[cyxthryth]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You can look at cyxthryth's post history.

Any poster can look at any other poster's post history on this thread/these forums if they wish hehe.

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is all just literal nonsense.

The problem is your post would seem to indicate that you believe that what I am posting is "all just literal nonsense", which is is objectively false, and I am not sure why you have repeatedly made this - objectively false - statement about my posts multiple times in this thread (as evidenced by the posts in it / your post history).

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is not anywhere close to a normal discussion.

I continue to to attempt to engage with you in a - normal, and civil - discussion, but you consistently/repeatedly ignore my posts & dodge the questions I pose directly to you hehe. That is not anywhere close to the behavoir of someone who is interested in participating in a normal discussion, and would seemingly be indicative that you cannot back up your position(s) with relevant, factual data, and therefore are unable to even make attempts to refute the irrefutable facts - which you cannot refute - that I have stated, nor able to answer the questions I have asked you (directly) without presumably betraying/exposing/revealing that you have been backed into a corner "arguing" from bad faith (even though this is intended to be a civil discussion - not an argument). [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

His first post in this thread was him saying he was angry at me for my opinion in another thread.

Quite the contrary! I engaged this discussion by pointing out that you were - as you had done in the past - simply calling others and/or their posts "silly" in an apparent attempt to dismiss them, as you have seemingly attempted - and seemingly continue to attempt to do - with me and my posts in this thread hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] This really isn't hard. I have linked my first post to you multiple times. I will post a full Quote of it here. Please feel free to point out anything I that I have stated in the below Quote that you believe is incorrect, and I am happy to civilly discuss with you hehe.

My first post on this thread which was posted on Page 74 in response to this Quote:

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nah, that's going to be Troxx and friends complaining because they don't have good data, and can't accept the truth or basic math.

The thread should have been over here: https://www.project1999.com/forums/s...&postcount=638 , but the truth has thrown them into a rage they can't get out of, and must try and hide the truth with silly troll posts.

was as follows:

Originally Posted by cyxthryth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"Silly troll posts" huh? I see where this is going. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

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/s...401629&page=37.
Your concession in silence was accepted.

I see you haven't quite given up on this current thread just yet though. *chuckle* Take as much time as you need. You will certainly move on to hyper-focus on another thread/topic in which you'll continue to demonstrate your seemingly-apparent autism to all neurotypicals who encounter your posts.
I can only speak for myself, but your inevitable concession in silence for this thread is accepted in advance. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is clear he isn't here to have a discussion.]

You have provided zero evidence that it is clear that I am not here to have a discussion. In irrefutable fact - which you cannot refute - I have made my intention to continue engaging in a civil discussion with you known, via multiple (direct) posts/replies to your posts.

Do you intend to imply that you believe you are making it "more clear" that you are here to have a discussion (than me) by outright ignoring my posts hehe? [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All of his posts on this forum are just copy/pasted nonsense that he thinks is a mimicry of me.

It is objectively false that all of my posts on this forum are just copy/pasted nonsense that I think is a mimicry of you. The problem is that your post suggests that you believe that you stating that my posts "are just copy/pasted nonsense" means that they truly/factually are "just copy/pasted nonsense", when they are - factually/objectively - not.

Now, it certainly may be your opinion that that my posts "are just copy/pasted nonsense" - but that would simply be just that: your opinion hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There is a reason why literally nobody engages with him, even the other posters who are against me.

It is false that literally nobody (including yourself) has engaged with me, so I am not sure why you seemingly are making that - again, false (and unsubstantiated) - claim hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Pocket clerics are not moving the goal posts, since nobody said that was a limitation.

The problem is your post would seem to betray that you do not understand - or do fully understand, and are for some reason pretending that you do not understand - that adding a 5th "pocket" character to your "arguments" (even though this is intended to be a civil discussion - not an argument) is an objective example of you moving goalposts.

The issue might be that you - seemingly - believe that you simply claiming "nobody said that was a limitation" somehow negates the fact that the context of this discussion is/was/always has been - as the title of this thread irrefutably proves - specifically/explicitly pertaining to a "4 person all caster/priest group", and therefore by attempting to bring a 5th "pocket" character into your "arguments" (even though this is intended to be a civil discussion - not an argument) - you objectively moved the goalposts.

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I am sorry you think simply talking about facts in Everquest is moving goalposts. That simply isn't true.

I am not sure why your post would seem to indicate that you believe that others think "talking about facts is moving goalposts" or that you making this - wholly irrelevant - apology has any bearing on the facts, which simply will not change based on what you think, nor how you feel hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Clearly I was wrong.

Hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

To your point about trios, you typically see something like Shaman/Enchanter/Monk, there is no cleric at all.

The problem with your post is that it would seem to indicate/reveal/betray/expose that you (seemingly) believe that you are aware of what others "typically see", as evidenced by your Quoted post above. You have provided zero evidence to support this claim, thus it is an unsubstantiated (and probably false) claim.

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Shamans are generally preferred in Duos and Trios because their extra utility is more useful, and CH isn't needed for most content.

The problem with your post is that it would seem to indicate/reveal/betray/expose that you (seemingly) believe that you are aware of what is "generally preferred". You have provided zero evidence to support this claim, thus it is an unsubstantiated (and probably false) claim.

In this thread you have both implied and outright stated that you have a preference for "safety", yet in what you are (apparently) claiming is the "generally preferred Duo/Trio", the healing class is a Shaman. The irrefutable fact of the matter - which you cannot refute - is that a Shaman simply has no ability to Rez a fallen groupmate. I will remind you again - attempting to account for this flaw/inability/not-safe aspect of the Shaman class, you have attmepted to move goalposts by suggesting a 4-person group can have a 5th "pocket" character assist them. Speaking strictly mathematically, 4 =/= 5, so I am not sure why you would attempt to bring this 5th person into the equation, nor why you believe doing so is not an example of you moving goalposts - when it objectively is - hehe. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by DeathsSilkyMist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Shaman doesn't magically become less useful when you go from a trio to four people. That is the thing I find the most amazing. People will agree Shamans are great in duos and trios, but suddenly they offer nothing in four man groups. It is some great mental gymnastics to watch.

Your post would seem to indicate/reveal/betray/expose a lack of understanding of diminishing returns, which is interesting, as your previous posts seemingly indicated you were aware of such when it pertained to DPS, and - perhaps more specifically/relevantly - when you thought it favored your "argument(s)".