Best 4 person all caster/priest group

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

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.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

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.

[cyxthryth]

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

[PlsNoBan]

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

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.

[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.

[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]

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

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

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

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.

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

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).

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

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]

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

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.

[DeathsSilkyMist]

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

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.