaccum.

If your group is playing correctly (which has been the assumption throughout this conversation), then you will DPS the same as if you were solo, because you are not losing DPS due to other player's mistakes.

If your group is not playing correctly, the DPS data you get will be skewed. Again, you could have 1000 data sets of people playing terribly, and it wouldn't reflect the actual DPS of the class.

Comparing one single set of group data for a Mage vs. a Shaman doesn't tell you much, unless you could somehow prove both groups played similarly. This is why you test DPS in a situation without outside variables. That shows your DPS ceiling, assuming the group is working correctly. This lets you know what the average DPS difference is between the two classes.

"What you don't understand is once you are in a group setting, there are too many variables out of your control that can skew the data"

"On P99 if I do 1350 damage solo, I will also do 1350 damage in a group against the same mob."

And now we're shifting to "If your group is playing correctly" the DPS will be the same...so now you've created a vague standard to ensure your argument works. Got it.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

"What you don't understand is once you are in a group setting, there are too many variables out of your control that can skew the data"

"On P99 if I do 1350 damage solo, I will also do 1350 damage in a group against the same mob."

And now we're shifting to "If your group is playing correctly" the DPS will be the same...so now you've created a vague standard to ensure your argument works. Got it.

... What? The conversation has always assumed the group is playing correctly. You can literally check the post history lol. This hasn't changed. Everybody agreed to that standard, both sides.

You deal 0 DPS if your group is dying and not killing any mobs, so I am not sure why we would include that scenario.

[Gloomlord]

"What you don't understand is once you are in a group setting, there are too many variables out of your control that can skew the data"

"On P99 if I do 1350 damage solo, I will also do 1350 damage in a group against the same mob."

And now we're shifting to "If your group is playing correctly" the DPS will be the same...so now you've created a vague standard to ensure your argument works. Got it.

I refuse to believe anyone can be this stupid to not see why DPS in a group would be different.

I think we can summarise what's happened here:

https://f8n-ipfs-production.imgix.net/QmSt9itL7Jaf69TP9cADZgp8NMHrSo41GFoj9RLM3MtSDy/nft.png?q=40&auto=compress&cs=srgb&max-w=700&fm=jpg

[cyxthryth]

Again, you have yet to explain why the DPS would be different if the group is playing correctly.

Variables outside of each player / any individual player's control still exist even if each player is "playing correctly". We are discussing reality, not a simulation that does not exist or bot programs playing Project 1999 characters, which would be against the rules.

If I can do 1350 damage solo, what changes when I deal 1350 damage in a group?

As has been pointed out to you plenty of times, variables. One such variable might be that you need to do an action/activity that is not a DPS action/activity, such as healing a groupmate or Maloing/slowing a mob (or multiple mobs). Doing such a (non-DPS) activity will obviously irrefutably affect your DPS (or "skew the data" in your words). Another variable might be that the mob dies before you are able to inflict 1350 damage, in which case, the amount of damage you do inflict before the mob dies will vary, which means that your DPS on that/those particular mobs will vary. This really isn't hard hehe. :)


If you want to say the mob is dying so quickly I can't cast 2 Ice Strikes, for example, then the Mage's DPS will be effected too, because they would not be able to cast 2 Shock of Steel.

You have provided zero evidence that the variables (such as time it takes for mob[s] to die) will affect the Mage's DPS to the same degree that it will affect the Shaman's (DoT based, inferior) DPS hehe. :) This really isn't hard.

If your Enchanters keep killing the party, that is NOT an indicator of average class DPS. It does not give you a proper analysis of the Mage's DPS, the Shaman's DPS, or the Enchanter's DPS.

It would be an indicator of the actual amount of DPS that was performed/attained during testing/recording/parsing, which is the Mage's DPS, the Shaman's DPS and the Enchanter's relevant DPS numbers hehe. This really isn't hard. :)

[DeathsSilkyMist]

I refuse to believe anyone can be this stupid to not see why DPS in a group would be different.

I think we can summarise what's happened here:

https://f8n-ipfs-production.imgix.net/QmSt9itL7Jaf69TP9cADZgp8NMHrSo41GFoj9RLM3MtSDy/nft.png?q=40&auto=compress&cs=srgb&max-w=700&fm=jpg

Trolling over and over isn't a valid argument.

You have yet to show why you think the DPS will change, other than claiming everybody who disagrees with you is stupid.

If your group is playing correctly, you will DPS normally. Your pet dying due to another player's mistake is not a valid indicator of DPS, because it is outside of the class itself.

[Troxx]

Page 200!!!

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

[Gloomlord]

Page 200!!!

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

It's a never-ending nightmare of illogical behaviour.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

It's a never-ending nightmare of illogical behaviour.

Agreed. Trolling/memeing/insulting people who disagree with you is illogical behavior.

[Ripqozko]

1000 then this gets locked, won't be long

[Gloomlord]

Agreed. Trolling/memeing/insulting people who disagree with you is illogical behavior.

No, it's pretty logical when the person you speak with possesses neither the intellectual, nor the moral high ground.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

No, it's pretty logical when the person you speak with possesses neither the intellectual, nor the moral high ground.

You have no proof for any of these things.

The people who don't have the moral high ground for sure are the trolls. Having 800+ posts that are just insults and memes speak volumes about yourself and your fellow posters:)

If you honestly think I am stupid, just stop posting. You obviously think what I am saying has truth to it, or you wouldn't be so threatened by it you have to drown out my posts in trolling.

[Gloomlord]

Funny...

You actually believe we're all angry because you speak the truth?

No, you're not Jesus, DSM. We're not angry because you speak the truth, but because you are a pathetic human being.