Quote:
Originally Posted by PlsNoBan
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
The cleric is there for when "mistakes happen" with the enchanters. A shaman in this situation is redundant as has been mentioned many times now. Do you understand what redundant means? Using that logic you should just fill the entire group with clerics just in case. It's less likely to cause a wipe with 3 clerics than 1 right? The cleric unlike a shaman can also rez if someone dies (including one of the other clerics). If DPS is truly unimportant why wouldn't you bring more heal power and an extra rez? Or better yet bring a necro instead who can heal in a pinch and rez and mez and do more damage?
|
I do understand what redundant means. You are only using it for Shamans though, and not the Mage. The Mage's DPS is also redundant, as you have admitted.
You are also taking my argument to the extreme by arguing for 4 clerics. That wouldn't work since you couldn't kill fast enough, which increases risk.
Basically there are two camps of thought here. You are the type of person who prefers higher risk, higher speed groups. I prefer more consistent groups. From my experience the higher risk higher speed groups tend to end up farther behind than the consistent groups. The higher risk, higher speed groups don't think so because it feels good when you are playing well, and you forget when you wipe or play bad.
The reason why Shaman wins here is because having a broader toolkit means your group can do more things. A third Enchanter, a Mage, or a Shaman are all redundant in a group with 2x Enchanters and a Cleric. The question is simply which redundancy you prefer. I prefer the redundancy that expands what the group can do, while reducing wipe chances. Consistency + better coverage of camps is a more powerful combination than simply slightly faster kill speeds.